Knowledge Base
Community

Charity nominations?

Started by: holier_than_thou
On: 10/11/2018 | 22:02
Replies: 33
Reply

by: ip633
on: 16/11/2018 | 19:24

@woodyuk wrote:

 

 <snip>

When it comes to the earning payback without an active sim debate the answer is in the T&Cs:-

 

7.5. To qualify for Payback Points you must have an active SIM Card at the Payback Date and have successfully made a connecting call or SMS to any mobile or used mobile internet at least once in the 3 months prior to end of the relevant Payback Period.

 

So unless giffgaff are breaching their own T&Cs by paying payback to people who aren't entitled to it which could put them in a very interesting legal position with those members who do have active sims and so are entitled to earn payback I think we can assume that the rule above still applies.

 

In case anyone missed it, Will did say that he was seeking some clarification on the issue of payback eligibility, as explained in this post here. It seems that they’re serious about removing the need for an active sim, but like most of us it seems, I’ve really no idea how that would work in practical terms   Smiley Indifferent

Message 31 of 34
by: t_will
community giff-staffer

on: 16/11/2018 | 20:16 edited: 16/11/2018 | 20:23

@natty_noo wrote:

 

Two things here, firstly, how many charities have you invited to the giffgaff offices for a Halloween bake off? Because the one in question was, and it feels like a bit of bias going on, especially as you're so adamant that they didn't join just for nomination. That's a personal statement, surely?

 

Secondly, how do you know that the members that have gone on to nominate that cause would've done so if it was under the actual registered charities name (registered charities only i believe) instead of under the funds name?

 

I'm sorry, i really don't want to question these things as it's all for charity, but something doesn't sit right with me this time round.

I don't know the details of how the bake-off was arranged. Charities contact us and we contact charities for activities in the office fairly regularly. We just finished a drive for Samaritan's Purse's Operation Christmas Child, we're taking part in the Big Sleepout for Trinity (a homelessness charity), we collect for Hillingdon Food Bank, we do afternoon tea sessions with Contact The Elderly, and so on.

 

When they were here, they asked if they could be involved in more charitable activity with giffgaff. They'd put themselves forward to the nominations before and not got any traction, and asked if there was anything we could do. When it was brought to me, I said that they'd be welcome to try again, but that they'd have to rely on member nominations and their nomination wouldn't be endorsed by us.

 

I don't have any insight on whether people would have nominated differently if it was named differently, but I also don't know why that's a point of contention. The cause doesn't become any more or less worthy just because it has a different name, and I trust giffgaffers to do their research into a charity before nomination. I don't believe anyone's been hoodwinked or unduly influenced. Plenty of charitable organisations have emotive names and stories.

 

 

@magspider, I'm not sure what inappropriate content that's aimed at you that you're talking about, there - I've had a look through the nominations thread and all I can see is your nomination and a post where you thanked some folks who nominated, and everything I've seen addressed to you has been positive or benign - I hope I haven't missed any. I'll happily take a look at any you want to send my way, either in PM or reporting for my attention. I'm on a break for the next week, but I'll take time to address that even though I'm out.

 

In terms of undue prominence, I think you're stretching the definition. There is no endorsement by us and I would welcome any charity that would like to do the same. Anyone can campaign for their chosen charity, and whenever charities have come to the community to ask about how they would be included, the member response has been the same - to tell them about the charity Payback window and to invite them to convince the community to support their charity at the appropriate time. The fact that someone has been successful at that might be new, but I don't see it as cause for concern.

giffgaff Community Rewards and Recognition specialist
Feeling chatty? You can send me a message and we'll get rolling. Need a topic? Try here.
Message 32 of 34
by: magspider
on: 27/11/2018 | 22:52

 

@t_will wrote:



@magspider, I'm not sure what inappropriate content that's aimed at you that you're talking about, there - I've had a look through the nominations thread and all I can see is your nomination and a post where you thanked some folks who nominated, and everything I've seen addressed to you has been positive or benign - I hope I haven't missed any. I'll happily take a look at any you want to send my way, either in PM or reporting for my attention. I'm on a break for the next week, but I'll take time to address that even though I'm out.

 

In terms of undue prominence, I think you're stretching the definition. There is no endorsement by us and I would welcome any charity that would like to do the same. Anyone can campaign for their chosen charity, and whenever charities have come to the community to ask about how they would be included, the member response has been the same - to tell them about the charity Payback window and to invite them to convince the community to support their charity at the appropriate time. The fact that someone has been successful at that might be new, but I don't see it as cause for concern.

 

 

I see much of this post as being deliberately contrarian, maybe to spice up discussion. My point has also been misunderstood, perhaps conflated with similar but different points being made by others.

 

While an organising or group may be welcome to petition for support, to do so within the nomination thread is not suitable. This seems to have been instinctively picked up by the other educators.

 

As for my specific objection, a member has clearly stated that one nominee does not deserve the money, deriving bizarre conclusions from looking at the charity commission website. Again, this is a direct attack taking place on the nomination thread.

 

 

 

[ No spiders were harmed in the making of this post ]

Join giffgaff, get £5 free bonus credit
Message 33 of 34
Highlighted
by: orlf
on: 29/11/2018 | 22:42
I also think it was off colour to allow a person to post an attack upon one of the nominated charities within the nomination area, indeed at all.

Their analysis in the name of transparency is one thing, but questioning how deserving the cause is feels very wrong.

I'm Orlf. It's a Norwegian name.
Message 34 of 34