CCF refused D&D donations

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Isn't the CCF, the place that Sally Struthers eats all the food for?

-1 class point

[Snoweel]

And here I was thinking Christian organisations just wanted peoples' money... :rolleyes:

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by mlund

Yeah, I came across that. It gives me the auction group's one-sentence opinion, not a quote or any real information. I'd like to know the details of the objection. Being the rotten, skeptical scoundrel that I am I'm left with questions and suspicions that actual evidence or facts would be useful in fielding. Most importantly, "sales of Dungeons and Dragons" is the key issue I'd like to be expounded upon. If the objection is strictly to the brand as a whole I'd be surprised and disappointed. If, on the other hand, the objection had to do with certain products (for examples, "The Book of Erotic Fantasy," or "The Pleasure Prison of the B'thuvian Demon Whore") being in the auction it would paint a different picture for me. On yet another hand ("I found this in the back") if their objection had something to do with, say, Hasbro (the makers of D&D) as a company that would present things in yet another light.

As they say, "the devil is in the details."

I'd like said details before I summarily file them in my "Jack Chick" bin.

Trust but verify.

- Marty Lund

"Unfortunately, when they found out that the money they would get came partially from sales of Dungeons and Dragons they decided not to be the sponsored charity."

You think that statement could mean the CCF is actually declining donations connected in any way with anything from Hasbro? That would seem more bizaare than that they declined based on the D&D brand. What would the explanation be for why they would want to distance themselves from Hasbro? I can see a reason for a group like CCF to want to distance themselves from D&D as D&D, but not really from anything as Hasbro. It is possible, but it seems improbable.

Declining based on the auctioning of two adult themed RPG books could be possible, but I think it highly unlikely. 1 I doubt they were part of the auction. 2 I doubt CCF would know about any individual items auctioned even if these two were included. 3 it would mean that Gencon is wrong and possibly misleading in its statement, it was not the sales of D&D but of specific adult items that was CCF's motivation to decline the donations.

Going by Occam's Razor it looks like the simplest explanation is that CCF declined the donations because they were partially derived from sales of D&D.

[Rykion]

Originally Posted by guivre

Edit: Look on the bright side though... at least they're not refusing aid to those that don't follow their beliefs... I'm sure they take every opportunity to proselytize but I guess that is a perk and part of the reason for the charity to begin with.

The CCF is not part of any church. They do not proselytize at all.

[Darrin Drader]

After thinking on it for a bit, I decided that my religious leanings are irrelevant and I sent them a letter expressing my disappointment and made it clear that I would find more tolerant organizations to donate to in the future.

[Darkwolf71]

Originally Posted by Erik Mona

Obviously, as this was Gygax's favorite charity, it makes sense that Gen Con chose CCF for last year's event. But I've got to say, I think it's a terrible idea to tie corporate donations to a cause that is intimately tied to a religious or political concern. It's just asking for trouble, as you cannot be sure that all of the participants/donors will be of the same beliefs/political bent, and thus some people might be dissuaded from donating.

All due respect Erik, but that's just a bit silly. If you, I or anyone else doesn't agree with a particular cause, that's no reason it should not be choosen as a corporate recipiant (Unless, of course, the disagree-er is the one doing the choosing). There are others who will actually be more inclined to give to that particular cause, and those who don't can jump on for the next one that sponsers a cause they do agree with.

If such corporate auctions and such were to only support the 'neutral' causes, there are a good many worthies that would be neglected and then, everyone loses.

[Umbran]

Okay, so I've just handed out a couple of thread bans, and at least one tempban from the site is under discussion.

I will warn everyone to not try our patience on this. We don't have any. Be respectful. You have been warned.

[mlund]

Originally Posted by Voadam

"Unfortunately, when they found out that the money they would get came partially from sales of Dungeons and Dragons they decided not to be the sponsored charity."

You think that statement could mean the CCF is actually declining donations connected in any way with anything from Hasbro?

No, I think that statement was made by the rebuffed (perhaps even "offended") party without citation, quotation, or further explanation. Skeptical, I take it with a grain of salt and would like to hear from the horse's mouth before I start judging people's motives.

That would seem more bizaare than that they declined based on the D&D brand. What would the explanation be for why they would want to distance themselves from Hasbro? I can see a reason for a group like CCF to want to distance themselves from D&D as D&D, but not really from anything as Hasbro. It is possible, but it seems improbable.

Again, we base this on what evidence, exactly? Hearsay? A popular meme of D&D being persecuted by Christians?

Going by Occam's Razor it looks like the simplest explanation is that CCF declined the donations because they were partially derived from sales of D&D.

Occam's Razor has been used by many other names for centuries to "justify" every manner of vile human prejudice imaginable. It is sometimes useful as a scientific tool and often times a popular meme in science-fiction works. It is not an adequate tool for passing judgment on human beings. It can't even pass for circumstantial evidence in most modern legal systems.

- Marty Lund

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by mlund

No, I think that statement was made by the rebuffed (perhaps even "offended") party without citation, quotation, or further explanation. Skeptical, I take it with a grain of salt and would like to hear from the horse's mouth before I start judging people's motives.

I didn't see any statement on their website about the issue or their policies on not accepting donations. I suggest you email CCF if you want to hear directly from them. There is plenty of evidence here to make a judgment on however.

Even taking Gencon's statement with a grain of salt, the other possibilities you posit as their motives should be evaluated for their plausibility, not just their possibility in evaluating the situation.

It is possible somebody held a gun to the statement writer's head ordering them to write the statement for an unknown purpose and CCF never actually declined to accept the donations. Its not a logical impossibility and would change our views of the situation if we found out it were so but it is not worth withholding judging the situation on its face over such implausible possibilities.

Lack of 100% knowledge is not a good reason to withhold judging a situation. It is very hard to get 100% knowledge and you need to judge situations all the time.

Again, we base this on what evidence, exactly? Hearsay? A popular meme of D&D being persecuted by Christians?

The evidence is hearsay, Gencon's public statement of what happened.

I take it we both accept Gencon's statement that the charity took the action of declining to accept the donations, you are only skeptical about the stated motive of why.

Given what we know here, that Gencon made the statement saying CCF declined the donations because it was derived from sales of D&D, we must exercise our judgments about what reasonable conclusions can be made.

I am not aware of any reason CCF would wish to boycott donations connected to Hasbro. I think it unlikely to be over individual auction items. I see no obvious reason for Gencon to be false in making the statement. Given the statement and these alternatives, the reason Gencon gave in its statement seems plausible.

Is there anything you are aware of going on at Hasbro as a corporate entity that would be a plausible motive for CCF to decline donations connected to Hasbro?

[jaerdaph]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Isn't the CCF, the place that Sally Struthers eats all the food for?

But +1 coolness point for the classic South Park reference!

[Rykion]

Originally Posted by Voadam

Is there anything you are aware of going on at Hasbro as a corporate entity that would be a plausible motive for CCF to decline donations connected to Hasbro?

I don't know about Hasbro, but Gen Con is being sued by Lucasfilm for failing to provide the charity auction proceeds of Celebration IV that were to go to the Make-a-Wish Foundation. That might cause a charity like CCF to decide not to let their name be used in a charity auction held at Gen Con. The CCF actually declined to be the named sponsored charity, not just the donation itself.

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Rykion

I don't know about Hasbro, but Gen Con is being sued by Lucasfilm for failing to provide the charity auction proceeds of Celebration IV to the Make-a-Wish Foundation. That might cause a charity like CCF to decide not to let their name be used in a charity auction held at Gen Con. The CCF actually declined to be the named sponsored charity, not just the donation itself.

Which would be even further removed from the statement provided that CCF chose not to accept the donations "when they found out that the money they would get came partially from sales of Dungeons and Dragons"

If the reasons were Gencon's tarnished rep for chariy follow through then LiveGameAuctions is lying or grossly misunderstands the situation.

Possible, but I think it highly unlikely.

[mlund]

Originally Posted by Voadam

I didn't see any statement on their website about the issue or their policies on not accepting donations. I suggest you email CCF if you want to hear directly from them. There is plenty of evidence here to make a judgment on however.

No, there really isn't. There's a small, undetailed statement by one aggrieved party and that's it. Everything else is personal opinion and prejudice.

Even taking Gencon's statement with a grain of salt

Point of Order: I don't see any official statement on behalf of GenCon LLC regarding this matter. I see some Web site commentary by livegameauctions.com that been circulated and repeated. On the site it says, "Auction is sponsored by and run by The Partnership (Bruce Carson and TrollAndToad.com ) and managed by Catherine Fountaine." They copyright all the content of that site with the statement and do not attribute the statement to the GenCon LLC.

the other possibilities you posit as their motives should be evaluated for their plausibility, not just their possibility in evaluating the situation.

Plausibility is important in weighing the relevance of possibility, certainly.

Pulling Weeds out of Potholes: Reply from the Christian Children's Fund over the Gygax Auction

"Christian Children’s Fund made the decision to decline the gift from Gen Con, LLC after the review of numerous factors that in combination precluded our acceptance of the gift. These reasons include the possible misinterpretation of CCF’s role in regard to the event. CCF is selective in its endorsements or support because it must maintain the highest degree of integrity with respect to the use of its name and logo. The information presented to us gave the appearance that CCF (the organization) was an endorser or supporter of the event instead of a beneficiary."

While that makes the issue pretty much a moot point unless anyone provides contrary copy or statements from CCF, there are a couple of other details in the argument of possibilities worth pursuing.

For one thing, I found the action list: http://livegameauctions.com/cons/Ind...ctionItems.xls

It is pretty darn long but I found at least a couple of adults-only auction items include Hentai DVDs and lot #5040562 - the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Lack of 100% knowledge is not a good reason to withhold judging a situation. It is very hard to get 100% knowledge and you need to judge situations all the time.

No one is arguing that 100% certainty is required for every judgment. Depending on necessities and consequences the burden of certainty shifts. Note your use of the word "need" here. You and I don't "need to judge" this situation. There's no gun to anyone's head here. We can keep the jury out on this until a sufficient burden of evidence is met.

I've heard plenty of disgruntled people pass off "because of D&D" as an explanation of stuff that, at its crux, was only incidentally involved with Dungeons and Dragons. It is even factually accurate to say, "They didn't want our donation because of the sale of Dungeons and Dragons products," when the actual dismissal addressed a specific Dungeons and Dragons product (BoEF), the publisher D&D (Hasbro), or an individual involved with the donation of the D&D products in question.

This is why I like to have both sides of the issue before taking sides.

I am not aware of any reason CCF would wish to boycott donations connected to Hasbro.

Responsible Shopper Profile: Hasbro

I'm not saying these folks are right (they seem like hippies to me), but I'm illustrating that there definitely some folks out there that object to Hasbro's involvement with child labor abuses - kind of a sore subject for a charity for children, no?

I think it unlikely to be over individual auction items.

You can feel it unlikely, but I've seen that kind of thing bite companies, charities, and politicians before. PR flaks and lawyers are paranoid folks for a reason. I think the statement from CCF illustrates this well too - they are fretting over the implications of just who is endorsing whom, definitely marketing wonk territory.

- Marty Lund

[ProfessorCirno]

There sure was a lot of hubbub over one very vague statement on a very vague website. And as we've just been shown, 99% of all that hubbub was completely incorrect with its assumptions. Seems we've all learned once again what we make of ourselves when we assume things ;p

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by jaerdaph

But +1 coolness point for the classic South Park reference!

So it is those same people? If so this is not the first time I have heard of them turning away money. I have seen them turn away a donation from a local middle school if that is the same group. Don't recall the reason, but was also silly like not wanting money from D&D.

It is quite dumbfounding what a reason for it could be. I thought NPO's had some sort of rules they had to follow, could that be a reason for turning away donations?

[Mark Chance]

Originally Posted by Androlphas

Intolerance - 1

Once again, "intolerance" equals "doesn't agree with me" gets a point as well.

This all seems very much ado about nothing. If a charity doesn't want money from X, that's their business. I don't have to like it, but I fail to see what point is served by attempting to seize possibly shaky ground in order to pretend I'm on the high moral turf.

[Brown Jenkin]

Originally Posted by mlund

Pulling Weeds out of Potholes: Reply from the Christian Children's Fund over the Gygax Auction

"Christian Children’s Fund made the decision to decline the gift from Gen Con, LLC after the review of numerous factors that in combination precluded our acceptance of the gift. These reasons include the possible misinterpretation of CCF’s role in regard to the event. CCF is selective in its endorsements or support because it must maintain the highest degree of integrity with respect to the use of its name and logo. The information presented to us gave the appearance that CCF (the organization) was an endorser or supporter of the event instead of a beneficiary."

This is a very polite way of only sort of answering the question without commenting on the issue of D&D. They say there are numerous factors but only spell out one of them. The other side also said there were many reasons but it camne down to D&D. The way I see things is that both sides may be correct in the statements they made.

Questions can also be asked what qualifies as highest degree of integrity. Does this mean that they don't want thier name associated with D&D? I don't know because they didn't say that it wasn't D&D when specificly asked. Is D&D still one of the numerous reasons.

I hate to be nitpicky like this but given the world today it seems to be common practice amongst all kinds of people and organizations to not actually answer the real question and instead give another answer that apears answer the question but is instead meant to mislead.

[johntejon]

Thank you for playing. Please enjoy your parting gifts...

[Oni]

There are children with a very real need, who will have just a little bit less now which is sad. I don't think making a statement, especially in this case ways above actually doing some good.

I assume the money will be redirected to another worthy cause so I reckon it's not as bad as all that.

[Edit: If I had read the little snippit better I would have seen it was in fact redirected ]

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by mlund

Pulling Weeds out of Potholes: Reply from the Christian Children's Fund over the Gygax Auction

"Christian Children’s Fund made the decision to decline the gift from Gen Con, LLC after the review of numerous factors that in combination precluded our acceptance of the gift. These reasons include the possible misinterpretation of CCF’s role in regard to the event. CCF is selective in its endorsements or support because it must maintain the highest degree of integrity with respect to the use of its name and logo. The information presented to us gave the appearance that CCF (the organization) was an endorser or supporter of the event instead of a beneficiary."

While that makes the issue pretty much a moot point unless anyone provides contrary copy or statements from CCF

I don't see how this makes the issue moot. They did not contradict the statement saying CCF declined the donations after finding out the proceeds were derived in part from sales of D&D.

At most their reply can be read to say that the derivation from D&D sales was definitively not the sole reason for declining the donations.

They don't directly address one way or the other whether D&D was part of their reason to decline the donation. They say there was "numerous factors that in combination precluded our acceptance of the gift." Only one of the factors was "the possible misinterpretation of CCF’s role in regard to the event."

To be fair to CCF I don't think they were addressing whether sales of D&D were an issue, it looks like the author of that blog posting wrote them and only generically asked "for their reasons on why they declined the money from the charity auction." Their response is a reasonable one in response to that question, it just doesn't address the issue we are discussing of whether the auction sale of D&D stuff was a motivation for them to decline the charity auction proceeds.

We don't have a statement from CCF contradicting the LiveAuction statement.