happybunny22000
Warren Veteran
generally speaking, not many people join to fundraise, the come, join, learn then maybe fundraise so I thinj the 100 post is a good idea
How do we know it's your passport/driving licence though and not your mums?
We can introduce a minimum post count if that would make people feel more comfortable. I think there are times when there would be exceptions though. Eg what if someone from a rescue asked for a fundraising event to be highlighted but didn't have time to be posting online or didn't have internet access. Perhaps someone from an RSPCA branch asked for an event to be highlighted but wasn't a forum member. I know some users highlight events for rescues they help out at offline.
How do we know it's your passport/driving licence though and not your mums?
We can introduce a minimum post count if that would make people feel more comfortable. I think there are times when there would be exceptions though. Eg what if someone from a rescue asked for a fundraising event to be highlighted but didn't have time to be posting online or didn't have internet access. Perhaps someone from an RSPCA branch asked for an event to be highlighted but wasn't a forum member. I know some users highlight events for rescues they help out at offline.
it would be easy for a person who volunteers in the admin of a larger rescue, such as Wood Green, to send an email verifying they have received funds.
A quick question though too to Tamsin. When you say has to have written permission from the rescue, in the cases of say Fat Fluffs and maybe other rescues as well where there are trustees and a couple of very trusted volunteers on here can we provide you with a list of user names for people who have our permission in advance to post straight to fundraising or give us and the rescues access to post straight to fundraising without going through the mods? It would seem a bit silly for a trustee to have to get permission from "the rescue" when they are the rescue so to speak?
Woodgreen did contact me and verify that they had received £145 (the total raised to that date) that's why the fundraising was allowed to continue.
no what I meant was - with regard to the recent scam, 'maggie' could have been a volunteer at wood green, who sent the email herself - would be easy to do with a larger rescue, which is why I mentioned that the manager of the rescue or the owner of the rescue should verify it, rather than just a member of staff/volunteer.
Yes, woodgreen definitely received £145.
I don't think we can have rules in place to catch corrupt staff members of rescues :shock: How am I meant to know which member of staff is the manager if they are intercepting phone/emails?
When it's a raffle being run with a prize at the end of it, maybe the prize could be kept at the rescue that funds are being raised for so they could confirm that it actually exists, rather than the individual fundraiser merely saying that they have a prize that DOESN'T exist?