Is the F2P/Preffered system too prohibitive, and if so, what should change?

Legacy mail...might be solved with the upcoming legacy storage.
Currently solved when you go preferred status.

Credit escrow spam with sound is useful to warn that the cap is being reached. Some players wish to spend those credits before it goes into escrow, so a warning is useful.

Free and preferred players are able to chat among themselves in general chat.

Well, that will be good news if that is the case.

After the cap is reached it sounds with every single coin that is deposited. Apparently that is viewed as a nag to subscribe to the game, and many folks seem to find that rather sleazy. I'm not sure about that, but I do think it is a bit excessive. Shutting off the sound would suffice.

I believe they have some message restrictions, as far as having to wait to post the next message, correct? If that is so, that must be what folks are complaining about. I think open unrestricted communication between free and preferred players (NOT SUBS) is the way to go.

The only thing I can think of to change is to remove forum privileges...

Yes, well this is to limit credit sellers from spamming every second instead of just every minute.
The delay can be annoying for f2p players, but it is still manageable to hold conversations in chat.

F2p players have no forum privileges, only subs can post.
Unless you mean limitations, then yes, a F2p forum might be a good idea.

The restrictive chat thing sounds bad.

What I don't like is the credit cap though, or at least how low it is.

If a player has the ethic or ingenuity to acquire "x" amount of credits, then they should be able to enjoy them. I believe this would encourage the player(s) to spend more time on the game and thus contribute to the community in some way in doing so, and potentially even look to sub/spend cash based on their experience and time invested. The current set-up is much more like an ultimatum, as I doubt the f2p population sticks around for very long once they realize the extent of their limitations.

The other thing is that it's great for subbers and cashers to make more money. As it stands, cartel items sold over the credit cap appeal to a very narrow audience (presumably those who sub or cash but prefer to buy other things). But if F2P/preferred players could conceivably pay for these items with hard-earned credits then the market would open up much more, and you're less likely to have clowns price-crashing out of desperation.

So yeah, that's my perspective. Idk about any chat restrictions because I subbed relatively quickly in this game, but that sounds lame as well.

Repair costs are (hopefully) minimal at worst (unless you die. A lot.). Augment is fairly expensive, yes, but you only need to do it once per piece of gear and then never again. Moving around mods? Please, don't make me laugh. If you're going to be serious about PvP then you get a second set of armor specifically for PvP. Or, if you just like buying armors and want a bunch of different armors with very good mods then you buy more mods, not move them around. None of those are permanent credit sinks.

Now, you do mention gambling, but unless there are a lot of super rare rewards, then it's going to release, get a few days of attention, and then only ever be used by newer players looking to get better gear potentially faster. Or used by noone because it will be terrible, of which there is a chance to happen.

Uh.... what. How do you even get such a line of thought from what I said? I was describing how there are zero "perks" that subscribers need to buy once they subscribe. Literally nothing. Everything they buy from there-on-out is cosmetic or superficial to actually playing the game. Your example is also faulty. Freeps and Preferred must also pay a monthly fee of sorts even after they've unlocked everything else if they want to access Warzones, or Ops, FPs, or space missions in the form of weekly passes ($10/mo per content mode, or 1.4mil credits, assuming they're being sold at 350k/pass).

That's not even my analogy....? I will also agree it was pretty bad.

Look, that's all well and good, assuming that each person who buys the "lease" is moving into an identical house - or for more cohesiveness, an apartment - but why does renting the apartment get you more "free" things for less of a cost than buying the apartment? You rented the apartment, great, and the landlord gives you all of this furniture for free! But then he takes it away again after you stop renting... And to top it off, the utility bills (monthly vs the yearly property tax) you have to pay if you buy the apartment (and all the furniture) are three times higher than the rent you previously had to pay, in which utilities are always included....

Why did you get the free furniture in the first place? Why did your utilities skyrocket? Can you explain either of those to me in a reasonable fashion?

Oh really? By all means, please continue! Enlighten me to this "blatant misrepresentation" you claim I have committed.

Still false, the Appearance Kiosk is not a "perk". It provides neither advantage nor benefit.

1) Everything a Sub gets, Freeps and Preferred can get as well via payment of either hard-currency or soft-currency, be it temporary or permanent, with the exception of pre-order and CE-exclusive bonuses. Stating otherwise is both ridiculous and irresponsible.

2) You have not given me a single example yet. Everything that could be considered a "perk" (that is, it conveys an advantage or benefit) is either inherently unlocked to Subs, in which case they need not pay, or is available via credits, in which case they need not pay - though they still could in the style of "Pay2GoFaster". They are required to pay $0 past their subscription fee.

3) To further clarify, the only reason Subs would buy perks from the CM is to in turn sell them on the GTN to Freeps and Preferred for a sum of soft-currency.

And I made my views on your suggestions clear some pages earlier. I admire you for having the balls to start this topic, but I vehemently disagree with you on any of your suggestions would impact restrictions in the slightest. At the very best they make the restrictions less noticeable as opposed to actually doing something about them.

EDIT:
1 minute between messages sent in General Chat is the restriction. It really sucks if you're trying to have a conversation with multiple people. Or, you know, trying to ask questions about stuff like new players do.

And a piece of the wall of crazy for F2p players, yes.
Good idea.
...
Is it possible to put that idea on the wall of crazy ? Plz !

Do those folks find it more or less sleazy than playing a game for free and yet complaining about the limitations?

This won't work. I do not want to be responsible for financial transactions for somebody else's children. Neither do I think it is healthy for a child of 11 to have an online account which involves real money payments.

F2P is ideal for the kids to play until such time as they are old enough to decide if they wish to commit to paying for something. At that point (15 years or so) , your point may work.

I like to help them out in-game (the same way I like to help them to learn to play football). I simply said i wish the incoming trade option was available (ie: F2P'ers can only RECIEVE goods and credits.).

Apart from that, it works. It's FREE and a great game.