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.
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.