this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
92 points (98.9% liked)

hexbear

10417 readers
242 users here now

Hexbear Proposals chapo.chat matrix room.

This will be a place for site proposals and discussion before implementation on the site.
Every proposal will also be mirrored into a pinned post on the hexbear community.

Any other ideas for helping to integrate the two spaces are welcome to be commented here or messaged to me directly.

Within Hexbear Proposals you can see the history of all site proposals and react to them, indicating a vote for or against a proposal.

Sending messages will be restricted to verified and active hexbear accounts older than 1 month with their matrix id in their hexbear user profile.

All top level messages within the channel must be a Proposals (idea for changing the site), Feedback (regarding non-technical aspects of the site, for technical please use https://hexbear.net/c/feedback), or Appeals (regarding admin/moderator actions).

Discussion regarding these will be within nested threads under the post.

To gain matrix verification, all you need to do is navigate to my hexbear userprofile and click the send a secure private message including your hexbear username.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello users of hexbear:

Due to recent meta posts in our mutual aid community we wanted to open up discussion about the community [email protected]

We will never require explanation or justification from a user asking for aid in the community, and the mod and admin team continue to commit to not featuring an individual's mutual aid request to prevent unfair exposure.

In addition, we will maintain a strict "No critical comments or meta comments" on a mutual aid post.

This post is to discuss the mutual aid community's rule of allowing meta posts: mutual aid as a community, those making posts in it and those commenting on posts.

We are considering removing the exception allowing meta posts but wanted to involve the userbase before committing to a change.

Please comment with any thoughts, feelings, or suggestions regarding this change.

Thank you

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

With this proposed system people who say they sent funds and don't will first be warned and then sitebanned.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

How can you verify they did send them?

If its just asking the recipient to verify wouldnt it just be he said she said?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If someone repeatedly comments on the post to say they donated and the recipient says they didn't get it we would take action. in the event of a user reporting the post with something to the effect of "i'd like to donate to this please notify" then we can do the same thing.

You are correct that at the end of the day it is he said she said but we would establish matrix communication for the sending of proof

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

we would establish matrix communication for the sending of proof

I hate to say it but fabricating screenshots is so easy that I struggle to believe such a system could work if used in bad faith by even one person

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

I hate to say it but fabricating screenshots is so easy

to demonstrate:

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 hours ago

please pet my nose tho

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

that's true but I hope that both users pledging to donate and those asking for money would be engaging with the site in good-faith

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

the incentive to dispute that a donation occurred is the limit. if there's no arbitrary limit per post/week imposed, then both parties can engage in good faith

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I just don't think, especially with money at stake, that it's reasonable to hope that every single user who ever uses the comm will do so in good faith, or be obvious enough in their bad faith to be sussed out. And even one person with an axe to grind could potentially get someone banned with fabricated evidence. I think we have to build systems that are resilient to abuse where possible and the strong possibility of disciplining a user in need of help feels worse to me than allowing someone to collect donos and not update the post to reflect them. I guess you could say that any mod action being taken requires multiple reports from established accounts showing a pattern of behavior, not just one and done. That would help.

but frankly sending screenshots back and forth offsite also overcomplicates the process of both donating and receiving donations. It just doesn't feel like a well fleshed out plan to me

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

exactly why we have set it up as "Mods do not vet individual mutual aid requests. Donate at your own risk" the option to report a post or comment on one with amount donated is to help the poster update with amount received / lock when need is met.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

I just think there's monetary incentive not to engage with the comm in the way you've laid out, and people are (understandably, they're struggling) mostly not going to do it unless it is an enforced rule or nets them more donos.

Whether or not such a rule actually would do more good than harm, I don't know.