Print

[red12049]

We have a borrower who is at least trying to do the right thing, and the majority reaction here is to attack and condemn her for her past.  Hope I never make a mistake around you guys.

The question is if she accurately portrayed herself in the loan application.  If she did not, that would not be considered a 'mistake'.

And not only that, but she seems to be repeating her "past."  That suggests someone who doesn't learn from their "mistakes."

And that justifies exactly what?  Especially for those of us here not on her loan?

R

[NewHorizon]

What one may call a convenience to the lenders, others may call a blatant disregard for the borrowers wishes.  The latter is certainly how a borrower will see it - not to mention a few lenders.

Whatever.  Personally, I don't care a whole lot about the wishes of a borrower that declares BK, needs a consolidation and tax debt loan less than 2 years later, and then promptly goes DQ on that loan.  Maybe the borrower ought to worry about THAT (not whether her comments can be tied to her listing, which (so far as I saw) did not disclose any PII anyway).

R U saying this is the basis for disregarding the borrower's wishes?  That, in ira01's judgment, the borrower deserves ira01's disregard because the borrower doesn't meet an ira01-defined threshhold of financial acumen?

We have a borrower who is at least trying to do the right thing, and the majority reaction here is to attack and condemn her for her past.  Hope I never make a mistake around you guys.

The question is if she accurately portrayed herself in the loan application.  If she did not, that would not be considered a 'mistake'.

And not only that, but she seems to be repeating her "past."  That suggests someone who doesn't learn from their "mistakes."

And that justifies exactly what?  Especially for those of us here not on her loan?

R

+1

[NewHorizon]

And if this borrower sees this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if communications abruptly ceases.  And no more new information will be made "available" to the lenders. 

That's quite possible, but if it happened I think it would be more likely due to the questions raised about the borrowers' credit timeline (BK, consolidation/tax debt loan, DQ on that loan), and matters such as that which have been discussed in this thread, rather than the linking of her (already publicly available to lenders) listing.  Maybe the borrower should be explaining how she so quickly wound up in a financial pickle again following her BK "fresh start."

(emphasis mine)

I don't know which is "more likely".  But I see we're agreed that scaring her off is among the real possibilities.  In which case I'm at a loss to understand how that would benefit the Prosper community....?

Absent any tangible benefit to the Prosper community, then, a near-certain outcome would be that the next time a borrower reaches to me for assistance, I wouldn't be using ORG as a resource.  I don't say this in a huff - with indignation.  I say this only because leaving the ORG community out of the picture - thus increasing the likelihood that the lines of communication with the borrower remains open - makes the most sense to me.  We can agree to disagree on the value of communicating with the borrower, I s'pose.

Separately and fwiw....
the borrower reported yesterday that Tim Bright left a VM for her Friday night.  She says she'll return the call (yesterday).  I think/hope that I've adjusted her expectations and that she's more understanding of the responses that I think Tim Bright is likely to give her.

[bamalucky]

I'm not understanding this thread?

You fear for the borrower or something?

If the borrower is trying to pay,just pay..How big of a deal can it be? Mail a check if they have to.

Maybe i need to reread this thread.

What are we all afraid of here?

[NewHorizon]

Yeah, the topic of this thread has kinda moved around a bit.

But anyway, I can't speak for others.  But I'm arguing in favor of not alienating the borrowers - most especially the delinquent ones.

[bamalucky]

Yeah, the topic of this thread has kinda moved around a bit.

But anyway, I can't speak for others.  But I'm arguing in favor of not alienating the borrowers - most especially the delinquent ones.

It doesn't matter.The ones who are gonna pay will pay & the ones who aren't won't.

[lenderguy]

Yeah, the topic of this thread has kinda moved around a bit.

But anyway, I can't speak for others.  But I'm arguing in favor of not alienating the borrowers - most especially the delinquent ones.

It doesn't matter.The ones who are gonna pay will pay & the ones who aren't won't.

I was going to agree with bama on this one, but I somewhat disagree.  I do believe that nagging debt collectors can get some people to pay that otherwise might not be so inclined.

[ira01]

What one may call a convenience to the lenders, others may call a blatant disregard for the borrowers wishes.  The latter is certainly how a borrower will see it - not to mention a few lenders.

Whatever.  Personally, I don't care a whole lot about the wishes of a borrower that declares BK, needs a consolidation and tax debt loan less than 2 years later, and then promptly goes DQ on that loan.  Maybe the borrower ought to worry about THAT (not whether her comments can be tied to her listing, which (so far as I saw) did not disclose any PII anyway).

R U saying this is the basis for disregarding the borrower's wishes?  That, in ira01's judgment, the borrower deserves ira01's disregard because the borrower doesn't meet an ira01-defined threshhold of financial acumen?

I'm saying that I don't care a whole lot about a double deadbeat borrower's wishes to not have their delinquent listing discussed here.  If that pisses her (or you) off, then so be it.  Maybe she ought to worry more about paying her debts than about what the lenders here are saying about her.  Please note that I never advocated a bunch of lenders sending her nastygrams.  To the contrary, I stated that if lenders did so, the borrower could and should report them to Prosper.  Nor did I suggest that any nearby lenders pay her a visit (not that I even saw any PII in her listing that would permit that).  You seem to be all bent out of shape because I merely provided a link to her listing (after YOU disclosed enough information here to make that possible).  Whatever.

[bamalucky]

Yeah, the topic of this thread has kinda moved around a bit.

But anyway, I can't speak for others.  But I'm arguing in favor of not alienating the borrowers - most especially the delinquent ones.

It doesn't matter.The ones who are gonna pay will pay & the ones who aren't won't.

I'm only including Prosper in my statement.

I too believe nagging collectors can get a little more from some people.

I was going to agree with bama on this one, but I somewhat disagree.  I do believe that nagging debt collectors can get some people to pay that otherwise might not be so inclined.

I'm only including Prosper in my statement.

I too believe nagging collectors can get a little more from some people.

ET fix quote 

[onthefence]

Absent any tangible benefit to the Prosper community, then, a near-certain outcome would be that the next time a borrower reaches to me for assistance, I wouldn't be using ORG as a resource.  I don't say this in a huff - with indignation.  I say this only because leaving the ORG community out of the picture - thus increasing the likelihood that the lines of communication with the borrower remains open - makes the most sense to me.  We can agree to disagree on the value of communicating with the borrower, I s'pose.

Hmmm... I don't see how lines of communication were negatively affected with this borrower.  No one from here called her, e-mailed her or PMed her.  People proposed options for contact.  Analysis of the situation was done.  And as in the true Org tradition, many issues & aspects of the situation were discussed & debated to the limit of what knowledge was available about the situation.

If you are expecting everyone here to tippy toe around the feelings of someone who isn't even part of the discussion.  Yeah, that probably is some what unrealistic.

[NewHorizon]

Yeah, the topic of this thread has kinda moved around a bit.

But anyway, I can't speak for others.  But I'm arguing in favor of not alienating the borrowers - most especially the delinquent ones.

It doesn't matter.The ones who are gonna pay will pay & the ones who aren't won't.

So it's ok to alienate somebody when "it doesn't matter"?  Can I talk to mama bama? 

Maybe I'm in a minority of one here who feels that how people treat each other DOES matter...
even if - or perhaps most especially if - if it's not reciprocated (monetarily or otherwise).

What one may call a convenience to the lenders, others may call a blatant disregard for the borrowers wishes.  The latter is certainly how a borrower will see it - not to mention a few lenders.

Whatever.  Personally, I don't care a whole lot about the wishes of a borrower that declares BK, needs a consolidation and tax debt loan less than 2 years later, and then promptly goes DQ on that loan.  Maybe the borrower ought to worry about THAT (not whether her comments can be tied to her listing, which (so far as I saw) did not disclose any PII anyway).

R U saying this is the basis for disregarding the borrower's wishes?  That, in ira01's judgment, the borrower deserves ira01's disregard because the borrower doesn't meet an ira01-defined threshhold of financial acumen?

I'm saying that I don't care a whole lot about a double deadbeat borrower's wishes to not have their delinquent listing discussed here.  If that pisses her (or you) off, then so be it.  Maybe she ought to worry more about paying her debts than about what the lenders here are saying about her.  Please note that I never advocated a bunch of lenders sending her nastygrams.  To the contrary, I stated that if lenders did so, the borrower could and should report them to Prosper.  Nor did I suggest that any nearby lenders pay her a visit (not that I even saw any PII in her listing that would permit that).  You seem to be all bent out of shape because I merely provided a link to her listing (after YOU disclosed enough information here to make that possible).  Whatever.

What I'm "bent out of shape" about is alienating the borrower (or increasing risk of same, @otf) when nobody's made any attempt to show that doing so benefits the Prosper community.  Indeed, for those in the it-doesn't-matter camp, by definition there IS no reason.  And a response of "whatever" also suggests that there is no helpful reason to alienate the borrower either. 

But maybe somebody has a more substantive reason for estranging this person other than "why not?" ...?

[Mark12547]

What I'm "bent out of shape" about is alienating the borrower (or increasing risk of same, @otf) when nobody's made any attempt to show that doing so benefits the Prosper community.

I agree: if we are needlessly alienating borrowers who want to communicate with us, we are breaking off that communications and, if the borrower is prioritizing among several bill, needless alienation will break whatever social bond there might be that might make a decision on whether to pay Prosper or pay some other unsecured loan.

For many borrowers, it won't make any difference. But those who want to at least communicate with their creditors aren't "many" so I think it would be worth while to at least give them a benefit of the doubt.

[bamalucky]

Where is this happening?

[Nora_Lenderbee]

NewHorizon,

I think your original question was answered--is that right? The borrower knows whom to contact at Prosper? (As far as getting a response from prosper, org. probably can't help .)

As for whether to bring the borrower's information to .org, let your instinct guide you. 

[bamalucky]

Yes heaven forbid someone interfere like NH did the time he sent messages to all of my group members