|
I don't think there's that much harm in letting newbie lurkers receive donations (unless this gets big enough that a demonstrable number of random people are flocking in for money).... ....Provided that the fund is in a secure position. It's obviously had some rocky months, and while that should be less of an issue now that donors get something out of donating themselves (+ employment matching), it's still probably wise to work up a rainy-day emergency cache (especially since people are probably going to be needing help in December). Neurolimal has issued a correction as of 01:29 on Oct 7, 2023 |
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
My view is that there should be a minimum posting activity and/or account age cut-off so people cannot abuse the fund, especially with all the newcomers showing up after Jeffrey placed some ads. I trust the committee to pick something reasonable in that regard. It should probably be a consistent, set policy so no one is unfairly excluded because of when or how they made their request. My personal opinion is that a lurker who has been around for a couple years is more credible than someone who registered recently with just a handful of posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
Second Hand Meat Mouth posted:My rough thoughts: Vox Nihili posted:My view is that there should be a minimum posting activity and/or account age cut-off so people cannot abuse the fund, especially with all the newcomers showing up after Jeffrey placed some ads. I trust the committee to pick something reasonable in that regard. It should probably be a consistent, set policy so no one is unfairly excluded because of when or how they made their request. Well put and I agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
yeah i think there is good reason to be leery of a new account but if someone has an old account and they just don't post, that doesn't seem like a problem at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
if the fund was created to serve the community, then, well... shitpost and chill should be a fairly low bar to clear? Let me think on this some more. It might be one of those things where there's no good answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
corona familiar posted:I think a minimum account age requirement up front is reasonable. I think lurkers should be able to request from the fund, but maybe if you register an account and never post you need to be around for 6 months or a year or something. I thought about this but man, this gets close to the meme of this fund being means tested access to help and I don't want that. We obviously haven't cared about where someone posts, just post count and reg date. We have had super old <2004 accounts request funds that haven't posted in years and we obviously sent funds. Whether they lurk or predominantly remain on lifeboat discords is not what matters to us. I think the biggest issue is pre/post fund reg dates, which right now is about 6 months. Post fund reg dates... it would be nice to see that you're either a prolific poster (so even if you are a formerly banned person or an alt, then you've made this new account your new identity) or someone who is can vouch for you if you're an offsite mostly goon. Though how to make "hey have a buddy who can vouch for you" part of the request process is... difficult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
drat that's a hard question. Lots and lots of goon things have had account age or postcount requirements but it's a really tricky line to draw. I don't think you can really set a specific number for a cutoff even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
I lurked for like a year after registering and look at me now: shitposting with the best of them! I would agree with being wary of brand new regs, though
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
TheParadigm posted:if the fund was created to serve the community, then, well... agreed, had similar thoughts I wasn't able to write succinctly - specifically the "community" part. it's not that hard to empty quote the good posts I make, and that should totally count as being an active member of the community
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
Minimum 10 emptyquoted posts before you can get a donation
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
It's good to see the community feels the same way about this issue as the committee - conflicted as gently caress. I was able to reach out to a mod who was able to confirm for me that one of the people with low posts is a member of a discord server and is a real person who needed help. They aren't the 'ideal' goon member but I went ahead and approved funds to them. I am reaching out to the other lurker (who's account is nearly a year old) to get some more information from them to help make a better decision. My ideas for the future are to have a pre-fund reg date, or to be a prolific poster - judgement left to the committee member filling the request. If you have no posts (and your reg date is within a few years), I will reach out to admin to do an alt check (as I have previously) and if the admin agrees to help and exhonerates the requestor, then I think funds should go. Again, I'll try to get more solid red lines in the future. But for now, I think we have enough to go on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
thank you to you and the whole committee for all yall do 🙏🙏
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
Disclosure: I have received help from the fund really queer Christmas posted:My ideas for the future are to have a pre-fund reg date, or to be a prolific poster - judgement left to the committee member filling the request. If you have no posts (and your reg date is within a few years), I will reach out to admin to do an alt check (as I have previously) and if the admin agrees to help and exhonerates the requestor, then I think funds should go. I think it's fine to set a minimum account age, and I think six months is reasonable. Exceptions can be made for newer accounts that make regular posts, on the judgment of the committee. If Admins are willing to help that's great, but does that introduce any liability to Jeffrey of YOSPOS LLC?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
I don't know what the right thing to do is but it does seem kind of funny to make someone  to be applicable
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 05:42
|
|
|
I would empty quote and post trun a million times to get help but I already like doing that
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 05:44
|
|
|
Crazypoops posted:I would empty quote and post trun a million times to get help but I already like doing that 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Wait wait, make it like godfather. "Someday, and that day may never come. I will ask a post from you."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 05:52
|
|
|
honestly, don't set a hard line for it. one of those 'know it when i see it' things i trust yall will make the right call most the time
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 06:44
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:yeah i think there is good reason to be leery of a new account but if someone has an old account and they just don't post, that doesn't seem like a problem at all This is where I'm at -- I lurk a lot more than I post, and I didn't post much the first year or two I was here, but I was still popping by frequently to read threads. I'm ok with older reg dates just being quiet, although I see where that could be open to exploit/ someone unearthing an old unused account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 09:54
|
|
|
accounts that are a couple days old with no no posts or a couple posts should probably be scrutinized. everything else, fine not an easy problem, and I’m conscious of the mental drain of looking at someone’s account and deciding if they should get material aid. that’s no bueno. this seems like the most straightforward solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 12:34
|
|
|
Generally agreed that newer accounts should at least show some attempt at community engagement. One is not a goon just by paying the entrance fee. Honestly, though, I think you guys are doing well going with your gut. If something seems off, follow that instinct and do what you need to in order to make a decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Make posters who don't engage sing a funny song and record it to prove their dedication.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 03:36
|
|
|
I know you're joking, but i don't think it would be good to make people who really need cash for groceries, to get the last bit of their rent, to afford meds, ect do a funny trick to earn it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
yeah we already do that, it's called work
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
I'd say that account age should probably matter more than post count unless someone's just a really avid poster. If someone buys an account and has to wait some amount of time before they can request funds, that's immediately going to filter out a good deal of people looking for a quick buck while still allowing people who have maybe just started using the forums recently. That said, I'd say it could be possible to waive the account age requirement if you can look through that person's post and see that they're being a part of the community. I'd say either you have to be reg'd for some months or so or be actively posting, with no real specific amount of posts to meet. That way you have an allowance for people who just like to lurk and also have an opening for people who just reg'd but are really owning it. The real thing to look out for would be people white noise posting to make it look like they're more engaged than they actually are, but I think that the committee would be more than capable of using their best judgment there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
Thank you guys for your work here, it really does make a huge difference. Edit: Posted earlier due to a lapse in thought, but I did wanna post this publicly since while I genuinely think this is a Google problem and not a Goon Fund problem, I noticed after I put in my request with the Google Form, my email address I put in has been getting inundated with spam emails every hour in the same format.  Again, I don't think this is an issue with the Goon Fund but I do think Google Forms might have an exploit someone's exploiting because I've never had finance-related spam emails on that account before, usually it was just intermittent "y0u WON free HORBOR FREIGHT TOOLSET!!!!" ones that could've been from literally anything. The other reason I'm mentioning it here is it cc's a lot of emails and if any of them might be people who submitted requests recently, they may be subjected to it and it could result in their emails being leaked, so please check your spam folders if so, and if someone knows where I should report this potential problem please tell me. Trogglodyte has issued a correction as of 23:36 on Oct 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:yeah we already do that, it's called work drat if that ain't true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
We have a 6 month account age minimum rule in the UKMT Solidarity Fund. The following individuals will be given priority in the allocation of funds: Regular UKMT posters of at least 6 months’ standing (not permabanned or threadbanned); Goons vouched for by a regular UKMT poster of at least 1 year’s standing (not permabanned or threadbanned); Lurkers who have paid into the fund in the past. The Committee shall be approachable: anyone can apply for assistance if they believe they need it. Those who do not meet the criteria in clause 2.7.2 may be subject to additional scrutiny. it's a part of our constitution that I'll admit could do with a bit of cleaning up, I personally don't like the "Lurkers who have paid into the fund in the past." bit, but yeah 6 months is our minimum account age.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
I think requiring membership to the forum may run foul of 503c rules as it makes you a private foundation or something. probably some proper way to setup up selection rules though or just not be a 503c like googles “charity “. although certainly paying 10 bux to get $100 is rife for abuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 13:43
|
|
|
I think this is going to be one of those things where there is no perfect solution that pleases everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
I guess if someone registers today just to ask for money that's, whatever, but I'd certainly be on the side of being lenient where such requirements are concerned. I'd rather money got to people who needed it (and while I'd like to think that long-established goons are less likely to be scammers, well, you know.) I think six months' activity is a reasonable line to at least take a closer look at someone's request, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
Thank you for the assistance!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
SEPTEMBER 2023 FINANCIALS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS    A bit late, but I wanted to present this along with these set of announcements. First off, the committee held the first full meeting! We're like a real company now! We had a bunch of things we discussed and it took us about an hour. We have a summary here if you'd like to see it. Though I am also going to quickly hit the important points below so, there's going to be reading either way. First off, we agreed to have more meetings in the future. That's right - a bunch of useless meetings, just what you want to hear we are doing. The point of these 'official' meetings is more to touch base on subjects and have a more formal structure to make sure the government knows the charity is legit. We don't want to seem like we are trying to take advantage of tax free status. Secondly... the issue of using google docs for financials. It's been great because it's free and there has definitely been a couple times this year that a sudden $50 - $100 charge would be the difference between an NSF or our debit card getting declined when giving money out. However, we really need some sort of accounting software that can easily keep track of things for us and present things in a readable manner for you guys and governments. I personally have experience in quickbooks enterprise, but I've heard... less than wonderful things about quickbooks online - the much cheaper version. If anyone has more experience in other softwares that can recommend one that's cheap but still quite functional or well suited to us, we are definitely all ears. Thirdly... and a very big one... the committee voted unanimously to present a couple of constitutional amendments to the Membership of the fund for adoption. Those are:
First amendment is easy, we just need to formalize it to look more legitimate. Second one... is a big one. We had a lot of discussion on this and the purpose of this delination in the committee is to recognize that, if; through elections, personal choice, unfortunate circumstances - one of the three main directors are unable to perform as directors... there's a lot of paperwork involved. As of right now, Speng, Kingcobweb, and myself are directors of the US Goon fund. Which means we are personally on all the paperwork with the states, payment processors, and the IRS. If something happens to one of us that we cannot serve on the committee - there's a metric shitton of paperwork to file to get rid of one of us, even potentially having to move the state we are incorporated in. However, we also want to recognize that despite this restriction, it shouldn't mean that us three get a permanent stranglehold on power or there's no way to get us to gently caress off if we are no longer performing our tasks in a just manner, or hell, even just for us to take a break. As such, we want to still present 5 working members - so that, theoretically, all three of us could be figureheads that don't really deal with the day to day, or even be involved in the fund at all - but still stay on to deal with the major paperwork/government audits/ etc. With this breakdown, us three can still serve our roles as 'Directors' and if we get voted out of those roles, the membership understands the significance of that action. We also toyed around with the idea of expanding the committee or breaking each member of the committee into clearly defined roles, but ultimately decided on the above proposal. Third Amendment is, again, more of a legal protection as mentioned. We will NOT be releasing this information to the public at all. We see no reason why the government would release that information, the only reason we are keeping it is so we can refer to you by your actual name with the government. If privacy concerns were a reason why you didn't want to be on the committee before, we believe this should ease those worries while still making sure the Fund does have some protection against legal liability. If we are wrong - nonprofit lawyers we are ALL EARS!! Fourth Amendment was already discussed in the thread, and this is more of formalizing what the thread and committee agreed on. ALL OF THESE PROPOSALS ARE NOW SUBJECT TO DEBATE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LET US KNOW HOW YOU THINK THEY CAN BE MADE BETTER AND WE CAN EDIT THE AMENDMENTS TO FIT WHAT THE MEMBERSHIP WANTS!!! Debate on these proposals are open until the end of the month, at which point we will begin a week long voting session approving/voting them down. These amendments have passed the committee unanimously, and will be approved if 50% + 1 voters approve them. IF YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR AN AMENDMENT, NOW IS THE TIME TO SUGGEST AND PROPOSE IT. The committee will have to approve it by 3/5 vote and then it can be presented to the membership for voting. Quickly running through the remainder of items, we are planning to have the April Fundraiser prizes finished by the end of the month - one way or another. Nominations for the committee is set to begin after voting on the amendments has wrapped up around 11/7 & voting will begin on 11/14 and continue for 7 days thereafter. Mark those dates if you want to participate! I may have missed some things so please, feel free to ask questions!! VOTING SCHEDULE
Elephanthead posted:I think requiring membership to the forum may run foul of 503c rules as it makes you a private foundation or something. probably some proper way to setup up selection rules though It's the opposite. The IRS required me to fill out that we AREN'T giving to any random individual. How we define who we give money to is SUPER important. So you can tighten up the restriction and be ok, but loosening it is where we start running afoul of things. Here is the exact response I gave the IRS- 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 04:12
|
|
])
|
Amendments seem good to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
Oh gently caress yes I love bureaucracy. Thanks for all your hard work, it's appreciated 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 04:18
|
|
|
I assume it's 'not be currently banned', and not 'not be banned at any point', the former of which is a reasonable restriction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 04:21
|
|
|
Malachite_Dragon posted:I assume it's 'not be currently banned', and not 'not be banned at any point', the former of which is a reasonable restriction. once you're unbanned you're no longer banned ergo ipso facto qed
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
It still shows up in the rap sheet, though, so it's a fair clarification.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
Currently, we don't approve requests for people who are banned or permabanned as of the present moment. So if you got banned yesterday, unban yourself and then do a fund request - you're approved. Our current only caveat is obvious reregs don't get approved. If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to propose changes, or maybe put a specific circumstance like "being banned for bloodlust is disqualifying even if you come back" Educational Games posted:Oh gently caress yes I love bureaucracy. Yeah, not everyone's favorite. Very necessary for the fund, however. It's also why I put the finacials up front and the schedule at the bottom so people who just want to good bits can get it and pop in later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
really queer Christmas posted:
Quickbooks online is not nearly as bad as it once was, speaking as a tax accountant who deals with it regularly. It has it's dumb quirks (like general ledger reports defaulting to a single amount column instead of separate debit and credit columns) and I've seen clients mess up data importing more frequently than I'd like but I don't hesitate to recommend it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 05:42
|
|
