‘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 - 21:26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • klyvenator on 08/01/2018 - 19:03
    +2

    I also don't understand how "take down" equals adding an "EXPIRED" tag to a deal whilst leaving it on the second page of ozbargain which is still highly accessible and viewed. The names of the organisations involved are even in the title, making it easily google-able. There are also links to the websites in the discussion of the page.

    Why hasn't it been completely deleted and moderated with the same consistency and uniformity as these posts?:

    Brava Protective Seal Free Sample from Coloplast Australia:
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/306717

    Get 10 Free Safe Sex Packs (One Condom & Lube Pack)
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/203927

    Even this deal was completely unpublished:
    Win $10,000 or 1 of 50,000 Instant Win Prizes (Purchase a Bulla Creamy Classics Choc Top at HOYTS)
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/333025

    There needs to be more clarity on what "TAKE DOWN" involves. In the cases of charity's which have limited resources and are targetting it at a demographic, these deals should not be published on ozbargain at all.

    • Moderatorneil on 08/01/2018 - 19:10

      We've spoken to the organisation and have agreed to this action. We will add a takedown notice once we have finalised all of our guidelines.

    • folktaliesin on 08/01/2018 - 19:25
      +1

      I believe it was redirected, but temporarily left up, to enable the discussion we're having in this forum so that the issue doesn't arise again.

    • Moderatorneil on 09/01/2018 - 00:29

      Link to takedown notice as promised. Thanks.

  • lord henry on 08/01/2018 - 22:30
    +5

    As of Monday night it looks like about 84% of respondents in this thread think these posts should be banned (which is heartening).
    Meanwhile, the mod team decided to leave it up on the front page all weekend (link and all) and only took real action when ACON specifically requested it be taken down. Tag or no, having it on the front page is an invitation for people wanting freebies, not at-risk lgbtiq men.
    As a member of the lgbtiq community (one that can afford his own prophylactics) I'm honestly disappointed.

    • tryagain on 08/01/2018 - 23:03
      +3

      Are you serious, literally 2 lines up there is a mod saying they have chatted to the organisation and they have agreed to this action, he also touches on the reason why they have left it there, which is that they are refining their guidelines because of it so they haven't deleted it as it's being used as an example.

      people wanting freebies, not at-risk lgbtiq men.

      So non-LGBTI men aren't at risk? I haven't an issue with the being target to a higher risk group but let's not pretend they are the only ones at risk.

  • Moderatorneil on 09/01/2018 - 00:27

    OK to wrap this up. Thanks again for all the feedback. While posts involving charities are a handful out of the 30,000 deal posts we get a year, this is obviously an emotional subject for many people. There were varying degrees of opinions from do nothing to ban everything and after internal discussion including going through a number of hypothetical situations, we've settled with the following actions:

    • 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).
    • As for other suggestions with tags which was quite clever, I think that may be out of scope for this discussion. However, before we do targeting deals for students, etc, I'm hoping we can do the most sought after targeting which is filtering deals by state.
    • There was another suggestion that for every charity deal that they only be posted by a rep/associated. I don't think that's necessary at this point but could take under consideration.

    Guidelines are always evolving so if there are charity deals you see certainly post in here for discussion and make any suggestions.

    P.S. Please use the report link as many times as you want. We go through all of them.

    -Cheers everyone. We love you all.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/01/2018 - 06:09
      +7

      Thanks Neil, we love you too

      • whooah1979 on 09/01/2018 - 08:51
        +3

        Tl;dr?

      • PJC on 09/01/2018 - 08:51
        +5

        If you’ve been accused of homophobia … because those people accusing you may not be too far off.

        It is you who should apologise.

      • Slippery Fish on 09/01/2018 - 10:16
        +6

        Not to be mean but your coming on like (Mod: Edited)

        And no that not homophobic, you need to learn that there are many ways to view one thing and yours is quite obviously tainted with the belief that everyone is trying to belittle you and subsets of the community…

        Yes alot voted ban, but only because it was a 2 option poll which did not allow for the full scope of human emotion and decision making. As a guy who voted no (because I felt there was a better option then a ban) I felt intense pressure to vote ban as no came across like I didn't care.

        Niel and the mods are doing their best as always to support and assist all in the community, and at times it will be very challenging. They can not just remove every single thing you find offensive, the Australian Sense of humor is a tounge in cheek (not serious) pokeing fun at things.

        And if they remove everything that offends you, they must remove everything that offends me (which your continuous implying the non gay members of our community are all mistreating you does) so I hope you can see why they don't go at the community like a 6yo at a pinata.

        On a side note I'm happy to chat anything people of the community would like to pm, abuse or just conversation.

        This is straya.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 09/01/2018 - 10:49
          -1

          This is straya, if you can’t take a homophobic joke then GTFO! Haha

        • Slippery Fish on 09/01/2018 - 10:51
          +1

          @ihavecentsnotsense: homophobic or homoinclusive? Homophobia stems from a fear or discomfort, I have neither :)

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 09/01/2018 - 11:01
          +1

          @Slippery Fish: That’s great to hear! I never claimed you were homophobic, nor did I claim Neil was (what I claimed was that people who believed he was would feel justified in that belief by being subject to further homophobic posts by opening up a debate about it all). The posters making pretty horrible ‘jokes’ about the ACON deal are the real issue, and I suppose a lot of people’s issue with it was a slow response in getting them deleted felt a bit like an implied agreement or allowance of those comments by the moderators.

        • therealoptimus on 09/01/2018 - 18:12
          +1

          It was a ‘poll’. With the title being a statement and not a question I’m going to hypothesis that a number of people who would have voted to keep charities would have just kept scrolling.

      • folktaliesin on 09/01/2018 - 10:41
        +5

        I don’t think you’ve really listened to the votes in the poll, nor addressed the feedback you received on your proposal

        First, the poll didn't allow for a middle ground. The discussion in the forum actually showed that a large number of the community would prefer a middle ground. In fact, neil and the moderators showed how they listed to the arguments for this middle ground, and responded to each and every suggestion made as to why it was or was not feasible. I think they did an excellent job.

        I think an apology for the ACON debarkle would be appreciated too

        I don't think an apology is necessary. This enable a broad discussion from the community, and the moderators (esp neil) handled this extremely well. Guidelines are important to ensure future debacles don't happen, and now it is clear what is and is not allowed.

        but hey, I’ve never heard any of the ozbargain staff/mods apologise for anything, so I shouldn’t expect one now I suppose.

        And now you're just being catty.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 09/01/2018 - 10:48
          -2

          You’re right - there is totally a middle ground and those views were aired in the comments. However, a great deal more people simply voted for a ban of charities than ever commented or provided a more nuanced position in the comments.

        • folktaliesin on 09/01/2018 - 10:51
          +6

          @ihavecentsnotsense: … because there wasn't a vote for the middle ground? Everybody has said that, this isn't new or enlightened information. It was impossible to vote for a middle ground. For example, I believed in a middle ground, but I strongly thought something should be done, so I voted 'ban' to ensure something happened. It was a significant flaw that the poll was overly simplified to such a black and white response.

        • Slippery Fish on 09/01/2018 - 10:56
          +1

          @folktaliesin: :)

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 09/01/2018 - 10:58
          -1

          @folktaliesin: If that’s the case though, let’s say there are 50 unique commenters who provided more nuanced debate. Deduct them from the total of the ban votes, and there’s still a massive majority who voted no. You can’t say the votes were invalid just because they went against your opinion, you have no evidence to suggest they voted that way for the reasons you did! But you can suggest they wanted a ban on charity posts because that’s what they voted for. The option to provide additional comments in the forums was always available for everyone to use.

        • folktaliesin on 09/01/2018 - 11:44
          +1

          @ihavecentsnotsense: Because for every 1 unique comment on a middle ground option, there were other people that preferred a middle ground but couldn't vote that way, so voted ban (as I did) to ensure change occurred, but didn't have the energy to contribute through a post. It's impossible to tell from your poll which people wanted a true, complete ban, and which people wanted some sort of a ban. You ruined your own poll because of your own opinion unfortunately. The only true information you can get from your poll is that the community voted that some sort of change should occur.

          At any rate, while I appreciate you starting this topic, I couldn't be bothered debating your flawed logic anymore. Everybody's pointed this out to you. Let's all move on, and enjoy the rest of our day.

          Have a lemur: ʕ◉ᴥ◉ʔ

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 09/01/2018 - 12:03
          -1

          @folktaliesin: what do you know, I was just awarded popular comment for this post where I advocate for a total ban as well and explain the reasons. Maybe up votes of comments weren’t considered either…

          But, like you, I am ready to drop it too. None of this is getting anywhere. And I appreciate the lemur!

      • tryagain on 09/01/2018 - 12:11
        +2

        Surely you can read the post you put before the pole and realise that is extremly leading and one-sided, I could start a pole and talk about how not all charity posts should not be banned as it would lead to Shelter Dogs and Cats being killed that could otherwise find forever homes and then pose the same pole questions and it would lead to a very different result. The poll result could never be taken seriously with such a one-sided emotive preamble.

        • ihavecentsnotsense on 09/01/2018 - 12:15
          +2

          You could give it a shot, if you’d like! :-)

          In any case, I responded to folktaliesin earlier that we should just drop this shizz now - it’s not going anywhere and it’s time to move on. He gave me a very nice lemur and I am quite content with it!

    • folktaliesin on 09/01/2018 - 10:42
      +1

      Thanks mate. Sorry for the crap you endured from both sides.

    • nonbeliever93 on 09/01/2018 - 12:56
      +1

      I have started a thread about respecting LGBTI people as suggested. Although I agree with @ihavecentsnotsense that that format is problematic at best.

      • ihavecentsnotsense on 09/01/2018 - 13:15
        +1

        I agree with everything you’ve written in that thread! I also think it shouldn’t have to happen. But I won’t look at it because I’ve spent enough time riled up and shouted at online for the time being!

    • Wystri Warrick on 09/01/2018 - 16:39

      I love you too.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/01/2018 - 13:53

    Will this thread be closed.?

    • Moderatorneil on 09/01/2018 - 14:03

      Guidelines are always evolving so if there are charity deals you see certainly post in here for discussion and make any suggestions.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/01/2018 - 14:16

        Okay

  • [Deactivated] on 09/01/2018 - 15:06
    -5

    IT is now official OzB is controlled by a bunch of PC bigots.

    May I suggest the following improvements: A endorsement by Meryl Streep/Hillary Clinton, a whole section devoted to hating Trump including links to the ABC and The Guardian. Might as well change the name of the site; Indigenous Australians may be offended.

    No other post has attracted this much attention. It just proves the point of many who voted NO in the SSM survey that there is no "EQUAL(ity)" when it comes to the GLBTIQ… agenda. This coming from a person who falls within that group.

    As for exploitation would the OzB hypocrites give us as break. The majority of offers are exploiting the mistakes of businesses by not having better security methods. So unless you only use offers that are posted by the businesses themselves then who are you to judge.

    HIV does not discriminate nor should any organization. So is ACON (and other organizations) happy for those who are hard up to catch and spread HIV because they are heterosexual?

    What Australia needs is equality - a mandate when we no longer have separate people by gender, sexual preference and/or race. By allowing such GLBTI, Aboroginal and Women organizations to exist is creating a faux equality agenda which is only reverse discrimination as many have called out on this site.

    Neg votes on this comment simply prove my point. So keep negging.

    • WJD21 on 09/01/2018 - 16:23
      +6

      The majority of offers are exploiting the mistakes of businesses by not having better security methods.

      What security method(s) do you propose be implpemented in relation to this situation? It operated on the basis that only the target audience of the campaign would respond; something which, unfortunately, users shamelessly exploited.

      HIV does not discriminate nor should any organization.

      'Everyone needs food. So why should charities discriminate by only giving out meals to homeless individuals?'

      What Australia needs is equality

      Exactly what the likes of these charities strive to achieve. This is not a perfect world, not everyone is treated equal, hence why these organisations exist. Browsing any LGBTI resource would make this point abundantly clear.

  • Finnthehuman on 09/01/2018 - 22:00

    Obviously they should not be allowed!

  • idonotknowwhy on 10/01/2018 - 11:48
    +1

    Huh? I thought we all raised thousands of dollars for the Polished Man charity via the Grill'd Deal.
    I was a proud member of the Ozbargain team and everything!
    The staff at the store were happy that I kept coming back every day with some mates.

  • myusername on 10/01/2018 - 16:00

    feel like fish and chips with all the salt here

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join