Skip to main content

View Diary: Fear and Loathing at Daily KOS (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The lifetime subscriptions have no (0+ / 0-)

    monetary value. Members in good standing are not allowed to "cash in" their memberships for refund dollars. So how could banned members be entitled?

    •  See my response above (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cynndara, KateCrashes

      I guess I see it as an ethical matter. The owner, at his sole discretion, can choose to ban or not to ban. If he exercises that discretion and bans someone, I think it's appropriate that he refund some portion of their subscription if they were a subscriber.

      •  I bought another person a gift (0+ / 0-)

        subscription, and later that person was banned. I didn't ask for, nor do I deserve, a refund. This community has rules. If you decide to subscribe to the community, but then later decide that you don't like the rules, oh well. I see the ethics very different from you. An ethical person would not try to weasel his money back; the decision to subscribe is made voluntarily, and does not bestow upon the subscriber the right to change his or her mind at any time in the future. And every subscriber knows full well that being banned is always possible.

        •  And it's fine that we differ (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cynndara, KateCrashes

          I see the ethical problem being that it is the owner's sole discretion to ban. He enriches himself by deciding to do so - he has the money but he absolves himself of providing a service to the banned person. In my opinion, an ethical person would provide a refund, just as print publications have long done.  

          Of course you don't deserve a refund for a gift. It's no longer yours. It's theirs.  And, in my opinion, they don't deserve a refund either because they didn't pay for it.

          •  If Kos banned people for no reason, (0+ / 0-)

            out of the blue, you'd have a point. But he doesn't. Nobody gets banned who hasn't violated the rules. And the reinstatement policy is very liberal. I don't see any ethical issue in not offering refunds, though it is not even clear to me that if the banned person were to ask that Kos wouldn't refund the money anyhow. But he doesn't have to.

            •  I don't know much about reinstatement practice (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              (not sure there's a policy), but I agree that he doesn't have to provide a refund to those he chooses to ban. My contention is that he should.

              You've been around awhile and so have I. I suspect you've seen many potentially "ban-able" things (contrary to site policy) that go on here that don't, in fact, result in bans. That inconsistency and apparent willingness to look the other way in some cases (or not notice in the first place), to me, only reinforces my position.  

              It's not that big of a big deal - sorry to go on about it.

              •  Check out Redstate some time. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead, Hedwig

                People get banned for saying anything whatsoever out of mainstream GOP gibberish. I've seen it happen, and don't even spend much time there. This site is extremely biased toward letting people behave badly once in a while. People are banned only for the most egregious offenses, and are typically reinstated if they ask. It is an incredibly tolerant policy; if I ran the site I'd definitely be even harsher. The one thing that is a constant here is that so many think that they could do a better job figuring out the right policies here, and feel entitled to complain about those that exist. The guy is not perfect but has done a pretty good job of herding all of us cats.

                •  Oh, there are a few other constants (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Assuming your comment is directed to me (a reasonable assumption, since it is our exchange), one other is the tendency for some to twist other people's words.

                  What I indicated was a matter of business ethics and professed an opinion about what, in my view, was an ethical action, gets twisted into my thinking "that I could do a better job" running the site and that I "feel entitled to complain about those (policies) that exist."


                  Have a nice day. I've got a dishwasher to fix.

                •  Markos did (0+ / 0-)

                  make the statement (in a comment) that if a banned user, who had a lifetime sub, requested a refund directly to him, he would refund the full amount as it wasn't worth the hassle to him to argue about it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site