CCF refused D&D donations

[mlund]

They don't directly address one way or the other whether D&D was part of their reason to decline the donation.

Honestly, they don't need to. Problems with sponsor-benefactor roles and the use of their logo is enough to put off most high-profile non-profits, businesses, and politicians right there. If you're not going to have any control over what is auctioned or how it is auctioned (like in this case), you've got to be extremely sensitive about the role of your organization. You don't want to be perceived as sponsoring other products or businesses, be they Dungeons and Dragons or Pepsi Cola.

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

We don't have a statement or quotation from CCF substantiating the LiveAuction statement either. For the most part, businesses and charities are well-advised to avoid calling other groups liars and engaging in finger-pointing when they can just give the issue a neutral-sounding brush-off. It is bad for business to act in the manner LiveAuction.com did, and that's a pretty good motivation for CCF and GenCon LLC to avoid muddying their boots in it.

- Marty Lund

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Honestly, they don't need to. Problems with sponsor-benefactor roles and the use of their logo is enough to put off most high-profile non-profits, businesses, and politicians right there. If you're not going to have any control over what is auctioned or how it is auctioned (like in this case), you've got to be extremely sensitive about the role of your organization. You don't want to be perceived as sponsoring other products or businesses, be they Dungeons and Dragons or Pepsi Cola.

Without knowing what those rules are however we can't know whether D&D was an issue or not. Maybe the rule is that the logo use of thier name can't be used for anything unless they run it themselves. That would be fine. Maybe the rule is that the logo annd name can't be used by anyone who they deem satanic (An exageration I hope) and that D&D is satanic while if Pepsi used there name in an auction it would be ok. For me that would not be fine. The statement doesn't say though so we are back to speculating and the only other piece of evidence we have is that the Auction said D&D was an issue.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Why is it so hard to get that CCF has a legitimate reason to balance the pissing off of gamers vs. pissing off ridiculously intolerant Christians? It wasn't receiving the money that seems to me to be the issue, it was the "sponsoring" of the event. Accepting a donation from a "shady" source is controversial enough, if that donation includes publically letting them use your name and logo, not so much.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Why is it so hard to get that CCF has a legitimate reason to balance the pissing off of gamers vs. pissing off ridiculously intolerant Christians?
.

I'm assuming by "ridiculously intolerant" you mean "has different beliefs from myself."

Which is somewhat ironic, if you think it through.

It wasn't receiving the money that seems to me to be the issue, it was the "sponsoring" of the event. Accepting a donation from a "shady" source is controversial enough, if that donation includes publically letting them use your name and logo, not so much.

Good point.

 

[Darkwolf71]

I'm assuming by "ridiculously intolerant" you mean "has different beliefs from myself."

Which is somewhat ironic, if you think it through.

I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't find a nice way to say it.

 

[ppaladin123]

I'm assuming by "ridiculously intolerant" you mean "has different beliefs from myself."

Which is somewhat ironic, if you think it through.

Good point.

I thought she was distinguishing between the minority of Christians who equate d&d with devil worship and the mainstream type, many of whom are gamers.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I'm assuming by "ridiculously intolerant" you mean "has different beliefs from myself."

No, because on a primary doctrinal level I agree with them and I understand where the idea that D&D is bad comes in. My level of feeling about that if D&D became more important to me than my faith, then that is something I have to fix. [Note: I have modified these thoughts because I could be seen to be proselytizing, which is properly banned from ENWorld]

There are others who would see D&D as an issue that due to exposure to supernatural themes, and things that when seen in a real-world context would be incompatible with a Christian life. (I was considering dropping D&D recently due to this theory. My pastor kinda helped me work that through.)

This steps into intolerance when it steps over into pointing at other people. It becomes ridiculous when it starts getting to the point of attacking CCF (hypothetically) of daring to allow their logo to be used associated with a D&D Auction.

Yes, it is a slightly hypocritical position, but I don't hate that side of Christianity, I just get sad.

I apologize if I offended anyone. I was NOT lumping all Christians into one bucket, as I'd be in that bucket too.

FWIW: I might not respond further, I don't think I can get much further on these topics because of our perfectly fine board rules.

 

[jeffh]

I'm assuming by "ridiculously intolerant" you mean "has different beliefs from myself."

Which is somewhat ironic, if you think it through.

No, I would assume by "ridiculously intolerant" he meant "ridiculously intolerant".

Nothing is worse for the level of public debate than this nonsensical idea that all opinions are equally valid. Of course they're not, and I don't think anyone really believes they are except when it's their own ox being gored. The examples I really want to use would break the "no politics or religion" rule, but one that's salient to this thread, and so I assume an exception, is the "D&D is satanic" idea, especially in the more extreme forms it used to take (which I hope are a thing of the past, but I wouldn't count on it). That's not a valid opinion that has just as much legitimacy as the contrary view; it's just wrong, because it rests on (a) false factual assertions and (b) a wildly implausible chain of reasoning from those assertions. It's not a valid point of view. It may be one that, for certain people, it's politically necessary to acknowledge and work around anyway, but that doesn't make it okay to hold it.

 

[Voadam]

It wasn't receiving the money that seems to me to be the issue, it was the "sponsoring" of the event.

Actually, from their statement only one part of a multifactor motivation was possible misunderstanding about sponsorship relationships. They don't say receiving the money was not an issue or that "sponsoring" the event was "the" issue, sponsoring was only one of the multiple factors that taken together led them to decline the donations.

 

[Simon Atavax]

No, I would assume by "ridiculously intolerant" he meant "ridiculously intolerant".

Nothing is worse for the level of public debate than this nonsensical idea that all opinions are equally valid.

Tolerance doesn't mean believing that all opinions are equally *valid.*

Tolerance does mean* respecting a person's right to hold* a belief, even if the belief in question is (gasp) a conservative, fundamentalist religious belief (which I, for what it's worth, do NOT hold myself ). Tolerance means we respect their right to hold this belief without then going on a moralistic tirade about how "ridiculously intolerant" the person is.

Gamers (and I am one of them, obviously) can be an incredibly self-righteous, moralistic bunch of people.

EDIT: And in that sense, we are like all other human beings. (grin)