If I imagine myself in the shoes of a more conservative potential donor, who is checking the fine print as part of their due diligence, I would be put off by phrases like ‘metamour’, ‘consumption of drugs’ and the repeated mentioning of sexual relationships.
The purpose of disclosure is to provide potential donors with information they consider relevant to their decision process. That some of donors will be persuaded not to donate by the information is a feature, not a bug.
That some of donors will be persuaded not to donate by the information is a feature, not a bug.
That isn’t true as a matter of definition, as you seem to imply. Some donors being persuaded not to donate by the information can be a feature, but it can also be a bug. It has to be decided on a case-by-case-basis, by looking at what the disclosure statement actually says.
The purpose of disclosure is to provide potential donors with information they consider relevant to their decision process. That some of donors will be persuaded not to donate by the information is a feature, not a bug.
That isn’t true as a matter of definition, as you seem to imply. Some donors being persuaded not to donate by the information can be a feature, but it can also be a bug. It has to be decided on a case-by-case-basis, by looking at what the disclosure statement actually says.
It’s better if potential donors are persuaded by content, not by form, ie. choice of words.