• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom