Help Me Out on Christmas?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

So what will your cut of the winnings be, K-P?

[Cort Haus]

I hate these popularity contests which encourage people to basically hassle others to vote for them so as to build a marketing database for the host organisation.

[OzzyKP]

Not spamming? You've got a ****ing script you're pushing to cold-call votes!

You need a ****ing reality check. Trolling is trying to provoke reactions for a laugh. This, on the other hand, is someone being genuinely irate.

Then if you're not a troll, you're a fool. Grow up.

[Dauphin]

I feel sorry for the entries that could have won if it was on merit alone.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think I'd rather be called a fool than unethical.

[Cort Haus]

Then if you're not a troll, you're a fool. Grow up.

Why are you telling him to grow up, and calling him a fool, and a troll?

He's called you out for spamming / cold calling for votes, quite correctly, and all you can do is call him names, because you can't defend your position ethically.

Who needs to grow up, I wonder?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Let me outline the concerns here.

1- The competition rules explicitly forbid a person submitting multiple entries under any form of device or artifice. The two entries I've highlighted clearly show signs of joint-enterprise collusion (if they don't, why isn't Ozzy promoting, or even mentioning, his own entry?). It's one for the lawyers as to whether this violates the letter of the law, but it sure appears to violate the spirit.

2- The "it's a good cause!" angle is being plugged heavily. However the entry, and all the forum spams I've seen, fail to specify how much, if any, of any prizes will go to the cause. I asked Ozzy directly in this thread, and he chose not to answer. The NYRA publish their cashflow details on-line, so if anyone is curious how much of the organisation's income is paid out as Executive Director's salary, it's easily accessible.
My hackles always rise when "it's a good cause" is plugged, where there's an unresolved point over the vested interests of the plugger.

3- It's being spammed. That's breaking the competition rules. Deal with it.

[Felch]

These things concern you? But for some reason you're not bothered by the FACT that the population of Finland grows by .3% each year?

Bugs, if these trends continue, by the year 4,000 there will be 1.978 BILLION Finns blanketing the Earth, jibberjabbering in their Suomithreadis about snow and Nokia, and God knows what else.

[Provost Harrison]

Well they'd better invest in snorkles because they're going to have to start inhabiting all of those lakes

[OzzyKP]

Why are you telling him to grow up, and calling him a fool, and a troll?

He's called you out for spamming / cold calling for votes, quite correctly, and all you can do is call him names, because you can't defend your position ethically.

Who needs to grow up, I wonder?

His complaints are laughably off-base and either rooted in deep, deep ignorance or malice. They are so foolish it seemed like anyone with any sense wouldn't take them seriously, so wasn't worth my time to address them when I am extremely busy right now. But it seems that some have.

1- The competition rules explicitly forbid a person submitting multiple entries under any form of device or artifice. The two entries I've highlighted clearly show signs of joint-enterprise collusion (if they don't, why isn't Ozzy promoting, or even mentioning, his own entry?). It's one for the lawyers as to whether this violates the letter of the law, but it sure appears to violate the spirit.

You are misreading the rules. How can you seriously make the argument that Philip Nadel and myself are the same people? We're not. Why do you think this is a serious point. This is a competition for individuals. Nadel is one individual and I am another. We are both eligible. What we choose to do with the money after we win is up to us. FindLaw has no rules against contest winners donating their prize money to charity. Which is what we both intend to do. The only reason I created an entry in the first place was because, when we entered it, it seemed like there would be no competition and we could easily get 1st and 3rd place. As the competition has proved fierce, we have not promoted my entry and are only supporting Nadel. This is quite clearly in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the rules. Nothing remotely unethical or improper about it. This is how these contests work. Only someone completely ignorant about these things would ever imagine that this is a red flag.

2- The "it's a good cause!" angle is being plugged heavily. However the entry, and all the forum spams I've seen, fail to specify how much, if any, of any prizes will go to the cause. I asked Ozzy directly in this thread, and he chose not to answer. The NYRA publish their cashflow details on-line, so if anyone is curious how much of the organisation's income is paid out as Executive Director's salary, it's easily accessible.
My hackles always rise when "it's a good cause" is plugged, where there's an unresolved point over the vested interests of the plugger.

100% goes to the cause. The other entries in the contest are just going to individuals who will pocket it. As far as I know, we are the only non-profit competing in this contest. Whether the money goes to a cause or not is entirely up to us, so I'm not sure what kind of ethics complaint you could possibly be raising here. If you don't believe the money will be donated to the organization, then fine. I really don't care. It is beyond insulting, offensive, and outright dumb to suggest that I, or anyone else in this organization is going to steal from the organization. Give me a break.

3- It's being spammed. That's breaking the competition rules. Deal with it.

Once again, a silly, ill-informed and ignorant complaint. Asking friends and members to vote for you is not spam. If I called up my mom and asked her to vote in this contest, do you consider that spam? If I sent her an e-mail, is it suddenly spam? What if I asked a friend from high school, is that spam? Do you even know what the word means? No rules have been broken by us. I do suspect the other teams may be creating fake accounts to vote, but I don't have much direct proof. Your weak allegation of "spam" is laughable, we are once again in 100% keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the law in this case. Just because you are too blinded by ignorance or malice to see that doesn't change anything.

If you don't want to vote, then fine, by all means don't vote, I don't care. But don't pretend there is something illicit going on here. You seem to have some personal grudge against me and come out of the woodwork to blast me every time I post here, so please just relax, maybe take a vacation, or, if it is so hard for you to resist attacking me at every opportunity, then please just put me on your ignore list, it would make things far more peaceful for both of us.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You are misreading the rules. How can you seriously make the argument that Philip Nadel and myself are the same people? We're not. Why do you think this is a serious point. This is a competition for individuals.

Joint enterprise. Collusion. It doesn't require you to be one single person. In fact, it specifically excludes it.

What we choose to do with the money after we win is up to us.

No it isn't. Emphatically not. You have promoted this as supporting a good cause. Pocket the winnings and it would be fraud.

FindLaw has no rules against contest winners donating their prize money to charity. Which is what we both intend to do.

Which charity? The NYRA wouldn't qualify as a registered charity under UK law because over 20% of its total income is going straight to its Executive Director.

Source- http://www.youthrights.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=380

And that's even before there's any analysis of expenses.

The only reason I created an entry in the first place was because, when we entered it, it seemed like there would be no competition and we could easily get 1st and 3rd place.

So you'll only bend the rules if it looks like you can't win fairly?

Whether the money goes to a cause or not is entirely up to us, so I'm not sure what kind of ethics complaint you could possibly be raising here.

No, again. You have promoted this as supporting a good cause.

If you don't believe the money will be donated to the organization, then fine. I really don't care. It is beyond insulting, offensive, and outright dumb to suggest that I, or anyone else in this organization is going to steal from the organization. Give me a break.

You don't need to steal. Hell, it looks like you're already getting at least 1 dollar in every 5 through entirely sanctioned methods that you're pointedly avoiding discussing here.

Asking friends and members to vote for you is not spam.

Had you kept to that, I would never have known about this.

You seem to have some personal grudge against me and come out of the woodwork to blast me every time I post here, so please just relax, maybe take a vacation, or, if it is so hard for you to resist attacking me at every opportunity, then please just put me on your ignore list, it would make things far more peaceful for both of us.

Not when I see crap like this. And I strongly advise you not to put me on your ignore list, because I have a distressing habit of backing stuff up. Believe me- you need to defend your position.

[Felch]

Which charity? The NYRA wouldn't qualify as a registered charity under UK law because over 20% of its total income is going straight to its Executive Director.

Under US law, "Elimination of prejudice and discrimination," is one purpose that a charity might serve. As far as I know, NYRA meets American standards for being a charity, but since it's in America, and especially since 1776, UK law is irrelevant.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Well this is what "ethical collection" looks like over here.

A paid fundraiser must state:

for which charity or charities they are fundraising, or, if relevant, that they are fundraising for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of a specific charity or charities;
the proportions in which the charities will benefit (if they are fundraising for more than one charity) or how the proceeds of the appeal will be distributed to different charities (if they are fundraising for charitable purposes);
whether they are an officer or employee of a charity or connected company or trustee of such an institution and are acting as a collector in that capacity; and
that they are paid for acting as an officer, employee or trustee, or for acting as a collector.
A professional fundraiser, in addition to the above requirements, must state how their remuneration, in connection with the appeal, is to be calculated and the amount of that remuneration.

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc20.aspx

[OzzyKP]

Voting in an online contest is not "fundraising". Not in the US and not in the UK.

[KrazyHorse]

I voted for another person who I would much rather get 5000$