Thank you for this comment. While I initially found the analysis of Vetted Causes plausible and worth addressing, your comments (and ACE) made me update positively in your favor. They were very clear and constructive. I changed my mind on this topic.
I am now concerned that Vetted Causes 1/​ Continues to make strong claims suggesting ill-intent, when this can be explained by honest mistakes from their or Sinergia’s part 2/​ Is not trying to discuss these matters with the charity beforehand, which would save a lot of time and reputational harm to everyone (including us readers who have to wait days before getting the position of both sides). This doesn’t look good.
Note: I think you got some downvotes on this comment because you reused the same text four times in this comment thread. This is probably not good for readability. I think next time you can just make this one comment and link to it elsewhere.
Yesterday, I went through thecommentsfrom Carolina Galvani on Vetted Causes’ reviews of Sinergia’s work on helping pigs. It seems to me that ACE and Sinergia made significant mistakes. You can see why in this comment, and my replies to Carolina’s comments. I would be curious to know your thoughts on my comments.
Hi Vasco, I haven’t looked at this discussion for many months, and don’t exactly remember the technical points. I also don’t have a lot of time to dedicate on the topic since they weren’t part of my donation portfolio (but mostly because I haven’t look into what Synergia do).
I think this is an interesting discussion to have to clarify whether there has been an exaggeration, but first in the format of an actual 1-1 discussion with people at Synergia or ACE to understand more quickly whether this is a matter of lower cost-effectiveness, or just the website not being up to date.
As a note, I think you are more qualified to discuss this topic than Vetted Causes, since they directly burned bridges and caused reputational harm to the org based on shaky arguments that might have been dispelled with a 30 minutes discussion (although it’s not impossible a few of them are true, looking at your comments). Same for their recent posts on the Society for the Protection of Insects.
Many thanks for your comment CB! I will fix the issue of reusing the same text now. I didn’t know it was considered bad for readability. I appreciate you taking time to explain this.
Thank you for this comment. While I initially found the analysis of Vetted Causes plausible and worth addressing, your comments (and ACE) made me update positively in your favor. They were very clear and constructive. I changed my mind on this topic.
I am now concerned that Vetted Causes 1/​ Continues to make strong claims suggesting ill-intent, when this can be explained by honest mistakes from their or Sinergia’s part 2/​ Is not trying to discuss these matters with the charity beforehand, which would save a lot of time and reputational harm to everyone (including us readers who have to wait days before getting the position of both sides). This doesn’t look good.
Note: I think you got some downvotes on this comment because you reused the same text four times in this comment thread. This is probably not good for readability. I think next time you can just make this one comment and link to it elsewhere.
Hi CB,
Yesterday, I went through the comments from Carolina Galvani on Vetted Causes’ reviews of Sinergia’s work on helping pigs. It seems to me that ACE and Sinergia made significant mistakes. You can see why in this comment, and my replies to Carolina’s comments. I would be curious to know your thoughts on my comments.
Hi Vasco,
I haven’t looked at this discussion for many months, and don’t exactly remember the technical points. I also don’t have a lot of time to dedicate on the topic since they weren’t part of my donation portfolio (but mostly because I haven’t look into what Synergia do).
I think this is an interesting discussion to have to clarify whether there has been an exaggeration, but first in the format of an actual 1-1 discussion with people at Synergia or ACE to understand more quickly whether this is a matter of lower cost-effectiveness, or just the website not being up to date.
As a note, I think you are more qualified to discuss this topic than Vetted Causes, since they directly burned bridges and caused reputational harm to the org based on shaky arguments that might have been dispelled with a 30 minutes discussion (although it’s not impossible a few of them are true, looking at your comments). Same for their recent posts on the Society for the Protection of Insects.
Many thanks for your comment CB! I will fix the issue of reusing the same text now. I didn’t know it was considered bad for readability. I appreciate you taking time to explain this.