‘Freebies’ or ‘Deals’ from Registered Charities Shouldn’t Be Allowed

Lihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 15:19
Last edited 11/01/2018 - 11:39 by 2 other users

This post: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/354004 is a case in point. Posts that take from the goodwill of a charity and claim to be ‘deals’ or ‘freebies’ should not be allowed. The moderators should take a stance against them and delete them.

OzBargain can be a powerful community and has the power to completely overwhelm and wreck the good initiatives of a charity if people take from them just because it’s free.

UPDATE 12:05 pm 8 JAN: Take down request received from ACON regarding deal linked above - taking down both items.

Mod (9/1): We've made the following actions and changes to the guidelines.

  • Added the following to our deal posting guidelines: Freebie deal posts from charities targeted at specific groups where you receive a physical item in the mail are not permitted (with exception of a deal posted by a rep).
    • Encourage charity discussion in the forums
    • See if we can initiate a wiki page of resources for sexual health freebies, services like our mental health page.
    • Suggest that ProspectiveDarkness or the 5 others who agreed with his comment about homophobic comments not being moderated properly, start a thread so we can determine what comments are and what aren't. I think there is much confusion with this (on OzBargain and in real life) especially as within an hour I was accused of being a homophobe and also pro-gay (in a derogatory manner).

Poll Options

  • 112
    Posts involving ‘freebies’ from charities should be allowed
  • 620
    Posts involving ‘freebies’ from charities should not be allowed
Site Discussion

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • yeahyeah on 07/01/2018 - 15:37

    Seriously? WTF is wrong with people? Let's take advantage of a charity who are trying to work with vulnerable parts of society for something that we don't actually need or so you can make a joke on your mother in law or boss. Posts like this should be removed.

    • 23
    • No ONE on 07/01/2018 - 20:32

      Then people will start milking the bargain website for free advertisment.

      • 0
      • GregMonarch on 08/01/2018 - 14:57

        In this case, there's no milk to be had - they're fake remember.

        • 0
  • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:41

    I think the statement made by mods is appropriate. If you're not a member of the LGBTIQ community and/or not at risk of HIV, unsafe sex etc. then don't take advantage of the offer. There would be many people reading this website that are at risk. Not everyone can just go down to the store and buy condoms - we don't know what their situation is, and to be perfectly honest it can be pretty embarrassing sometimes. Infact I didn't even know what PrEP was before the post.

    This post has raised awareness for those in need. People should be embracing it and not giving into their selfish urges of hogging up everything that is free. People's attitude and the personal attacks directed towards TA is disgusting and in my opinion… the lowest of low.

    • 14
    • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 15:42

      The thing is, opening it up on this website is like a can of worms. The people who will mainly see it aren’t those who are at risk - they are people who are after a quick deal or freebie. Those in genuine need are actually more likely to see it on the charity’s own website, without an OzBargain deal about it.

      • 11
      • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:44

        Do you not realise that those people who are in genuine need could be on this website? OzBargain is made up of everyday people from all walks of life.

        • 11
        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 15:45

          As I said, they are likely to be in the vast MINORITY of users of the site and are more likely to find out about the charity via other means. The risks far outweigh the benefits.

          • 11
        • yeahyeah on 07/01/2018 - 15:48

          You're right, but for the handful of those that the 'offer' is relevant for who is perusing this site, you've basically (profanity) over the thousands of others the charity is trying to help because most people ordering are NOT the target market.

          • 8
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:48

          @goodo: And that's the problem. Don't blame the one who shared it. Blame those in the community that are abusing it.

          • 5
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:46

          @ihavecentsnotsense: Doesn't matter if it's a minority. If someone in need has seen it then the job has been done. There are plenty of deals that get posted here which target a specific minority.

          The problem is people with no self control who take advantage of stuff they don't need and those who think it's right to personally attack someone.

          • 4
        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 06:01

          @ihavecentsnotsense: Banning Charity Deals is like using a Sledgehammer to hit a nail. There are other ways to achieve the desired outcome without destroying a whole category of deals.

          Perhaps it should be up to the Charity in question if they are willing to take the risk that there will be some coming from this site who will abuse the deal (despite the warnings) on the tradeoff that they might reach more target viewers than by not using this site.

          • 3
        • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2018 - 15:49

          @Clear:
          Still shouldn't be posted as a deal/freebie, a forum post would be more suitable.

          • 1
        • yeahyeah on 07/01/2018 - 15:51

          @Clear:

          I'm not trying to blame the person who shared it. I'm just saying given we can't prevent people from abusing the charity, I don't think these posts should be posted.

          • 1
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:50

          @BrodenIt: Perhaps, but it's not actually posted as a deal though. It's posted as a Freebie. They're actually separate things here.

          • 0
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:52

          @goodo: I'm glad you see it that way, because heaps of people don't. Perhaps a forum post was a better idea. Regardless, it's up to the mod's discretion now.

          • 0
        • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2018 - 15:52

          @Clear: Yes, but isn't freebie still listed as a category under deals?

          • 0
        • Moderatorneil on 07/01/2018 - 15:56

          @Clear:

          Regardless, it's up to the mod's discretion now.

          It's up to the community :). We're happy with a decision as long as it can be applied uniformily especially if it prevents numerous reports, toxic comments and hate pointed towards staff and the OP.

        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:58

          @neil: Maybe a whole separate category to deals? All the different charities and health services can be put under it for "those in need". The downside I see is people abusing it.

          • 0
        • Geryatric on 08/01/2018 - 07:46

          @neil:
          The community have clearly spoken and yet the deal is still up.

          • 0
        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:27

          @neil: banning charity deals would achieve this.

          • -1
      • GregMonarch on 08/01/2018 - 15:05

        Opening it up on the INTERNET is like a can of worms. Let them police it - as they have done before it was here - and will do once we all (thankfully) forget about it.

        • 0
    • ProspectiveDarkness on 07/01/2018 - 15:57

      People's attitude and the personal attacks directed towards TA is disgusting and in my opinion… the lowest of low.

      Given that he suggested people lie about their details to claim the "freebie", he's not without blame. It's a scummy thing to do.

      • 5
      • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:59

        Doesn't justify the actions by a select few. I'm not saying it's right, but it definitely seemed to be a more tongue in cheek comment.

        • 2
    • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2018 - 15:47

      Sad truth, but would those brodens even care?

      • 3
    • Scab on 07/01/2018 - 15:50

      I didn't even know what PrEP was

      I thought it was lubing up before having sex.

      • 0
      Scab on 07/01/2018 - 15:50 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
      • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:51

        And laying down the towels, brushing the teeth, getting out the garden gloves…

        • 0
        • whooah1979 on 09/01/2018 - 06:14

          @PJC:
          Perhaps for sharing toys?

          • 2
        • dipster on 09/01/2018 - 05:41

          Just in case anyone was getting ideas, don’t brush your teeth before sex as it can lead to small cuts in your mouth

          • 0
        • PJC on 09/01/2018 - 06:11

          @dipster: As for the L in LGBT etc (there seem to be variations) it appears that charity is prepared to send condoms to lesbians. I accept my imagination is somewhat blocked until I drink some coffee, but … why would lesbians require condoms?

          • 0
        • PJC on 09/01/2018 - 06:17

          @whooah1979: Yeah, fair enough, I would have worked that out myself by 8am. The kettle is boiling …

          • 0
  • Gronk on 08/01/2018 - 17:45

    The best answer I can come up with is to only allow charity posts where the poster is verified as being affiliated with the charity? Allow them to choose if and when they would like to attract attention to their initiatives?

    Unfortunately, it's the internet and regardless of the best intentions I don't see the troll mentality going away any time soon.

    • 14
    • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 17:47

      That’s actually a really good solution Gronk. I like it.

      • 2
    • J23SD on 08/01/2018 - 20:13

      I really like this idea.

      • 0
    • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 21:26

      I think this would wind up being more work for the mods, how would they know who in the charity is the person authorised to authorise the deal? If we retrospectively apply this to the RSPCA deal which had free Mature Cats and Dogs but wasn't authorised then that wouldn't pass this test and any adoptions that happened because of the deal would end in euthanised Dogs and Cats instead.

      edit, I guess the who can authorise the deal is an issue with the mods proposed solution as well.

      • 0
      • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 21:35

        I suspect it would be relatively easy, as they already have systems in place to identify posters who are affiliated with businesses, hence the ‘affiliate’ tag on deals.

        • 0
        • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 21:40

          An affiliate would be easyish yes, my mind took it one step further too if it's a marketing campaign, then not everyone who is affiliated would be authorised to make the marketing decision.

          • 0
        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 22:05

          @tryagain: I suppose it’d have to be someone employed or otherwise linked (not sure how OzBargain identifies affiliates currently) to the charity. I don’t think that a charity would employ a marketing firm to post links on OzBargain on their behalf all that frequently, if ever.

          • 0
  • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2018 - 15:42

    As said above, taking advantage of charity freebies that were intended for those in need is plain wrong and encouraging people to do so on Ozbargain is worse.

    • 13
    • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:54

      Who has been encouraging people to do so?

      • 0
      • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2018 - 15:55

        Noone, but the deal it self

        • 3
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 15:56

          The deal itself was to encourage those in need.

          • 2
        • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2018 - 16:09

          @Clear:
          At first no, but after the edit, yes.

          • 2
        • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2018 - 16:13

          @Clear:
          Yes, that's why not posting it as deal is likely to reduce that

          • 2
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 16:09

          @BrodenIt: Then those who continued to abuse it and take trade insults afterwards are the ones to blame.

          • 1
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 16:13

          @BrodenIt: Freebie* haha

          • 0
  • sleet on 08/01/2018 - 12:35

    The fact that ACON has requested ozbargain to remove the post just shows how overwhelming the response has been.

    If this poll, and the actions from ACON does not change guidelines then I don't know what will.

    Mods, please prevent these 'deals' from being posted in the future.

    Condoms are free at sexual health clinics, which is funded by the government. No need to overwhelm ACON, or a specific NPG who have a particular target audience.

    • 12
  • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 15:55

    Another issue to discuss is that originally, the OP of the deal stated something to the effect of: 'This deal is only for gay and trans men. Use your imagination ;)' which was ultimately suggesting people lie about their sexual orientation to get the freebie. The current wording of the post is significantly better, but it only shows we need clear guidelines around these posts.

    For what it's worth, I don't believe all charity posts should be banned. For example, the Think.Eat.Save free lunches were about raising awareness for the entire community about food wastage. Instead, I believe deals that target specific (especially vulnerable) groups of the community for a charitable or public good should be banned (say, domestic violence victims, homelessness, those at risk of HIV, bushfire victims). We may well say that the deal is targeted, but given the number of commenters suggesting they'd bought the packs as a joke, I don't believe this is enough to protect charities from being overwhelmed by non-legitimate OzBargainers. OzBargain should have a corporate social responsibility for things like this.

    • 11
    • onesandtwos on 07/01/2018 - 17:55

      I think it is an issue when posters promote 'using your imagination' in order to claim freebies, especially given that OzBargain is getting bigger and thus has more impact than ever (either positively or negatively). I don't think lying about eligibility for free stuff should generally be encouraged to claim anything, but especially by the person posting, and especially in the case of charities.

      This case seems to be a perfect storm of freebie / charity / targetted at a subset of population / great prank material and it's a good opportunity for Ozbargain to learn.

      • 5
    • Scab on 07/01/2018 - 16:05

      those at risk of HIV

      Gays/trans aren't the only ones at risk.

      • 0
      • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 16:39

        No. They're not. But men who have sex with men are at a significantly increased risk. Which is why this charity is targeting them.

        I don't think it's our place to decide whether a charity's decision to target a certain audience is right or wrong. It's up to our moral sensibilities to not take part if it's not targeted at us.

        • 2
        • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 17:00

          @Scab: Men who have sex with men are at higher risk than the straight audience in general, I see we both agree to that.

          The issue is that so many comments suggested that this product was not being used to prevent HIV contraction (by gay men, by straight men who have sex with needle users, or even by significantly promiscuous men). They were being used as pranks on relatives, friends, co-workers, and this reduces the stock that could be used 'for good'. So we can argue all we like about who is truly at risk (I don't think that's our place, but whatever). At the end of the day this deal was being OzBargained against the intent of the product, and that's the issue.

          • 2
        • Scab on 07/01/2018 - 16:52

          But men who have sex with men are at a significantly increased risk

          Sure, but so are men who have unprotected sex with intravenous drug users or prostitutes.

          Just being gay doesn't necessarily mean that a person is at high risk.

          If someone is promiscuous but straight and got free condoms would you deny them and prefer they went to a gay person who may be celibate and at much less risk?

          • 1
        • ProspectiveDarkness on 07/01/2018 - 17:06

          @folktaliesin: This user was making light of the issue throughout the entire other thread. I wouldn't bother trying to engage, they're just trolling. Probably one of those "reverse discrimination" people who see a minority receiving special attention, and complain they're not getting it too.

          • 1
        • Scab on 07/01/2018 - 17:10

          @folktaliesin:

          They were being used as pranks on relatives, friends, co-workers

          You need to lighten up, most people were just having a laugh and I doubt they were serious.

          This is part of the problem with having moral police, it's subjective and ruins otherwise great sites.

          • 0
        • Scab on 07/01/2018 - 17:12

          @ProspectiveDarkness:

          complain they're not getting it too.

          Except I'm not the one complaining and whining as if the world will end.

          • 0
        • Moderatorneil on 07/01/2018 - 17:32

          This is a thread about charity posts. Please keep the discussion about charity posts.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:00

          @Scab: it’s this attitude that causes these issues in the first place and why there’s such angst about charity posts at all. How many more jokes you could think of at a charity’s expense!

          • 0
      • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 16:08

        The deal was even updated to include a charity for straight people. The LGBTIQ community are often safer as they often get tested more frequently.

        • 0
        • ProspectiveDarkness on 07/01/2018 - 16:24

          The LGBTIQ community are often safer

          I don't know how you can say that, with transmission rates being what they are. Testing does not equal safer.

          • 3
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 16:29

          @ProspectiveDarkness: Please don't take my comments out of context.

          The LGBTIQ community are often safer as they often get tested more frequently.

          I know for a fact that plenty of people active in the community are being tested far more frequently than those who are not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it can take up to 3 months after exposure for HIV tests to detect an infection. By getting tested every 3 months surely they're being safer than those who get tested say once a year?

          • 2
        • ProspectiveDarkness on 07/01/2018 - 16:34

          @Clear: I'm not taking your comments out of context, I just quoted the most relevant part. Again, testing does not equal safer. You're more informed, sure, but that does not necessarily translate to safer sex practices.

          I could get tested every single day but still get f**cked by 6 different people tonight, does that make me safer than someone who is monogamous and never gets tested?

          The risk is still elevated despite (alleged) higher testing rates. The transmission rates don't lie.

          Edit: I might also add that testing is often suggested by the GP, it's not necessarily due to an individual's own concern for safety.

          Edit 2: Also those who undergo more extensive testing, may not be the ones who are primarily spreading the virus.

          • 2
        • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 16:35

          It was updated for a link to I Love Claude, which was providing a deal for women who have sex with women. Women who have sex with women are not straight.

          • 1
        • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 16:34

          @Clear: If it was safer, then more frequent testing would lead to a lower rate of infection than the straight community. This is not the case.

          I don't disagree that gay men probably get tested more than straight men or women. Getting tested frequently does reduce the risk for the community. But gay men have such a large risk of infection, that being tested more often than the straight community still doesn't reduce their risk to below the straight community. Unfortunately from a statistical perspective you just can't state that the gay (esp gay male) community is safer than the straight community.

          • 0
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 16:38

          @ProspectiveDarkness: It's about knowing if you're HIV positive or not. If I got tested and knew I was HIV positive do you think I would go out and have unsafe sex? Nope. Testing lets you know if you and your partner will be safer from transmission.

          That was my whole point. Getting tested to ensure that you're negative can help decrease the risk. It doesn't give you a magic shield that makes you immune. It's all about reducing the risk. Not having sex with someone who is positive, using condoms etc.

          • 0
        • ProspectiveDarkness on 07/01/2018 - 17:04

          @Clear: Testing helps, sure, but it's not the be all, end all. The MSM demographic is still at an elevated risk, regardless of the testing. The transmission rates prove that.

          I understand what you're saying, but the connection between "gets tested more" and "safer' just doesn't pan out. Testing is only one part of safe sex practices, and somewhere along the line, members of the demographic just aren't employing them, otherwise we wouldn't have high transmission rates.

          I'm not going to continue harping over semantics, I just don't want people to get the wrong idea and think "I get tested, therefore I'm safe".

          • 0
        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 17:06

          @ProspectiveDarkness: That's why I said they are often more safer rather than they are safe. Getting tested helps you be more safe, but doesn't make you immune.

          • 0
  • tassieeagle on 07/01/2018 - 16:31

    Why can't we have deals and just not be selfish douche bags?

    • 9
    • ChadHominem on 07/01/2018 - 16:49

      There's a culture on OzBargain of exploiting deals and freebies. Now, there's nothing wrong with that most of the time, and in fact that culture is responsible for a lot of the great deals and thriving community that draw people to OzBargain. I think the issue is that these charity deals require a different culture, where the norm should be good will and upvotes come from people who want to support the spread of awareness. For this to happen, there needs to be a very strong distinction between regular deals and charity deals so that ozbargainers know that there is a different "norm" for such deals, and that going against the norm by taking advantage of the deal is likely to be frowned upon by the community.

      • 10
      • try2bhelpful on 07/01/2018 - 18:30

        That is very much the issue - the problem is that there are some greedy sociopaths on this site that really don't give a toss about society and are only in it for themselves. The problem is no matter how you define a posting these sociopaths will jump on the "freebie" - probably even if they don't want the actual product or service.

        So the question then becomes:
        a) Do we advertise the product in such a way that people who aren't sociopaths will respect the fact that this is a targetted freebie and leave well enough alone (or maybe just add a "witty" comment somewhere in the postings) and then try to find some way to mitigate the sociopaths a bit or
        b) Not post these in the first place on the basis that there is just too big a group of Sociopaths on this site.

        My view, as previously indicated, is we should contact the relevant charity and ask if they want the posting to be put up on the site and not post it if they think it would be detrimental to what they are trying to achieve.

        • 12
        • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 18:38

          This is a perfect summary of the discussion, thank you.

          • 0
    • try2bhelpful on 07/01/2018 - 16:35

      I often wonder that question myself.

      • 0
  • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 09:53

    This also isn’t about ‘silencing’ charities. This is about saving them from wasting their valuable resources and from being overwhelmed by illegitimate requests for their services/goods.

    I think there seems to be a misunderstanding of the audience of this website. Although people may donate to charities every now and then, this is a bargain hunting website where, 99% of the time, the aim is to obtain deals, sales, free things, and publicise as such. The fact that there has already been a few take-down requests from organisations because their resources have been diverted is too many. If I was personally responsible for this website I’d feel absolutely horrible That has happened.

    Stopping posts taking things from charities isn’t going to stop the website and it’s users donating money to them.

    • 9
    • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 11:19

      How about you take a break and give other people a chance to participate rather than trying to force the direction of the conversation to go your own way.

      You present a solution: completely ban charities to prevent abuse.

      Other solutions have been presented by others which would prevent or limit abuse but you don't want to hear them, you keep pressing on about banning them under the guise of protecting them.

      Your poll results are bogus without presenting all the options.

      From someone doing work in the nonprofit space, I can tell you first hand that there is a lot more to a charity than collecting donations.

      It is possible to be charitable and be offering deals on OzBargain at the same time.

      If my current project comes through and I end up getting 200 free-loaders show up for free food (donated by someone for the purpose) which gives me an opportunity to spread awareness to them and OzBargain at large, then that would be a MASSIVE win and achieved the purpose of the cause just on awareness alone.

      • 10
    • Scab on 08/01/2018 - 10:06

      If I was personally responsible for this website

      Yeah well, thankfully you are not.

      • -1
  • IPYF on 08/01/2018 - 17:09

    If the 'deal' had been a charity offering "Free hats for your child who is bald because they have leukemia" all but the worst element of this community would have exercised common decency, and they wouldn't have taken advantage of that deal. Nor would they have died on a "But free is FREEEEE!" hill over it, simply because their child also wears hats.

    This community behaved horribly and took advantage of the 'deal' in question because they saw an opportunity for a free lark, or felt they were making a point about the items within the deal not being LGBTQI+ specific, and didn't like being excluded based on a criteria that they didn't respect. Either way, it was a super gross thing to do and there are a great many people in this community who ought to feel well and truly ashamed of themselves.

    • 9
  • spackbace on 07/01/2018 - 19:03

    Forum Post in the same way as 'always free' software has a forum. Could call it 'Charity Freebies'. That should allow you to have a header/disclaimer on the top saying 'this forum is for freebies offered by registered charities. Please utilise these offers if you're in need' (or some such).

    Yes it might mean it doesn't see as many members but oh well, it's still there as a forum for members to subscribe to. Also means there's no voting so the OPs don't get subjected to hate votes over the source material.

    It'll still be published and seen by members and hopefully some will benefit, as opposed to just not getting published

    Hopefully posts like the Grilld Polished Man posts won't land there as they're not actually a freebie. I dunno, grey area

    • 8
    • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:09

      I think this leaves them far too open to abuse. As others have said, there’s a strong culture of ‘me, me, me’ and just grabbing anything for free on this website.

      • 4
      • spackbace on 07/01/2018 - 19:12

        Then you're not debating the issue, you're debating your opinion. It's obvious just from that reply that you don't believe they should be posted at all, without looking at alternative options.

        These deals will find other sites, not just ozbargain, so they will still find an audience which isn't intended to see the offer. The debate is on how this 1 site should deal with it, and by putting them in the forums you're limiting the audience yet still allowing it to be seen.

        Huge difference between a deal on the front page and a forum post. Just look at the vote count on your poll as a strong reminder of that

        • 0
        • spackbace on 07/01/2018 - 19:17

          @ihavecentsnotsense:

          Well there's no point discussing the other side of the argument with you because you're not actually open to hearing opposing views.

          I can't even vote on the poll because my suggestion basically falls in a 3rd option.

          • 8
        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:16

          You’re right - I don’t think they should be posted at all. Ozbargain is not some moral crusader here, helping to draw attention to oft looked-over charities; it’s a bargain hunting website filled with users trying to get things for free or cheaply. The two objectives don’t match and shouldn’t be mixed, or else you get horrible situations like we’ve seen over the last 24 hours.

          • 6
        • spackbace on 07/01/2018 - 19:28

          @ihavecentsnotsense:

          You've already shared your opinion in the OP:

          Posts that take from the goodwill of a charity and claim to be ‘deals’ or ‘freebies’ should not be allowed. The moderators should take a stance against them and delete them.

          It's probably best that if you don't have anything new to add, you just don't reply? We know what you think, let others actually discuss the options.

          It's like you're the equivalent of a kid sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming whenever someone suggests something which opposes your views. Your reply didn't tell me anything I didn't already know or haven't already read in here.

          Can't have a healthy discussion/argument if the same comments are just going to be repeated.

          • 4
        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:36

          @Spackbace: I haven’t derailed anything! If other people would like to respond to it, they’re welcome and able to do so. I was just staying why I, personally, didn’t think your solution would work. Others might think differently, and they’re welcome to comment just like everyone else.

          • 2
        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:24

          @Spackbace: I’m glad you’re posting your views and I am open to hearing about them. The fact is, I’m not the decision maker here, so there’s no point trying to convince me. And I am merely sharing my views as well, which just happen to be opposed to yours.

          • 1
        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:29

          @Spackbace: neither did yours :-)

          • 0
        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:30

          @Spackbace: I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were the boss of how many times I could post here. I’ll try and refrain so as not to disturb you further.

          • 0
        • spackbace on 07/01/2018 - 19:30

          @ihavecentsnotsense:

          Sorry what? I came up with a well thought out solution which hadn't been suggested previously. But your replies to it have just derailed it completely.

          • 0
    • yeahyeah on 07/01/2018 - 22:35

      In an ideal world that'd work. Unfortunately i'm a realist and we have a situation where you wouldn't walk into a soup kitchen and take a free meal because it's free, but people will order stuff online for free from charities that are supposed to be for people in need, just because it's free. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Even disregarding who the charity is supposed to target, we have people ordering them for their boss or mother in law as pranks.

      I know i've ordered things that were free from companies that I wasn't sure i'd use but hey it's free. I have [some] morals and wouldn't do that to a charity, but plenty will from the safety of their computer.

      Therefore I think Ozbargain mods actually need to take a stand and ban posts like these. It's called doing what's right instead of what's easy. Having a note in the post won't accomplish anything IMHO.

      • 2
    • Moderatorneil on 07/01/2018 - 21:24

      Hopefully posts like the Grilld Polished Man posts won't land there as they're not actually a freebie.

      That is a good point. Polished Man Free Burger was quite popular last year and raised $10,000 from the OzBargain community. If we are going to ban all deals from charity then it may include this.

      • spackbace on 07/01/2018 - 21:33

        Well technically wasn't a charity 'freebie' as it's since required a donation, and you're only taking from Grilld, not the charity

        • 3
        • whooah1979 on 07/01/2018 - 21:46

          you're only taking from Grilld, not the charity

          there is a connection between polishedman.com (ms kylie wallace registrant/admin on record) and mr elliot costello. mr costello is listed as the tech for ygap.com.au. y-gap have charity concessions.

          http://www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?SearchText=4…

          Charity tax concession status
          help
          Y-GAP (Y-Generation Against Poverty) Ltd is a Charity endorsed to access the following tax concessions:
          Tax concession From
          GST Concession 11 Sep 2008
          Income Tax Exemption 11 Sep 2008
          FBT Rebate

          • 0
        • Moderatorneil on 07/01/2018 - 21:49

          True and I guess PM will probably require a donation again for 2018. 2016 raised $5000 and 2017 $10,000 from the OzBargain community.

        • abb on 08/01/2018 - 10:28

          @whooah1979: You've established a link between YGAP and Polished Man, but what does that have to do with Grill'd ??

          • 0
        • whooah1979 on 08/01/2018 - 15:57

          @abb:

          Grill'd

          grill'd provided a free burger for every >$30 donationed to polished man in exchange for advertisement.

          • 0
        • abb on 08/01/2018 - 16:08

          @whooah1979: That much I know.

          In response to a comment that says the free burger is not taking away money from the charity, you've pointed out that Polished Man is linked to YGAP.

          Why?

          • 0
        • whooah1979 on 08/01/2018 - 16:10

          @abb:

          Polished Man is linked to YGAP.

          because polished man isn't registered as a charity, but y-gap is.

          • 0
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join