|
theflyingexecutive posted:it's a good model, but the nomination and election criteria would have to be refined for expanding the scope beyond a single thread to the subforum (or forums at large) Yeah, I'm not sure what the best option is here. The easiest/most obvious is "anyone who feels like posting in the thread gets to vote." It's theoretically possible that some people could coordinate some sort of forum raid to do... something...? but I think that's just a silly hypothetical that's unlikely to happen. What would they do, mass-vote for someone who's gonna deny every claim? For what purpose?
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
preemptively throwing my committee vote for buddykins, a.lo, lumpentroll, ol' sakkman, and cumshitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:01
|
|
|
Some quick & dirty research on some of the issues brought up: - Patreon permits the use of its site for nonprofits, and donating through Patreon should be tax-deductible (minus the value of incentives, which there likely wouldnt be any); there should be no issue running both a charity frontend & Patreon, and if we decide against the former we can still retain 501c3 benefits (albeit giving 20% to Patreon remains a thing). - IRS, Disaster Relief: Providing Assistance Through Charitable Organizations, direct financial aid in the event of a crisis is referred to as Emergency Hardship Funds, which have clear rules from the IRS on how they may operate. - 501c3's can operate charities cross-state without the need of regional branches, though mutual aid-specific circumstances should still be looked into. There are often requirements for non-profits specific to the state they are founded in, though. - most 501c3's are only required to submit Form 990's to the IRS, which would only doxx whoever is registering the organization. The IRS also requires that an organization's last three 990's be made public; this provides a fairly simple display of transparency, even before publishing anything to a Wordpress, Patreon, or within the thread. - Non-profits working with less than $5,000 are automatically tax-exempt. Above that, the IRS requires submitting a Form 1023 to be recognized as a tax-exempt org under 501c3. There is a $600 filing fee, however 1023-EZ (limited to orgs expected to handle less than $50,000 per-year) has a smaller fee of $275, and the form is significantly shorter. - Michael Haber's Legal Issues in Mutual Aid Operations: A Preliminary Guide. Written from a New York perspective & with more proactive mutual aid than simply handing out money in mind, but still a good read with some examples of the legal requirements expected of a Mutual-Aid. - Sustainable Economics Law Center's Mutual Aid Toolkit. If I've misinterpreted anything, feel free to say so, IANAL. Neurolimal has issued a correction as of 13:51 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
hey guys, do you tax research before you start this: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/16-0036.pdf quote:What that means is that crowdfunding revenues generally are includible in income if quote:3) gifts made out of detached generosity and I have
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
there is a reason the OP is worded the way it is
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Thank you for putting in the work to start this. This could be the most effective response to the situation going on and I hope it takes off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
ButterSkeleton posted:Thank you for putting in the work to start this. This could be the most effective response to the situation going on and I hope it takes off. who would want a goon to have to submit to a committee of goons their most personal information in the most vulnerable time of their life?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:who would want a goon to have to submit to a committee of goons their most personal information in the most vulnerable time of their life? nothing in the proposal demands they submit “their most personal information.” I don’t think people requesting money would mind that a committee of five people knows they need cash that much more than one person knowing they need cash. if you have proposed changes to the constitution, let’s hear ‘em!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I do think it’s important that the disbursements themselves stay as discrete as possible. would greater transparency at an aggregate level be good? yes. would it be worth increased scrutiny at an individual level? probably not. for all the faults of the plinky approach around transparency, I think his general thought process that people shouldn’t feel stigmatized for needing a bit extra to get to the end of the month is important to maintain. maybe I'm missing something obvious but I think 99% of the problems of the old/current fund could be solved by reporting anonymized recipients, and it's something I think should be core in any future structure. Every time anyone requests money add their username to a closed list then generate a recipient name based on that, even just the row/index of the name. Goon #45 is still the same person month-to-month, but it's all still as discrete and anonymous as ever and it's also very easy to track where the money is going and that someone is not pulling a suspicious outsized share or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:nothing in the proposal demands they submit “their most personal information.” I don’t think people requesting money would mind that a committee of five people knows they need cash that much more than one person knowing they need cash. how are you going to pay them? venmo, personally identifying paypal, that's an email send a money order, that's their address zelle, phone number, also identifying you dont get it
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:maybe I'm missing something obvious but I think 99% of the problems of the old/current fund could be solved by reporting anonymized recipients, and it's something I think should be core in any future structure. Every time anyone requests money add their username to a closed list then generate a recipient name based on that, even just the row/index of the name. Goon #45 is still the same person month-to-month, but it's all still as discrete and anonymous as ever and it's also very easy to track where the money is going and that someone is not pulling a suspicious outsized share or whatever. lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:nothing in the proposal demands they submit “their most personal information.” I don’t think people requesting money would mind that a committee of five people knows they need cash that much more than one person knowing they need cash. I don't think this is necessary unless someone requests a really significant amount of money, like a majority percentage of the month's donation or something. Maybe there's a breakpoint at a dollar or percentage amount but even as someone largely unfamiliar with the old fund I don't think this was ever really a thing. My prior suggestion about reporting anonymized accounts would suffice for any sort of donation oversight required, in my opinion. If someone is consistently requesting large amounts month over month maybe there's some sort of threshold for following up, but that can be a more democratic thing if everyone can see that someone is asking for a lot, consistently, but no one outside of a core group has any access to who that someone is. From there it's maybe reasonable for the group to discretely ask that person what's up or decide that the money might be better spread around to help more people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:lol ok how is this an insane ask? you get the DMs so I assume you know the usernames. You can't keep that information somewhere for transparency's sake? This is too much work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
I don't really care how its run as long as the paypal transfers keep coming. Winter steam sale soon, and calibanibal wants to buy Overcooked 2 90% off
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:nothing in the proposal demands they submit “their most personal information.” I don’t think people requesting money would mind that a committee of five people knows they need cash that much more than one person knowing they need cash. the person you're responding to raises a fair point, in that providing reasoning/rationale for why someone needs cash should be entirely optional. i also think minimizing the number of people who know the identity of the requester is better. a committee of people is good for accountability of how the funds are managed (in/out cash flow) but absolutely not needed to decide on the merits of a request or know who is asking for stuff. in that sense plinkeys setup is absolutely better. just introduce more eyes on the finances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:who would want a goon to have to submit to a committee of goons their most personal information in the most vulnerable time of their life? Honestly Plinkey, I think your fund is (and has been) one of the greatest things to come out of the forum from what I know. And I don't want it, and didn't want it, to go away. But some people have a problem with the setup, and people have the choice to make an adjacent project that "feels" more "secure". What matters is that the people have access to more resources to help them because they are the ones that actually matter. That's why I disagree with the mods unsticking your thread right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
speng31b posted:the person you're responding to raises a fair point, in that providing reasoning/rationale for why someone needs cash should be entirely optional. the first part: I agree! UKMT fund operates like this and I think we should copy it. how should it function instead? are you saying that one person should have final thumbs up/thumbs down on all requests?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:ok how is this an insane ask? you get the DMs so I assume you know the usernames. You can't keep that information somewhere for transparency's sake? This is too much work? yeah, that's the thing, i dont keep them, other then the emails to the actually request@goon.fund there's no committee (which would know the goons by account and email address, we've seen how good that goes) what you are doing is dangerous, the entire premise of the goon fund 'is I dont care, i wont remember' nothing is written down with the history of doxxing for disadvantaged and vulnerable people who have been helped by years from the goon fund, I have to say, I can not endorse this at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:the first part: I agree! UKMT fund operates like this and I think we should copy it. my read of the ukmt idea was that providing evidence was optional, but rationale wasn't. maybe my reading was wrong, but if not, I'd go a step further and make rationale optional. don't need to explain what the money is for unless you feel like it. I think one person having the request approver button and visibility into who made a given request is better for privacy reasons. adding more people as additional approvers is fine in case one person takes a vacation or whatever for redundancy, but people shouldn't be sharing around the details of a request with a committee and discussing it. that sucks imo. also agree with plinkey that the personal details of whoever asked for the money should be burn after reading and only totally anonymized info is kept for any kind of records
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:yeah, that's the thing, i dont keep them, other then the emails to the actually request@goon.fund there's no committee (which would know the goons by account and email address, we've seen how good that goes) your security structure is based on everyone trusting you to not keep any information (or remember this information, even) in a completely closed system. There are ways of anonymizing this information even from the committee/auditors/fund owners while keeping full functionality. These are solved problems, and like people have pointed out over and over and over there are ways to do this that don't all hinge on trusting one guy to both maintain everything and also keep all sensitive information secret entirely on his own, with zero oversight. As it stands now there is, by design, zero evidence that you're not pocketing all the money that isn't requested. You could have a 100% request fulfillment rate and still be pocketing a few grand a month that was donated on the premise that that money would go to people who really need it and because of the structure you established no one could ever know if that's not the case. I think that's lovely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:your security structure is based on everyone trusting you to not keep any information (or remember this information, even) in a completely closed system. There are ways of anonymizing this information even from the committee/auditors/fund owners while keeping full functionality. These are solved problems, and like people have pointed out over and over and over there are ways to do this that don't all hinge on trusting one guy to both maintain everything and also keep all sensitive information secret entirely on his own, with zero oversight. As it stands now there is, by design, zero evidence that you're not pocketing all the money that isn't requested. You could have a 100% request fulfillment rate and still be pocketing a few grand a month that was donated on the premise that that money would go to people who really need it and because of the structure you established no one could ever know if that's not the case. I think that's lovely. yes, it is
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
ok cool man great
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
speng31b posted:my read of the ukmt idea was that providing evidence was optional, but rationale wasn't. maybe my reading was wrong, but if not, I'd go a step further and make rationale optional. don't need to explain what the money is for unless you feel like it. speng31b posted:I think one person having the request approver button and visibility into who made a given request is better for privacy reasons. adding more people as additional approvers is fine in case one person takes a vacation or whatever for redundancy, but people shouldn't be sharing around the details of a request with a committee and discussing it. that sucks imo. This is really easy if there's an excess of money coming in and someone is just rubber-stamping every request. But in a situation where there's more requests than money, especially if no one is giving any evidence/rationale, how do we know who to give money to? Is it the best idea to have one person with sole decision-making power and leave everyone else in the dark?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:I totally get where you're coming from, but it could lead to an issue: yes, that's how it loving works, keep up
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:This is really easy if there's an excess of money coming in and someone is just rubber-stamping every request. But in a situation where there's more requests than money, especially if no one is giving any evidence/rationale, how do we know who to give money to? Is it the best idea to have one person with sole decision-making power and leave everyone else in the dark? your job with this kind of thing is to trust people and give them money first come first serve, not stack rank and prioritize neediness. if you're thinking about weighing the relative morality of giving money to A vs B given X resources you should stop right now and proceed no further because you're headed in a very bad direction, for all kinds of reasons I won't get into great detail on because it should be fairly obvious how this is going to go wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
speng31b posted:your job with this kind of thing is to trust people and give them money first come first serve, not stack rank and prioritize neediness. if you're thinking about weighing the relative morality of giving money to A vs B given X resources you should stop right now and proceed no further because you're headed in a very bad direction, for all kinds of reasons I won't get into great detail on because it should be fairly obvious how this is going to go wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
speng31b posted:your job with this kind of thing is to trust people and give them money first come first serve, not stack rank and prioritize neediness. if you're thinking about weighing the relative morality of giving money to A vs B you should stop right now and proceed no further because you're headed in a very bad direction, for all kinds of reasons I won't get into great detail on because it should be fairly obvious how this is going to go wrong if you try to prioritize neediness it’s just going to end up leading to means testing which just defeats the whole purpose of this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
If Plinkey would like to make suggestions or provide his experience in managing the current mutual aid fund, that would be appreciated. Currently he seems pretty combative, which is unfortunate. To make things clear: there is no animosity towards Plinkey nor the current fund in proposing this project. It is born entirely out of the good-faith suggestions that were made in the QCS thread, and perhaps they may be discussed without the miasma of anti-CSPAM shitposting that can permeate a QCS C-SPAM thread. His fund has done a lot of good work in the past three years, and if he would like to participate in developing a new fund (or simply improving the existing one; I don't think anyone would currently be against Plinkey continuing to have a major role in providing mutual aid, provided he is willing to disclose the current sum totals of expenses, remaining funds, anything else that could provide peace-of-mind without compromising anyone). Some starter questions, if Plinkey is willing: - What prevents the current fund from transitioning into an NPO? - Is there a reason the status of the fund is not disclosed? - Do you have any suggestions on C-SPAM posters who you feel would make for secure, reasonable members of the board? - Do you feel there's any compromising information that could arise from publishing a Form 990?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
really putting the mean in means testing
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
speng31b posted:your job with this kind of thing is to trust people and give them money first come first serve, not stack rank and prioritize neediness. if you're thinking about weighing the relative morality of giving money to A vs B you should stop right now and proceed no further because you're headed in a very bad direction, for all kinds of reasons I won't get into great detail on because it should be fairly obvious how this is going to go wrong again, this isn't a "me" thing, i'm just a dude who made a thread. my opinion on this isn't worth any more than yours or anyone else's who feels like contributing. i think "first come first served" is a very reasonable position!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:yes, that's how it loving works, keep up Multiple people posted in the QCS thread that they requested and never heard back from you, you replied to one and confirmed that you missed their email in your inbox. Issues like that can and will continue to happen if only a single person has oversight over the fund
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
My personal take: small funds ($1-99?) should be provided sight-unseen, while anything greater should be considered by the board. Evidence should not be mandatory, but appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:again, this isn't a "me" thing, i'm just a dude who made a thread. my opinion on this isn't worth any more than yours or anyone else's who feels like contributing. sorry, please don't read my use of pronouns as attacking you specifically. just talking about the thing and typing out my thoughts quickly
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
buddy when you've got a hot hand you can't really risk any info that might identify a person asking for $30 for cat food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
I wish you all good luck in your endeavors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:My personal take: small funds ($1-99?) should be provided sight-unseen, while anything greater should be considered by the board. Evidence should not be mandatory, but appreciated. If you're willing to bear the almighty weight of writing down stuff like the amounts you paid out (without, I might add, any sort of identifying information whatsoever, literally "paid $50 on 10/17") and the amount of money your took in by month, you could, very easily, find a dollar amount at which you might reduce the likelihood that 100% of requests for the month (next 3, next 5, etc etc) could be paid out. This would be a very easy and good threshold to talk about things with the board, with or without a request rationale. This can be figured out with very simple grade school math but demands the unspeakable evil of writing down numbers totally devoid of any information about who its going to and why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:To make things clear: there is no animosity towards Plinkey nor the current fund in proposing this project. Reading his responses and starting to think maybe there should be
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
extremely loving gross that tons of people defended plinkey with "oh, why don't you start your own fund them hmm? not so easy now is it" and within 2 pages of just that happening plinkey is attacking them trying to discredit this rival fund by accusing them of doxxing vulnerable people
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
People just spent a weekend screaming that plinkey is a degenerate gambling addict who can't be trusted and that people saying they got helped were obviously alts or idiots. Everyone needs to chill the gently caress out if they actually want anything to succeed instead of hoping to stoke more drama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:26
|
|
