Skydancer -- A Democratic Bluelight *see first post for link to Skydancer's response*

Glowbug, the non-profit thing has been discussed before and the general impression has been it'd be a whole lot of trouble for not much benefit. To begin with, what you and I think of as not-for-profit, is going to be different than it is in europe where the server is based. Then you got to hire a lawyer and an accountant and submit papers and more papers and more papers. And what do you get out of it? Nothing. And the donor thing has been tried, and the selling of test kits and apparel. I think bluelight raised enough money doing that to pay for 2 weeks of operating expenses. Let's face it, druggies spend their money on drugs. :\
 
Re: TLB asked....

Originally posted by BIWHM
"What should be done?"

Mods took ownership of their forums. Let's say that I mod a forum (say, New to Ecstasy). And only myself and one other mod are active. So, I email the other two and say "hey, notice you haven't been posting much, do you still have time to mod?". And let's say Day for Night writes back and says "no, I'm too busy with Other Drugs, get someone else in". And the other mod doesn't reply at all and hasn't posted in months.

So I go to MPC and ask for those two to be removed (saying why). Then we call for nominations in the forum for new mods. People put themselves forward, the forum mods and admins and anyone else interested discuss in MPC, and we chose two new mods.

Decision made, from the ground up.


spot on, imo.


also, this is some stuff quoted from the "post quotas" thread, but i think it's more relevant here:

Originally posted by alasdairm
^ perhaps i didn't make myself clear.

the quota system says "active moderators are important to the success of a forum". if forum success is a concern, why has DC been without moderators for so long?

Originally posted by frizzantik
Just because someone posts often doesn't mean they will automatically be made a mod..

that's exactly what happened in f&t. don't get me wrong, rc was and 1234 is an excellent moderator in that forum but they posted a lot and were, one day and with no consultation, automatically made moderators of the forum.

i'm not stirring things here - i'm just seeing a lot of inconsistency on the message.

alasdair


oh how narcissistic of me: finally i'm choosing my time to begin commenting in this thread and it's at the same time that my name is brought up.

but it's a good starting point: when i was made mod of film & tv, i definitely wanted the position. if my memory serves me correctly, i had made contact with alasdair and noted the fact that i would like to be considered for the position. nonetheless, i was made moderator (almost unbeknownst to me) a few days later with, it seems, no consultation with the previous/current moderators whatsoever.

it's not a decision i was entirely happy with: i felt that i could have gotten to that position on my own merits, and would have much preferred to have had the opportunity to do so. i can only hope that alasdair, wanderlust and randycaver have (had) been happy with my modding since then, but i was rather uncomfortable having been given my position on such grounds.

on the post quotas: all that i think has already been said. i think the whole fucking idea is horrible. like pleo alluded to, i would much rather see a mod who edits ten posts a month and spends, perhaps, another ten posts getting threads back on track when they may have been heading in the wrong direction. it might seem trivial, but i think one of the most important duties of a moderator is to keep a thread on the right track when it appears to be disintegrating. not just to post, and post, and post, and post.

-thoth is one of the best examples of this, but i would - to make use of my rather horrible memory - also include plazma (words) and nickthecheese (trip reports). these people were all good moderators who were either fired or forced to retire because of these stupid fucking post quotas.

on another note, now i'm a super moderator, it seems. i'm fairly comfortable with the position. what i find interesting is the fact that i replied to the "would you like to be a senior moderator" query with a "what does it entail?" response. five days later, i notice a thread in the staff forum about my new position. so, er, what can i do? what should i be doing? i don't know.

i'm happy enough to keep the position, but some clarity would be nice - something that the current senior administrators don't seem to be able to provide, however. i assume, though, that this means catch has signed in sometime recently though, or is someone else responsible for my new position?

on an aside, some really amazingly insightful posts have been made in this thread, and i'd like to extend my gratitude to those - all of you: moderators, admins, ex-mods and admins, BLers - who have posted. it's been really good to see how much passion people really hold for this website and its cause :)
 
Shitstorm!

I just can't bring myself to care about this as much as the rest of you guys. I've been fucked by catch, I think I was one of the first, after the deposed admins, to get a taste of the new style, but I got over it after alot of handwringing. I realized that there are things I'd love to see happen here: a more easy-going approach, especially in the staff forum, and in support, a larger and more diverse body of people at the policy level, more transparency, a return to the bottom-up management of intra-forum business, et cetera.

I however, don't have a right to make those demands. I don't pay to use bluelight, and I don't contribute anything that many others could do. All I can do is ask, and that is what I'm doing here by posting. People who called for catch's resignation forget themselves. You (those people) aren't as valuable as you think you are, you are in no place to demote a staff member who has put in so much time here. Do you even realize that you're simply substituting your own will for catch and Walt's when you call for blood?

Anyway, I'm seriosuly praying for the solution that best benefits bluelight's cause and its community. I'm too smart to think I know what that solution is, but I have my ideas, and so do, it seems, several very thoughtful posters. I am also, however, taking bets on the probability of the senior admins not taking any action other than closing this thread after a short, kurt reply. Seriosuly, what would most of you do? Leave? Wage DNS attacks on the server? Start your own board? No, you'd go back to whatever forum you're looking at in your other tab, and eventually, your anger would subside.
 
Re: Shitstorm!

atlas said:


I however, don't have a right to make those demands. I don't pay to use bluelight, and I don't contribute anything that many others could do. All I can do is ask, and that is what I'm doing here by posting. People who called for catch's resignation forget themselves. You (those people) aren't as valuable as you think you are, you are in no place to demote a staff member who has put in so much time here. Do you even realize that you're simply substituting your own will for catch and Walt's when you call for blood?
Click to expand...

So your saying that us posters have no say? That is wrong, because without us there would be no BL, well there would be, but it would be worthless.Because no one would come, we contribute just as much as anyone else, without us, the admins/mods etc, would have nothing to do here. So to say we have no say is wrong IMO. I'm not saying catch should resign though, i think he should listen to what we have to say. We help run this site whether or not you disagree with that, it's the truth.
 
Re: Shitstorm!

atlas said:

you'd go back to whatever forum you're looking at in your other tab, and eventually, your anger would subside.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Perhaps not. BL is quite a fluid community as it is. People leave all the time for various reasons (work/college/feed the dog). But I think Catch 22's autocratic style, in the case of EDD, is going to give a whole load of people reason to leave.

The whole thing bugs me because I feel indirectly responsible for all of this. I posted this
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181790&r=43
and just a few days later the shit hit the fan with C22. The complaints he spoke of looked an awful lot like they came from me. But they didn't. I was all for sorting out EDD, but, as others have said in this thread, from the ground up.
Not from some ridiculously arbitrary poll.

Sort it out C22. Start by withdrawing the poll. It isn't attracting any significant votes and you look pretty stupid.
 
Its fine to want things back the way they used to be BUT do realize that there is current people who want good things, and deserve spots they have been given. Its kinda discomforting to see people wanting "the old spot" back when there is fully capable people who have replaced them. It sucks but if you want the true goal to be met realize you may not be in the "position" you want in the long run. Hopefully that makes sense.

Nice post Atlas.
 
glowbug said:
Actually, attaining nonprofit status would greatly enhance BL's ability to attract other donations, as it would give BL legitimacy and serve as a form of assurance that any monies donated were being utilized for the donor's intended purpose...
Click to expand...
You didn't say this, but if you are thinking in terms of attracting donations because they would provide a tax incentative to the donor, that is not universally the case.

To obtain a tax deduction by making a donation to a not-for-profit that, not-for-profit must be incorporated in the country in which you pay taxes. I'm not so sure how this may play out in Europe where the borders are somewhat blurred, but in the US to receive a tax deduction the not-for-profit must be registered within the US.

It is a case of act globably, think locally.
 
^ (to dream) but then there's forums without enough mods (such as OD) and forums with NO mods (like DC), and i'm positive that former mods of such forums would love to have their positions back because the help is rather obviously needed, imo. but i do agree with you when replacements are fully capable and performing well.
 
Blue_Lava said:
Glowbug, the non-profit thing has been discussed before and the general impression has been it'd be a whole lot of trouble for not much benefit. To begin with, what you and I think of as not-for-profit, is going to be different than it is in europe where the server is based. Then you got to hire a lawyer and an accountant and submit papers and more papers and more papers. And what do you get out of it? Nothing. And the donor thing has been tried, and the selling of test kits and apparel. I think bluelight raised enough money doing that to pay for 2 weeks of operating expenses. Let's face it, druggies spend their money on drugs. :\
Click to expand...

I like the idea on paper, but the above are several of many relevant reasons why Bluelight becoming a non-profit organization isn't really feasible, but the one that immediately comes to mind is liability. We live in an extremely litigious society and we've already lost several of our members to drug-related issues. An incorporation would put us in a position where we would then be a suable entity. I don't think that's in Bluelight's best interest.

(-mariposa, employee of trial lawyers ;))

If anyone is serious about the idea, though, I know an attorney in the Netherlands I could run a hypothetical by.

I think that structuring Bluelight in a more "corporate" fashion would encourage responsibility, transparency and thus accountability, and hopefully also enhance the community aspect of the site by improving overall morale.
 
All the non-profits I worked for transferred legal liabilty to the public officer (read: fall guy) who was usually a volunteer lacking any assets, whom nobody with an inch of sanity would consider a worthy target for litigation. Its also concievable that incorporation could reduce liability, by sheilding induviduals from the liability they already currently face. SD, for example, seems pretty exposed.

The liability isssue also relates to where you actually incoporate. Anyway, its not a huge issue. BL could operate in all but name in this manner without incorporating, but adopting its trappings. Drafting a constitution regarding the operation of this place would be a good start.
 
^^^
(to mariposa)
I'm sure it would be possible to dig up some poor sap from somewhere ;)

No, but seriously now... The person who accepts liability just needs to be someone who makes a profoundly unprofitable legal target. Plus, I tend to think the realistic likelyhood of acutually getting sued is overstated... We don't sell stuff, we don't publicly soclicit donations, we haven't pissed of the establishment too much... Apart from the controversial subject matter, BL is a pretty tame entity.
 
Blue_Lava said:
Glowbug, the non-profit thing has been discussed before and the general impression has been it'd be a whole lot of trouble for not much benefit. To begin with, what you and I think of as not-for-profit, is going to be different than it is in europe where the server is based. Then you got to hire a lawyer and an accountant and submit papers and more papers and more papers. And what do you get out of it? Nothing. And the donor thing has been tried, and the selling of test kits and apparel. I think bluelight raised enough money doing that to pay for 2 weeks of operating expenses. Let's face it, druggies spend their money on drugs. :\
Click to expand...

Your point's well taken, B_L, but I was thinking bigger fish, like institutional political action organizations such as MoveOn.org (just an example, but certainly there are funding organizations out there that individuals like Soros fund). If BL ever went nonprofit, the members of the executive board would have to be SERIOUS with their fundraising efforts.

And I can't speak for the legal framework in European states, but here in the US the corporate entity protects individuals in almost all instances from individual liability (I'm talking here in terms of civil liability). The only reason an actual person has to be named is for service of process against the corporation. As far as liability against the nonprofit corporation goes, well of course you'd have to obtain liability insurance protecting the corporation from malfeasance by its agents, but I can't see any liability arising from just the online operations.

Another option that would offer similar benefits/protections is to consider a private limited liability company status. Here in the US, many States offer such an entity that offers many of the benefits of public incorporation without all the paperwork headaches. Again, I don't know what the European equivalent would be (possibly the Ltd. structure).
 
On the issue of the cost of adopting "LLC" status here in the States, to use North Carolina as an example:

Filing Fee: $250
Legal Fee: $500-1,000
 
You can order kits that will allow you to do this yourself for 300, and you can avoid the legal fee.

Just a note, I don't know that I support this idea.
 
I have formed Florida, Nevada and Delaware corporations and LLCs as a legal assistant, it's not hard to do, but if our server is physically located in the EU does that present a problem? Of course we'd have to have a registered agent in the US to accept any service and be responsible for filing annual reports. Who would want that responsibility? Not me. ;)

I would not want to see a corporate structure created except by an attorney. On one hand it is indeed a matter of filling out forms, but the potential ramifications need to be discussed, particularly in light of our subject matter, with an actual attorney- probably an EU attorney.

Maybe start a little closer to the ground with a formal business plan to support the mission statement?

This is a more complex legal issue than it appears to be on the surface. I'd like to hear xtcxtc's opinion on whether he would support proceeding in such a direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top