How are anti-poaching and wildlife welfare causes "involve politics" exactly?.. The money is donated directly to groups helping to save animals?

You have liked this post!

We shouldn't be forced to donate if we don't want to, and if we don't want to, then we can't buy GB. That's all I'm saying.

You have liked this post!

No support, then. Like when you buy bread in a real shop, you cant really tell the baker "dont spend money on this or that".
The money people buy the GB with, go to Lioden Ltd and its really not up for users to decide what that money is used for. You dont just "donate" that money - you recieve the GB, and once your purchase is credited to your account, its really out of your hands how the money you paid are used.

You have liked this post!

While I completely support the charity incentives that Lioden takes part in, I also entirely understand where Pegasus is coming from, and I feel like this is a completely reasonable request.

Not only for these reasons, but users may do independent research on charity organizations and find that they don't fully agree with the organizations' methods, or that there is not enough information available - be it on the organization, proof of where funds are allocated, etc - to feel comfortable donating. Not all opt-outs are in bad faith or because they don't agree with the cause, and I feel like that's a completely unfair insinuation to make.

This is not an unreasonable thing to ask. I'd argue it's more detrimental to Lioden's income if users who usually support the game opt out during March simply because there's no option to avoid having their funds go to charity if they don't agree with the particular organizations chosen.

You have liked this post!

No support, solely because I don't really think there is a way for Lioden to implement it, or would reasonably do so.
You'd likely need two completly different bank accounts for this, make sure it gets transfered to the right one and do the bank hassle it comes with.

Neither can you really realistically opt out of what a company does with their money, other than not giving them any and making it clear why.
I mean even if you get the choice to toggle off a button or not during the purchase, it's just a flimsy button in the end with no real authority.

Maybe you just don't like operations run by donations by praxis, but as long as it reasonably doesn't make something worse or inflicts harm, it shouldn't be something ideally to be too hung up about. Raising concerns is usually what people do if they find the precievee of the money is objectionable, but I haven't really heard any concerns for Tusk anywhere.
At worst it's a money sink, but ultimately you do not have control over what happens with the money once it chnages hands.

You have liked this post!

The logistics of how it'd function is the biggest hurdle here, so thanks for acknowledging it.

You have liked this post!

The biggest issue here is you cant really order the seller what to do with money you pay them, once you purchased something from them.

You're not just donating, putting money for a cause and getting no rewards. You GET something for it, you get GB, as many GB as you get when buying any other time. Donating is just Lioden's choice of what to do with that money, for that month. Once you recieve the GB from Lioden, the service is provided, you cannot dictate how Lioden spends their part of the trading exchange, trying to do so is just illogical.

If anything, its Lioden's own good will to even notify you which organisation they donate to, and if they do or dont donate at all. They're not obligated to share that information, or otherwise notify users of what they use the money for. Once you buy GB, the money is no longer yours - you get no say in how Lioden Ltd spends it.

We even have the rules written in the Code of Conduct - "Do not attempt to control what other people do, or how other people play the game." This is very similar. Controlling what the seller does with the money you give them for something you buy from them, is not allowed for users towards other users, so I dont think its a good idea to suggest doing so for the site itself.

Also, for people confused about how it happens. Your information is not included anywhere, you are not the one donating - Lioden does not direct every single payment to the cause right away, they get the money for GB as usual, collecting it on their buisness account through the entire month, and then, once March ends, they get the % from all payments made in March and donate that sum, from their own buisness account, to the charity. Your informations, emails, names or anything at all are not listed in the donation in any way or form, the biggest mention users get is "this money comes from all users on Lioden".

You have liked this post!

I feel like that you're over-complicating the request, Mad, and it feels like the responses to their choice to opt out are coming from a personal place of potential upset with not donating to save animals - at least with the context of your first response in mind. They're literally just inquiring about the potential of an opt-out. Their reasons are personal. The biggest hurdle is the separation of funds to the cause and opt-out funds.

Dredging the Code of Conduct into this is wholly irrelevant and not at all pertinent to the issue at hand. This very likely won't be added due to how much work it'd be to benefit a relatively small amount of users. Their reasons for not wishing to donate, however, are completely valid. But as pointed out, actually implementing it is the hurdle that's not worth it.

You have liked this post!

And you seem to be over-simplifying the issue, Nadir. It is no small thing, and not just a "minor addition", to go against the very principle of trading and marketing.

The user requested "Since a lot of people have already said no, could you explain why? " and so I provided every argument I have against this idea.

And I disagree, Code of Conduct quote does add to the issue discussion. Its another reason why it will not be considered - a game will not add a feature that goes against its own rules.

One's personal reasons may be valid, but they do not automatically make the suggestion fitting to be added to Lioden. It is perfectly fine to be against donating - but the only thing you can do if you are against donating, is to not buy GB from Lioden during that period.
Attempting to control what Lioden does with the money that are no longer yours, is unproductive. Just as I also noted - Lioden is not obligated to notify you what your money were used on, either. Lioden may be spending money on things you dont know about. They have their rights to do it.

You have liked this post!

If you re-read what I wrote, I said that the biggest hurdle is adding it and that's why it probably won't be added and thanked Datrandomcat for pointing it out. I did not say it was a minor addition. I said that I understood where the OP is coming from and that it's not an unreasonable thing to ask. Asking doesn't mean it'll get added, as it'd be too complex. I didn't support because I know it won't be added. I simply came to point out that it's not unreasonable and the tone that seemed to imply they don't like donating to charity was probably in poor taste.

The Code of Conduct has nothing to do with this conversation. It is a ToS section agreement which outlines how users interact with other users while playing the game.

You have liked this post!

Offtopic, but you're mistaking the two, Nadir! Code of Conduct is the list of rules for how users should behave, and interact with one another. The Terms of Service, is the agreement for using Lioden's site, like terms, conditions, buisness contacts, etc legal-stuff. Check the links at the bottom of the page.

Its not poor taste not wanting to donate, every user has the right to support or not support something - but it IS illogical attempting to control money that is out of your hands, but still wanting to get the service from the provider. You cannot, realistically, control what others spend the money on, in any other way except not buying from them - you cannot both get the service and get to tell the provider what to do with money you paid them for it. I have specifically underlined that point many times.

You have liked this post!

I said it is a section of the ToS. It is part of the broader Terms of Service with which the user agrees to use the site, not part of the ToS page specifically. And this is a weird hair to split.

You have liked this post!

No support. You're not donating, the company is, and customers have no right in dictating how money is spent once it's in the custody of another. Not your money, you're not entitled to say what happens to it, from a legal standpoint what an absolute nightmare it would be to do anything to indicate giving customers that authority.

It would be like your boss paying you with the stipulation that you can't spend anything on a Disney product because it's political.

You have liked this post!

Are you also gonna tell business owners that they can't spend their money as they like? If you paid for an art commission, are you gonna tell the artist they can't spend the money on, say, a politically charged t-shirt? You are literally paying for GB, you are not paying the charity, the admins are. You have absolutely no right to dictate what people can and cannot spend money on just because you paid them for the service they provide. Suck it up and don't buy GB if you're that pressed about what happens to money when it's no longer yours.

You have liked this post!

"We shouldn't be forced to donate if we don't want to, and if we don't want to, then we can't buy GB. That's all I'm saying."

But it's not "all you're saying". You said it was political, and then dodged Mad Hyena's question when asked why you think it is. Could you please elaborate?

You have liked this post!