Hello users of hexbear:
Due to recent meta posts in our mutual aid community we wanted to open up discussion about the community [email protected]
We will never require explanation or justification from a user asking for aid in the community, and the mod and admin team continue to commit to not featuring an individual’s mutual aid request to prevent unfair exposure.
In addition, we will maintain a strict “No critical comments or meta comments” on a mutual aid post.
This post is to discuss the mutual aid community’s rule of allowing meta posts: mutual aid as a community, those making posts in it and those commenting on posts.
We are considering removing the exception allowing meta posts but wanted to involve the userbase before committing to a change.
Please comment with any thoughts, feelings, or suggestions regarding this change.
Thank you
i think this could be used for potential harm to user’s aid posts. i remember c/mutual_aid users mentioning an issue of people not following through with aid after messaging for their details. what would happen if someone reports that they sent funds to a user when they actually didn’t? would confirmation default to the person receiving aid?
i don’t think mods should but i don’t have an alternative that i can think of right now to fully answer this question.
With this proposed system people who say they sent funds and don’t will first be warned and then sitebanned.
How can you verify they did send them?
If its just asking the recipient to verify wouldnt it just be he said she said?
If someone repeatedly comments on the post to say they donated and the recipient says they didn’t get it we would take action. in the event of a user reporting the post with something to the effect of “i’d like to donate to this please notify” then we can do the same thing.
You are correct that at the end of the day it is he said she said but we would establish matrix communication for the sending of proof
I hate to say it but fabricating screenshots is so easy that I struggle to believe such a system could work if used in bad faith by even one person
to demonstrate:
:D
please pet my nose tho
that’s true but I hope that both users pledging to donate and those asking for money would be engaging with the site in good-faith
I just don’t think, especially with money at stake, that it’s reasonable to hope that every single user who ever uses the comm will do so in good faith, or be obvious enough in their bad faith to be sussed out. And even one person with an axe to grind could potentially get someone banned with fabricated evidence. I think we have to build systems that are resilient to abuse where possible and the strong possibility of disciplining a user in need of help feels worse to me than allowing someone to collect donos and not update the post to reflect them. I guess you could say that any mod action being taken requires multiple reports from established accounts showing a pattern of behavior, not just one and done. That would help.
but frankly sending screenshots back and forth offsite also overcomplicates the process of both donating and receiving donations. It just doesn’t feel like a well fleshed out plan to me
exactly why we have set it up as “Mods do not vet individual mutual aid requests. Donate at your own risk” the option to report a post or comment on one with amount donated is to help the poster update with amount received / lock when need is met.
I just think there’s monetary incentive not to engage with the comm in the way you’ve laid out, and people are (understandably, they’re struggling) mostly not going to do it unless it is an enforced rule or nets them more donos.
Whether or not such a rule actually would do more good than harm, I don’t know.
the incentive to dispute that a donation occurred is the limit. if there’s no arbitrary limit per post/week imposed, then both parties can engage in good faith