Child's Play withdraw from further funding from RME

[deanb]

So that "Retake Mass Effect" thing right? The one that was raising money for Childs Play (that Penny Arcade charity) while creating a unified voice for those displeased with how the series ended. Well Childs Play decided they don't want to be associated with the fund raiser. Cos as they responded: "if someone took a hotly debated political issue and said "Donate to Child's Play to support [insert issue here]", it could cause some very serious problems for us." Kinda forgetting that "Retake Mass Effect" isn't a political issue. I mean it's about games, childs play is about games, penny arcade is about games, but they now don't want to be associated with it any more? There's a reason why folks will be thinking something is going on. There's been plenty of other Childs Play fundriasers, why suddenly decide to make an example out of this one?

 

Folks have moved on to Nathan Fillions charity "Kids need to Read" instead. Kinda sucks for the kids that get support through CPC but they don't get to decide who is and isn't allowed to raise money for them. But woot for Fillion & Co I guess. There's a reason folks love him.

[CorgiShinobi]

Are any of the Retake Mass Effect members also fans that filed FTC complaints?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's involving politics. It's a large exaggeration to be applied for the Retake Mass Effect movement, but it did make international headlines.

[deanb]

No, the FTC filing was by 'El_Spiko'. "Retake Mass Effect" opposed it.

[CorgiShinobi]

Then I got nothing other than a few comments on that page saying it somehow is a "legal" matter.

 

Well, I do have something, but it's not grounded on anything firm nor conclusive: Penny Arcade simply doesn't want to be associated with the movement. They had to give an excuse, but it comes down to association. Obviously Penny Arcade has made their statements on the matter, which I think do hold weight in common practice. This is something else and something massive. It will be a cornerstone on the practice of consumer relations in the industry from here on out.

 

No matter one's position, you can't deny this is something huge for the industry.

[Strangelove]

Thats kind of awesome.

[deanb]

This is something else and something massive. It will be a cornerstone on the practice of consumer relations in the industry from here on out.

 

No matter one's position, you can't deny this is something huge for the industry.

We talking about CPC refusing to be associated with these guys, or the potential change of the ending itself? Cos It has been done before. Though the Fallout 3 issue was 4 years ago, I guess dull in the mind now, and Portal was just changed pretty much "just cos", no fan pressure or ruckus like there is now. Me3 is just "big" cos it's a current topic.

[Eleven]

Has nothing to do with politics. They just used it as an example. An extreme one maybe. They just decided to not associate with stuff like this, a controversial one, where there is actual debate ongoing.

 

Maybe they don't want to be viewed on either side of the fence on this one, or similar matters. A charity is a charity, and shouldn't be used to further agendas like this.

 

Yes, it shows good will from the donors(?), but it is still being used to further an agenda, that not everyone exactly share, and either choice/agenda (changing the ending/not changing the ending) cannot be considered morally right/wrong. So their decision is that this is not what child's play is about.

 

I'm saying this without any particular child's play movement from before in mind. If there was a case like this before, then I would assume it's not as controversial as this one and they probably didn't care then. They do care now, and moving forward would apply similar policy to similar movements, political or not.

 

Honestly, I found it weird when i first read about the movement about accepting donations to charity. That's great and all.. but it was just a little weird to me. EDIT: I knew about this donations when this thing RME started, not just now, just to clarify.

Edited March 23, 2012 by elev3n

[CorgiShinobi]

This is something else and something massive. It will be a cornerstone on the practice of consumer relations in the industry from here on out.

 

No matter one's position, you can't deny this is something huge for the industry.

We talking about CPC refusing to be associated with these guys, or the potential change of the ending itself? Cos It has been done before. Though the Fallout 3 issue was 4 years ago, I guess dull in the mind now, and Portal was just changed pretty much "just cos", no fan pressure or ruckus like there is now. Me3 is just "big" cos it's a current topic.

Yes there have been changes to endings before, but this one has been explosive. Fallout 3 was an ending for a single game, but even then I don't remember nearly this much media coverage and outcry from fans. Portal was changed because it needed to tie in better with the sequel's synopsis, a.k.a. Chell was still at Aperture. No big whoop really because there wasn't much of an ending.

 

Mass Effect 3's ending is an ending to what's considered one of the industry's epic tales, a trilogy with choices and outcomes affecting three separate games. Fallout 3 had dialogue options, but it's only to Fallout 3. What's one of the major complaints about Mass Effect 3's ending?

 

That none of these choices made from years ago made any difference! I mean, I fulfilled the requirements for the "perfect" ending, but I had to choose the perfect ending if only I saw fit rather than all my choices boil down to a firm conclusion. Also, we can't forget that final cutscene, or really how all the endings were basically the same with minor differences.

 

 

Of course you already know all that, so what I'm saying is that while other games have had endings changed, this magnitude isn't simply because it's "current," but there's a large outcry over "these endings."

 

Again, this is more so a series ending than just a standalone ending for one game. It's Fallout 3, but tenfold (if not more). Were these discussions taking place as frequently and as passionately? Did developers and fans butt heads over press releases, statements contrary to what is the "consumer's right" or "artistic integrity?" Fallout 3 is only being mentioned as a "hey, others have changed endings," but Mass Effect 3 is going to be used for much more like, "hey, remember your responsibility to me the fan?"

 

I dunno, refresh my memory, but I don't remember nearly this much heat and frustration from something like a highly popular series ending. Heck, Killzone 3 had a really terrible ending, but not much was done but complaining online. Mass Effect 3 has a confusing, short, and illogical ending and it's international news.

[deanb]

Maybe they don't want to be viewed on either side of the fence on this one, or similar matters. A charity is a charity, and shouldn't be used to further agendas like this.

Problem now is they have pretty much now taken a side, being an arm of Penny Arcade isn't really helping matters either. When they had said nothing, that's when they were neutral. They were neither advocating or bashing the movement. But now they've withdrawn their support as the charity of choice of the group then they've cast in their lot, whether then intended to or not.

 

I'm not really even sure if it's furthering the agenda, I'd have said it was the other way around. The agenda was already there and growing. The organisers just funnelled that passion into the Child's Play charity, raising an impressive $80K in the process. Though of course the withdrawal of Child's Play from accepting donations from the group does mean that coverage on this is going to blow up. It really was one of those situations where it was better to say nothing at all. The group was generating pretty impressive amounts of funding and they're doing anything illegal, destructive, political or unethical in raising these funds.

 

There's now an official post on Penny Arcade, pretty much repeating the reddit post. Though with a weird addition in that:

We have policies in place to deal with direct abuse: we don’t allow companies to use Child’s Play in order to sell more stuff. To that end we do not allow deals like “1 cent of every dollar goes to Child’s Play!” or whatever.

And yet Child's Play is one of the primary charities of Humble Indie Bundle and has been for some years now without incident.

 

As for the rest of the post, it seems they're happy with the funds raised, and recognise it's a group of passionate gamers, but a lot of it is still feeling like it's making an example of them. Both Jamie's and Tycho's posts have been "well if we let this one run, well what if...". (As for having folks request their money back... their dude is actively encouraging it on Reddit so maybe if that's a problem they should tell the guy to stop saying that?)

[Eleven]

I think Tycho explained it best with this:

 

Child’s Play cannot be a tool to draw attention to a cause. Child’s Play must be the Cause.

 

Humble Indie Bundle is different, because you, yourself chooses to pay to child's play or not, and it's not a percentage thing.

 

He said:

 

I actually support this cause, but I am a pessimist, and I’m thinking about the next time something like this happens - when someone attaches Child’s Play to something we can’t get behind, or leverages your history of generosity and fellow feeling for their own weird bullshit.

 

The RME movement falls in either of the two, depending on how you view the movement.

 

And it does further the agenda. Having Child's Play's name attached to RME would entice more people to come join, since they'd be feeling charitable in addition to being the saviours of the ME universe.

 

You said:

They were neither advocating or bashing the movement. But now they've withdrawn their support as the charity of choice of the group then they've cast in their lot, whether then intended to or not.

 

They withdrew support, giving exactly why, and you say they chose sides? While doing "nothing", but helping the RME cause get visibility/appeal and you say they haven't taken any side? I would say having a direct link to RME would make more people think they ARE on someone's side.

 

If they didn't stop it now, and in the future they declined to support a similar movement, then that would be worse and would actually be a valid complaint of "choosing sides". You have to start somewhere. Too bad for RME that it has to be RME.

[deanb]

I actually support this cause, but I am a pessimist, and I’m thinking about the next time something like this happens - when someone attaches Child’s Play to something we can’t get behind, or leverages your history of generosity and fellow feeling for their own weird bullshit.

The RME movement falls in either of the two, depending on how you view the movement.

 

And it does further the agenda. Having Child's Play's name attached to RME would entice more people to come join, since they'd be feeling charitable in addition to being the saviours of the ME universe.

 

You said:

They were neither advocating or bashing the movement. But now they've withdrawn their support as the charity of choice of the group then they've cast in their lot, whether then intended to or not.

They withdrew support, giving exactly why, and you say they chose sides? While doing "nothing", but helping the RME cause get visibility/appeal and you say they haven't taken any side? I would say having a direct link to RME would make more people think they ARE on someone's side.

 

If they didn't stop it now, and in the future they declined to support a similar movement, then that would be worse and would actually be a valid complaint of "choosing sides". You have to start somewhere. Too bad for RME that it has to be RME.

Tycho said he supported the cause though. Right before the bit you bolded It's why he said when, as in future tense. This is currently not something they can't get behind nor is it leveraging for weird bullshit. They're pretty much using it as an example of a "what we'll do when that actually happens".

 

You really think folks will decide to dislike the ME3 ending because this group is advocating giving to charity? I'd say it's the ending itself that's swaying folks in to the various camps. This camp is just trying to show it's not a negative thing but rather positive, by picking the most popular gaming charity out there to donate to. They could have chosen not too and gotten as much attention, or chosen any other charity. Only reason CFC is now directly leading to more attention is due to them pulling out.

 

You know charity is pretty much one way right? If say... a paedophile was to put some cash towards Children in Need doesn't mean then that Children in Need supports paedophiles, it means paedophiles support Children in Need. Now say some Catholic school was to raise money for Children in Need, but then they refused to accept the donations, well they've now spoken out against this school. It's now an active two way street than the passive fund acceptance of before. If CPC had gone out of their way to join up with RME, or had channelled their funds into RME (highly unlikely as CPC supports hospitals) then that would be picking a side and showing direct support. Until then they were just a charity. People choose the charity, the charity doesn't choose the people.

 

 

Also HIB is percentage based. Not a fixed percentage, unless you choose one of the presets mind, but the percentage is definitely there.

edit: Though HIB might not be the least of their sale-based worries: http://www.ragequitrelief.com/ (At least HIB is games)

[Eleven]

EDIT:

 

You really think folks will decide to dislike the ME3 ending because this group is advocating giving to charity? I'd say it's the ending itself that's swaying folks in to the various camps. This camp is just trying to show it's not a negative thing but rather positive, by picking the most popular gaming charity out there to donate to.

 

Except this is not what's happening, apparently. Enough people have been confused and asking what the target was to accomplish their goal. The goal being a new ending, and the target being number of contributions to help the cause. Enough people are doing this for it to become a concern. So they noticed.

 

You know charity is pretty much one way right? If say... a paedophile was to put some cash towards Children in Need doesn't mean then that Children in Need supports paedophiles, it means paedophiles support Children in Need.

 

I agree 100%. But this is irrelevant. Hell, there may actually be a pedophile who did donate to Child's Play in support of RME. The comparison should be:

 

A group of pedos banded together. They are requesting that their favorite hobby be legalized (political agenda). They have a tumblr page filled with material - arguments, reasons, scientific proof(!!!) that support their favorite hobby. On the side, they have a link for you to donate to Child's Play.

 

A group of gamers banded together. They felt deeply hurt about the ending of their favorite video game, Mass Effect 3, and are requesting Bioware to change the ending. They have a tumblr page filled with material - tweets from fans, list of plotholes, a collection of undisputable proof that prove the ending of mass effect completely destroyed the whole series for them, hell it made them sad and bitter and angry and hurt for weeks. On the side, they have a link for you to donate to Child's Play.

 

In both scenarios, charity is in no way a requirement to join or support the movement, only shown as a positive thing on the side. However, I would doubt that you, being the one who runs child's play, would allow your charity to be seen and accept donations from that first website.

 

It is exactly the same thing. However, the current issue's significance, is significantly reduced because we are all talking about a fucking video game.

 

What is going to be telling is how many people will withdraw their donations now that Child's Play has given their stance on the issue. It will just prove that hey, you didn't donate for the sake of donating in the first place. You donated because you want to prove how worthy the cause is, which means you just used the Charity to further your own agenda.

 

EDIT 2:

You really think folks will decide to dislike the ME3 ending because this group is advocating giving to charity? I'd say it's the ending itself that's swaying folks in to the various camps.

 

No i didn't say that. I said it makes it more attractive. People will find a cause "worthy" when the cause runs a fundraising for charity. EDIT: Lol sorry... quoted this twice...

Edited March 23, 2012 by elev3n

[Strangelove]

Someone else said it, but honestly, It's emotional blackmail. Its not about them being seen as positive people willing to help others, its about everyone else being seen as assholes. Were automatically lumped into two groups - those who hated the ending and donated, and those who liked the ending and didn't donate. Yeah, you can like the ending AND donate, but youre not trying to make a point. Theres no reason to exclaim to everyone, "hey, I gave money to charity!"

Thats all this is. Its a bunch of people yelling out loud, "Hey, I gave money to charity! Also, the ME3 ending sucks, change it!"

Theyre just attention whores. And if they dont change the ending there would have been tons of people feeling outraged because all these people gave money and Bioware STILL didnt change the ending. It makes Bioware seem like super evil villains. Its blackmail.

 

You get more bees with honey than with vinegar indeed. Too bad the whole point of catching those bees is for a selfish stupid fucking cause.

[Thursday Next]

I think at best it blurs the lines as to whether you are supporting the cause or the charity. At worst it damages the campaign as it allows Bioware the get out clause of "yeah, they've got like a bazillion signatures, but most of them are just along for the ride because it supports a charity."

 

As others have said, attaching the name of respected charity legitimises the campaign or increases awareness. This may be considered as an unfair use of the charities intellectual property. If instead of donating to charity the cause asked that people by a Happy Meal and splashed some McDonald's links and images on the site, then Maccy D's would most likely have something to say about that.

 

They aren't claiming endorsement, or affiliation, but the implication is there to be made which could (if a business was sleazy enough) be used to undermine the campaign itself.

[deanb]

EDIT:

You really think folks will decide to dislike the ME3 ending because this group is advocating giving to charity? I'd say it's the ending itself that's swaying folks in to the various camps. This camp is just trying to show it's not a negative thing but rather positive, by picking the most popular gaming charity out there to donate to.

Except this is not what's happening, apparently. Enough people have been confused and asking what the target was to accomplish their goal. The goal being a new ending, and the target being number of contributions to help the cause. Enough people are doing this for it to become a concern. So they noticed.

It's still not suggesting that the charity itself is making folks dislike the ending. If a few folks are stupid enough not to see it's a charity and not a kick-starter that's no reason to then deny everyone else from donating to your charity. The goal of the group is to get a new ending yes, but the charity isn't at all related to that. The charity was chosen as a positive focus of the group.

 

You know charity is pretty much one way right? If say... a paedophile was to put some cash towards Children in Need doesn't mean then that Children in Need supports paedophiles, it means paedophiles support Children in Need.

I agree 100%. But this is irrelevant. Hell, there may actually be a pedophile who did donate to Child's Play in support of RME. The comparison should be:

 

A group of pedos banded together. They are requesting that their favorite hobby be legalized (political agenda). They have a tumblr page filled with material - arguments, reasons, scientific proof(!!!) that support their favorite hobby. On the side, they have a link for you to donate to Child's Play.

 

A group of gamers banded together. They felt deeply hurt about the ending of their favorite video game, Mass Effect 3, and are requesting Bioware to change the ending. They have a tumblr page filled with material - tweets from fans, list of plotholes, a collection of undisputable proof that prove the ending of mass effect completely destroyed the whole series for them, hell it made them sad and bitter and angry and hurt for weeks. On the side, they have a link for you to donate to Child's Play.

 

In both scenarios, charity is in no way a requirement to join or support the movement, only shown as a positive thing on the side. However, I would doubt that you, being the one who runs child's play, would allow your charity to be seen and accept donations from that first website.

 

It is exactly the same thing. However, the current issue's significance, is significantly reduced because we are all talking about a fucking video game.

The first website would fall under their "political issues" though. That's one of the issues that I take with this, they don't want the paedophile group, so they're going after the ME3 group to make an example of. It's just weird and nonsensical. Just to get totally political, it's the kinda reasoning that goes: Why allow gay marriage, next folks will want to marry their pigs. As you said, it's a video game. It's not as they've said they're opposed to; a political issue. It's certainly an issue now, something it wasn't before. It'll probably make folks rethink using CPC as their charity of choice for other events, especially with how broad and sweeping they're being in their reasoning's for refusing to accept further donations thru RME. For example plenty of folks use CPC as charity of choice when doing marathon streams, but now it's up in the air if their new policy means that'll be scuppered.

 

What is going to be telling is how many people will withdraw their donations now that Child's Play has given their stance on the issue. It will just prove that hey, you didn't donate for the sake of donating in the first place. You donated because you want to prove how worthy the cause is, which means you just used the Charity to further your own agenda.

Given that it's penny arcade's charity and they've been a bit opposing to the aims of RME I've a feeling a fair few might move their donations over to the reading charity. It will be hard for many to not see the connection between PA/PAR being opposed to the aims of RME and then PA-owned CPC pulling out once Bioware make their announcements with regards to tweaking the ending. As Tycho said "they basically won". It does suck for the hospitals caught in the crossfire but it was CPCs choice to decide to create new policy around the matter and refuse to accept donations thru RME. I think folks were perfectly fine with their cash going to CPC, a pretty strong and well known gaming-orientated charity, back when all they did was act as a neutral charity; i.e take peoples donations. I think the ones that take it out from pure malice will be few and far between. I think the majority that doe take it out will be showing their disappointment with CPCs sudden policy creation, and I see them putting that donation into the reading charity. You'd have to be a pessemist not to be aware of gamers massive charitable hearts.

 

@SL: I think you see charity a bit different to other folks if you think it's emotional blackmail In fact that's a rather disturbing viewpoint of why folks give to charity

 

They aren't claiming endorsement, or affiliation, but the implication is there to be made which could (if a business was sleazy enough) be used to undermine the campaign itself.

Well this is the thing, most places that have charity drives it's never on the claim, or even the thought, that the charity is endorsing those doing the charity drive. BHF don't endorse tesco, despite the staff collecting for them. Comic Relief aren't endorsing any schools despite many schools fund raising for them. This is actually the first time I've seen it suggested that by people picking out a charity to donate to that this means that the charity is kinda picking them.

[Thursday Next]

It's not so much the giving of money as it is the publicly giving of money that draws the association.

 

Also, I can tell you with certainty that some charities are very hard to give money to. You should have seen the agreement with (I think ) the Red Cross so that we could collect money and use their name on the sites talking about it in the wake of the Japanese Tsunami.

 

Image is vital to a charity, if they're seen to be being used by someone not connected with the charity, even if it is for a worthy cause, it can create an element of mistrust. If it didn't matter then the Red Cross would not have to be changed to the Red Crescent in Muslim countries and the Red Star in Israel.

[deanb]

Thing is up until now CPC have had no issue in being associated with gaming groups or being used by them as charity of choice. Or at least no outspoken issue up until now. It's perfectly understandable that there are some groups they'd want to stray from, but the mass effect group doesn't really fit into the category of "political issues". In attempting to distance themselves from RME they've made such a wide scope that they've potentially alienated hundreds of potential charity drives in the future on an uncertainty of who and what CPC/PA want to be, or don't want to be, associated with in the future. They have a PDF guide, but nothing is stated on who or who cannot do a fund raiser (their guide even includes all the branding stuff you'd want too). As best I can tell RME did everything by the book apart from the fulfil the new rule of not being an issue Penny Arcade don't want to be involved with.

 

Also going off the counter on the CPC site, RME account for 2.3% of overall donations in this years tally (starts November). It does seem odd to turn more of that source down. They're gamers donating to a gaming charity alongside a gaming cause they feel strongly about. To my mind that seems a perfect match, as perfect as any other CPC funding drive that has existed before now.

[Eleven]

It's still not suggesting that the charity itself is making folks dislike the ending. If a few folks are stupid enough not to see it's a charity and not a kick-starter that's no reason to then deny everyone else from donating to your charity. The goal of the group is to get a new ending yes, but the charity isn't at all related to that. The charity was chosen as a positive focus of the group.

 

As I said, I'm not saying that. It just makes your cause more attractive. And yes, the charity is not related to it. But apparently as I said that's not what's happening. It doesn't matter if its not related. It gives them a "bad" name, arguably. But there should be no room for arguments.

 

I'm not saying this issue is political. You keep saying that, you saying this isn't political and we all agree. But the stance is not limited to political issues. Political issues was just an example, one that people could read and say "oh.. i see.. ok now I understand". Which I don't get why you don't seem to as you keep repeating this political stuff.

 

You could argue people who withdraw donations out of spite would be few. I believe the opposite. You see how hurt these people are on the forums regarding the ending? Not all people on RME are as reasonable as you may think. You put your trust on a bunch of people complaining about a video game ending. I am skeptical. These people will withdraw their donations out of spite.

 

If you really believe you donated to charity unrelated to the movement, you won't withdraw your donation. Regardless of what your reasons may be, your money is still good at Child's Play. They're not throwing it away. Pulling out your money, and then donating to this other one, just says you donated for the cause, not for charity. So then RME can say "We've now raised X dollars for KNTR(did I get the new charity right?)"

 

Oh and BTW I thought HIB you choose exactly where your payment goes to. If that is not the case, and they are actually taking a percentage regardless of who you decide to give your money to, then I agree. Maybe you should ask this question to PA.

 

Well this is the thing, most places that have charity drives it's never on the claim, or even the thought, that the charity is endorsing those doing the charity drive. BHF don't endorse tesco, despite the staff collecting for them. Comic Relief aren't endorsing any schools despite many schools fund raising for them. This is actually the first time I've seen it suggested that by people picking out a charity to donate to that this means that the charity is kinda picking them.

 

They don't endorse. The keyword is association. You won't let your charity's reputation be tarnished by the fact that pedophiles are protesting on the street, all the while saying "oh and hey. there's a child's play donation box right there. go ahead it's for a good cause".

 

Child's play is not supporting you. You are associating your agenda with Child's play and it hurts them. Again, this whole thing is ridiculous on every level as we are complaining about a video game ending. And I truly believe that you wouldn't be opposed to this if it was something more serious. It is unfortunate, but they are just taking a stand.

Edited March 23, 2012 by elev3n

[TheMightyEthan]

With HIB you do decide exactly where your money goes, but you do it in terms of a percentage of your payment. So you put $5 in the payment slot, and then you choose how much of a percentage you want to go to each thing. That's what dean meant when he said it was a percentage, but it's not really the same thing as 1 penny from every dollar because each customer gets to decide whether or not they want to donate and how much. It's not meaningfully different from just having you put a dollar amount in each box.

[deanb]

It's still not suggesting that the charity itself is making folks dislike the ending. If a few folks are stupid enough not to see it's a charity and not a kick-starter that's no reason to then deny everyone else from donating to your charity. The goal of the group is to get a new ending yes, but the charity isn't at all related to that. The charity was chosen as a positive focus of the group.

As I said, I'm not saying that. It just makes your cause more attractive. And yes, the charity is not related to it. But apparently as I said that's not what's happening. It doesn't matter if its not related. It gives them a "bad" name, arguably. But there should be no room for arguments.

 

I'm not saying this issue is political. You keep saying that, you saying this isn't political and we all agree. But the stance is not limited to political issues. Political issues was just an example, one that people could read and say "oh.. i see.. ok now I understand". Which I don't get why you don't seem to as you keep repeating this political stuff.

I repeat it because that is what Childs Play have said for their decisions in not accepting more funding through RME.

For example, if someone took a hotly debated political issue and said "Donate to Child's Play to support [insert issue here]", it could cause some very serious problems for us. Clearly what Retake Mass Effect is doing is in no way negative- like I said, it pointed out a dangerous precedent for others to use the charity for agendas we clearly do not support.

It is perfectly understandable that they wouldn't want to be involved in political debate, but they have also reinforced many times they're seemingly fine with RME, though their actions have spoken otherwise.

 

You could argue people who withdraw donations out of spite would be few. I believe the opposite. You see how hurt these people are on the forums regarding the ending? Not all people on RME are as reasonable as you may think. You put your trust on a bunch of people complaining about a video game ending. I am skeptical. These people will withdraw their donations out of spite.

If you really believe you donated to charity unrelated to the movement, you won't withdraw your donation. Regardless of what your reasons may be, your money is still good at Child's Play. They're not throwing it away. Pulling out your money, and then donating to this other one, just says you donated for the cause, not for charity. So then RME can say "We've now raised X dollars for KNTR(did I get the new charity right?)"

Well I guess we'll just have to watch that $80K dwindle down to nothing then. I find it hard to believe that majority of people that would be able to raise $80K are the same people that would equally spitefully remove it all. As for reasons on pulling out, it's pretty reasonable that folks will do so in response to CPCs decision to bar RME from fundraising for them. The same happened with Komen earlier this year. The charity took actions that donators disagreed with and so they withdrew their donations.

 

Well this is the thing, most places that have charity drives it's never on the claim, or even the thought, that the charity is endorsing those doing the charity drive. BHF don't endorse tesco, despite the staff collecting for them. Comic Relief aren't endorsing any schools despite many schools fund raising for them. This is actually the first time I've seen it suggested that by people picking out a charity to donate to that this means that the charity is kinda picking them.

They don't endorse. The keyword is association. You won't let your charity's reputation be tarnished by the fact that pedophiles are protesting on the street, all the while saying "oh and hey. there's a child's play donation box right there. go ahead it's for a good cause".

 

Child's play is not supporting you. You are associating your agenda with Child's play and it hurts them. Again, this whole thing is ridiculous on every level as we are complaining about a video game ending. And I truly believe that you wouldn't be opposed to this if it was something more serious. It is unfortunate, but they are just taking a stand.

How does it hurt them? How is Childs Play hurt at all by RME raising $80K for them? As far as I'm aware, and no one from CPC or PA has mentioned as such, no one has refused to donate to CPC due to the fact they were taking donations off RME. In fact I don't think I've seen a single negative comment with regards to RME and the CPC donations, up until CPC pulled out. It was a rather positive...association. The guys at RME obviously felt that CPC was a charity worth supporting, that's why they chose them above others. It has since become clear CPC didn't feel the same. Which as I said sets shaky ground. There's a clear line of thought along from PA through down to CPC that shows that RME isn't something they support, but will it be as clear for any other gaming groups that wish to do a fund raiser for CPC? Why bother setting up all your stuff through CPC if you're going to be unsure if your "world record stream of most kills in COD in a 72hr period" isn't just going to be cock-blocked a few hours in because PA/CPC don't support killing. Or a week long stream of doing all the Final Fantasy, but hte hosts are shown eating takeaways a lot and PA/CPC decide they don't wish to support that image of gaming lifestyle.

It just opens them up to shaky ground, which means a loss of certainty, and thus a loss of donators and funds. At least if this was related to the FTC thing they could have a clear cut "this is political, we don't want to be involved in anything political", but this is just gaming fandom, it's such a broad and undefined scope and reason.

[Eleven]

I repeat it because that is what Childs Play have said for their decisions in not accepting more funding through RME.

 

It is not. The reason is "Child play has to be the cause". And in this issue, it is not the cause. It is a way to make the cause prettier. We have raised 80k in donations we are awesome. Join us change the ending.

 

I keep repeating this political stuff is just an example. I'm not going to reply to any of this further.

 

Well I guess we'll just have to watch that $80K dwindle down to nothing then. I find it hard to believe that majority of people that would be able to raise $80K are the same people that would equally spitefully remove it all. As for reasons on pulling out, it's pretty reasonable that folks will do so in response to CPCs decision to bar RME from fundraising for them. The same happened with Komen earlier this year. The charity took actions that donators disagreed with and so they withdrew their donations.

 

As I said, you could make any excuse you want. They've given a good reason why they're stopping. You should be able to support that if you truly believe in charity. Withdrawing it, and then donating to another charity... well... i'm not going to repeat myself again.

 

It hurts them because It hurts their reputation. It get's them bad publicity. Why? Because this is such a controversial topic. On one side you have this "you owe us a better ending you lying bastards" on the other you "you are ruining artistic integrity you asshats". Whichever side the charity falls on, they are screwed. Their decision? Fuck all of you, I don't need this bad publicity I'm outta here. Your donations are welcome still, however, and they will be put to good use. We are a charity after all.

 

Their problem is not having the foresight to gauge this thing. If the parents and schoolboards suddenly raise a ruckus with all these 72 hour livestream gaming marathons because video games are for idiots and dumb children who have nothing better to do, and it gets international heat/support no matter how dumb that is, then I would say don't go for this charity. This charity doesn't want to be associated to controversial topics. Screw them.

 

Why bother setting up all your stuff through CPC if you're going to be unsure if your "world record stream of most kills in COD in a 72hr period" isn't just going to be cock-blocked a few hours in because PA/CPC don't support killing.

 

That is their point though, isn't it? All your silly little things and using the charity to legitimize it. Don't do it. If you wanna do a fundraiser, do it for the right reasons. Why? Because this can easily get abused and get out of control.

[Little Pirate]

Before I read this I thought they were going to make a game about Chucky the Doll for a moment...

I can kind of see what point they're trying to get at, but what harm is there in taking donations over a gaming debate? I can't see someone going, "This charity supports angry video gamers, I'm never sending them a penny again!"

[RockyRan]

Before I read this I thought they were going to make a game about Chucky the Doll for a moment...

I can kind of see what point they're trying to get at, but what harm is there in taking donations over a gaming debate? I can't see someone going, "This charity supports angry video gamers, I'm never sending them a penny again!"

 

That's really not why PA doesn't want to be associated with the effort.

 

PA doesn't want to be associated with this for two reasons:

 

1. Way too many people are getting confused as to how/why these donations are even happening. PA is getting a ton of mail/calls by people who think that donating directly contributes to the possibility of being an ending. For a charity that has been running for 10+ years, it's kind of WTF-worthy to be randomly called and asked about some random effort that has nothing to do with the charity as if they had some kind of agreement beforehand. At the very least it starts to put a hindrance on the charity's operations with this random bullshit.

 

2. They're feeling like they're being used as tools to further someone else's agenda, which is absolutely not kosher regardless of what agenda it might be. With the way a lot of these donators are acting, to some people there's an implicit association between Child's Play (a charity) and RME (an unrelated effort). I'm not going to be cynical and say that RME did this with every intention of cashing in on the attention that such an association would get. I think the reasoning just went along the lines of "to prove we're not heartless asshole gamers who just spew venom for fun, we're donating money to a nice charity", but even as non-cynical as I'm trying to get, you can't detach the idea that the idea to donate to Child's Play was a way of helping their agenda. And like I said, using an unrelated charity to further one's agenda is pretty shitty.

 

PA was getting dragged into something it wanted to be no part of. They want people to donate to the charity because they want to donate to the charity. They don't want people to donate to the charity en masse to prove to someone else about something else, because even inadvertently it reduces the charity to a means to an end. They want the charity to speak for itself, not to serve as someone's megaphone.

[deanb]

I repeat it because that is what Childs Play have said for their decisions in not accepting more funding through RME.

It is not. The reason is "Child play has to be the cause". And in this issue, it is not the cause. It is a way to make the cause prettier. We have raised 80k in donations we are awesome. Join us change the ending.

It's to funnel positivity. They've got a group of passionate gamers together, let's do something positive with that. And to this end they've poured money into Child's Play. (And now Kids Need to Read who are rather happy with this. Though they are a totally neutral charity)

 

Well I guess we'll just have to watch that $80K dwindle down to nothing then. I find it hard to believe that majority of people that would be able to raise $80K are the same people that would equally spitefully remove it all. As for reasons on pulling out, it's pretty reasonable that folks will do so in response to CPCs decision to bar RME from fundraising for them. The same happened with Komen earlier this year. The charity took actions that donators disagreed with and so they withdrew their donations.

As I said, you could make any excuse you want. They've given a good reason why they're stopping. You should be able to support that if you truly believe in charity. Withdrawing it, and then donating to another charity... well... i'm not going to repeat myself again.

Yes you can support 'charity', the general idea of giving to charity. But if a specific charity takes actions you disagree with...well..

 

It hurts them because It hurts their reputation. It get's them bad publicity. Why? Because this is such a controversial topic. On one side you have this "you owe us a better ending you lying bastards" on the other you "you are ruining artistic integrity you asshats". Whichever side the charity falls on, they are screwed. Their decision? Fuck all of you, I don't need this bad publicity I'm outta here. Your donations are welcome still, however, and they will be put to good use. We are a charity after all.

What bad publicity? Please show me any bad publicity Child's Play were getting for being the charity of choice of RME. I've only see it become an issue of bad publicity for them since they decided they wanted a change of policy. Penny Arcade themselves have probably taken some flak for their opinion of the ending of ME3, but that's independent of CPC and those donating to it. (Or at least it was...)

 

Their problem is not having the foresight to gauge this thing. If the parents and schoolboards suddenly raise a ruckus with all these 72 hour livestream gaming marathons because video games are for idiots and dumb children who have nothing better to do, and it gets international heat/support no matter how dumb that is, then I would say don't go for this charity. This charity doesn't want to be associated to controversial topics. Screw them.

It's a gaming charity. There are tons of controversial topics in gaming, including games themselves. This is where the problems in their new decree comes, what topics are Child's Play going to be for or against today? What internal/external pressure are they going to bow in to next? Your main concerns over picking a charity should be where the money goes, not where it comes from.

 

Why bother setting up all your stuff through CPC if you're going to be unsure if your "world record stream of most kills in COD in a 72hr period" isn't just going to be cock-blocked a few hours in because PA/CPC don't support killing.

That is their point though, isn't it? All your silly little things and using the charity to legitimize it. Don't do it. If you wanna do a fundraiser, do it for the right reasons. Why? Because this can easily get abused and get out of control.

Which is only ultimately going to hurt Child's Play in the long run. Those streams are a pretty huge income for them. They either really need to lock down exactly what their new policy is or risk all that support in favour of other charities that aren't as restrictive/vague. It's already causing confusion with regards to Tychos comments and how that would affect Humble Indie Bundle. Obviously the PA n CPC guys are fine with HIB, but under the new policy..they're not. So the policy could do with a fair bit of refinement to show why HIB is okay to use CPC as a charity, but RME aren't.

 

 

@RockyRan:

 

1. That's a problem resolved with clarification. Not just going "Stop donating to your charity altogether!". Which has resulted in more confusion that it has resolved.

 

2. But those that feel there's an association between CPC and RME are stupid and most likely few and far between. If I was to feel there was an association between Children in Need and promoting catholicism would they pull out of accepting donations from Catholic schools? No way, they're not morons. RME are hardly cashing on this, it's not some Product Red dealy-o of slapping a charity on your expensive branded gear n going "hey buy our product it supports charity". Nor is it gaining them any publicity. At least CPC wasn't contributing to any publicity until the PA guys posted about it and made a big deal out of it. (See the above link where Kids Need to Read actually are somewhat providing publicity). In fact it was more likely the other way round, this RME/CPC incident certainly seems to be promoting Kids Need to Read at least, I'd never heard of it until now and I'm sure that was the same with Child's Play.

 

PA was getting dragged into something it wanted to be no part of.

This is something Penny Arcade very much wanted to be part of. Child's Play maybe not so much, but maybe don't have the PA guys speaking up on your behalf, the same PA guys that spent last week knocking the idea of disliking and amending the end.

[TheMightyEthan]

Tycho isn't opposed to Bioware changing the ending, it was just Gabe who was.