*deleted*

[gregorio]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1
Hi Bond 18:

I actually have problems with this. First off I have found Phil Gordon to be highly insulting towards me and Two Plus Two in general. Apparently he didn't like some criticism about his writing he received on this site. Those of you who attended BARGE last year will know where I'm coming from. Gordon also seems to be very disliked by many of our posters, so it's also questionable to me to be supporting someone who has this stature.

But there's another more deeper issue here. If you look around, we don't charge for stuff. Of course, if you're an advertiser you get charged, or if you purchase a book, they're not free, but we don't charge any of our users to participate here and we don't ask them for money. This is something that's important to me and to the philosophy in which we established this site.

But it's also my experience that many people don't like being asked for money no matter how good the cause may be, and again, I personally question whether it should go to someone's cause who has been publicly hostile to us. But I'm going to get even more specific.

At the end of last year I established the Mason Malmuth Foundation. It's a private charity in which I funnel a little of my own money into to support a cause that I happen to like. I've never mentioned it in public before and until now, only a few people knew it even existed. My reason for not mentioning it is simply the fact that I didn't want to make anyone here feel uncomfortable.

So if you want to give some of your own money to some charity (like yours truly), that's great. But I do feel uncomfortable with the idea, and it has happened before, of threads appearing where a poster is asking other posters to donate money to some cause, and this is the case even if the cause is well worthwhile.

Best wishes,
Mason

[iSTRONG]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the idea but am unsure on the percentages.

Don't get me wrong- I like something like this- I'm just not sold on how it plays out yet, and I'm not sold on subsidizing someone's generosity.

It could in theory get wickedly large for the kids and that part intrigues me I guess.

Ima sleep on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason why it ended up like this, is that i first i hadn't even thought of the charity component. I just thought I'd get a gambooling game going where the winner gets 100% of the winnings.
Then thought it'd be nice for children Inc to get a little something.
I guess there could be some fine tuning done, but the concept could be quite fun.

[iSTRONG]

I'm sending back any monies received.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess there could be some fine tuning done, but the concept could be quite fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand and agree I guess with both parts. Like I said I just wasn't positive how the structure struck me at first, which is mostly a result of being up all night.
It did come across as both fun and charitable. I just couldn't grasp the mix right away.

[Gullanian]

I don't see a problem with it, but maybe a compromise? Like getting clearance from mods before making a post like this?

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see a problem with it, but maybe a compromise? Like getting clearance from mods before making a post like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is la nostra barretta approved.

[iSTRONG]

funny thing is that a game where the winner get 100% is allowed. a game where the winner get 80% and the organiser gets 20% is allowed (?). but if you give that 20% to a charity, it's not allowed anymore. little weird.

[mathemagician54]

nobody has any control over what the organizer does with the 20%. you can choose to donate it to charity if you want, just like the winner can as well.

[gregorio]

[ QUOTE ]
funny thing is that a game where the winner get 100% is allowed. a game where the winner get 80% and the organiser gets 20% is allowed (?). but if you give that 20% to a charity, it's not allowed anymore. very weird.

[/ QUOTE ]