I still think FR is warranted here. Threatening to chargeback if X thing isn't done is pretty childish, and I can understand them wanting to make an example of of someone who would make that kind of threat. If you don't like the direction of the site you can just leave, FR should not be held to the whims of people threatening to chargeback if staff doesn't do what they want. It's one thing to say that you're disappointed in X choices and don't want to spend money on the site anymore, but another to say you're going to illegally backcharge the site.
I don't know if people understand that staff can can people for reasons not in the TOS. They're human and have the ability to not anticipate certain things coming up that would be ban worthy. It would be more concerning if they banned someone for a non-TOS reason and *didn't* update the TOS to include why that person was banned.
I also feel this is a good time to bring up this idea again:
With regards to unfairly banning people, or banning people willy-nilly:
A company/site that relies on its customers buying products or consuming its product does NOT want to ban people unless it is actually warranted.
They aren't going to ban people for saying something they dislike, unless it is something that can also harm their bottom line (such as getting the rest of the site upset and threatening to quit, or in the case of the chargeback). They aren't going to ban people 'just because'.
Sites that do that end up going down. They might not go offline, but they often aren't *good* sites and word gets around.
So, again while I am sure that there are people who get caught up in ban waves because they somehow became associated with people who are legitimately breaking the rules, I would feel confident in saying that the majority of people who are banned? Most likely aren't banned unfairly.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mindlessflight) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
anonrerising2022-08-02 07:34 pm
Re: Unfairly banned?
(Anonymous) 2022-09-01 03:13 pm (UTC)(link)I still think FR is warranted here. Threatening to chargeback if X thing isn't done is pretty childish, and I can understand them wanting to make an example of of someone who would make that kind of threat. If you don't like the direction of the site you can just leave, FR should not be held to the whims of people threatening to chargeback if staff doesn't do what they want. It's one thing to say that you're disappointed in X choices and don't want to spend money on the site anymore, but another to say you're going to illegally backcharge the site.
I don't know if people understand that staff can can people for reasons not in the TOS. They're human and have the ability to not anticipate certain things coming up that would be ban worthy. It would be more concerning if they banned someone for a non-TOS reason and *didn't* update the TOS to include why that person was banned.
Re: Unfairly banned?
(Anonymous) 2022-09-01 03:20 pm (UTC)(link)With regards to unfairly banning people, or banning people willy-nilly:
A company/site that relies on its customers buying products or consuming its product does NOT want to ban people unless it is actually warranted.
They aren't going to ban people for saying something they dislike, unless it is something that can also harm their bottom line (such as getting the rest of the site upset and threatening to quit, or in the case of the chargeback). They aren't going to ban people 'just because'.
Sites that do that end up going down. They might not go offline, but they often aren't *good* sites and word gets around.
So, again while I am sure that there are people who get caught up in ban waves because they somehow became associated with people who are legitimately breaking the rules, I would feel confident in saying that the majority of people who are banned? Most likely aren't banned unfairly.