I will be very disappointed if the only changes made at UKVRR are to the funding method. I am not opposed in principle to a subscription, whether voluntary or compulsory though I'm not convinced it's the right approach.
But if that's all that happens, without proper attention to the other issues that have been raised in this thread then, with great regret, I would expect to be leaving UKVRR.
I would urge Paul Stenning and the moderation team to contribute fully and openly to this thread, making their own views clear. We may disagree but that's all part of normal and civil debate. So far Paul has opened this thread for debate - I sincerely hope that this marks a real change of approach. Darren and Brian have given useful but limited insight into the moderation process. But that is all. We still don't know the real costs and burdens of running UKVRR, we still don't really understand what's being deleted. We are left speculating.
UKVRR is a valuable resource and needs to be funded somehow. Members' indications of generosity have been impressive. But raising what I think is a few hundred quid per year isn't the real problem and doesn't go very far towards resolving the issues raised by the OP, nor those that I raised in a now closed thread that was effectively intgrated into this one.
PS: Written before Paul Sherwin's post #108. Thanks for the new information. I would just like to raise the commonplace point: How often have we thrown something away as useless, only to discover the following week that we wish we'd kept it. There's no landfill tax for skips on the internet
