Would it be helpful if there was a goal set and some visual symbol with indicators of contributions received to meet that goal?

Though I wasn't a "Deaniac", I'm thinking of his baseball bat and seeing the indicator move up sometimes with internal challanges from various individuals or the moderators. I recall that Wesley Clark had some fundraising image too, and though I was a "Clarkie" and not a Deaniac, for some reason I can't remember what fundraising symbol Clark used.

If I might continue with what I remember from my introduction to online forums via that political "community", I recall that many members of the Clark and the Dean campaigns announced their pledges online. And I also remember there was competition built in between the two sites {who could raise the most fastest}. I'm not sure how that could be translated to Mudcat, but I'm including it here because I'm in reminisence mode knowing that what I'm posting may or may not be relevant to our situations.

I remember there was so much energy associated with those fund raising campaigns. Alot of people wrote in their pledges and challenged other members to up their pledges in an auction kinda way {"I'm in for 50. Who can match me? then someone else would write: "I'm in and I raise you 60" or something like that}.
I remember that most people announced the amounts of their pledges, though that didn't have to occur for the visual indicator to register the increase in donations.

And while that was exciting, it was also disturbing and sad when you didn't have the money to give. There was a feeling that you had to give even if you couldn't afford it. I hope that doesn't happen here at Mudcat.

And I don't believe that anyone was penalized if he or she didn't give money, the people who did give and give alot {at different times or alot at one time} were publicly praised.

Those political websites closed because their leaders lost primaries and dropped out of the democratic campaign. If those online communities were long lived, then it seems to me that the way they were going, they would have become tiered systems where those who gave the most would be publicly praised and given priviledges neyond those that the non-givers {or givers of smaller amounts would receive}. I really really hope that Mudcat doesn't go this route.
Though in some posts that I've read since Max started that "State of the Union" thread, it seems that we [or at least some of us] are already going down the path of publicly praising those who have pledged "generous" amounts to Mudcat.

Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't give. I know that I need to give and will, though-like some others here I'm struggling financially. But because of the reasons that I've noted, and also because it is my personal belief that you shouldn't announce your good deeds as that is patting yourself on the back, I won't be participating in any public oneupmanship.

I hope this journey down memory lane helps. I don't see it as thread drift though who would have thought this thread would mention political leaders?!