A Land Far Away

All right.

So far, from polls, we have seen that the majority of our active forum users are for donations, and against incorporation. We have went through most of the typical questions that arise, and looked at various ways of sorting them out.

Taking all the feedback both from public forums and private chats with various individuals into consideration, I have come up with a proposal.

ALFA will remain such as it is, and not incorporate.

A known, trustworthy individual will be asked to step up to recieve donations in his/her name. This person will make whatever purchase(s) IA and TA + staffs considers to be the best option for ALFA based on the sum recieved and thorough testing/discussion.The individual will retain legal ownership. There will be no set timeframe on donations, but goals will be presented on the webpage.

Should said goals not be reached within a reasonable timeframe (read before nwn2 servers are ready to be hosted) we decide on other spending options and vote.

Donations will start as soon as this individual steps up, and some basic guidelines are agreed upon by the admin body.

An addendum to the charter may be proposed to the HDMs where guidelines regarding IA+staff turnover and other releant changes are voted on if necessary.

Should said individual disappear with money/equipment, they would face an immediate lifetime ban from ALFA


Please only post in this thread if it is relevant to the poll. Discussion should be done in the other 2 stickyd threads.

With the proviso that whoever is picked for the position faces a straight up permanent ban from the community if they break the trust (ie stealing money) i am for it. There needs to be a very clear and harsh consequence for breaking the trust of the community once actual money becomes involved.

Swift wrote:With the proviso that whoever is picked for the position faces a straight up permanent ban from the community if they break the trust (ie stealing money) i am for it. There needs to be a very clear and harsh consequence for breaking the trust of the community once actual money becomes involved.

Oh yeah, i guess i felt that would be obvious. But yeah, ill add that.

As long as that known, trustworthy individual is me, i vote yes.

Seriously, who is going to determine whom in this community fits that bill? And if the only repercussions for running with the money is to get a lifetime ban from ALFA, what's the point? What about criminal prosecution, civil penalties, no sex for a year? And, what prevents that person from rejoining alfa with a new account, regaining this community's trust all over again, and doing the double-shuffle?

Oi... i'm sorry Zic, this is just not working for me. I already helped put 4 people in prison for scams, and this doesn't smell all that different. I'm not saying this is your intent, but it will likely be the end result.

White Warlock wrote:As long as that known, trustworthy individual is me, i vote yes.

Seriously, who is going to determine whom in this community fits that bill? And if the only repercussions for running with the money is to get a lifetime ban from ALFA, what's the point? What about criminal prosecution, civil penalties, no sex for a year? And, what prevents that person from rejoining alfa with a new account, regaining this community's trust all over again, and doing the double-shuffle?

Oi... i'm sorry Zic, this is just not working for me. I already helped put 4 people in prison for scams, and this doesn't smell all that different. I'm not saying this is your intent, but it will likely be the end result.

You have made it clear that you wont donate in 3 separate threads now. I get it, you wont donate. I allready said that discussion about this goes in the other thread, Only post here if you voted 1 of the two options that require it, and only to express the reason.

I would donate if not incorporated. I would donate more if incorporated.

I voted no. I'm just not comfortable in making a single individual legally responsible for anything that could go wrong in ALFA. By that I don't just mean accusations of funds going awry (I worry less about actual missappropriation than disgruntled claims of it) but also that the individual would be responsible for any claims of inappropriate cyber on the server(of which legal threats have been made in the past), harrassment, age appropriateness of material etc. Not that those aren't minor worries now but with money involved and a single individual it becomes of more concern.

FYI: The beauty is if you don't feel comfy with it you don't have to participate in the fundraising....so those who vote no have absolutley nothing to loose if it goes forward eh?

I am more or less in favour of the proposal. But I am currently unwilling to make a donation. This may change later on when I feel I can trust the individual I am donating to and I see that there is a real need for me to donate (Not that $NZ are really worth anything...)

[Moved, sort of, through quoting]

Mulu wrote:Mik was incorrect when she said there would be no legal recourse if the trusted individual absconded with the funds/equipment. Such an action would be an act of fraud, and that's true even in the money was given as a donation.

If I claim to be collecting money for purpose X, and you give me a donation, and I then spend the money in Vegas and you find out, well, that's fraud, technically fraud in the inducement. The actual legal repercussion would be determined by the laws of the relevant jurisdiction. Happens with soccer moms alot, when they collect money for sports equipment and then go on a spree instead.

Of course, legal action would have to be by the individuals who donated and any appropriate law enforcement agencies, not the non-existant ALFA.

Anyway, back to the discussion.

Please move this to the discussion threads. Read the initial post of this thread for info.

I would not donate unless someone was very trustworthy and a long long standing member of ALFA. I can only think of one person or two that would fit that bill and only one is an Admin currently.

[double postage :lawl:]

I voted option 4 "I would make a donation even if ALFA is not incorporated, but i disagree with <post> of your proposal"

I also think this being the final poll on donations may be premature. There's alot of community consultation still to go on such a contentious issue IMHO.

ALFA will remain such as it is, and not incorporate.

I favour not-for-profit incorporation but that doesnt mean I wont donate. Similarly as Blackwill stated, I'd give more to a not-for-profit incorporated entity than I would to this person you've mentioned in your proposal.

A known, trustworthy individual will be asked to step up to recieve donations in his/her name. This person will make whatever purchase(s) IA and TA + staffs considers to be the best option for ALFA based on the sum recieved and thorough testing/discussion.The individual will retain legal ownership.

Not a fan of this approach. I'd prefer a duly elected community treasurer to control the pursestrings/count the beans but I believe it is best if this person not be the buyer and not own the gear. Once again I favour not-for-profit incorporation to clearly take care of questions of ownership and access.

There will be no set timeframe on donations, but goals will be presented on the webpage.

Fair enough. Anonimity is crucial. A new alfa pillar should be considered which goes something like "if you dont want to donate thats your perogative and no one here will question it or hold it against you. Donors get no special treatment.".
Treat all donations as One-off, anonymous, irreversible donations.

Should said goals not be reached within a reasonable timeframe (read before nwn2 servers are ready to be hosted) we decide on other spending options and vote.

Fair enough as long as there is majority community agreement on the goals and its a fair and open consultation.

Donations will start as soon as this individual steps up, and some basic guidelines are agreed upon by the admin body.

Fine. See my response above though.

An addendum to the charter may be proposed to the HDMs where guidelines regarding IA+staff turnover and other releant changes are voted on if necessary.

once again, community consultation should be a part of this process though not necessarily as extensive as the infrastructure goals & expenditure consultation.

Should said individual disappear with money/equipment, they would face an immediate lifetime ban from ALFA

Not harsh enough and not a deterrent, we need legal recourse IMHO. Good people sometimes do very odd things if they have the opportunity and the motivation. Examples might be gambling (or any type of) addiction, some personal tragedy befalling this person that extra money might solve, etc. Call me cynical but I guess what I am saying is, anyone can justify anything to themselves.

Suggestion: Add that the donation handler and purchaser needs to deposit their personal data with the current admin on a confidential basis (which requires the donation liaison to also trust some ALFAns - nice symmetry) so we can consider legal repercussions.

It may be wise to also pick our handler in accordance with the laws on donation fraud in the country where they are citizen.

That said, I still hope / don't think we'd need this, but it's certainly not a loss to add it.