MattK Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 1) I'm not sure how you can't look at those facebook comments and see it as rational discussion. I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing the situation - how is it that I am? 2) I don't know what 'honing empathy' means.3) You might be right that there is a better approach to addressing the issue of small donations, maybe not! What I was addressing was the reaction people have had to this, and the strawmanning of Stef - and this issue occuring within the community in general. This is way more important and interesting than discussing the tactfulness of someone's post on facebook, which at it's worse would come down a laps in judgement, which caring people would react to with curiosity, not pickforks.4) Where are people idolising Stef as perfect? Where are you getting the idea that "people should idolise him as perfect"? Stef is human, everyone knows this - if people are projected things onto him, like perfection, it has nothing to do with him.5) I'm sure the motive of the barman could be either one of your possiblities you present, it would be based on the character of the barman. We know Stef's character, and therefore know the answer - so there's no need for the question. Which is why I take issue with the question being use as allegory, because it's an unfair one.
MattK Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Are you claiming Stef doesn't want more money from his audience? No, that's not what I'm claiming. Where did I make this claim?
ribuck Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I'm not sure how you can't look at those facebook comments and see it as rational discussion. Sorry, I thought you were referring to this thread, not to Facebook.
MattK Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 It also applies to your bartender question. I don't understand the questions. Nathan is clearly drawning on an experience he's had that relates to this situation with donations. And you are asking the questions as allegory to explore Stef's motivations. The question "Do you think the bartender was saying this because he has found it to be an effective way to apply social pressure to encourage larger tips?" implies that Stef lies and manipulates to garnish larger donations, which is completely unfounded, unjust and a defamation of character - which falls more into the hate category than the rational discussion one... Am I misunderstanding you? Can you explain why you asked this question?
ribuck Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I don't understand the questions. I asked three questions of Nathan, in attempt to cover all of the possibilities. I would be interested in his reply, if he wishes to post one. If you see an allegory (or analogy), that's fine. If not, that's fine too. I'm not trying to push an analogy onto anyone. I live in Europe, and I find the whole American "tip the bartender" thing a bit weird anyway. However, I don't think I've ever met a bartender who would return a 50 cent tip to me out of genuine concern for my economic wellbeing. I'm sorry that you discern hatred here, but I don't feel any hatred. I don't know what more I can add.
sagiquarius Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Years and years ago bought a three dollar drink from a bartender, dropped 50 cents in his jar, he tilted the jar and gave it back saying "I think you need this more than I do." Would some one help me understand why getting a small amount (small compared to what?) is frowned upon? At what amount would it not be frowned upon? Perhaps I just need to be in "those shoes" to understand. It's not that I don't empathize with the feeling but I'm not understanding it's source nor can I envision myself feeling that way over a small donation or tip. Conversely, I don't understand why this dynamic exists to the degree that others would use it to say "fuck you" to another person. As in, "he was a shitter waiter so I'm leaving him my two cents, literally." Put it this way, it's as foreign to me as some one saying "bless you" or whatever in response to a sneeze. I'm being dense, yes?
MarisaO Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 3) You might be right that there is a better approach to addressing the issue of small donations, maybe not! What I was addressing was the reaction people have had to this, and the strawmanning of Stef - and this issue occuring within the community in general. This is way more important and interesting than discussing the tactfulness of someone's post on facebook, which at it's worse would come down a laps in judgement, which caring people would react to with curiosity, not pickforks. 4) Where are people idolising Stef as perfect? Where are you getting the idea that "people should idolise him as perfect"? Stef is human, everyone knows this - if people are projected things onto him, like perfection, it has nothing to do with him. I don't understand how you can see Stef's response as reasonable or a simple laps in judgement and yet frame his critics as uncaring for not expressing curiosity. Could you explain? Also, how do you know that if people are idolizing Stef, then it has nothing to do with him? Thanks.
Arius Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 It's doubtful that Stef lies to attract larger donations (he seems like an honest guy). He does make periodic requests for more money, occasionally resulting in things like this $2 thread. Personally, I find Stef much more conservative in his desire for money than I am. Me? There would be ads all over this forum. You know this web property is worth just under $70k (by traffic)? Building an advertising base for this forum would be so simple and lucrative. If the forum were split with a blog, both on the same domain, the advertising possibilities are staggering. I can't understand why there's a push for other people to do more to support FDR when the owner doesn't. It just confuses me. Stef can't exert social pressure on me or most of the people here, we've never met. The bartender has significantly more control over tip size than Stef does over donation amounts. Really, what can Stef even do that would exert social pressure? I'm pretty sure anyone who thinks Stef can manipulate the audience is projecting.
suomipoi Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 About the bartender thing... It's so hard to figure out the real intent on it on the web. I think it can be both. I don't know the facial expressions, body language and other stuff that took place in the bar. So I can't really say what did the bartender mean. It's so easy to misinterpret when you only see a short written expression about something. My first assumption in the bartender question was that she was using guilt/social pressure to encourage larger tips. Some side notes: Seriously - anyone who has listened to Stef and taken on the ideas here, and LIVES them, know that Stef is a good person I wouldn't use past behaviour as a proof for someone being right in the here and now. YLF - Genetic ... The question "Do you think the bartender was saying this because he has found it to be an effective way to apply social pressure to encourage larger tips?" implies that Stef lies and manipulates to garnish larger donations, which is completely unfounded, unjust and a defamation of character - Awhich falls more into the hate category than the rational discussion one... I myself don't understand how you get "manipulate" from "encourage" the only person here using that word is you. I think the previous speaker even toned down his wording when he used the word "encourage" instead of anything else. YLF - Strawman
PatrickC Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 I can't understand why there's a push for other people to do more to support FDR when the owner doesn't. It just confuses me. Then respectfully Arius I don't think you understand the business model.. Advertising is an entirely legitimate thing to do of course, but in the context of how Stef wants to do business, not an appropriate one. People can consider this to be a problem all they like, but for some people to suggest that Stef expressing his feelings don't matter because he doesn't advertise is to completely miss the point.
LovePrevails Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 $2 would be fine if every viewer who "liked" one of your videos did it once in a while. Though I can see why under the circustances it's infuriating/insulting. When I was out playing my guitar on the street some kids sniggered as they threw me their small change, but I thought if everyone who passed went ahead it would have actually made a lot, I felt lots of people wanted to give but felt like giving anything less than a sum they would miss would e insulting, if those people all gave whatever didn't hurt I would have been happy, but people don't! I don't know the truth of this one, I think if people who would never subscribe felt that $2 all added up it would be ok but it does seem a bit pointless. To say what?
Nathan Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Years and years ago bought a three dollar drink from a bartender, dropped 50 cents in his jar, he tilted the jar and gave it back saying "I think you need this more than I do." Would some one help me understand why getting a small amount (small compared to what?) is frowned upon? At what amount would it not be frowned upon? Perhaps I just need to be in "those shoes" to understand. It's not that I don't empathize with the feeling but I'm not understanding it's source nor can I envision myself feeling that way over a small donation or tip. Conversely, I don't understand why this dynamic exists to the degree that others would use it to say "fuck you" to another person. As in, "he was a shitter waiter so I'm leaving him my two cents, literally." Put it this way, it's as foreign to me as some one saying "bless you" or whatever in response to a sneeze. I'm being dense, yes? I don't know if you live in the U.S. but leaving a very small tip is often considered more of a statement than leaving no tip at all. It's also kind of passive aggressive. I can see why too, because it ensures that the waiter is not under the impression that you simply forgot. Again, if you look at this from Stef's point of view, he's living off donations. If I were living from donation to donation, or even depending on the timely payment of clients for my work just so that I could pay the bills, I would look in my inbox, see the e-mail about a donation, feel momentarily excited and then be a bit disappointed at the amount. All Stef "said" was a fucking sad face with a caveat that he doesn't want to sound ungreatful and apparently that was enough for overwhelming vitriol, stabby memes and flow charts. Yes digging, trolly flow charts based on a total straw man. That kind of overreaction is not the reaction of people who have a high level of self-awareness or empathy. Surely, for at least some of those people, Stef had earned at least a little curiosity before jumping to narratives, foregone conclusions and cold, calculated attacks. As someone who is a little critical of Stef's due diligence in research citations, you can't claim I'm saying this because I'm some mindless sycophant.
Arius Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Then respectfully Arius I don't think you understand the business model.. Advertising is an entirely legitimate thing to do of course, but in the context of how Stef wants to do business, not an appropriate one. People can consider this to be a problem all they like, but for some people to suggest that Stef expressing his feelings don't matter because he doesn't advertise is to completely miss the point. I think I understand the business model. Stef has explained it dozens of times. Go out into the street, practice philosophy, get free meals. I just don't see it working in the long-run. If revenues are gonna go up, there needs to be a product. Enjoying good conversations on a forum is neat, but not a product... or at least, not sold as one. If not advertising, why isn't there an extensive collection of merchandise? T-shirts, bumper stickers, books, mp3s, mugs, DVDs, anything. There's a large audience of interested people who would buy stuff if it were set in front of them. Socrates didn't have any access to mass media or eCommerce. I can't imagine that the philosopher wouldn't have sold a DVD collection of his greatest hits or manuals on philosophizing.
PatrickC Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 Then respectfully Arius I don't think you understand the business model.. Advertising is an entirely legitimate thing to do of course, but in the context of how Stef wants to do business, not an appropriate one. People can consider this to be a problem all they like, but for some people to suggest that Stef expressing his feelings don't matter because he doesn't advertise is to completely miss the point. I think I understand the business model. Stef has explained it dozens of times. Go out into the street, practice philosophy, get free meals. I just don't see it working in the long-run. If revenues are gonna go up, there needs to be a product. Enjoying good conversations on a forum is neat, but not a product... or at least, not sold as one. If not advertising, why isn't there an extensive collection of merchandise? T-shirts, bumper stickers, books, mp3s, mugs, DVDs, anything. There's a large audience of interested people who would buy stuff if it were set in front of them. Socrates didn't have any access to mass media or eCommerce. I can't imagine that the philosopher wouldn't have sold a DVD collection of his greatest hits or manuals on philosophizing. As I said previously... 'missing the point'....
Dirt McGirt Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 I don't see how Stef's Facebook post was rational, considering that someone only donated within the confines of Stef's own donation policy.
MarisaO Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 I don't see how Stef's Facebook post was rational, considering that someone only donated within the confines of Stef's own donation policy. This. I didn't have a strong reaction to the post, but I didn't understand why Stef was acting like $2 was a problem when he continually asks for "spare change" and "anything you can spare". It seems like the donation amount was a problem he created for himself and the vague sad face comment made it look like he saw himself as a victim of something.
Annabelle Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Regarding the argument that it would be better for people donating small amounts to save up and donate less frequently, the fact is that the savings incurred by a switch from monthly to yearly payments (for example) is identical no matter what amount you tend to donate per month. Let's assume a 2.9% transaction fee and a $0.30 fixed fee. Behold the math: The savings are simply 11 * fixed fee (which is $0.30). So, really, this paypal transaction fee argument applies just as much to $50 donations as it does to $2 donations. Thus, if the concern is raw dollar amounts lost to paypal, the consideration should be frequency of donation, not amount of donation. Using the paypal transaction fee line of reasoning, it is just as inconsiderate for a philosopher king to donate monthly through paypal, as it would be for $2 Bob to donate monthly through paypal.
ribuck Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Good analysis, Annabelle! It also highlights how large PayPal's fees are (and they're even higher for donations from other countries). Those who use Bitcoin will avoid these fees. And Bitcoin takes care of aggregating the small donations without further paperwork. Stef could just make one outgoing transaction per month for the full value of his bitcoin donation address, without needing to process each individual incoming transaction. This would even make it efficient to donate the equivalent of 50 cents every time one watches a video of his or listens to a podcast.
Libertus Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 This is proof that inflation is in fact happening, and significantly larger than what the Fed admits it to be. I just wanted to add my 10 cents to the discussion. Here's a quote from the rapper 50 cents, or, as he's being called in Zimbabwe: 50 Trillion Dollars: "Always have bail money."
PatrickC Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Thus, if the concern is raw dollar amounts lost to paypal, the consideration should be frequency of donation, not amount of donation. Using the paypal transaction fee line of reasoning, it is just as inconsiderate for a philosopher king to donate monthly through paypal, as it would be for $2 Bob to donate monthly through paypal. What exactly does this have to do with Stef's original post? And I really can't help but notice that those going down this route are not donators, which (for what it's worth) irritates me somewhat.
ribuck Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 And I really can't help but notice that those going down this route are not donators How can you tell? As far as I know, only automated monthly donors get badges.
PatrickC Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 And I really can't help but notice that those going down this route are not donators How can you tell? As far as I know, only automated monthly donors get badges. Well those that do, are free to correct me of course.
ribuck Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Well those that do, are free to correct me of course. I'm a donor. But it makes no sense for you to care about that. The merits or otherwise of an argument don't depend on donations.
PatrickC Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Well those that do, are free to correct me of course. I'm a donor. But it makes no sense for you to care about that. The merits or otherwise of an argument don't depend on donations. But as I said previously, since you like changing the goal post.. (and decide to confide in your 'apparent' donorship), what has this to do with Stef's original post?
Dirt McGirt Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 And I really can't help but notice that those going down this route are not donators How can you tell? As far as I know, only automated monthly donors get badges. Well those that do, are free to correct me of course. So you can just throw out an assertion without evidence and if you're wrong, people can correct you? Does that sound reasonable to anyone else? What does this have to do with Stef's original post?
Annabelle Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Well those that do, are free to correct me of course. I'm a donor. But it makes no sense for you to care about that. The merits or otherwise of an argument don't depend on donations. Same here, and I agree. To answer your question, Patrick, here is the part of Stef's post that my post is in response to: The second possibility is that Bob has a lot more disposable income than $2, but has only listened to a few shows, and really likes them. However, if Bob likes Freedomain Radio to the point that he wants to donate, then clearly he’s going to continue listening, so why not just wait until he has listened to more shows, and donate then? Imagine if I went to a convenience store knowing I wanted to buy 10 packs of gum, and then paid for each one as a separate transaction – and with Visa! Clearly I’m imposing unnecessarily high costs on the store, and doing something quite irrational. If that is Bob’s level of thinking, that makes me quite sad. I don't know if the convenience store analogy is apt, because I don't know how convenience stores are charged for transactions, and I don't have time to investigate right now. Fortunately, the issue here is not convenience stores, but paypal. In this case of paypal, I have demonstrated that it is the frequency of donation, completely independent of donation size, that determines the amount of $$ lost to paypal. So assuming that Bob is not donating more frequently than the average person (say, monthly), Stef is not losing out on any more of Bob's money than he is the average person's. If Stef wants to see more of the money intended for him winding up in his own bank account, he should encourage everyone to save up and donate larger amounts less frequently, not just Bob. The only question left, from my perspective, is why Bob is donating less overall than the average person. The answer could be as simple as that Bob listens to fewer podcasts than the average person. Only having time to listen to 1 podcast a week (=$2/month) seems entirely plausible to me. In other words, I think my post has everything to do with Stef's post. If the above didn't make sense (looooooong day; so tired) let me know and I'll try to clarify.
Annabelle Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I take it from the silence that I made a good point and no one has any counterarguments? It's not a huge deal, but I am proud of myself for having dispelled a myth (that even I believed for a moment) about small donations. I hope others find it useful in deciding how to donate.
Libertus Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I take it from the silence that I made a good point and no one has any counterarguments? Apparently, this forums needs 'likes' ...
Recommended Posts