As far as I'm aware this wasn't even perceived as a problem until a 1 off situation. That 1 off situation being highly controversial in this community.
You'd be wrong there, a similar situation with the same user (to my knowledge) being involved that happened at the start of hexbear/chapo.chat and a bunch of users got banned, including the user people donated/gave the money to. It's been ongoing since the chapotraphouse subreddit days.
It really seems like you have entirely missed their point, to be honest. All they're advocating for is a rule change to facilitate discussion, not in any way trying to identify liars.
So you need to either tell me how you are going to verify people's claims or how you are going to protect against social engineering that reddit-like sites are famous for. It literally isn't possible. All the claims are true or they aren't. This isn't complicated.
A user of this comm got a substantial amount of money from donations here and it didn't work out; they basically ended up in the same place as they were within a month without durably improving their situation. There were some people who thought this person might have squandered the money in various ways, potentially in ways that were not healthy.
It's difficult to separate those concerns from putting conditions on the aid, but I personally think some of those concerns were out of genuine desire to see the person not fall into self-destructive patterns. I don't know if it's appropriate or not to have those concerns, but this rule change prevents any discussion or suggestions that might be more constructive.
I hope this is helpful framing of the conversation without denigrating anyone.
Certainly better than grandstanding. Thank you. My points stand. There is no way to vet any of this. It is either caveat emptor or full ban. I am fine with either.
Where in any post are they advocating for vetting? You have a really strong opinion about something everyone already agrees with but somehow that means you disagree with their point of offering advice instead of just money?
The same somebody is pretty open about their use and/or addiction to things on the same forums that they've asked for a few bucks
Commenters chirp about "not being an addict" and "don't give money to this person because they are probably going to use it for drugs"
I'm hoping this is what the rule is in reference to. Could also be comfortable with it being in reference to comments telling them to go find a food pantry or shelter etc.etc. when they weren't asking for helping finding or navigating those services.
I am 99% positive, nobody is asking to vet the user who's asking for ramen money if, in fact, they are going to be using it for ramen instead of drugs or booze or socks or something.
deleted by creator
You'd be wrong there, a similar situation with the same user (to my knowledge) being involved that happened at the start of hexbear/chapo.chat and a bunch of users got banned, including the user people donated/gave the money to. It's been ongoing since the chapotraphouse subreddit days.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
It really seems like you have entirely missed their point, to be honest. All they're advocating for is a rule change to facilitate discussion, not in any way trying to identify liars.
deleted by creator
So you need to either tell me how you are going to verify people's claims or how you are going to protect against social engineering that reddit-like sites are famous for. It literally isn't possible. All the claims are true or they aren't. This isn't complicated.
This is a wild point to argue when you literally admitted not having context
Not my problem. Maybe include it in the post.
It’s not anybody else’s problem if they ignore/tell you to kick rocks for purposeful ignorance
So are you gonna link me the context or keep being obtuse
No, I will not
Ok well I am glad my instincts about this not being a serious post were correct then
“If context isn’t served to me on a silver platter, I will simply ignore”
Removed by mod
Good faith huh
Removed by mod
A user of this comm got a substantial amount of money from donations here and it didn't work out; they basically ended up in the same place as they were within a month without durably improving their situation. There were some people who thought this person might have squandered the money in various ways, potentially in ways that were not healthy.
It's difficult to separate those concerns from putting conditions on the aid, but I personally think some of those concerns were out of genuine desire to see the person not fall into self-destructive patterns. I don't know if it's appropriate or not to have those concerns, but this rule change prevents any discussion or suggestions that might be more constructive.
I hope this is helpful framing of the conversation without denigrating anyone.
Certainly better than grandstanding. Thank you. My points stand. There is no way to vet any of this. It is either caveat emptor or full ban. I am fine with either.
deleted by creator
Where in any post are they advocating for vetting? You have a really strong opinion about something everyone already agrees with but somehow that means you disagree with their point of offering advice instead of just money?
Somebody asks for a few bucks for some ramen.
The same somebody is pretty open about their use and/or addiction to things on the same forums that they've asked for a few bucks
Commenters chirp about "not being an addict" and "don't give money to this person because they are probably going to use it for drugs"
I'm hoping this is what the rule is in reference to. Could also be comfortable with it being in reference to comments telling them to go find a food pantry or shelter etc.etc. when they weren't asking for helping finding or navigating those services.
I am 99% positive, nobody is asking to vet the user who's asking for ramen money if, in fact, they are going to be using it for ramen instead of drugs or booze or socks or something.
Why the fuck is today suddenly Transphobia Day on hexbear