Donations are now possible

[Ninshub]

I’m going to bring this up, because I think it’s related. When I saw that Malf and Linda had donated to psiencequest, I realised that this might present a potential problem for the founders. Lol...  Ian and Laird had already decided to defray their past expenses with the first donations, I thought that was an unwise decision for themselves, as that was their original stake in the site. (I should note I don’t have a problem with it). But when I later saw Malf and Linda’s contributions, I realised Laird might feel a little constrained by the donations. There is likely to be a bit of conflict going on in people’s minds in trying to reconcile the situation. I’m aware that - even unconsciously - the resurrection of this old thread targeting past posts from Linda and myself, might be connected in a somewhat unconscious reaction to the uncomfortable issue raised by skeptical donations, to a psi forum.

I have to say, when I saw Laird’s long, and very detailed post which must have taken some considerable effort and time, dissecting all my comments over 23 odd pages of a thread from months ago... my alarm bells went off.

I decided to only respond with a short note registering my disagreement, and leave it there, as it looked like it had come out of nowhere, but clearly something had motivated such a long post.

Now that I’ve seen how the thread has suddenly descended to name calling, I feel vindicated in staying out of it. However, I’m interjecting here to warn Malf, Linda, and Laird, that I suspect I’m seeing behaviour that is related to dealing with the fallout of Skeptical donations.

I would rather this was out in the open, so everybody can think about it, and decide how to deal with it, because it is a potential issue, rather than dealing with it indirectly... as I think I’m seeing here.

I'll respond to this here.

First, Laird and I didn't decide to defray our expenses with the donations. They just happened quickly and soon there was more than expected, and it automatically was the case that our expenses up to date had been defrayed - and I let Laird know of my discomfort with this and wanting to keep being a financial contributor.

Second, I personally am not even aware or keeping track of who donated, and what amounts, as Laird keeps the tabs on that, but I can affirm that it will not interfere with any moderation decisions. It goes without saying, but maybe I should make that explicit, that people donating money, of whatever attitudinal position, have to be aware that it doesn't protect them from any future moderation actions. (Although, as we've often said, our philosophy is to be light on moderation, especially when it comes to bannings and so forth.) Malf, by the way, is one of this forum's founders. I haven't looked at the thread where there is name-calling.

Laird can give his 2 cents here about these issues, as everybody else can.

I'll respond to this here.

First, Laird and I didn't decide to defray our expenses with the donations. They just happened quickly and soon there was more than expected, and it automatically was the case that our expenses up to date had been degrayed - and I let Laird know of my discomfort with this and wanting to keep being a financial contributor.

Second, I personally am not even aware or keeping track of who donated, and what amounts, as Laird keeps the tabs on that, but I can affirm that it will not interfere with any moderation decisions. It goes without saying, but maybe I should make that explicit, that people donating money, of whatever attitudinal position, have to be aware that it doesn't protect them from any future moderation actions. (Although, as we've often said, our philosophy is to be light on moderation, especially when it comes to bannings and so forth.) Malf, by the way, is one of this forum's founders. I haven't looked at the thread where there is name-calling.

Laird can give his 2 cents here about these issues, as everybody else can.

As I understand it, the complaint wasn't about moderation, but simply about the fact that someone who happened to be an administrator had replied to previous posts of people who happened to be donors. As I said, it makes no sense to me at all.

[Ninshub]

OK. Thanks.

Sorry guys, I didn't notice that the issue was being discussed in this thread and I went ahead and responded to Max's post in that thread. All-in-all, I am somewhat confused about what Max is suggesting but if it is what I think it is, then I believe it to be totally unfair.

[Ninshub]

Great!

[Laird]

Ian and Laird had already decided to defray their past expenses with the first donations, I thought that was an unwise decision for themselves, as that was their original stake in the site.

Totally understand where you're coming from, Max. I expressed my own concern about this privately with Ian and in the founders' forum. Here's what it comes down to:

Since Ian and I are responsible for paying for the various services in our name no matter what, since there have been more donations so far than costs, and since those excess donations are simply going to be sitting in my PayPal (or bank) account until we next have to pay for something, then whether those donations are considered to have defrayed our (Ian and my) existing expenses (wiping out our "donations") or to be contributing to future expenses (in which case, Ian and I have still "donated" something) is a somewhat meaningless (academic) question. It makes it easier though and less confusing when interpreting the spreadsheet to stipulate that all preexisting costs incurred by Ian and me have been defrayed.

But we recognise that this makes it look like, and in some sense is the case that, Ian and I have not donated anything and are sponging off the donations of everybody else. That's why, after discussing it privately, Ian and I decided to make explicit donations, as I described in this post. In a sense, these donations are simply promises not to use the donations of others to defray our own incurred costs, to the amount that we (Ian and Laird) have donated.

With the size of my donation, I was simply trying to give folks an idea of what a "minimally necessary" donation would be given the number of donors and our actual costs so far. I don't want folks to feel that they need to donate massive amounts when we have so many donors willing to contribute. On the other hand, this is not an expression of dissatisfaction with donors who have been so generous: their generosity is of course very welcome and appreciated!

But after thinking about it, I've doubled my donation so that it now covers four years' worth of costs rather than just two.

when I later saw Malf and Linda’s contributions, I realised Laird might feel a little constrained by the donations.

Ah, no. As Ian has said, donations don't protect from any future moderation action - not that any moderation action is planned against malf or Linda.

clearly something had motivated such a long post.

I had two main motivations: (1) to do due diligence, given that you had suggested that if I were to do some reading on RNGs, then I would see that your claims were justified, and (2) to defend against unwarranted claims that the GCP results could be explained in non-anomalous terms (other than fraud/deception). The post came so late simply because I had not until then found the energy/motivation/opportunity to catch up on it. It was a "Hey, I've neglected this for too long, let's finally get onto it - and do a proper job" kind of post.

[Laird]

Also: Chris has offered to refund the donation of anybody who feels that it is causing a problem; that's of course very generous of him but it's not necessary - I am already happy to refund any donation without Chris having to go out of pocket, no questions asked.

But we recognise that this makes it look like, and in some sense is the case that, Ian and I have not donated anything and are sponging off the donations of everybody else.

I'm sure no one would dream of thinking that about people who are giving up so much of their time to run the site.