Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Charity Refuses Donation Because of D&D Connection

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the tainted-money dept.

Games 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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Advanced Bad & Summary (5, Informative)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618577)

In their rush to paint Christians as idiots, the editors failed to notice this addendum to TFA:

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. 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.

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 (4, Funny)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618703)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25618839)

Do you now have a set of dice lovingly carved from her bones?

How can this not be modded up? (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619039)

Come on mods, the parent was pretty funny. First thing to make me laugh all day.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (3, Funny)

HiVizDiver (640486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25621193)

You owe me a new monitor + keyboard.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (5, Insightful)

Inner_Child (946194) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618975)

You should really check out some of the Chick religious tracts surrounding gaming and witchcraft. I really don't think I've ever laughed that hard before in my life.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619343)

That would be this one [chick.com] .

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

floatingrunner (621481) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620055)

that's a really bad comic actually... way too extreme...

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (4, Funny)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620427)

How the fuck was she killing zombies without a DM?

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620809)

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

flaming (1399645) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619051)

dude i wish i had ur grandmother

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619405)

Grampa?

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (3, Insightful)

Spacejock (727523) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619587)

I used to run D&D sessions in lunchtimes at school, back in the 80s. They got more and more popular until a dozen or so of my fellow students would gather in the classroom to get involved in my latest effort. Then the PTA got wind of it, the school banned it, and the kids went back to doing nothing much at all. (To add insult to injury, we were only playing Basic & Expert D&D. I tried to explain it wasn't 'The devil worshipping one' but they weren't buying it.)

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25620489)

Heh, friend of mine got threatened with being thrown out of school because someone on the playground caught whiff of him MAYBE having a D&D book in his backpack (which I can't remember for certain but I don't believe ever made it to school, the guys with disposible income just all happened to have gotten into buying them off other games we were doing bookless on the playground, and so started discussing D&D at school (AD&D v2 just to give the era here, not even during chickdom :D) My respect for certain kinds of authority has been in steady decline since.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620829)

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25618731)

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.

Really? I would say that even knowing what you added, a fund that wishes to help children saying "No, we don't accept this money that you tried to gather us because that might make it seem as if we were a supporter of this convention of people involved in a nonviolent and social hobby..."

It still sounds like a bunch of idiots to me. A bunch of people want to honor a

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25618949)

the message was cut off. For anyone interested, the sentence would have gone "A bunch of people want to honor someone who greatly influenced a nonviolent and social hobby and drew loads of young people to it from all around the world by giving money to a charity fund and the organization reponds 'No because we don't want it to seem as if we supported your activity...'"

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (5, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618743)

It might at first glance seem like a reasonable explanation but it doesn't hold water. They have had no problem in the past accepting money from businesses or events.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (3, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618843)

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?

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (5, Insightful)

hahiss (696716) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619059)

Hmm. What harm? Well, I dunno--wouldn't $17,000 have helped a bunch of starving children? Then the harm is exactly that much.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (2, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619097)

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (2, Insightful)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620137)

And the question wasn't "What's the harm in CCF not taking the money", it was "What's the harm in taking their explanation at face value". Why take their explanation as cover up something more idiotic if their reasons seem to be adequate?

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (2, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619319)

Well, ask yourself why would they be afraid of this particularly appearance of endorsement and not others (especially when they haven't made this claim about other donations). Are they afraid that there would be backlash in the Christian community if they accepted it? If so, we should ask ourselves if that's much better a situation.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (2, Interesting)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619431)

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 donations coming in.

I'm not saying that they absolutely didn't refuse the funds because of the D&D connection. But they've made a plausible claim that they didn't, and it seems to be sincere. No-one has put forth any other evidence that they'd accept a donation from a similar fund-raising event that wasn't D&D motivated. So, given the lack of information, my view is that the reasonable course of action is to take their word for it and just donate the money elsewhere. Whats the alternative? Attribute ulterior motives without evidence so we can have a good ol' religious bash-fest? Pass.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25621005)

If the money has already been raised, then any implied endorsement has already happened, refusing to take the money isn't going to change that. They should take the money, but ask in the future GENCON avoids using their name when collecting the donations.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

eeyoredragon (674402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620681)

Most christians I know have little problem with telling you what they think of your heathen games/beliefs/culture/etc. And would look down on their fellow believers for trying to hide it under pretty words. So, not sure who they'd be trying to please with their stance... they'll piss non-christians off by not wanting to take "dirty money" from a simple game making company. They'll piss off a large number of christians for not having the balls so to speak to say exactly why they won't take money if in fact what they stated is not sincere.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (5, Insightful)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618813)

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 (4, Interesting)

krgallagher (743575) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619153)

"*They* decided to turn down the gift, which CAN be interpreted as having such an opinion."

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 (5, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619473)

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620189)

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25618833)

Hush you zealot! Your fundamentalist ramblings aren't welcome here; for this is Slashdot bastion of reason and impartiality.

To arms!

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (3, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618837)

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 (4, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618899)

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).

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1, Flamebait)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619445)

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619531)

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

ikono (1180291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619989)

Why the hell would it be an endorsement? If I gave someone some money, that doesn't mean they are endorsing me for taking the money... endorsement would imply payment, not gifts.. Also, what's all this about a small comment box?

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25621213)

There's a really key phrase in their refusal:

the way the request was presented to us

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

2short (466733) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619871)

"this particular donation appeared to imply an endorsement."

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25620845)

Why? It's a check. You cash it. I've cashed checks plenty, and never felt I was endorsing anything.

Ah ha! What is the one thing people do with checks? ENDORSE THEM!!! Checks even have a special place on the back to let you endorse them! I think your evil scheme has been exposed!

$17,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25618869)

Where does all the money go?

Re:$17,000 (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620543)

The satanic "little devils" children's charity.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618893)

so not only is idle "pants," but it is also "wrong" and possibly "libelous."

Nice work. When will this section die?

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619421)

It will die as soon as peopl
e stop posting to it, or as
soon as they fix the wretc
hed comment box. Which
ever comes first.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25620195)

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?)

thanks a lot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619021)

You just spoiled our fun!

I was hoping for a long thread bashing religion and its practitioners. But noooooooooo! You had to go and speak sense about this issue. Not only does it show the rationality of the CCF, but it also shows some rationality on the part of Christians - as much as you can show considering that you're a person that believes that a talking snake got a couple kicked out of the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. And then later God...god's son...the holy,,,ah fuck it! .. came down and saved us by getting killed by the Romans.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

GrimLordJesus (1394523) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619217)

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.

The Christian Child Fund refused the donation when they learnt the money was raised from epic tournaments of magic, vanquishing demons and ransacking forgotton dungeons full of prisoners and deformed beasts. Seems to me the reaction is not "knee-jerk" but well within reason. Dissapproving of table top fantasy gaming is absurd. They should well realise they are a charity and money does not generate itself.

=================

I am not here to flamebait, soley with an opinion as this kind fellow above me has done before me

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619329)

Here, let me take the same quote and highlight something else:

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. 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

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619521)

The Richard Dawkins Society made the decision to decline the gift from "Left Behind Fragfest LLC" as the request presented to us gave the appearance that RDS (the organization) was an endorser or supporter of a gaming convention, which RDS was not. As many non-profit organizations, RDS 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 RDS holding an opinion on God, gaming enthusiasts or the game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces".

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619551)

Sorry. Sounds like a case of the PR people performing a COVER YOUR ASS exercise after a bad decision was made.

Are they going to pull every other donation because they don't want to be seen as supporting the retailer, manufacturer, good, or product that was donated? I think not. Funny how this reason only applies to this donation and not the rest.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (2, Insightful)

arthurh3535 (447288) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619633)

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:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620765)

"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."

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 down? Essentially, they claim that association of their name with gaming and D&D is apparently damaging to their name and logo and then say they do not have an opinion on gtaming and D&D? CCF, you may be doing good work, but your ignorant convictions redirected money from "children who face hunger, disease, violence, natural disasters and extreme poverty" to an organization that flies military families around the world to their relatives in the army.

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25620971)

Yes, the antichristianites were a little hasty here. Just a little....

Re:Advanced Bad & Summary (1)

HexRei (515117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25621207)

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.

ERROR CODE: ID10T (-1, Flamebait)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618585)

Bunch of idiots.

Re:ERROR CODE: ID10T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25618693)

you're a bigger idiot for not realizing that this is yet more anti-christian fud by slashdot.

thanks for showing us that you're more than willing to drinking the kool-aide.

Re:ERROR CODE: ID10T (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618959)

omg, even the comment box sucks on idle (twenty characters wide wtf) anyway, I digress..

you make it sound like christian-bashing is a bad thing.

however, "ooh, some christians have randomly chosen a course of action and now they appear to be bad ppl" isn't really news, is it? religious zealots aren't really known for their rationality.. are they?

btw, as far as I can tell without reading the summary or the article ;P - they appear to think that they're doing some group a favour when that group gives them money. lol.

Won't someone think of the children?

Re:ERROR CODE: ID10T (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619047)

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 thats a bad decision, but whatever. People get mad, so they clarify that it has nothing to do with the actual game. Whats the response? Call them a liar so that we have an excuse to break out the torches and pitchforks. Gee, that's so much more rational than, I dunno, taking them at their word and simply donation the money elsewhere.

Re:ERROR CODE: ID10T (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619349)

I've met plenty of irrational atheists and rational theists.

And yet.. an atheist is known as such because of their ability to be repetitively rational when it comes to the issue of whether they believe in some entity whose only purpose seems to be that of an all-powerful punisher should someone fail to comply with the rules provided by earth-based priests.

Likewise, a religious zealot is characterized by their repetitive willingness to abandon rationality.

*cough* idle sucks

Re:ERROR CODE: ID10T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619555)

"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?

Re:ERROR CODE: ID10T (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619607)

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:ERROR CODE: ID10T (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620619)

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:ERROR CODE: ID10T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25618729)

You're right - they should have checked with the policies of CCF before trying to make a donation and include them in an event. You would think they knew how to read by now, what with all their maps and strategies and characterizations and die casting and whatnot.

This summary is already out of date (4, Informative)

mothrsuperior (981616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618589)

From the link:
 

Edit: In response to complaints received, people have been receiving the following explanatory letter.

        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.

(Emphasis in bold supplied by me.) At first, I was upset because I thought they were rejecting the money because of its association with D&D. I have changed my position. I have worked with charities and in fact many of them (particularly large ones) have very specific rules about events they will sponsor. Many charities will not sponsor any event that they don't manage themselves. There are many reasons for this and very few of them will have anything to do with moral condemnation of the event organizer.

Nothing to see hear, Move along.

Re:This summary is already out of date (1, Funny)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618633)

"Nothing to see hear"

... but much to taste?

Re:This summary is already out of date (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619125)

Well said and to add my 6 cents worth ( 2 cents adjusted for inflation and the price of the election), I too have worked with non-profits who accept donations and yes, they have to be very careful about who and whom they accept money from. Realize that all non-profits have a board of directors who lays out the rules from which they wish to be associated with.

Additionally, accepting money from certain entities can jeopardize their 501(c)(3) status. For example, they can not accept money from political action committees.

Re:This summary is already out of date (2, Interesting)

2short (466733) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619921)


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:This summary is already out of date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619135)

Learn to spell shitdick.

Re:This summary is already out of date (1)

ikono (1180291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620007)

Wait. Was Gen-con asking them to sponsor the event?

Re:This summary is already out of date (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620111)

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!

After Reading TFA (3, Informative)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618593)

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:After Reading TFA (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618683)

Hey, what are you trying to do? This summary was perfectly good fodder for Christian-bashers on Slashdot. How many Slashdotters are going to miss out on +5 insightful/funny mods due to your concise description of the facts? (Jokes about a 6000 year old earth to follow...)

Re:After Reading TFA (1)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618695)

Key part being "... as the request presented to us ..."

So was this request any different than a normal donation?

Re:After Reading TFA (1)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619109)

Yes. It was a Charity Auction, not a regular donation. An auction like that would have advertised the charity it was going to. Signage and labels with the CCF's logo/name on it at the auction site would seem like the CCF endorsed the auction.

The problem isn't with the funds, but the fundraiser event.

Even with no D&D bias.. WTH? (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618847)

Even if the charity is refusing the donation on grounds which are nothing to do with D&D etc. it is still somewhat idiotic that a _charity_ is turning down a donation of any kind. I mean, I can understand if it came from the reincarnation of Hitler or something, but turning down a (high profile) donation because you don't "endorse" the event? What the heck?

Re:Even with no D&D bias.. WTH? (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618987)

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 people would give freely knowing that their donations were being used wisely. Unfortunately we don't live in such a world, and so there are compromises that must be made.

Re:Even with no D&D bias.. WTH? (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619013)

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:Even with no D&D bias.. WTH? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619273)

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 "No thanks," then yes, they're idiots.

Re:Even with no D&D bias.. WTH? (1)

Khisanth Magus (1090101) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619545)

I think Gary might have issues calling anyone, seeing how he is kinda dead.

Sarah Palin Is So Indifferent To the U.S.S.A. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25618853)

That she palls around with White Collar Criminals [wikipedia.org] .

Regards,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Sarah Palin Is So Indifferent To the U.S.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619303)

Obama pals around with more than that!

His mentor and advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski created the Mujahideen in July 1979. The same Mujahideen that turned into Al-Qaeda.

He admitted to supporting Pol Pot through China. Pol Pot killed a larger percentage of his own people than anyone else in history.

Brzezinski said it was "one of the happiest days of my life" [rense.com] when he got a taxpayer supported grant and asylum for Chechen terrorist Akhmadov. Russia has wanted to extradite him since 2003.

Obama has stated since July 2007 that he would bomb Pakistan without their consent.

He has supported Georgia's President Saakashvili even though they started the conflict against Russia by firing and bombing civilians.

The last President who had no foreign policy experience and relied on his advisors was George W. Bush

McCain/Palin aren't any better.

Give it to someone else. (5, Insightful)

ouphie (1049832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618897)

Hell, send the money to Child's Play. Great cause and run by gamers.

Re:Give it to someone else. (0, Flamebait)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619259)

agreed. child's play deserves the money at which the snooty creationists turned up their noses.

Mods + spawns = creationism (4, Funny)

sinij (911942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25618917)

D&D supports creationism, why else would monsters get spawned? They are not evolved, but just appear in spots = intelligent design.

Re:Mods + spawns = creationism (1, Funny)

robertcz (821390) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619275)

Look, I'm a Christian and an offended by all this assumption that all Christians are creationists. It's only those whacky Do-It-Yourself churches that are. Most churches that have proper theological traditions and training for their ministers (e.g. Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran) have for a long time had no problem with the discoveries of science. When I first met a "Christian" [actually whacky Evangelical in a church with no bishops, i.e. not really a Christian (sorry Presbyterians)] who actually really genuinely truly believed in creationism as a statement of facts, rather than as a metaphor, I fell of my chair. I would be scared to live in the US - almost half o fthe peopel there believe in that shit.... But I still think they were dumb to not take the donation...

Re:Mods + spawns = creationism (2, Insightful)

2short (466733) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620155)


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 assure you that I don't believe all christians are creationists. It is however, fine to assume creationism of all who bring up their Christianity in order to claim oppression from internet posts that don't actually make any mention of it. People that eager to force their religion into things either are creationsts, or are, as you apparently claim, so eager to be offended it would be cruel not to give them the chance.

Re:Mods + spawns = creationism (1)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620435)

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.

Re:Mods + spawns = creationism (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620097)

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:Mods + spawns = creationism (1)

sashang (608223) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620823)

Jesus Christ is my dungeon master.

So basically...the point of this story is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25618923)

....idle is pants?

Please stop.

Think of the children (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619005)

I'm sure the kids that would have benefited from the money are completely behind this reasonable decision.

Re:Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619101)

Sure, when those children could be bereft even more help down the road when CCF's logo is used in advertising games "We donated to CCF" and the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost donations as a result of that. Image is everything nowadays.So, yes - they're thinking of the children.

Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619177)

Come on I knew about this over a month ago, its just now hitting /. ?????

Ron Paul would have taken it (4, Interesting)

EEBaum (520514) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619285)

I'm reminded of reporters slamming Ron Paul for taking money from white supremacists. He defended the action, his rationale being along the lines of "better I use it for my message than them for their white supremacy."

Who supports who? (2, Insightful)

Tsu-na-mi (88576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619331)

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:Who supports who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25621245)

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.

Considering we often link a candidate's support to those he/she accepts money from, I cannot see how you would assume any differently here.

Its because (1)

Phybertekie (975815) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619423)

Jesus loves World of Warcraft, not D and D

Re:Its because (1)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619905)

Cuz Jesus is f'ing metal?

Oops! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25619689)

They should have the lawful good cleric make the donation next time instead of the chaotic neutral rogue.

Donate it anonymously (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25619727)

Don't attach a name to it. Just submit the donation anonymously.

The *taint* of ancient evil... (0, Offtopic)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25620139)

can *never* be erased!

Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?