UPDATE: Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sweet Mummy was kind enough to dig further and to send clarifying info. It turns out that her situation is not as bad for her as I had thought, just slow. Her turbo charge is now working and apparently fairly accurate if not completely right. Her ad did show on Scott's blog after it was supposed to and when the CCP ad was supposedly supposed to. This remains guesswork though because the system is so much buggier for me.
It's very difficult from my side to gauge just how bad things are for others. My stats and tables and calendar have been so off for so long.
Anyway, Sweet Mummy had 19 clicks from Scott's blog on the 25th according to her stats. While I show the RLCC-CCP ad had zero clicks. Also, my turbo charge calendar is now showing the ad ran but not on any particular date since the image for the ad is off the calendar.
I can't work with it that way. I will not run any ads until they have it completely fixed. The RLCC will end up an EC millionaire I guess – forced to save. They probably won't let me cash out. I can only give away 1000 EC a week, and the tax rate is exorbitant to say the least. I don't like not being able to give anonymously either. Being forced to give a reason is also needlessly invasive and nosey, frankly. Maybe they're trying to get me to spend it all in the Entrecard market. Who knows?
Reply from It's OK to be WEIRD!:
I'm not sure how all of this works, really. I do know that I purchased an ad with credits for "Just a Thought..." and my history shows:
2009-04-23 13:49:37 complete cost: 8 clicks: 17 Cost: 8 CPC: 0.47
It doesn't show when it ran, just when I purchased the ad (in my turbocharge view it doesn't have any ads showing at all since the 22nd of April though I have had ads running...). [The RLCC turbo view isn't working either.]
Like I said, I honestly don't know how the RLCC ads work.
I'm not sure if this helps any...
If there is a hiccup going on, I trust that EntreCard will fix it. I've been with them almost since the beginning and they have always seemed to be fair and very good at taking care of any issues. I'm just a small-time blogger and appreciate the service that EntreCard provides in letting me get some more traffic to my site without having to use real money to do it. I hope they get things figured out and get you some answers.
Blessings, ~ Sweet Mummy
Actually, yours is a tremendous reply. It's very helpful, and I appreciate your having taken the time and trouble to look into it and to supply the information that you did.
Also, I agree with your basic sentiment that you wish Entrecard well. I too do not want to be a curse.
Peace and Blessings,
Now, what do the stats tell us? They tell us that her ad ran on April 23 [that was wrong according to her new, more thorough/updated info from Entrecard; it was on the 25th (and later?)], so what was it doing running when the RLCC's was supposed to be running on April 26-27? Also, they tell us that the ad placed on "Just a Thought" resulted in 8 clicks [turns out to be maybe/probably 19 clicks; Why did it say 8 before anywhere?]. If the RLCC's ad ever ran, why zero clicks? Will it run three days from now? How may anyone monitor such things? Anyway, I had ads they told me ran but never resulted in a single click even though those were for sites that supply click-throughs, just as with "Just a Thought."
Entrecard won't approve the RLCC for cashing out if it doesn't advertise. Entrecard also won't approve the RLCC for the new forum if the RLCC doesn't advertise. No public voice over there! Forum involvement is also part of the cash-out-approval criteria. We're supposed to sell in the Entrecard market too. I know how to do that even as a non-profit, but why in the world would I get into that when Entrecard has such a huge mess on the table here already?
The RLCC was on its way to meeting the ad-threshold of 400 run ads when this ad blockage occurred. Why the RLCC and not "It's OK to be WEIRD!" concerning this blockage. What setting behind the scenes is set differently for "It's OK to be WEIRD!" versus the RLCC. Is it the "We love Entrecard setting" versus the "We are openly but constructively critical" setting? I don't say that to put down "It's OK to be WEIRD!" I like her attitude.
It could be a bug that they just haven't been able to figure out for weeks on end now, but.... Why wouldn't they give nearly their undivided attention to that and call it their highest priority in the trouble ticket I entered rather than just closing that ticket after admitting that there's some bug and to "just trust" them?
Well, Bernie Madoff said, "Just trust me" to the tune of what, a $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Which capitalist am I to just trust? Turn, repent, atone, don't backslide, and I'll give you my trust up to a point – up to the point that I know you can handle it. That's what Jesus did and still does too by the way.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)