Free State Wyoming Forum
Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Topic started by: Boston on October 21, 2007, 09:00:43 PM
-
Over at:
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum//index.php?topic=5283.msg38992#msg38992
...I announced the new membership protocol.
Please do not comment there, but here.
bobcat's post I deleted there and copied below.
______________
from bobcat:
Bad move Boston, all the tire kickers, moaners and groaners will gum up the works.
Seeya
I understand your theoretical concern, bobcat, but we've already
had a few "tire kickers, moaners and groaners" because
the forum may be easily accessed. I don't think that easier
access to membership will noticeably "gum up the works."
I could be wrong about that, and if so, then the error can be rectified.
Besides, your concern about this assumes that I, my admin, and the
rest of the forum would allow a profusion of moaners, etc. Rather,
wouldn't they be corrected/admonished/suspended/banned over time?
I'm confident that new FSWers will be of sufficiently high quality to justify
the convenience, speed, and decentralization of the new arrangement.
motherfrog (whom many of us know) just joined online, for example, which so
far proves my hunch. (Welcome, motherfrog, and congratulations!)
If anyone is bothered by the potential for anonymous people to become
disingenuous FSWers, they could have been doing so all this time with
the paper SofIs and $25. If somebody were going to lie about their pledge,
$25 wouldn't stop them (though I agree it was a dissuasion).
Besides, what would an untruthful new FSWer really gain above routine forum access, anyway?
Nothing that I can discern.
My mail sometimes takes a couple of weeks to reach me when I'm travelling,
and I always regretted the delay it took to process SofIs. Now, new FSWers
can be forum upgraded by any of my admin the same day.
Finally, the historically silly accusation that I began the FSW for monetary gain
now truly hasn't even a theoretical leg to stand on, which is a nice bonus.
I hope that this reply has been helpful.
Please feel free to comment here as you wish.
Boston
-
Unfortunately this appears to leave us current associates with no mechanism to ever have full access to all parts of the forum even if we subsequently were able to commit to the move.
The issue was never the FRN25, it was always the limitation that I have in being able to commit to the move due to the desires of my wife as to our place of residence.
Hopefully this was not in response to all of the !*#@*!# whiners that seemed to be just too cheap to fork over FRN25.
-
Unfortunately this appears to leave us current associates with no mechanism to ever have full access to all parts of the forum even if we subsequently were able to commit to the move.
Associates have always had access to the full forum,
except for the Members' board (which isn't used that often).
Any Associate wishing to upgrade to Member can do so by
posting his/her SofI on that thread, either within 7 years
of moving to Wyoming or after the move.
Am I still missing something regarding the Associates?
I don't think the new protocol increasingly limits them.
The issue was never the FRN25, it was always the limitation that I have in being able to commit to the move due to the desires of my wife as to our place of residence.
I quite understand, and it's a common issue.
The Associate stratum I created to give such folks a way to feel like
they were still a part of the FSW even though they couldn't yet sign
the SofI. If there is a way to accomplish the same "middle ground"
connection--online and without the $25 donation--then I'm keen to hear your ideas.
I didn't like having to discontinue the Associate part of FSWness, but
couldn't see a way around it for it was the $25 which differentiated
being a Friend of the FSW and an Associate.
Hopefully this was not in response to all of the !*#@*!# whiners that seemed to be just too cheap to fork over FRN25.
It was less than a 5% consideration in my mind.
Nevertheless, it will be nice never having to hear that ever again.
You know, I'd considered retaining the $25 donation requirement,
but in e-gold format. However, I no longer trust e-gold, or the
industry in general in its current infancy. (I and the FSW lost $
through the 1mdc confiscation.) So, it came back to dropping the
$25 donation altogether because of the hassle in collecting it.
Founding FSW Members and Associates were there for the FSW
early, and they dropped some coin in the process. The appellation
of "Founding" is a meaningful one, and there will never be any others
who can wear that title. It is mostly because of them that we have
an FSW today.
What they're welcome to do is hit up the new FSWers for some
ad hoc contributions for banner ads, etc.
"Your turn to chip in, Sonny!"--that kind of thing. :D
I could then add "FSW Contributor" to the profile of those who do,
which should raise their cache to a similar level of somebody who
paid the $25 donation under the previous protocol.
Thanks for your post, sbeckman.
Boston
-
I just received a PM:
Could take a page from the lib's playbook and instead of a $25 app fee, enclose the reciept for a $25 donation to the SofI's favorite charity made in the name of the FSW. Then the donation still serves the same purpose of letting people "put their money where their mouth is".
That's a fine idea, especially if their receipt was somehow
transmitted online (scanned, or forwarded email).
I'm not going to receive/process/archive any more paperwork, however.
I'm drowning in paperwork as it is...
Please post or PM any refinements of this idea.
Thanks,
Boston
-
Am I still missing something regarding the Associates?
I don't think the new protocol increasingly limits them.
Those FSWers who joined previously will now be referred to as a
FSW Founding Member (In Wyoming, or Wyoming Bound). All posts made
in their own board will remain separate from the new FSW Members board,
unless the Founding Members overwhelmingly (i.e., 9:1) wish otherwise to me.
The former classification of FSW Associate will not be continued, though
the status of present Associates will be unchanged.
Sorry Boston, maybe I misinterpreted this. :-[ And it probably doesn't really matter anyway.
I read this as saying that the current Members become FSW Founding Members and that they will always be the ONLY Founding Members.
Founding Members will have their own separate board unavailable to Members or Associates.
Thus they have a separate board from new Members and Associates, even if an Associate becomes a Member since they by definition cannot become Founding Members.
-
Founding Members will have their own separate board unavailable to Members or Associates.
Thus they have a separate board from new Members and Associates, even if an Associate becomes a Member since they by definition cannot become Founding Members.
Yes, that's true, and thanks for pointing that out.
It hadn't occurred to me since it was rare in the past
that Associates signed the SofI and became Members.
It happened 2-3x, IIRC. (Paul Bonneau was one of them.)
Such an Associate post-10/2007 would understandably feel
sort of left out, since s/he was a "Founding" Associate in
the technical sense and pledging the SofI after 10/2007
shouldn't necessarily deprive one of Founding Member status.
Hmmmm.
Tell you what: if other Associates post or PM me with a
common issue (assuming that they they want to become
Members, else the matter is irrelevant), I'll pitch it to the
Founding Members for a vote. I don't feel strongly either
way about it, but they may.
As you wrote, none of this probably really matters anyway,
but if hard feelings can be avoided with a simple change
supported by all involved, then I'm up for that.
Meanwhile, all Associates should be considered of a
Founding nature given their early support of the FSW.
And, it's the most exclusive membergroup we have
(there are only 12 of you), so are you sure that
you want to become a Member? :D ;)
Boston
-
I want to say I disagree with this change, but that would be to say, in a sense, "I disagree with Boston not wanting to do all this work, and I think he should keep doing it." And obviously Boston is not a slave, so I can't really say that.
But I do think that having the money commitment was a good thing, and I think there may be some way of retaining that while not making Boston process it. One solution would be to have someone else process it, and either forward it to Boston occasionally (if he wants it) or leave it in a holding pool or trust for possible future use. Maybe the FSW could buy some land or something eventually; of course there'd have to be a lot of large additional donations beyond the $25 fees for that to happen.
Anyway, just giving my input. Oh, and hooray for exclusivity! I'll bet there's not too many of the 12 associates that are already in Wyoming, either. ;D
-
Tell you what: if other Associates post or PM me with a
common issue (assuming that they they want to become
Members, else the matter is irrelevant), I'll pitch it to the
Founding Members for a vote. I don't feel strongly either
way about it, but they may.
As you wrote, none of this probably really matters anyway,
but if hard feelings can be avoided with a simple change
supported by all involved, then I'm up for that.
Meanwhile, all Associates should be considered of a
Founding nature given their early support of the FSW.
And, it's the most exclusive membergroup we have
(there are only 12 of you), so are you sure that
you want to become a Member? :D ;)
Boston
I'd have to say, as one of the twelve, WHEN I do make it out to Wyoming, I'd love to be considered a founding member. However, I understand that semantics really don't mean a thing. The people who WILL be my neighbors one day will know that I've been with you guys for a while and that I pledged the SofI long before I even knew when it was I could be officially Wyoming bound (which, for what it's worth, I have 6.5 years to go... at least). The Associates did pay the same $25 dollars as the founding members group did, just couldn't promise they'd be in Wyoming in the seven years.
Here are two things Boston said:
Founding FSW Members and Associates were there for the FSW
early, and they dropped some coin in the process. The appellation
of "Founding" is a meaningful one, and there will never be any others
who can wear that title. It is mostly because of them that we have
an FSW today.
and
The former classification of FSW Associate will not be continued, though
the status of present Associates will be unchanged.
Which in my opinion does make us a unique group that automatically assumes we were founding members. Like I said above, it would be nice to be Founding member, in Wyoming when I can be there finally, but just BEING there is reward enough! Let us know what you decide.
-
from John:
But I do think that having the money commitment was a good thing
I also liked the $25 donation concept, and so did 85% of polled FSWers back in February:
FSW Member/Associate Poll and discussion on the FSW Membership fee
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum//index.php?topic=3705.0;viewResults
What is your view on the $25 FSW Membership/Associate donation?
leave as is at $25 - 23 (85.2%)
change to a lower amount - 1 (3.7%)
change to a higher amount - 2 (7.4%)
eliminate - 1 (3.7%)
Total Voters: 27
Another thread (accessible by all) which discussed the donation:
Re: former FSPers may now join the FSW with $25 donation waived
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum//index.php?topic=3019.msg25108#msg25108
...and I think there may be some way of retaining that while not making Boston process it.
Very possibly, and I'm open to that.
Thanks for nicely parsing the issue.
My admin and I are currently discussing the charitable receipt idea,
but I'm not yet convinced that scanning/posting would not be overly
tedious for many potential FSWers.
One thing I'd like to make especially clear: I am opposed to any further
central FSW fund seeking/holding/disbursement (even if handled by somebody
else). I want to remove that totally from the equation. While folks are welcome
to make ad donationsthrough a sole FSWer for a specific purpose, that is different
from a central FSW fund.
Furthermore, my goal is to eliminate all paperwork for everyone regarding the FSW.
No mail, no cash donations, no printed SofIs, no paper receipts, etc.
So, if the money commitment concept can work around those limitations, I'm
open to it.
______________
from Blaineus:
The Associates did pay the same $25 dollars as the founding members group did, just couldn't promise they'd be in Wyoming in the seven years.
Certainly true, but Members of the same time frame did sign the SofI,
and that act (in my mind) signifies a higher commitment than the $25 donation.
I'm increasingly inclined to poll Founding Members about whether Associates who
sign the SofI after 21 Oct 2007 should be considered Founding Members. Then,
I'll add my own vote and thoughts.
At the moment, it's still a theoretical issue until an Associate pledges their SofI.
When that happens, then I'll poll the Founding Members, OK?
Meanwhile, I thank Blaineus, John, and the other 10 Associates for their
support and participation!
____________
I welcome gabby as our second online FSWer! Interesting that
both were already in Wyoming.
Boston
-
I've been kicking around the notion that new FSWers must have first joined a 2A org,
such as WSSA (or other state 2A rights groups) GOA, JPFO, SAF, or even the NRA.
Surely one of them would be palatable?
Boston
-
I've been kicking around the notion that new FSWers must have first joined a 2A org,
such as WSSA (or other state 2A rights groups) GOA, JPFO, SAF, or even the NRA.
Surely one of them would be palatable?
Where did this come from? Why would we do such a thing to new members - or would that be retroactive?
Wouldn't that make the FSW pretty much a one issue outfit? Is the 2A the sole - or even the highest priority - defining characteristic of the FSW? Seems to me the FSW concept is much larger than this one issue.
As much as I support armed self defense, I'd be very disappointed if the FSW went this route. ML
-
Good move with the decentralization. However, I also agree with ML, in that I don't think the 2A org req. would be a good idea.
-
I concur with the above comments. A little arm-twisting when people join wouldn't hurt though.
-
"Arm twisting?" Now there is a good old fashioned libertarian and non-aggressive concept. (note sarcasm...)
Just what sort of "arm twisting" did you have in mind, Paul?
Wouldn't incentive and inspiration be more productive - as well as consistent with our stated purpose?
-
Mama, Paul is going to come over to your house and twist your arm behind your back until you say "Uncle" and agree to make him some homemade bread.
Oh you meant on the forum? Because of course so much aggression and tyrannical anti-libertarian behavior can be employed over an internet forum (note sarcasm...)
;D Lighten up, ML! ;D
-
Thanks, John... but I must disagree that it's not possible to "arm twist" on a forum. I've seen some on our own forum - as well as on others. The big difference is that with mental arm twisting, the target can simply log off and refuse to be coerced. I'm afraid it's just an idea I'm very uncomfortable with.
As for Paul - he's welcome to come over any time! I always have home made bread to share. :) We can arm wrestle and see who gets to wash the dishes! >:D
-
I take y'all's point about the not liking a 2A org requirement.
I was never totally comfortable with the idea myself, but it points towards
something helpful: to wit, that a real person has coughed up some dough
somewhere to a worthy cause.
Am looking for some non-FSW "pre-approval" since the donation req.
has been dropped.
I think after the nonexistent Casper "Marvin" we'll all be a little less
gullible about such enthusiastic folks who nobody has ever met.
Meaning, just because somebody is a new FSWer, let's not get all
gooey about their pledge until they've become a known quantity
both here and in real life.
Maybe the best idea is to simply keep the membership protocol as
simple as it is now, and let the free market of forum opinion assign
value and trust to new FSWers as time goes on.
_____________
Mari PMed me that I'd neglected to upgrade her in June to FSW Associate,
so I've just done so. She is the 13th, and last. Welcome Mari!
Boston
-
Just heard from another lost FSW Associate, grimjack.
Welcome and thanks for your support!
We've 14 FSW Associates.
May/June was a hectic time for me, so are there any others whom I've failed to upgrade?
As my January 29, 2006 post explained:
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum//index.php?topic=144.msg382#msg382
So, register as a Guest, and PM me with your FSW status as Associate or Member (Wyoming bound, or In-Wyoming), and I will upgrade you as soon as I confirm receipt of your SofI. Then you will have access to the Member and/or Associate forum boards.
You must private message (http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum//index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=9) (PM) me with your SofI's name and email address to get upgraded.
I won't do it automatically because I cannot recognize all these forum nyms. [/size]
Any others? Please PM me this week.
Thanks,
Boston
-
Thanks, Boston. It?s actually my fault that I got lost. I sent in the SofI after joining the forum, and then set everything aside until after I retired. That will happen on November 2, 2007.
Mari - The 13th Associate
-
Heck, Mari (the 13th Associate), if I hadn't been ponzing off to
Africa to hunt/kill/eat their game, I'd have upgraded you in June.
Congratulations on your imminent retirement!
__________
A generic hint: Join the FSW before I skip the country next time! ;D
__________
I should issue consecutive numbers to all the Associates: 001, 002, etc.
With as much attention as they're getting, they probably won't want to be
"upgraded" to mere "Founding Members", huh?
This issue is fast on its way to solving itself.
I love it.
Boston
-
Neato. So how many founding members are there?
-
I should issue consecutive numbers to all the Associates: 001, 002, etc.
With as much attention as they're getting, they probably won't want to be
"upgraded" to mere "Founding Members", huh?
This issue is fast on its way to solving itself.
I love it.
Boston
Tell me I'm 007... I'll stay associate forever! ;D
-
lol, I knew that somebody would pipe up to be 007.
Somehow, I'm not surprised that it was Blaineus.
Funnily enough, I think that he's probably very close to
having been the 7th Associate, anyway...
Boston
-
Bloody well fantastic!
-
I guess different people mean different things with "arm twisting". I was thinking of it as "vigorous persuasion". Maybe that's not the normal usage. Example: "Other members might think you are weird, maybe mentally deficient, if you don't belong to GOA or JPFO. Just thought you'd like to know." :)
-
Dear Boston,
I really like your ideas of not having a centralized fund, not having a central repository of records, and not having a lot of paper evidence. It seems to me that the handwriting on the walls speaks loudly to us of tyranny, increasing capital controls, worsening economic and political climate, and even the fair tidings from Ron Paul's Fifth of November money bomb (hey, you have a fifth, you can get bombed too!) are not enough to dissuade me from my view that we have a police state on our hands. So, good ideas, glad you took the time to have them. You continue to impress me with your leadership skills and foresight.
With regard to a pre-qualification, I think there are a number to consider. How about purchasing a book from Javelin Press as an alternative to membership in some overt 2nd Amendment group? Some of us aren't really joiners. I've actually joined the NRA, through the Montana gun range near Three Forks back in 2004 when we got together at Grand Western Conference II. But, not because I wanted to be a part of it. Rather, because they wouldn't let me shoot otherwise.
Here are some more things I think would qualify someone to be considered suitable for membership. Not sure how I'd prove each one in some instances, but they work for me. And there are presumably other worthy criteria:
Bought Boston's Gun Bible, Molon Labe, or another Javelin Press book.
Wrote a letter or essay published at:
The Libertarian Enterprise
Strike the Root
Lew Rockwell (dot com!)
Freedom's Phoenix
Rational Review
similar...
Made a contribution to Ron Paul's political campaigns for Congress or president (1988 counts)
Got 150 or more on Bryan Caplan's Libertarian Purity Test
Qualified as Rifleman
Joined one of the gun rights groups you mentioned, or another one not mentioned in your list. (Didja list Pink Pistols? Second Amendment Sisters?)
Bought more than $10,000 of gold from Vertoro.com.
Invented a cryptographic protocol.
Built and operated a Galt's Gulch community of more than one person.
Was ever found to be admirable in any quality by Claire Wolfe.
Was not one of the federal agent plants in Laissez Faire City.
Went to HoHoCon and found the fed (must have T-shirt to prove it).
Regards,
Jim
-
Well Jim, if you add any requirement such as "buy a book from Javelin Press" then FSW is going to be slammed again as just a branch of Boston's business, which for privacy reasons alone would not be a good thing. I don't think Boston would think it a good idea, either. But of course I am guessing.
I sometimes join things, but only if I find much value in them. That's why I sent in my $25.00 for FSW, and my $40.00 for the Jam. To require membership of a gun org would be almost the same thing. I am not a member though of any of them...I may be later, but I feel that's my business.
Any political requirement is a bad idea...
Some people do not like to write...
I of course DO, but only when I deem it necessary and timely for me.
I do not know how you can suggest anything worthy to replace the $25.00, the SOFI is fine, but extra requirements will be someone's extra job to keep up with.
-
I suspect that all external "requirements" would prove cumbersome and counterproductive. The only real requirement, it would seem to me, should be living up to the statement of intent, both here on the forum and after joining the rest of us in Wyoming. Integrity - being a good neighbor.
Any fool, troll or agent provocateur can register for the forum, write the SOFI and provide proof of anything that might be named as a requirement, but that won't actually prove their intent or demonstrate their character. Only interaction and real life can accomplish that.
Let's keep it simple and require substance over display.
-
Any political requirement is a bad idea...
But we already have one! "...forsaking fraud, theft, and aggression ? desire to peaceably co-exist as reasonable neighbors for the goals of political liberty, free trade, and voluntary cooperation."
That rules out 90% or more of folks from being members, if they really understand what the statement means. Which, of course, they may not, since it's written in libertarian code. For that reason, it may be a good idea to require a certain level of libertarian purity in a more clear and spelled-out way, such as the Caplan test.
-
Well, the objection to other requirements is really that they are extraneous. This requirement is central. It's what defines FSW. We're clearly not going to get rid of that.
I don't think it is written in "libertarian code" either. The language is quite clear to almost everyone (intentionally I'm sure), although it's possible a few might be confused about it. Even then, any mistakes are quickly self-correcting. People who think we're something else have only to read our forum to get straightened out.
John, give us a link to this Caplan test. I'd like to look at it.
-
I don't think it is written in "libertarian code" either. The language is quite clear to almost everyone (intentionally I'm sure), although it's possible a few might be confused about it.
I am not saying that I have any real problem with the SOI as written, and it is written to follow closely the common libertarian formula put forth in the LP membership oath. However, most people unversed in libertarian philosophy would not equate "forsaking fraud" to "supporting the elimination of fiat money and the abolition of the Federal Reserve", "forsaking theft" to "forsaking involuntary taxation of any kind", and "forsaking aggression" to "forsaking the imprisonment of non-violent drug users". So it is a perfectly good statement of intent, but Jim's Caplan Test idea has merit, though I expect I am in the minority and most FSW members would disagree with any sort of "litmus test" other than the SOI.
John, give us a link to this Caplan test. I'd like to look at it.
I live to serve! http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi (http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi)
-
Well Jim, if you add any requirement such as "buy a book from Javelin Press" then FSW is going to be slammed again as just a branch of Boston's business
My intention was to offer a very long list any one of which would be a workable criterion. I thought some of them were quite funny.
Actually, I think paying the $25 fee would also be a workable criterion, still. So, it is one of the ways one could qualify. (Presuming we identify somewhere to put the money that doesn't cause problems.)
but I feel that's my business.
I agree. And, you are already in the club. The issue Boston is asking us to sort is, I think, with whom do we all wish to associate? I'm actually pretty agreeable to any one of the criteria mentioned, or any of various others yet to be discovered.
Any political requirement is a bad idea...
I really don't know. I don't think it is bad as one potential criterion someone could meet. And I note a lot of common ground between, say, the states where open carry is legal and the states where people are supporting Ron Paul financially. I see similar commonality between the states which have taken some action against Real ID and states where open carry is legal. Etc.
I do not know how you can suggest anything worthy to replace the $25.00, the SOFI is fine, but extra requirements will be someone's extra job to keep up with.
Well, that's just the thing. I was suggesting any one of about fifteen different things. And, as for keeping up, it is all stuff that I think can be automated. The data is certainly available.
-
Thanks for your recent input, y'all.
Interestingly, all but the latest online SofI have been
posted by folks we all know pretty well, so the online
protocol hasn't attracted disingenuous trolls.
jubal needs to post 7 more, and then he'll be upgraded.
________
Jim, I've long admired your demonstrable commitment to liberty and
its many orgs (including this one, and my books). I'm flattered that
you'd think of JP books as being a prereq, but, yeah, JenS is correct
that it would seem to make the FSW too personally tied to me.
_________
I'm probably inclined to agree with MamaLiberty fine
synopsis of it all:
I suspect that all external "requirements" would prove cumbersome and counterproductive. The only real requirement, it would seem to me, should be living up to the statement of intent, both here on the forum and after joining the rest of us in Wyoming. Integrity - being a good neighbor.
Any fool, troll or agent provocateur can register for the forum, write the SOFI and provide proof of anything that might be named as a requirement, but that won't actually prove their intent or demonstrate their character. Only interaction and real life can accomplish that.
Let's keep it simple and require substance over display.
If we seem to get a rash of trolls flippantly posting SofIs,
then we adjust something then (assuming that some
peer pressure first is ineffective).
Regards,
Boston
-
If we seem to get a rash of trolls
I've had that rash! I think they have a nitroimidazole cream for troll rash, now. 8)
-
Those trolls and ne'er do wells who post a SofI will most certainly expose them selves easily to those who are honestly here just by them merely posting.
"My goal in life is to be as good a person my dog already thinks I am".
Anony - Mouse
-
I've had that rash! I think they have a nitroimidazole cream for troll rash, now.
True, but its frequent reapplication is bad for the skin... :P
B