Paying extra for improvements

[plainguy]

14 hours ago, Rudra said:

I think you are mixing a few things here. As far as I know, a Booster Club, or simply club as you put it, is an internal thing not reportable outside of the agency beyond non-operable morale functions and funding. They are not tracked on any agency budgetary document. I may be wrong, but that is how I remember it. Hiring contractors to perform operable work, such as making new models, is tracked on an agency's budgetary document and is reportable. So your comparison does not really work. Hiring a lawyer is more comparable, but still falls outside of an operational budget and is not an employee, whether contractor or otherwise. Hiring a modeler for the game would be an added operational expense, above and beyond what the game needs to run. That makes the volunteer Homecoming an operating company with employees, even if the employee is a contractor. I'm no expert, but from my time working unit finances, that is my understanding of it all.

 

The perception that a non-profit volunteer group is making a profit is sufficient cause to initiate litigation. Especially when that non-profit is operating under the sufferance of the company that actually owns the materials and intellectual properties utilized by the non-profit. During the litigation it can be proven the donations are not profit but are paying for other operational expenses, but that can still shut down the game before the litigation runs its course. I'm pretty sure the volunteers we have as devs can't afford a lawsuit from NCSoft.

 

When people start making donations towards a specific item, such as new power sets, new costumes, whatever, they can have the expectation that it will be prioritized based on how much funding it earned compared to others. This may or may not happen, but has happened often enough that you can't just write off other posts commenting on it.

 

NCSoft is a standard company. Meaning they are greedy, self-interested, and vindictive. I think you are under-estimating what they would be willing to do to Homecoming if HC accepts more donations than they absolutely need to operate.

No.. The perception is not a fact in law.. You can perceive all you want, laws are based around facts.. Nothing more.. Not emotions, not gut feelings..

 

Overall I am sure the lawyers for NCSoft would know this as well.

Anyone who works in corporate will tell you it is all about Reputation. Loosing Reputation can be a bigger financial loss then the actual crime. Even if going after the threat actor is the right thing to do. Because the spin around the incident can be worse. EG how did they let this low level employee have so much access to this data? Does this billion dollar company have proper access control or are they really lacking that much access control? 

So going after a not-for-profit for hiring a artist to make graphics for a power is super highly unlikely especially since this artist is not working for the not-for-profit on a daily basis in maintaining the business. 

Again everyone is somehow making 2 categories.. Maintaining the game in the real world is different then having a one off artist make a graphical customization in the game. It is not.. Service is Service regardless if it is the hosting provider for this domain for this website or an artist getting paid for a specific purpose.  

 
 

[arcane]

4 minutes ago, plainguy said:

No.. The perception is not a fact in law.. You can perceive all you want, laws are based around facts.. Nothing more.. Not emotions, not gut feelings..

 

Overall I am sure the lawyers for NCSoft would know this as well.

Anyone who works in corporate will tell you it is all about Reputation. Loosing Reputation can be a bigger financial loss then the actual crime. Even if going after the threat actor is the right thing to do. Because the spin around the incident can be worse. EG how did they let this low level employee have so much access to this data? Does this billion dollar company have proper access control or are they really lacking that much access control? 

So going after a not-for-profit for hiring a artist to make graphics for a power is super highly unlikely especially since this artist is not working for the not-for-profit on a daily basis in maintaining the business. 

Again everyone is somehow making 2 categories.. Maintaining the game in the real world is different then having a one off artist make a graphical customization in the game. It is not.. Service is Service regardless if it is the hosting provider for this domain for this website or an artist getting paid for a specific purpose.  

 
 

Dude your thread is dead

[UltraAlt]

1 hour ago, plainguy said:

EG means example.

 

I'm sorry. I was taught that ie meant "in exemplum" - "as an example".

Not sure when that changed. I'm old.

 

1 hour ago, plainguy said:

If I used we need more Assault rifle choices or Titan Weapon customizations it wouldn't be so impactful. 

 

I think it would be more impactful if you clearly stated what  you are looking rather than a blanket "anything".

 

I personally would like to see the animation for LRM Rocket fixed for the sets pull up no weapon graphics when you use the power with certain power sets.

I would also like to see the LRM Rocket as a bazooka rather than the standard assault rifle that you pick as your weapon customization with assault rifle primary.

I'm not sure why this power doesn't have it's own animation and relies up on the set ... perhaps a fire blaster might be able to pull out a bazooka. (I guess I'll have to go look on test).

 

1 hour ago, plainguy said:

Overall I am thinking the hard to tackle, time consuming work. They might have fleshed out the mechanics on how to make the customization but art behind it might be time consuming. 

 

As indicated, I think you need to indicate exactly the things that you are looking for and you should post the in this forum.

That's the first thing to do.

If you get a lot of feedback, then you can push for this plan ... but, if none else wants what  you want, do you want to foot the bill by yourself?

[Wavicle]

40 minutes ago, UltraAlt said:

 

I'm sorry. I was taught that ie meant "in exemplum" - "as an example".

Not sure when that changed. I'm old.

 

IE never meant "for example".

IE stands for Id Est which means "that is".

 

EG stands for Exemplia Gratia which means "for example".

Edited February 2, 2022 by Wavicle

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, plainguy said:

No.. The perception is not a fact in law.. You can perceive all you want, laws are based around facts.. Nothing more.. Not emotions, not gut feelings..

As someone who works for a law firm in the US I can tell you that this is not true.

 

A LOT of laws are based on how the person felt. "In fear for your life" is a feeling, not a fact. A lot of cases hinge on the "reasonable person" standard, which is essentially just the opinion of the judge and/or the jury. A lot of financial laws are based on the "least sophisticated consumer" standard. An entirely subjective standard that lawyers and judges often disagree on and is the source of a great many appeals.

 

TL;DR: If you don't work in the legal profession stop trying to tell people how the law works. You're almost certain to be wrong.

[arcane]

19 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

 

IE never meant "for example".

IE stands for Id Est which means "that is".

 

EG stands for Exemplia Gratia which means "for example".

nerd

[plainguy]

10 hours ago, GM Impervium said:

I'm pretty sure this isn't an avenue the HC team will be exploring.

 

It's great that people want more options to support the project, and getting more content is always a plus. However, most of the posters above have already pointed out why this isn't likely to happen. Additionally, it would set a bad precedent and make future potential volunteers not want to do so unless THEY get paid, or even current staff might start going "Heeeyyyy...".

 

So yeah, potential fustercluck all around.

I disagree with the "However, most of the posters above have already pointed out why this isn't likely to happen." because their perception is incorrect and not based on facts. 

The common theme is paying an outside source for a one off is violating the not-for-profit, which is totally incorrect. 

As I mentioned in a previous post. A volunteer could do the work and get paid, but they would have to resign officially from volunteering and not be able to volunteer for 12 months following the work as there has to be some separation. 

 it would set a bad precedent and make future potential volunteers not want to do so unless THEY get paid

Maybe it is me but I am pretty sure the wording in red contradicts each other. 
I get your the GM.. But doesn't mean you are right. 
 

Further it is either you are working full time job and volunteering on the side or are out of college with some good skills and are looking to break into the gaming work force and this is great resume building. Even from a technical standpoint it is a great resume builder. If you were maintaining the servers and looking for a job within my bank it would make a good impression. Just shows skills and also volunteering is a plus. 

You know.. When I joined the bank, I really thought someone before me in certain parts of the bank had already thought of some processes around security.. I mean some of this stuff was really basic.. Until questions were asked and we were like WTF ? I mean we really thought what was being asked was super obvious.. But it wasn't..

So that being said.. If someone on staff wants to get paid they should already realize, they can't in a not-for-profit. 
Again that is the whole point of this thread and my original post.. Lets assume I know something about not-for-profit.. Let assume we all know you cannot draw a salary or show an income.. Thus why I said in my initial post which somehow repeatedly keeps getting lost, that you are hiring an outside source or person to do the heavy lifting on a specific task. They are not employee, they are contracted out.. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE.. 

Just find it very strange that people read something, then make up their own interpretation and adding notion and ideas I clearly express preemptively knowing this would occur and still post a response on something I never said or conveyed.. 

I am no longer defending the idea, but instead defending what you think I might have said was the idea, when I clearly didn't.. 

It really become difficult having a legitimate discussion  when I say the sky is blue and posters are responding why am I saying the sky is red and why would I want a red sky.. 

 

Peace out.. I will leave you kindly close this thread out.. 

[plainguy]

30 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

As someone who works for a law firm in the US I can tell you that this is not true.

 

A LOT of laws are based on how the person felt. "In fear for your life" is a feeling, not a fact. A lot of cases hinge on the "reasonable person" standard, which is essentially just the opinion of the judge and/or the jury. A lot of financial laws are based on the "least sophisticated consumer" standard. An entirely subjective standard that lawyers and judges often disagree on and is the source of a great many appeals.

 

TL;DR: If you don't work in the legal profession stop trying to tell people how the law works. You're almost certain to be wrong.

 

Mind you I know this statement is a tactic to derail the discussion from the original post. But as I have made statements I have no issues responding here.  

 

"least sophisticated consumer" is related to Debt collection so you already pointed me to what type of work you do for a bank..
You are not an attorney. 

 

Worked in law enforcement for 25 years..

I work with corporate counsel every day on either regulatory issues and civil liability issues and criminal issues. 

Let see, I am deemed a Computer Forensic Expert in all 5 boroughs in New York in superior court, I am deemed a expert in basic electronics in Manhattan Superior court, I am deemed an expert in Optics related to binoculars in Kings County Superior court.. 
I have testified well over 1000 times in court and as recently as of 12 days ago on a attempted Homicide case.. 
I testified for my current employment in court. 

 

The words you are looking for are Beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is related to criminal cases, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact a crime was committed.

preponderance of the evidence is basically I heard both sides of the story, both produced evidence, but which do I believe more.. 

 

The" reasonable person standard " is related to the court making a decision on something.. What would a reasonable person do. ETC..

But non criminal cases are Preponderance of the evidence. Which means the evidence just has to lean in either direction. 

Example construction worker falls off a scaffold with a permeant injury law suit.  
One side brings up that the scaffold was placed incorrectly not within specs required and thus caused the injury. 
Other side looks to deflect these statements with their own evidence. Maybe bring up the person has alcohol issues and was drunk based on witness testimony.. EG the boss as he is the one paying the insurance. Or the injured person has training and failed to follow the proper guidelines. 

But at the end the Jury or the Judge in the case of a bench trail ( which means there is no jury because one side or the other requested it, this is big in criminal sexual assault cases and child exploitation cases. As they know the jury will get emotional in making a decision in these types of cases.) will decide based on evidence brought forth by both sides which is more believable. Thus preponderance of the evidence .

Beyond a reasonable doubt means I have to say and articulate to a jury or judge that the person arrested in fact committed the crime. I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in the court room committed this crime that it was not someone else. 
Example bad guy uses stolen credit card to order stuff online to his home. 
I get evidence of IP address from online vendor. 

I get evidence of who had this IP address at the time of the crime from the internet provider. 
I get who pays the bill. The residence address.
I go to the home. 
For sake of debate and to make the point.. Only one person lives there. The bad guy.. I scan the WIFI range while there to see no unsecure connections. 
I get a search warrant. 
I enter the location. I interview the bad guy.. I look at his router and physically connect to his router and see it is secure and no open WIFI.. I ask him about his WIFI connect.. He attest it has been secure since the day he got it.. As he doesn't know exactly why we are there.. 
I pull his hard drive and do a quick preview of the hard drive and internet history I do a keyword search for the items in question purchased with the stolen credit card. I find them. I do a search for the credit card number to see if it is in the computer.. I find it in a folder called stolen credit cards.. I find tons of other stolen CC numbers.. 
We do a search of the apartment and find the stolen items.

I also find ebay listings of where he is reselling these stolen items for less than new price.. 

Back at the office I find out who all these stolen credits belong to and make calls to discover this bad guy does with a bunch of credit cards. This is MO.. Buys stuff with stolen credit cards and resells for income.. 
There you go Beyond a reasonable doubt in this instance has been proven, mostly through subpoena evidence and computer forensic evidence. 

But at the end of the day this has nothing to do with hiring someone to do contract work for a not-for-profit. Again I helped run one for 10 years. 

But I appreciate your attempted schooling.. 
 

 

 

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

6 minutes ago, plainguy said:

But I appreciate your attempted schooling..

You've clearly watched a LOT of episodes of Law and Order and/or CSI.  I commend you!

 

🤣

[arcane]

23 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

You've clearly watched a LOT of episodes of Law and Order and/or CSI.  I commend you!

 

🤣

If Detective Lennie Briscoe does the law wrong, then I don’t wanna know what right is.

[UltraAlt]

2 hours ago, plainguy said:

it would set a bad precedent and make future potential volunteers not want to do so unless THEY get paid

Maybe it is me but I am pretty sure the wording in red contradicts each other. 
I get your the GM.. But doesn't mean you are right. 

 

You are correct that if they get paid that they are not volunteers.

 

I think the GM's point is clear :: 

If one person starts getting paid for doing work for Homecoming, then some volunteers might start questioning why they aren't being paid for the work that they are doing for Homecoming.

 

They may not be "right" on one level or another, but they are the ones making the final call.

Maybe that would be good to keep in mind.

[Rudra]

2 hours ago, plainguy said:

 

Mind you I know this statement is a tactic to derail the discussion from the original post. But as I have made statements I have no issues responding here.  

 

"least sophisticated consumer" is related to Debt collection so you already pointed me to what type of work you do for a bank..
You are not an attorney. 

 

Worked in law enforcement for 25 years..

I work with corporate counsel every day on either regulatory issues and civil liability issues and criminal issues. 

Let see, I am deemed a Computer Forensic Expert in all 5 boroughs in New York in superior court, I am deemed a expert in basic electronics in Manhattan Superior court, I am deemed an expert in Optics related to binoculars in Kings County Superior court.. 
I have testified well over 1000 times in court and as recently as of 12 days ago on a attempted Homicide case.. 
I testified for my current employment in court. 

 

The words you are looking for are Beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is related to criminal cases, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact a crime was committed.

preponderance of the evidence is basically I heard both sides of the story, both produced evidence, but which do I believe more.. 

 

The" reasonable person standard " is related to the court making a decision on something.. What would a reasonable person do. ETC..

But non criminal cases are Preponderance of the evidence. Which means the evidence just has to lean in either direction. 

Example construction worker falls off a scaffold with a permeant injury law suit.  
One side brings up that the scaffold was placed incorrectly not within specs required and thus caused the injury. 
Other side looks to deflect these statements with their own evidence. Maybe bring up the person has alcohol issues and was drunk based on witness testimony.. EG the boss as he is the one paying the insurance. Or the injured person has training and failed to follow the proper guidelines. 

But at the end the Jury or the Judge in the case of a bench trail ( which means there is no jury because one side or the other requested it, this is big in criminal sexual assault cases and child exploitation cases. As they know the jury will get emotional in making a decision in these types of cases.) will decide based on evidence brought forth by both sides which is more believable. Thus preponderance of the evidence .

Beyond a reasonable doubt means I have to say and articulate to a jury or judge that the person arrested in fact committed the crime. I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in the court room committed this crime that it was not someone else. 
Example bad guy uses stolen credit card to order stuff online to his home. 
I get evidence of IP address from online vendor. 

I get evidence of who had this IP address at the time of the crime from the internet provider. 
I get who pays the bill. The residence address.
I go to the home. 
For sake of debate and to make the point.. Only one person lives there. The bad guy.. I scan the WIFI range while there to see no unsecure connections. 
I get a search warrant. 
I enter the location. I interview the bad guy.. I look at his router and physically connect to his router and see it is secure and no open WIFI.. I ask him about his WIFI connect.. He attest it has been secure since the day he got it.. As he doesn't know exactly why we are there.. 
I pull his hard drive and do a quick preview of the hard drive and internet history I do a keyword search for the items in question purchased with the stolen credit card. I find them. I do a search for the credit card number to see if it is in the computer.. I find it in a folder called stolen credit cards.. I find tons of other stolen CC numbers.. 
We do a search of the apartment and find the stolen items.

I also find ebay listings of where he is reselling these stolen items for less than new price.. 

Back at the office I find out who all these stolen credits belong to and make calls to discover this bad guy does with a bunch of credit cards. This is MO.. Buys stuff with stolen credit cards and resells for income.. 
There you go Beyond a reasonable doubt in this instance has been proven, mostly through subpoena evidence and computer forensic evidence. 

But at the end of the day this has nothing to do with hiring someone to do contract work for a not-for-profit. Again I helped run one for 10 years. 

But I appreciate your attempted schooling.. 
 

 

 

 

I thought you had "peaced out" and "kindly left the thread to be closed"? So... why are you still harping? This thread is dead. Your suggestion is not going to be implemented.

 

*sigh*

 

I'm not a lawyer. I don't work legal. Still pretty sure they do trials instead of trails though. (Sorry, cheap shot, but I found the word choice funny.)

 

As someone who has had to oversee contractors, they counted against the unit TO&E. The unit budget tracked payments to them and allocated unit assigned funds to them. Kind of like actual employees in that regard. They were governed by a different set of rules and they could not be asked to work outside of their contract, but were otherwise treated as employees. The assigned pools of money were different, but both pools of money were still reported as unit personnel costs and tracked on the unit budget. Hence, my argument that contractor or regular employee, your suggestion will cause unnecessary problems for the Homecoming team.

 

Now! Since you have kindly decided to close this thread... before you decided to continue it... and as pretty much every person posting on this thread except for you has said this is a bad idea and done what they could to show you why the OP is a bad idea, can this thread now finally be done?

[GM Tempest]

As unfortunately this thread has been Godwin'd, and the discussion has gotten heated, I'm going to close this thread to avoid further Godwin-ing and leave it as what Impervium has mentioned. We're not likely to bring cash into this and while that is not an absolute 'never will happen', if we do open that avenue discussions at that point can certainly be had.