‘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

    • Scab on 07/01/2018 - 16:05

      those at risk of HIV

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

      • 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.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 07/01/2018 - 16:24
          +3

          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.

        • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 16:29
          +2

          @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?

        • 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.

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

          @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.

        • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 16:35
          +1

          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.

        • 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.

        • 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".

        • 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.

      • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 16:39
        +2

        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.

        • Scab on 07/01/2018 - 16:52
          +1

          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?

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

          @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.

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

          @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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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!

    • onesandtwos on 07/01/2018 - 17:55
      +5

      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.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2018 - 16:02
    +5

    Would a disclaimer be an idea?

    Something along the lines of:
    "This is a charity-funded freebie. By claiming this, you may be reducing the charity's ability to help those who need it. Please think twice before signing up."

    • Clear on 07/01/2018 - 16:22
      +3

      Mods added that and hasn't made a difference. I don't think OP even realised it was a charity initially.

    • ChadHominem on 07/01/2018 - 16:57
      +1

      I think that the disclaimer also needs to make it clear that the deal exists for the purpose of spreading awareness (which seems to be the only argument that I've seen for not banning deals from charities). It should also encourage people to upvote if they wish to show support for the initiative , rather than doing so based on the usual "bargain criteria".

      • ChadHominem on 07/01/2018 - 17:14
        +1

        Actually, how about changing the actual voting system for these deals? Instead of the green and red up votes and down votes, maybe have a blue "support" vote (with a ✊) and a blank white "support withheld" vote (with a 🤚, for people who may wish to take issue with a controversial charity, for example).

        That way the deals can still be found by ozbargainers in need, but will clearly not be a regular deal to be exploited by the community.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:02
          +2

          I don’t think it’s the ozbargain community’s place to judge a charity. People had issue with ACON because they took a sex positive and non-judgmental stance on their website (gloves, play pack, etc.). You’d just open up charities and people to abuse.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 05:55

          @ihavecentsnotsense: some people are looking for an outlet to express their opposing views, many of these views are not nice to say the least, if they were given a voting button that would give them an 'outlet' to show their disapproval and take some strain off the comments section being used for that instead.

  • try2bhelpful on 07/01/2018 - 16:17
    +3

    I don't think we should ban the postings because there are likely to be "target market" people looking at Ozbargain who would benefit from the deal and they may not be aware of them through other means. However, contacting the relevant charity and asking if they want it removed from the board because they are worried about being swamped by non targetted people might be an idea; at least then they get the heads up.

    • whooah1979 on 07/01/2018 - 16:20

      However, contacting the relevant charity and asking if they want it removed from the board

      it shouldn't be up to ozb nor their members to police this.

      • try2bhelpful on 07/01/2018 - 16:23
        +2

        Did you read the OPs post - he was saying we should ban the posts. If we are concerned by misuse by our members, why shouldn't we take responsibility for this?

        • whooah1979 on 07/01/2018 - 16:27

          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/354078#comment-5498555

          ozb shouldn't have to contact the publishers and ask for their permission. that would be a waste of ozb resources.

        • try2bhelpful on 07/01/2018 - 16:33
          +1

          @whooah1979: Instead we should be seen as bad citizens because we swamp Charity sites with people who aren't the targetted markets. "Next on a Current Affair, greedy Ozbargain users who stop needy people from getting help because they swamp the offers". I think it is up to the moderator if he wants to go the extra mile. It is a suggestion to try to keep these posts up on the website for the people who actually are the target market rather than people who are just selfish. The OPs option is we don't post them at all.

        • whooah1979 on 07/01/2018 - 16:53
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          sex education funded by the state starts at a very young age in industrialised countries. the same goes for drug education. two activities that can spread hiv.

          the responsibility rest solely with the people that partake in these activities.

        • try2bhelpful on 07/01/2018 - 16:57

          @whooah1979: what are you talking about? We are talking about if we should be putting up Charity posts for targetted people. I'm really not interested in your judgement calls on people's behaviour as it really says more about you than the actual people who go to the Charities. With the alt-right trying to shutdown in the schools any discussion about gay people and drug use, your argument is a tad specious anyway.

        • whooah1979 on 07/01/2018 - 17:10

          @try2bhelpful:

          ihavecentsnotsense started this thread because they didn't like what was happening in the other thread.

        • try2bhelpful on 07/01/2018 - 17:14

          @whooah1979: We are dealing with this thread, and your personal views on the value of a HIV charity has nothing to do with it. Unless you are purposefully sabotaging the HIV site in protest, in which case you are despicable.

        • whooah1979 on 07/01/2018 - 17:29

          @try2bhelpful:

          the word sex comes up 25 times and hiv 10 in this thread. your opinion is that these two threads are separate threads. my opinion is this thread is an extension to the other and this thread exist only because of the other.

        • try2bhelpful on 07/01/2018 - 17:40
          +2

          @whooah1979: Go back and look at the original OPs post, that is the issue that is being addressed here. The fact that you have actually counted the number of posts for sex and HIV in the thread is "interesting" but irrelevant. We are dealing with the OPs issue - which does not contain the words "sex" or "HIV" once, he only links to the Charity as an example; the moderator has raised many more but I'm sure you didn't check them for the words homeless or hungry. The fact that you are "hung up" about other people's lifestyles does not affect the work this Charity does.

        • abb on 08/01/2018 - 10:25

          @whooah1979: Maybe it could be a requirement that OP gets approval from the charity, or they can only be posted by someone affiliated with the charity?

  • tassieeagle on 07/01/2018 - 16:31
    +9

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

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

      I often wonder that question myself.

    • ChadHominem on 07/01/2018 - 16:49
      +10

      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.

      • try2bhelpful on 07/01/2018 - 18:30
        +12

        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.

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

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

  • whodidthat on 07/01/2018 - 16:43

    Hopefully, if some later need help from any charity that offer "freebies", those charities are able to help. Or will they be turned away because their freebie was ozbargained at an earlier date?

  • payton on 07/01/2018 - 17:39

    The charity would know where the clicks to their page originate from, wouldn't they (HTTP Referer)
    They can just either set requests from ozbargain to 'low priority' or refuse them altogether.
    Those with a valid need can further communicate with the Charity (after hearing about it from here)

    • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 18:41
      +2

      That means we would create a requirement for every single website (or at least charity website) to create pages that say "We see you've been referred by a deal website! Sorry, but we are restricting this content." A) this won't go down well to those in the receiving end of this message, as we've seen with anti ad blocker splashes and B) that's an additional requirement of resource thin charities. I just don't see it as a reasonable solution.

      • payton on 07/01/2018 - 19:03

        I posted in reference to comments that charities were 'swamped' trying to fulfill orders originating from here.
        IMO its bit difficult to verify a person's eligibility if all it takes to get freebies is to fill in some blank lines.
        Making the user establish a 2nd/further contact to get free stuff, (I suspect) would reduce opportunistic grabs

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:08
          +5

          But it’s also forcing more work onto the charities, when they shouldn’t need to deal with this stuff at all - why should it be their responsibility to wade through legitimate requests when it could’ve been avoided?

        • payton on 07/01/2018 - 19:10

          @ihavecentsnotsense:
          You've probably seen poorly created discount codes getting misused and it costed the business a lot of effort to fix or refund customers.
          eg. discount code allowing $0 purchases, or can be reused multiple times

          I'm just suggesting charities to take some basic IT steps to make their life easier and make them less susceptible to abuse

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:13
          +1

          @payton: business are different to charities. Businesses operate for profit with employees and sell products. Charities operate with limited budgets, volunteers, and don’t operate at a profit (some at a loss). There is a clear distinction between what work is reasonable for a business to do, and what is reasonable to expect of a charity. This is why there are tax concessions for charities, for example.

        • whooah1979 on 07/01/2018 - 19:39
          +11

          @ihavecentsnotsense:

          Charities operate with limited budgets, volunteers, and don’t operate at a profit

          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/taxpayer…

          ACON gets more than $11m a year in taxpayer funding, most of it from NSW Health, and has been criticised in the past over a lack of accountability and transparency.

          He pointed to the latest publicly available accounts, which revealed $8m went towards salaries and just $600,000 on programs in the 2015-16 financial year.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:46
          +1

          @whooah1979: This kind of discussion was had in the original deal post. I’m not speaking of any particular charity, I’m speaking of charity deals generally. I don’t think it’s right that ozbargain users get to be self-appointed arbiters or what charities are worthy of being brodened or not. If you don’t like the charity, don’t donate to them. It doesn’t mean they deserve to be brodened on this website.

        • whooah1979 on 07/01/2018 - 19:50
          +2

          @ihavecentsnotsense:

          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/354078#comment-5498555 is one option.

          don’t donate to them.

          we can't do much about that. some of these "charities" are taxpayer funded.

  • spackbace on 07/01/2018 - 19:03
    +8

    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

    • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:09
      +4

      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.

      • 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

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:16
          +6

          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.

        • spackbace on 07/01/2018 - 19:17
          +8

          @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.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:24
          +1

          @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.

        • spackbace on 07/01/2018 - 19:28
          +4

          @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.

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

          @Spackbace: neither did yours :-)

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 19:36
          +2

          @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.

    • 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
        +3

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

        • 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

        • 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 ??

        • 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.

        • 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?

        • 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.

      • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 21:34

        If I remember correctly, in 2017 The Polished Man implemented a minimum donation to obtain free burgers. The year before (2016) there was no minimum donation, and plenty of OzBargain users were just signing up to get free burgers: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/265889 A much smaller amount was also raised by the site (may be related, who knows). I think the implementation of the minimum donation is quite telling of what the majority ended up doing.

    • yeahyeah on 07/01/2018 - 22:35
      +2

      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.

  • Wiede on 07/01/2018 - 21:05
    +4

    Agree on at least removing them if it is a targeted one, for me taking advantage of those is not unlike lining up for free soup/food for the homeless. Darn unethical and you have to be quite shameless to do so.

  • LUTSlit on 07/01/2018 - 21:58

    Charity begins at home.

  • ihavecentsnotsense on 07/01/2018 - 22:05
    +7

    This is a take down request from Coloplast Australia who suffered an ozbargaining after a free sample was posted:

    Page
    Brava Protective Seal Free Sample

    Request
    Email from Coloplast Australia

    Please note that we are a manufacturer of medical supplies – and our products are for people with particular medical conditions. Most of the sample requests that came through from your website were not genuine and took our staff away from helping people who are in need.

    We therefor ask that you please do not promote our products on your website in future.

    Source: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/159761?page=2#comment-4682…

    This is the same thing that will likely happen to many charities unfortunately. It has clearly happened in the past.

    • folktaliesin on 07/01/2018 - 22:28
      +8

      Well, an even more similar one here:

      https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/159761#comment-2920898

      Page
      Get 10 Free Safe Sex Packs (One Condom & Lube Pack) in an Unmarked Envelope

      Request
      Received an email from CHEP(chep.hiv) requesting the page to be removed.

      … a small Charity organisation who provides free safe sex packs for people AT RISK of HIV. I have recently received over 70 orders for free condoms in the last 2 hours, from this site. As you can appreciate, no permission was gained from any party to promote our service on Ozbargain. As a small non-for-profit organisation we cannot cater for this number of orders orders from people who are not considered high risk.

      Action
      Deal removed.

      • SydEP on 08/01/2018 - 00:33

        Very similar.

      • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 06:39

        Wow. Yet the mods still want to have this debate!

        • whooah1979 on 08/01/2018 - 07:01

          Yet the mods still want to have this debate!

          the members voice their concerns, but the decision is entirely up to moderators.

        • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 09:32

          @whooah1979:

          No, not sure if I've been clear here. Community guidelines are set by the community after it's been debated. What we are trying to get is clear guidelines that can be enacted uniformly.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 01:49
    +4

    Of course it should be allowed! As long as it helps with the mission of the charity rather than taking advantage of it.

    I suspect that the NO vote is coming prodominently from those who voted NO in the marriage survey because they are butthurt about LGBTI.

    If there was a charity offering a free music hit on iTunes/Google Play to raise awareness for depression in the hope that the song will help some will come forward to seek treatment out of it, I'm sure there would be no outrage about this kind of deal.

    In fact I'm working on something which I hope will result in offering free food to bring attention to a politically neutral cause (non profit but not a registered charity yet either) and if you kill this off this kind of deal the OzBargain community would miss out on the opportunity

    The best solution is to ASK them for peemission if in doubt. OzB community doesn't think twice about exploiting a JB Hi-Fi loophole but charities could be different if it's unintentional to reach so many people or targeted to certain groups

    • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 06:44
      +3

      Just to be clear, it’s got nothing to do with the type of charity involved in the deal linked above. Hence why the post was very general about charities and only used the linked deal as an example of what can happen. The suggestion that I am homophobic is very hurtful and I think you should think very carefully before making accusations like that against someone - as throughout this post and the deal post, I’ve done nothing but support ACON; it is the unreasonable impost on ACON I take an issue with.

      • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 06:58

        It's NOT against yourself (and sorry for any offense caused on that, I was not referring to you).

        There are others (i.e. those against homosexuality), who I think would PURPOSELY get the deal in order to waste charity resources because they don't like that it supports gay people.

        ~77.5% is also quite a high proportion on the Poll, it makes me makes me think that some of them could be saying that because they are just ANTI-CHARITY and don't want charities to get their message out (because a lot of charities have messages which they don't like, or those who are just plain selfish), rather than being against the abuse of charity resources.

        I'm also a bit sensitive because the Liberal/National Party are putting a lot of pressure on charities who engage in political activity, and I'm concerned that "charity" is being conflated with "those who are trying to send a political message" arising from that coverage.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 12:36

      Nope, Many people are voted no as they didn't want the charity to be taken advantage of.

  • Geryatric on 08/01/2018 - 07:49
    +4

    Should require permission of the charity or associated to post

  • SydneySwan on 08/01/2018 - 08:45
    -1

    I cannot imagine that I am in the target market for any charity deal / freebie posted here and will certainly not take advantage of any such offer where my participation would be an abuse. If Ozbargainers are unable to pass on a charity offer clearly not targeted at themselves then the best solution is that such posts are not allowed. Charities should be able to find their target market without needing to use Ozbargain either directly (posting themselves) or indirectly (an Ozbargainer posting the 'deal').

    • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 08:55

      What is the objective difference between a Company targeting OzBargain by giving away an item of value to drum up business, and a Charity targeting OzBargain by giving away an item of value to drum up awareness?

      • BartholemewH on 08/01/2018 - 21:04
        +1

        How many charity deals are posted by someone with rep status or equivalent? Not many I'd imagine?

  • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 08:46
    +5

    Op your stance, I think is akin to throwing that baby out with the bathwater, It would be interesting to see if the ACON has actually had many people order or if it has predominantly had people click through for a look and then move on.

    I know that bargain hunting often attracts some inconsiderate people but I wonder what sort of % ordered that 1) looked at the post and then 2) clicked on the deal. You seem to be basing your entire point on a assumption that is has been Ozbargained. I know there has been an example of another charity asking for a deal to be removed but there has also been several that Neil has listed that haven't, it would be a shame to prevent those charities from getting their message out here because of a possible incorrect assumption when I think others have suggested less drastic measures that would likely mitigate charaties being swamped if that is indeed what happens.

    • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 09:42
      +2

      I think the comments, upvotes and click throughs, even the text of the original deal post, on the ACON deal are pretty indicative of what the intention of most people was (to broden it).

      As someone says, the target market for charities isn’t going to be OzBargain - they’re going to be people in genuine need, not those who would otherwise be trying to save a few $$ on an OLED TV.

      I know that OzBargain (when it’s been an initiative that the site including the staff have got involved with) has at times contributed positively to some charities. Such as at Christmas time I think it was, during movember and the polished man thing, but there’s a distinct difference: these have been initiatives to donate to the charity, not take something from them for free. Posts like the ACON one, for example, did nothing for the charity but take resources from them. If the site was actually raising money, then that’s different. But you can’t equate a deal post exploiting the charity and call it ‘raising awareness’ with an actual donation to the charity.

      • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 10:37
        +2

        I think a number of the comments are tounge in cheek and as the original description was lacking, it likely led to a lot of click throughs that didn't end up claiming

        I also think there are plenty of people who visit here to try and make their very limited finance's stretch and the idea of a new OLED isn't a reality for many.

        But let's be honest, condoms cost 50c EA from Coles or Woolies, if the main purpose of ACON was to supply free condoms to Gay man who can't afford 50c for one then their 13mil of Gov funding last year is wildly excessive. The far bigger challenge appears to be getting Gay men to wear them which requires "raising awareness" which the post has done, hence it has contributed in the best way OzBargain could, any money it could raise would pale into insignificance in comparison to the millions of Gov funds they already receive.

    • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 10:26

      UPDATE: It’s confirmed that ACON lodged a take-down request regarding the post for I Love Claude. It appears they have been brodened.

      • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 11:07

        But not the main ACON deal (so far) so they haven't been Ozbargained after all?

        Seems like either people don't like pretending they are a man who likes gay sex or, Claude being a subset of ACON have a far smaller budget, or they have less qualms taking from a Gov funded charity targeted at one of the least susceptible groups as opposed to one of the most susceptible

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 12:07

          You may have seen already, but ACON has now also requested a take-down for both items.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join