The Future of the Project for Awesome: Pizzamas Day 8

In which John is repeatedly interrupted by Nat Wolff and Cara Delevingne while trying to share thoughts about the Project for Awesome 2014.
----
Join the community at nerdfighteria.com & effyeahnerdfigh...
John's twitter - / johngreen
John's tumblr - / fishingboatproceeds
Hank's twitter - / hankgreen
Hank's tumblr - / edwardspoonhands

[@jessicawu8971]

I love how we often forget that actors are people too. And sometimes their goal is to annoy John to the best of their ability. I'm really excited for this movie as well as the project for awesome. DFTBA people!

[@jessicawu8971]

i don't know about you, but while watching him slowly become more annoyed but not reacting, I felt a slight urge to say "John Green, father figure."

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

Is that your own hair? It's awesome!

[@vlogbrothers]

In which John Green is repeatedly interrupted by Nat Wolff and Cara Delevingne while trying to share thoughts about the Project for Awesome 2014.

[@KhtBreyer]

Of course he is😂 but I can't wait to see the movie(said it about 6000 times already...but what the heck it's pizzamas!

[@jmb1600]

KhtBreyer Hank made a video on what it is

[@Randomositydude]

Jacob Bolin They know. It's the ' is a substitute for a short hand way of writing it is. I had a hard time describing this to an Indonesian not too long ago but got there in the end. The ' denotes a missing vowel and a space but basically joins up two words in to one pronounced word with the same meaning as the two. So it's it is is and rather than asking ''but what the heck is Pizzamas?'' they were exclaiming (also made evident by the !) ''but what the heck, it is Pizzamass'' (P.S. Grammar correctors get a bad rap as quite a lot of the time the message is understandable but just wrote in a way that offends their eyes. However you seemed in a small amount of miss communication. So I hope you don't mind me stepping in to inform you about the ' and its meaning within this scenario. Though the the original message may have benefited from a comma placed after the 'heck' as used above in my explanation)

[@Okayletsg0]

Hi john I want to put up a video supporting a local charity were we feed, clothe, educate, and counsel the disadvantaged kids in the mornington peninsula in Australia and unless we get funded It'll shut down very soon and hundreds of children will be sent back into abusive homes or back on the streets. do you think local charities like this one have any hope to get some funding from nerfighteria?

[@TrekkieCSI101]

Personal feedback: I like the meaningful comments (and the not-spamming), but I DON'T like the first day's charities being pre-chosen for the purpose of large-scale matching donations. Several reasons: 1) last year, honestly, we raised three quarters of a million dollars without any large-scale donations from Batmans around the world; 2) we already, year-round, have been participating in that kind of pre-selected-organization-with-match-from-well-known-Batman whenever you ask us to, so I think we will continue to do so in the future; and 3) the POINT of the P4A being different from all of the run-of-the-mill ways nerdfighteria raises awareness and money for decreasing world suck is that it is a frenzy of donating, perks, commenting, vlogging, tweeting, and creating that INSPIRES our community for another whole year of increasing awesome. Please keep P4A open and chaotic. Thank you for reading and DFTBA!

[@UnculturedProject]

As a previous winner of The Project for Awesome, I'd like to offer an explanation as to why John would offer a seemingly more complicated (and seemingly less democratic) system for distributing P4A money. I should preface this by saying that I wasn't involved in any of the discussions that led John to propose this idea. John and Hank have always been about doing as much good as possible through the Nerdfighter community. The simple fact is that having big benefactors willing to match donations means that Nerdfighter's impact can be increased by several magnitudes. But the problem is these big benefactors want more control on where their money goes. Big benefactors (some of whom could be multi-millionaires) prefer to donate to charities they themselves are aware of, have vetted, and have an established history. These would be more charities like Save the Children (which works with USAID, has a high ranking on charity navigator, and has an excellent record in the field). They'd be more leery about donating to smaller and lesser known charities - like a charity created by a group of friends focused on helping a small orphanage in South America or a charity created by a group of students dedicated to helping a dance club in an inner city. It sucks but big benefactors are under no obligation to give away their money. Some big benefactors would rather not be involved than have their hands tied and being obligated to match donations to smaller and lesser known charities like this. The work that I've been able to do through Nerdfighters - and the winnings I've received through The Project for Awesome - is one of the charitable projects that will definitely lose out because of this. My work isn't as established or as formalized as an NGO like Save the Children. Big benefactors would definitely be on the fence about matching donations to my work - even though my work has been funded and supported by Nerdfighters since the very first Project for Awesome. But aid and development is complex and what John is proposing is trying to balance that complexity to maximize the most good Nerdfighters can do while also giving the Nerdfighter community as much say, input, and control as possible in how and where that good is done. Hope this helps you guys make a more informed decision in the comments you guys make.

[@alicejade113]

I always thought that P4A was about raising money to decrease world suck via Nerdfighters. The reason I love P4A so much is because the charities that we're giving the publicity/money/time to were nerdfighter based charities. Devoting the first day to big charities will increase donations and publicity, sure. But we will be taking away publicity and donations from the lesser known, just starting out charities run by Nerdfitaria. I say this because people if donators don't know a lot about P4A/nerdfightaria instead of participating in the whole of P4A, or donating and letting Nerdfighters decide who needs the money most they will donate to the larger better known charities. I think that they should have them get a percentage of the money raised just like the other charities. There was once a P4A where we selected 10 charities and divided the money equally, why not let the large charities have a higher percentage than the ones that Nerdfighters choose? Then the money raised for the big charities help the little charities too?

[@SenoritaSevilla]

I hear you. This option feels and would seem to be the best of both worlds option, however I still feel a little uneasy. I think part of me still feels like we're "taking away" potential money to these small charities who wouldn't have the same recognition. On the other hand, we wouldn't be taking advantage of this opportunity of matched donations. Like I said in my comment earlier, maybe what it really boils down to (for me) is that I'm being hum buggy about change and I'm going to donate anyways.

[@TenleyNadine]

This really helps understand the whole situation, and now that I do, the plan of separating the days makes a lot more since. Because Nerdfighters would still get choose where the second days profits go, but we'll also get a lot more money from big benefactors. Thanks for the explanation, it helped a lot... for me at least.

[@sittingonanmm]

Thanks for this comment, Shawn. Definitely worth a read for everyone to understand the complexities of moving money in development and charities. It definitely is tricky to find balance in this respect because "donating money" has a different purpose for everyone. I align with John's idea of focusing on global issues that are basic causes of many different, large scale and systematized problems. But I understand that many Nerdfighters appreciate bringing light to local issues. Separating days provides a good way to find balance, and maybe making sure both days get an equal share of what is donated would maintain the community-based aspect of P4A while also being strategic about how to use a big chunk of money. I'd also add that choosing three major charities should be completely democratic, there's not a lot of time, but giving at least 5 options (according to John's proposed criteria) for Nerdfighters to vote on would be good.

[@Satisfyedeyes]

Thanks for the explanation! Nobody likes change and I think it was hard for the community to hear about the P4A system being revamped without being given a solid reason why. This helped me feel a little, though not completely, better about it.

[@loriearl8109]

As a recipient small charity, I can tell you that TSWGO was able to help about 40 additional families through the $50k we won in P4A in 2013. It was a HUGE deal to us to win $50,000--but it's not so much money that any charity finds it difficult to put to good use, or difficult to manage! What about having a system so that once a charity wins, they're not eligible the next year (have to wait a year to put their name in "the ring" again)--thereby giving more charities a fair chance at winning? That would help alleviate any "monopoly" by bigger "small" charities.

[@untappedinkwell]

Oooo, I like this idea. Great suggestion. DFTBA Lori.

[@catherinesvideos156]

I like this idea a lot, as it helps us spread out the awesome more and encourages more investigation of new charities

[@adambierstedt920]

***** Here's a case where 50k (interestingly the exact amount you used in your example as a money dump on a small charity) is able to be used effectively. I know this doesn't speak to all small charities, but it does provide a counterexample for the Foundation's rationale for the change.

[@thehappyplate]

I also like the idea that a winning charity could be exempt from winning again the following year. I think it would help to spread out the winnings a bit (avoiding the usual suspects problem where the well-known orgs get all the votes) and give lesser-known charities a better chance.

[@ashtuatara]

Yeah, otherwise the HPA or TSWGO would win every year. Good idea!

[@TenleyNadine]

Okay, I've now watched the P4A part of the video several times and have read many comments, and I think I have a pretty formed opinion now. John, the only part of your proposal I don't totally love is having the first day of profits go to pre-determined charities. There are two things I don't like about this plan; 1. I've always liked that we decide on where the money goes as a group, and while I know that the second day profits would be chosen like that, I still don't totally love the idea. 2. Part of what's great about the P4A is the attention to smaller charities that not a lot of people know about. If we give the first day of profits to three pre-determined charities they'll likely be larger organizations. Nothing against larger charities, but we can raise money for specific larger charities at any point in the year. So here's my proposal, it's similar to your's, with a few minor changes. 1. Everyone uploads their video for a charity of their choosing December 12th at noon EST. 2. We all spend some time (I don't know long, we'd have to decide) watching the videos uploaded to the site on our own to figure out which one's really like. 3. Once we have our favorites we vote for the one's we'd like to see get the money. 4. The top three charities will get the first day's profits. 5. We proceed to have meaningful discussions in the comments of the videos that have been uploaded. While the livestream is happening and we continue to raise money and buy perks and stuff. 6. Towards the end of P4A (again how long before the end we'd have to determine) we do another vote. Because in my experience sometimes you discover an awesome charity late in the game. After 48 hours of watching and discussing videos we're bound to vote differently. 7. The top three from the second vote get the profits of day two (if for some reason one charity does appear twice we can just move down the list). This way not only do we all decide who gets the money, but we also support 6 different charities.

[@untappedinkwell]

With the exception of the fact that it's very likely we'll raise enough funding to support more than 6 charities, I feel that this could be a good balance. However, I think that this format will probably still raise the same problems for matching donors that John voiced--so I'm not sure that it would help in that way. I am totally okay with that, since deciding where the funding goes as a community is more important to me, but it does mean that we should totally do fundraising for them at other points in the year, as you suggested.

[@TenleyNadine]

untappedinkwell We could absolutely do more than six charities, I choose an arbitrary number. In each vote we could do four, or five or however many charities we can possibly afford. As for the matching donors thing I don't 100% know how the system works and what the exact problem is, so I don't know how to incorporate a solution into the proposal. Because you can't really fix something you don't understand. Not denying that it's a problem, I just don't know the specifics.

[@DracoMhuuh]

***** I think the problem is mostly that there is no knowledge in advance of where the money is going. Which is why John proposed this idea, everything on day one will be 100% for sure to certain charities. But removing the control from the community towards where the money is a thing that makes economic sense, but idk how it will affect the community behaviour towards donating (which might wait till day 2). And the complexity of splitting the things in days just seems unnecessary to me, much easier to include the charities in the top 10 or smth and guarantee that they each get 10% that way. Like this the problem of multiple days needing to be split will be avoided

[@TenleyNadine]

DracoMhuuh Oh, okay... I get the problem now. Thanks! So that all being said, what if a poll was posted before December 12th with a list of charities for day one profits. That way, we still get to vote, but we'll know which charities get day one profits in advance. That way we can get big donators, while still allowing Nerdfighters to vote on who gets the money.

[@DracoMhuuh]

***** I don't think finding and setting up donation matches is that easy. I'm sure there are some complicated things I'm not expecting which makes it so you cannot do that in a ad hoc kind of way. Although it's a good idea I think it's really short notice. Also tbh I'm fairly discontent with separating day one and two.

[@ashtuatara]

This will be my first P4A as a Nerdfighter. I'm really excited!!!

[@michelleklein8960]

Same!!

[@TenleyNadine]

Ashley Meijer I'm really excited for you. The P4A is fantastic, and always puts me in a good mood.

[@meowmeowkittycatmeowmeow]

Yay! It's the first one I'll actually be at home and have no school or work, so I can just sit there and participate this year yayayay!!! See you in the comments! :D

[@RobynSkevington]

Me too!

[@kaylab7685]

I thought it would be my first one, but now with the date change I'll be finishing my exams and flying home instead. No internet for me. :(

[@FarFromFilm]

*I love your videos John! And I love pizzamas! :D* Your videos are amazing and you make so many people smile with whatever you do! Songwriting, writing your books, making movies, all of that! And I'm really proud of you both! You and Hank actually made me start vlogging in 2011 when I saw the how to vlog video, so thank you! And you doing pizzamas has inspired me to try and tackle vlogmas this year! (A video every day in December up until Christmas!) *Much love from England

[@officialtanya7142]

I love your channel!

[@MicaelaBerry]

My favorite part of P4A has always been getting to learn about other charities from people who are enthusiastic about those charities, especially when it comes to smaller charities. Maybe this is just me, but somehow being a nerd has always felt like being a bit like the underdog, and I felt like that carried over into P4A. We help charity underdogs who might not usually get very much attention at all. I felt like Nerdfighteria was embodying this spirit earlier with the Nerdfighteria Indie Grant. The grant seems like it will generally be given to small-scale creators to help them build content or accomplish larger goals. Although this grant is funded by the content John and Hank put on on Vlogbrothers directly, I feel like it was kind of a decision Nerdfighteria helped make (or at least supported) because of that mindset of helping the underdog. That's what I like about P4A. We're trying to help the proverbial little guy gain just a bit of visibility among other charity giants. And I hate to say that it sounds like that might not be the case so much with this new set up.

[@ZenithTheReborn]

I discovered ASAN (Autistic Self Advocacy Network) though P4A last year, even though it didn't win any of the monies, it did get a lot of attention especially from autistics like myself in the promotion of self-advocacy, I didn't even know it was a thing pre-P4A. To me, that is a huge win.

[@boatsandcurrent]

Hey, now half of the Project for Awesome is on my birthday! I always love being a Nerdfighter, but I agree, it's particularly awesome around this time of year. Donating is the least I can do to give back to such a wonderful community!

[@NotTotallyHopeless]

As a student of global poverty I really get what you mean with wanting to have wealthy partners to the P4A but at the same time the P4A has always been the best example of a democratized version of charity. We as global citizens choose what is important to us as global citizens and it isn't hijacked by a few people that have the money to make big decisions. I'm obviously going to support the P4A either way, but I just have always appreciated the kind of global comradery that comes with making decisions purely as a community. Just some thoughts :)

[@thehappyplate]

Agreed! I think the community aspect of funding and voting on the winners of the P4A is essential to the project.

[@lastraysofsun]

I totally agree with this too, I trust Nerdfighteria to make the decisions as a community and I'm a little unsure about that power being partially taken away.

[@NotTotallyHopeless]

lastraysofsun I just feel that this is really our project as a community, and taking away part of the community aspect is not what the project is about

[@CatherineLu]

I think the most important thing about P4A has always been the spirit of learning more about diverse charities and coming together to bring that awareness. It seems to me like the way that the voting has worked, more well-known/larger charities _already_ tend to get more of the money raised, just by virtue of the fact that we all know more about them and support them already. So by making the first day all about a few big charities, I think that takes away the emphasis from smaller charities, and that's a direction in which I'm not exactly comfortable going. But so long as we are still making and watching videos and bringing awareness to diverse charities, and so long as the core of P4A remains the same, I will be as enthusiastic about it as I always have been.

[@TenleyNadine]

Catherine Lu I completely agree with this. Part of what's great about P4A is learning about smaller charities you haven't heard of before. I like the idea of having more time to watch videos on our own instead of just spamming the one's that get featured though, because we'll all have time individually to explore any videos on the site we want.

[@thehappyplate]

As someone who's making a P4A video about a lesser-known charity, it worries me a little that the three "chosen" charities would get all of the attention (and a lion's share of the funds) in the new format. Nerdfighteria can fundraise for large organizations any time throughout the year, as we did with water.org this fall. Why not promote/support the little guys for the full two days?

[@Zalied]

i agree in that half (more or less i dont know what day on p4a raises most people tend to save for later perks but first day everyones got money so who knows but lets say 50% each day) this means nerdfighteria only raises 50% for their charity of choice and when making a p4a video to get donations even if your video suceeds you only get half of what u coulda gotten but then again i think when it comes to money quantity is very important and hes doing this to get more matching donations (companies like donating certain ways) and yes p4a is a nerdfighter not company thing we want the community to be the focus but the overall idea is decrease world suck and more money would help that as such im not sure if i like this plan but i dont know if i hate it either it

[@valerie2776]

Zalied thehappyplate one of the reasons why this is happening differently this year is because we are set to raise even more money than last year, and giving a small charity (that doesn't necessarily have experience putting large sums of money to use) $50,000+ is sometimes not the best thing for that charity. we want p4a money to spread as far and to as many charities as possible, and we want to make sure that the charities that receive money will use it wisely and responsibly (by 'we' i am speaking as a board member of the foundation to decrease world suck). it's something we've put a lot of thought and time into - we want to be good stewards of the money that nerdfighteria donates, and ensuring that credible charities get that money is something that is top priority. we will be spacing indiegogo perks out across the entire time the campaign is open so that there's not a huge influx of donations the first day and then nothing after that. it's hard to predict, but by my semi-informed/speculative estimations, i think that more nerdfighter-chosen charities will receive more money overall than in 2013. we will be doing lots of highlighting of videos, as we have done in past years, and regardless of charity size, if a p4a video is informative, creative, educational, motivational, and awesome, it will be featured. i hope all this makes sense; it feels really rambly, but i just want everyone to know that changing the way funds are distributed this year is not a thing that vlogbrothers and co have decided willy nillily :)

[@jaketiff]

Zalied You both make great points. I think it's worth considering though that having a focused day on smaller organizations could actually be helpful to them. Smaller charities could benefit from having reduced noise about the "chosen" charities. I know in the past two P4A's I have been a part of, I find it overwhelming (in the best way) to try to sort out all the charities. Frequently I find myself torn between a charity I find that has a small scope but a great concept and a charity with a much broader scope but perhaps less intimate of a cause. Having a day dedicated to smaller charities might help them really shine. Mentally, I am kinda comparing it to a classic big box movie theater and an independent film festival. Both are awesome but if you put movies from both settings together it is hard for an independent to win. Lets say Harry Potter 8 (lets pretend) is in a movie theater at the same time as a documentary about how they make food for astronauts and all of nerdfighteria is going to the movies for 2 days. Even if they are both equally awesome, it's pretty easy to guess that HP8 and the hype surrounding it will influence how well the documentary will do. If we tell everyone to see HP8 the first day and then the 2nd day watch other things, it becomes easier for the awesomeness of astronaut food to shine through. Yea I know this comment is super long, sorry. Just my thoughts on the topic and would love to hear others.

[@thehappyplate]

I agree wholeheartedly with being responsible stewards of the P4A funds, but I also think it's important to preserve the community aspect of the project. Nerdfighters are the ones who make videos, spread the word to their social networks, and participate in the IndieGogo campaign, so I think you have to be careful not to de-incentivize that by pre-selecting the winners. It's always been a community-driven project where the community promotes and the community votes-- I think that democratic aspect is hugely important. If you have a big organization day and small org day, at least let the community vote in both categories.

[@Dajara]

Do also consider the matched donations we can only get if we have big and well known charities that bigger investors want to join in on. that way we can have a much bigger impact as a whole on p4a. and also if we sort of "finish" with a few big charities on the first day, the chances of the smaller ones actually rise, because nerdfigthers will choose among a pool of lesser known ones instead of opting for the most well know. makes sense? i for one am a big fan of John's proposal.

[@FangirlPhD]

It's a Pizzamas miracle!

[@Jon12317]

I think P4A is amazing. But not just because it raises a lot of money, but because it so beautifully emphasizes the power of collaboration and community. If you pre-select charities, especially under the motivation to receive support from a wealthy donor, the event slowly becomes less and less about collaboration, and more about strategically shuffling money from a big donor to a big charity (which will happen plenty without us). P4A is so much cooler than that. It engages, involves, and gives individuals a stronger sense of impact, worth and community. This proposal conflicts with a fundamental part of why P4A is so inspiring. (PS. Though I agree we can change the comment-spamming thing).

[@aldenhunt]

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. The community aspect of p4a where nerdfighters can discover new things, share what they find amongst themselves, and then support many charities is what makes it great.

[@aimee.marie.cherie]

I agree with many of the other comments; I personally always understood P4A to be about raising awareness for smaller charities and/or causes, and I always enjoyed that because it gave me an opportunity to learn about awesome charities and causes that really need the support that don't get it. Not that bigger charities don't need it-that's not what I'm saying at all-but I think we should give smaller charities a fighting chance and more recognition for their cause or how they're helping their cause(like if they help with poverty, but do it in a unique/creative way).

[@fightslikeanerd1336]

I love the meaningful comments idea- represents Nerdfighteria in the best possible way.

[@nadiact-ie5hy]

How will we choose the charities that get the money on the first day? Sidenote: John, you need to teach Nat how to do the Macarena. (Or maybe Cara could do it. She knows what's what.)

[@EricM818]

we dont choose the charities on the first day. if i understood correctly, they are doing it this way so it will be easier to get private donors to match our donations. the thinking is that someone with a lot of money that wants to match donations will be more likely to match donations to charities that they know are really great than charities we choose (which im sure are still really great, they just may not be well known). hopefully this way, we will have more overall donations (but they wont all go to the charities we specifically choose).

[@nadiact-ie5hy]

EricM818 I should have said: how will those charities be chosen, and who will do the choosing. :)

[@nadiact-ie5hy]

***** What? I posted it, even before I made this post. Arghh! I wonder if it's not showing up. (It was one of the first comments, and no one has responded to it or liked it.) Man, I like constantly refreshed this evening just to make sure I'd get in early. :( I just reposted it. Maybe now it'll be there.

[@nadiact-ie5hy]

***** Eff it, I'm going to post it here too. Sorry, I just really want people to know about the project. On the tenth day of Pizzamas Nerdfighters gave to me Ten Hanks a-Johning Nine n00bs a-pwning Eight Nerds a-Ninging Seven Hanks a-humping Six Reds a-pooping Five Awesome Girls!!! Four corndogs Three Hanklerfish Two Pizza Johns And a Nerdfighter family tree! Thanks to +MadeofAwesome4ever for today’s suggestion! Hey guys. We’re making a collaborative recording of this song. If you’re interested please go to the link (Twelve Days of Pizzamas Melody), record yourself singing the song (make sure you listen to my recording as you sing), and upload your video to KZbin, tumblr, or reddit (or all three). The Pizzamas Carol subreddit is at www.reddit.com/r/PizzamasCarols/. Please name your video with some variation of The Twelve Days of Pizzamas and tag it “Pizzamas Carols.” I also wrote harmony parts (alto, tenor, and bass). I recorded myself singing them, and I will upload them to my channel tomorrow. Please record as many parts as you can and label the videos you make with the voice part.

[@TenleyNadine]

nadiact1000 We do the choosing, from what I understand/how it's gone in the past. On the P4A website everyone uploads their video and then we all watch as many of them as we can (I assume we do this part on our own, not in the livestream). Once we've all watched a significant amount and chosen our favorites we vote (another thing we'll be able to do on the P4A site) for the charities that should get the money. After that we all go through the videos in the livestream and have a discussion in the comments about... whatever the video was about. I hope that helps!

[@obsessivelyShayz]

I'm excited to be part of a community that does stuff to help people and improve peoples overall quality of life :3 its a nice feeling

[@potato2263]

John, I like the idea of having meaningful conversations in the comments, but I'm kind of confused about the whole first day thing. The 3 "big" charities will be very well-known ones and will definitely be getting a lot of attention. However, some of the fun in P4A is discovering new, smaller charities which I believe are just as deserving of the donations as the bigger charities are. I know we could always vote for them on the second day, but I think it's rather unfair.... honestly, I like the original system of the P4A better Btw, are comments still counted as a penny donated to charity?

[@untappedinkwell]

I second.

[@juststeveschannel]

I have to third. Maybe I'm not getting a clear picture here, but it sounds like these changes are geared toward making it easier to attract large donors. So now we are going to attract large, established donors to give large amounts to large, established charities, but...what, those donations will now carry the P4A name with them? Aren't these liable to be donations that very likely would have occurred anyway? I'm not sure I understand the real gain. It feels like trying to build numbers more than community, but it was the focus on community that led for this possibility in the first place. Hoping that I'm just confused, to be honest. It wouldn't be the first time.

[@SaguaroGoose]

Disclaimer: I know very little about how charities and economics work. I think that changing P4A to this system would divert the view from what I've always valued about P4A: discovering new charities and helping them out. Logistically the proposed change makes more sense, however, it would seem that purposefully supporting large charities would be less effective because they receive more money already. This is not to say that these charities are not important and should not be supported, but that the smaller ones may feel the effect greater.

[@sarahdees9566]

All of this sounds really good. I am left wondering if there's anyway we could still hijack the algorithms on KZbin, and if not KZbin what about other social media sites? If we can't hijack this social media platform, let's throw our weight around in other ones such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and Instagram! This is a great message and it's important to have meaningful discussions in the comments, but it's also not bad to get this as far reaching as possible.

[@GeofDumas]

IIRC the algorithm now favors diverse audiences and a high percentage of start-to-finish viewing on long videos

[@leatherback8]

I reckon we can definitely at least get a hashtag trending on twitter, maybe each tweet can encourage people who didn't otherwise know about p4a to buy perks/donate?

[@Chouetterargentee]

This is a great idea!

[@adambierstedt920]

silentqueue Well then, if we can get the message out ahead of time to other KZbin communities, and try to get, say, Markiplier's and Pewdiepie's communities to watch at least a few P4A vids, we should destroy the algorithm. Also, get a worldwide P4A twitter trend. That would be honestly be pretty easy and effective.

[@katieconigliaro6945]

Adam Bierstedt I WANT MARKIPLIER INVOLVED IN THIS SO BAD I WOULD DONATE SO HARD FOR A TINY BOX TIM ANYTHING

[@joesdaily]

Damn, I need to hurry up and read #PaperTowns . Had no idea they were already starting to film it. Just finished _Looking for Alaska_, and LOVED IT!

[@im4him0627]

So here's what I'm thinking. I don't mind the switch of days or anything, but what I don't like is how this change seems to communicate that the purpose of the P4A is all about raising money. Don't get me wrong, it's completely awesome that Nerdfighteria is in a position to be able to raise money and to actually do things to decrease worldsuck. I think it's great to do that along with the videos people make to raise awareness about causes and organizations. However, when an entire day is devoted to raising money for just a few charities (no matter how awesome they are), to me, P4A becomes a little bit too much like other telethons and fundraising campaigns that I see all the time. And I'm afraid that in the midst of that, some of what makes P4A special and unique will be lost. That being said, I'm sure P4A will continue to decrease worldsuck no matter how it is formatted. DFTBA!

[@hayley6094]

Exactly right! I think that P4A has one important goal that would be neglected if we had the first day reserved for only a few charities- discovery of new organizations and causes. Even if only the top ten charities actually get funding, that publicity for smaller and more obscure charities during the voting process seems very beneficial as well.

[@thehappyplate]

Agreed!

[@kaylab7685]

Wasn't the aim of the 1st P4A to raise public awareness for charities, and Hank was surprised they also raised money? Correct me if I'm wrong, I wan't around at the time.

[@jupiterqueen42]

you just managed to articulate what I have been thinking about since this video. I don't want p4a to lose it's sense of community, of doing something together. Raising money is brilliant, but p4a is about awareness and togetherness and community, and these are things which are increasingly difficult as nerdfighteria and youtube grow. I don't have answers yet, and I'm sure that p4a will still be awesome, I'll be commenting constantly for sure, but I'm not sure the focus on big charities is right for p4a

[@brwneyedgirlx19]

I can't wait for the Project for Awesome. It's my favorite time of year to be a Nerdfighter too! I've been saving up some money this year to be able to donate and I'm really excited!

[@scott98390]

Wait - that's the last time you get to say "I'll see you tomorrow"? Until _next_ Pizzamas, you mean. Right? RIGHT?

[@untappedinkwell]

Time will tell.

[@vendetta4lif]

So excited for the Project for Awesome!

[@marymeister5593]

As many people have already pointed out, the private donors who would be matching donations most likely have a set amount that they are donating to charity anyway. If that is the case I don't understand why we would change to accommodate them. Last year we raised over 700k (I didn't look up and don't remember the exact amount, but it was at least that much) not including matching donations. What I'm trying to say is I don't think it's the best idea to change the P4A because we already raise a huge amount of money without private donors. I completely agree that not enough emphasis is placed on voting, and that is for sure something we should talk about more this year.

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

I agree!

[@marybach9925]

This is the first year I'll be donating to the P4A!!! I'm so excited!

[@ablestmage]

She was either in character, or a very good natural Margo Roth Spiegelman..

[@miss_mango]

The proposed changes to the P4A sound awesome :D Nerdfighter approved!

[@owenleeb]

The creepy abandoned building was weirdly appropriate for Paper Towns.

[@VlogUntilDawn]

Yes! I love this new plan! This sounds like the most logical step forward for P4A.

[@nadiact-ie5hy]

On the tenth day of Pizzamas Nerdfighters gave to me Ten Hanks a-Johning Nine n00bs a-pwning Eight Nerds a-Ninging Seven Hanks a-humping Six Reds a-pooping Five Awesome Girls!!! Four corndogs Three Hanklerfish Two Pizza Johns And a Nerdfighter family tree! Thanks to +MadeofAwesome4ever for today’s suggestion! Hey guys. We’re making a collaborative recording of this song. If you’re interested please go to the link (Twelve Days of Pizzamas Melody), record yourself singing the song (make sure you listen to my recording as you sing), and upload your video to KZbin, tumblr, or reddit (or all three). The Pizzamas Carol subreddit is at www.reddit.com/r/PizzamasCarols/. Please name your video with some variation of The Twelve Days of Pizzamas and tag it “Pizzamas Carols.” I also wrote harmony parts (alto, tenor, and bass). I recorded myself singing them, and I will upload them to my channel tomorrow. Please record as many parts as you can and label the videos you make with the voice part.

[@nadiact-ie5hy]

Here's the score for the whole thing: nadiact1000.tumblr.com/

[@carly2173]

I have an idea for 11 you could do 11 towns of paper

[@nadiact-ie5hy]

Carly's Video Edits Good suggestion, but it's actually all finished and recorded now.

[@nadiact-ie5hy]

***** I am on twitter, though I don't really tweet, just follow others. But that's a good suggestion.

[@cutepuppy895]

thank you for being you john green

[@chompsn9]

I understand that you want more money to be raised, but the whole point of p4a is that we raise money as a community and decide as a community where that money goes. If you want to do separate fundraisers for specific charities at other times of the year (like you have a couple of times already) I'm all for that, but keep p4a community-based.

[@untappedinkwell]

I second.

[@englishcait]

I totally agree

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

So do I!

[@osmia]

"as a community" - I sure hope that John and Hank address our concerns.

[@monical9972]

Even more excited for December now!!!

[@beeniej96]

Raising money for something is better than not raising money at all. World suck levels have slightly increased because of this comment section. I understand that you all like the sense of community during P4A, as do I, but you have to think about what is more important here. Providing help for people in need is most important. Your sense of community is always here on the vlogbrothers channel, at the Ning, on tumblr, etc. And yes, they could ask us to raise money for big charities anytime of the year, but they're asking us to do it now so tough cookies. Big charities are solely that because they help more people. And the commenters saying they're not donating at all this year, I feel, are being selfish. Since the money is being matched the first day, give about 20-30% of the money you were going to give on that day. And give the rest the second day. This change doesn't have to be a bad thing.

[@Piarou]

The charity-matching-donaters, the big-pockets, are going to spend that amount of money on charity each year anyways. Whether it is through the P4A or not. Them deciding what the P4A is going to be like is hijacking, just for their PR. I always thought Nerdfighteria was about "everybody is equally important". But hey, that's just me, maybe.

[@beeniej96]

I understand what you're saying. That's why I didn't really touch much on the donation matching thing. My point was that Nerdfighteria has been given the opportunity to help a lot of people, but are hesitant about it because it's through big charities.

[@danheidel]

Justine Josey I personally find your comment to be very offensive. There are many worthy causes for charitable donations in the world. Saying that people are being selfish and close-minded simply because they want to donate to charities of their choice is both patronizing and wrong. I can (and do) donate to the big name charities that have matching funds any time I want. What distinguishes P4A is that it has always focused on lesser known charities and lets the community choose how the money is spent. Many of these charities already get huge amounts of donations. The money raised for P4A in this larger context is pretty small. However, there are many, many alternate charities that are just as worthy of receiving our money where the amount raised by P4A would make a huge impact. What you seem to be saying is that the community is too dumb to be able to make rational and informed choices. By what criterion are these large charities a better use of the community's money? Do you have hard data showing return on the dollar that shows that those charities are objectively a better use of the donations? Your attitude is directly in opposition to many of the core values of this community - informed and active people trying to make the world a better place. That is done through discussion and engagement between people, not decision by fiat. If this year's P4A tells us that there are certain charities with a good, proven track record that are eligible for matching donations, that's great. We, as a community can then vote and decide if those charities are what we want to put our money towards. But to simply decide by default that half of the P4A is going to a set group of charities with no input is directly in opposition to the democratic and participatory nature of Nerdfighteria. edit: typo

[@estellet1406]

Hey, I'm all for bigger charities helping more people, but I think using big charities and having a sense of community aren't exclusive to each other. We can do both. I think nerdfighters should be able to pick which large charities the money goes to from maybe 5 or 6 options. Maybe John and Hank could find these and then set up a poll where we could vote on them?

[@beeniej96]

Dan Heidel I wasn't trying to offend anyone or call anyone dumb, but if you took it that way I'm greatly sorry. We should have a say in who we give our money to. In my comment I was referencing the people that said they weren't going to donate at all. You don't have to donate to the big charities if you don't want to. That's your choice. But you can still donate to the small charities. The 20-30% thing was just a suggestion. Again, sorry if I offended you.

[@autumnbrookesings]

I really like those ideas. This will be my first project for awesome and I have been looking forward to this greatly since March/April, when I realized that I am a made-of-awesome Nerdfighter. Considering the money on each day will be given separately, I will probably give a little on each day. I love the idea of meaningful discussions in the comments vs spamming. I am very very excited to see what charities are out there that I've never heard about.

[@patriciapaguio4484]

John, I second your proposal to have the first day of profits go to large, well-known predetermined charities, and I'm sorry to say, but I disagree with people saying that this is a bad idea. Firstly, I know that donating to charities, no matter how big or small, is helping the greater good of the people. BUT donating to large charities will help the even greater good of even more people. Sure, it'd be nice to recognize and help out small charities that help, let's say, the homeless in a state in the USA. But I think we often forget to look at the big picture, like say, world hunger and global poverty. So I think having the profits from the first day go to larger charities is important, because we are able to remind people to truly decrease world suck, (and by world suck I don't just mean the world you know, but the world that exists out of your city, out of your state, out of your country) and help solve global problems, like famine and world hunger. Secondly, even though the profits from the first day go towards the large charities, it doesn't mean we're ignoring the small charities and taking them off the table completely, we're just putting them aside for a day while we pay more attention to the larger charities. We'll come back to the smaller charities and help them out on the second day. So I think it's not only a fair system, but an efficient one, because it allows us to donate to both large charities and small charities. In doing so, we can shed equal light and bring attention to issues occurring on all levels, whether it'd be on a global level, or a local level. So yes, I completely second your proposal, John (unless of course I learn more about this stuff, because opinions are always subject to change), and also I hope this all made sense (which I doubt that it did). DFTBA

[@librigirl]

I'm in full agreement. New can be scary but is often good. If it isn't an ideal system we'll learn from it and adjust for next year. Also, control is still in the hands of the community as we can still all donate according to our values and interests. Let's give it a try.

[@patriciapaguio4484]

librigirl Exactly! I think there's so much potential and so much good that can come out from this change. And if not, it's a learning experience, and that just means that we're getting a little closer to finding out the perfect set up for the P4A. So why not just try it out and see how it goes?

[@Dragontongue18]

I completely agree. I haven't participated in a P4A before, so this will be my first one, but I think this new idea sounds awesome. I don't think that this is taking the power away from Nerdfighteria at all. Sure, we may not be choosing the charities for the first day (I don't know how exactly that's going to work for choosing who gets what) but I can only see this as a good thing and helping out larger charities will really help with decrease of world suck.

[@Piarou]

I have said this in other threads as well, but the matching-donors will donate that money to their chosen charity no matter what. They have a budget for it. It is PR. At least, that is what it feels like, for me. As far as I know, the P4A has never been about the amount of money, but about the community working together to change the world for the better. To raise awareness, and decrease world-suck. I have always believed that the Nerdfighter-community was one where we treated everybody as equally important. So that also goes for the big-pockets guy vs. the 9yo. boy that sold his comics on a street-fair to get money to donate for the P4A.

[@danheidel]

I'll have to disagree with you here. The problem is the assertion that these charities are somehow guaranteed to make the most difference in the world. Where is your data to back this up? I personally agree that organizations like water.org _probably_ give the most bang-for-the-buck. However, how do we actually know this? Do you have hard numbers to back this up? Do you know all the consequences of a dollar donated to homeless people in the US vs well digging in Haiti? Simply assuming that one is a better use of money than the other is just that, a big assumption. Many of these organizations already get huge amounts of money. A $100-300K donation to one of these organizations is going to be a very small drop in the bucket. In contrast, a few thousand dollars going to a smaller charity may make a huge, transformational difference in that area even if the larger organization is more 'efficient' on paper. Also, there are many different value systems that people have. If someone is very passionate about animal welfare, who are you, me or John and Hank to tell them that their values are somehow less valid than the solution to world hunger? There are many, ways to make this world a better one and I strongly believe that greater choice and diversity in how we improve it are more valuable in the long run than pooling all of our resources into a few issues. This is a very engaged and intelligent community. I personally trust it to vote well. If the charities that John is pushing for are actually worth our money, I am confident that we'll vote for them. However, I am very disinclined to this removal of the democratic and participatory nature of P4A. As much as I'm a fan of John and Hank, I'm not OK with them simply deciding what the best use of my charity money is. If they want to stump for their chosen charities and to let us know that certain ones have matching funds, that's great. Each person can then decide if that's a compelling reason to vote for it. But that's the key - we still have the choice to vote for it.

[@merksmirs]

I know this isn't a well thought out response (I did posted one of those earlier) but if we're not gonna do commenting in the spamming the hell out of it kinda way I'm really gonna miss it. It was my favorite part of P4A Like even if you had no money you could still contribute by typing till you could hardly feel your fingers anymore for two days straight. And by the end you felt so amazing cause you made x amount of comments and thus raised x amount of money. Like I just feel like it was a great community building thing in a way. Like I know meaningful discussion is way more valuable, but when everyone was asked what they're favorite pizza toppings were and suddenly the comments existed solely of "pepperoni" "nothing" "broccoli" for a couple of minutes... I just loved that and I will miss it sorely. I kinda can't imagine the p4a without it, since that's how it started in the first place

[@juststeveschannel]

I hate, hate, HATE to say this...but I kind of want to hear what Hank has to say, and I kind of wish he had been the one to introduce these ideas. It just feels, I don't know, kind of off-putting coming from John; and that probably has something to do with getting more and more accustomed to seeing him hanging out with Hollywood celebs, helicoptering around Africa with Bill Gates, tooling around Indianapolis in a million dollar race car, now coming out to say "We're going to be giving the bulk of our big money to big charities so that we can attract more big donors...because, you know, community is nice, but big money is what it's all about; that's the best way to reduce the most worldsuck." I'll still be an excited participant and donor to P4A; I could just use some t-shirt and jeans, I guess. Don't really feel good about it, but there it is.

[@juststeveschannel]

Two minutes after I post this and I feel guilty. But I'm not going to delete it, because I know what I meant and I don't think I want to take it all back. I am so hoping that I am just confused on what this all means...because I don't feel very clear. You can't begin to know how much Nerdfighteria has meant to me (and means to me), and the change it's brought to my life. Sometimes love is hard, but that doesn't mean it has gone away or dimmed.

[@MacLaurasaurusRex]

juststeveschannel I think you're totally justified in your first comment. And to some degree, you are probably right. I am sure that one of the big donors that John has got for the P4A this year is Bill Gates (and likely some of Gates' friends who are also multimillion/billionaires). It definitely makes sense that if you are giving a large amount of money you want to know where it is going (my family is luckily well off enough that we give a couple thousand dollars to various charities every year and we literally have a discussion every year about how much money to what organizations, and why, etc). I think that, ideally, I would love to hope that our push back (as it seems a majority of the comments I see are) does make John have to go back to the potential donors and say, "look, this is what the community's problems with this is. What can you work with?" I am not sure if that will happen, but I hope there is some sort of real listening happening.

[@Laurwithawhy]

I totally get what you're saying. And I basically agree. It does feel unsettling. I know it's ultimately a great solution but I just don't like the way it feels. But my two takeaways are: 1)We still get to decrease world suck, and that is always positive. And 2) sometimes what is "best" or most bound for success isn't what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[@sittingonanmm]

I don't think it's so much about saying "big money is what it's all about", but about realizing that at this point, and for many reasons, this community is able to obtain a lot of attention, and in this case that attention translates to money, and that money has to be handled responsibly. Over $800,000 was collected last year! That's no joke, the money has to be handled well. John says maybe we didn't spend as much time voting as we did commenting, and that shouldn't' be taken lightly. (It'd be interesting to know how many people voted vs. how many people just commented, unsure if this is possible.)

[@Meliasaurus]

You think traveling to aftica with Bill Gates to educate people about poverty and malaria Has made John disconnected from other people??? That seems a little backwards. If anything when John does fancy stuff he expresses humility constantly & gratitude. I am just as happy to hear this idea from him as I would Hank.

[@Trucker_Josh]

You guys are really inspiring with your charity work. Great job :)

[@DanikaLeighEllis]

It seems to be unpopular, but I like this proposal. Partly because last year I realized after donating that some of the charities that got near the top were ones that I wouldn't want to fund (charities that I've heard conflicting information about, ones that seem to proselytize Christianity over actually helping people in need, even--if I recall correctly--anti-choice organizations), and I would actually appreciate some vetting so that I know that my donation is going to a cause that I would support and that will definitely help people.

[@marymeister5593]

I'm pretty sure last year during the live stream John said their lawyers wanted him to state that ultimately The Foundation to Decrease World Suck reserved the right to decide which charities would receive money. I felt like it was because there were some Christian organizations with a lot of votes that didn't align with the communities values. I don't know if I completely imagined that because it's been so long but if that is the case I'm not worried about my money going to like, an anti-choice organization .

[@fishonthesand]

Mary Meister I heard that, too, and was comforted that there would be some background checking, etc. You are not imagining it. He did say it. :)

[@juliebarkley1066]

Mary Meister Surely if they won the votes, they must represent some part of the community's values. Nerdfighteria is not a monolith.

[@marymeister5593]

Julie Barkley True! I didn't mean to suggest that. I guess I meant that (in my experience from talking to people and reading comments) it seems that Nerdfighters are generally more liberal and would not be in support of anti-choice organizations. I think the P4A had a lot of attention outside of the KZbin community last year. For example, I remember Kesha tweeting for her followers to vote for a charity because her friend made the video. I don't know if I feel comfortable with that because maybe her fans have different values than a 'typical Nerdfighter'. Also I should add that I'm not hating on Kesha. I'm a huge fan and was actually really excited that she tweeted about it.

[@VlogChickens]

Can't wait for all of the charity videos!! I know I'll definitely be making one.

[@nyxredfern5042]

The problem with having the 3 charities on the first day is they will probably get the lion's share of the support merely on the basis that live streams tend to loose momentum as they go on. If we must do this format of half smaller charities, half larger charities, can we at least push the larger charities to day 2 and the smaller charities to day one?

[@thehappyplate]

Agreed! I think the danger here is that the *other* charities are ignored! but perhaps switching the days would help.

[@TenleyNadine]

Nyx Redfern I agree about livestream's loosing momentum, in general. But for P4A, in the past, the attention sort of fluctuates as people pop in and out going to work and school. But I do agree that attention to smaller charities is huge part of what makes P4A great, and I hope there's a way to keep the attention on them. That's not say there's not a lot of really great large organizations, but most people know about the large organizations.

[@SophiaHoiseth]

Not only am I super pumped for Project for Awesome the time move is actually so convenient for me so thanks John.

[@mykadassano438]

I'm game as long as there's still a live steam. That's the most important part for me. It's what makes me spend all my money.

[@BrittsAmelia]

I'm so excited to finally get to participate in p4a after years of watching. Meaningful comment discussion sounds fantastic.

[@madisonharry94]

What am I going to do when there aren't vlogbrothers videos every day?? I suppose I'll just have to go back to binge watching the vintage vlogbrothers. :)

[@steam6380]

It's totally worth it. I binged watched all of them, in order of course, last year. I had only just discovered them and wanted to know more. It was awesome, I'd highly recommend it. The production levels were very different back at the start, but I kind of liked it. Except the annoying whoosh of the intro. Enjoy!

[@lukassnakeman]

the comment sections of these videos reminds me of the staff at a summer camp ive worked at. its mostly comprised of awesome unique people with individual personalities

[@penguim1996]

Besides what has already been stated about losing the community aspect of p4a, something that concerns me is how much higher the donation rate is the first day. People donate a hell of a lot more the first day and then things tend to simmer down and slow towards the second day as people have already given what they can. So we would end up having the majority of the money go towards big charities, which let's face it, already get tons of donations from big donors in the first place. I've always loved that p4a allowed nerdfighters to pick the charities they wanted to support, big or small. Usually there would be bigger and smaller charities receiving money, but if we do it this way it would probably be all bigger charities in the lead.

[@saharasdreams]

This is going to be the first time I'm ever going to be participating in project for awesome and I'm so excited! I've always watched the videos from afar for the past few years! :)

[@andreabreckenridge5680]

I love the P4A, but my favorite time to be a Nerdfighter is Esther Day.

[@scabiniful]

both of those are the highlights of my year

[@RandomerThanAverage]

I understand your concern about the wealthy donors and how getting them on board would get a lot more money pumped into the event.... however, I think the best thing P4A does is get people in our community behind charity. It has always been about our community and driven by our community and I understand that our community is now a LOT larger, but I have always liked that focus. Of course, I'm on board no matter the decision you make.

[@eblanblan]

P4A suggestions: -Have "I voted" digital badges like facebook had on election day, but for P4A They could be "I donated", "I voted", and "I commented" -Not everyone knows how to have meaningful conversations in comments, and penny comments are hilarious. The meaningful conversation could be move to the livestream? Could you invite the video creator or an expert about the subject to participate, or having a more definite schedule of livestream speakers/interviews (I know that takes more logistics) But I like participating by watching the livestream, and while everyone loves googly eye faced Will Wheaton, it's easier to watch livestream P4A conversations (if you watch during work on Friday) save the visually silly stuff for Saturday.

[@linaphilipp4595]

I love it when you can see that the actors have fun on set and that they're friends in real life :)

[@catherinesvideos156]

While I see that finding ways to target big organizations and focus on global health/poverty would give us a huge opportunity for matching funds, I don't really feel like preselecting charities is in the spirit of the P4A, unless we get the chance to research and choose from a list beforehand. Also the first day/second day thing is confusing, I'd suggest changing that or making it really clear. Some ppl won't be able to participate the whole time and if they only get a chance to do one, they will be bummed. Maybe it should be the first however many dollars or a percentage nerdfighteria votes on that goes to larger orgs. I love the idea of substantive discussions instead of spamming in comments! I think it will make a great point about how broken KZbin's comments are.

[@esmeraldagonzalez3795]

Its been a year since I have discovered nerdfighteria. I just wanted to say that nerdfighteria has change my life soooooo much and DFTBA

[@meenah_s]

1. WIll there still be a livestream? 2. I think this would work, but my only issue with it might be with the perks, what if I wanted to support the second day charities, but the perk I wanted would be sold out by then? You could release the same perk on different days, say you had 500 of a certain perk, to release 250 the first day and 250 the second day. Another option is to raise money, take the total, divide it by half, then the first half gets split between the 3 international charities, and the second half gets split between the charities decided by the project for awesome. Any thoughts?

[@prabourn]

I had the same concern, but wasn't sure how to phrase it. Thanks for bringing it up and also proposing two good solutions.

[@SciJoy]

That is a really great point! I am an active member of Kiva and think they are amazing, but I'd rather my P4A money go to smaller charities like Not Forgotten or TSWGO. Some of the perks are very limited or one of a kind like Emily's painting. At least last year, they would bring the KZbinr on at the same time they released their perk like Destin and the butterfly pictures, which would be hard to do twice. Thanks for pointing this out.

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

As much as I want to trust John, I'm a little suspicious of the decision to have the money split according to when it was donated, especially since most of the money is donated on the first day. It seems like they're trying to get as much money as possible to the 'big' charities and as little as possible to the smaller ones without admitting that that's what they want...

[@FaerieDust]

I definitely agree with John's proposal - it makes a lot of sense to get some funding to the larger organizations as well, especially if you can get matching donations there. But of course you wouldn't want to give up part of what makes PFA so awesome, which is in part that we all get to vote on which organizations should receive our donations. I think this is a good middle ground that can do a lot of good for a lot of people, and I fully support it.

[@peytonellis4053]

Hank was that actually Jupiter?

[@melaniemurphyofficial]

From start to finish, I was like...YES! YES! :)

[@indigo1563]

My problem, as many others have mentioned, is that while the proposed change is good for maybe getting more money for good causes, it just doesn't feel like P4A. P4A has always been about the diversity and discovery of charities and in some ways the underdogs. It feels like the first day donation change would definitely bring in more money, but also definitely move the project away from the core that so many people have come to know the P4A, which could eventually be bad in terms of long term finance idon'tknow, but breaks part of the community and makes it feel less special.

[@untappedinkwell]

I second. The community element is far more important to me than getting matching donors.

[@jupiterqueen42]

as I've commented elsewhere, this is my feeling too. Money for charity is of course awesome, but p4a has always been more than that.

[@PaolaCucurullo]

As many others have said, I think that with the Water.org campain we've proven that we can raise money for specific charities any other time of the year and we'll gladly be a part of it, and part of the spirit of P4A is to have Nerdfighteria choose worthy charities to donate to. I would go as far as saying that if private donors are unwilling to participate blindly, then we should rally at other times for their specific charities, and raise the P4A money on our own. It's true that it would probably mean less money during the P4A, but more occasions during the rest of the year.

[@DanThePropMan]

At 1:33 Cara makes a fantastic derp face. A++

[@nicolewong9638]

For some reason I really love it when the videos are 3:59. So close.

[@Vixielicious]

I think that's a good idea, but I don't like the first day of money going to pre-determined charities. The fun bit was choosing our own charities and allowing the community as a whole to have pretty much free rein and choose as a collective. I feel you're not quite trusting Nerdfighteria to choose sensible and effective charities. Has it become more about the money for charity or more about the community? Will you be livestreaming and such again?

[@sarah_beans]

Double thumbs up for your suggestions John!

[@WadjetEye100]

I'm operating under the assumption that the rich people with their large donations to the well-regarded charities would donate that money regardless of whether it's via the Project for Awesome or not. That very well may be incorrect, but I feel like that is too big change from the current system where smaller charities have a chance to get huge donations too. Maybe another idea would be to have an event separate from the Project for Awesome where there are certain, well-established charities only so that both sides could be happy. (assuming that's not, like, obviously not feasible)

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

I agree about the large donors. I doubt that this change will significantly increase the total amount of money any of the selected charities gets over the year, when all sources of donations are taken into account. Meanwhile, it could significantly decrease the amount the selected small charities get from the P4A, when they wouldn't normally receive large donations. Overall, less money is donated, and less worldsuck is decreased. Has John thought is through?

[@WadjetEye100]

Here's hoping that it was just an idea, and they'll continue the discussion or something after seeing the big divide in Nerdfighteria.

[@andy150395]

I really like this idea for P4A. I think opening discussions has always been a strong suit of nerdfighters and rearranging the priorities could definitely improve those discussions. I can't wait I love the Project for Awesome (and my tfios poster) so much.

[@DracoMhuuh]

I'm a bit on the fence about this. Especially the stark division between the first and the second day. P4A has had a tendency the last two or three years to raise the bulk of its money before the even even starts so I'm not quite sure how that factors in the division. It might also skew the numbers, while I think that the established charities you mention are important and do a lot of good work I would prefer to see them added to the pool of 5 or 10 charities Nerdfighteria chooses than separate the days. I think separating them might have an influence on WHEN people will donate to the cause and make P4A more complex than it should be. It should be and is about giving and promoting charities. And I'd prefer not seeing it also become in part "trying to decide whether to get the perk while still available or waiting for the second day to have my money go to charities we've chosen"

[@jordanhobgood]

Cannot wait for Project for Awesome 2014!

[@MASCrafts]

What if, instead of dividing between first day and second day, a certain percentage (15% to each?) of all the money raised over both days went to the big three? That way it could be divided more evenly if the amounts are drastically different on each day. Though I'm still not sure about it, I really like that nerdfighters raise the money and choose how it is spent.

[@untappedinkwell]

I like this idea.

[@thehappyplate]

Also like this.

[@DracoMhuuh]

I love this idea, it removes all the complexity of "when has the money been donated" because let's not forget that half the money for P4A got donated before the event officially kicked off. also it keeps the sense of community of choosing the other charities, which will probably be 7 and makes it in general stay very close to the previous editions.

[@JDog39617]

What a wonderful setting that would be for a thoughts from places

[@NowLookRight]

I always forget the ending to the Macarena too, it's okay

[@wizardgradstudent]

I like the proposal! I think it's important to make sure the Project for Awesome is well organized and controlled (but not in a negative sense) this year because it's probably going to be the biggest one yet. I mean, we raised a frick ton of money last year, and look how much Nerdfighteria has grown in the last year due to the TFiOS buzz! If we don't have an effective plan, I'm worried the project might spiral out of control. As long as the money continues to go to proper charities (as I'm certain it will, you guys take research very seriously) then I'm game!

[@jullachris90]

Is there then no way for nerdfighters who don't have money to contribute? Earlier, one comment equalled one cent, so that people who had no money to give could still give. Are you setting up another thing like that, or phasing it out? It feels a bit excluding.

[@untappedinkwell]

If we're eliminating the 1 comment= 1 penny system, then the ways that nerdfighters can contribute without donating funds are as follows: 1-upload a video talking about your favorite charity, 2- share and vote on any videos you find worthwhile and 3-donate your time through art/music that can be used as p4a perks (I believe the deadlines for these have passed, unfortunately, but if you wanted to plan for next year, you could keep that in mind. The nerdfighterart tumblr usually has information about the art related projects).

[@DracoMhuuh]

untappedinkwell that sucks majorly though. I mean everyone can upload a video and that's great. But if the only other way you can contribute is by donating art then what. I mean I can't do art for the life of me, I can't exactly donate the solution to a particular physics problem as a perk. Idk I'm on the fence about these changes #boochange #butnotreally

[@untappedinkwell]

DracoMhuuh I'm not wild about the proposed changes either, I just wanted to give off the options for any nerdfighters who might want them. And I do think that IF (John didn't confirm) the comment/penny system is eliminated, then we should have some other option for our young nerdfighters who may be lacking in disposable income.

[@DracoMhuuh]

untappedinkwell oh my apologies, I slightly misunderstood. I just hope there was a way I could be of more value given that the only art I can do is draw is a terrible stickman. Or random shit and pretend it has a meaning

[@untappedinkwell]

DracoMhuuh No worries! We're all good. Is it weird if I'm a little curious about these terrible stickmen? And I agree--even though many of the people who started the p4a have grown, a good chunk of the audience is still pretty young, and they should get to help. I'm hoping john will confirm that they are *not* getting rid of the comment/penny system, but we'll see.

[@Holtza]

Yes! I've really missed interaction in comments (which is what made me fall in love with Nerdfighteria a few years ago). There's nothing quite like it to make you feel included in the community, while sitting individually in front of a computer screen. I think it's a great proposal. Looking forward to see how it works in practice.

[@youtubeonwheels9390]

This is a great idea, but the P4A has always been about us, not finding matching donations from the corporate world. Maybe we don't do the matching donations, but all money raised for poverty-focused organizations comes from us on the first day. Let's bring the P4A back to its roots and make this about not only charity, but community. DFTBA!

[@the-kkranberry]

Taking a break from my media studies paper about KZbin as center for participatory culture in which I mention the success of the Project for Awesome as an example of effective community engagement to watch...a vlogbrothers video about the Project for Awesome. Yeah, I'm pretty good with my life choices.

[@untappedinkwell]

Your life choices are excellent.

[@ZenithTheReborn]

Personally I think promoting P4A on other social media outlets should be of some focus this year like twitter and tumblr, I can't remember if it was a priority before but it is important that we reach out further than youtube to maximize meaningful impact.

[@untappedinkwell]

We've always put at least a little importance on sharing, and I do believe that last year there was more attention to other social media outlets. But it's definitely a great idea!

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

If I understand youtube's new algorithms correctly (which, let's face it, I probably don't...) sharing is now pretty important to discovery, so if we wanted to hack the algorithms as we did originally, sharing would be the way to go...

[@lt80355]

Can we just imagine how entertaining the press junket is going to be for this movie. Nat and Cara are hilarious together.

[@TheGreatSambino06]

I'm not sure how I feel about changing P4A in this way. I think there would be some advantages, sure, but then it also feels like it wouldn't be us nerdfighters choosing. Who would choose the charities for the first day? Would we get a pre-vote or would John and Hank choose?

[@untappedinkwell]

great question. Personally, I think we should get to vote for all of them, pre-selected or no.

[@TheGreatSambino06]

I feel the same way.

[@kaylab7685]

He never mentioned that, but I'm just realizing that if we get to vote, we would want to be well-informed first, and the best way to do that would be to discuss with each other (likely through videos) the charities to support, which could become a mini-P4A pushed forward but with limited charities, which as far as I can tell is why it's hard to get donors in the first place. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but it's an interesting thought.

[@estellet1406]

I was thinking of this too... I think it would be good for everyone to vote on charities. And we would definitely need to be informed on the options. Maybe John and Hank could pick a few (Five or six maybe?) and then tell us about them and nerdfighters pick the three? It would be more complicated but I think it's important to keep the whole community involved in choosing where the money goes. So excited for P4A no matter what's decided about the charities!!!

[@DaleBernardoQueLio]

Providing focus to discussion by providing limited options while keeping an open discussion, is stupendous! Whenever I have played host to such an activity I have nearly always had awesome results. It would definitely reduce suck in comments.

[@kaleidoscopeeyes7192]

There is still a lot of time between now and P4A, couldn't you and Hank do something like listing around ten global poverty- and disease-fighting organizations in a video between now and then, so that Nerdfighters can vote on them? That way we still get some choice in which three big charities the money goes to without distracting us from voting on the little guys.

[@epicmurdock]

Looking forward to project for awesome and all the great videos!!

[@jadea513]

I'm not sure how I feel about the proposed P4A changes. I understand that more money=less worldsuck, but I think it takes a lot of focus away from the community aspect of the P4A. For the past few years, I've pretty much stayed up for 48 hours straight watching the live stream and videos, and I've learned about so many different charities. I think a lot of people really like donating to charities that they voted for/we as a group chose. If we were to switch to this method, could there maybe be a way to choose where our money goes (big donor charities or community chosen charities) instead of all the money from the first day going to the former and the second day going to the latter? I loved the water.org fundraiser and was happy to donate, but switching a whole day to that format doesn't really seem in the spirit of the P4A. I'll support it either way, but having preselected charities may lead to less meaningful discussions if people don't feel like what they say on day 1 makes a difference.

[@lunarFireFox]

Yeah, I feel like videos would lose a bit of their momentum, as they would inspire people to donate on that first day but the money on that day will probably not reach the charity even if they win?

[@estellet1406]

I think there should be a survey before the project starts to pick which 3 large charities the money will go to. That way we still raise more money AND get a say in where the money goes. Maybe John and Hank could just give a blurb on the possible charities in upcoming videos and make a survey where we can decide which ones to send the money to? I think this could be a good change as long as the community of nerdfighters is still involved.

[@jannaaay]

John, I think it's a great idea! Can't wait for Project for Awesome!

[@cropotkin]

Courting matching funding is a terrible decision. At first it feels like raising more money with matching funding would be a great idea,, but really it sucks, because it signals the slow, assimilation and eventual death by rich person of p4a. Keeping us in charge of our own practices is by far the more important overriding principle. If the rich aren't prepared to trust us and our charitable process, then that is their failure, not ours. One day they will learn. I'm actually surprised at you, John, for failing to understand this.

[@EcceJack]

But on the other hand, raising less total cash via *not* having anonymous donors making matching funds means less worldsuck will be decreased, which may be a failure on our part, not recognising how best to fight it. I'm not saying I'm 110% for John's plan, I just think it's a complex issue that will take quite some discussion to resolve.

[@cropotkin]

Totally agree that this needs discussion. But let us recognise that we are not the only charitable process in the world. That matching funding is probably destined for charity anyway. From a helicopter perspective this looks like it is going to begin to destroy the difference between p4a and most other high profile charitable organisations; it's a force for assimilation to the charitable principles of those who are already rich and powerful. Those principles are often in line with ours, which makes this seductive, but sometimes they might not be, and when that occurs we might find that we have sold off our ability to act.awesomely.

[@EcceJack]

I see. You make very good points, I'll have to sleep on it to see if I can find good counter-arguments

[@Sebolains]

EcceQuomodoMoritur00 I agree. cropotkin does make good points. The biggest thing to think about it whether asking for matching donations does actually increase the total world money-that-goes-to-charity amount. It might make people from P4A less likely to give in the first place (it is definitely having that effect on me at least. I know that I would only give on the 2nd day of this project if it ends up working the way John proposed) and since the people who usually give to P4A are less likely to turn around and give that money to a different charity (as the anonymous matching donors would be), maybe that means less world-suck decreasing in the end. I don't know. It's hard to tell. I welcome as many points on this as possible!

[@danheidel]

EcceQuomodoMoritur00 I'll add to this as well. While going for those big matching donors may bring in a large amount of money for worthy causes, I think it harms P4A at a fundamental level. P4A is as much an event for strengthening and invigorating Nerdfighteria as it is a charity event. By making P4A more similar to other charity events, you remove what is unique about it. I can (and do) donate to other charities that have matching donations. P4A has always had a focus on other, lesser known charities and that's what's special about it. I expect P4A this year to break $1 million. However, in the larger scheme of things, that's not that much money. These larger charities get similarly sized donations all the time. However, there are many, many charities that get featured in P4A that are very small. A donation of even $1000 would make a huge difference for them. One of the most commonly expressed frustrations I saw in last year's P4A comments was that people felt disenfranchised. Even with the regular P4A, about 3/4 of the funding slots were basically guaranteed (e.g.: HPA, etc). That meant that smaller charities have very little chance of getting money. That was highly discouraging to a lot of people. For example, not a single animal welfare charity or space advocacy charity got any money last year despite very strong support for both categories. The end result is that the community feels disenfranchised and de-energized. That's exactly the opposite of what P4A should be doing.

[@gossamernonsense6837]

I really like the idea for having the first day's money going to already chosen charities! Then we know for sure where our money is going but we still have a chance to choose our own on the second day. I feel like it's also less work in general for the leaders involved (aka you guys) when it's pre chosen. And we know they are reliable and efficient charities. YAY FOR P4A! Also Natt's bday. :P

[@hikarurkw]

My only problem, as was said earlier by others is, who is picking the first day's charities? Is it something that you two (John and hank) decide, or is there going to be a survey with various well known charities on it that you guys ask nerdfighters take? And then how will this effect the 2nd day's polling? To me p4a was not only a money raising activity but also an awareness activity! It helped you learn new charities that were out there that you wouldn't have discovered otherwise. So even though the smaller groups didn't get in the top 10 they still obtained some awareness and possibly donations that were separate from p4a. That's just my thoughts.

[@untappedinkwell]

I also think it's unfair because if the funds raised in the first 24 hours vastly eclipse the funds raised in the second 24 hours, that's really not fair to all of the charities that we're guaranteed a vote for.

[@vicvic1112]

I love john and his niceness and being nerdy

[@heidik843]

Wouldn't it be more productive if we switch the days? Like (for me at least) I would be more likely to donate on the first day, and that should be the day that we get to choose the charities that are important to us. I say this because, if the day with Three Big Charities is first, people may get lazy by the second day (like "Oh I already donated for one charity... That should be enough.."). If the day with Three Big Charities is second, then people will donate to the small charities, then notice the big charities and be like "wow that's important and very urgent, too!"

[@julianneweinman4203]

I'd just like to say that as a college student, I am super happy about the change in P4A scheduling because for the last two years the P4A has landed on the days of my finals...meaning that when I was watching the P4A, I probably should not have been watching the P4A. SO THIS YEAR I CAN WATCH SOMEWHAT GUILT-FREE BECAUSE I WILL HAVE PLENTY MORE TIME TO STUDY THAT WEEK!!!

[@cadavereye]

I'm not entirely sure that I feel the usual p4a fuzzies about this idea of supporting three proven charities on day one. I am concerned that this means that they will be well established (though not unworthy) charities that will take some of the focus off of smaller charities. Considering that there have been offshoot fundraisers this year for Water.org and Heifer International that performed well, I think that maybe focus on specific charities might be better off being part of other specific events.

[@pleiades_b]

I think separating the days is a great idea, but the most fun/interactive part of P4A is voting and watching all the fun videos throughout both days. Maybe people would be more open to it if you chose, like, twenty charities that fight global poverty and disease, and let us vote on three to donate to on the first day? I think that would be more Nerdfighter-y.

[@windowsforvista]

I miss when comments actually mattered :/

[@untappedinkwell]

same.

[@GympyFyn]

I don't know how I feel about the new system for P4A but I think I'm going to wait and see what happens before I judge it too harshly. Personally, I won't be donating until the second day because the thing I love about P4A is that my money goes to a charity chosen by a community I am proud to be a part of because somebody cared enough about it to advocate for it. It's not that the big charities aren't great and I love that they decrease world suck but to me, raising money for a predetermined charity isn't what Project for Awesome is about. Rather the Project is about sharing and inspiring passions through a connection with other Nerdfighters. I know I haven't made my point as clear as I would have liked to but I hope I did it well enough.

[@N3rdfightermom]

I don't know, I feel like doing P4A the way John outlined would decrease the amount of involvement.

[@11Sabres23]

I AM SO PUMPED FOR P4A!! I'm curious to see how this new format will work but I think the way you guys release the perks will help make sure that not all the money gets collected on the first day. I asked for money for my birthday (which is tomorrow) so I can put it exclusively towards P4A!