Just to add that mumsnet sought help from outside agencies like the Samaritans to develop how the dealt with suicide posts and whilst I don't know the ins and the outs they do delete all posts where the member is actively engaging in suicidal behaviour.
On a site like this, how would one determine "actively engaging in suicidal behaviour"? Seriously. It could be applied across the entire site. It's the same with the notion of "actively engaging in self-harm", what does that mean in practice? Again, the entire site can be accused of that.
Everyone has to take responsibility for themselves. Whether that be the person in distress needing to take responsibility for their own safety and security, or a "fragile" person needing to take responsibility for what they are choosing to read on the Internet.
On a site like this, how would one determine "actively engaging in suicidal behaviour"? Seriously. It could be applied across the entire site. It's the same with the notion of "actively engaging in self-harm", what does that mean in practice? Again, the entire site can be accused of that.
^This. Exactly this. Explains my point way more succinctly than I ever could!
Ryl isn't letting me quote but to me actively engaging in suicidal behaviour would be having taken an overdose or something along those lines.
I guess for me the threshold would be if I had the persons address I would call the police to do a welfare check or call for an ambulance etc. I think I've done to RYL friends on 3 occasions.
So someone who has self harmed, binged, purged, fasted, etc wouldn't count nor would someone who was posting whilst psychotic, manic or dissociated. Unless their life was in immediate danger.
When we lose twenty pounds... we may be losing the twenty best pounds we have! We may be losing the pounds that contain our genius, our humanity, our love and honesty. ~Woody Allen
Is a chocolate muffin loving glitter ball
Ryl isn't letting me quote but to me actively engaging in suicidal behaviour would be having taken an overdose or something along those lines.
I guess for me the threshold would be if I had the persons address I would call the police to do a welfare check or call for an ambulance etc. I think I've done to RYL friends on 3 occasions.
So someone who has self harmed, binged, purged, fasted, etc wouldn't count nor would someone who was posting whilst psychotic, manic or dissociated. Unless their life was in immediate danger.
That's incredibly subjective though. You even say so yourself: "for me...". Self-harm can be done with suicidal intentions, and every time you purge you can, potentially, die, etc. All of those actions can have a suicidal intention behind them. But from your post there, it seems that it's okay to post on RYL whilst actively engaging in self-harm (which is, in itself a rather broad statement), as long as you do not think your life is in immediate danger, which it very much can be.
So someone who has self harmed, binged, purged, fasted, etc wouldn't count nor would someone who was posting whilst psychotic, manic or dissociated. Unless their life was in immediate danger.
Also 'I'm thinking about' rather than 'I am planning' x/y/z. It's okay to have thoughts. (With regards to harming others - not what this topic is about, but it's been mentioned).
Ryl isn't letting me quote but to me actively engaging in suicidal behaviour would be having taken an overdose or something along those lines.
I guess for me the threshold would be if I had the persons address I would call the police to do a welfare check or call for an ambulance etc. I think I've done to RYL friends on 3 occasions.
So someone who has self harmed, binged, purged, fasted, etc wouldn't count nor would someone who was posting whilst psychotic, manic or dissociated. Unless their life was in immediate danger.
But you've said here 'dissociated.' This is all getting very contradictory.
You can be dissociated and done something that means your life was in immediate danger, thus making it count as not allowed.
edit: I'm defining you as a general you, not directed towards a specific person. Like someone could be. Someone could also be manic, psychotic, etc. and if they have done something that puts their life in danger, then it isn't going to be allowed.
Please do not give me virtual hugs unless you are only using the hug function on threads. Thanks.
You can't always keep it separate.
This is happening, this is part of you.
So someone who has self harmed, binged, purged, fasted, etc wouldn't count nor would someone who was posting whilst psychotic, manic or dissociated. Unless their life was in immediate danger.
So someone who has self harmed, binged, purged, fasted, etc wouldn't count nor would someone who was posting whilst psychotic, manic or dissociated. Unless their life was in immediate danger.
My concern with all this is that sometimes the lines are blurred and it is not clear whether their life is in immediate danger or not. Yes sometimes it can be very obvious, but what if it isn't?
It is also almost completely impossible to decide if someone's life is in immediate danger via the medium of the Internet. There are so many variables. It's irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
My concern with all this is that sometimes the lines are blurred and it is not clear whether their life is in immediate danger or not. Yes sometimes it can be very obvious, but what if it isn't?
I think the point is that we're not professionals, and the severity or whether someone's life is actually in danger or not is not really our call to make, thus they have to err on the side of it's not allowed. I could be wrong.
Please do not give me virtual hugs unless you are only using the hug function on threads. Thanks.
You can't always keep it separate.
This is happening, this is part of you.
Is there any way the mods could add links to services such as the Samaritans in the automated pms for thread of this nature when they are closed. Instead of just closing the thread with the normal message?
I think the point is that we're not professionals, and the severity or whether someone's life is actually in danger or not is not really our call to make, thus they have to err on the side of it's not allowed. I could be wrong.
Then we should err on the side of caution and close the entire site down. Who are we to say anything to anyone about anything?
Basically this rule is setting a rather dangerous and incredibly difficult to moderate precedent. It would be far, far easier to be more lax about the rules and allow more freedom. RYL is no longer mostly populated by young teenagers (thirteen/fourteen-year olds), but is now an older demographic who should be able to be responsible for themselves and what they do and what they choose to read.
