An Open Letter to the GDQ community

2015-11-22 05:59:55 pm

Quote from EggmaniMN:

Quote from starsarealigned:

maybe take a second to breathe and reflect on what's being said before posting a knee-jerk response. It's not always about you. There are valid, constructive points made all the time that are brushed off and snarked at

This goes both ways.

Yes, I should have stated that; I absolutely agree.

dailymc

2015-11-22 06:00:23 pm

Maybe have them say "not a official GDQ Twitter"? Don't think you understand. They are not acting as themselves, they are acting as the personality of the GDQ Monitor, a widely known joke among people who watch GDQs. When people see this, along with OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS not posted anywhere else, what else are they going to believe? Also..

Quote from TaylorTotFTW:

Quote from sumichu:

There is only one official GDQ Twitter account: @GamesDoneQuick. More than one person has access to this account.

@GDQMonitor is not an 'official' account. It's a personal account owned by someone on staff who posts about the things they've been working on. Only one person (to my knowledge) has access to it.

We won't be telling staff members how to run their personal accounts (this includes their Twitch channels) with regards to blocking people, as we feel that doing so would cross the line between work and their personal life.

Moving forward, the important announcements will be pushed to @GamesDoneQuick, and we'll bring on more people to cover posting.

in the email sent to Yashichi regarding his ban from the event, he was told GDQMonitor was "an official means of communication"

Maybe have them say "not a official GDQ Twitter"? Don't think you understand. They are not acting as themselves, they are acting as the personality of the GDQ Monitor, a widely known joke among people who watch GDQs. When people see this, along with OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS not posted anywhere else, what else are they going to believe? Also..

[quote="TaylorTotFTW"][quote="sumichu"]There is only one official GDQ Twitter account: [url="http://twitter.com/gamesdonequick"]@GamesDoneQuick[/url].  More than one person has access to this account.

@GDQMonitor is not an 'official' account. It's a personal account owned by someone on staff who posts about the things they've been working on.  Only one person (to my knowledge) has access to it.

We won't be telling staff members how to run their personal accounts (this includes their Twitch channels) with regards to blocking people, as we feel that doing so would cross the line between work and their personal life.

Moving forward, the important announcements will be pushed to @GamesDoneQuick, and we'll bring on more people to cover posting.[/quote]

in the email sent to Yashichi regarding his ban from the event, he was told GDQMonitor was "an official means of communication"[/quote]

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2015-11-22 06:12:07 pm

Cool Matty: 2015-11-22 06:05:57 pm

Cool Matty: 2015-11-22 06:04:01 pm

2015-11-22 06:03:40 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from dailymc:

Maybe have them say "not a official GDQ Twitter"? Don't think you understand. They are not acting as themselves, they are acting as the personality of the GDQ Monitor, a widely known joke among people who watch GDQs. When people see this, along with OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS not posted anywhere else, what else are they going to believe? Also..

We're going to address this for good with two answers:

1. The instances where the monitor account tweeted official information that the community needs to know without an accompanying tweet from the main GDQ account have been extremely rare, and not on purpose.

2. We are, moving forward, focusing on the main GDQ account, so any issues with the monitor (bans, miscommunications, etc) will be irrelevant. This is one of the changes we're making, you wanted it to happen, so we're making it happen. To be explicit, the monitor account isn't making official information available anymore.

We can't go back in time and make those tweets happen, but we can make sure we do the right thing going forward.

[quote="dailymc"]Maybe have them say "not a official GDQ Twitter"? Don't think you understand. They are not acting as themselves, they are acting as the personality of the GDQ Monitor, a widely known joke among people who watch GDQs. When people see this, along with OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS not posted anywhere else, what else are they going to believe? Also..

[/quote]

We're going to address this for good with two answers:

1. The instances where the monitor account tweeted official information that the community needs to know without an accompanying tweet from the main GDQ account have been extremely rare, and not on purpose.

2. We are, moving forward, focusing on the main GDQ account, so any issues with the monitor (bans, miscommunications, etc) will be irrelevant. This is one of the changes we're making, you wanted it to happen, so we're making it happen. To be explicit, the monitor account isn't making official information available anymore.

We can't go back in time and make those tweets happen, but we can make sure we do the right thing going forward.

sumichu

Edit history:

sumichu: 2015-11-22 06:17:35 pm

2015-11-22 06:15:01 pm

ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

Quote from dailymc:

Maybe have them say "not a official GDQ Twitter"? Don't think you understand. They are not acting as themselves, they are acting as the personality of the GDQ Monitor, a widely known joke among people who watch GDQs. When people see this, along with OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS not posted anywhere else, what else are they going to believe?

Sorry, forgot the quote. My response re: blocking was meant to be in response to:

Quote from Lenophis:

It speaks to a larger issue: BIAS. When the staff is putting this together, they have to work with a lot of people. If Klaige (as an example) is blocking other people attending about info they need to know, then you're doing it wrong. This is basic fundamentals. You guys need to step up and work together, and this goes to the antendees as well.

As Matt stated above, GDQMonitor won't be making official notices anymore. They'll be on @GamesDoneQuick, along with other announcements from the rest of the staff re: new forms, topics, etc.

I totally get that people have been confused on where they should be getting their messages from, and I apologize for that. Hopefully, this change will push things in the right direction.

[quote="dailymc"]Maybe have them say "not a official GDQ Twitter"? Don't think you understand. They are not acting as themselves, they are acting as the personality of the GDQ Monitor, a widely known joke among people who watch GDQs. When people see this, along with OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS not posted anywhere else, what else are they going to believe?[/quote]

Sorry, forgot the quote.  My response re: blocking was meant to be in response to:

[quote="Lenophis"]It speaks to a larger issue: BIAS. When the staff is putting this together, they have to work with a lot of people. If Klaige (as an example) is blocking other people attending about info [b]they need to know[/b], then you're doing it wrong. This is basic fundamentals. You guys need to step up and work together, and this goes to the antendees as well.[/quote]

As Matt stated above, GDQMonitor won't be making official notices anymore.  They'll be on @GamesDoneQuick, along with other announcements from the rest of the staff re: new forms, topics, etc.

I totally get that people have been confused on where they should be getting their messages from, and I apologize for that.  Hopefully, this change will push things in the right direction.

Billnye_Fan

2015-11-22 06:15:37 pm

The only suggestion that I want to make before AGDQ:

Once AGDQ is over. Open the feedback thread. Do not wait 2 weeks+ for feedback. You do not have to reply to posts for 2 weeks but stifling fresh feedback hurts overall.

dailymc

2015-11-22 06:17:49 pm

You are ignoring TaylorTotFTW's post. I don't mean to get on your nerves, but I seriously think there needs to be repercussions and there needs to be answers that don't seem half done.

CrimsonAvix

2015-11-22 06:19:09 pm

Quote from sumichu:

There is only one official GDQ Twitter account: @GamesDoneQuick. More than one person has access to this account.

@GDQMonitor is not an 'official' account. It's a personal account owned by someone on staff who posts about the things they've been working on. Only one person (to my knowledge) has access to it.

We won't be telling staff members how to run their personal accounts (this includes their Twitch channels) with regards to blocking people, as we feel that doing so would cross the line between work and their personal life.

Moving forward, the important announcements will be pushed to @GamesDoneQuick, and we'll bring on more people to cover posting.

My suggestion regarding this is that it is treated like many other companies out there treat theirs. While it may be a personal twitter account and you may not want to demand how people run things in their personal life, they should also be reminded that things they post, especially when they are known to be tied to GDQ (like GDQMonitor is) are still a reflection of the organization and should be treated as such.

Working for Kelloggs, if I came out and was offering "official Kellogg's news" or whatever, or speaking on behalf of Kellogg's, I would get lovely messages, emails, calls, what-have-you.

I understand not wanting to interfere with peoples personal accounts and such, but you have to account for the image of GDQ, and people associated should be keeping that in mind with what they post and actions they take on their personal accounts, or should change their accounts so they aren't reflective of GDQ.

Just my two cents. PR is a bitch to deal with.

[quote="sumichu"]There is only one official GDQ Twitter account: [url="http://twitter.com/gamesdonequick"]@GamesDoneQuick[/url].  More than one person has access to this account.

@GDQMonitor is not an 'official' account. It's a personal account owned by someone on staff who posts about the things they've been working on.  Only one person (to my knowledge) has access to it.

We won't be telling staff members how to run their personal accounts (this includes their Twitch channels) with regards to blocking people, as we feel that doing so would cross the line between work and their personal life.

Moving forward, the important announcements will be pushed to @GamesDoneQuick, and we'll bring on more people to cover posting.[/quote]

My suggestion regarding this is that it is treated like many other companies out there treat theirs. While it may be a personal twitter account and you may not want to demand how people run things in their personal life, they should also be reminded that things they post, especially when they are known to be tied to GDQ (like GDQMonitor is) are still a reflection of the organization and should be treated as such.

Working for Kelloggs, if I came out and was offering "official Kellogg's news" or whatever, or speaking on behalf of Kellogg's, I would get lovely messages, emails, calls, what-have-you.

I understand not wanting to interfere with peoples personal accounts and such, but you have to account for the image of GDQ, and people associated should be keeping that in mind with what they post and actions they take on their personal accounts, or should change their accounts so they aren't reflective of GDQ.

Just my two cents. PR is a bitch to deal with.

sumichu

Edit history:

sumichu: 2015-11-22 06:27:49 pm

sumichu: 2015-11-22 06:27:47 pm

sumichu: 2015-11-22 06:27:46 pm

sumichu: 2015-11-22 06:27:02 pm

2015-11-22 06:26:37 pm

ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

Quote from dailymc:

You are ignoring TaylorTotFTW's post. I don't mean to get on your nerves, but I seriously think there needs to be repercussions and there needs to be answers that don't seem half done.

We've been discussing because we think there may be a bit of confusion.

Yashi's actions with "GDQMonitor" did not have anything to do with the @GDQMonitor Twitter. It was directly related to our live broadcast, which had the actual, physical monitor on it.

dailymc

2015-11-22 06:27:54 pm

Quote from sumichu:

Quote from dailymc:

You are ignoring TaylorTotFTW's post. I don't mean to get on your nerves, but I seriously think there needs to be repercussions and there needs to be answers that don't seem half done.

We've been discussing because we think there may be a bit of confusion.

Yashi's actions with "GDQMonitor" weren't affecting the @GDQMonitor Twitter. It was directly related to our broadcast of the livestream, which had the actual, physical monitor on it.

Yashi says he understands. (Can he got unbanned? I'll keep asking.)

TaylorTotFTW

2015-11-22 06:30:45 pm

TeamTopSpeed

Quote from sumichu:

Quote from dailymc:

You are ignoring TaylorTotFTW's post. I don't mean to get on your nerves, but I seriously think there needs to be repercussions and there needs to be answers that don't seem half done.

We've been discussing because we think there may be a bit of confusion.

Yashi's actions with "GDQMonitor" did not have anything to do with the @GDQMonitor Twitter. It was directly related to our live broadcast, which had the actual, physical monitor on it.

He says he understands and offers this gif as acceptance

dwangoAC

2015-11-22 06:35:48 pm

Keeper of TASBot

I'd like to pull over to the side of the road for a moment and encourage everyone to (re)read "A Speedrun Carol" by LLCoolDave (second article on the page). ...Read it yet? Go on, it's a good read - at least glance at what the "Ghost of Speedrun Yet To come" has to say about a future event.

Now, back to November 22nd, 2015: We stand on the cusp of AGDQ 2016. Planning for the event has been anything but smooth, maligned by major illness, the same staff members organizing both SGDQ 2015 and AGDQ 2016 and being weary, an automated E-Mail gone wrong, and a host of other issues brought up here in the forums and elsewhere. I consider this open letter which contains the phrases "I want to take the time and make a direct apology for how submissions and registrations have gone" and "I take full responsibility for those issues" to be an honest attempt to apologize as much as a person can. It is abundantly clear to me that AGDQ 2016 staff is doing what they can to correct past mistakes, all while weathering criticism that has not always been constructive.

I don't want AGDQ 2016 to be the event described by the Ghost of Speedrun Yet To Come. I, for one, want AGDQ 2016 to be one of the best events yet despite the rough start, and I'm going to do whatever I can to make it, well, awesome. I know some people feel hurt and may never accept any response as good enough due to negative reinforcement but I encourage everyone to keep in mind the charitable reasons for the event, have a little grace, and move past this. Staff, thanks for everything you do, and here's to a great event!

I'd like to pull over to the side of the road for a moment and encourage everyone to (re)read "[url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/oldnews13q4.html]A Speedrun Carol[/url]" by LLCoolDave (second article on the page).  ...Read it yet?  Go on, it's a good read - at least glance at what the "Ghost of Speedrun Yet To come" has to say about a future event.

Now, back to November 22nd, 2015: We stand on the cusp of AGDQ 2016.  Planning for the event has been anything but smooth, maligned by major illness, the same staff members organizing both SGDQ 2015 and AGDQ 2016 and being weary, an automated E-Mail gone wrong, and a host of other issues brought up here in the forums and elsewhere.  I consider this open letter which contains the phrases "I want to take the time and make a direct apology for how submissions and registrations have gone" and "I take full responsibility for those issues" to be an honest attempt to apologize as much as a person can.  It is abundantly clear to me that AGDQ 2016 staff is doing what they can to correct past mistakes, all while weathering criticism that has not always been constructive.

I don't want AGDQ 2016 to be the event described by the Ghost of Speedrun Yet To Come.  I, for one, want AGDQ 2016 to be one of the best events yet despite the rough start, and I'm going to do whatever I can to make it, well, awesome.  I know some people feel hurt and may never accept any response as good enough due to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement]negative reinforcement[/url] but I encourage everyone to keep in mind the charitable reasons for the event, have a little grace, and move past this.  Staff, thanks for everything you do, and here's to a great event!

sumichu

2015-11-22 06:36:22 pm

ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

Quote from CrimsonAvix:

Quote from sumichu:

There is only one official GDQ Twitter account: @GamesDoneQuick. More than one person has access to this account.

@GDQMonitor is not an 'official' account. It's a personal account owned by someone on staff who posts about the things they've been working on. Only one person (to my knowledge) has access to it.

We won't be telling staff members how to run their personal accounts (this includes their Twitch channels) with regards to blocking people, as we feel that doing so would cross the line between work and their personal life.

Moving forward, the important announcements will be pushed to @GamesDoneQuick, and we'll bring on more people to cover posting.

My suggestion regarding this is that it is treated like many other companies out there treat theirs. While it may be a personal twitter account and you may not want to demand how people run things in their personal life, they should also be reminded that things they post, especially when they are known to be tied to GDQ (like GDQMonitor is) are still a reflection of the organization and should be treated as such.

Working for Kelloggs, if I came out and was offering "official Kellogg's news" or whatever, or speaking on behalf of Kellogg's, I would get lovely messages, emails, calls, what-have-you.

I understand not wanting to interfere with peoples personal accounts and such, but you have to account for the image of GDQ, and people associated should be keeping that in mind with what they post and actions they take on their personal accounts, or should change their accounts so they aren't reflective of GDQ.

Just my two cents. PR is a bitch to deal with.

We've asked staff if they can dial back their posts a bit from time to time, but I'd say that is the absolute maximum interference we're willing to impose on them. We're not going to focus on staff's personal accounts as much as we're going to focus on putting announcements where they should be (the @GamesDoneQuick twitter and more emails for the really REALLY important runner stuff).

[quote="CrimsonAvix"][quote="sumichu"]There is only one official GDQ Twitter account: [url="http://twitter.com/gamesdonequick"]@GamesDoneQuick[/url].  More than one person has access to this account.

@GDQMonitor is not an 'official' account. It's a personal account owned by someone on staff who posts about the things they've been working on.  Only one person (to my knowledge) has access to it.

We won't be telling staff members how to run their personal accounts (this includes their Twitch channels) with regards to blocking people, as we feel that doing so would cross the line between work and their personal life.

Moving forward, the important announcements will be pushed to @GamesDoneQuick, and we'll bring on more people to cover posting.[/quote]

My suggestion regarding this is that it is treated like many other companies out there treat theirs. While it may be a personal twitter account and you may not want to demand how people run things in their personal life, they should also be reminded that things they post, especially when they are known to be tied to GDQ (like GDQMonitor is) are still a reflection of the organization and should be treated as such.

Working for Kelloggs, if I came out and was offering "official Kellogg's news" or whatever, or speaking on behalf of Kellogg's, I would get lovely messages, emails, calls, what-have-you.

I understand not wanting to interfere with peoples personal accounts and such, but you have to account for the image of GDQ, and people associated should be keeping that in mind with what they post and actions they take on their personal accounts, or should change their accounts so they aren't reflective of GDQ.

Just my two cents. PR is a bitch to deal with.
[/quote]

We've asked staff if they can dial back their posts a bit from time to time, but I'd say that is the absolute maximum interference we're willing to impose on them.  We're not going to focus on staff's personal accounts as much as we're going to focus on putting announcements where they should be (the @GamesDoneQuick twitter and more emails for the really REALLY important runner stuff).

jymotion

Edit history:

jymotion: 2015-11-22 07:02:58 pm

jymotion: 2015-11-22 06:56:13 pm

jymotion: 2015-11-22 06:50:08 pm

2015-11-22 06:49:57 pm

Quote from dwangoAC:

I encourage everyone to keep in mind the charitable reasons for the event...

People need to understand that criticizing the organization running the event does not mean you oppose the cause it supports. It's a false dichotomy. Pointing out serious flaws in the planning process and the people conducting it does not make you anti-charity.

It's just more difficult to rally around a cause and say things like "every dollar counts" when the first $167,000 in donations go indirectly to the staff. It's highly unlikely the current staff adds that much value for the charity over a team of volunteers. And this of course is just one issue.

dwangoAC

2015-11-22 07:37:50 pm

Keeper of TASBot

Quote from jymotion:

People need to understand that criticizing the organization running the event does not mean you oppose the cause it supports. It's a false dichotomy. Pointing out serious flaws in the planning process and the people conducting it does not make you anti-charity.

Agreed, there is a difference between the two, but I'd like to encourage organizers and runners/attendees alike to have a bit more grace - this isn't just some business relationship, this is for a charitable cause that's worth setting aside personal differences for, especially when one side is genuinely doing the best they possibly can to make up for past mistakes.

Quote from jymotion:

It's just more difficult to rally around a cause and say things like "every dollar counts" when the first $167,000 in donations go indirectly to the staff. It's highly unlikely the current staff adds that much value for the charity over a team of volunteers. And this of course is just one issue.

Whoa there, hang on. For one thing, the events couldn't possibly be this big with just volunteers helping out in their spare time, so clearly some people will need to be paid to put in the extra hours required for an event that's likely to raise $1M+ (and if you think organizing unpaid volunteers with tasks as big as this is easy, I can tell you from personal experience that it isn't). So, money is involved to cover the cost of people, and in this case PCF budgeted $167k out of their existing budget, completely and utterly unrelated to any funds that haven't even been raised yet. They would do the same thing if this were a walkathon / running marathon.
Now, you may feel that some people haven't "earned" that money, and that's your opinion, but it's not a justifiable position to say that the "first" money raised from a future event will go indirectly to staff. This is a s much a gamble for PCF as anyone - they are the ones putting the money on the line hoping for a beneficial outcome, and I'm sure PCF would speak up if they felt things were being so horribly mismanaged that intervention was necessary.

But, I digress - my point remains that while mistakes were made the individuals involved are doing what they can to make things right and it's less important to me to hold a petty grudge and more important to make AGDQ 2016 successful.

[quote="jymotion"]People need to understand that criticizing the organization running the event does not mean you oppose the cause it supports. It's a false dichotomy. Pointing out serious flaws in the planning process and the people conducting it does not make you anti-charity.[/quote]
Agreed, there is a difference between the two, but I'd like to encourage organizers and runners/attendees alike to have a bit more grace - this isn't just some business relationship, this is for a charitable cause that's worth setting aside personal differences for, especially when one side is genuinely doing the best they possibly can to make up for past mistakes.

[quote="jymotion"]It's just more difficult to rally around a cause and say things like "every dollar counts" when the first $167,000 in donations go indirectly to the staff. It's highly unlikely the current staff adds that much value for the charity over a team of volunteers. And this of course is just one issue.[/quote]
Whoa there, hang on.  For one thing, the events couldn't possibly be this big with just volunteers helping out in their spare time, so clearly some people will need to be paid to put in the extra hours required for an event that's likely to raise $1M+ (and if you think organizing unpaid volunteers with tasks as big as this is easy, I can tell you from personal experience that it isn't).  So, money is involved to cover the cost of people, and in this case PCF budgeted $167k out of their existing budget, [b]completely and utterly unrelated to any funds that haven't even been raised yet[/b].  They would do the same thing if this were a walkathon / running marathon.
Now, you may feel that some people haven't "earned" that money, and that's your opinion, but it's not a justifiable position to say that the "first" money raised from a future event will go indirectly to staff.  This is a s much a gamble for PCF as anyone - they are the ones putting the money on the line hoping for a beneficial outcome, and I'm sure PCF would speak up if they felt things were being so horribly mismanaged that intervention was necessary.

But, I digress - my point remains that while mistakes were made the individuals involved are doing what they can to make things right and it's less important to me to hold a petty grudge and more important to make AGDQ 2016 successful.

Grygor

2015-11-22 08:15:58 pm

Quote from dwangoAC:

But, I digress - my point remains that while mistakes were made the individuals involved are doing what they can to make things right and it's less important to me to hold a petty grudge and more important to make AGDQ 2016 successful.

Or maybe, just maybe, the people you accuse of "holding petty grudges" are trying to do what they believe is in the best interests of GDQ...

bassdeluxe27

2015-11-22 08:25:50 pm

aka forte27

Quote from jymotion:

It's just more difficult to rally around a cause and say things like "every dollar counts" when the first $167,000 in donations go indirectly to the staff. It's highly unlikely the current staff adds that much value for the charity over a team of volunteers. And this of course is just one issue.

You aren't the only person to say this, so my words aren't directed at you specifically. That being said, this mentality pisses me off. Every non-profit organization does this. If you look at PCF's financials, 25% of all revenue they receive either go toward running the company, or paying for fundraising events. This is normal, and the amount that PCF pays staff to run events is their decision to make based on the value they see in our events.

PCF's budget for AGDQ this year is about $225,000. When you consider that we brought in $1.5 million last year, that's about 15% of these donations that will go directly toward running this event, which is perfectly in line with PCF's standard planning, and is perfectly in line with standard non-profit operating procedure. Also, PCF is paying staff for all of their work, not just the work done during the week of AGDQ, so the amount being paid (avg. $9k per staffer), is perfectly reasonable. In fact, it is more appropriate that the staff does get compensated for their time. While we see negatives about the internal workings of GDQ as a whole, the fact is, they are incredibly successful at accomplishing their main goal, which is raising money for charity, and PCF has incentive to reward them appropriately.

I have my own personal gripes about GDQ management, but none of them have to do with money. People just don't seem to understand how non-profits actually work.

[quote="jymotion"]It's just more difficult to rally around a cause and say things like "every dollar counts" when the first $167,000 in donations go indirectly to the staff. It's highly unlikely the current staff adds that much value for the charity over a team of volunteers. And this of course is just one issue.[/quote]

You aren't the only person to say this, so my words aren't directed at you specifically.  That being said, this mentality pisses me off.  Every non-profit organization does this.  If you look at PCF's financials, 25% of all revenue they receive either go toward running the company, or paying for fundraising events.  This is normal, and the amount that PCF pays staff to run events is their decision to make based on the value they see in our events.

PCF's budget for AGDQ this year is about $225,000.  When you consider that we brought in $1.5 million last year, that's about 15% of these donations that will go directly toward running this event, which is perfectly in line with PCF's standard planning, and is perfectly in line with standard non-profit operating procedure.  Also, PCF is paying staff for all of their work, not just the work done during the week of AGDQ, so the amount being paid (avg. $9k per staffer), is perfectly reasonable.  In fact, it is more appropriate that the staff does get compensated for their time.  While we see negatives about the internal workings of GDQ as a whole, the fact is, they are incredibly successful at accomplishing their main goal, which is raising money for charity, and PCF has incentive to reward them appropriately.

I have my own personal gripes about GDQ management, but none of them have to do with money.  People just don't seem to understand how non-profits actually work.

jymotion

Edit history:

jymotion: 2015-11-22 08:34:07 pm

2015-11-22 08:27:08 pm

Quote from dwangoAC:

Agreed, there is a difference between the two, but I'd like to encourage organizers and runners/attendees alike to have a bit more grace - this isn't just some business relationship, this is for a charitable cause that's worth setting aside personal differences for, especially when one side is genuinely doing the best they possibly can to make up for past mistakes.

You agreed with my counter-point, but then just repeated your initial point about why they shouldn't be criticized. I don't know what personal differences (or later mentioned "petty grudges") you're talking about. Very few of the criticisms I've seen have been personal.

Quote from dwangoAC:

the events couldn't possibly be this big with just volunteers helping out in their spare time

Keep in mind: each GDQ has a team and they have an entire year to plan the event. The event breaks down to booking a hotel, handling streaming equipment, and schedule planning. Can you tell me what qualifications these 19 people accepting salaries (some anonymous) have that 19 volunteers could not possibly have? Considering many steps of the planning process for this marathon (and previous) has been botched in some way, I'm skeptical.

Quote from dwangoAC:

in this case PCF budgeted $167k out of their existing budget, completely and utterly unrelated to any funds that haven't even been raised yet ... it's not a justifiable position to say that the "first" money raised from a future event will go indirectly to staff.

I'm not sure you understand what 'indirectly' means. My point was that (not including the cost of the venue and for-some-reason brand new equipment) PCF starts this event at -$167,000. The event needs to recoup $167,000 in order to cover the salaries alone. If the salaries aren't necessary, then the money wouldn't have to come out of their budget at all. That was my point.

PCF would not speak up about it if they wanted to because it is still a near certainty that they will gain a positive return. GDQ has the leverage that they can just switch to another charity that is willing to pay them, and if PCF has paid any attention to the people already asking for a new charity, that would probably worry them.

edit:

Quote from bassdeluxe27:

People just don't seem to understand how non-profits actually work.

I know you said you weren't directing this at me, so I'm not offended, but I do understand how they work. I'm often frustrated by those types of comments as well - but when you look at the money a non-profit spends, it's expected to be spent on something that generates equal or greater value. Their expenses to cover the venue, for example, makes the event possible and is a valuable investment for them. I do not see the $167,000 paid to GDQ staff, based on performance, in the same light and I think it's a shame it doesn't go to something more valuable.

[quote="dwangoAC"]Agreed, there is a difference between the two, but I'd like to encourage organizers and runners/attendees alike to have a bit more grace - this isn't just some business relationship, this is for a charitable cause that's worth setting aside personal differences for, especially when one side is genuinely doing the best they possibly can to make up for past mistakes.[/quote]
You agreed with my counter-point, but then just repeated your initial point about why they shouldn't be criticized. I don't know what personal differences (or later mentioned "petty grudges") you're talking about. Very few of the criticisms I've seen have been personal.

[quote="dwangoAC"]the events couldn't possibly be this big with just volunteers helping out in their spare time[/quote]
Keep in mind: each GDQ has a team and they have an entire year to plan the event. The event breaks down to booking a hotel, handling streaming equipment, and schedule planning. Can you tell me what qualifications these 19 people accepting salaries (some anonymous) have that 19 volunteers could not possibly have? Considering many steps of the planning process for this marathon (and previous) has been botched in some way, I'm skeptical.

[quote="dwangoAC"]in this case PCF budgeted $167k out of their existing budget, completely and utterly unrelated to any funds that haven't even been raised yet ... it's not a justifiable position to say that the "first" money raised from a future event will go indirectly to staff.[/quote]
I'm not sure you understand what 'indirectly' means. My point was that (not including the cost of the venue and for-some-reason brand new equipment) PCF starts this event at -$167,000. The event needs to recoup $167,000 in order to cover the salaries alone. If the salaries aren't necessary, then the money wouldn't have to come out of their budget at all. That was my point.

PCF would not speak up about it if they wanted to because it is still a near certainty that they will gain a positive return. GDQ has the leverage that they can just switch to another charity that is willing to pay them, and if PCF has paid any attention to the people already asking for a new charity, that would probably worry them.

edit:
[quote="bassdeluxe27"]People just don't seem to understand how non-profits actually work.[/quote]
I know you said you weren't directing this at me, so I'm not offended, but I do understand how they work. I'm often frustrated by those types of comments as well - but when you look at the money a non-profit spends, it's expected to be spent on something that generates equal or greater value. Their expenses to cover the venue, for example, makes the event possible and is a valuable investment for them. I do not see the $167,000 paid to GDQ staff, based on performance, in the same light and I think it's a shame it doesn't go to something more valuable.

bassdeluxe27

Edit history:

bassdeluxe27: 2015-11-22 08:51:31 pm

bassdeluxe27: 2015-11-22 08:50:10 pm

2015-11-22 08:49:47 pm

aka forte27

Quote from jymotion:

I know you said you weren't directing this at me, so I'm not offended, but I do understand how they work. I'm often frustrated by those types of comments as well - but when you look at the money a non-profit spends, it's expected to be spent on something that generates equal or greater value. Their expenses to cover the venue, for example, makes the event possible and is a valuable investment for them. I do not see the $167,000 paid to GDQ staff, based on performance, in the same light and I think it's a shame it doesn't go to something more valuable.

Based on performance, GDQ has raised over $3 million for PCF in the past 5 years. $2.6 million of that has come in the past 2 years. I'd say that's pretty valuable.

jymotion

2015-11-22 08:53:54 pm

Quote from bassdeluxe27:

Based on performance, GDQ has raised over $3 million for PCF in the past 5 years. I'd say that's pretty valuable.

If we're ignoring the fact that much of that is thanks to the unpaid performers, then yes, it's very well deserved.

dwangoAC

2015-11-22 08:59:37 pm

Keeper of TASBot

Quote from jymotion:

PCF would not speak up about it if they wanted to because it is still a near certainty that they will gain a positive return. GDQ has the leverage that they can just switch to another charity that is willing to pay them, and if PCF has paid any attention to the people already asking for a new charity, that would probably worry them.

The way it's been presented by staff in the past, PCF has a contract that must be fulfilled - if anyone has leverage it's PCF. I'm sure PCF is probably aware that they aren't universally loved by now but they seem to not be overly bothered by it.

Quote from jymotion:

I do not see the $167,000 paid to GDQ staff, based on performance, in the same light and I think it's a shame it doesn't go to something more valuable.

I still feel like you highly undevalue how difficult organizing something this big is. I'd also like to point out that the phrase "unpaid performers" is a mighty strange name for what I would consider "volunteers willing to sacrifice their own time for a charity they believe in", which, by the way, frequently includes staff as well, but I'm going to step back from this thread as this isn't even what I was trying to highlight, which was that LLCoolDave wrote a really awesome article that's worth reading. Smiley

[quote="jymotion"]PCF would not speak up about it if they wanted to because it is still a near certainty that they will gain a positive return. GDQ has the leverage that they can just switch to another charity that is willing to pay them, and if PCF has paid any attention to the people already asking for a new charity, that would probably worry them.[/quote]
The way it's been presented by staff in the past, PCF has a contract that must be fulfilled - if anyone has leverage it's PCF.  I'm sure PCF is probably aware that they aren't universally loved by now but they seem to not be overly bothered by it.

[quote="jymotion"]I do not see the $167,000 paid to GDQ staff, based on performance, in the same light and I think it's a shame it doesn't go to something more valuable.[/quote]
I still feel like you highly undevalue how difficult organizing something this big is.  I'd also like to point out that the phrase "unpaid performers" is a mighty strange name for what I would consider "volunteers willing to sacrifice their own time for a charity they believe in", which, by the way, frequently includes staff as well, but I'm going to step back from this thread as this isn't even what I was trying to highlight, which was that LLCoolDave [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/oldnews13q4.html]wrote a really awesome article that's worth reading[/url]. :)

jymotion

Edit history:

jymotion: 2015-11-22 09:34:38 pm

jymotion: 2015-11-22 09:24:53 pm

jymotion: 2015-11-22 09:23:04 pm

jymotion: 2015-11-22 09:17:22 pm

2015-11-22 09:14:13 pm

Quote from dqangoAC:

I still feel like you highly undevalue how difficult organizing something this big is. I'd also like to point out that the phrase "unpaid performers" is a mighty strange name for what I would consider "volunteers willing to sacrifice their own time for a charity they believe in", which, by the way, frequently includes staff as well, but I'm going to step back from this thread as this isn't even what I was trying to highlight, which was that LLCoolDave wrote a really awesome article that's worth reading. Smiley

The amount of work it takes to organize a marathon does not scale linearly with the amount of money it brings in. Like I said, it's largely planning the schedule, booking the hotel and running the stream. Marathons like ESA seem to do this just fine (if not better) without taking in six figures of income.

Not sure what point you were attempting to make with the bit about the runners. Both descriptions are accurate and mine wasn't an insult (I was one). Our points are similar in saying that a lot of people sacrifice their time to make the GDQs a success - I just expanded that to say it's foolish to attribute the donation totals solely to the few asking for payment.

I guess I'll also let my points rest unless addressed. I just hope "don't worry about it - it's all for a good cause" isn't the only feedback that comes out of this thread.

edit: a decent point was brought up on twitter. If the staff deserves thousands of dollars for the value they bring to the event, why not the big name runners whose appearances have been shown to directly bring in spikes in donations?

[quote="dqangoAC"]I still feel like you highly undevalue how difficult organizing something this big is.  I'd also like to point out that the phrase "unpaid performers" is a mighty strange name for what I would consider "volunteers willing to sacrifice their own time for a charity they believe in", which, by the way, frequently includes staff as well, but I'm going to step back from this thread as this isn't even what I was trying to highlight, which was that LLCoolDave [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/oldnews13q4.html]wrote a really awesome article that's worth reading[/url]. :)[/quote]
The amount of work it takes to organize a marathon does not scale linearly with the amount of money it brings in. Like I said, it's largely planning the schedule, booking the hotel and running the stream. Marathons like ESA seem to do this just fine (if not better) without taking in six figures of income.

Not sure what point you were attempting to make with the bit about the runners. Both descriptions are accurate and mine wasn't an insult (I was one). Our points are similar in saying that a lot of people sacrifice their time to make the GDQs a success - I just expanded that to say it's foolish to attribute the donation totals solely to the few asking for payment.

I guess I'll also let my points rest unless addressed. I just hope "don't worry about it - it's all for a good cause" isn't the only feedback that comes out of this thread.

edit: a decent point was brought up on twitter. If the staff deserves thousands of dollars for the value they bring to the event, why not the big name runners whose appearances have been shown to directly bring in spikes in donations?

Caracarn

2015-11-22 09:45:32 pm

There is already enough salt with the game/runner selections NOW

Can you imagine what would happen if a very selective group of runners was paid to perform at GDQ?

Not to mention that these big name runners already make thousands in sub/ad revenue and donations on their personal streams. Don't make GDQ turn into a "the rich get richer" marathon (despite the fact that that's what America is all about anyway).

windcask

Edit history:

windcask: 2015-11-22 09:47:17 pm

2015-11-22 09:46:37 pm

Quote from jymotion:

edit: a decent point was brought up on twitter. If the staff deserves thousands of dollars for the value they bring to the event, why not the big name runners whose appearances have been shown to directly bring in spikes in donations?

You can come up with the fair market value for the labor of a staffer who works on sound, accounting, or PR relatively easily, as those have private-sector equivalents. Contractors can invoice you. Not really the case with runners. You could make a case for reimbursing travel and board, but paying someone for bringing in a larger cut of donations seems sketchy for an event of this nature.

jymotion

Edit history:

jymotion: 2015-11-22 10:00:08 pm

2015-11-22 09:49:44 pm

Quote from Caracarn:

There is already enough salt with the game/runner selections NOW. Can you imagine what would happen if a very selective group of runners was paid to perform at GDQ?

Thought it was clear, but I wasn't suggesting paying runners was a good idea. Just that the "staffers should be paid because they provide value to the charity" argument is short-sighted.

Anyway, I'll shut up. I just know a number of runners that are also moving on from the event and don't consider it worth the effort to post here, so I figured I'd try to represent that viewpoint. Good luck in January.

dwangoAC

2015-11-22 10:00:19 pm

Keeper of TASBot

Quote from jymotion:

edit: a decent point was brought up on twitter. If the staff deserves thousands of dollars for the value they bring to the event, why not the big name runners whose appearances have been shown to directly bring in spikes in donations?

I do *not* want to make myself look more important than I am but I think I have a pretty good case of saying that the TAS block I organize is one of the bigger draws based on things like chat volume and donations. I'm not about to ask GDQ for money for being the keeper of TASBot because I'm doing this to help raise funds to defeat something that has killed more than one family member close to me. I highly suspect that other "big name runners" feel the same way, and the near 2,000 hours of submissions seems to indicate there's a decent supply of willing volunteers. That's not to say that runners don't ask for help to cover their expenses, of course (I had to ask for financial help this time myself but I'm willing to sell a pinball machine to cover my costs if that's what it takes).

Quote from jymotion:

Thought it was clear, but I wasn't suggesting paying runners was a good idea. Just that the "staffers should be paid because they provide value to the charity" argument is short-sighted.

I think the point we disagree on is whether or not *anyone* should be paid. I still don't understand how you could possibly believe that an event that requires this much planning could be successful without at least some paid staff, but that does appear to be your opinion. If that really is what you believe you are more than welcome to organize an event just like GDQ on your own time and see how well it works out for you. Having said that, the vast majority of people on staff now were involved in the early days when there was no pay, so don't take me as saying it's impossible, just a lot more difficult than you're making it out to be.

[quote="jymotion"]edit: a decent point was brought up on twitter. If the staff deserves thousands of dollars for the value they bring to the event, why not the big name runners whose appearances have been shown to directly bring in spikes in donations?[/quote]
I do *not* want to make myself look more important than I am but I think I have a pretty good case of saying that the TAS block I organize is one of the bigger draws based on things like [url=http://i.imgur.com/87BucJE.png]chat volume[/url] and donations.  I'm not about to ask GDQ for money for being the keeper of [url=http://tasvideos.org/TASBot.html]TASBot[/url] because I'm doing this to help raise funds to defeat something that has killed more than one family member [url=http://tasvideos.org/forum/p/386569#386569]close to me[/url].  I highly suspect that other "big name runners" feel the same way, and the near 2,000 hours of submissions seems to indicate there's a decent supply of willing volunteers.  That's not to say that runners don't ask for help to cover their expenses, of course (I [url=http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17359]had to ask for financial help[/url] this time myself but I'm willing to sell a pinball machine to cover my costs if that's what it takes).

[quote="jymotion"]Thought it was clear, but I wasn't suggesting paying runners was a good idea. Just that the "staffers should be paid because they provide value to the charity" argument is short-sighted.[/quote]
I think the point we disagree on is whether or not *anyone* should be paid.  I still don't understand how you could possibly believe that an event that requires this much planning could be successful without at least some paid staff, but that does appear to be your opinion.  If that really is what you believe you are more than welcome to organize an event just like GDQ on your own time and see how well it works out for you.  Having said that, the vast majority of people on staff now were involved in the early days when there was no pay, so don't take me as saying it's impossible, just a lot more difficult than you're making it out to be.