What do you think about the new FSW membership protocol?

[Boston]

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

[sbeckman]

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.

[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.

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.   
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

[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

[sbeckman]

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.

[Boston]

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?   

Boston

[John]

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. 

[Blaineus]

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?   

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.

[Boston]

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

[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

[MamaLiberty]

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

[JenS]

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.

[Paul Bonneau]

I concur with the above comments. A little arm-twisting when people join wouldn't hurt though.

[MamaLiberty]

"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?

[John]

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...)

Lighten up, ML!