Nivuahc wrote:
I would like to request that monies previously donated by me, or donated by me in the future,
not be specifically earmarked for a particular project or goal but, instead, be used by the V-set committee in
any manner that they feel is best, even if that includes the purchase of alcoholic beverages or other refreshments (
provided said refreshments do not consist of spam or any spam-related foods).
Covering your collective rear-ends legally is not a bad idea and I would suggest that any and all donation drives be
done away with. I would, however, recommend that there be an
ongoing "donate to this awesome player run game/general donations" drive that has no set goals. When new sets are going to be released, offer the same thing that was offered this time (donating XX guarantees you a set) and make a "general donations"
push.
For anyone annoyed by the back and forth over this issue in this thread look at it this way; it only takes one jack-hole to start making accusations and stirring up feces to ruin it for everyone if the committee isn't keeping themselves protected from a legal standpoint. At this point, Jordan ain't that guy.
I suppose it's a good thing we don't have any of those types in the SWM community, huh?
Bill, I want you to know that I appreciate everything that you and the rest of the guys are doing for the rest of us. Truly. I think you nailed it with your last post though. Hindsight being what it is you should have been more broad in your opening post. Get to work on that whole "reading minds" and "seeing into the future" thing, cupcake.
P.S. Have you guys considered electing 2 people as co-treasurers? You know... for that whole full disclosure and accounting thing (or, as I like to call it, covering your assets). I've been out of the loop for a bit so that may have already happened.
I had no intention of posting about this topic again until I read this post:
You may not like my point of view or even how I communicated it. I have stated my concerns and the reasons behind my concerns, but at no point did I make anything a personal attack or insult. I would ask for that same level of respect. If you disagree with anything I have posted, then feel free to criticize my viewpoint, point out where I am wrong or why you disagree, but calling me a "
jack-hole" that is "
making accusations and stirring up feces to ruin it for everyone" is not necessary.
I have never insinuated that there has been any criminal activity. I have pointed out that some of the proposed uses for the excess funding could be either perceived as such or may even fall into that category. I do not know why that fact is being ignored. Until an action is taken, my comments have been no more than warnings that somebody may take issue with the choice that is made for the use of these funds and then there may be something bigger that the committee would have to deal with. I have made suggestions on how this could be avoided. I understand why so many people that have read my posts assume the person that would have issue with the selected use would be me, but that is probably not the case. I guarantee you that I am not the only person that has had similar concerns, but has not posted those concerns. (what percentage of the gaming community never posts?)
Since I am not in any way associated with the committee, this forum was the only way for me to voice my concerns about the manner in which the fund-raising was being both worded and the handled. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am asking that you take what I have tried to say and consider another point of view. I know that you may not see or understand how or why what I have posted has been an effort to help the community, but it was. I believe, I suggested that they consult an attorney before doing anything with the excess funding.
Concerning the "reading minds" and "seeing into the future"... I think that assuming that everyone that donated viewed that their donations,(assuming there was excess) were just for the greater good of the community to be used as the committee sees fit, is expecting us to read minds. I did not know that was what was intended and I know there are others that also thought that we were operating by funding one project at a time. I know that they did not plan on donations reaching the level that they have, but since there was nothing in place, I suggested a vote to find out which project the community thinks the funds should be used towards. You do not have to agree with that suggestion, but I will tell you that if a vote was taken and the majority voted to pay off the "debt" from DotF, I would be fine with that.
I would not even care if there was a new "Mission Statement" issued and the majority of community voted to support it. As long as we as a whole are "covering our assets!"
If you really want what is for the greater good for this community you will quit being so defensive. Please just consider for a moment that my ideas and suggestions might also be for the greater good of the community that we all are trying to support.