on helping people
Jun. 2nd, 2010 03:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rmI've been trying to avoid this situation for a while, and it's not working.
I try to post links when people need help because I have a friendslist of 1,100 people, some of whom actually read this thing and some of whom on given days in given circumstances are willing and able to provide assistance, whether that's financial, logistical, advice, etc.
And I don't really have a system for posting those things. If I see something that seems like a problem the Internet can solve, I tend to post it, although sometimes I forget (i.e., the now more awful than it was before case of the late Steve Perry).
I can't vet everything for a scam, because, hey, I'm not a private detective. And what seems a worthy cause or a good plan to me may not seem one to you. That's cool. That's how it goes. I have the luxury of making a mistake with my $5. A lot of people don't. And a lot of people who do, don't want to. That's all chill. And way not my business.
What's not chill is stuff where I'm being insulted or told I must do something or told I must do something in a certain way (all of which has happened lately mostly in private communication. What this isn't is me harshing on anyone's public, cordial skepticism. Charity doesn't work without skeptics and vetting, and those functions are important too. This is a response to both a too-much-email problem and a nastygram problem).
Whether you engage with these things or not, isn't my business. And whether I donate or not in these circumstances, isn't yours (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't). And certainly, I never, ever want to mislead anyone.
But now I'm getting not only an increase in requests, but an increase in criticism about what I both do and don't link to, and that isn't helping anyone.
Additionally, I'm keenly aware that too many such things dilutes the level of action people are willing to take, which also falls into the area of "not helping."
So here's the new rules, which quite frankly are about the same as the old rules, other than I'm going to say "no" a lot more (something which, frankly, annoys me to have to do):
And yes, I still have to do ALL THE HTML EVER to put together that awesome list of charities I had you all recommend a while back.
Any questions?
I try to post links when people need help because I have a friendslist of 1,100 people, some of whom actually read this thing and some of whom on given days in given circumstances are willing and able to provide assistance, whether that's financial, logistical, advice, etc.
And I don't really have a system for posting those things. If I see something that seems like a problem the Internet can solve, I tend to post it, although sometimes I forget (i.e., the now more awful than it was before case of the late Steve Perry).
I can't vet everything for a scam, because, hey, I'm not a private detective. And what seems a worthy cause or a good plan to me may not seem one to you. That's cool. That's how it goes. I have the luxury of making a mistake with my $5. A lot of people don't. And a lot of people who do, don't want to. That's all chill. And way not my business.
What's not chill is stuff where I'm being insulted or told I must do something or told I must do something in a certain way (all of which has happened lately mostly in private communication. What this isn't is me harshing on anyone's public, cordial skepticism. Charity doesn't work without skeptics and vetting, and those functions are important too. This is a response to both a too-much-email problem and a nastygram problem).
Whether you engage with these things or not, isn't my business. And whether I donate or not in these circumstances, isn't yours (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't). And certainly, I never, ever want to mislead anyone.
But now I'm getting not only an increase in requests, but an increase in criticism about what I both do and don't link to, and that isn't helping anyone.
Additionally, I'm keenly aware that too many such things dilutes the level of action people are willing to take, which also falls into the area of "not helping."
So here's the new rules, which quite frankly are about the same as the old rules, other than I'm going to say "no" a lot more (something which, frankly, annoys me to have to do):
1. If I've never met you in person -- whether you're the asker or asking on behalf of someone else -- please take the no graciously when I say no. And mostly, these days, I'm going to say no. (BTW, knowing me doesn't mean your thing is definitely going to get in; it just means that our conversation about it may be different if it doesn't).
2. If I've met you in person and the request is for a third party, feel free to ask and sometimes I'll say yes.
3. If it is a fandom auction or similar -- i.e., there's an exchange of something for assistance -- that I will link to no questions asked beyond it being for a reasonable cause (i.e., don't bring me political/social causes that I oppose or the auction to benefit your random vacation).
4. If we've never met and I've posted links on your behalf in the context of an ongoing issue, I may be willing to do so again. It's chill to ask.
5. My blog, my whims. Sometimes I'm gonna break my rules because something grabs me. So it goes.
And yes, I still have to do ALL THE HTML EVER to put together that awesome list of charities I had you all recommend a while back.
Any questions?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-06-02 07:54 pm (UTC)That really should be the only rule.
I used to do this sort of thing a lot. Organize collections, auctions, whatever, and boost signals. It gets exhausting when people start questioning your motives or get angry that you are supporting one person and not the other, or decide to start ranking and comparing degrees of catastrophe. I am sorry people are doing it to you.
Your signal boosting has helped a lot of starfishes on that starfish-covered beach, though, don't forget that. There have been people many of us reading have found out about and been able to help thanks to you. And while focusing efforts on giving to intermediaries who can leverage funds into policy and structural change will always be what gets big stuff done, sometimes just getting little stuff done can mean a lot, too.