Cut off pledge minimum for ThisNovember5th?

[SwordOfShannarah]

I hope I'm not being too harsh.. but it seems that some candidates are pushing the effort and trying to make something happen while others are not. Personally, I think this matters.

I was thinking maybe there should be a cut off minimum pledge number by Nov 1st. What do you think? And if so what would it be? 25? 50? 75? 100?

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

could you explain a bit further?

[SwordOfShannarah]

I'll back up a little because I think I'm coming at this a little bit off. Ultimately I just think there should be a bar of some kind that a candidate should meet in order to be a part of this effort. If people are interested in a candidate and pledging I think that adds some legitimacy to the campaign they are running. If there is no one pledging or supporting the campaign I think that says a lot and that it deserves being paid attention to. A minimum cut-off number can also serve as a motivator for a candidates supporters to push the effort more, which would be a good thing.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I don't know. i'll have to think about that one. If you can't come up with a decision yea or nay, you might want to find middle ground. For instance, have two categories of candidates; Main and Other. or something like that. (i wouldn't use 'main' and 'other', just can't think of anything else atm) Maybe you could add to the site a concise list of each candidate's pledge count so we can compare them without having to scroll so much

[tpreitzel]

I'd have to think about this suggestion more. However, my first impression is that no limit should be set other than restricting the total number of candidates to about 50 and widely distributed as possible throughout the country for the offices of sheriff, US congress, and governor. However, if you have considerably more than 50 viable candidates, then I understand the need to restrict candidates based on some criterion such as your suggestion. If absolutely necessary, maybe a percentage cutoff * would be better than a fixed level. I do agree, however, that a cutoff might help motivate candidates to push this money bomb along. Candidates have a vested interest in promoting this money bomb. However, better known candidates will inevitably get more donations so any percentage cutoff should probably be rather low, but not low enough to remove the incentive to promote this money bomb. I don't know yet.

* Could be based on an overall average, average of top 3, the candidate with the most donations, etc. Personally, I might settle for a percentage cutoff of about 15% of the average donations among the top 5. For example, say the average number of donations among the top 5 is 500. Then the cutoff would be 75. Currently, the average for the top 5 is about 127 so a 15% cutoff would be about 19.

If I were to equate a 15% cutoff of the top 5's possible average to a fixed level, I'd currently say the cutoff level should probably be about 50 by November 1st.

[SwordOfShannarah]

I'd have to think about this suggestion more. However, my first impression is that no limit should be set other than restricting the total number of candidates to about 50 .

Does anyone consider how much time this stuff takes me? Fifty candidates? with 5 pledges each? I can't see how that makes any sense.

[tpreitzel]

Does anyone consider how much time this stuff takes me? Fifty candidates? with 5 pledges each? I can't see how that makes any sense.

You're making the ultimate decision to include the candidates, correct? Then, YOU bear the responsibility for including them. So, stop coming to these forums and asking people for their opinion. Simply select a cutoff for donations or number of candidates. Personally, I don't think 50 candidates is excessive at all if widely distributed among the aforementioned categories and as many states as possible. Fifty candidates might be excessive for YOU to do alone. If YOU are doing ALL of the research on these candidates, then YOU have a management problem. Candidates or their representatives should be doing most of the leg work. Spread updating the website and the decision for inclusion to some trusted and capable peers. If YOU are doing the bulk of the work and can't relinquish some control, then simply stop including candidates until adequate help arrives. As it is, this money bomb will survive.

Lastly, when YOU make the decision to include candidates, candidates and their supporters have a reasonable expectation to see their support bear fruit on the day of the money bomb whether the support is $25 or $10k. YOU have a reasonable expectation that candidates and their supporters work to promote both the money bomb and YOUR work involved in including them. The point: Don't change the rules in mid stream. I fully realize that this money bomb needed further planning to solve these issues in advance and much longer promotion, i.e. at LEAST 2-3 months.

[MRoCkEd]

Cut it off at 100

[bucfish]

Get the candidates to raise the bar. Don't let them view this as Ron Paul Supporters welfare program. Instead they have a responsibility to promote it. This is grassroots and their supporters are supposed to pitch in. This is why before multi candidate donation days failed. Cause the candidates thought their was a pie in the sky with no effort. Moneybombs come from the grassroots. And therefore can only be successful if the various candidates support them.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

You're making the ultimate decision to include the candidates, correct? Then, YOU bear the responsibility for including them. So, stop coming to these forums and asking people for their opinion. Simply select a cutoff for donations or number of candidates. Personally, I don't think 50 candidates is excessive at all if widely distributed among the aforementioned categories and as many states as possible. Fifty candidates might be excessive for YOU to do alone. If YOU are doing ALL of the research on these candidates, then YOU have a management problem. Candidates or their representatives should be doing most of the leg work. Spread updating the website and the decision for inclusion to some trusted and capable peers. If YOU are doing the bulk of the work and can't relinquish some control, then simply stop including candidates until adequate help arrives. As it is, this money bomb will survive.

Lastly, when YOU make the decision to include candidates, candidates and their supporters have a reasonable expectation to see their support bear fruit on the day of the money bomb whether the support is $25 or $10k. YOU have a reasonable expectation that candidates and their supporters work to promote both the money bomb and YOUR work involved in including them. The point: Don't change the rules in mid stream. I fully realize that this money bomb needed further planning to solve these issues in advance and much longer promotion, i.e. at LEAST 2-3 months.

http://sharemyplaylists.com/files/2009/08/chill_pill.jpg

[tpreitzel]

http://sharemyplaylists.com/files/2009/08/chill_pill.jpg

;) If YOU think my response was aggressive, then YOU need a 500g tablet! ;)

LOL! How do you chill a wallflower? ;)

[Imperial]

I'd vote either none or make it a low threshold like 10. I like how you've had it set up with those with more pledges near the top of the page. Obviously people on the front page get more attention and so that is a major incentive for campaigns to get pledges.

[bucfish]

I'd vote either none or make it a low threshold like 10. I like how you've had it set up with those with more pledges near the top of the page. Obviously people on the front page get more attention and so that is a major incentive for campaigns to get pledges.

Competition between campaigns is a good thing. And very representative of Free market capitalism.

[MR2Fast2Catch]

I was never a fan of the multicandidate money bomb because I feel it will water down the effect of the money bomb. Supporters should plan them individually for each candidate which has enough supporters to successfully carry out a money bomb.

But I think we should always try new things, and this multicandidate money bomb is one of those new things. So lets give it a shot and see how it works. It's bound to have a different effect than the other money bombs since the money will be spread out among various candidates instead of all weighted on one. I thought the idea for this was to promote other liberty candidates who haven't gotten enough exposure or financial support yet to establish a good campaign? If this is the true purpose of a multi-candidate money bomb, then no cut off mark should be established. Trevor can put up as many candidates as he sees fit. It may spread the donations thin but it could help other candidates become more established.

Afterwards, we can focus on real money bombs for individual candidates like Rand Paul on Dec.16. But for now lets use this to promote MULTIPLE candidates.

My 2 cents. As always I'll go with the flow and participate regardless of what happens. Just giving some insight. Thank you, Trevor, for all your work on this.

[SwordOfShannarah]

You're making the ultimate decision to include the candidates, correct? Then, YOU bear the responsibility for including them. So, stop coming to these forums and asking people for their opinion.

So because someone is supposed to make a final decision he should not seek the input of others before doing so. Wow, I'll have to tell the rest of the world about that one. That's rich!

Everything you go on to talk about are criticisms for a company with $$ for salaries. You are going wayyyyy overboard about what you expect one person to do. Managing a group of people is a lot of work as well and you're acting like it's easy. I'm not about to manage a group of people for this project without pay.

And really you completely fail to see my point. I'm putting in the effort. I'm doing the work. I would even do much more work... all for free... but I expect to see some effort from the candidate once I've taken the time to include them. And if they don't do the work I don't think they really care or deserve to be on the site. That's all there is to it.

[tpreitzel]

So because someone is supposed to make a final decision he should not seek the input of others before doing so. Wow, I'll have to tell the rest of the world about that one. That's rich!

Feel free to tattle to the world your misinterpretations of my words. ;) You have a history of coming here whining about facets of this money bomb, e.g. dropping the minimum donation from $50 to $25, and then reluctantly polling members for their opinions. To your credit, you eventually did comply, but not without expressing your considerable displeasure. Why ask in the first place?



Everything you go on to talk about are criticisms for a company with $$ for salaries. You are going wayyyyy overboard about what you expect one person to do. Managing a group of people is a lot of work as well and you're acting like it's easy. I'm not about to manage a group of people for this project without pay.LOL! How about letting some team members manage themselves? Can't you trust them to update the website? Surely, some RPF members will help to keep them and you straight. :) Granted, the latter action is a WIP. ;) Lastly, you'd simply be one of several peers working on this project, not CEO. Think of all team members as members of the board with equal voting rights.;)



And really you completely fail to see my point. I'm putting in the effort. I'm doing the work. I would even do much more work... all for free... but I expect to see some effort from the candidate once I've taken the time to include them. And if they don't do the work I don't think they really care or deserve to be on the site. That's all there is to it.LOL! Seriously, you either can't comprehend basic English or you're just here primarily to whine about the workload. I've thoroughly and clearly explained the objections that you just raised in previous responses, and I've even given you appropriate solutions to the workload, but you obviously prefer to come here and whine.

[SwordOfShannarah]

tpreitzel

Please list here the total number of participants along with the names and/or handles of the persons you have organized and are currently managing to promote ThisNovember5th.com and please tell us all the actions your organization has taken to promote the event.

[SwordOfShannarah]

I was never a fan of the multicandidate money bomb because I feel it will water down the effect of the money bomb. Supporters should plan them individually for each candidate which has enough supporters to successfully carry out a money bomb.

But I think we should always try new things, and this multicandidate money bomb is one of those new things. So lets give it a shot and see how it works. It's bound to have a different effect than the other money bombs since the money will be spread out among various candidates instead of all weighted on one. I thought the idea for this was to promote other liberty candidates who haven't gotten enough exposure or financial support yet to establish a good campaign? If this is the true purpose of a multi-candidate money bomb, then no cut off mark should be established. Trevor can put up as many candidates as he sees fit. It may spread the donations thin but it could help other candidates become more established.

Afterwards, we can focus on real money bombs for individual candidates like Rand Paul on Dec.16. But for now lets use this to promote MULTIPLE candidates.

My 2 cents. As always I'll go with the flow and participate regardless of what happens. Just giving some insight. Thank you, Trevor, for all your work on this.

We tried a multi-candidate money bomb once before immediately after Ron Paul's campaign that pretty much failed. I thought perhaps it was because people were tapped and a little disappointed from the RP campaign but now I have to say that maybe the critics were right. Unless we see some great results for at least one or two candidates on the 5th I personally won't do another one.

The real purpose of holding this event (in my eyes) was to prevent a lot of infighting. Yes I believe every candidate deserves a chance, but they all already have a chance on the internet. The money bomb at its best is just a mechanism to translate existing grassroots excitement into campaign dollars. It really isn't the best tool to create grassroots excitement and support for a candidate.

[tpreitzel]

tpreitzel

Please list here the total number of participants along with the names and/or handles of the persons you have organized and are currently managing to promote ThisNovember5th.com and please tell us all the actions your organization has taken to promote the event.

No, but then I highly doubt you'll post your personal list of registered donors from the current or past money bombs with which you've been associated either. ;) You're falsely assuming that I haven't promoted this money bomb or that your personal association with this money bomb somehow legitimizes your work over others. Nonsense. Many, many people are promoting this money bomb despite your association with it. Your basic problem with your workload apparently stems from your ego and I don't state this observation lightly. Good luck with the money bomb and thanks for your work on it. I'll continue to support and promote it because we need to support these candidates.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

unbelievable.

[nayjevin]

It takes substantial effort to add a new candidate, but does it take substantial effort to remove one? Maybe a link, 'these candidates pledge counts are suffering! name recognition problem or justified? you decide!'

I'm promoting the moneybomb -- I like to see many candidate options in one place, and Nov 5th employs valuable imagery.

One problem with a project like this is Bastiat's broken window, that which is seen, and that which is unseen.

We can never see all the effects that this website will have, and we will never know whether a different approach, or no approach at all, will have been better.

But as long as a friend of the movement is putting substantial effort into something that isn't blatantly anti-freedom, I'm down with getting the word out.

[SwordOfShannarah]

It takes substantial effort to add a new candidate, but does it take substantial effort to remove one? Maybe a link, 'these candidates pledge counts are suffering! name recognition problem or justified? you decide!'

I'm promoting the moneybomb -- I like to see many candidate options in one place, and Nov 5th employs valuable imagery.

One problem with a project like this is Bastiat's broken window, that which is seen, and that which is unseen.

We can never see all the effects that this website will have, and we will never know whether a different approach, or no approach at all, will have been better.

But as long as a friend of the movement is putting substantial effort into something that isn't blatantly anti-freedom, I'm down with getting the word out.

Some good stuff to think about. Thanks Jay. :D