I will not claim Daisy

[Harpooha]

I thought the whole idea behind this year’s charity pet was tone deaf and misguided.

I have no problem with MSF. The way this whole thing was handled was stupid. It encouraged players to wait for others to contribute while everyone reaps the reward. This is wrongheaded and personally offensive.

I enjoy collecting pets. But this was the biggest misstep since Graves. I have no intention of supporting this sort of nonsense.

I don’t have a problem if others claim Daisy. But I truly hope that this doesn’t become a template for future charity pets. Let us contribute and get the reward for it. Don’t reward everyone for the efforts of the contributors.

[Hawg]

Don't hurt yourself for a protest no one will ever notice. Claim her while you can. Don't summon her if you are still angry. But don't cut off your nose to spite your face (or however that saying goes).

If you want to protest, do something that has a small chance of actually being noticed (emphasis on "small"), submit a suggestion with the reasons you don't like this new charity model.

For what its worth, I agree this new model sucks. Daisy is the best charity pet yet, I suspect if people had needed to make a donation to get her, that MSF would have received twice the donation. As it is now, all the free-loaders get rewarded.

[Rioriel]

Are we gatekeeping charity donations? Bonkers

The community donated, the community is rewarded.

[Sunderezz]

Two million USD raised to support Doctors Without Borders. Two battle pets given away, each when the goal of 1 million in donations was reached. *Thinks for a moment* And, players free to not accept either pet, plus express their opinions across the web. Seems like a win/win/win/win situation to me.

[FuxieDK]

Two million USD raised to support Doctors Without Borders. Two battle pets given away, each when the goal of 1 million in donations was reached. *Thinks for a moment* And, players free to not accept either pet, plus express their opinions across the web. Seems like a win/win/win/win situation to me.

Actually, the rewards were at 500.000 and 1.000.000, not 1M and 2M.

And the 500.000 reward was more a provocation than a reward, as it was directly taking the piss on serious collectors, because Bananas was kinda rare..

[Prairiehamster]

I contributed - I don't feel like other people getting a reward is somehow insulting to me.

I mean, that's pretty much my argument.

However, it's fine if you don't claim Daisy. I just disagree with the idea that it's somehow offensive if there's a group reward.

[Se7en]

hi there,
I have claimed and happy with that Thanks.

[Sammoyke87]

Imagine if you will a bake sale at a classroom. Teacher decides that for every cupcake the kids can sale one half of the price of the cupcake will go to school supplies, the other half of sales will go to a pizza party to reward the class for their efforts. Now what kind of absolute shit heel of a teacher would deny the kids that couldn't or didn't sell any cupcakes their slice of pizza, watching everyone else eat. That's their punishment for not having sold any cupcakes? When things are "charity" the reward system shouldn't ever be as coldly dictated as say when things are commercial like say a profession or a job. If it was a persons JOB to sell cupcakes , then it would be expected they wouldn't get a slice of pizza, but selling cupcakes wasn't an obligation and the pizza wasn't a paycheck. This wow pet stuff is the same way, Bro its a tactic to entice but not to lock people into a binding sales contract. You didn't BUY the pet, you donated and got a gift, other people didn't donate and got the same gift, but that gift was giveable at the discretion of the gift giver lol. Imagine being mad at Santa as a kid cause he gave you a candy cane for being a good boy/girl but gave the bratty kid behind you a candy cane too. You just gonna not eat santas candy cane cause the whole candy cane gift system is a sham lol. You see the point I'm trying to make with these comparisons I hope? ultimately its just another way to add interest and to these pets and get money flowing, interest peaked, and ultimately scope out different ways to motivate players to two separate things, 1. buy their product i.e. the pets 2. support their sponsors/causes they personally support. There is players that are motivated by self interest and players that are motivated by altruistic endeavors. But I mean you saying you don't want to claim the pet , insinuating you don't care if others do but then try to tack on some moral bs to it is like shooting yourself in the foot and then telling others " its fine if you don't shoot yourself in the foot, but its unfair i have to bleed on myself and hurt right now"