Mercifull Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Thankyou to Mad and Indy for understanding my position on this company. :) Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Clicking every day for an entire year on that site generates LESS than $10 to HungerSite, of which an publicly unknown percentage is actually given to charity by CharityUSA (not a real charity). I ignore what they say on their website because if they really did give 100% to charity then they would have charitable status but as they obviously cream off a fair share for themselves its not the case. Of course because its an American for-profit company they don't have to provide any financial figures saying how much they do give. In theory they could cream it ALL for themselves if they wanted to. Back to the point on the $10/year... what can you buy for $10 these days? Its only about ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã5.08 for me in the UK which buys a Magners and a packet of nuts. That's how insignificant a years worth of slacktivism does. I earn more than that for an HOURS work. How about people actually give some REAL money or support to causes that really deserve it rather than handing your money over to corporations relying on the philanthropy of people. I am arrogant about this, indy500fan, because people are getting rich over this and its NOT the charities I can assure you of that. Instead of clicking the buttons on these sites giving an HOURS pay out of the ENTIRE YEAR and it will still be more benefit. I feel fairly similar. Hence this quote in a previous post. But I can't help wondering if there is any extra money from the shops and advertisement, and where it goes (besides to pay for the sites upkeeping)? Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshrules11 Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 yes altho it doesnt say an amount i click em anyway to help. O and my family does give to world vision thank you very much we sponser a child, my church also does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Back to the point on the $10/year... what can you buy for $10 these days? Its only about ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã5.08 for me in the UK which buys a Magners and a packet of nuts. That stuck out from the post. Elsewhere in the world people live on less than $1 a day. Ever wondered how those countries with a GDP of less than $500 survive? Simple, the prices are lower. In a poor country $0.50 will get you a half a kilogram of rice. $5 is a lot in some countries, that's why they measure the aid in staples of food (mostly rice). A packet of nuts costs so much in the UK because there is demand for them and people are willing and capable to pay it. Why does a packet of nuts cost 10% of the English price in a poor country? Because there is still demand, but less capability of paying high prices. They will still turn a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 You completely missed the point of my post. Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intarweb Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 You completely missed the point of my post. Because your post is nothing but arrogance. Here's my question: What does clicking the link cost you? You crampin' my style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What does clicking the link cost you?Time that could be spent doing real charity work/fund-raising. How do you think my post is arrogant GR? I have simply given the facts that the website is a PROFIT organisation NOT a charity and explained ways in which you can do some REAL benefit for charities. Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 If you have the time to click a link on a website every day then you have got the time to do some fund raising, wash some cars, clean windows, mow lawns for example. That I disagree with. Clicking the link takes maybe 10 seconds out of my day, if that. Fund raising, I know, takes a lot more time. I give to charity when and where I can, but clicking that link daily is something I can do everyday. The efficiency and reliabilty of that website I am yet to be convinced either way over. I can see Merc's point, but in the same vein what if it does go to charity? In which case my 10 seconds is worth it. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intarweb Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What does clicking the link cost you?Time that could be spent doing real charity work/fund-raising. How do you think my post is arrogant? I have simply given the facts that the website is a PROFIT organisation NOT a charity and explained ways in which you can do some REAL benefit for charities. Wait. So clicking that button when you would normally be browsing the internet - which takes less than 10 seconds - is time that could be spent organizing charity work? That is how you're arrogant. By calling people slacktivists, and by making statements like the one above, you ASSUME that when people take 2 seconds to click a link while they are online that is the ONLY type of "giving back" they do. That means, you miss the ENTIRE point of the charity. It is something that doesn't take any time and can be done when you would normally be doing something else. Don't even try and say that click a link is time you could spend organizing charities. What about all those movies you own? I hope you don't ever watch them! That is time you could be organizing charities! Why are you even responding on this forum? That's time you could be spent working on charities! Your arrogance is when you assume that by clicking that link, that is ALL someone is doing - when in reality, it could just be something additional that is done. When I get online to check my email, I can click that link in 10 seconds when I normally wouldn't be doing anything charitable. Who cares if it doesn't all go to charity, it's not costing ME anything. At least, it's not costing me more than all those movies you've bought and watch - because that's a lot more time spent not giving to charities than the 2 seconds it costs me to click a link. You crampin' my style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionheart_0 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Intarweb:You still miss his point. When you click those links, sure some of the money goes towards the actual cause, but not all. Why should the organizations that provide those links get some money when the causes actually need it? So instead of clicking a link and feeling all happy because you made a difference, go out and actually do charity work so that you know where your effort and resources are going, and making sure that no one other then those that actually need the help gets it. Sig by IkuraiYour Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Perhaps when you stop calling the website a charity when its NOT I might listen to your reasoning a bit more. You can raise more money for charity in 10 minutes of fund raising than clicking the website for an ENTIRE year. You are right about my time watching movies and posting on these forums when I could be organising charity events but your point about it is an irrelevant straw man. You are perhaps forgetting, Ghost, that I DO go to charity events, protests across the country and fund raise in my spare time as well as a percentage of my wages going direct to Oxfam? Now you are probably going to flame me now for being arrogant and bragging about how I do work for charity so brag brag brag, I give money to charity! Flame me please because it will only show how bad your argument is if that's the only thing you can construct against me. My point again in simple terms is that doing pretty much ANYTHING for charity is better than clicking the link on the site because the only people getting rich out of it are Corporations and Executives taking advantage of people philanthropy. Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Yeah I'm fairly sure merc wasn't aiming his response towards those that do charity work *and* click that link, just those that do nothing but click the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Ty Nadril Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Based on Merc's reasoning, i'm afraid i've changed my views on this site. I think the idea of it is fantastic, and wouldn't have a problem at all by clicking the link daily if the money was going to charity. What I didn't realise though is that it's a profit organisation with so little money going to charity. On that basis I won't visit the website if all i'm doing is funding an american plutocrat taking the advantage of people's willingness to help. Unless i'm shown some evidence to the contrary (i.e. thousands of cups of food really are being generated and given to charity daily) then I won't be visiting this website. Shame, because it's such a great idea in principle. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 How much of the funding from sponsor ads goes to the beneficiary organizations? All of the money collected from our sponsors for their banner advertisements -- 100% of sponsor banner advertising -- goes to our nonprofit beneficiary organizations. Funds are split between the two beneficiaries with 70% going to fight hunger internationally. The remaining 30% goes to support hunger relief efforts in the United States. You may want to contact the Red Cross or Mercy Corps for further information. They've been online since 1999 and have hundreds of thousands of daily visitors. Why would they have a reason to lie when any activist could've just called the Red Cross by now and asked if they got donations from the site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I'm so confused :( "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I'm so confused :(At the end of the day the only way to ensure your efforts DO go to charity is to give direct rather than hoping a third party profit making company will do it. As CharityUSA don't file their finances publicly we cannot confirm their donations. Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I'm so confused :(At the end of the day the only way to ensure your efforts DO go to charity is to give direct rather than hoping a third party profit making company will do it. As CharityUSA don't file their finances publicly we cannot confirm their donations. Didn't something similar to this occur after September 11th, when 'supposedly' out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of donated money to the Red Cross, less than a %100 percent actually made it to the cause? Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercifull Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 After 9/11 and also the Tsunami many companies offered services for donation collection of which only a percentage was actually distributed to charities and a large portion was kept for themselves. Makes me sad. Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4u689 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Reading between the lines, I would guess that money from banner advertisements DOES go directly to charity. Clicking on the "Donate!" button once a day, however, will do little to nothing. Also, they probably have alternative funding that constitutes where they get most of their money, and it does not go to charity. Like I said, if you really want to help, click on the banners on the site - and then buy products from those bannered sites you clicked on :D Everybody hug and spread the love :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Reading between the lines, I would guess that money from banner advertisements DOES go directly to charity. Clicking on the "Donate!" button once a day, however, will do little to nothing. Also, they probably have alternative funding that constitutes where they get most of their money, and it does not go to charity. Like I said, if you really want to help, click on the banners on the site - and then buy products from those bannered sites you clicked on :D Reading more into it, they said 'banner' advertisements. That's just banners, what about the other advertisement? Why did they specify? Which leads me to Merc's point. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dusqi Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 A similar 'click to donate' site is care2. I don't know whether it's a "for-profit" company though: http://www.care2.com/click2donate/ For it is the greyness of dusk that reigns.The time when the living and the dead exist as one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intarweb Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Perhaps when you stop calling the website a charity when its NOT I might listen to your reasoning a bit more. If any of it goes to charity, which you admit that some does, that portion is a charity. Don't try and pretend like the little that does isn't a charity. You can raise more money for charity in 10 minutes of fund raising than clicking the website for an ENTIRE year. 10 minutes is still about 9 minutes and 50 seconds more than it takes to click a link while I'm doing something else with my time AND clicking the link is not mutually exclusive from spending 10 minutes at a later time doing other charity work. You are right about my time watching movies and posting on these forums when I could be organising charity events but your point about it is an irrelevant straw man. You are perhaps forgetting, Ghost, that I DO go to charity events, protests across the country and fund raise in my spare time as well as a percentage of my wages going direct to Oxfam? Its not irrelevant, because my point is that clicking the link is done while you are spending your time else - surfing the internet - and does not take but 10 seconds away from that. Organizing a charity would be an entirely different event entirely that would take it's own time - which clicking a link does not. Therefore, the two events are not comparable - one takes time for itself, and one takes but 10 seconds while you are surfing the internet. I only bring up the example of how you spend your other time to show you that you are trying to act like clicking the link and organizing charity are mutually exclusive events. My question remains: What is wrong with taking 10 seconds to click a link where your time is otherwise devoted elsewhere? By clicking it YOU don't lose anything. I asked you what you lost, and you claimed time, and that's ridiculous. If you don't lose anything - and at least SOME of the money goes to charity - what is the harm? Now you are probably going to flame me now for being arrogant and bragging about how I do work for charity so brag brag brag, I give money to charity! Flame me please because it will only show how bad your argument is if that's the only thing you can construct against me. No, I won't do that. How would that show how bad my argument is? That's completely irrelevant. If you want to know my argument, read above and answer those questions, because it has nothing to do with flaming you for giving to charities. My point again in simple terms is that doing pretty much ANYTHING for charity is better than clicking the link on the site because the only people getting rich out of it are Corporations and Executives taking advantage of people philanthropy. Tell me this. If I spend my time surfing the internet and I see that link, and DON'T click it - that is better than clicking it? When I'm on the internet, like when YOU'RE on the internet, I'm not doing charity work. So how is that time spent for myself on the internet WITHOUT clicking the link, any better than it is WITH clicking the link? You crampin' my style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshrules11 Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 Look guys, even if a small percentage only (which im not sure of) goes to charity at least it may make some difference and will only take a few seconds out of your day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abyssalwhip Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Ill give some back to the world *walks into bathroom with a newspaper* Your name is "bet you fail", and you're starting a business with your mom? I'm not even going to touch that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now