• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Now a PM from Randi

Wolfman said:
First, let me clarify: I'm not 'whining' about the PMs. As I stated in my first message here, the JREF has every right to do this.

What I've been trying to do is suggest that there are better, more effective ways to raise money. In my opinion -- an opinion that I think is a fairly rational and justifiable one -- if forum members felt a closer tie with the JREF as an organization, and its leaders, then those members would also be more willing to donate money.

Look at how many times we've raised money for people in these forums. Every year, we have fund drives to raise money for scholarships for people to attend TAM. We raise money to help fellow forumites in trouble. A few years ago, forum members helped me raise money to bring a Chinese participant to TAM, covering airfare, accommodation, etc. (sadly, in the end, the US embassy rejected her visa application). Our efforts to help NobbyNobbs has been inspiring to a great many forum members.

The amount of money raised by forumites has not been insignificant (easily in the tens of thousands of dollars range)...yet it was done without repeated email requests, PMs, and other such tactics. In fact, in most cases, the fund-raising appeal consists of one single thread in these forums, informing members of the need for money. Yet I'd be willing to bet that the total amount donated by members of this forum to help other members far exceeds the amount of money that forum members have donated to the JREF.

In short -- my comments aren't to criticize the JREF for fundraising. It is necessary, and important. Nor do I criticize them for using these forums to do that fundraising...it's their forum.

What I'm seeking to do is to suggest that although this method may be yielding positive results compared to past efforts, that there are other methods and strategies that could be even more effective. That this forum is a massive potential resource for the JREF, one that is largely being squandered, and a great deal of its potential ignored.

This forum has members who are leading scientists, celebrities, authors, teachers, etc. It has members who are actively involved in promoting skepticism and critical thinking in their communities. And it has members who have more than adequately demonstrated their willingness and ability to contribute money to help out worthwhile causes.

I'm suggesting that those same members will respond much more positively to active efforts by the JREF to engage with them, rather than generic messages sent only when they need money.

DJ sees it differently...and I'm not the guy in charge of the JREF. I've said my piece, I've made my suggestions. Truth be told, the response thus far seems to focus more on defending the methods they've already used (and giving reasons why its impossible to do anything different) than in exploring the potential for using different strategies that might take more time/effort (but also result in increased donations). The methods the JREF uses at present are the most time-efficient, and they do result in increased giving. I don't dispute that. Personally, I think they could be doing better, but I have no way (at present) of proving that.

This is the last I will say on this...I've given my suggestions, and my reasons for them. DJ and I have also had some private communication, clarifying some of these issues. I continue to support and respect the work of the JREF, and I hope that some day China will have a similar organization here to work on debunking woo as aggressively and effectively as James Randi and the JREF have done.

And if/when the day comes that we have such an organization, we'll have to come up with our own strategies for fund raising; and I'm sure that we'll have just as many people with just as many different opinions about how it should be done.
Click to expand...

I agree there are many good ways for JREF to raise funds. Could not see many ideas in this thread, so I raised a thread for members to suggest a few ways. How about making a suggestion in that thread? It needs a few good ideas.

Ways for JREF to raise money
 
Geek Goddess said:
I get monthly paper letters from CSI's various branches, a monthly appeal from my local Dog Rescue club, quarterly notes from NCSE, monthly appeals from my college alma mater, Scouting organization, cancer societies, the Skeptic Society, the juvenile diabetes foundation, and many others. I donate to all of these, as I am able - some years more, some years less, but I don't get so ANGRY that they send me requests. How else are they supposed to raise money? I also get a lot of ads to sell me things, which bothers me more. You know, invitations to invest money I don't have, little pills to enlarge appendices I don't possess, and all the endless rescue attempts for Nigerian royal families.
Click to expand...

Must be hell living in the US these days.
Come and live with me in the Austrian alps, we have none of that here. I'll send you a ticket.
You can be Heidi and I'll be Heidi's Grandpapa.
 
DJ, I think it's great that you've remained in this thread and stood up to some of the flak (even if some of it is deserved).

From what I've seen I think a longstanding feeling in the forum is that the JREF only seriously ventures into the forum for fundraising purposes, and other than that the forum is a bother, a pain in the ass.

Perhaps you can be part of changing that reality/perception. I hope so.
My suggestion would be that in future you seek to employ one or two JREF staffers on the understanding that they are already regular and *interested* participants in the forum.
(Not sure what the total JREF staff numbers are, but this should surely be possible over a couple of years)

From the forum side I'm sure this would go a massive way to bridging the perceived disinterest divide.
As others have mentioned, ad hoc fundraising goes on here between members quite frequently, and it is pretty successful by all accounts.. and that's because there is a feeling of personal engagement.

Most JREF forum participants are already highly sympathetic to the JREF mission (if I may call it that), ..if they felt a regular personal engagement with people at the JREF via the forum then I'm sure your fundraising results would experience a quantum leap.

Now, I also understand that JREF staffers may feel a natural reluctance to regularly contribute here (witness this thread, in which you're having to justify yourself), so my second suggestion is that JREF staffers understood to be interested in participating in the forum be given two forum IDs, one for official matters, and another for just hanging out, making friends, being human, quibbling etc...
Both with the same name, but perhaps in a different colour, or with a prominent label underneath or something.
ETA: Or, for example, 'DJGrothe' and 'DJGrothe-OffDuty'

Well, you did ask for a donation.
Can I consider my 2 cents tax deductible? ;)
 
Last edited:
Captain Obvious said:
DJ, I think it's great that you've remained in this thread and stood up to some of the flak (even if some of it is deserved).

From what I've seen I think a longstanding feeling in the forum is that the JREF only seriously ventures into the forum for fundraising purposes, and other than that the forum is a bother, a pain in the ass.

Perhaps you can be part of changing that reality/perception. I hope so.
My suggestion would be that in future you seek to employ one or two JREF staffers on the understanding that they are already regular and *interested* participants in the forum.
(Not sure what the total JREF staff numbers are, but this should surely be possible over a couple of years)

From the forum side I'm sure this would go a massive way to bridging the perceived disinterest divide.
As others have mentioned, ad hoc fundraising goes on here between members quite frequently, and it is pretty successful by all accounts.. and that's because there is a feeling of personal engagement.

Most JREF forum participants are already highly sympathetic to the JREF mission (if I may call it that), ..if they felt a regular personal engagement with people at the JREF via the forum then I'm sure your fundraising results would experience a quantum leap.

Now, I also understand that JREF staffers may feel a natural reluctance to regularly contribute here (witness this thread, in which you're having to justify yourself), so my second suggestion is that JREF staffers understood to be interested in participating in the forum be given two forum IDs, one for official matters, and another for just hanging out, making friends, being human, quibbling etc...
Both with the same name, but perhaps in a different colour, or with a prominent label underneath or something.
ETA: Or, for example, 'DJGrothe' and 'DJGrothe-OffDuty'

Well, you did ask for a donation.
Can I consider my 2 cents tax deductible? ;)
Click to expand...

You are quite handy with glib words, my fellow member, but don't think that the other members of this forum don't see though your easy words and your greasy timbre. NO ONE here has to justify themselves to you, or me, or anyone else, or the administration of this forum. This is an open forum, and your requirements have no value.

If we go by your requirements, would there be a vote defining what was acceptable here, or just a silent shift, where certain voices went unheard?
 
I suspect the JREF's fundraising approach is pretty optimal and derives close to maximum benefit net of the cost (with cost including the effects of some people being sufficiently affronted that they wish to vent publicly and issue threats of future non-involvement).

To those who think JREF could do it better, or shouldn't do it, I suspect they either underestimate the costs of their recommendations and overestimate their benefits (and see the benefits through their own biased preferences), and/or they don't correctly get the ordering of the JREF's interests. In short, they likely think that they matter more than they do, or that there are more like them than there are.

This thread and related effects were very probably anticipated and expected ("budgeted for" if you like) and still the plan probably made sense ex-ante.
 
Last edited:
I am not annoyed.

I'd like to contribute, but am financially unable to do so now.

The odd appeal for funds I certainly do not take exception to, given that the facilities here are free to use.
 
Francesca R said:
I suspect the JREF's fundraising approach is pretty optimal and derives close to maximum benefit net of the cost (with cost including the effects of some people being sufficiently affronted that they wish to vent publicly and issue threats of future non-involvement).
Click to expand...

Indeed. You can't beat the cost/effectiveness ratio which is certainly approaching zero.
 
Last edited:
jiggeryqua said:
Quantum leap = tiny amount/barely perceptible shift.

Just saying. Keep it real, bro.

x
Click to expand...

Fortunately, English usage is not everywhere bound by pedantry.

http://www.answers.com/topic/quantum-leap
Fowler's Modern English Usage:
quantum leap

and the older form quantum jump, meaning 'a sudden large increase', are one of the more striking examples of modern popularized technicalities.

American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms:
quantum leap

A dramatic advance, especially in knowledge or method, as in Establishing a central bank represents a quantum leap in this small country's development. This term originated as quantum jump in the mid-1900s in physics, where it denotes a sudden change from one energy state to another within an atom. Within a decade it was transferred to other advances, not necessarily sudden but very important ones.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/quantum-leap#ixzz1i7DYggPU
Click to expand...
 
TheGoldcountry said:
You are quite handy with glib words, my fellow member, but don't think that the other members of this forum don't see though your easy words and your greasy timbre. NO ONE here has to justify themselves to you, or me, or anyone else, or the administration of this forum. This is an open forum, and your requirements have no value.

If we go by your requirements, would there be a vote defining what was acceptable here, or just a silent shift, where certain voices went unheard?
Click to expand...


While I don't agree with all of what you said, it is this sort of "tone" that is really freaky to me in this thread. It's as members of the forum think the owners need to justify themselves to the members of the forum. I don't see why posters don't realize how utterly strange that is to ask of the JREF.
 
Last edited:
I've spent more time reading this thread then I will in a lifetime of reading PM's from JREF.

It seems like a silly thing to worry about.
 
I officially resigned from the JREF on February 26th 2011.

Sending a pm on the forum is something that past staff that have been re-organized out of the JREF would never have done.

This is the new reality and if members expect management to ever to admit fault they are fooling themselves

I don't believe for a second that Randi even knew about this.

The JREF has a three member board, one of which pulls all the strings and pays salaries to executives which introduces a conflict of interest that is problematic. The JREF should have a 12 member board, not a three member board where members are financially beholden to each other.

Im sure I'll be banned for this so farewell.

Bart
 
Bart: Out of consideration to you, I will refrain from discussing the details of your resignation or what led up to it. I sincerely hope you have been doing well this last year.

I agree that you probably never would have had the idea to send a fundraising PM to forum members when you were on board. But doing such things are the sorts of activities that successful fundraisers are apt to do, in my view.

As for JREF management changing its mind or being open to input, I like to think we are open to good ideas and new evidence. An example may be the rescheduling of the keynotes at TAM last year due to Forum members' input.

Randi did know about the PM. And the PM is just a cut-and-paste of Randi's letter, which he wrote himself for the email appeal. FWIW, we are happy with the response that both the email campaign and the PM have elicited (this thread excepted, which I consider sort of par for the course, as I stated in earlier responses upthread.)

Regarding your sort of conspiracy theory about the JREF board: the JREF board operates consistent with how other healthy nonprofit boards operate. They provide oversight, but are uninvolved in day-to-day management. No one pulls the strings behind the scenes, and in my two years at the helm of the organization, the board has always given me executive autonomy. I wouldn't be able to be president of an organization if the title/position was in name only.

I hope that you will come to stop commenting as a disgruntled former employee, and that your better angels prevail. Conflicts resulting from a disgruntled former employee's online disparagement can be a distraction from the important work nonprofits have to do. A number of JREF donors have contacted us about negative things you have said about the foundation to them, which I find unworthy of my first impressions of you. I wish you the best and hope that you can put this sort of stuff behind you.
 
Last edited:
Bartmon said:
I officially resigned from the JREF on February 26th 2011.
Click to expand...
Since you brought it up, why did you resign?

Sending a pm on the forum is something that past staff that have been re-organized out of the JREF would never have done.
Click to expand...
A smarmy, slimey, weasely PM, at that!

This is the new reality and if members expect management to ever to admit fault they are fooling themselves
Click to expand...
Fault? All that matters is the bottem line, my friend. If the PM generates money, there is no fault. It's best-practices in the field of nonprofit fundraising! Did some members get upset because of the smarm? Who cares? Theyll get over it? Keep counting!

I don't believe for a second that Randi even knew about this.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree. You never know, though. He is a showman after all.

The JREF has a three member board, one of which pulls all the strings and pays salaries to executives which introduces a conflict of interest that is problematic. The JREF should have a 12 member board, not a three member board where members are financially beholden to each other.
Click to expand...
Shhh! A 12-member board would make running the forum cost-prohibitive!

Im sure I'll be banned for this so farewell.
Click to expand...
I don't think you will. But, in case this thread is tossed into deep storage, at which point we'll know that you're probably a goner, I'll say good bye now!

Bye the way: Did Moochie ever get his membership card?
 
truethat said:
While I don't agree with all of what you said, it is this sort of "tone" that is really freaky to me in this thread. It's as members of the forum think the owners need to justify themselves to the members of the forum. I don't see why posters don't realize how utterly strange that is to ask of the JREF.
Click to expand...

It's not at all strange for online forums. The psychology of online communities is quite startlingly similar to that of any "real world" community. There is a sense of collective cohesion, which, by definition, creates an "us and them" mentality.
While normally on this forum "them" is the world of woos (as perceived by forumites), occasionally "them" can be the forum management.
This is not new on this forum or on many others. Compare the collapse of the original RDF, or Internet Infidels, or several stress points in the history of the JREF forum itself. The forum has fragmented before now. Many people have left in various degrees of dudgeon , over management disagreements.

This is all very normal indeed for successful forums. And this is a successful forum. I don't think it's a resource Randi has ever truly understood- but he has had the sense to delegate it's running to people who care about it and for the most part he has been very fortunate in the calibre of the people who have done so. The RDF disaster shows what can happen when the owner (or the admin) of a board alienates the users. Nasty- and really rather predictable . The history and psychology of online communities is a fascinating study.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I don't know who is responsible for this, but can I assume to speak for the majority of members by saying WE GET IT. Some of us might be thick, but stickies, banners and emails have got the "please donate" message through quite successfully. Now a PM? Know what the letter "P" stands for?

Now I may be the only member to be singled out by the great man, and if so, I apologize, but I somehow doubt it.
Click to expand...

No, you're not the only one. E-mails almost daily, and indeed a PM two days ago.

Annoying me is no way to get into my wallet.
 
Oh, for the love of...

Look, I hate to meddle with some good old-fashioned righteous rage, but y'all know it takes maybe half a second to delete a PM, right?
 
Cleon said:
Oh, for the love of...

Look, I hate to meddle with some good old-fashioned righteous rage, but y'all know it takes maybe half a second to delete a PM, right?
Click to expand...

Hey, I got two PMs! That's a whole second, buddy! :)

ETA: Truth be told, I can't bring myself to delete either one of them! I mean, smarm aside, they're from Mr. Randi, after all (regardless of the circuitous route that led them to my box)! I guess I could delete one of them. :)
 
Last edited:
El Greco said:
Yes, I think that a youtube video of a sexy skeptic promising naughty rewards to those who would donate, would go much further in promoting the JREF mission.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can ask Rebecca to do that video set in an elevator...

Wolfman said:
As mentioned above, I'm in China
Click to expand...

And you have access to the internet ? ;)

kajata said:
What a bunch of whiny, selfish brats.
Click to expand...

What a reasonable, well-worded, thought out post.

Do you like being pestered ?

I've received 2 e-mails in the last 10 days, at least 6 in the last month, and a PM. I'm not whining. No one here is whining.
 
lionking said:
Jeez, have a look at the OP. How would you feel about someone you have had virtually zero interaction with continually hitting on you for money?

What is being suggested is that JREF staff show a minimal, even token, interest in the forum (in their own time like most of us). This would make asking for donations via PM (which is specifically what I was objecting to) more palatable.
Click to expand...

For my part, I simply don't donate, and find repeated requests, especially bad ones, obnoxious. I have therefore deactivated the e-mail notifications. I don't think this is a step towards me eventually donating. But that's me.
 
My 2c

Belz... said:
Annoying me is no way to get into my wallet.
Click to expand...

I agree. I donate to organisations when I can and wish to. The repeated requests have had the opposite effect on me; I won't consider donating to the JREF as a general cause this year.

If there is a specific appeal (e.g. TAM, etc), then please do ask me for a donation... once.

Thank you.
 
Cleon said:
Oh, for the love of...

Look, I hate to meddle with some good old-fashioned righteous rage, but y'all know it takes maybe half a second to delete a PM, right?
Click to expand...
You mean that if I get a PM from Randi I should just delete it without even looking at it? Should I do the same with PMs I may get from you?
 
DJGrothe said:
<snip>
I agree that you probably never would have had the idea to send a fundraising PM to forum members when you were on board. But doing such things are the sorts of activities that successful fundraisers are apt to do, in my view.
<snip>
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. Not nice. This is a skeptical forum remember?

You could only "agree that they never would have had the idea" if that is what they had said in the first place.

I hope you meant "I agree that you never would have sent a fund-raising PM". Not "had the idea" related at all.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
I see what you did there. Not nice. This is a skeptical forum remember?

You could only "agree that they never would have had the idea" if that is what they had said in the first place.

I hope you meant "I agree that you never would have sent a fund-raising PM". Not "had the idea" related at all.
Click to expand...

Too true, too true-- It was not nice at all, laws no. Things are getting slimier by the minute, laws yes.

I'm walking the green mile, feeling that slimey feeling...

Let's hear it for the best-practices in the field of nonprofit fundraising and thinly-veiled attacks on the old strawman, laws yes.
 
OnlyTellsTheTruth: right. I agree with Bart that former staffers would never have proposed to send such a PM (they probably would have sent it if instructed to, I think). As I said upthread, when a development staffer suggested sending the fundraising PM I approved the decision agreeing that it was a good idea (and we continue to think it was, based on the results). I do not think that former staffers would ever have proposed it, however, and would likely have thought it a bad idea, so Bart is right on that point.
 
Last edited:
kajata said:
Oh no! A PM?! The nerve! And a banner ad on the top of the page of the forum I use for free and that gives me hours of entertainment and interaction with like-minded people!

Stop this fund-raising insanity! How will Celtic Rose ever get that precious time back? Lionking had to spend almost a minute this year alone deleting 3 or 4 emails!

What a bunch of whiny, selfish brats.
Click to expand...


that's kinda how i feel, having only read a page and a half of this thread.
 
Well, I'm gonna' pop in for a few more quick comments:

1) For those arguing that the PM thing doesn't work...while it turns off some people, I doubt that many of those complaining about it (myself included) would have sent money if no PM had been sent, so the JREF didn't exactly lose any money by doing it...and at least a few members have said they donated because of it, so there is a quantifiable benefit from this strategy. I don't think it's the best strategy...but it's better than doing nothing.

2) The JREF has every right to use the forums for such fund raising. Seriously, get over yourselves. Again, I think there would be better ways, but this is far from being some terrible abuse of power.

3) Bart, the only 'shame' that your comments bring on the JREF are the justified shame they should feel over ever having someone like you as an employee in the first place. I'd like to think that an organization like the JREF would be a little more discriminating in who it chooses. Personal attacks, conspiracy theories, casting serious accusations without proof...it is sad. Whatever 'value' may have been contributed by some people in this thread, none of it has come from anything you said.

No organization is ever going to please anyone, and they're fools if they try to. The fact that the JREF is increasing its focus on education and activism is a good thing, in my book. The fact that the JREF has been able to increase the financial support it is receiving is good. I may not personally agree with everything they do, or with all the methods they use to accomplish their goals...but they're still doing more than most of the people who are complaining about them.

Final comment: If the JREF does things that you support, then support the JREF. If you don't think the JREF is worth supporting, find another organization that better fits your goals. Don't expect the JREF to change to make you happy (if they did, they'd just make others unhappy). Where you can make positive suggestions to try to help them (which is what I've been trying to do), please do so...with the understanding that they may not agree, or may have a different perspective.

I personally do not support the JREF financially. That's primarily because my money goes to other efforts that are closer to home for me (including my own NGO). While I support the JREF's work, I think there are other organizations who can better use my money in the specific areas in which I'm most interested. I'd suggest that others here, if they truly feel the JREF's tactics or goals don't fit them, that they focus on finding places to contribute that do suit them better, rather than this endless bitching. A positive focus of "This is where I think my money can best be used" is much better for everyone than "This is why I'm not going to give any money".
 
I am characterized as a disgruntled employee because it is easier to just blow my comments of if I am presented as a nut. Wolfman, do the research yourself, the information is there. I spoke up because I support skepticism and I felt people should understand the realities of today's JREF. If you love it, great! But I have not spoken anything untrue or anything that can't be substantiated. If you want to believe I'm just mad at the JREF, that's your right. I'm pointing out things that my conscience compels me to voice.

I am not some low-level hack, I'm a successful author who took a year off to work in skepticism, and my experience at the JREF was both fantastic and soul crushing for all kinds of reasons. My point about the board is true and this is public information. I wish randi and the JREF as an organization all the best and I continue to support them. I am glad I'm back to my writing work because my salary quadrupled, and the world of corporate business and publishing is more satisfying for me than working for the JREF, and believe me, it pains me to say that.

If you support skepticism and are a skeptic, it behooves everyone to not listen to me or the JREF but rather look into it yourself. If you think the JREF is top notch, then great, give them your money. I'm not grinding an axe, pointing out facts that anyone can root out themselves.
 
El_Spectre said:
As an FYI, TAM admission, cruises and other fundraisers are not considered donations by the JREF.
Click to expand...

Ah! Thank you, but I was referring to anything of a fund-raising nature to attend TAM, etc. For instance, The Skeptic Zone are trying raise funds to send Maynard to go to TAM; if the JREF has something specific like that, then I am happy to hear from them. (once).

Again, thanks for setting me clear on the other points.
 
Bartmon said:
I'm not grinding an axe, pointing out facts that anyone can root out themselves.
Click to expand...
Your words belie your claims...to whit:
I don't believe for a second that Randi even knew about this.
Click to expand...
A claim for which you offer no advice whatsoever, which seeks to depict DJ and other JREF staff as being dishonest, and a claim that is very easily clarified...just write to James Randi and ask him. Personally, I'm quite confident that he'd verify that he knew about this.
The JREF has a three member board, one of which pulls all the strings and pays salaries to executives which introduces a conflict of interest that is problematic.
Click to expand...
The fact that the JREF has a three member board is easily verified; but the subsequent claim that the JREF is essentially controlled by one board member lacks any verification whatsoever, and also directly contradicts DJ's claim that he is able to act autonomously. Given your obvious bias in your previous statement about Randi not knowing about this PM, and the complete lack of evidence for your claim (not to mention that DJ is not the kind of person I'd see being comfortable being controlled by a single board member), I'll take DJ's word over yours, lacking much more evidence than you've offered.
Im sure I'll be banned for this so farewell.
Click to expand...
And there we have it...the martyr complex. "I'm sure I'll be banned, but I just wanted you guys to know the truth". When the plain fact is that, having broken no forum rules, not only are you not banned, but nobody here as made any suggestion of doing so.

I'm sorry, but all of this just comes across as sour grapes, and entirely lacking in critical thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom