By awa

9 thoughts on “The Ban Hammer”
  1. As the old saying goes about neighbors and property boundaries, “There’s a time to pick up stones and a time to put stones down, a time to sustain relationships and a time to dismiss relationships”. So it is true here in cyber space on the blogosphere.

    1. The short answer is “no”. The slightly longer answer is: This is the first time we’ve had to lower the ban hammer on a subscriber. The subscription for commenting access is $11.99 per year. Our credit card processors take a bit off of that as well.
      But I want you to consider the following, somebody gets a hair up their ass and decides they just have to vomit on the blog. They pay for the most expensive support option. They then do their vomit. Are we morally obligated to return the 364 days of unused dollars or did they pay for the privilege of vomiting that one time?

      1. On the one hand you are no longer providing the paid for services; almost any service provider would refund a prorated amount.
        One the other hand, you really aren’t any old service provider. I’d personally lean towards the severity of the offense dictates it or not. Generally also, breaking the rules or a contract won’t afford you a refund.
        Can’t say I agree with this ban per say, for the less than two cents my opinion is worth, but hey the rules do appear to be broken and breaking the rules would generally be a reasonable justification to not provide a refund. We have seen behavior from many parties that I say is similar but went unaddressed in such a manner. Personally I don’t think there is a lot of harm in the are you stupid? type of questions.
        Not really upset one way or the other, mostly just curious.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.