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.
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
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