I'd like to chat about the convenience of your deletion policy to rewrite history MNHQ

[HoneyDragon]

Convenient deletions so that your own posts go too that's becoming common practise too. After NYE you probably mised not to do that or edit retrospectively as you agreed it was unprofessional.

Yet again we are seeing cases where one member of HQ states something then another comes and contradicts it. Are you not a little embarrassed about how incompetent you look of late?

Hopefully your advertisers aren't looking to hard at the site at present? Or is that why you don't want them to see you struggling?

Even your deletion messages have no resemblance to the context of the thread? I think the majority of incorrect speculation falls at HQs feet on the whole. Rather than site users.

SerfTerf does anyone know why?

I didn't think hecwas real. I knew there was something up. I reported and recorded and reported. I was told to take my concerns onto the thread.

I then did it again on the Internet in various places and became very very concerned. I reported again and again. Mums net responded by moving a crowdfunding page to the charities board which gave it more legitimacy. They also posted to state that they had gone above and beyond to verify the identity of the poster

Was that a complete fabrication too?

No that was apparently legit organised by lovely people who took it down once they heard of possible shenanigans, to avoid being mistaken for the other one or complication generally.

Sorry voice rec had mangled. Hope you can decipher.

I'm only going if if pushed and MNHQ need to come up with a valid reason to delete the thread. And there isn't one. Unless they wish to endorse the claims they shut down criticism of their actions.

Do you remember SassySusan? I think she was one instance where MNHQ couldn't say for sure whether she was or wasn't who she purported to be (that was a bereavement one) but they banned her anyway due to her behaviour towards other members.

I repeatedly asked for a locked, stickied thread with the main posts by MNhq on them. I don't think that is particularly difficult and demanding.
You can't write a post saying "Stop talking about this or we will Ban you" then just delete it.

"yes we did say that and we went too far in legitimising him and we will change our policies so it doesn't happen again"

The other aspect that got lost in all of this is that ID isn't the operative issue anyway.

This often happens with these things. It's happened on MN before.

Legal ID isn't the same as the famous "when someone shows you who they are..." kind of "ID".

I have a thread inside stuff. I'm on my phone I can't blink but you should be able to find it

In site.

Correct serf. They legitimised him. And that lends credence to the hotel. They shouldn't of done that in my opinion. But I think the HQ person was quite new

How would proving you are who you say you are, mean you are not a scammer?

Exactly.

I think a change of the standard wording would help TBH.

I know the "above and beyond" thing was separate and unique to this.

Place marking sorry!

How would proving you are who you say you are, mean you are not a scammer?

I suppose MNHQ can't be expected to prove that someone's not a scammer, although it is reasonable that we'd trust them if they said they'd verified someone's ID.

2017. Please please go to the police

You can because you lost money.

Please please go to the police.

www.actionfraud.police.uk/

Does anyone know how to change a user mame on reddit?

I haven't posted since this kicked off, although I did post on the original threads (giving him the benefit of the doubt).

I agree that the real problem is that mnhq legitimised him. I would never have donated, but I did contact Woolly Hugs about a blanket and feel bothered that this may not have reached the right person.

The answer surely has to be that MNHQ don't comment on whether they have "checked" a poster out? How can they tell if someone is genuine or not? It is clear that they actually can't, so why say they can?

Ban any links to donations other than charities. Let the boards self moderate again, I guess?

I suppose MNHQ can't be expected to prove that someone's not a scammer, although it is reasonable that we'd trust them if they said they'd verified someone's ID.

Exactly. So they should not have given him any legitimacy at all.

Anyone who legitmised this person holds responsibility. Since its MNs board and we are their users (people they should want to keep safe) they hold most responsibility. Their business gave him credibility.

I"m not in the UK, my child. Much as I'd like to, it is not reasonable since you can't do it via email if money was involved.

I'm really unhappy though!

Has it been established that the poster in question has been banned?