Charity Refuses Donation Because of D&D Connection 216
An anonymous reader writes "This year's GenCon Charity Auction
raised over $17,000 which they intended to donate to Gary Gygax's favorite charity,
Christian Children's Fund.
However, the charity refused the donation when they learned of its connection to Dungeons & Dragons." It seems to me all they would need to do is cast remove curse or dispel evil and the money would be fine to use.
Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Informative)
In their rush to paint Christians as idiots, the editors failed to notice this addendum to TFA:
Some of my fellow faith-mates do make the rest of us look pretty silly. But the non-religious folks apparently have a knee-jerk reaction that would make Dr. Dobson proud.
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Funny)
I am so glad that they have a reasonable reason for doing this. I was a victim of my grandmother taking away my AD&D books back in the 90's due to the 700 Club helpfully telling her they would allow me to summon a demon from hell or force me to kill myself when my alternate persona died.
Jonah HEX
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Do you now have a set of dice lovingly carved from her bones?
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:4, Funny)
I take it that they failed the save vs. liquid?
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Informative)
That would be this one [chick.com].
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Funny)
How the fuck was she killing zombies without a DM?
Re: (Score:2)
The first edition DMG had an appendix for on-the-fly random dungeon generation, so you could play by yourself or, if you were truly lazy, generate a dungeon for your players. It was strongly discouraged; as you could imagine, the dungeons thus created didn't make a whole lot of sense, either physically or thematically.
My DM did use it a few times as a "random seed", which he then edited into something coherent; kind of like the cut-up method [wikipedia.org] for D&D.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you guys wanna get together this weekend and lacerate ourselves while chanting scripture upside down and backwards? It's been too long since I've played some serious D&D.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How 'bout this one [epsilonminus.com]?
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AD&D 2nd ed. is from 1989; Dark Dungeons came out in 1984 and has been "going strong" since then. I recall televangelists harping on about D&D well into the 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and of course to ban him fron associating with the evil
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was rather disappointed that I was modded funny, as I was dead serious. (the bone dice reply was FUNNY) We got in a huge argument about it, and since the religious right had told her that I would say it was just a game while it was really a tool of Satan I didn't make much progress. I had to search around myself to find my AD&D books from where she had hidden them. I'm just glad I got back my tactical rules 3rd edition and the rest!
Jonah HEX
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:4, Funny)
So in short, if my mom hadn't forbidden me to play it, it would have taken me at least another 10-15 years to find out about it. I credit my mother for giving me such an early head start in my roleplaying career!
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:4, Funny)
Grampa?
Re: (Score:2)
"That was so funny you made the milk come out of my nose" :)
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the difference here is that they feel that the donation implies their endorsement, while other donations might carry no such implication. Its perfectly valid for a charity to be careful about what they appear to endorse. They've explicitly stated that it has nothing to do with D&D, so why not take their words at face value? Whats the harm? That we can't get worked up into an "OMG Christians!" fervor?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The money doesn't just *poof* disappear because one charity said "No thanks." Last time I checked there is a huge variety of charities that they can donate that money to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, but the problem is, the people may have donated because they're donating to Gygax's favorite charity. Just because it refused to accept the money doesn't mean that the money can go to another charity.
Even if the CCF name wasn't used, and something like "This donation will go to Gygax's favorite charity", people may be donating under the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because this is Slashdot, and Idle no less?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The way I read it is that they don't accept donations at all if:
1) it appears to be an endorsement of the organization giving
and
2) if they had no original involvement with the organization or event from which the funds are raised
The issue is that this money was raised at a fundraiser at a certain event which the charity was not involved in. Other donations wouldn't have the same baggage, and thus they'd have no reason to deny them. Unfortunately, charities have to protect their image in order to keep dona
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:4, Informative)
For any non-profit that wishes to preserve 501 status and such under the U S legal code, there are big differences in how to handle money that comes from a private person, another non-profit or a for profit entity. There are also some differences in what has to be done if money was raised by a non-profit organization with an advance agreement, or if it wasn't. This sounds like the convention either advertised that membership would help some money go to the CCF without having an advance agreement, or that there's an issue with whether the convention itself is a non-profit entity, in the full, liscensed, legal sense.
If the CCF doesn't act this way, they can do more than risk tarnishing their image. They can even lose their legal status as a non-profit. One result of this would be that any retirement funds their employees have set up (403-B's), even if funded all with the employee's own money, aren't legitimate, and all those employees would owe back taxes and penalties and interest on those taxes, for at least the last year, maybe longer. Another result is that the CCF could be sued for back wages 'owed' people who were unpaid volunteers. A third is that they would have to meet equal opportunity hiring guidelines for all those 'employees', and since they probably have no records of having ever given their management staff the necessary guidance as to conducting mandatory nondiscriminatory employee evaluations for those volunteers, they would automatically be guilty under law of discrimination should even a single person bring suit.
Since it was set up as a non-profit, the CCF has probably not incorporated under the rules of a corp friendly state such as Delaware. They might even face such lawsuits in a state such as New York or California.
But go ahead, people, make this all about nasty Christians who hate your hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
YES, CCF has legitimate concerns with who raised money for them. They can be peanalized if they do not follow the rules that allow them to be a 501 exempt charity.
NO, state of incorporation does not affect how CFF is treated under US federal tax code. For them to be a charity in the first place they must be incorporated under some state's laws, but that does not affect federal tax treatment and it does not affect the forum in w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hmmm... That reminds me of a racist joke. I'll trim it up into a political joke but the concept is the same and the punch line seems to apply to those refusing to take the CDF at their word.
It goes something like this, A farmer was plowing a field when he saw a bus crash at the edge of it while comming around the corner. Pretty soon, he saw a cop car running up and down the road. He walked over and flagged him down, the cop asked, I have a report of a bus wreck around here somewhere, have you seen it. The f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
CCF is not a sponsor. They are the sponsored charity. No endorsement from CCF was needed. Well... a simple "thank you" would have sufficed.
*They* decided to turn down the gift, which CAN be interpreted as having such an opinion.
So CCF had to back-pedal, and release an announcement about how to interpret the decision. Meh. Too late, the dunderheads have spoken very loudly with their actions.
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, they are a private charity and are free to any opinion and action they wish as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. People have a bad case of "I want to do what I want and I want you to do what I want" these days. Gen Con, LLC should donate the money to some other worthwhile charity and "Get Over Themselves!"
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Gen Con, LLC should donate the money to some other worthwhile charity and "Get Over Themselves!"
They did, your point was what again?
You know, they are a private charity and are free to any opinion and action they wish as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
And others are perfectly free to call them idiots for it. Or does freedom of opinion only go one way?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. They can turn down anything. Personally, I don't care. In my opinion, this particular action makes them dunderheads.
Oh, the money DID go to another charity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've already explained in this thread, the consequences the CCF may have been risking if they took this money. All that depends, of course, on the details of how the convention management organized and publicized the event, which we don't know from the article. There are plenty of cases where a charity has sued over misuse of its name in connection with an unsanctioned event, both to protect its trademarked identity and to distance themselves from any charges that they are party to jointly violating the law
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the convention broke the law? Why? Well... they collected money....
I see. Vendor permit notwithstanding, I imagine it would come down to tax receipts, right? Spin, spin, spin.
Because that isn't the point. The point is that the CCF should have provided an understandable and reasonable explanation. The consequence to the CCF for NOT doing that? I call them dunderheads.
For the CCF to reverse sponsorship roles in their explanation? Looked like "instant-spin" to me!
What do they take ME for? Stupid,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hush you zealot! Your fundamentalist ramblings aren't welcome here; for this is Slashdot bastion of reason and impartiality.
To arms!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Christian Children's Fund made the decision to decline the gift from Gen Con, LLC as the request presented to us gave the appearance that CCF (the organization) was an endorser or supporter of a gaming convention, which CCF was not.
Therefore, anyone they do accept money from, they are endorsing. Interesting. Sure makes you wanna know who's been donating.
Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, this particular donation appeared to imply an endorsement. They're in no way saying that every donation received implies an endorsement. Why they feel that way is probably related to the detail of how the funds were raised and donated (as in, I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't know).
Yeah, you are right - they are just saying that this particular donation by this particular group of devil worshipers would imply an endorsement - thanks for clearing that up.
Re: (Score:2)
That implication is yours. They explicitly stated why they refused, and that it had nothing to do with the game. You're the one extrapolating their "true" motives, and coincidentally this matches your pre-confirmed bias. Funny that.
Or do you have any evidence whatsoever that they wouldn't apply the same standards against similar non-sponsored fundraisers? By all means, supply your evidence, I would like to know as well.
By all means, have fun stewing in your righteous indignation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that someone conducted a for profit event, and used your name in its publicity, in announcements made on site, and so on, yes there's an endorsement. For a repeat event, even announcements made after the convention started, which might serve to make people feel they had done something good by attending, and thus make them more likely to come back next year, have a potential effect on profits, and so count as an endorsement of that profit making activity. If you don't like that, you need to challenge a ve
Re: (Score:2)
Why? It's a check. You cash it. I've cashed checks plenty, and never felt I was endorsing anything. So has CCF. Why does this check appear to imply anything?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because misrepresenting (and I'm not saying they did at all, but it's something to be aware of from the perspective of the charity) an endorsement from a charity to solicit donations is what some people might refer to as "fraud".
Right, and GenCon has had a lot of that going around these days. They lost the right to do the Star Wars Celebration conventions after LucasArts donated a bunch of stuff for a charity auction, and then GenCon kept all the money. (The agreement was that they'd donate the "profits", s
Re: (Score:2)
Nice work. When will this section die?
Re: (Score:2)
e stop posting to it, or as
soon as they fix the wretc
hed comment box. Which
ever comes first.
Re: (Score:2)
on Slashdot works just fine
on many other browsers,
and operating systems, so
the problem is obviously in
the"idle" style sheet.
Why should *I* have to fix
something that is broken
on *their* site?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, this comment box would indeed sure suck if I weren't using a browser that lets you change the size of any text area (Safari does this. Doesn't FF3, too?)
No. The only browsers that do this are Safari and Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "We can't take your money because we have an image to maintain!"
We had this discussion on 4chan already - if they won't take charity money because they don't want to be associated with GenCon, well, fuck'em. There are plenty of other charities out there that will not make this distinction and will happily accept our donation.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "We can't take your money because we have an image to maintain!"
Yes. Their image gets them donations. If they don't protect their image, they might not get donations. They are not saying that this event damages their image, they are saying that they need to check it's not going to do so in advance. In advance is no longer possible.
Don't mistake charities for beggars -- beggars can't be choosers, but charities can and are.
HAL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As many non-profit organizations, CCF is selective in its endorsements or support in order to maintain the integrity of its name and logo. We cannot lend our name to an event for which we have no involvement. This decision should in no way be interpreted as CCF holding an opinion on Mr. Gygax, gaming enthusiasts or the game Dungeons and Dragons.
How can you not see this as "D&D is not good" in that context? It is an opinion, straight up that they don't feel it is a good donation... strictly because of the D&D connection. This is nothing more than mealy-mouth speak for "we don't want to look bad for dissing on them."
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a second. So CCF decided that accepting $17000 raised through a gaming convention would damage the integrity of their name and logo by the implied association between the event and CCF. If the money had been raised by a group of elementary school children selling lemonade (or bibles) in the summer heat, would CCF have turned it do
Re: (Score:2)
This is doublespeak. One moment they are worried they might be seen to "endorse or support" the gaming convention- next they are simply blaming it on their lack of involvement. Which is the truth? Do they truly only accept donations from organizations with which they are "involved"? Let's face it- they don't condone gaming or gaming conventions, to the degree they are afraid to accept donations from them. That shows serious bias no matter that ridiculous self-contradictory disclaimer.
BULLSHIT (Score:2)
When, in the history of charitable giving, has accepting a donation constituted an endorsement of the donor? They just don't want to have any perceived associated with D&D, at all, which is particularly vile for an organization that claims to be:
a) Christian
b) a Children's fund
This isn't about Christians being pariahs, it's about gamers being pariahs, and adding that statement to the very brief story summary would have in no way changed this fact.
So, let's test the would-be donor's intentions... (Score:2)
IF the donor really wants to support their fav charity,
let them put $17,000 into an plain, unmarked envelope
& ship it to the CCF's treasurer, marked "Anonymous
Donation" (or, to disguise the source further, they can
also slice that amount of money into parts, and ship
the parts in various, separate envelopes, variously
addressed by different hands and/or computer-labels
with various fonts/character attributes / sizes, etc.
Simple test...
Re: (Score:2)
The satanic "little devils" children's charity.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they refused it when they found out that their name was being bandied about in a commercial context without their prior permission. The charity auction forms part of the convention "experience", and the convention is ticketed.
Charity auctions may raise a lot of money but they are, for the most part, a spectator sport. I don't reckon I've ever been at a charity auction where more than a quarter or a third of attendees are bidding. Most people just gasp and applaud other people's generosity.
Yet the mere f
This summary is already out of date (Score:4, Informative)
From the link:
Nothing to see hear, Move along.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to see hear, Move along.
IMPOSTOR! No slashie would make this sort of grammatical error! Quickly! To the brands and pitchforks! We have an angry mob to form!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right. And they don't want money from GenCon why? GenCon isn't a PAC; there's no legal reason they can't take the money. Which leaves that they don't "wish to be associated with" people giving money in memory of Gary Gygax. Who, we might note, they happily took money from directly when he was alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Which should lead everyone to the conclusion that it is not, in fact, the association with his name or reputation that lead to them declining the donation, as they themselves say and as so many here are alleging.
Re: (Score:2)
Gencon is a for profit. there are limits on what a charity can take from a for profit corporation, particularly with regard to whether it can give an endorsement in return. There are legal reasons why they can't take the money. For just one, CCF apparently has a clause in their charter of incorporation that says they don't endorse anything, even other non-profits, without working the details out in advance. Violating that charter itself means they can lose their 501 (c)(3) status. For another, US law limits
After Reading TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Just to be clear - they did not turn it down because of the D&D connection but because of policies in place about how they filter the funds they take that may make them appear to endorse events they do not control. This is completely normal and sensible. I am sure they would love to have the money - but they aren't going to put themselves into a position that violates policies put into place for a good reason. And to save you the time of a click and page load:
Christian Childrenâ(TM)s Fund made the decision to decline the gift from Gen Con, LLC as the request presented to us gave the appearance that CCF (the organization) was an endorser or supporter of a gaming convention, which CCF was not. As many non-profit organizations, CCF is selective in its endorsements or support in order to maintain the integrity of its name and logo. We cannot lend our name to an event for which we have no involvement. This decision should in no way be interpreted as CCF holding an opinion on Mr. Gygax, gaming enthusiasts or the game Dungeons and Dragons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't with the funds, but the fundraiser event.
Give it to someone else. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mods + spawns = creationism (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm the Dungeon Master! I control worlds, universes! Every potion you drink, I mixed it! Every magic item you find, I put it there!
Re: (Score:2)
Greatest pin ever: "DMs aren't just gods, they tell the gods what to do."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in D&D gods definitely exist.
I've pissed off more than my fair share in my time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're offended that people think you believe one particular wacky thing, then quickly dismiss roughly half of people who call themselves Christians as "not really" because they belong to denominations without bishops? Somehow I'd have thought following the teachings of Christ might have been more the telling point, but whatever; I'm not sure you have much standing to get all offended at that point.
Anyway, as an atheist (who no doubt slipped from my Christian upbringing due to a lack of bishops) let me
Re: (Score:2)
My particular brand of Christianity is more mainstream. Instead of thinking the entire book of genesis was a transcription error, I believe that the word "God" was typoed fairly early on and should've read "ozphx".
People should really be worshipping me. Spread the word my children! My blessings will rain down upon you, as will be told in the book of Bukkake.
Ron Paul would have taken it (Score:5, Interesting)
Who supports who? (Score:3, Insightful)
I could see CCF's viewpoint if they were the ones giving money to Gen Con, or lending their logo as a sponsor/supporter, but instead, it's Gen Con giving CCF the money. How is accepting a donation supporting the donor? This sounds like BS to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know... For all practical purposes atheism is a religion. It is just belief that there is no god.
Donate it anonymously (Score:2)
Don't attach a name to it. Just submit the donation anonymously.
My two cents with inflation. (Score:2)
I think I might have an explanation (Score:2)
First, yes, this is stupid, but I think I understand what the reasoning might be.
You wonder why they would take Gygax's money, but not the money from the convention? Money from one individual donor is easily 'lost' in the noise, so they probably never knew about the connection. But, I suspect that CCF is worried that if they were publicly associated with taking a moderately large donation from a D&D convention, it would hurt their other donation streams from the conservative Christians.
Unfortunately, pe
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely Right (Score:2)
There's no way they should accept money from that evil group. Through their books they have corrupted generations and exploited them in pursuit of money. They have taken the minds of children and warped them into obsessive cultists...
Wait, hang on - silly me. I read the article backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Accepting donations from the wrong people can easily cost charitable organizations in the long run. It is unfortunate that this is the case, but in the charity game the only thing that differentiates your organization from hundreds of other organizations is your reputation. As such it shouldn't surprise anyone that charitable organizations with a good reputation are very concerned about protecting that reputation.
In a perfect world the shady or disreputable charitable organization wouldn't exist and peo
Re: (Score:2)
And come next year when the market their donation with CCF logo's and make a press release about the donation that makes it appear as though CCF was involved, drama ensues.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the D&D guys said:
"Why don't you come to our event, play a few games with us, and then we'll have a big to-do where we present you the check."
If Gygax and crew would only donate in that way, then CCF is quite right in not accepting it, as there would have been no way it wouldn't have been taken as an endorsement of the event.
Now, if it was just Gygax calling them up and saying "We raised 17 grand at our gaming convention, and I'd like to write you a check. Where do I mail it?" and they'd said "N
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then, it's bloody obvious why they didn't accept it, isn't it?
If a Christian group accepts a donation from a dead guy, then they're immediately assuming that said dead guy went to heaven. After all, what Christian would accept a donation from somebody in Hell? And Christians aren't supposed to judge, so there.
Honestly...I didn't know he was dead. But fill in current representative of said convention, and you've still got the same problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't know he was dead? I think that means you're geek card is suspended for three months.
Re: (Score:2)
People aren't really known for their rationality. I'm highly suspicious of atheists that claim that icky theists aren't qualified to enter their sacred tree-fort of rationality. Everyone is rational and irrational at various points in their life. I've met plenty of irrational atheists and rational theists.
I mean look at this story. A charity denies a donation because they felt it would imply an endorsement and its against their policy to endorse something that they have no participation in. Ok, I think
Re: (Score:2)
Given the history of D&D being the anti-christ can't you at least understand that people feel persecuted here?
Given the history I think the charity could have come out with something more tender then the "it's again our policy" line. Makes them sound like elitists and confirms to me that these Christian charities aren't really about helping people but about spreading their faith... Ok, well we all knew that from the start, but facts are now confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? "Persecuted?" PERSECUTED? The act of NOT taking a donation makes you PERSECUTED these days? I can understand that in the past (I'm a table top gamer) there were some religious nuts who promoted the idea that we were vile Satanists who would kill people or commit suicide. But this? This is nothing other than them making a business choice and doesn't even appear to have a damned thing to actually do with gaming at all - after all they were Gygax's favorite charity. The problem is that they used the CCF n
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should read that again buddy. I said that I'm suspicious of atheists that espouse a with-us-or-against us, we're-better-than-those-other-guys view. In other words, I dislike people that espouse an uninformed and hypocritical world view.
Given that I am an atheist myself, it would be rather odd if I were suspicious of myself.
Any other flagrant bias *you'd* like to display?
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm highly suspicious of atheists that claim that icky theists aren't qualified to enter their sacred tree-fort of rationality."
"Gee, that's so much more rational than, I dunno, taking them at their word"
So you're suspicious of atheists but you take Christians at their word. Got it. Any other flagrant bias you'd like to display?
Erm... what?!?
The only guys who know for sure why they refused it are the guys who refused it. Are you suggesting it is biased to believe these people over a few paranoid bloggers who have no first hand knowledge of the situation?
Web 2.0 democratic knowledge groupthink theory really has gone mad: the testimony of the guy who was there is now no longer considered of more worth than the guy who read about it several days later and hundreds of miles away.
HAL.
Re:ERROR CODE: ID10T (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot one:
An atheist on Slashdot is characterized by their remarkable ability to build and knock down ridiculous straw men for a religion of which they remain willfully and almost entirely ignorant, and yet continue to claim rationality as their guiding light.
A similar level of ignorance of any other subject on which one would claim to speak intelligibly would rightly result in that person laughed out of the room. Only here can we be so anal about parsing code correctly in joke posts and yet admire ourselves for so completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting all religious belief, belief which has claimed the adherence of many of the greatest minds the world has known.
Paint 'em all dumb, I guess, if it allows me to feel special and earn the fleeting respect of my fellow /.ers.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I believe in those things though they may well be a case of someone viewing the evidence to support a theory instead of someone viewing the evidence to find the answers.
Also don't assume that I don't believe in evolution, I do though I have my doubts about the extent that people seem to think that it has to have had. It would not surprise me one bit (not much would) if, in the end, it turned out that there was a period of creation by a higher power and from that starting point creatures have conti
Re: (Score:2)
No the idiot portion is refusing to accept a donation that helps starving children because of a stupid game. Jason who doesn't have anything to eat will not eat today because D&D money (which has nothing to do with anti-christianism)is unacceptable.
I repeat. ID10T ERROR. Whoever rejected it is a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Cuz Jesus is f'ing metal?