Skip to main content

View Diary: A Scold (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not really. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There are many, many needy causes that deserve funding.

    Just because a Kossack has decided to get on board with a particular cause doesn't mean we all should alter our giving.

    So - no, that attitude wasn't out of line.  I found this diary insulting.  I don't care what you or Mike Stark, whoever you all are, think I should do with my donations.  

    We are all free to make our own choices.

    •  I agree with you completely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Being asked to donate to a cause is one thing.

      Being, essentially, ordered to donate to a cause is quite another.  If the cause is worthwhile, a thorough and coherent request will work.  This wasn't a request, and it wasn't explained especially well.  Further, the implicit sense of entitlement made me feel like a human ATM.

      I have money to donate.  I believe in donating.  There are a number of causes and a number of people I consider worthwhile to support.  I don't have so much money that I can donate to all of them, unfortunately...and I get plenty of requests each month for additional worthy causes and people.  Some are well-written and worthwhile enough that they manage to shoot to the top of my donation list.  Others I put on a "donate next time I have money available" list, and wish I didn't have to wait.  And some get tossed.  This is usually not because I don't think the cause or person is worthwhile per se, but perhaps the request wasn't well-explained, or what happens to the money donated is not sufficiently documented, or so forth.

      I'm sure that the four grant winners mentioned are fine and deserving people.  I'm glad that, reading the update, that enough money has been given by others that the award can be funded for at least a little longer.  But the particular approach chosen here has not convinced me to select this cause for a donation now or in the near future.

      Vinegar can work.  It's worked well enough in this instance to fund Marcotte's grant.  But in my experience, honey attracts more flies.  If you want this to become truly sustainable, Mike, I recommend you lose the scolding angle.  In the first place, I believe it's fundamentally against the very spirit of donations to be guilting people into them.  In the second place, I daresay most people here worked hard for every cent they have - they deserve to be shown a little respect in a request, rather than ordered, and scolded when you know nothing of most people's circumstances or what they have contributed (in any form, not just financial) to make this world a better place.  Again, something like this scolding smells rather of entitlement.  I recall a previous request for money on your part, last year during the Allen campaign, and you handled that one much better.  It was very successful, too, and I wonder if you became used enough to people donating because you asked that you just started expecting it to happen every time.  It once seemed to kind of humble and blow you away when people trusted you with their money, and now you're demanding money and scolding people for allegedly giving insufficiently.

      •  Just a short response: (0+ / 0-)

        First of all, when I asked for money last time, when I was working on Allen ads, I really was asking for "personal" funding for a pet project.  I was floored that people trusted me so implicitly.

        Here, the situation is different:  I actually have very little control over the money raised.  I'm one vote of three; y'all control the rest of the process through the nominations.

        Third, I'd suggest that notwithstanding the title of the diary, I used more logic than "scold" in making the case.  I mean, I think it's probably safe to say that 75% of the money raised by candidates ends up in the pockets of big media (including Fox, Disney and General Electric) and an inbred and ineffective class of consultants.

        Meanwhile, money given to this cause is turned over to people that have real differences in netroots-centric ways.  The return on investment is huge compared to candidate donations.

        Now I've said all of this in previous diaries - and raised less than $1,000, all told.  So far, in about 12 hours, we've raised close to $5,000.  Whatever your feelings regarding my technique, I've finally hit on something that works.  Y'all won't need to hear from me for almost half a year (though you undoubtedly will - in addition to funding awards, I hope to be able to fund small-dollar activist projects - I just have to develop a system of controls and result measurement.)

        Anyway, I'm sorry you didn't like the tone.  But "honey" - after three tries - was found to be lacking.  I'm committed to this project and I didn't want to walk away from it without trying everything I could to make it work.  Last resorts and all...

        •  Have you really "hit on something that works"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Black Knight

          Or were you just lucky to post at a time when people happened to be paying attention? Or perhaps this time you brought up facts you hadn't brought up before?

          During the first week of the year, I posted a five-part original interview with the chair of  International World Television (see "IWT" in my sig line), a non-profit organization that is very important to me. A couple of diaries on IWT a year and a half earlier had attracted hundreds of comments and recommendations, and I wanted people to know that IWT was still hard at work.

          Despite a very labor-intensive publicity campaign from me for the series (to say nothing of the time it took to write it in the first place), it never attracted the attention that I would have liked. During the same week, thousands of comments went into a pointless exchange over whether Maryscott OConnor was correct in defending an alleged troll. Naturally, I was annoyed by this, and it made me wonder whether the site really was achieving its potential. But I never thought that a "What the hell is wrong with you people?" post (of which there were already plenty) would ultimately help either IWT or the site. Nor did I think that those people and their money BELONGED to IWT and me, damn it.

          I admire your energy in pursuing money for a cause that is important to you. But I don't like the "How did my organization's money get into your pocket and why aren't you handing it back?" technique, and it won't work on me. I also suspect that if you try it again, it will lose its effectiveness. If not, then there really is something wrong with "these people".

    •  By "the attitude was out of line" (0+ / 0-)

      I choose to assume ronlib was referring to the diary's attitude, not mine, though I realize the wording was ambiguous.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site