Giving Machines

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Then that is even easier, no?

"Hey, Catholic Charities. I see you provide goats to needy families. How many goats do you need? 1000? Cool. We got you covered."

Piece of cake.

The church then proceeds to collect for 1000 goats and then gives Catholic Charities the funds for the goats. What the church doesn't/shouldn't do is collect for 5000 goats, realize they have all this extra donated money for goats that they don't need, and then send it to some other organization.

That just pushes the research down to Catholic Charities, it still costs time and resources that has to come from somewhere.  The more precise accounting/tracking is, the more expensive it is.  Once the costs of good accounting exceeds that saved by the accounting practices, it needs to be examined if the additional costs of tracking adds appropriate value.  That would depend on the context, imo.  I am not sure helping people feel better about their donation is of a greater value than having that money go to more clean water, goats, cows, backpacks, clothing, medicine...whatever is currently needed.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would suggest that almost all people would want to verify a few things before giving their credit card information and/or money to a machine without knowing who the charity is and what your money will be used for, and what percentage of your money will be used for the charity.

Here are a few better, close up views of other machines where it seems almost impossible to miss .  Again, who wouldn't read what it was all about first?  

Thanks for sharing those pictures. I'm assuming the "impossible to miss" disclosure is that small print below "Light the world one donation at a time".

I can't read it from the picture. That print is smaller than even the card inside the machine asking for the goat donation.   I guess if I were in front of the machine, and crouched down to belly level I'd be able to see it better.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But I don't know if the family and friends of mine who donate are even aware of this possible conundrum in the first place.  They may have every reason to trust the process, Mormons are good at trusting things without a whole lot of critical thinking especially when it comes to their church.  

Are you saying they can't read, can't comprehend what they read, or are too careless to read? (Since the info is right next to the money slot)

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

That just pushes the research down to Catholic Charities, it still costs time and resources that has to come from somewhere.  The more precise accounting/tracking is, the more expensive it is.  Once the costs of good accounting exceeds that saved by the accounting practices, it needs to be examined if the additional costs of tracking adds appropriate value.  That would depend on the context, imo.  I am not sure helping people feel better about their donation is of a greater value than having that money go to more clean water, goats, cows, backpacks, clothing, medicine...whatever is currently needed.

Calm,

Now you seem to be arguing against "good accounting" because it costs too much. I would expect good accounting to be a requirement for any charity, but whatever. 

I'm exasperated and so are you. It's time for me to drop it.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing those pictures. I'm assuming the "impossible to miss" disclosure is that small print below "Light the world one donation at a time".

I can't read it from the picture. That print is smaller than even the card inside the machine asking for the goat donation.   I guess if I were in front of the machine, and crouched down to belly level I'd be able to see it better.

Anyone who can see well enough to know where to put the money can see well enough to read the info.  They may choose not to, but that is their choice.  No one is telling them not to read it.  No one is telling them just give your money without question.

There may be some who lack enough education in .English or who for other reasons who can't read it, but then it makes sense to simply not give money if you are aware you aren't capable of understanding the info provided.  There are a myriad of ways to donate to charity, vending machines are only one minor option no one is forced to use.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the pictures. 

Who wouldn't read the fine print?  Possibly Mormons who never question a word out of their leaders mouths because they have a testimony that God is in charge of everything that the church does.  Why question God?  

You're just getting insulting now. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by ksfisher

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Calm,

Now you seem to be arguing against "good accounting" because it costs too much. I would expect good accounting to be a requirement for any charity, but whatever. 

I'm exasperated and so are you. It's time for me to drop it.

There is good accounting and there is excessive accounting.  I think I made it clear that when costs of accounting exceeds savings from the accounting, that is when it may become not "good accounting", but foolish accounting (pennywise, pound foolish).

I remember spending with another worker a couple of hours trying to figure out where a difference of a couple of dollars occurred from the cash register, probably costing my boss at least twenty bucks in overtime.  It was an unusual occurrence as we usually were under a buck difference and it wasn't a pattern to show likely dishonesty.  In a small business, that only made money three months out of the year, that was great accounting, but stupid business imo.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"People like me" are so difficult. We want the charity to do what they say. I am not "demanding" they do anything. I'm expecting them to do what they say and I think they should be open to criticism if they don't.

I stand by my original statement.

 

[stemelbow]

I'm quite pleased with the giving machines thing.  If the Church is honest about this:  "100 percent of your donation will be used for the purchased item or for similar items or services of greater need as determined by the applicable charitable organization. Administrative costs for this campaign and costs associated with its nonprofit partners are covered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ."  Then that's awesome.  they are not only collecting donations that you and I give and handing it over to appropriate charities, but it also donates more moneys to cover the costs the other charities incur in doing their business.  

This is the type of stuff the church should do more of, if you ask me.  I donated last year and this year.  If they had this running all year, I'd do it.  If it somehow came out the church is not donating all the moneys collected and not paying the costs the other charitable groups incur, I'd like to know.  I know charities can be big business and kind of scammy, but so far I like what I see here. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by stemelbow

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm quite pleased with the giving machines thing ..."100 percent of your donation will be used for the purchased item or for similar items or services of greater need as determined by the applicable charitable organization. Administrative costs for this campaign and costs associated with its nonprofit partners are covered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ."  Then that's awesome.

It's pretty clear, hey? I'm with you: it's awesome!

[Prof]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm quite pleased with the giving machines thing.  If the Church is honest about this:  "100 percent of your donation will be used for the purchased item or for similar items or services of greater need as determined by the applicable charitable organization. Administrative costs for this campaign and costs associated with its nonprofit partners are covered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ."  Then that's awesome.  they are not only collecting donations that you and I give and handing it over to appropriate charities, but it also donates more moneys to cover the costs the other charities incur in doing their business.  

This is the type of stuff the church should do more of, if you ask me.  I donated last year and this year.  If they had this running all year, I'd do it.  If it somehow came out the church is not donating all the moneys collected and not paying the costs the other charitable groups incur, I'd like to know.  I know charities can be big business and kind of scammy, but so far I like what I see here. 

I wanted to rep you but couldn't.

I am right with you. I am glad that the Church is covering administrative and fund raising costs! Sometimes I will get a request in the mail from a charity and when I research them, only a dime from every dollar donated gets to the actual cause. The majority of the donation is used for overhead and fund raising.

Myself, I wouldn't mind if some money I donated went to another worthy cause where the need was greater. I would mind if it went for overhead and fundraising.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We want the charity to do what they say. 

Which they are.  That is what you seem to be ignoring and insisting they do what you say they are doing...which is not an accurate portrayal.  You have to go to people ignoring what the signs say to fit your scenario.

This reminds me of kids complaining they didn't get a Pokémon on the outside of the package when the pack is clearly indicated "Random Cards".  

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even if you don't care, can you appreciate that some people might?

Let's say you donate to a charity with the mission of ending poverty. Good mission. Would it bother you at all if those charitable funds went towards contraceptive services and planned parenthood style services in other countries? If you still say you don't care, that's cool. You're being consistent. The money is going to help some person, somewhere, somehow.

If you do care how the donate money is spent in this case, then you aren't being consistent because even though it doesn't matter to you how the money is spent in one case, it does matter in another.

Before I donated I would check the reputation of the charity and make sure that what they are doing is something I agree with. Then I would donate to them and not care exactly how they use it.
I know that the church would only partner with charities that support worthy causes that I would also support. Therefore I don't care what they do with my donation.

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you saying they can't read, can't comprehend what they read, or are too careless to read? (Since the info is right next to the money slot)

I've said this a few times already, that from my experience people rarely read the fine print, and that they already have a level of trust in the institution that wouldn't have them even questioning in the first place.  

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing those pictures. I'm assuming the "impossible to miss" disclosure is that small print below "Light the world one donation at a time".

I can't read it from the picture. That print is smaller than even the card inside the machine asking for the goat donation.   I guess if I were in front of the machine, and crouched down to belly level I'd be able to see it better.

I don't know, maybe it is just me, but if a vending machine was asking for $10-$50 for goats and chickens, etc. This is what would go through my mind - "What is this all about? Who is this? Where is my money really going?  Can I trust this? Where can I read a little more about this before buying a goat?"  "Oh...right there, conveniently located where I put my money in."

The print is small, but I can almost 100% guarantee that was the designer's choice and not the church's coordinated attempt to deceive and hide from full transparency, as the accusation goes.  The design is simple, neat, and clean.  Designers hate to clutter things up with too many words - it can look messy.  

This is how I imagine it happened.  The church hired a company to design the vending machines with a list of things that must be included.  On that list of things that must be included was the full disclosure statement with directions to place it in a convenient location for donors to read.  So the designer placed it right where they put their money in a designer friendly way.

[ksfisher]

Just now, pogi said:

The design is simple, neat, and clean.  Designers hate to clutter things up with too many words - it can look messy.  

And designers know that if they use too many words people stop reading.

My wife, who works in the exhibit business, says 50 words is the max for a sign.  Any more and people don't read them.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I don't know, maybe it is just me, but if a vending machine was asking for $10-$50 for goats and chickens, etc. This is what would go through my mind - "What is this all about? Who is this? Where is my money really going?  Can I trust this? Where can I read a little more about this before buying a goat?"  "Oh...right there, conveniently located where I put my money in."

I suspect this is right for the people who have no idea what the machines are for? But what about members who know about the giving machines. There's been a lot of publicity about them. I suspect most members think they understand the purpose of the machines and what they've been told. I can't imagine many members, having heard all about this program, reading the fine print to see if their donation actually goes to the place they designate.

The print is small, but I can almost 100% guarantee that was the designer's choice and not the church's coordinated attempt to deceive and hide from full transparency, as the accusation goes.  The design is simple, neat, and clean.  Designers hate to clutter things up with too many words - it can look messy.  

I agree with that. I suspect that's why fine print is generally "fine" print. No one wants to clutter up their brochure or advertisement with lots of extra words, especially if reading those words might dissuade someone from using their product.

This is how I imagine it happened.  The church hired a company to design the vending machines with a list of things that must be included.  On that list of things that must be included was the full disclosure statement with directions to place it in a convenient location for donors to read.  So the designer placed it right where they put their money in a designer friendly way.

I first heard about this program last year. I thought it sounded like a great idea. I still really like the concept. I didn't know until today that there was fine print stating essentially that if I buy a goat I may not actually be buying a goat. It sounds like everyone in the world knew about the fine print except me. Well...I don't really believe that. I suspect there are MANY people who have heard all about this who don't know about the fine print and would donate without looking for or reading it.

In the story it talks about an Activities Day Class that went so the girls could make donations. I wonder if the fine print was explained to them. But then again, the disclosure was probably at eye level so I would expect them to do their due diligence and read it themselves. If they're disappointed that they didn't really buy a goat for a needy family, they'll just have to get over it because they've got no one to blame but themselves  

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What the church doesn't/shouldn't do is collect for 5000 goats, realize they have all this extra donated money for goats that they don't need, and then send it to some other organization.

According to the disclaimer, this is NOT what is happening.  The Church gives the associated charity the money for 5000 goats, and it is up to the associated charity whether they buy 5,000 goats, or 1,000 goats + 10,000 chickens.  Your beef isn't with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; it's with the charities that they have partnered with.

 

Edited to add the text of the disclaimer.  Emphasis mine:

 

Quote

100 percent of your donation will be used for the purchased item or for similar items or services of greater need as determined by the applicable charitable organization. Administrative costs for this campaign and costs associated with its nonprofit partners are covered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Stormin' Mormon

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I first heard about this program last year. I thought it sounded like a great idea. I still really like the concept. I didn't know until today that there was fine print stating essentially that if I buy a goat I may not actually be buying a goat. It sounds like everyone in the world knew about the fine print except me. Well...I don't really believe that. I suspect there are MANY people who have heard all about this who don't know about the fine print and would donate without looking for or reading it.

In the story it talks about an Activities Day Class that went so the girls could make donations. I wonder if the fine print was explained to them. But then again, the disclosure was probably at eye level so I would expect them to do their due diligence and read it themselves. If they're disappointed that they didn't really buy a goat for a needy family, they'll just have to get over it because they've got no one to blame but themselves  

Just to clarify, because it is hard to tell.  You do agree then that this was a design issue and not intentional deceit on the church's part?

Should the church spend more donation money that could otherwise be used to help needy people to man an attendant at each machine to explain disclaimer in person?  And if they did, do you really think that would have a significant impact on their donations?  I don't. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think this thread Is an almost perfect display case for the impossible-to-satisfy nit-pickery and everyone-is-out-to-deceive-me paranoia that inform and feed the critical mindset. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the pictures. 

Who wouldn't read the fine print?  Possibly Mormons who never question a word out of their leaders mouths because they have a testimony that God is in charge of everything that the church does.  Why question God?  

And that somehow translates to the church being not transparent and deceptive in this particular case?  Do you honestly think that their instructions to the designer included the following: "As far as the disclaimer goes, make sure it is as inconspicuous as it possibly can be - small and hard to read please. That way Mormons  Latter-day Saints who never question their leaders will be duped into buying a chicken instead of a goat".  I am struggling to understand your accusation here. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by pogi

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think this thread Is an almost perfect display case for the impossible-to-satisfy nit-pickery

That was my husband's reaction (he has been intimately involved in a few charities, one horrible one that just wouldn't listen to basic good practice advice from anyone and a number of good ones...entrepreneurs often start charities after they have made good).

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

In the story it talks about an Activities Day Class that went so the girls could make donations. I wonder if the fine print was explained to them. But then again, the disclosure was probably at eye level so I would expect them to do their due diligence and read it themselves. If they're disappointed that they didn't really buy a goat for a needy family, they'll just have to get over it because they've got no one to blame but themselves  

I wouldn't blame minors who are pushed as a group activity to do so for misunderstanding. I would hold the adult responsible for organizing the activity to inform parents what was going on as well as the kids so they could decide if that was what they wanted to do.  I think it would be silly for them to be upset if it was explained to them that other needs were met, but I wouldn't be surprised if they would be disappointed they couldn't be sure what a family or individual got.  Hopefully they are mature enough to care mainly that their money went to help someone in a way that they needed the help.  If not, perhaps a lesson in what charity should really mean would be helpful.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I've said this a few times already, that from my experience people rarely read the fine print, and that they already have a level of trust in the institution that wouldn't have them even questioning in the first place.  

And why is this a problem?  It is still their adult choice to trust or not, their choice not to read fine print.  Are you suggesting the Church should treat them as children and hand hold them through each process, testing them for full comprehension before they are allowed to commit to this or anything else done by the Church?

Edited December 20, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think I'm demanding anything.

Of course you are. You are demanding how the charity spend your money. 

 

Quote

I'm simply expecting the church to fulfill the service they are offering to me.

The church is fulfilling the service they are offering to you.

The problem, it seems, is that you are dissatisfied with the service that is actually being offered and would prefer, instead, that the church offer a different service more to your liking - namely, one that would allow you to earmark your donations to be used for specific purposes only.

As I said before, if you demand that kind of control over your personal donations, that's totally fine. There are charitable organizations out there which cater to very specific needs and only spend funds on those specific needs. It seems like you have found such an organization which you are pleased with. I think that's awesome. Please continue contributing to that worthwhile goal. Clean, potable water is something everyone needs.

Others, however, are happy to donate to certain charitable organizations without feeling the need to have those entities be rigidly bound to spending funds based on their (the donors') personal preferences. 

I mean, (and this isn't directed at you by the way) there's a certain amount of hubris that seems to be implicit in the notion that someone like me, as I sit at my computer in my climate controlled building in my first world country, has got a better idea of people's needs than the workers who are on the ground running these charities. 

If I buy a goat and some family ends up with a goat - great! But if it turns out that the family who needed the goat just so happens to live in a village which was recently raided by a rival tribe who killed the father and gang raped the mother, who now has HIV, and the responding relief organization ends up re-purposing my donation to buy her enough medication to keep her alive in order to care for her children another year instead of delivering a goat, yeah - I'm cool with that. 

 

Quote

I didn't go out and demand that they allow me to purchase and donate a goat. They offered me the option but then seem take it away and you seem to think that means I'm demanding.

Again, that isn't what was offered. What was offered was the ability to donate the cash equivalent of a goat to help someone in need.

The charitable organization receiving those funds then uses 100% of those monies to help people in need - just as they promised - either by purchasing a goat or by purchasing something else that is needed even more than a goat. That seems like a really efficient way of handling things, if you ask me. 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by Amulek
spelling > me