So can we ban 'begging' threads, or even threads started by other people to have a whip round for posters?

(370 Posts)

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bitsofmeworkjustfine Thu 22-Nov-12 08:16:44

giraffes My messages were not directed at you, i hope you are okay and that mean people leave you alone and you get the support you need on MN.

MY comments were meant that sometimes you cant tell who is having a moan and who is really struggling. and when I read them I feel like I should help more than saying 'poor you' but i'm not in a position to help them and it makes me feel crap.

I was merley pointing out that if only moaning was allowed we could all wade in with our moaning stories and comiserate together, without ignoring the point that the OP is in serious trouble.

If you are in SERIOUS TROUBLE you SHOULD be able to get help.

I want everyone to know my problem is that i want to HELP everyone and cant not that people shouldnt ask for help if they are in serious trouble.

I agree with Olivia PEACE AND LOVE TO ALL

JugglingWithPossibilities Thu 22-Nov-12 08:59:31

Just spotted a line in Obi's post at 15.03 yesterday ....

"People are funny, and ridiculous, and vulnerable, and kind"

- thought that summed us all up rather well smile

and she says we don't generally need protecting from ourselves, which I guess tends to be part of the Mumsnet ethos.

BeerTricksPott3r Thu 22-Nov-12 09:24:12

It's not fair to discriminate though. If threads asking for donations are allowed they all need to be allowed and that isn't the case at the moment.

As I said previously, I'm not bothered much either way, but you can't have the policing of threads soliciting financial/material help whereby some are zapped as concern is expressed as to the motives of the OP and some are left to stand.

Pinot Thu 22-Nov-12 09:27:12

I used the word heartless in one of my posts. I want to make it clear I wasn't referring to the OP. I thought I worded it carefully enough and am sad if it has been misconstrued (but I may be worrying unnecessarily as Chipping also mentioned that word and has explained herself again smile ). Anyway, if it was referring to my post, I didn't mean you, OP, who I know well.

I stated that to post about internet safety re:giving money on a cast-iron genuine thread such as giraffes would be heartless, as no-one should be in any doubt whatsoever that giraffes is a genuine, wonderful poster and that any concerns about scamming would be absolutely incongruous.

So to post about trolly/scamming concerns on her threads/threads started about her would be, in my opinion, horribly misplaced. And create drama.

Hope I've explained myself better smile

BeerTricksPott3r Thu 22-Nov-12 09:31:49

Not if it was a standard MNHQ post on every thread where money was being discussed, Pinot. I think everyone would just get used to it and it wouldn't be taken as an implication that there was anything amiss.

Pinot Thu 22-Nov-12 09:32:52

Wah!
YY I said as MNHQ already post on every thread then for others to wade in was inappropriate.

But MNHQ don't post on every thread?

That's why people do get concerned.

I think the issue with giraffes, if I am understanding it correctly, is kinda separate - abusive PMs are not on, trollhunting is banned, it's simple. But if HQ posted on a thread just to say 'this is not an official MN fundraising campaign, the organizers are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, we have no reason to think they're not genuine but always be aware of internet safety', it'd be simple.

Pinot Thu 22-Nov-12 09:55:17

Helen said they did. Up there ^ ^ Or at least they try to - I guess with a gazillion threads they get to them when they can.

They don't, though, I know Helen's saying that, but they really don't, and it's never a standard message. Which I think is the problem. Because then people inevitably either think they're hinting the OP is a troll when they're not, or there is something different about this thread. So posting only on most of them actually makes it worse, IMO.

BeerTricksPott3r Thu 22-Nov-12 10:20:24

That's an excellent standard message, LRD. I don't think it would be too difficult as most, if not all threads asking for money are Reported anyway, due to the hazey rules on it.

I wouldn't think to report a thread most of the time, because I'm guilty of doing that 'oh, I know this poster, so it's fine' thing we all do. But if it could be done without the warning coming across as anything off, it'd be nice.

BlameItOnTheCuervHoHoHo Thu 22-Nov-12 10:55:10

blimey, thatbastard has got an unfair pasting here hmm fwiw, I think its a tough one. I have been the recipient of a mn whipround and was hugely grateful. but there is a big difference between helping someone who has a sick child/partner/is incredibly ill themselves and the "I have a tin of beans and a pear to last til next month" threads. threads about money rarely go well, and the op shouldnt get a flaming for pointing that out. nor should anyone get a "name" because someone else wants to have a whipround.

I think threads like that can turn into competitive "warm and fuzzies" with people feeling obliged to donate so they dont seem heartless. mners are ace. they are kind, supportive, funny and caring. but they can also be nasty and giraffes pm showed that.

we should report "please donate" threads (although sponsorship pleas arent allowed) so mnhq can post on it.

JugglingWithPossibilities Thu 22-Nov-12 11:16:06

A standard MNHQ post sounds like quite a good idea LRD - and would make life easier for HQ ?

Or could you have two standard messages - one more generously worded where OP was well known, something known by HQ about the cause ?
And another where not much known at all, but no real reason to think anything untoward going on ?

Third category, suspicious and would be deleted by HQ ?

BeerTricksPott3r Thu 22-Nov-12 11:17:32

I think it would be very unfair to deem any thread 'suspicious', if they are to be allowed.

JugglingWithPossibilities Thu 22-Nov-12 11:19:42

But what about if a completely new poster came on immediately asking for money for something very dubious - surely those type of extreme things could happen sometimes ?

Yeah, I agree with beertricks.

I think it'd be important that 'known' posters got exactly the same message. Because that would make it clear that the message isn't about saying 'wooo, trolly troll, hint hint', but it is about reminding people gently that they shouldn't get caught up and give money before thinking it through.

But they could still delete in the normal way if it was dodgy, juggling?

JugglingWithPossibilities Thu 22-Nov-12 11:23:41

But MNHQ and all of us do know much more about some posters and threads than others ? I think a one statement approach is possible though, as long as it was carefully composed to reflect and encompass different situations.

BeerTricksPott3r Thu 22-Nov-12 11:23:58

Juggling, I'm tempted to say that if we're going down the road of "We're all adults" then that's what we'd have to put up with.

JugglingWithPossibilities Thu 22-Nov-12 11:25:08

Yes, that was all I meant about some dodgy threads being deleted by HQ LRD - I was just trying to cover all bases smile

BeerTricksPott3r Thu 22-Nov-12 11:26:24

There's so many bases to coever with this issue, Juggling, that's the problem! grin

HullaBalloo Thu 22-Nov-12 12:23:45

The compassion and generosity that is so often demonstrated here is what makes Mumsnet such a wonderful place but from what I have seen over the years, there often seems to be some sort of backlash after donations have been given. The very people that we were trying to help then end up feeling they have to justify themselves and are upset and hurt which is the last thing that they need.
There is no easy solution, but I wonder if we could somehow moderate these situations ourselves, a bit more formally than is currently done, so that when the inevitable flack starts it is directed at the 'moderators' rather than the recipients.

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 22-Nov-12 12:43:18

LRDtheFeministDragon

But MNHQ don't post on every thread?

That's why people do get concerned.

I think the issue with giraffes, if I am understanding it correctly, is kinda separate - abusive PMs are not on, trollhunting is banned, it's simple. But if HQ posted on a thread just to say 'this is not an official MN fundraising campaign, the organizers are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, we have no reason to think they're not genuine but always be aware of internet safety', it'd be simple.

This is more or less what we do post, LRD. We do always try to make sure that, in addition to our warning about being careful about parting with your cash, we say that we've no reason to suspect the OP.

And we post on every thread that we'd made aware of. Obviously, there may be others that aren't reported to us - but, with the best will in the world, we really can't undertake to patrol the boards for collection threads. We do rely on you folks to report them to us.

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 22-Nov-12 12:44:37

JugglingWithPossibilities

But what about if a completely new poster came on immediately asking for money for something very dubious - surely those type of extreme things could happen sometimes ?

I think those sort of threads would be deleted pretty sharpish.

JugglingWithPossibilities Thu 22-Nov-12 12:50:01

Yes I guess they would be - I was just trying to cover all bases really with a comprehensive approach, and responding to a post that appeared to say all such threads should be allowed to stand - though poster may not have been thinking of these worst case situations.

This thread is not accepting new messages.