That’s good advice for everyone. Everyone. Everyone, Pan. Pan.
I make that three everyones and two pans.
But you don’t need to tell me. I’ve said my piece. I can’t imagine what else I would need to say.
But they didn’t let it lie, did they? they made their point in Bildo’s original pit thread. why make it again? I don’t think any less of them for making their voices heard, but they could have easily stayed out of the thread and let other people help him. If someone is next to destitute, I think being a beer moocher pales in comparison.
That said, I think MM’s absence from the threads is speaking volumes.
Well, I suppose you could say that the next time Lib expresses his opinion of what charity is, you will let it drop. 
I was just getting ready to make 3/4 of the same post, and the last 1/4 would be my interpretation of why the “gonna be visiting” threads are not what I would call charity request threads.
If a human being is asking for help for HIMSELF, he has to make his arguments to everyone based on his track record. The amount of aid being requested is directly proportional to the amount of IRL information needed. If someone’s asking for a couch, I generally don’t have a problem with that. If someone’s asking for job leads, anything above linking to monster.com websites requires much more information.
However, if a human being is asking for help for SOMEONE ELSE, they ABSOLUTELY NEED to know a whole hell of a lot more than Tuba did about MM before requesting.
Veb, there is a dinstinction, and with that distinction made, I think it is entirely possible to make a general rule. Asking help for yourself is ok. Asking help for someone else is not. Take that to email.
Important distinction I ask you all to remember and ponder:
If MM had posted a request thread of his own, none of this would have happened. A few NY Dopers would have extended their shit list entry by a hilarious lot, but it would not have been our place to comment, because that would have amounted to dogpiling, and each doper is responsible for making their own educated decision. And as such, he would have been open to receiving aid from whomever saw fit. Hopefully such dopers would have done a history of posting check on him, and noticed a thing or two (no, obviously I’m not talking about Billdo’s thread.)
In this case here, Tuba posted the request (in my opinion he did not ask her to do so, but I can only imagine his sob story or books were not entirely innocently directed), and as such was sponsoring him. THIS is why we posted our outrage. Because we KNEW she was missing important facts that should have been important to anyone considering offering help.
For those continuing to have a problem with this: if you are led to believe one thing by an OP, subsequent posts traditionally aim to enlighten upon said OP with other facts. Is this not one of the main points of the boards?
And a last comment to Twisty:
I’m not surprised MM isn’t here. He likely did not ask Tuba to do this, and as such probably feels doubly like shit. If he even cares at all, which may be unlikely given his response to criticism in the past.
What I think speaks even more volumes is the lack of participation from Tuba.
I forgot to mention something else.
If a rule is instituted wherein a doper has to ask permission from an admin/mod before posting his/her own personal request for aid thread, I forsee the exact same kind of situation happening.
Dopers read the thread and know that this person has been vouched for by the PTB. As such, we would have had to come in and add the missing facts.
If dopers just post their own requests, they should do so as strictly independent parties, and thus lie subject ONLY to their own personal explanations and reputations.
The key issue here is sponsorship, imo.
Don’t be such a fucking idiot, Shayna. You don’t wanna go “around and around” with me anymore, then don’t, you arrogant twit. You’re apparently the kind of person who says they’re dropping the argument but pops in anyway to toss in some more bon mots.
Second, your post made it seem like you were speaking for Veb. My post was interpreting what she said, in my view. Do you understand there is a difference? Do you even recognize what that difference is? If anyone’s being “intentionally obtuse,” it’s you. Get your fucking nose out of the air and pay attention.
Third, you still don’t get it. There is, and always has been, a monumental difference between calling someone out on here for IRL shit BY NAME and doing so NOT BY NAME. I’ll repeat, since you’re not bothering to pay attention: If there are no references to the person’s name or even to the fact that they are, in fact, from this board, then it’s absolutely, positively, unfuckindeniably not against any rule. Why is this so tough for you to grasp?
Fourth, you keep clinging to the rule that IRL stays IRL while refusing to acknowledge that it’s an intentionally vague rule, vague so that the moderators can have some leeway to determine whether each thread is actually bad or not. Make a rule too narrow, and it serves no benefit. It has to be sufficiently vague so that the moderators can use their amazing powers of deduction and interpretation to arrive at a justifiable conclusion.
Billdo’s original thread looked like it could have stood on its own; how many of us have started threads that complained about something offline? His was about someone mooching - the fact that it was a Doper was completely irrelevant, which is one reason, I suspect, why he didn’t name the name anyway.
Green Bean, I agree with what you’re saying. Very well said indeed.
I just wanted to throw in that I could understand the controversy over Billdo’s remarks in That Other Thread - No, The Recent One if he were the type of poster who was known to fly off the handle easily, or if he had a record of dropping occasional posts for the express purpose of stirring up shit. He doesn’t. I think it can be agreed that the vast majority of Billdo’s posts are well thought-out and pertinant.
I find it amazing that people are - even tangentially - suggesting that Billdo went out of his way to make a malicious slam on MonkeyMule out of sheer spite or petulance. That’s not his style, IRL or on this message board.
I’m a little bit more irritated at the implied slam on Billdo’s motives than at the one on MonkeyMule’s tendency to …lack financial parity.
I have been following this little saga and I will add that I think that manhattan’s post is right on. The charity thread thing never did sit well with me. The particular one was handled horribly. People who added the extra information in the orginal MPSIMS thread were not the least bit out of line. I would certainly want to hear all of the pertinant facts before I offered help.
Haj
Nor was I asking for one. In fact, I rather thought I was pitching a softball for you guys to hit out of the park. I seriously thought the response would be something to the effect of ‘yes, you were in error about Cajun’s tone, and “preemptive” means exactly what the dictionary says it means – the prior posts were OK. And yes, of course factually correct information is welcome on the Straight Dope Message board, even in MPSIMS, even if it stings a bit and even when it is against the pecuniary interests of the administration or its chosen causes .’
I’m deeply disappointed that my prediction is in error. I’m especially distressed by your suggestion that information which is not helpful to those causes which you reasonably believe to be appropriate to allow the members to see be handled by e-mail “or whatever” when information which is helpful is posted in the public. It apparently is the official policy of this message board to filter which factually correct information members may be exposed to for consideration.
I will, of course, comply with your instruction to concentrate what resources I’ve been blessed to have to give in another direction. And I agree that this is not the SD’s finest hour. I daresay we’d disagree about why.
Veb, upon reading your comment, I am now thoroughly confused. When Cajun Man posted that his moderation was a “preemptive warning,” I took that to mean just what it implied, that there were no earlier rule violations (and my post was not in violation), but that posters should be careful not to make any in the later posts.
Your quoted comment, however, seems to say that if someone is seeking assistance, it is inappropriate to post factual information regarding the history of the assistance seeker. Instead, who might intend to help would be required to inform themselves “by e-mail or whatever” (though I don’t see how someone who might possibly help would even know who to contact if the relevant facts weren’t pointed out or at least linked to).
In my first post in the MPSIMS thread, I gave specific factual information, a link to a Pit thread describing a past situation, and a comment that I was not inclined to help. Actually, let me quote what I said:
I ask you, did my post violate the rules of MPSIMS, and if so, why?
And without going into endless hypotheticals, would the answer be different if the link were to an outside news story where the assistance seeker was mentioned (but not, obviously, connected to the Straight Dope)? How about if I linked to a thread or other source that reflected positively on the assistance seeker?
If the goal of the board is to fight ignorance, I would suggest that the posting of specific, relevant factual information not containing personal insults, whether positive or negative, is appropriate in MPSIMS.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but if we’re flinging character witnesses around, I have to say that Billdo and the other NYC Dopers were incredibly kind and hospitable to me during my last trip to New York. From taking the time and effort to set up our mini-dopefest, to just generally making me feel welcome, I couldn’t have asked for better hosts.
For what it’s worth, he’s got my support
In my opinion, when you ask for help IRL than your behavior with your fellow community members IRL has to be a valid consideration.
Dopers are a generous bunch. I’ve been burned before giving recommendations to employers for people I have a vague knowledge of personally (not Dopers) - have a former client who will probably never trust my judgement again. That’s one of the things that was requested in the thread (unless it was meant we could forward Monster.com job listings). I’ve been burned by freeloaders spending a “week” on my couch that turned into three months (not Dopers) - that was the other thing being requested.
What if the doper requesting assistance had been a great guy on the boards…but a doper knew that IRL he was a sadistic bastard - and I offered the guy a spot on my couch because I was not informed and he hurt my kids?
Besides, real life and this place can’t be seperated for many of us. And if we want the joy of celebrating marriages, the grieving over the losses, than we need the pain of the fights or this isn’t really a community.
I do believe Manhattan was spot on with his questions, and I think if the administration were to answer them directly it would not only help clear up this debacle, but it would, more importantly, allow future threads asking for assistance to be posted. Truly, my fear is that this debacle will cause The Powers That Be to decide that no threads of this type will ever be allowed again - and that would, IMHO, be very, very sad, as we are, on the whole, a generous and kind group of people, and I’d hate to see our little community robbed of the opportunity to shine and show our best.
Unfortunately, I totally agree with this.
I agree with this as well.
And I’m still waiting to hear how Tuba’s thread doesn’t violate the “if it happens IRL it stays IRL” guideline (again, not to say that “help threads” should be outlawed, but rather to see how flexible the guideline actually is).
Esprix
I agree with everything above 100%. Well said!
Esprix
As am I.
I for one would have no problem with charity threads being eliminated from the Dope.
Boy, this turned into some clusterf–I mean, some mess, didn’t it?
That, I assure you, was not ever my intention.
I’m truly saddened and sorry that this has made so many people so exercised. That was not my intention either.
Monkey Mule did not ask me for help. What I did for him, I did on my own, as I have done in the past for others and as I would do again for someone that needed help that I thought needed bringing to the Doper community. I did not do this in my capacity as administrator, but as a board member and I thought my signature and statements made that clear. Personal matters do not have an administrative signature.
When I went to the board, it was with Ed Zotti’s approval and the staff’s knowledge; in fact, this almost happened much earlier, but Monkey Mule was trying to work things out with the woman he considered the love of his life, the woman he threw everything else in his life out the window for, and thought there was a last chance to save the relationship. (A longstanding one, btw, that just didn’t work out irl.) When you consider the world well lost for love (which you can only do when you’re young and foolish, pretty much), mostly the outcome is not pretty. He’s had some Life Lessons Learned from the hardest teacher; he’s had some schooling.
Has he made a mess of things? Yeah. And in lots of other places. I don’t want to embarrass the man further by telling you the details, but his situation is difficult, to say the least. Some highlights, though: He’s broke and homeless. He has no job, no assets to fall back on, nothing. He’s starting nearly from nothing but what he stands up in. This is, as are most of the problems we encounter in life, by his own making. Doesn’t make them any less by that. He’s had some serious errors of judgment and some bad luck and all in some difficult times, from a most difficult place; NYC’s still behind the 8-ball in a lot of ways, even worse than the rest of the country. What I’m telling you are not excuses, but are reasons. And he’s got some major making amends to do in the Doper community and elsewhere. He’s attempting to pull himself up by his bootstraps when he doesn’t even have boots.
He’s had limited internet access from England and I would imagine he will have even less once he’s back here. He leaves England today, the 10th.
I spoke up originally because I thought here was a fellow human being that needed a hand. Those of you that feel a kick in the ass is also prescribed, well, I can understand why you’d feel that way, but doing this while he’s down does no good.
The staff here knows a lot, but we are not always privy to every bit of information, however available it might be. Myself, I have made many mistakes in my time on the board and what I don’t know of what goes on in and outside this place is a lot. I have tried to do my best both as administrator and as a human being, as someone who has met some truly incredible people here and someone who believes very deeply in what you’ve built. It was in that spirit I spoke up in the first place.
Help him if you feel so inclined; Dopers have the biggest hearts and hands. (Goes with the brains, and, in some cases, the mouths.) If you don’t, please don’t add to the misery. And most of all, please don’t let this business keep you from doing something else for a fellow human being. We are all in this together and sometimes we are lifted up by others and sometimes we’re the ones doing the lifting on someone else’s behalf, but good deeds do go around the world and shine like little candles in a most wicked and dark world.
Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
Not as administrator, not as anything except just Jenny.
My apologies, Bildo. I seem to be shedding more confusion than clarity. I’ll try to sum up the situation as I know it:
- You did not do anything wrong, and no warnings were placed against your name–or anyone else’s.
- Cajun Man’s admonition was merely a general alert to all posters that the thread was becoming inappropriate for MPSIMS.
- It’s perfectly reasonable and proper for anyone to want some background info in “help” threads.
- The extent and nature of that information may conflict w/ other rules of the board, i.e. real life relationships, etc.–and that’s where it gets fuzzy.
- Each Doper must decide for himself what information they need to feel comfortable before offering assistance on a case by case basis.
That’s just a mod’s take on the policy as it stands now. FWIW I’ve checked w/ Cajun Man and that’s his understanding as well. IOTW, no new spins were placed on the existing policy at all. Whether that policy needs to be amended or discarded altogether is something the admins will have to addresss.
And on that tired note, I’m bowing out of this thread. This has gotten complicated beyond what a mod can solve.
Veb
Though your post was obviously heartfelt, I can’t help but feel that you continue to mischaracterize the posts by Billdo (& co.), and your argument/petition/plea suffers for it.
Billdo didn’t provide a “kick in the ass”, which implies some sort of Tough Love Message. His post was not directed at MM but at the Doper community; he saw it as a service to others (in providing relevant information) which is very different than assuming the (presumptuous) role of Life Lesson Arbiter.
If someone feels obliged to share something they feel will make the community better informed about an issue, it is not automatically adding to the “misery”. It all depends on how the matter is handled, and Billdo handled it with discretion and tact. He had an experience that he thought would provide important perspective, but always couched it in terms of having individual Dopers make up their own minds on what to do.
This obviously strikes a personal chord with you, but there are those of us who appreciate both sides to the story and aren’t so quick to paint the posts of Billdo (& co.) in the most negative light possible.
This is a foolish approach. Suppose Billdo had not posted in the MPSIMS thread.
To whom would I have directed my question, when I was “asking by e-mail or whatever?”
The OP, Tuba, obviously was not in possession of the facts when she posted.
Presuming that Veb’s guidance above is intended to suggest that Billdo would have immediately e-mailed his misgivings, along with the specifics, to Tuba, are you then suggesting that Tuba is committed to relaying that information? Or does she make an independent judgement about what to pass on and what to squelch? On what basis is the determination made?
Or should we assume that Tuba somehow is committed, as a result of this rule, to always pass on the negative information that Billdo provided?
If you want to avoid the “Code of Federal Regulations” problem, it would be much better to follwo the mandate of this board, and permit factual information to be posted, come what may.
I have responded to requests for help on these boards, always anonymously, because I implicitly trusted the judgement and warnings available. Learning now that legitimate warnings are forbidden but requests for charity are permitted, I can tell you that I’m not inclined to respond unless I know the individual’s reputation and circumstances myself.
Foolish rule, foolish approach. Isn’t it better to admit error and reverse this approach?
- Rick