PAYPAL?

[Destina Faroda]

No she's not a blue meanie.  The Blue Meanie actually lost weight. 

So basically I'm a big meanie because I take donations in exchange for extra updates or bonus material?

Actually, yes you're a big meanie, and this one sentence just proved it.

I'm just forwarning that talking about how to be a sneaky meanie against pay-content sites and how to distribute their content from underneath them is treading dangerous grounds.

Okay, Mab, I can understand you might not want to encourage such activity.  But not to talk about it and act like it doesn't exist?  That's really scary.

I mean there are people who distriubute illegal content every second.  There are people who rip movies from DVDs then spread them through the Internet.  I can understand against linking people to sites or mentioning specific instances and such, but if you think even mentioning the fact that it could be "dangerous" then that goes beyond the common sense rules we have for getting along.  That's limiting the conversation based on possibilities and to suggest that even possibilites shouldn't be talked about at all is very scary.   That's the sign of someone who wants to user her power to stamp out anything that is perceived to be a threat.

Sorry, Mab, but you just proved why donations are a bad idea.  Money is power, and couple your power with those views means the end of discussion as we know it.

But back to Net Neutrality.

The fact is, the big ISPs claiming that they don't make any money are charging all thier subscribers a fee for bandwidth and access speed.

They probably aren't making as much of a profit percentage wise as you'd think.  The problem is that even though they offer a decent amount ofbandwidth and speed, enough people are using these services to clog up the system with their large files and are abusing the system.  Unfortunately, it's too difficult to go after all the people who upload and download (and it doesn't help when the RIAA and MPAA use stupid "blanket" tactics instead of using effective methods).  Let's not forget, of course, those idiot spammers and malicious hackers who generate traffic for no good reason  By restricting access it kills two birds with one stone.  It limits piracy to a severe degree and it also allows them to make more money.

The services that pass through those already paid for pipes are not in any way under the conrtrol of the ISP providing bandwidth.  Net neutrality is the idea that the government should enforce the seperation of content and media control, and it's been brought up because many ISPs are now begining to dabble in the more profitable services offered by other sites, and have the ability (and, soon, the temptation) to degrade the services of thier competiters that pass through the portion of the internet they control.

Yeah, but that's like saying the cars that are passing from the United States to Canada ay Niagra Falls are not necessarily under the control of the state of New York and as a result, the state of New York shouldn't charge for the turnpike that connect since people are paying for the roads with taxes.

For instance, what would you do if your current ISP blocked you from accessing DMFA because they wanted you to only visit thier sponsored web comics (ie: the ones they make money from you viewing)

Then that's their right.  I might not like it, but that is definitely their right, because the ISPS are providing the service presumably for a profit.

If you subscribe to a cable television company, there are some channels that cable company won't cover.  You might lobby for them to cover it, but you know you're not going to get this channel unless you switch to another provider, who may not provide channels that

Now usually, because of competition and because it's profitable for the companies, they offer the widest selection possible.  However, this is simpler with cable because it's a one-way stream.  The internet is user-driven in terms of content choice.  Unfortunately, people tend to make bad choices, one of which is forking over money over the Internet to other companies and people.  Let's face it, if people weren't willing to pay for matierial either through pay-only porn sires or donating to their favorite artists, then this wouldn't have come up with a way to make more money, because there would have been no market.  But as soon as people, the ISPs begin to think that they want a piece of this action.  Combine this with the rampant piracy and you have a recipe for disaster.  A dream for a "free" Internet is a now a fading memory.

I'm not against government intervention, but when it comes to the Internet, cable, video games, and digital media, the government should butt out.  Remember, it's the governnment's fault we have DMCA, ratings on video games (which I argue actually allowed for more violent games instead of restricted them), and other crap.  The government wants to force cable companies to carry channels a.l.a. carte.  That would only raise prices.

Sorry, unfocused rant over...you may return to your normal dose of insanity.

[Gabi]

I agree that money is power, in that it allows you to do things you can't do without it. But working to gain power is not a bad thing, nor is accepting it from those who offer it willingly. I love DMFA and I intend to keep supporting it in different ways, but I haven't made any donations because I don't have money to spare, and I doubt Amber or anyone else will think any less of me because of that. And if they do, it's their problem, not mine.

I myself have been accepting donations to help me go to AC. I wouldn't have been able to afford the plane tickets without them, and now I can, and I'm enormously grateful to those who helped me. But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything and I don't think any less of those who didn't. Moreover, many have done other things for me which I'm also grateful for, like making me feel welcome last year, making drawings of my character, sending me a teabag or just being nice. Giving money isn't different from giving other kinds of help. You're actually saying helping others and asking for help are bad things?

[Destina Faroda]

Asking for help is fine if you really need the help.  If you can't find a job that can actually pay your bills like a LOT of people I know, then it's okay to accept charity.

The problem is that a lot of people who ask for help really don't need the help, it just makes things a lot more convenient (and in the case of "donations" it's really income), and a lot of people who could use help don't get it.  If you have a lot of people who visit your blog/comic/site/whatever, you really don't need any help.  The readers themselves bring you with the feedback you need to continue.

Asking someone for monetary aid in these cases indicates that the author/artist does look down on the people who view their product.  Once money gets involved you start to attach a tangible worth on people, like it or not, and try as you might, it is impossible to treat people equally from that point.  This devalues those who don't give and elevates those who do.  It also places a value on the author/artist compared to others who draw or fail to draw money in.  As a result, the act of asking for donations affects both other readers and other creators.  It needlessly ruins the entire community.

[Amber Williams]

My point is there isn't a whole lot of power, at least not that I've been seeing.  Maybe you got majorly smacked by some people for some reason...but a lot of the time I find most people have varied reasons for their doings.  The reason I was wanting to avoid the discussion of undermining pay-sites before it started was not because I don't think it exists, but because I know a few good (and really nice) people who I consider friends...who also happen to run full paysites.  The ones you need a subscription to view.  And I respect them and their choices...albeit I don't agree with them personally.  However, I know for a fact they aren't in the very least rolling in money or power.   In fact it's almost the opposite since they are pretty much grabbed by the balls to produce content at a higher rate at risk of not losing support.  And for that, the discussion of distribution makes me uneasy.  Mostly because I feel I'm insulting them behind their backs without a real way for them to defend themselves.

This isn't me going "la la la. piracy doesnt exist. Stop talking about it." This is me going "I have friends who have paysites. Please dont diss them."  Its more about respect than anything.  People can take potshots at me and how I handle my site all they want, since I'm actually around to take defense or respond.

In that sense, I won't argue that I do have a somewhat easier time.  While I am morally obligated to finish all the things I have promised, at the end of it all, if I was to give up the comic I wouldn't be bound to continue onward.  I offer things yeah, but I keep in mind to point out that they aren't things that people wouldnt likely be getting sooner or later anyways.  The only time that was a major exception was last summer when I both got rejected from the border and my computer blew out on the same day.

However I dont have little dollar signs over my readers, and no one who donated has ever gotten anything more special than those who dont.   I've gotten a lot of slack from some people about how I don't bend over backwards to people because they may donate.  At the time it takes  me around 4-8 hours a night to do a single comic.  And once I get legal residence in Canada I'll likely actually look for a normal job.  But right now the only way to pay my car insurance/websites/Sallie Mae loanshark is through my old bank and the only thing I have attached to that is paypal...

It's a meh situation.  I don't like it.  I intend to fix it. But at the time everything is in paperwork and so its the sit-n-spin game.

[Reese Tora]

No she's not a blue meanie.  The Blue Meanie actually lost weight. 

So basically I'm a big meanie because I take donations in exchange for extra updates or bonus material?

Actually, yes you're a big meanie, and this one sentence just proved it.

I'm just forwarning that talking about how to be a sneaky meanie against pay-content sites and how to distribute their content from underneath them is treading dangerous grounds.

Okay, Mab, I can understand you might not want to encourage such activity.  But not to talk about it and act like it doesn't exist?  That's really scary.

I mean there are people who distriubute illegal content every second.  There are people who rip movies from DVDs then spread them through the Internet.  I can understand against linking people to sites or mentioning specific instances and such, but if you think even mentioning the fact that it could be "dangerous" then that goes beyond the common sense rules we have for getting along.  That's limiting the conversation based on possibilities and to suggest that even possibilites shouldn't be talked about at all is very scary.   That's the sign of someone who wants to user her power to stamp out anything that is perceived to be a threat.

Sorry, Mab, but you just proved why donations are a bad idea.  Money is power, and couple your power with those views means the end of discussion as we know it.

I believe that was meant more as a 'you are approaching a line, do not cross it' warning, rather than saying don't talk about it at all.

But back to Net Neutrality.

The fact is, the big ISPs claiming that they don't make any money are charging all thier subscribers a fee for bandwidth and access speed.

They probably aren't making as much of a profit percentage wise as you'd think.  The problem is that even though they offer a decent amount ofbandwidth and speed, enough people are using these services to clog up the system with their large files and are abusing the system.  Unfortunately, it's too difficult to go after all the people who upload and download (and it doesn't help when the RIAA and MPAA use stupid "blanket" tactics instead of using effective methods).  Let's not forget, of course, those idiot spammers and malicious hackers who generate traffic for no good reason  By restricting access it kills two birds with one stone.  It limits piracy to a severe degree and it also allows them to make more money.

No, probably not, but if they aren't making the money to support themselves, they can raise it by other means than extortionate tactics and unfair buisness practices.

The services that pass through those already paid for pipes are not in any way under the conrtrol of the ISP providing bandwidth.  Net neutrality is the idea that the government should enforce the seperation of content and media control, and it's been brought up because many ISPs are now begining to dabble in the more profitable services offered by other sites, and have the ability (and, soon, the temptation) to degrade the services of thier competiters that pass through the portion of the internet they control.

Yeah, but that's like saying the cars that are passing from the United States to Canada ay Niagra Falls are not necessarily under the control of the state of New York and as a result, the state of New York shouldn't charge for the turnpike that connect since people are paying for the roads with taxes.

they do that? that's despicable.  The idea that a road paid for by the government is not recieving adaquite funding for maintanance to the point that extra revenue needs to be extorted through tolls is a failure of government.  Either charge me to use the road, or tax me for repair funds.  Either or.  I have no problem with toll roads, those that want to pay for convenience are welcome to, and many private compaies operate them for profit, but if I already paid for the road to exist, I should not be charged AGAIN for the priveledge to use it.  I would as soon pay rent for a house that I own and pay a mortgage for.

For instance, what would you do if your current ISP blocked you from accessing DMFA because they wanted you to only visit thier sponsored web comics (ie: the ones they make money from you viewing)

Then that's their right.  I might not like it, but that is definitely their right, because the ISPS are providing the service presumably for a profit.

If you subscribe to a cable television company, there are some channels that cable company won't cover.  You might lobby for them to cover it, but you know you're not going to get this channel unless you switch to another provider, who may not provide channels that

I do not find it at all acceptable that I might be restricted in the content I am allowed to aces and I ahve already paid for the right to access.  by signing up wih an ISP, I am paying for a specific level of access ot the world wide network that is the internet.  The equivalent in cable television would be to pay for basic cable, and have your cable provider turn off the local channels durring prime time to force you to watch thier prime times shows(and support thier ad revenue) or watch nothing at all.  Sure, you always have the option of switching cable providers, or switching back to your antenna, but those are not acceptable options.

Now usually, because of competition and because it's profitable for the companies, they offer the widest selection possible.  However, this is simpler with cable because it's a one-way stream.  The internet is user-driven in terms of content choice.  Unfortunately, people tend to make bad choices, one of which is forking over money over the Internet to other companies and people.  Let's face it, if people weren't willing to pay for matierial either through pay-only porn sires or donating to their favorite artists, then this wouldn't have come up with a way to make more money, because there would have been no market.  But as soon as people, the ISPs begin to think that they want a piece of this action.  Combine this with the rampant piracy and you have a recipe for disaster.  A dream for a "free" Internet is a now a fading memory.

I'm not against government intervention, but when it comes to the Internet, cable, video games, and digital media, the government should butt out.  Remember, it's the governnment's fault we have DMCA, ratings on video games (which I argue actually allowed for more violent games instead of restricted them), and other crap.  The government wants to force cable companies to carry channels a.l.a. carte.  That would only raise prices.

Sorry, unfocused rant over...you may return to your normal dose of insanity.

[Amber Williams]

I believe that was meant more as a 'you are approaching a line, do not cross it' warning, rather than saying don't talk about it at all.

Pretty much.  Though Destina didn't really answer my question so much steer it around to something different.  I asked if I was a meanie for donations, not if I was a meanie because I was warning caution in regards to posting about undermining pay-sites.  The two aren't really related as I could have made the same request even if my comic never took donations.  Me being a meanie because I'm a mod? Thats a given. 

[superluser]

Huh.  Looks like cabin fever is making everybody squirrelly.  Well, I'd better add to it.

I'd note, Destina, that the donation/sponsorship system has worked pretty well throughout history.  François-Marie Arouet, for example, was pretty much an idler, and his main source of income came from bumming money from nobles.  Every so often, he would wear out his welcome and be forced to find a new patron.  Despite all of this, Arouet (better known by his pen name, Voltaire) was considered one of the greatest political and philosophical thinkers of the 18th century.

NPR and PBS are supported by the US taxpayers, but also by donations solicited by interrupting your favorite shows (or in some cases, Mr. Bean).  I'd rather have TV detector vans.

As to whether it's a good idea, I don't know, but it doesn't seem to harm the quality of the work.  Anybody know if Samuel Johnson took donations?

[Xuzaf D]

Every time I forget to say "don't post this" in a thread I start, it always get buried by unrelated junk. This is why I can't start a game in the RP section; I'd have to post fifty damn rules just to avoid forum whores and spammers and the like.

[Reese Tora]

Well, at the point the topic really started to drift, you'd already gotten a paypal account, right?  So it's not like the thread hadn't already served it's purpose by the time it got derailed.

Not that staying on topic isn't a grand ol' goal, mind you.

[Xuzaf D]

Yeah sure... it's not like we have to own up to what we do, what with the thread starter around to blame.

And yes, I know you "didn't say that," but acting like you all have the right to just bump me off my own threads makes you sound like an ass.

[Reese Tora]

I didn't mean it like that, but I can't really say anything else without making myself look like an ass. (Atleast, everything I could think of sounded assinine to me.)

I am not saying that it was right or justified to take over your thread, but I'm used to posting in forums where it's almost expected that the original topic for a thread not last beyond the first page(if it even reaches the bottom of said first page!)

--edit--

*appologoes not being his forte, Reese shall not be causing further damage making further posts in this thread*

[Destina Faroda]

There's a big difference between PBS and most sites that ask for donations.

Public Television provides a public service.  It provides educational programs for the general public in addition to providing entertainment.  Now there are some sites that do provide a public service, but most sites are for entertainment, informational purposes, or promote an agenda.

Just because Voltaire was a bum doesn't make his bumming right.  Thos Jefferson laid much of the foundation for American government, but he was still a proud owner of slaves.

Yeah, I'm the miser, all right.

Now Mab, I think you claim I didn't answer your question.  What I'm saying is that yes, you are a meanie for accepting donations.  Accepting donations is, among other things, a status symbol, whether you want to admit it or not.  It's an easily quanitifiable measure that is very public.  While one can measure the hits and visitors a Web site reaches, visually one can't tell from the site itself how popular it is.  However, with a donation bar, one has an instant measure of worth.  This makes you, Mab, worth more than any of your reader and your fellow comic creators in a fashion that can be considered objective rather than that of an opinion people share.  Instead of trying to make people feel worth in of themselves, it's another way of lording your superiority over them.  That is mean, and in my opinion, an abuse of power.

This abuse of power shows up, in more ways than being a mod.  An example of abuse shows up when you "stick up" for your friends.

Now, as an aside, a lot of people have accused me in the past of asking whatever friends I had at the time to agree with me 100%.  I actually would like friends such as yourself who would defend me so vigorously when I wasn't even mentioned by name.  But no one dares step up for me in such an instance, and I'm free to be mocked in my absence, and abused in my presence.

However, while admirable for you to stick up for your friends, the fact remains that you're a powerful person (if you deny that you are, I dare you to disappear from any on-line activity for as long as I have and see what happens).  This means you can only be friends with other poweful people.   When powerful people form relationships with other powerful people, this friendship is an affiliation, another means of controlling those who do not have such power.  I could make a friend right now and no one would ever listen to either of us.  You can make a friend with another person of your level and both of you would wield a collective, unstoppable influence.  This makes you mean.  The fact that you want to throw the donation meter in one's face is just an externsion of said meanness.  The fact that you think of yourself as an equal and a friend to those who who charge for their sites makes you no different than one who charges for a site.  If you don't challenge them on it, you're encouraging it.

And now, the cherry on top of this sundae...

But right now the only way to pay my car insurance/websites/Sallie Mae loanshark is through my old bank and the only thing I have attached to that is paypal...

It's a meh situation.  I don't like it.  I intend to fix it. But at the time everything is in paperwork and so its the sit-n-spin game.

If you're having money troubles, why not just put your websites aside?  Why have the people help you monetarily so that you can continue to do what you do?  What about all the people who do have full-time jobs and update their comics on a regular basis?   Should they beg for money too so they can stop working?  Furthermore, will you stop accepting donations when you do get back on your feet?

[Amber Williams]

*edity note:*  Nyar.  Since Gabi is love, I'll step down from this discussion.  The main reason I'm removing this post is because I don't want it to seem like I'm demanding the last word. (Cause we all know that this type of thing will just go back and forth for pages)  So I'll cut myself off here so the thread can die proper.

If anyone is really bent up for it though, feel free to PM for it.  *end edity note*

[Gabi]

I think this discussion is becoming a bit too heated. We have different opinions and I doubt we'll come to an agreement on this, but we should all at least try not to offend the others.

We live in a human society. Everything we do determines how other see us, and every action can cause you to gain or lose some power. The only ways to get out of that scheme would be by either dying or becoming a hermit, and I don't think that would do anyone much good.

And Destina, we don't agree on most things but I value you as a person and, if I thought someone was attacking you, I would stick up for you.

[Amber Williams]

You win this round all purpose vixen.  But one day, I shall remember which country of South America you live in and try to invade! ONE DAY.

Sooo...net neutrality eh?

[Xuzaf D]

It's okay Amber, we all know that your actual plan is to take the souls of your fanbase and use them to power your death weapons. 

[Amber Williams]

Shhh! I promised you Russia for your silence!

[Gabi]

You win this round all purpose vixen.  But one day, I shall remember which country of South America you live in and try to invade! ONE DAY.

Sooo...net neutrality eh?

It's Argentina. Do come, please. I'm sure you'd be better at running it than the self-centered leeches who run it now. (The unofficial motto of all politicians here is "grab everything you can while you have the chance".)

[superluser]

It's Argentina. Do come, please. I'm sure you'd be better at running it than the self-centered leeches who run it now. (The unofficial motto of all politicians here is "grab everything you can while you have the chance".)

Oh, yeah.  The Argentinean economy thing.  I'll kick the IMF for you.

Obviously, you don't pay attention to US News.  That's pretty much the motto of the politicians here, especially when relating to that country that starts with an I that we probably shouldn't be talking about.

[Gabi]

Oh, I don't want US politicians to run my country at all. The ones we have now are corrupt but at least if they sink the ship they have nowhere else to run to. I was inviting Amber, not Bush.

And I'd appreciate the kick in the IMF's backside (or frontside, even), thanks.

[Netami]

God, this thread is fuckin' gold.

[Amber Williams]

God, this thread is fuckin' gold.

Ah dangit.  Now I owe DMoon money.

[Darkmoon]

For those that are curious:
I purposefully stayed out of this thread for a few reason, not the least of which is that Destina is my friend and anything I say would have been biased.

Another reason is that I take donation on CVRPG. My status symbol and power are pathetic. I get, most months, $0 in donations (the last two months not-with-standing). I'm biased on that side because I take donations and give rewards to everyone.

I stayed out because I didn't want to read a huge thread and see a heated discussion I've had with Destina a few times before. It wasn't worth it, honestly.

And, I stayed out because Destina is a big girl and can take care of herself in these matters.

That said, this discussion is QUITE heated and needs to calm down. All involved that have not already stepped away should do so and give this thread no less than THREE DAYS to simmer down and for all involved to cool.

I won't lock this thread, as others may want to comment, but anyone that was a part of this discussion needs to leave it alone for three days or you will be baneed for NO LESS than 1 week.

[Damaris]

okay- that was all spelled correctly.  Who logged in as you? :p

[Darkmoon]

...


Poohead.

[Xuzaf D]

My paypal order hasn't come in yet...

Yeah, that's right... I went there... trying to put the thread back on track like the evil penis I am...

[Netami]

Someone say penis? Oh.

So what order did you place, exactly?

My only gripe with paypal is how long it can take sometimes. One day, the transactions are instant, another day and it'd be some sort of huge wait for even the simplest of things. I find it's often tied to the merchant involved, however... Also method of payment is a big one, especially if you use something besides a bank account or credit card. E-money transfers can take a long, long time.

[superluser]

Someone say penis? Oh.

So what order did you place, exactly?

Uh...the juxtaposition of those two sentences is not good for my sanity.

[Netami]

Would you like to order some penis?

[Gabi]

Alright, alright, back on track, please. Has anyone ever withdrawn money from a PAYPAL account via cheque? I'm afraid I'll probably have to take some of my money that way because I accidentally created two accounts (BOO, I know) and some of the money was sent to the wrong one and I don't have 2 trustworthy relatives who have a bank account in the USA. So, do you think the cheque will arrive safely if I request it? Because the only other way would be to transfer all my funds from that account to the other, but with a fee of 5.4% it would cost more than the cheque.