Charity Promo: Pick 3+ Games. Donate $5 or more. 100% Goes to Charity! on GOG

Grieg

http://www.gog.com/news/charity_promo_pick_3_games_donate_5_or_more_100_goes_to_charity

Once again we can see that GOG is awesome.

Chaotic_Good

WWF yea we need more really sick and sad commercials from the little more than self sustaining charity that somehow made wrestling a little gayer.

Really I pretty much feel the same way about all charity If you want to teach a kid to read, feed the poor, or provide relief to victims of a disaster do it. These large organized charity are little more than self sustaining institutions (like the US legal system) that provide good feelings for 20 dollars a month.

It is the thought that counts though so gg GoG
#GiveItToATiger #DepressedMySelfNoLube

Grieg

@Chaotic_Good
Yup, you can explain yourself, every way you like. If you don't like WWF, there are two more charity institutions: Worldbuilders and Gaming for Good (you can choose one from those 3 institutions).

I think about it that way: since you can buy those games in any way you can, so why not to give price of games to those institutions even if there will be just a little part of your cash given to people in need, that part counts. In this case whole cash goes to charity and in return you get games, everybody is happy, I can't imagine what you see wrong in that.

Kitteh_On_A_Cloud

My naive side thinks this is a good thing. My cynical side, however, tends to agree with @Chaotic_Good on this. @Grieg: How can you know for sure your money actually HELPS those in need, instead of disappearing into another greedy selfish pocket?

Ayiekie

Uh, you could try actually looking it up? Google "Charity Navigator", or one of the other charity-evaluation resources.

The WWF uses 73% of donation income on the actual programs. That's in fact reasonably good given their gargantuan size and international activities (both of which increase administrative and overhead costs). There are better; there are also a lot worse. It certainly provides more than "good feelings".

Chaotic_Good

Could you link the budget you were looking at? Thanks
@Ayiekie

Kitteh_On_A_Cloud

Ayiekie said:

Uh, you could try actually looking it up? Google "Charity Navigator", or one of the other charity-evaluation resources.

The WWF uses 73% of donation income on the actual programs. That's in fact reasonably good given their gargantuan size and international activities (both of which increase administrative and overhead costs). There are better; there are also a lot worse. It certainly provides more than "good feelings".

Written information can be manipulated in lots of ways and thus is not always trustworthy. Especially on the internet.

Schneidend

Kitteh_On_A_Cloud said:

Ayiekie said:

Uh, you could try actually looking it up? Google "Charity Navigator", or one of the other charity-evaluation resources.

The WWF uses 73% of donation income on the actual programs. That's in fact reasonably good given their gargantuan size and international activities (both of which increase administrative and overhead costs). There are better; there are also a lot worse. It certainly provides more than "good feelings".

Written information can be manipulated in lots of ways and thus is not always trustworthy. Especially on the internet.

Now you're just being paranoid. Ayiekie got his info from independent raters of charity organizations.

Chaotic_Good

No matter who rates it they use the books of the charity to do so. That is where the problem is I contracted my "carpentry company" to make camera stands for 1 year at 300k when the value of the work is 100k. They are able to do this with anything because the director is the one to determine the value of the work or product. You can't see intent in a piece of paper.

Ayiekie

You do realise there are pretty good reasons why charities can not habitually lie about what they do with their money, right? You realise that governments can and do audit these things, right?

Or hey, you can believe that nobody can know anything about how charities spend their money, but you mysteriously somehow do know that they don't spend it on their charitable works, because they're evil or something. That makes a lot of sense!

Kitteh_On_A_Cloud

Ayiekie said:

You do realise there are pretty good reasons why charities can not habitually lie about what they do with their money, right? You realise that governments can and do audit these things, right?

Or hey, you can believe that nobody can know anything about how charities spend their money, but you mysteriously somehow do know that they don't spend it on their charitable works, because they're evil or something. That makes a lot of sense!

Well sorry, but I'm just critical. I have stopped being naive about such things. At least it's worth thinking about where my money actually will go. Especially after reading how Oxfam, such an organization for charity, actually isn't as innocent as they appear to be. Just read things. Inform yourself. And then you will notice how the veils of innocence quickly disappear. I'm just skeptical instead of ignorant and naive. I rather help a friend in trouble out or give my money to indie developers, for example, because these are clear cases on where my money will go, that it will actually help the target audience out. As long as the case is clear, I will happily donate. Charities aren't always clear in that. If that makes me sound selfish, so be it.

Ayiekie

Not to put too fine a point on this, and this is not coming out of any animosity towards indie developers, but the most inefficient and bloated charity in the world is still a more morally defensible place to invest your money than any indie developer.

Put your money wherever you want, but don't kid yourself that you give money to people who make video games and not to charities because charities aren't "innocent" enough. Whatever flaws Oxfam may have (it has a fair number, I would agree), Oxfam has saved the lives of more human beings than every game developer in history put together. If you rate a nice video game over a human life... well, I hardly have to follow up that thought, right?

And Oxfam is hardly the only charity that exists; if you're that concerned, donate to CARE International, who are very well-run and put just over 90% of each dollar donated into their campaigns, which primarily focus on emergency relief and economic development (particularly focused on women and children).

Awong124

I wasn't able to pick one game I wanted out of that list, let alone three. It's a nice thought by GOG though.

Chaotic_Good

It works the other way around also people will create charities so they can get the 100k deduction for there companies/brand. Swindling and embezzlement I am confident are very common things in our capitalism.

Ayiekie

Yes, such things have been known to happen, which is why if you're concerned about how legitimate a charity is, you should see what independent organisations say about their activities. The WWF is not, however, one of the "swindling and embezzling" charities you're concerned about.