I’m also confused by this. The use of “and” (instead of, say, “in that”, “because”, or “to the extent that”) suggests that they’ve verified counterfactuality in some stronger way than just “the money won’t go to us this season if you don’t donate”, but then they should be telling us how they know this.
Thanks for updating the wording! I think this is much better.
(I also think that without more information about what the donor will do with any unmatched funds prospective GWWC donors should more or less ignore the match in deciding whether or how much to give, since they probably have similar donation priorities people who would want to offer matching funds to GWWC.)
What will happen to the money counterfactually? Presumably it will be donated to other things the match funder thinks are roughly as good as GWWC?
I’m also confused by this. The use of “and” (instead of, say, “in that”, “because”, or “to the extent that”) suggests that they’ve verified counterfactuality in some stronger way than just “the money won’t go to us this season if you don’t donate”, but then they should be telling us how they know this.
Thanks both. They haven’t shared this with us specifically so I can’t speak for them. They have been very clear that it is a conditional match.
I’ll try updating the wording for clarity.
Thanks for updating the wording! I think this is much better.
(I also think that without more information about what the donor will do with any unmatched funds prospective GWWC donors should more or less ignore the match in deciding whether or how much to give, since they probably have similar donation priorities people who would want to offer matching funds to GWWC.)