‘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

        • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 14:02

          @ihavecentsnotsense: That they have, given the extra time to decide I would imagine it wasn't too big a strain on their resources, would be interesting to see some numbers though.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 09:23
    +4

    OzBargain mods: Please think very carefully before banning charity/non-profit deals altogether or burying them altogether in the forums (which I am NOT happy with that idea). I know that you are a charitable bunch, with the huge amount which OzBargain donates back to the world each year.

    Already charities are under threat of being silenced in the political space as outlets to promote their message are becoming less and less. I'm not a fan of shopping centre hecklers so get rid of those, but it shows the desperation charities have to resort to, to get noticed.

    Even OzBargain's own Christmas Parties offering free food could run afoul of your own rules if you banned or limited charitable giveaways.

    I am with a community group still in the very early stages of formation (nowhere near charity status yet, although with the right paperwork it would probably be eligible) and one of the things we'd like to do is put on a free lunch (of value) to encourage people to come along to it (and hopefully participate as well), and I would like to be able share that free lunch with the OzBargain community when the time comes.

    Please think carefully before locking out this important segment of Australia from being visible even if they have something of value to offer which would qualify as a "Deal" otherwise.

  • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 09:46
    -1

    OzBargain mods: Although there are some people who hold different views, they are in the minority. Please respect the overwhelming votes on this poll and the voice of your users - that posts involing freebies from charities should not be allowed. I understand you can’t please everyone, but you also have to listen to what the majority of what your users want.

    • Scab on 08/01/2018 - 10:05
      +3

      but you also have to listen to what the majority of what your users want

      You aren't the "majority", few people visit the forums.

      You're simply a loud and vocal minority and expect to get your own way by incessantly complaining.

      • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 10:09

        I was referring to the votes in the poll above.

        • Scab on 08/01/2018 - 10:12
          +3

          As was I, few people visit the forum so any poll here is not an accurate representation.

          And it's like reviews, only committed/triggered people will go to the trouble of voicing their opinion or voting.

          So just because a poll on a forum has more votes means nothing.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 10:21
          +7

          @Scab: You’re a troll. I note that in the ACON deal, you were posting pretty lewd remarks and it seems that you were one of the people who ordered packs whether you needed them or not. You probably want to keep charity deals up so you can keep trolling them and getting stuff for free.

        • Scab on 08/01/2018 - 10:24
          +4

          @ihavecentsnotsense:

          Great reply, can't debate so you resort to name-calling, typical.

          I would have thought someone as righteous and upstanding as you pretend to be wouldn't call other people names?

          Guess you're not all that after all.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 10:28
          +2

          @Scab: You referred to yourself as ‘trolling ozbargain’ in a wireless keyboard deal you posted! :-P

        • Scab on 08/01/2018 - 10:30
          +4

          @ihavecentsnotsense:

          Which has nothing to do with this debate, don't try and excuse yourself from name-calling.

          It's funny how people who pretend to be noble and wonderful suddenly resort to childish names and tactics when they can't debate someone.

          Just shows how fake and shallow some people are.

        • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 10:32

          Scab, Ihavecentsnotsense.

          Either debate respectfully or don't debate here at all. The topic at hand is freebie charity posts.

  • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 09:53
    +9

    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.

    • Scab on 08/01/2018 - 10:06
      -1

      If I was personally responsible for this website

      Yeah well, thankfully you are not.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 11:19
      +10

      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.

  • Slippery Fish on 08/01/2018 - 10:08
    +6

    Regardless of what's posted people still have the option not to be a scumbag…

    I don't think we need to ban these posts but seperate them into a whole new charity tab, they have the potential to help people but in the main deal tab is the wrong place and I'm sure most can agree on that.

  • sydonk on 08/01/2018 - 10:27
    +7

    I have been using OzBargain for years, and I appreciate what this site and community does. However, reading the comments in the thread in discussion and seeing members in this community exploiting this initiative is deeply upsetting - so much so, that I have created an account today just to make this post. As a gay man, I am well aware of ACON's initiatives and the HIV problem within the MSM community, it is an issue very personal to me. Reading some of the comments taking advantage, encouraging others to do the same, wasting valuable resources and making a joke of what is a serious issue is cause for concern - and I think while the post may not have broken any existing rules or guidelines, it seems clear that a moderator should have made an executive decision to remove it.

    • pformag on 08/01/2018 - 11:33
      -3

      I think the biggest issue I have, is there are free items (condoms, gloves? lube) that can be used by anyone. Why doesn't ACON just send out an information pack without these items. Can't the LGBTQI group purchase these like everyone else does?

      • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 12:00
        +1

        Sending items of value has more appeal.

        Also they are trying to address the issue of LGBT who are NOT going to the shops to buy it for some reason or another so they are essentially giving them a starter pack right to their door.

      • sydonk on 08/01/2018 - 12:16
        +1

        I can see your point, but the way I see it is that the initiative is to reduce HIV transmission, which is prevalent within the MSM community. Therefore they have targeted MSM, and in doing so have provided the items necessary to do so (i.e. condoms, lube and gloves to promote safe sex in addition to providing information).

        If the initiative was to reduce teen pregnancy, and they provided free condoms, it would make sense for them to give them to heterosexual teenagers, even though condoms can be used by everyone. Or if the initiative was to provide free water to a community after a natural disaster, sure, water is used by everyone, but these initiatives are targeted to those who need it most.

        • Slippery Fish on 08/01/2018 - 14:01

          The young guy who isn't ready to tell anyone who he knows he is meeting guys for sex very likely appreciated it.

          I am not gay but personally will online order these sorts of things because I'm not comfortable doing it in person.

  • pformag on 08/01/2018 - 11:11
    -8

    I thought OZbargain was free from SJW non-sense. If it's a deal/bargain/freebie, then it's fair game. Charity or Not.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 11:26

      That's funny because even SJW side would want charities to be able to run deals, given that many charities have a SJW purpose. I'm pleased that both sides can come together to agree that limiting the ability of charities to feature on OzBargain is shitty

    • Pacify on 08/01/2018 - 14:33
      +2

      Did you just call not abusing charities as SJW nonsense?

  • folktaliesin on 08/01/2018 - 11:49
    +3

    • Charities running targetted freebie deals should be banned.

    • Charities running general freebie deals for advocacy and awareness for the general population should not be banned.

    Simple, reasonable middle ground. I don't think we need to run to the extreme for this one, as charities would obviously welcome greater visibility for their general advocacy campaigns. It's obvious OP is trying to push for the extreme (they keep posting the same thing in the comments), but I haven't seen a reasonable argument for having to ban all charities full stop.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 11:56

      Sounds reasonable, but also this opens back up the can of worms that is whether businesses should be able to post targeted deals either if not everyone can get it.

      And what if someone disagrees with their cause and then cry "TARGETED!!" because they don't feel included in a deal i.e. the "Yes! Shirts" saga because No side were upset they couldn't get a No shirt for them and they didn't want a Yes one even though they were eligible to get one without supporting Yes.

    • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 11:58

      I understand that some users are getting annoyed that I am commenting (although I’ve never prevented anyone else from doing so), and I will refrain from commenting either way on what I think about the merits of your proposal.

      I will raise that it could be argued, and certainly has been argued in the ACON deal already, that free condoms and play packs actually are for the ‘general population’ as ‘anyone can use them.’ The fact that it was on their website for anyone to access might also indicate to some people that it was a ‘general freebie’, despite the objectives and intention of ACON and the initiatives. So it’s not really that clear cut for many users, unfortunately.

      • folktaliesin on 08/01/2018 - 14:22

        Don't mind you posting. You've got an opinion. I think that's been heard though. I just think there may be reasonable alternatives for discussion. I've seen too many of the threads above descend into name calling. We can keep the discussion on topic.

  • meong on 08/01/2018 - 12:04
    +4

    I think the charity deals should still be allowed on OzBargain…

    Yes, they may be misused by certain people who just want to take advantage of…

    However, some of these charities actually provide freebies to get their words out and a lot of charity organisations really do need to get their words out to be seen and recognised by people…

    I never consumed any of this freebies (cause i never needed them anyway) but some of these freebies actually come from organisations that I haven't heard of before.

    Some organisations may be widely known but actually need to get their 'freebies' moved out such as RSPCA's free adoption period which is to encourage people to adopt as it can be costly to keep them…

  • djmatt24 on 08/01/2018 - 12:15
    +4

    I think it's clear OzBargain has a main focus being a bargain hunting website and that posting these sorts of deals can cripple a charity from getting their core mission done. Don't expect users to exercise their own 'moral compass.' Do the right thing for the charity.
    Posts should be banned.

  • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 12:21

    OK, some great feedback.

    First let's breakdown the freebies from charities and I think come to a consensus of what deals we think are acceptable, which aren't, and unsure.

    ACCEPTABLE:

    NOT ACCEPTABLE:

    NOT SURE:

    Suggestions by the community (+ my feedback):

    • Not posting it as a freebie but instead under a new category. (Not sure changing the category e.g. OP's example was Health & Beauty to another would make a difference).
    • Add them to the wiki instead of a deal. (Members are welcome to add them or whatever to the wiki. Charitable resources wiki?)
    • Banning all charity posts. (Don't think this is a good idea as it would include pet adoptions mentioned above & Grilld Polishd Man etc.)
    • Banning all freebie charity posts. (Also think this isn't specific enough as would include pet adoptions).
    • Entities that have a DGR status and any others that don't but have a political agenda should be banned. (Bit unclear what political agenda is but perhaps they were referring to the Adani freebie?)
    • Add a tag to posts that say CHARITY or similar (Not sure it makes a difference as we can write CHARITY or whatever in the title however I have suggested custom tags, I believe Reddit has a similar feature called flair)
    • Adding the blue targeted tag to the post (These posts are not our definition of targeted offers so tagging as so would be confusing. Also many have targeted deals blocked. So definite NO on this proposal).
    • Asking a charity if they want their deal on OzBargain. (This is unfeasible as it would always be after the post and in OP's case it was the weekend. Given it's not possible, it's a NO.)
    • Move all charity posts to the forums. (No issue with this but this is just moving the issue to another place on OzBargain.).
    • Adding a disclaimer to charity posts. (Good idea but not really effective).

    This is the suggestion(s) we think are most feasible and covers the above.

    • Ban freebie deal posts from charities targeted at specific groups where you receive a physical item in the mail with exception of a rep posting. This guideline would be added to the Deal Posting Guidelines: Charity. I think this would solve the majority of issues (Not the PWYW Groceries one) without affecting deals the community does want such as OzHarvest events in CBDs & Pet Adoptions from the RSPCA/Cat Haven etc..

    Thoughts?

    • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 12:47

      Sounds well thought out. Think we have a winner.

    • Scab on 08/01/2018 - 12:48
      +3

      NOT ACCEPTABLE:

      Really don't think those should be banned, maybe add a disclaimer or a special section for charities.

      You've said this yourself, Ozbargain members come from different walks of life, different sexual preferences and financial resources.

      What about the gay members here who otherwise wouldn't be aware of ACON if it were banned?

      Or the person struggling and not aware of OzHarvest, just because someone has an internet connection and is an Ozbargain member doesn't make them wealthy.

      And with OzHarvest (and probably with ACON), I really doubt a large number of people would have rocked up to them to get groceries.

      Most were just having a bit of fun with no intention of claiming anything, and the bonus is that OzHarvest gets much needed advertising.

      In my opinion, once you start to micromanage things it opens up a can of worms and no matter how many rules you make, some people will game the system or do the wrong thing.

      It's really no different to people taking advantage of obvious price or product errors, are we going to ban them as well?

      NOT SURE

      Really can't see why they would be banned, they are happily giving them away to prevent disease.

      They want people to have them, and more condoms used is a good thing.

      Doesn't really apply to me though as I don't have sex, I'm asexual.

      • sydonk on 08/01/2018 - 13:17
        +3

        Except it was enough for ACON to request OzBargain to remove the post. I highly doubt that the majority of the orders coming through from OzBargain were from the intended audience (MSM).

        • Scab on 08/01/2018 - 13:46
          +4

          You're assuming that they asked for it to be removed because they were flooded with orders, that may or may not be correct.

          It may have been for a number of other reasons.

          And other companies have also asked for their logos/specials to not be used or only under certain circumstances, yet we still allow them.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 13:51
          +1

          @Scab: Exactly. Redaware are fine with being OzBargained despite offering the same thing, so the only thing which made ACON in the "Not Acceptable" category is because they didn't want it.

        • Clear on 08/01/2018 - 15:14
          +1

          @Scab: Further to what you're saying, look at McDonald's posts for example. They reached out and requested that OzBargain stop displaying thumbnails from their website. There is often more to a takedown request than what we see.

      • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 14:19

        What about the gay members here who otherwise wouldn't be aware of ACON if it were banned?

        As suggested, forum discussions are fine and there were suggestions of making a wiki. Perhaps someone here could start a wiki page for say those who are having financial issues, HIV/AIDs whatever etc and where to go. Similar to what we have for mental health

        • Clear on 08/01/2018 - 15:16
          +1

          Perhaps someone here could start a wiki page for say those who are having financial issues, HIV/AIDs whatever etc and where to go. Similar to what we have for mental health

          I think you're on the money there neil. Have a wiki page dedicated to it and have any sexual health related freebies added to that section as they become posted. Have it titled under Free Services or similar.

      • djmatt24 on 08/01/2018 - 14:28
        +9

        What about the gay members here who otherwise wouldn't be aware of ACON if it were banned?

        Let's be real here, this isn't OzBargain's role or purpose and it's a weak reason to permit the gutting of a charity. A gay person savvy enough to use the internet and OzBargain is highly likely to be aware of ACON already as they have other avenues of advertising to reach the people they need to. OzBargain is not part of that. Let's not kid ourselves that we are 'helping to reach out' here. The other gay users who aren't aware and would genuinely take advantage could probably be counted on a single hand (with or without gloves).

        • J23SD on 08/01/2018 - 15:40
          +1

          I am a gay member and I had no idea about the offer, and I appreciate seeing it. Your joke about gloves is homophobic and offensive, there is a serious health reason why gloves are included in the box and there is just no need to take the piss out of them.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 17:11
          -1

          @JamesVincent: whats offensive about the gloves? i dont get it.. what are they used for?

        • djmatt24 on 08/01/2018 - 17:13
          +4

          @JamesVincent: You are 100% getting outraged over absolutely nothing my friend. The joke wasn't homophobic, and you'd only find it offensive if you really sought to find it so. Read it again.
          Secondly, I'm gay, and you'll find all my posts has been about supporting the work ACON do.
          And finally, as a gay person, how can you not be alarmed or at least concerned that by posting on OzBargain, this has directed ACON's resources away from our community! That's what you should be adding to this discussion, not getting outraged about a glove pun!

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 17:58
          +1

          @djmatt24: to be fair, as someone who is not fully aware of the full sphere of the gay community, the deal did educate me on the existence of ACON.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 13:15
      +3

      Thank you Neil for the opportunity to have community feedback, I/we really appreciate it!

      I think that your suggested solution is a good one. I'd definitely be happy with that! The rep exception is a good compromise and effectively covers "with the Charity's permission to post it".

      I know that this suggestion requires a bit of coding behind it, but I think that the "Targeted" TAG could be further expanded in functionality from it's current meaning of "There are certain conditions but you must read the post to figure out what" to further drill down into certain demographics. The user could then broaden the filtering options of "Targeted" to be able to pick and choose which demographics they want to see (a bit of research would be needed to figure out which demographics are most common of the targeted offers). As far as transition goes, keep respecting the existing opt-out of the generic "targeted" tag but make the new targeted tags require a separate "opt out" preference for those ones too rather than taking on the opt-out of the existing one.

      In addition, I know that it is dubious agreement of whether anyone will actually listen/pay attention to it given the type of crowd OzBargain tends to attract, but it wouldn't hurt to have a little disclaimer for Charity type deals anyway. At least it looks like we are trying to do the right thing.

      I have made a little mockup of what I mean with the new tags: https://i.imgur.com/wHM9To7.png edit- Mockup page 2: https://i.imgur.com/m2beRvA.png

      • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 14:16

        Wow.. nice looking tags.

    • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 13:17

      Thanks for presenting a proposal, Neil. I understand what you’re getting at, but the specificity of the proposal presents issues:

      • Freebie deal posts: What if a charity sells an item for $1 and makes a loss on it, but does it to help people and it get gets totally ozbargained anyway. The same outcome occurs.

      • targeted at specific groups: How would this be defined? The ACON post is a good example, as people were quick to argue that everyone uses condoms/gloves/straight people are at risk of HIV too, etc.

      • physical item in the mail: intangible/electronic items received from a charity can still cost the charity money and divert resources and could be even easier to completely OzBargain. Examples include coupons offered to assist people with purchasing goods at specific retailers (meant only for charity recipients) or vouchers offered at a discount, but subsidised by the charity.

      This is why I propose a blanket ban. It wouldn’t stop OzBargain’s charitable measures themselves, as you guys are raising and donating money. Also, the only acceptable posts you’ve presented in your proposal are from two charities: RSPCA and OzHarvest. I can see how they could benefit (but the target market for both charities are likely to find out about the initiatives through other means anyway), but is it worth the angst of many smaller charities for the benefit of a few larger ones?

      • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 14:28

        Freebie deal posts: What if a charity sells an item for $1 and makes a loss on it, but does it to help people and it get gets totally ozbargained anyway. The same outcome occurs.

        Example of this kind of deal from a charity?

        targeted at specific groups: How would this be defined? The ACON post is a good example, as people were quick to argue that everyone uses condoms/gloves/straight people are at risk of HIV too, etc.

        If the item is meant for specific groups as defined by the charity.

        physical item in the mail: intangible/electronic items received from a charity can still cost the charity money and divert resources and could be even easier to completely OzBargain. Examples include coupons offered to assist people with purchasing goods at specific retailers (meant only for charity recipients) or vouchers offered at a discount, but subsidised by the charity.

        For clarity, "Ban freebie deal posts for physical items (in the mail), from charities targeting specific groups (rep posts are excluded)." is probably better worded.

        Again example?

        It's best to work with actual examples instead of hypotheticals.

        It wouldn’t stop OzBargain’s charitable measures themselves, as you guys are raising and donating money.

        I can't stress this enough. This is a moderation issue. What the site does in terms of charity work, advertising, meetups, etc is walled off from moderation.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 14:39
          -1

          I don’t know why examples are so important to you, as they are things that occur and may be posted online at any time. If you’ve ever volunteered at a charity, you’d realise that.

          Example of charity selling an item at a loss: I used to volunteer at a charity that sold dinners for a gold coin donation. They would cost more than a dollar to produce. I don’t want to post the name of the charity in the public forum like this, because only the people who needed it received it.

          I provided examples of charities providing vouchers to people in my initial post, but if you want to be specific, I know some women’s shelters that do this with Coles and Woolies vouchers so victims of domestic violence can buy some essentials if they have to leave their home.

          Does this satisfy your request for examples? Or are you having trouble believing that these are actions a charity would do? Just because you may not have seen them posted on OzBargain doesn’t mean they don’t happen and aren’t open to be posted under your proposed guidelines.

        • Clear on 08/01/2018 - 15:19

          @ihavecentsnotsense:

          I don’t know why examples are so important to you, as they are things that occur and may be posted online at any time

          Examples are important so that you're on the same page. People interpret things differently. This post is proof of that.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 15:32

          @Clear: That’s fine, as long as it’s not an excuse to ignore these situations just because someone didn’t provide good enough examples.

        • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 15:49

          @ihavecentsnotsense: I think there is a BIG difference in people ordering something free online when it only requires minimal effort, as opposed to going to a physical location where they have to receive something face to face, Do these women's shelters provide these online or only face to face.

          Kudos for helping out though!

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 15:58

          @tryagain: it depends how urgent the request is - they have physical gift cards, but e-gift cards for when it’s an urgent request and the woman is not able to make it to the shelter during staffed hours.

        • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 16:11
          +1

          @ihavecentsnotsense: I assume there would be some validation process that happens though, it wouldn't just be an online form to fill out to get a voucher sent out. I can't see a process as such being able to be OzBargained, so for me, that isn't a case that justifies a furthering of the ban Neil has proposed.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 16:17

          @tryagain: This is the kind of response I was worried about, in my response to Clear’s post. Just because I haven’t (evidently) provided an example to your satisfaction, doesn’t mean that this issue can just be ignored. It’s still open to happen with Neil’s proposal written as it is. Knowing OzBargain, it’s a matter of time before it will happen.

        • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 17:02
          +1

          @ihavecentsnotsense: I think it is a case of weighing up the good and the bad with any proposal, there are examples of charities that Neil has provided that a total ban would disadvantage, if there conversely isn't even a likely scenario, let alone an example that is provided that the proposal wouldn't address, I don't see any value in taking it further. The current proposal would stop the posting of deals associated with ACON by others whilst still allowing others to benefit.

    • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 13:26
      +6

      On a related note, I also think that the OzBargain staff need to have a clear idea of what they want their website to be. On your About Us page, you write:

      What is OzBargain?
      OzBargain is you, the community of on-line shoppers in Australia. This is the place where we share the best bargains in Australia and share them with each other. Our goal is simple – bringing the best deals and bargains in Australia to consumers.

      Is permitting charity posts consistent with this goal? How can charity posts, in any form, ever truly be ‘bargains’ when no one should ever go to a charity for a bargain, they go there out of need. Given the espoused goal of ‘bringing the best deals and bargains… to consumers,’ I wonder how sharing charitable posts, even if it’s under the guise of ‘raising awareness’, can ever be consistent with it.

      • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 13:39

        Please educate yourself on what a charity actually is, it is much more than just helping the needy. Raising awareness is central to advancing the cause. https://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Register_my_charity/Who_can_reg…

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 14:04

          Hi, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about me. I know what a charity is and your link to the ACNC isn’t inconsistent with what I was saying. I’m commenting to Neil’s request for feedback. I haven’t responded to your feedback on Neil’s request, even though I disagree with it for practical reasons; I’d appreciate if you left your feedback solely related to Neil’s proposal and refrained from attacking me.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 17:03
          +1

          @ihavecentsnotsense: your line of questioning to the mods is utterly inappropriate and offensive. It's not their job to decide what is and isn't a charity or educate you on it. They have given you a more than fair solution which compromises with your demands but it's not enough for you.

          you are ideologically opposed to charities giving away or discounting stuff to gain support and you are trying to impose your morality onto everyone else.

          My response to you is extremely restrained compared to what I really think about how you are pretending to be in support of the charities but in reality you don't take advocacy seriously, and you want to suppress them from being able to participate on the site at all, even if they were to use a rep to post the deal and know exactly what they are getting into by posting here.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 17:26
          -1

          @The Land of Smeg: woah, ok. I totally agree with you on that it’s not for the mods to decide what is and isn’t a charity, hence why I think a ban is appropriate. I have nothing but respect for what charities do and am not opposed to charities giving things away for free or at discount, I have a problem with people who aren’t entitled to it taking advantage of a charity’s goodwill (if you knew what I did for a living, I think your opinion would change considerably, and no I’m not going to tell you because I don’t like revealing too much of myself online). Cut back on the personal attacks man, seriously. It’s ok to have different views, stop attacking me for mine.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 17:42
          +2

          @ihavecentsnotsense: Sorry I don't mean to personally attack you. Again, I am trying to restrain myself on that.

          Please take this constructively:

          As someone who also volunteers in this space, you are not authoritative on the matter, and some charities would want to post on here. To them, trying to get 10000s of pageviews at the expense of a few who try to take advantage of it is worth it. That's just the cost of doing business.

          What I am most offended by is how you are trying to limit the views of others', you are taking it upon yourself to 'protect' others from competing views, and you just won't let up with your 'take no prisoners' style relentless attack. Your point has been taken, no need to keep pushing ahead. Time to compromise with everyone else if you are not going to get your own way.

          It's not your view itself which is the problem, but how you are being so pushy about yours while denying everyone else. It is not conducive to a healthy debate.

          Again, I'm not telling you this to personal attack you but to teach you how you are coming across to others so that you can improve yourself in discussions in the future.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 17:46
          +1

          @The Land of Smeg: thanks for the feedback, I could say the same about you. I also don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that deals from charities will definitely be allowed until we get some final guidelines from the mods.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 17:53
          +1

          @ihavecentsnotsense: I can take that criticism. Unfortunately I have put myself in the same position as you to push back against your narrative.

          You are right, nothing final yet, but the mods have proposed something extremely reasonable to essentially ban charity deals except those posted by Reps (so the charity gets the choice on whether to post or not), and you are STILL pushing back on that idea - and you are the ONLY one.

          It's up to the point that it looks like you are being difficult for the sake of being difficult rather than trying to actually work with everyone else to find a solution.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 18:08

          @The Land of Smeg: Don’t want to offend, but are you confused? I support the proposal that charity deals be banned except those posted by reps of the charity. That’s a good idea. It was suggested by Gronk only minutes ago.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 18:11
          +1

          @ihavecentsnotsense: Already proposed by Neil… https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/5501068/redir

          Ban freebie deal posts from charities targeted at specific groups where you receive a physical item in the mail with exception of a rep posting

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 18:16

          @The Land of Smeg: Under Neil’s proposal, someone who isn’t a rep of a charity may post a deal whereby it’s possible to get discounted shopping e-gift cards that would otherwise be intended for charity recipients. This is how that is phrased.

          What Gronk has proposed below, and what I would support, is banning all charity deals, except those posted by reps of charities, as the charities themselves have control about what is posted and where.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 18:20
          +1

          @ihavecentsnotsense: I think that you are really picking apart the semantics here when they two essentially mean the same thing. That's just looking for loopholes which clearly was not the intent of what Neil meant. If you find a loophole, fine, at least say that you agree with that aspect so that we are all on the same page and then point out the loopholes which need to be considered to refine it further.

          What I figure from the "posted physical items" clause is that we are dealing with items which have a non-trivial cost associated with providing them.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 18:26

          @The Land of Smeg: I did point out the loopholes in my response to Neil, which you attacked me for.

          Neil didn’t write ‘ban all charity deals except where they’re posted by a charity’s rep’ he wrote other conditions to it, which are there for a reason. I also think you’re now just trying to pick an argument for the sake of it, as I can’t seem to do anything right!

          Anyway, as it stands, I support banning all charity posts, except where they’re posted by a rep of a charity.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 18:37

          @ihavecentsnotsense: I would support:

          Targeted Charity deal or one of extremely low cost (that it would cost more to produce than revenue that they would receive) = Needs a Rep to post it

          Non-Targeted Charity deal, or one where they would probably at least break even = No Rep needed.

          Thoughts on that?

          Is there a reason that it would be 'wrong' to take from a charity offering to everyone who wants it?

          Is there a reason that it would be 'wrong' if they are not losing money on it?

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 18:44

          @The Land of Smeg: Because someone who isn’t a rep for the charity has no idea whether the charity is likely to break even or not. No one knows whether they’ll lose money on it or not (most charities lose money on their initiatives really, they just don’t often fall into net loss because they try and maintain a positive balance). There were people assuming that ACON would be totally fine with having the deal posted because it was on their website anyway, even after their takedown request. Even though (and we don’t know the exact reason for the take-down request) it is possible it’s because they couldn’t afford it.

          Banning all charity deals, except where posted by a rep of that charity, allows the charity to maintain control of the deal, they know what they’re getting into, can set aside a certain mbout of stock, etc. and end the deal when they’ve had enough. Having a random member of the public do that instead means they have no control over the situation at all, except when they’re alerted to it by suddenly being inundated with requests they can’t fulfill.

          I think gronk’s solution would keep everyone happy, including the situation that you mentioned where you’d like to put on a free lunch to raise awareness for your cause - you’d still be able to do that as you’d be posting about your own charity.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/01/2018 - 06:16

          @ihavecentsnotsense: I'm not against the idea, but I think that the mods hesitation to Ban ALL charity deals without certain exceptions is that requiring a Rep to post all deals goes against a fundamental concept of OzBargain in that it's primarily a user-to-user driven forum and requiring a Rep adds a barrier to that.

          It looks like the mods have decided to go ahead with their idea now. I support it. It's still a huge improvement and these edge cases you have considered seem unlikely, but if you turn out to be right I'm sure that they would take another look at it.

          Obvious ACON deals are banned from now on, so you can sleep easy at night.

          It just so happens that ACON took exception to it (and you assume it was the cost, but it could have just as well been all the homophobia in the comments or anything else) where others like RedAware didn't despite offering essentially the same thing. Some charities might appreciate the exposure when a deal is unexpectedly picked up by OzBargain by a non-rep where they didn't previously realise what a powerful platform it is, so it seems like a good balance.

          It's not the end of the world if a charity ends up being not OK with a deal, they can always cancel orders.

    • Clear on 08/01/2018 - 15:11
      +2

      Not posting it as a freebie but instead under a new category. (Not sure changing the category e.g. OP's example was Health & Beauty to another would make a difference).

      I'd suggest a completely different page. Not one that appears under New Deals, Coupons and Freebies.

    • Slippery Fish on 08/01/2018 - 16:36

      Not posting it as a freebie but instead under a new category. (Not sure changing the category e.g. OP's example was Health & Beauty to another would make a difference).

      —

      If that was in response to my idea I actually ment a new menu tab where those posts would be placed, we could even offer charity's the chance to post and edit their offers.

      It won't stop people using their deals and maybe it might just be there to help someone if the occasion arises. Just banning is stupid.

    • folktaliesin on 08/01/2018 - 19:24

      I think all of your feedback on the community's suggestions are very reasonable, and I agree with all. I think the only reasonable approach is banning specific posts that meet certain strict and narrow criteria.

      I agree with all of the 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable' examples you've provided. As for the 'unsure' examples you've stated, here are my thoughts:

      • You would assume that ACF would be more than happy to distribute a greater number of 'Stop Adani' stickers. From what I can see the large number of negs weren't about overwhelming or abusing a charitable cause.
      • I can understand some arguments for not allowing Red Aware. For two reasons — the argument being that it targets a subset of the population, being young sexually active Australians. And that it is open to abuse (people mailing their bosses a condom) However given that's a targeting a pretty broad subset of the population, and would include many users of the OzBargain community, I think on balance you would let it through.
      • Maybe consider banning ones similar to the Bible Society one in the future… people seemed to be abusing it (many suggestions of pranks), and you'd assume the targeted population were evangelical Christians. By your definition I think they would be banned.

      I think it might be a future discussion on whether the item needs to be physical. For example, are we OK with OzBargaining a free movie showing targeted at domestic abuse victims? But I don't think that such a deal is as ripe for abuse as freebies in the mail.

      You may also want to state clearly that a mod can ban an individual post if it is highly likely or clear that abause by the OzBargain community would reduce charitable stocks.

    • dipster on 09/01/2018 - 08:47

      Along with whatever is decided in terms of a general rule, could there be some cheap and easy way for a charity or seller to give explicit consent for a post, that would otherwise be banned for their own benefit?

      Like maybe the submission form for a deal could include a contact email for the company. It’s up to the poster to locate it, but if provided the company is automatically sent an email with a succinct message like “someone would like to share offer X with the ozbargain community, which may or may not include people who are part of your target audience. ozbargain cares about the wider community and would like to give you the opportunity to choose whether or not to have the free advertising by having your offer displayed.”

      There could be several links like a “yes please!” “no thanks”, “yes but…”. they might post directly to your seller accept endpoint or open up a mailto link with a prefilled out subject and email giving them an opportunity to say something. the yes please might automatically release the post without any manual intervention where the yea but… would get send to the mods for their consideration.

      I believe factual emails are exempt from the spam act. But if there were concerns about this you could also give the poster a mailto link so it would be coming from them.

      The poster is incentivised to locate the email address as it increases the chance of their post appearing

      Obviously the system is somewhat open to abuse by the poster (e.g putting their own email address) but it probably already is for other reasons which is why there are posting guidelines etc

      Just a thought. But maybe the scale of the issue isnt worth the effort.

      • Moderatorneil on 09/01/2018 - 09:34

        I think that may be overcomplicating it a bit. A member can contact the charity and if they say yes, just put it in their deal post, or TWAM us etc.

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

    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.

  • J23SD on 08/01/2018 - 15:37
    +7

    Reading through the comments on the OP targetted at LGBTQI members, the comments are disgusting and homophobic, people taking the piss out serious issues that face the community, this charity is trying to send out free kits for valuable people and the comments just bully the items in the kits and hence bully anybody who may need to use those, this is why so many people in the LGBTQI+ community kill themselves because of homophobia everywhere they look. And this post is no better completely homophobic in nature, this post didn't come from multiple other charity posts that get posted ALL the time on Ozbargain, this post wouldn't have been created if the Cancer Council were giving out free bottles of sunscreen to Australians. This post would not have been created if the Mcgrath Foundation was giving out free books on how to care for someone with cancer. This post would not have been created if the Red Cross were giving out free resuscitation guides. This forum post should be deleted, and if Ozbargain has any decency they should promote the facts that an at-risk community who was tortured by the public and the government in 2017 has a freebie that could really make a difference in their lives.

    • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 15:55
      +4

      Hey James, I’m sorry you feel that way. I started this post and you can be assured that I am very very supportive of the LGBTI community. It is for that very reason that I would like to see posts like the ACON deal stopped - as it did nothing but disadvantage and overwhelm a LGBTI charity and draw abuse and ridicule to the target population.

      You can also be assured that I am also against the posting of all of the examples you mentioned (free bottles of sunscreen, books, rescusitation guides) as they all have the ability to overwhelm and disadvantage the charities involved if they would be posted here and people unscrupulously request them. This is why I am proposing a ban on the posting of charity deals.

      The ACON deal was the catalyst, for me, and I really took a stand against it because I’ve personally donated money to ACON in the past and hate to think my donations pay for an OzBargain user to send a joke to a colleague.

      • J23SD on 08/01/2018 - 16:18
        +3

        Thank you and I appreciate your reply and reasoning behind it.

    • nonbeliever93 on 08/01/2018 - 16:46
      +6

      I found it ridiculous that invalid negative votes were quickly removed but homophobic and transphobic remarks were left sitting there for hours. Beyond the exploitation of the charity ACON, multiple commenters denigrated the queer community (and by extension, other members of the OzBargain community). Yet for some reason the discussion focuses only on the relevance of charity freebies over addressing the rank prejudice of some commenters.

      There is a fine line between providing exposure to a charity's initiative and exploiting goodwill. I think when the content of the post turned toxic towards queer people and ACON itself, comments should have been closed (or at least, more actively moderated and warned) and the deal updated to reflect ethical use of the freebie.

      • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 17:05

        As stated in previous comments, moderators are staff. Staff are not always here on the weekend. There were hundreds of reports over the weekend and we don't necessarily look at them in order. Voting Guidelines are usually easy to tell if they are valid or not whereas some comments are subjective and require analysis/discussion.

        So please keep using the report link however don't expect us to answer or respond immediately. For reference we had 4000 reports last month, one every 10 minutes on average. Thanks.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 17:31
          +1

          The unavailability of mods on the weekend is an issue you should also consider in revising these guidelines then, as a charity would still be susceptible to being OzBargained if it’s posted on the weekend, despite the revised guidelines.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2018 - 17:45

          @ihavecentsnotsense: or perhaps they just need some more staff or volunteers to cover weekends. Any deal has the potential to get out of hand, not just charity ones

        • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 17:48

          @ihavecentsnotsense:

          We make no apologies for not answering ASAP on weekends/middle of the night just as all other businesses don't. Staff shouldn't feel they need to work outside of work hours or be bullied into answering things at an unreasonable timeframe. The wellbeing of our staff is priority 1.

          as a charity would still be susceptible to being OzBargained if it’s posted on the weekend, despite the revised guidelines.

          Anything is susceptible including SPAM, referral SPAM, including things that are already banned when a human is not around to action.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 17:49

          @neil: I totally agree! So it’s definitely something to keep in mind when introducing something requiring additional moderation from staff.

        • J23SD on 08/01/2018 - 20:11
          -3

          @neil: This is a weak answer. I didn't realise that Ozbargain was a business that employed people and since it is I believe it's responsibility increases and It is responsible for moderation. This is not one stray comment that has been shut down by fellow commenters this was a barrage of inappropriate comments. I moderate a very large social media page for a very large company and "It was the weekend" would not be an acceptable excuse to my bosses or to the community. Instead of making excuses maybe think about making changes.

        • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 20:48

          @JamesVincent:

          Staff moderate 7 days a week dealing with 1,000,000 comments per year and 4,000s report a month (one every 10 minutes). We constantly discuss, liaison with other websites for best practice moderation and seek feedback from the community in order to create/change guidelines . However, we've found that it's better to get things RIGHT the first time, then rushing to a quick judgement.

          We promote open discussion however there is a lot of grey area between what's appropriate and what's not. Half the responses we'll get are YOU'RE CENSORING ME and the other half WHY AREN'T YOU CENSORING THAT USER. Without knowing how you use Facebook, it's a different ecosystem than OzBargain. OzBargain is about the discussion where Facebook business pages are about selling your services/products.

        • spackbace on 08/01/2018 - 23:54
          +1

          @JamesVincent:

          I moderate a very large social media page for a very large company and "It was the weekend" would not be an acceptable excuse to my bosses or to the community.

          Ease up turbo, I'm quite sure you get some sleep! There'd be times your Facebook page would be unmoderated (and I'm yet to see a FB page to the level of this site with its multiple branches).

          As Neil has pointed out, when this site is cranking it would be a mission for 1 single mod, especially if they want a 2nd mod decision in the middle if the night.

      • ProspectiveDarkness on 08/01/2018 - 20:19
        +2

        The mods here are very lax on homophobia. The whole survey thing last year really turned me off this community, because of the amount of bigots and the weak response from the mod team. Poor form all around.

        (in before this gets removed and I get told to TWAM)

        • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 20:28

          Please use the report link for any comments you feel don't meet the commenting guidelines. It's a tricky line between allowing open conversation and appropriate discussions. I think it would be a good thread for another site discussion.

        • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 22:18

          @neil:

          It's a tricky line between allowing open conversation and appropriate discussions. I think it would be a good thread for another site discussion.

          A glutton for punishment?

    • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 22:14
      +1

      the comments just bully the items in the kits and hence bully anybody who may need to use those, this is why so many people in the LGBTQI+ community kill themselves because of homophobia everywhere they look.

      That's a pretty big claim, Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to condone Homophobia or any Bullying because they are horrible but according to this evaluation of multiple studies

      "As a whole, studies also showed a stronger connection between being a bully victim and suicidal thoughts when the study asked a single question to identify victims such as “Have you been bullied?” Studies that asked about specific behaviours (without mentioned the word bullying) showed a weaker connection. This finding might reflect that suicidality is more common in youth who self-identify as being bullied, when compared to those who admit only to experiencing specific behaviours "

      I think that there is as much evidence to say that the victimhood mentality of claiming to be victimised by homophobia everytime someone says something you disagree with contributes to the high rate of suicidality as much as those who are perpetrating the bullying, who ironically also suffer from a higher rate of suicidality as well.

  • chumbucket on 08/01/2018 - 16:26
    +1

    Charity pages should not experience a blanket ban, but at the same time there should be posting guidelines around charity 'deals' or 'freebies.'
    I like the suggestion by PCJ for having a green charity marker on these deals.
    But I think there should also be a redirect page when attempting to access the link explaining that this is a charity deal. Advising the person that charities operate on a limited budget etc etc.

    More specifically to stop people like this

  • IPYF on 08/01/2018 - 17:09
    +9

    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.

  • Gronk on 08/01/2018 - 17:45
    +14

    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.

    • ihavecentsnotsense on 08/01/2018 - 17:47
      +2

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

    • J23SD on 08/01/2018 - 20:13

      I really like this idea.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join