Banned shred till yer dead asks to banned (1 Viewer)

Matt Derrick

Semi-retired traveler
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
10,049
Location
Austin, TX
Website
youtube.com
first off, spacey's opinion is invalid because it's a drunken rant filled with f-u's and has no constructive criticism or civility whatsoever, so i fail to see how that should be respected when they have no respect for us. again, this is a situation of someone that we're expected to listen to when they won't do the same? that doesn't make any sense.

you could say the same thing about OTD when he literally makes shit up about what a terrible person i am based on quoting me out of context.

im not aware of rough draft actually using this site to travel (no offense to him), but i could be wrong. i mean, im absolutely against the idea of dick-measuring how much mileage people have done, but we need to have some way of vetting input.
 
We sell all kinds of other stuff in our Etsy store!

Eng JR Lupo RV323

Jerk bouncer with an attitude
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
1,710
Location
530 Rackerby, California
Website
youtu.be
the staff also has the right to not have to take other people's shit. the way things are right now, anyone can sign up for an account and have an equal say in how we run things, no matter how psychotic their opinions might be.

as things stand, i work this website as a 2nd job, 100% for free, and im tired of getting bossed around by people that have literally done nothing for this community except make a few posts.

if you want to have input on how things are run here you need to put work into this community. how we establish that is another question entirely.
Yeah idk. I guess it just doesn't seem like bullying all of the time, in my eyes. Someone disagreeing with us =/= bullying us. We're not being forced to do anything. They're expressing their concerns. Bullies don't express their concerns, they just pummel the shit out of you.

The fact these people are expressing their concerns shows they care about this community. I consider that in and of itself a contribution. That to me is them putting work into this community. How else can they put in work? Post more? Donate more?

I know you put a lot of work into this and I don't think anyone is asking you(staff in general) to take abuse. OP in this thread isn't a great example of what I'm trying to say. This post was abusive, we even got a physical threat out of it. But when has OTD ever challenged us to a fight? If he attacks our character it isn't "You're not only a mindless dolt, you're a complete waste of flesh" but rather it's "You really aren't doing this right in my opinion, and this is why I think that".

Why can't we hear those out? That isn't bullying.
 

Matt Derrick

Semi-retired traveler
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
10,049
Location
Austin, TX
Website
youtube.com
But when has OTD ever challenged us to a fight? If he attacks our character it isn't "You're not only a mindless dolt, you're a complete waste of flesh" but rather it's "You really aren't doing this right in my opinion, and this is why I think that".

Why can't we hear those out? That isn't bullying.
someone that intentionally takes things out of context on a regular basis to form an unrealistic opinion of me, i would consider that bullying. OTD didn't just post one or two 'inflammatory' things directed at the staff. They showed a consistent record of antagonistic behavior towards the staff and that's what led to their ban. That's not valid input.

in addition, we went waaaaay out of our way to NOT ban OTD. we gave them way more leeway than we do with most folks and we just get shit on anyways (the staff) so it seems like there's no way to win, simply because we're staff. and that's not fair to us. we need to treat users fairly but we need to be treated fairly as well. it has to go both ways.
 
Last edited:

Eng JR Lupo RV323

Jerk bouncer with an attitude
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
1,710
Location
530 Rackerby, California
Website
youtu.be
And this thread really does speak volumes. It's a shame that it's been closed because I really want to have a discussion there about how that played out. You often(and I've done it too) put OTD on blast for cherry picking select portions of a body of text to make his point. You literally did almost the exact same thing in that thread. That's where it all went downhill.

@LuckyMinnie said;

I think these advocates, who have probably never been homeless themselves, don't understand how terrified your average homeless parent is of losing their kids to the state. Why are they encouraging families to break the law and go up against the police like this? All it takes is one social worker having a bad day and they can lose their kids. Sorry to be a downer, but in my point of view, a lot of people who are supposedly trying to help are doing it for attention. They don't take time to really connect with and listen to the people they are trying to help. Then they go on to do very unhelpful things, and pat themselves on the back for being such wonderful people. These 'activists' are using homeless families to score political points. That is exploitation.
to which you said;

wow, this just comes off as ridiculously clueless. you're making so many assumptions here i don't know where to start; i'd suggest studying the squatting movement in more detail, we have lot of materials on the subject in our file library.
You didn't acknowledge the parental concerns portion of that context at all. You quoted the whole thing but only addressed a small portion of it. When people read your reply, they felt like you were dismissing the entire thing as "ridiculously clueless". While you may have only been addressing the assumptions in the later portions, that isn't how it landed for a lot of people. It would have been better to remove the parental stuff from that quote and that way it doesn't seem like you're calling this person clueless about all their parental concerns.

LuckyMinnie claps back with;

Matt, have you been a homeless parent with kids before? Because that's my life. I am far from clueless when it comes to this. Just like CHOP and Occupy, there's a very real chance the police will eventually come and shut this down. Hopefully in the end the people doing this will get the help they need. But things could also end pretty badly for them. This is a risky thing they are doing- with their own children.
Which is all the parental concern, which is totally valid for any squatting parent to feel. So they're arguing that point, and questioning your capacity to even chime in on parental concerns as a non-parental person. I feel like they aren't out of line whatsoever at this point. Maybe some of their assumptions about political agendas might have been off, it's hard for any of us to know those agendas but they're talking parental concerns right here.

Then they get;


Do you know what website you are on right now?
Which is just a snarky comment that adds nothing to the conversation. I love you Slanky, but that was a weak/lazy reply. I've been guilty of plenty of those, so try to understand I'm not bullying or pointing the finger at you or Matt or any other mod. I'm pointing the finger at all of us and saying hey.. we can do better guys. That means call me out on it too if I've done it. I know I have, but I'm trying to be a better mod. I'm trying to hold myself accountable. Moving on.

So then, OTD says;

Why are you giving this woman such a hard time, mods?

If her perspective as a homeless mom scared of Child Services snatching her kids away is somehow not valid, perhaps you would like to explain why? Instead of just snarking at her about how this website has "squat" in the name. Explain to her how squatting would never be a thing child services might use against her in terminating her custody. Oh wait- that isn't true, is it?

Having your kids taken is something that happens every single day to poor and working-class women. If you are homeless, they are just itching to confiscate your children. Her fear is a real one, rooted in real experience.

Why is it that your voices as childless men count, and she, as a woman with kids, is supposed to be quiet and listen?
Which is absolutely not bullying. If anyone is taking this comment as bullying, you've got some serious insecurities to address. He was spitting nothing but truth there. For that truth he catches a dislike from Matt and a disagree from Coywolf. What's to dislike or disagree on here? What don't you like about his statement? Is he wrong? Where is he wrong?

At this point you post this;

again, i don't have the time to sit here and explain why her assumptions about people she's never met nor has any understanding of their situation could possibly be incorrect. i'll pick apart a few easy things though:



you literally have no way to know that.



you have no idea what situations they are being put in, dangerous or not, because you're not there. are these people incapable of making their own judgements?



you don't know ANYONE from that organization. so you are ASSUMING there are ulterior motives going on here.



oh yes, such precious 'political points'. what's the score at right now? are we close to winning? sorry but this is some MAGA/foxnews/"occupy is financed by x" type of bullshit. i know our society is shit, but there ARE still some people out there that are trying to help others to the best of their ability and for reasons they actually believe in, and don't exploit people just so they can win some weird political game.

sorry @LuckyMinnie but you're literally pulling shit out of thin air based on your opinions rather than any facts regarding their situation. so until you can turn around with some FACTS with REFERENCES, please stow your shit. otherwise you're just another fucking karen screaming into the face of anyone that will pay attention to them.
Which is actually kind of good in the sense that at least now it's becoming more clear that you were more so addressing the assumptions/political agendas portion of it and it doesn't appear like you were crying foul on the parental concerns. OTD either understood that and he was choosing to argue the point he knew he had you on(non-parental person dismissing parental concerns) or he didn't understand you were mostly talking assumptions/not so much dismissing the parental concerns. I don't think we can assume to know which of those two scenarios it was, we're not in his head.

You could have put him on track here and been like yo.. I'm not dismissing the parental concerns. I was actually talking about the assumptions. But you chose to just plug your ears and nananananaa I can't hear you/don't care what you're saying.

tl;dr... another one of dirty's super offended rants that i don't care about.
He fires back again with

So there we have it.

Super-Woke Anarchist Activist Matt says move into a squat today, or you are a Fox-bot [Matt does not live in a squat].

Furthermore, Super-Woke Anarchist Activist Matt says women who are concerned that living in an activist squat might mean they'd lose custody of their kids should STFU, because they are not Well-Informed, and Knowledgeable, like he is [Matt has no kids].

This is sometimes known as "man-splaining", when men who are not Super-Woke Anarchist Activists do it. But it is of course unpossible for a Super-Woke Anarchist Activist to do this.
and you censor his ability to speak for 30 days.

sigh, here you go again, you're cherry picking quotes out of context to manipulate your point of view into being the 'correct' one. in addition, you seem strangely intent on quoting whatever you have to and making whatever leaps necessary to produce the narrative that "anarchist matt isn't anarchist, i'm older and know better," blah blah blah. i guess you just can't accept our 'perceived' positions of power as being anything but evil unless we bow down to your every whim.

While you might have all day to sit around and argue with people on the internet, we have lives to live and we're not obligated to sit here and take your shit, no matter how much you get off on it. you've been extremely antagonistic towards the staff for the majority of your time here, and the only reason we're not banning you outright is because you've admittedly calmed down over the past month or so and have been able to maintain some semblance of reason until these posts today.

so with that said, i'm muting your account for 30 days. enjoy your time off.
Then one of the longest lasting members of this site expresses concern

Ive been an stp member for i think oh maybe 15 years? And this thread is it for me. If you (mods) can't wrap your head around the fact that homeless parents, including myself, live im constant background fear of CPS, an organization that doesnt even need a court hearing to kidnap your kids and put them in foster care, then you are woefully out of touch.
First you have Minnie, someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about, alerting you to their experience, then you have OlderthanDirt, an intelligent character with a history of edifying posts on this board, telling you not to dismiss her testimony.
And you belittle her and mute him? Get me the fuck off this board. Ban me now. STP has devolved into an outdated oligarchy of retired crimethincers trying to spread the wisdom they never had to 12 year old kids.
and you finally come around to the point where you've now clarified something that would have saved everyone a whole mess of confusion had you done so earlier with this response;

And this thread really does speak volumes. It's a shame that it's been closed because I really want to have a discussion there about how that played out. You often(and I've done it too) put OTD on blast for cherry picking select portions of a body of text to make his point. You literally did almost the exact same thing in that thread. That's where it all went downhill.

@LuckyMinnie said;

I think these advocates, who have probably never been homeless themselves, don't understand how terrified your average homeless parent is of losing their kids to the state. Why are they encouraging families to break the law and go up against the police like this? All it takes is one social worker having a bad day and they can lose their kids. Sorry to be a downer, but in my point of view, a lot of people who are supposedly trying to help are doing it for attention. They don't take time to really connect with and listen to the people they are trying to help. Then they go on to do very unhelpful things, and pat themselves on the back for being such wonderful people. These 'activists' are using homeless families to score political points. That is exploitation.
to which you said;

wow, this just comes off as ridiculously clueless. you're making so many assumptions here i don't know where to start; i'd suggest studying the squatting movement in more detail, we have lot of materials on the subject in our file library.
You didn't acknowledge the parental concerns portion of that context at all. You quoted the whole thing but only addressed a small portion of it. When people read your reply, they felt like you were dismissing the entire thing as "ridiculously clueless". While you may have only been addressing the assumptions in the later portions, that isn't how it landed for a lot of people. It would have been better to remove the parental stuff from that quote and that way it doesn't seem like you're calling this person clueless about all their parental concerns.

LuckyMinnie claps back with;

Matt, have you been a homeless parent with kids before? Because that's my life. I am far from clueless when it comes to this. Just like CHOP and Occupy, there's a very real chance the police will eventually come and shut this down. Hopefully in the end the people doing this will get the help they need. But things could also end pretty badly for them. This is a risky thing they are doing- with their own children.
Which is all the parental concern, which is totally valid for any squatting parent to feel. So they're arguing that point, and questioning your capacity to even chime in on parental concerns as a non-parental person. I feel like they aren't out of line whatsoever at this point. Maybe some of their assumptions about political agendas might have been off, it's hard for any of us to know those agendas but they're talking parental concerns right here.

Then they get;


Do you know what website you are on right now?
Which is just a snarky comment that adds nothing to the conversation. I love you Slanky, but that was a weak/lazy reply. I've been guilty of plenty of those, so try to understand I'm not pointing the bullying or pointing the finger at you or Matt or any other mod. I'm pointing the finger at all of us and saying hey.. we can do better guys. That means call me out on it too if I've done it. I know I have, but I'm trying to be a better mod. I'm trying to hold myself accountable. Moving on.

So then, OTD says;

Why are you giving this woman such a hard time, mods?

If her perspective as a homeless mom scared of Child Services snatching her kids away is somehow not valid, perhaps you would like to explain why? Instead of just snarking at her about how this website has "squat" in the name. Explain to her how squatting would never be a thing child services might use against her in terminating her custody. Oh wait- that isn't true, is it?

Having your kids taken is something that happens every single day to poor and working-class women. If you are homeless, they are just itching to confiscate your children. Her fear is a real one, rooted in real experience.

Why is it that your voices as childless men count, and she, as a woman with kids, is supposed to be quiet and listen?
Which is absolutely not bullying. If anyone is taking this comment as bullying, you've got some serious insecurities to address. He was spitting nothing but truth there. For that truth he catches a dislike from Matt and a disagree from Coywolf. What's to dislike or disagree on here? What don't you like about his statement? Is he wrong? Where is he wrong?

At this point you post this;

again, i don't have the time to sit here and explain why her assumptions about people she's never met nor has any understanding of their situation could possibly be incorrect. i'll pick apart a few easy things though:



you literally have no way to know that.



you have no idea what situations they are being put in, dangerous or not, because you're not there. are these people incapable of making their own judgements?



you don't know ANYONE from that organization. so you are ASSUMING there are ulterior motives going on here.



oh yes, such precious 'political points'. what's the score at right now? are we close to winning? sorry but this is some MAGA/foxnews/"occupy is financed by x" type of bullshit. i know our society is shit, but there ARE still some people out there that are trying to help others to the best of their ability and for reasons they actually believe in, and don't exploit people just so they can win some weird political game.

sorry @LuckyMinnie but you're literally pulling shit out of thin air based on your opinions rather than any facts regarding their situation. so until you can turn around with some FACTS with REFERENCES, please stow your shit. otherwise you're just another fucking karen screaming into the face of anyone that will pay attention to them.
Which is actually kind of good in the sense that at least now it's becoming more clear that you were more so addressing the assumptions/political agendas portion of it and it doesn't appear like you were crying foul on the parental concerns. OTD either understood that and he was choosing to argue the point he knew he had you on(non-parental person dismissing parental concerns) or he didn't understand you were mostly talking assumptions/not so much dismissing the parental concerns. I don't think we can assume to know which of those two scenarios it was, we're not in his head.

You could have put him on track here and been like yo.. I'm not dismissing the parental concerns. I was actually talking about the assumptions. But you chose to just plug your ears and nananananaa I can't hear you/don't care what you're saying.

tl;dr... another one of dirty's super offended rants that i don't care about.
He fires back again with

So there we have it.

Super-Woke Anarchist Activist Matt says move into a squat today, or you are a Fox-bot [Matt does not live in a squat].

Furthermore, Super-Woke Anarchist Activist Matt says women who are concerned that living in an activist squat might mean they'd lose custody of their kids should STFU, because they are not Well-Informed, and Knowledgeable, like he is [Matt has no kids].

This is sometimes known as "man-splaining", when men who are not Super-Woke Anarchist Activists do it. But it is of course unpossible for a Super-Woke Anarchist Activist to do this.
and you censor his ability to speak for 30 days.

sigh, here you go again, you're cherry picking quotes out of context to manipulate your point of view into being the 'correct' one. in addition, you seem strangely intent on quoting whatever you have to and making whatever leaps necessary to produce the narrative that "anarchist matt isn't anarchist, i'm older and know better," blah blah blah. i guess you just can't accept our 'perceived' positions of power as being anything but evil unless we bow down to your every whim.

While you might have all day to sit around and argue with people on the internet, we have lives to live and we're not obligated to sit here and take your shit, no matter how much you get off on it. you've been extremely antagonistic towards the staff for the majority of your time here, and the only reason we're not banning you outright is because you've admittedly calmed down over the past month or so and have been able to maintain some semblance of reason until these posts today.

so with that said, i'm muting your account for 30 days. enjoy your time off.
Then one of the longest lasting members of this site expresses concern

Ive been an stp member for i think oh maybe 15 years? And this thread is it for me. If you (mods) can't wrap your head around the fact that homeless parents, including myself, live im constant background fear of CPS, an organization that doesnt even need a court hearing to kidnap your kids and put them in foster care, then you are woefully out of touch.
First you have Minnie, someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about, alerting you to their experience, then you have OlderthanDirt, an intelligent character with a history of edifying posts on this board, telling you not to dismiss her testimony.
And you belittle her and mute him? Get me the fuck off this board. Ban me now. STP has devolved into an outdated oligarchy of retired crimethincers trying to spread the wisdom they never had to 12 year old kids.
and you finally come around to the point where you've now clarified something that would have saved everyone a whole mess of confusion had you done so earlier with this response;

"did we say that? no, at no time did we say anything like that. this all started because minnie extrapolated some really strange opinions about people they've never met, then dirt jumped on because he loves talking shit on the mods and manipulating our words into things we never said.

look again carefully at what i said. i never argued with or told people with kids that they shouldn't be afraid of having their kids taken away by participating in something like this, so stop putting words in our mouths. all i did was question a stranger on the internet about their opinions on the subject of this thread.

also, you don't have to beg us to ban you, just delete your account. thread closed."

Had you made this point clear to begin with, by either only quoting the portion of the context you were referring to.. or at least clarifying it once called out on it.. things could have went so much smoother in that thread. OTD would have not been silenced(and now banned). A member of 15 years would still be here, @LuckyMinnie would have still been here and yet another thread wouldn't have been locked.

Do you see how this all went to shit or do you still feel like he was bullying you? This is literally the beginning of the nail in OTDs coffin and it shouldn't have ever been this way.


Had you made this point clear to begin with, by either only quoting the portion of the context you were referring to.. or at least clarifying it once called out on it.. things could have went so much smoother in that thread. OTD would have not been silenced(and now banned). A member of 15 years would still be here and yet another thread wouldn't have been locked.

Do you see how this all went to shit or do you still feel like he was bullying you? This is literally the beginning of the nail in OTDs coffin and it shouldn't have ever been this way. That is why it's an unfair ban and this is why so many people are jumping ship/finding issue with staff practices.
 

Matt Derrick

Semi-retired traveler
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
10,049
Location
Austin, TX
Website
youtube.com
And this thread really does speak volumes. It's a shame that it's been closed because I really want to have a discussion there about how that played out. You often(and I've done it too) put OTD on blast for cherry picking select portions of a body of text to make his point. You literally did almost the exact same thing in that thread. That's where it all went downhill.

@LuckyMinnie said;



to which you said;



You didn't acknowledge the parental concerns portion of that context at all. You quoted the whole thing but only addressed a small portion of it. When people read your reply, they felt like you were dismissing the entire thing as "ridiculously clueless". While you may have only been addressing the assumptions in the later portions, that isn't how it landed for a lot of people. It would have been better to remove the parental stuff from that quote and that way it doesn't seem like you're calling this person clueless about all their parental concerns.

LuckyMinnie claps back with;



Which is all the parental concern, which is totally valid for any squatting parent to feel. So they're arguing that point, and questioning your capacity to even chime in on parental concerns as a non-parental person. I feel like they aren't out of line whatsoever at this point. Maybe some of their assumptions about political agendas might have been off, it's hard for any of us to know those agendas but they're talking parental concerns right here.

Then they get;




Which is just a snarky comment that adds nothing to the conversation. I love you Slanky, but that was a weak/lazy reply. I've been guilty of plenty of those, so try to understand I'm not pointing the bullying or pointing the finger at you or Matt or any other mod. I'm pointing the finger at all of us and saying hey.. we can do better guys. That means call me out on it too if I've done it. I know I have, but I'm trying to be a better mod. I'm trying to hold myself accountable. Moving on.

So then, OTD says;



Which is absolutely not bullying. If anyone is taking this comment as bullying, you've got some serious insecurities to address. He was spitting nothing but truth there. For that truth he catches a dislike from Matt and a disagree from Coywolf. What's to dislike or disagree on here? What don't you like about his statement? Is he wrong? Where is he wrong?

At this point you post this;



Which is actually kind of good in the sense that at least now it's becoming more clear that you were more so addressing the assumptions/political agendas portion of it and it doesn't appear like you were crying foul on the parental concerns. OTD either understood that and he was choosing to argue the point he knew he had you on(non-parental person dismissing parental concerns) or he didn't understand you were mostly talking assumptions/not so much dismissing the parental concerns. I don't think we can assume to know which of those two scenarios it was, we're not in his head.

You could have put him on track here and been like yo.. I'm not dismissing the parental concerns. I was actually talking about the assumptions. But you chose to just plug your ears and nananananaa I can't hear you/don't care what you're saying.



He fires back again with



and you censor his ability to speak for 30 days.



Then one of the longest lasting members of this site expresses concern



and you finally come around to the point where you've now clarified something that would have saved everyone a whole mess of confusion had you done so earlier with this response;

Had you made this point clear to begin with, by either only quoting the portion of the context you were referring to.. or at least clarifying it once called out on it.. things could have went so much smoother in that thread. OTD would have not been silenced(and now banned). A member of 15 years would still be here and yet another thread wouldn't have been locked.

Do you see how this all went to shit or do you still feel like he was bullying you? This is literally the beginning of the nail in OTDs coffin and it shouldn't have ever been this way.
well first off, it's not my job to come in an educate every single user on every political subject and why their statements were an inaccurate blanket response worthy of fox news. my time for this kind of nonsense is fairly limited, so it might have been wiser to not respond at all, but i also don't like blanket statements like the one made by the OP because it presents an argument that literally has no basis on facts. despite OTD's attempts, i never said anything about parental concerns being invalid.

also, OTD had been combative towards the staff long before this thread and was well on their way to a ban before this thread spiraled out of control.

i hate that i have to sit here and defend every opinion i have that contradicts someone else's and no one else is held up to the same standard.
 

roughdraft

RápidoCorrenLosCarrosRespletoLosRielesDFerrocarril
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
1,281
Age
29
Location
smocation
im not aware of rough draft actually using this site to travel (no offense to him), but i could be wrong. i mean, im absolutely against the idea of dick-measuring how much mileage people have done, but we need to have some way of vetting input.
i don't know what would qualify to satisfaction as using the site to travel. I met a few folks IRL in both the USA and in Chile by using your site, and all of them I am still in touch with, had good experiences with. Who they are is beside the point. I will add that the guy who taught me how to ride trains showed me the forum and he is someone I traveled with. I traveled a few ways on my own volition, however you want to say, alternatively, before I found myself here.

As for vetting input, I guess that is a really good question. Maybe people are questioning your ability to vet input fairly. I don't think anyone questions your ability to maintain the tech side of the site. You built something incredible and clearly many benefit from it.

However you have people questioning your temperment and fairness in perceiving criticism.

Can I ask you then how would you qualify valuable vs useless input - not regarding tech but the more interpersonal side of the forum?
 

MetalBryan

Vagabond
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
193
Location
Washington, DC
I think there's a broader point to be made - perhaps an emergent property of all these banning threads. I don't think it's helpful to do it in a thread by someone exclaiming that we all can fuck off and if we disagree come and fight that individual IRL.

This isn't the first thread by someone taking all their marbles home when they don't win but they seem to start out more or less the same to me. Somebody says something vulgar about the mods or whines about the site and then quits or demands a ban. Then everyone left is sitting around trying to figure out what went wrong. It's gotta be maddening so again I'll just thank everyone who puts in the work and emotional labor to provide a resource and forum for our community.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

About us

  • Squat the Planet is the world's largest social network for misfit travelers. Join our community of do-it-yourself nomads and learn how to explore the world by any means necessary.

    More Info

Support StP!

Donations go towards paying our monthly server fees, adding new features to the website, and occasionally putting a burrito in Matt's mouth.

Total amount
$115.00
Goal
$100.00

Monthly Goals

  1. Paying the Bills
    $50.00 of $50.00 - reached!
    The first $50 in donations go towards paying our monthly server fees and adding new features to the website. Once this goal is reached, we'll see about feeding Matt that burrito.
  2. Buy Matt a Beer
    $75.00 of $75.00 - reached!
    Now that we have the bills paid for this month, let's give Matt a hearty thank you by buying him a drink for all the hard work he's done for StP. Hopefully his will help keep him from going insane after a long day of squishing website bugs.
  3. Feed Matt a Burrito
    $100.00 of $100.00 - reached!
    Now that the bills are paid and Matt has a beer in his hand, how about showing him your love by rewarding all his hard work with a big fat burrito to put in his mouth. This will keep him alive while programming new features for the website.
  4. Finance the Shopping Cart
    $115.00 of $200.00
    Now that the bills are paid and Matt is fed, perhaps it's time to start planning for those twilight years under the bridge... if only he had that golden shopping cart all the oogles are bragging about these days.