chookchan wrote:While I understand you wish to maintain transparency, I don't believe its the correct approach.
Option 1 (the proposed current model):
Assumption -The community needs to direct their donations to a single entity that is held in trust by another person (most likely a player or community member), who then pays a lump sum to the service provider per month.
Issue -The community places hundreds of dollars in the hands of a person who has no obligation to pay this bill every month. We rely solely on the fact that his person will act in good faith. If the funds were to be mismanaged, Nostalrius would have to pay from their own pocket.
Benefit -Nostalrius becomes financially independent.
Option 2 (the old model):
Assumption -The community donates directly Nostalrius, who use any / all funds provided to pay the costs to run the server.
Issue -Nostalrius is seen by the community as fat cats who are probably using all these funds to pay for penthouses and sports cars.
Benefit -The community is easily able to contribute at any point to the server, whom is least likely to mismanage the funds as they are still obligated to pay for the server costs each month up until (hopefully never) the server is shutdown.
Option 2 in my opinion is much simpler, and from a player point of view I don't really care whether or not Nostalrius is financially independent.
Do you really believe the community worries about financial independence? Most of us prioritise the continued operation and functionality of the server.
Can someone with good english make a http://strawpoll.me/ about the two proposals ?