Role of the Forum in the JREF (Split from "Change to Rule 6")

[tesscaline]

You haven't shown that your inquiry is material. Here is the statement:
First, a little context: one, the JREF spends a considerable amount of money on a monthly basis to provide this forum for free as a benefit to the skeptics community, and we do so happily, seeing the forum as such an important resource on skepticism on the internet, in addition to providing a place online for a number of skeptics to maintain close ties and foster community.

It basically says that the JREF spends money to provide a free forum and considers this forum an investment to promote goodwill & community, and to provide a resource for skepticism. That is the claim.

The amount of money spent is completely immaterial to this claim, whether it is a considerable amount or not. Whatever the JREF spends, it considers it a good investment. You may feel that it is not a good investment, or you may feel that the money could be better spent elsewhere but that is a different argument. If you were trying to judge whether or not the forum is a good investment, you could ask for clarification of "considerable" but again, that is not the argument you are making.

You have plucked a single vague word from the whole and pretended that it is decisive but that word does not distract from the authenticity of the message.

I have no idea where you've come up with the conclusions you've made in this post, at all. And I have no idea what argument you think I'm making, but it's very obviously not the one I actually am making.

I was, primarily, addressing the statement "the JREF spends considerable money every month to provide this forum for free". The word "considerable" is indeed material to that statement. That the JREF spends money, period, to provide this forum is not something in question. How much they spend, and whether or not it is "considerable" in comparison to their financial status, is.

I have made no comment as to whether or not this forum is "a good investment". In fact, whether or not it is a "good" investment, or an investment at all is not relevant. However, whether or not the JREF reaps a benefit from the forum is. And I have consistently stated that they DO reap a benefit. This benefit is reaped from the forum users, and all the people that the forum users interact with and promote TAM or other skeptical events and fundraising situations affiliated with the JREF to. Thus we are paying for the forums (or at least part of the forums), even if not by way of a direct usage fee. And if we are paying, then it is not free. You are familiar, I'm sure, with the concept of TANSTAAFL, right? The concept of "free", especially when it comes to business, is a myth; a marketing tactic to try and convince the unsuspecting that they are getting the better end of a deal when they aren't. Nothing is free. Everything costs something.

 

[bookitty]

I have no idea where you've come up with the conclusions you've made in this post, at all. And I have no idea what argument you think I'm making, but it's very obviously not the one I actually am making.

I was, primarily, addressing the statement "the JREF spends considerable money every month to provide this forum for free". The word "considerable" is indeed material to that statement. That the JREF spends money, period, to provide this forum is not something in question. How much they spend, and whether or not it is "considerable" in comparison to their financial status, is.

I have made no comment as to whether or not this forum is "a good investment". In fact, whether or not it is a "good" investment, or an investment at all is not relevant. However, whether or not the JREF reaps a benefit from the forum is. And I have consistently stated that they DO reap a benefit. This benefit is reaped from the forum users, and all the people that the forum users interact with and promote TAM or other skeptical events and fundraising situations affiliated with the JREF to. Thus we are paying for the forums (or at least part of the forums), even if not by way of a direct usage fee. And if we are paying, then it is not free. You are familiar, I'm sure, with the concept of TANSTAAFL, right? The concept of "free", especially when it comes to business, is a myth; a marketing tactic to try and convince the unsuspecting that they are getting the better end of a deal when they aren't. Nothing is free. Everything costs something.

So the forum offers a vague benefit with no downside to the JREF. This unsubstantiated benefit can be sorta maybe tracked to TAM and fundraising. This forum is offered for free in order to scam the "unsuspecting." Therefore extreme vigilance is necessary at all times.

The idea that every utterance, regardless of source, needs to be combed through and treated as hostile seems a bit paranoid. Even Penn Jillette, noted caustic skeptic, reserves his ire for people who are actually doing harm. There is no reason to treat DJ Grothe's statement as though it came from someone who has ill-will towards the forum or seeks to harm or scam the members in any way.

You asked if we would let a claim go if it were a woo. Perhaps not but I would hope that so-called skeptical inquiry would not include intellectually dishonest tactics. Like, for example, editing a rather long run-on sentence down to it's first phrase in order to create faux outrage.

 

[bookitty]

You're right, it's not the argument she is making. I don't see anywhere she said it's not a good investment. What I do see is someone who has experience with the business-side of operating complex Internet systems saying they see no reason for this site to incur considerable monthly expense. I also see a certain amount of wagon-circling in response to skepticism directed at the JREF.

I'm not circling the wagon for the JREF. There is no altruism here, it is purely in my own self-interest. In the past I have discussed skepticism as a movement and even referenced this forum. It would be a bit embarrassing if people thought that this sort of unnecessary nit-pick and knee-jerk entitlement was what had attracted my interest. Who wants to be those people?

 

[not daSkeptic]

I'm not circling the wagon for the JREF.

I never said you were.

 

[not daSkeptic]

So the forum offers a vague benefit with no downside to the JREF. This unsubstantiated benefit can be sorta maybe tracked to TAM and fundraising. This forum is offered for free in order to scam the "unsuspecting." Therefore extreme vigilance is necessary at all times.

The idea that every utterance, regardless of source, needs to be combed through and treated as hostile seems a bit paranoid. Even Penn Jillette, noted caustic skeptic, reserves his ire for people who are actually doing harm. There is no reason to treat DJ Grothe's statement as though it came from someone who has ill-will towards the forum or seeks to harm or scam the members in any way.

You asked if we would let a claim go if it were a woo. Perhaps not but I would hope that so-called skeptical inquiry would not include intellectually dishonest tactics. Like, for example, editing a rather long run-on sentence down to it's first phrase in order to create faux outrage.

I think before I decide on my next course of action I need some additional data. I'd like to know how many others agree with this interpretation of Tesscaline's position.

 

[fls]

I think before I decide on my next course of action I need some additional data. I'd like to know how many others agree with this interpretation of Tesscaline's position.

I don't.

Linda

 

[AlBell]

Nor I.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I do.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I don't.

Linda

Nor I.

Me neither.

 

[quadraginta]

I do.

Forum-sheeple!

(I mean that in a non-insulting manner, of course.)

 

[Almo]

The idea that every utterance, regardless of source, needs to be combed through and treated as hostile seems a bit paranoid. Even Penn Jillette, noted caustic skeptic, reserves his ire for people who are actually doing harm. There is no reason to treat DJ Grothe's statement as though it came from someone who has ill-will towards the forum or seeks to harm or scam the members in any way.

I agree with this part for sure.

 

[fls]

I agree with this part for sure.

Who wouldn't? Hence the reason straw men give the appearance of an effective counter-argument.

Linda

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Forum-sheeple!

(I mean that in a non-insulting manner, of course.)

I'm not even a skeptic!

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm not even a skeptic!

I doubt that claim.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think before I decide on my next course of action I need some additional data.

This sentence is dripping with self importance. Your course of action and needs should concern me how?

I'd like to know how many others agree with this interpretation of Tesscaline's position.

I'd like to know how you would interpret this interpretation of Tesscaline's position before I comment any further.

If you want to know what I thought about Tesscaline's inquiry regarding the actual costs: It shouldn't have been a part of the discussion unless they were looking for input on that matter. It seems largely irrelevant to the rule change and has provided a nice strike point for an irrelevant debate.

Since I see the matter of costs as largely irrelevant to the rule change, then I see Tesscaline's inquiry, Bookitty's interpretation of said position or inquiry, and your planned actions based on an informal poll of how others view Bookitty's interpretation of said position or inquiry largely as a predictable distraction from what is actually happening.

PS: What really has me curious is that not one skeptic is jumping on the use of "first heard about TAM" question to value the forum's impact on TAM attendance. Had I the time to attend TAM it would be largely to meet the people I have met here and to hear speakers that I learned about through the forum. The fact that I first heard of TAM somewhere else would not change that fact. Now, that is not to say that the question is "bad" only that it doesn't shed much light on the relationship between the forums and TAM attendance.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Your course of action and needs should concern me how?

I never said it should. You were saying about self-importance?

 

[bookitty]

Agreed - I think the data is purely a starting point for further research, not a direct indication of the primary factor for attendance. Since DJ does not want to post on the matter anymore, we are left to specualte his priority criteria. Is TAM attendace a greater revenue generator than other items and therfore resources are put where TAM attendance is generated?

As to why a limited number of people jumped on the data issue, that's easy. Judging by some of the posts in this thread, we have far more important fights to pick with one another.


CT

The JREF is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting critical thinking. Generating revenue is an important part of furthering this goal but it is not the major focus. I would hope that the primary purpose of TAM is to educate and foster community.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Generating revenue is an important part of furthering this goal but it is not the major focus.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time accepting the benevolence argument when someone is paying themselves such a high salary. I own a for-profit corporation, and I am the first person to take a pay-cut when things get tight. I have zero sympathy for an organization who complains about costs while the top executives (all two of them) are taking 1/3 of the revenue. If someone really cares about a cause, they don't take a big chunk of its resources for themselves.

 

[Alareth]

We can probably safely conclude that the vast majority of forum members have never joined the JREF, never supported it financially, nor attended TAM. Some may even be hostile to the idea. That's fine, of course, since there are many types of folks in the world, and both TAM, and the JREF as a small nonprofit with a niche mission, may not be everyone's cup of tea. But I wouldn't want folks to think incorrectly that the JREF forum represents a big financial windfall for the JREF. Operationally speaking, it is a money loser. We are ok with that, of course, because it helps foster skeptical community and because it is a valuable skeptical resource on the web, as I said before.

While I have never been a card carrying member of JREF proper, when the option was available to donate, I did financially contribute directly to the forum and would do so again if the donate button returned.

 

[bookitty]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time accepting the benevolence argument when someone is paying themselves such a high salary. I own a for-profit corporation, and I am the first person to take a pay-cut when things get tight. I have zero sympathy for an organization who complains about costs while the top executives (all two of them) are taking 1/3 of the revenue. If someone really cares about a cause, they don't take a big chunk of its resources for themselves.

Fair enough. I haven't gone over the actual numbers but I'll take 1/3 as accurate. This isn't that uncommon among smaller non-profits and the reasons for that would be an entirely different thread. If the primary goals of the JREF are fund-raising, and the cost of the forum is seen as considerable, the forum may have limited value for the organization.

 

[krelnik]

I'm not taking one side or another in this discussion, but those of you interested in the cost/benefit analysis of the forum to JREF should consider the following...

As a voluminous source of new content bearing randi.org URLs, the forum increases the "interestingness" of this domain to Google and other search engines. Freshness of content is definitely a signal that Google considers.

So, while much of the content may not directly advance the Foundation's goals, its constant growth indirectly increases the visibility of RANDI.ORG to internet searchers.

 

[not daSkeptic]

So, while much of the content may not directly advance the Foundation's goals, its constant growth indirectly increases the visibility of RANDI.ORG to internet searchers.

Yes, it does, and in today's world that has business value.

 

[not daSkeptic]

This isn't that uncommon among smaller non-profits and the reasons for that would be an entirely different thread.

You're right, it's quite common. I've had professional relationships with many non-profits over the years (the JREF included), and I'm quite familiar with the behind-the-scenes goings on in such places. The one thing that I can say for certain is that I've seen nothing to indicate that non-profits are any different than for-profits with regard to the sorts of things that go on behind closed doors. To be clear, I'm not talking about illegal activities. I simply mean that when it comes to the business side of things, non-profits are still businesses just like for-profits. The only real distinction is tax liability and the legal prohibition against owners of non-profits taking a cut of net-income.

If the primary goals of the JREF are fund-raising, and the cost of the forum is seen as considerable, the forum may have limited value for the organization.

Nobody has questioned the degree of value the forum provides. It was simply asserted that it provides some business value, in contrast to the suggestion that it's purely altruistic.

 

[tesscaline]

So the forum offers a vague benefit with no downside to the JREF.

Where did I say that?

This unsubstantiated benefit can be sorta maybe tracked to TAM and fundraising.

Sorta maybe? Evidence was provided that benefit can be tracked directly to increased TAM revenue, increased donor revenue, and revenue (small as it may be) from google ads. In addition to that, benefit does not necessarily have to be direct. The JREF receives publicity from the forum. If you do google searches on some of the topics discussed here, the JREF forums are the first hits, and sometimes the only hits. Publicity is good for businesses, as it increases visibility, and makes it more likely that money will be spent on them by consumers/donors just because that's the name they know. There is considerable business value in being a large, well known, entity. The forums aid in the pursuit of said business value.

This forum is offered for free in order to scam the "unsuspecting." Therefore extreme vigilance is necessary at all times.

Again, this is not something I said. At no point have I used the word scam to describe the JREF's activities. Just because something is a common marketing tactic does not make it a "scam". There is nothing wrong with a business (non-profit or otherwise) attempting to use tried and true marketing techniques. My objection is when those marketing techniques get used instead of open, no-nonsense, dialogue when attempting to respond to legitimate concerns from a significant number of unhappy "customers".

The idea that every utterance, regardless of source, needs to be combed through and treated as hostile seems a bit paranoid.

Who is expressing this idea, other than you? I see no such statements in my posts.

Even Penn Jillette, noted caustic skeptic, reserves his ire for people who are actually doing harm. There is no reason to treat DJ Grothe's statement as though it came from someone who has ill-will towards the forum or seeks to harm or scam the members in any way.

I'm certainly not doing that. A factual claim was made. I disputed it's accuracy. That you insist on making more of that, and attributing motives to me that I do not have says more about you than it does about me.

You asked if we would let a claim go if it were a woo. Perhaps not but I would hope that so-called skeptical inquiry would not include intellectually dishonest tactics.

Then maybe you should stop using them. So far, you've repeatedly created more strawmen than I care to count, and attempted to attack the arguer instead of the arguments put forth.

Like, for example, editing a rather long run-on sentence down to it's first phrase in order to create faux outrage.

Highlighting a factual claim within a statement, and addressing the possible inaccuracies it, is not the above, so I have no idea who you're talking to anymore.

 

[Varanid]

. The only real distinction is tax liability and the legal prohibition against owners of non-profits taking a cut of net-income.

I would take exception to this characterization. The real distinction is that a non-profit exists to further it's mission. A for-profit venture exists to make profit for its owners/shareholders.

Everything flows from that first precept. Now, sure, NPs have to pay bills, etc. But there is a fundamental difference, at least in my mind.

 

[tesscaline]

I would take exception to this characterization. The real distinction is that a non-profit exists to further it's mission. A for-profit venture exists to make profit for its owners/shareholders.

Everything flows from that first precept. Now, sure, NPs have to pay bills, etc. But there is a fundamental difference, at least in my mind.

While I agree with the idea, the thing is, "making profit for owners/shareholders" is the mission of a for-profit organization. So both exist to further their missions. The only difference is what those missions are. Which is not a business distinction, but an ideological one.

 

[Varanid]

While I agree with the idea, the thing is, "making profit for owners/shareholders" is the mission of a for-profit organization. So both exist to further their missions. The only difference is what those missions are. Which is not a business distinction, but an ideological one.

You want a piece of me too lady?

Oh, sorry....got carried away with the thread.


I hear ya, but I do think there are differences that manifest in day to day operations. A small example, if you will indulge me:

Let's say I am putting on a class. I have 2 kids sign up. I am going to lose money on the venture (my time or wages for some other teacher, supplies, valium, etc. subtracted from the whopping $20 I will make off of two kids).

Do I still do the program? Usually.

I am there to educate people first (among other things). Sure, I need money to make that happen, but that is the ultimate goal. The money is secondary (almost by definition).

Contrast this with a random for profit kids programming venue. They (if they are smart) will no doubt cancel the program because it won't make money. Let the kids get educated somewhere else.

Honestly, I have lost track of the meta-discussion and how (if at all) this applies to it. Sorry for any derail.


ETA: As soon as I wrote this, it occurs to me that there are likely others who run a non-profit that would completely disagree with me on this decision, and would be more ruthless about the bottom line so that they could better execute the mission.

In summary: WTF do I know? lol

 

[tesscaline]

You want a piece of me too lady?

Yes please

Oh, sorry....got carried away with the thread.


I hear ya, but I do think there are differences that manifest in day to day operations. A small example, if you will indulge me:

Let's say I am putting on a class. I have 2 kids sign up. I am going to lose money on the venture (my time or wages for some other teacher, supplies, valium, etc. subtracted from the whopping $20 I will make off of two kids).

Do I still do the program? Usually.

I am there to educate people first (among other things). Sure, I need money to make that happen, but that is the ultimate goal. The money is secondary (almost by definition).

Contrast this with a random for profit kids programming venue. They (if they are smart) will no doubt cancel the program because it won't make money. Let the kids get educated somewhere else.

Honestly, I have lost track of the meta-discussion and how (if at all) this applies to it. Sorry for any derail.


ETA: As soon as I wrote this, it occurs to me that there are likely others who run a non-profit that would completely disagree with me on this decision, and would be more ruthless about the bottom line so that they could better execute the mission.

In summary: WTF do I know? lol

*laughs* So, you're saying that the difference between a for-profit business and a non-profit business is that one has the goal of making a profit, whereas the other doesn't have a goal of making a profit? I thought that was a foregone conclusion.

Maybe I explained badly in my response.

Both non-profits and for-profits have mission statements. They are both formed, and dedicated, to meeting those missions. The only difference between the two is the ideology behind those missions (and subsequently, the protections afforded by the government for those missions -- i.e. taxation differences, and regulation of net-income distribution). That a non-profit dedicates itself to fulfilling it's mission is no different than a for-profit business.

And yes, there are many non-profits out there which have an ulterior motive to line the pockets of the owners. It's not illegal. It's just the way in which that happens is different in business and accounting terms. In a for-profit business, an owner/shareholder can take a cut of net income, dividends can be paid. In a non-profit, this is not allowed -- they have to be paid a set salary, as an employee, that is disclosed and reported upon.

And it's those business/accounting differences which daSkeptic was responding to (and now I am), not any ideological ones. You got caught up in the ideological ones. Talking past one another happens.

 

[ZirconBlue]

While I have never been a card carrying member of JREF proper, when the option was available to donate, I did financially contribute directly to the forum and would do so again if the donate button returned.

Same here. Frankly, I expected it to be something of an annual thing, rather than one-off fundraiser.

 

[not daSkeptic]

And it's those business/accounting differences which daSkeptic was responding to (and now I am), not any ideological ones.

Exactly. The differences lie in the implementation, not the objectives. Both can be money-makers, both can be benevolent. How the goals are achieved is what varies.

Ultimately, my point has been that the JREF is, at least at some level, a business; and as such they sometimes have to do business things. There's nothing wrong with that, but there are times when it seems as if they're going out of their way to obfuscate this fact and put on an image of the cash-strapped, charitable organization that only cares about furthering the cause. It's insulting.