Are you making a case for eliminating the Marketplace forum?
I think you are assuming ill intent where none exists. If I am feeling so inclined to provide financial assistance I would want to know where to go and peruse the various requests. Preferably somewhere they hang around on the front page for a while. Not somewhere I am only likely to see the most popular or the one that just happened to be posted in the past few hours.
Because you don’t have to get special permission from the staff to start a debate. Since you do have to get special permission to start a request for monetary assistance it seems sensible to have a boiler plate statement. If nothing else it would help the staff. It would make it fairly obvious when a solicitation thread should or should not be reported for not having authorization.
I think we’ve reached the solution in search of a problem phase. There’s nothing inherently unreasonable about adding a new sticky in MPSIMS, requiring longer disclaimers in donation threads, or moving them to the Marketplace. I don’t think we’re going to do any of those and I don’t see them as necessary or superior to the current state of affairs, but I agree they’re not terrible ideas and I appreciate the suggestions.
Lute Skywatcher, you (and everyone else) have already been instructed to stop discussing your thread and your personal situation. Don’t make me warn you for saying thanks or explaining yourself, and I remind everybody else to let the subject go.
You’re probably right. Even when I was arguing for for putting “alms” threads in the Marketplace there was a part of me thinking “Is this really a problem to begin with?”. But I decided, " Aw, fuck it. If it is a problem this is how I’d fix it"
But to be completely honest, I don’t think it’s that much of a problem. There are going to be occasional train wrecks, but well, fuck it. What’s a good message board without an occasional train wreck?
I personally just think it’s a good idea to have procedures that pre-emptively cut down on the bickering. A sticky, a required disclaimer, or a separate area of the board to corral them wouldn’t be hard to do and it would save a lot of “why are we doing this AGAIN??” when the inevitable bitchfest happens.
It’s like the Elections forum. I remember I joined shortly before the 2008 US presidential election and the pit, GD, and IMHO were stuffed with threads either about the election or people complaining about too many election threads. The complainers were basically told to suck it up, it’s only every 4 years and it’ll be over in a few months. True, but it didn’t stop the bitching or cluttering up the other forums and I’d bet the mods had a lot more work to do saying “it’s only until November, no one’s forcing you to read those threads” than by setting up the elections forum.
Four years later all the election stuff is confined (mostly) to one forum and the people, like me, who have zero interest in politics can enjoy the rest of the board in peace.
Just my two pesos.
If that’s the full extent of your ability to comprehend the situation, I think you’re just going to have to keep wondering.
Completely different situation. My apologies if mentioning that wasn’t kosher.
WTF, dude? If I pissed in your cornflakes in a previous life, I apologize.
Okay so now I have another question - does the high level screening that the mods do include a check for prior requests? I’m a little astonished that the board didn’t discover this (possibly because the thread title didn’t in any way indicate a plea for donations) but I think that this is the kind of thing that definitely should be included as it’s well within the board moderators ability to discover since they approved the prior request.
I’m comfortable with the current policy, with the current amount of vetting by staff. I can see how a formalized disclaimer in solicitation threads could be of benefit, but don’t feel strongly enough to clamour for it.
However, there is some level of confusion remaining, generated by the below.
“Don’t hurt, neither” and “don’t kick people when they’re down” are entirely too vague. It has since then been clarified that one can question a person’s need. And of course, one shouldn’t be a jerk and criticize the merit of a request in the thread - take it to the Pit.
But what about a situation where a community member has previous experience with the requestor that has bearing on the believability of the request? Shouldn’t that be allowed in the request thread? If the point is that we’re a community, isn’t part of a community the looking out for each other that goes in discussing other things we know about the person and situation? Knowing that so-and-so is a deadbeat who regularly mooches should have some bearing on whether that person is someone to donate to, right? So merely sharing that experience shouldn’t be considered threadshitting, right?
:rolleyes: She specifically chose an example that would be considered frivolous by most people in order to ask about the responses that are allowed to frivolous requests. It’s very hard to make a hypothetical frivolous example and then provide a cite for it. Hypothetical cases used for illustration are hardly straw men.
Yes. We can’t (and don’t) require that people be credulous. I think we can ask that people be sensible in evaluating someone else’s story, meaning don’t be insulting and try not to jump to conclusions.
Nobody suggested putting them in The Barn House.
But now that you mention it…
The Alms House, you say?
See post #162
How much for the three legged cat?
Hear, hear. Props for making a constructive suggestion. I’ve encountered a lot whining disguised as mockery and pseudo-argument here.
IMO noteworthy options are:[ul]
[li]Do nothing (my favorite).[/li][li]Put money requests in marketplace.[/li][li]Put a sticky in MPSIMS or modify a pre-existing one.[/li][li]Include boilerplate in all ask for funds threads. [/li][/ul] Forum selection is grounded on the reader: that is what the desired or likely response to the OP is. People don’t go to Marketplace to donate items: it’s not a likely browsing place. Heck, I’ve dropped by once at most. The member-only restriction is problematic since those who are hard up probably shouldn’t be buying memberships here, generally speaking YMMV etc etc.
If somebody thinks that the mods have seriously vetted any proposals, then they need to re-acquaint themselves with the internet and RL for that matter. If the mods are just a bunch of jackbooted troglodytes, why in the world do you think they should be doing the vetting anyway? Do your own bloody homework and exercise your own good sense. That said, I tend to err on the side of a super-abundance of caution. Instructing the person to include standard boilerplate isn’t an awful idea. Props to Baal Houtham for the constructive suggestion. He even suggested proper wording, which conveniently linked to a FAQ rather than a forum-specific sticky. Constructive move: not bitchy-moany-complainy. Again though, I don’t buy his justification entirely for reasons just given.
No problems at all. I didn’t think you were too harsh at all. (Actually I didn’t even see this post until** Measure for Measure **quoted it 
)
Thanks for props, and I never entirely buy my own justifications either. For anything. (And a hat tip to Hbns for an on-point reply to Czarcasm.)
Although it’s naive for posters to think mods have vetted solicitations in a meaningful way, some posters still may, and it’s a little too libertarian for me to say tough luck you didn’t read the contract more carefully.
One point I haven’t seen mentioned, is that a solicitation post OP has some latitude in how he/she announces that the post has been “pre-approved.” They might say:
“The mods have looked this over and given it their approval.”
“I’ve submitted this and the admin has given it thumbs up.”
“I’ve talked to the mods about this and they’ve said it’s okay to post.”
Any of those statements could lead a trusting soul to believe that the mods think the cause is worthwhile and legit. Not everyone follows these discussions on ATMB, and when solicitation posts were rare it made each one seem like a special case.
However, if the admin thinks the situation is not out of hand, as Marley implies, then probably nothing needs to be done.