Go to Community Help
- Add a comment
- Go to WHY WAS MAHARCHS ACCOUNT CANCELLED
WE ARE REACHING CONCLUSIONS BASED ON *** QUOTES *** FROM BLOGIT.....
IF THESE AREN'T FACTS, THEN YOU ARE LYING TO US. DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT STATE THAT IF YOU USE YOUR CREDIT CARD TO PAY FOR AN ACCOUNT, THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ACCOUNT. WE ARE TAKING ISSUE WITH THAT POLICY AND THE EFFECT IT HAS HAD ON OUR MEMBERS.
"We welcome feedback but please do not reach conclusions based on only some, not all, of the facts.
1. Firstly, please keep in mind that most member complaints are confidential, since they are made privately via email and so you may not know all the facts about a specific suspension.
2. As we said just a few lines before, if one of your accounts is suspended, e.g. by violating Blogit policy three times, your other accounts may also be suspended. That depends on the circumstances, which include confidential member complaints and emails that are not made public.
3. Only a small handful of members have been suspended in the history of Blogit. That is, it is rare that a member is suspended let alone all associated accounts.
4. Finally, subscribers may also pay for their membership via check. Credit cards are not the only payment method we accept.
We are done responding on this topic. If you have any suggestions on how to improve Blogit policies, please read the responses here on Community Help and the Blogit policies and then contact us using the Email Us page. Thank you.
Robert
Blogit Policy Team
Posted by on June 28, 2004 at 9:27 PM (permalink) "
posted by
Tamara99
on July 1, 2004 at 1:58 AM
| link to this | reply
You may be done responding, but we sure as hell aren't. THIS is BULLSHIT.
BUYING SOMEONE A SUBSCRIPTION SHOULD NOT HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
YOUR CRYPTICALLY WORDED TOS DO *NOT* EXPLAIN THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DELETE ONE PERSON'S ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES.
YOU ARE IN THE WRONG - ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU DID *NOT* TELL THIS TO MAHNARCH IN ADVANCE!!!
____________________________________________________________________________
"Responsibility
If you use your credit card to pay for an account, you will be responsible for that account.
If one of your accounts is suspended, e.g. by violating Blogit policy three times, your other accounts may also be suspended. That depends on the circumstances, which include confidential member complaints and emails that are not made public.
Robert
Blogit Policy Team"
posted by
Tamara99
on July 1, 2004 at 1:52 AM
| link to this | reply
PS: Of course we don't know the facts about a specific situation. That is why we have asked so many questions. That is why I asked if my account would automatically be suspended if I paid for someone else's account and they then behaved in an inappropriate manner, to which you replied "if you pay for someone else's account then you are responsible for that account". That is what I am taking issue with here.
posted by
Moohahaha
on June 28, 2004 at 10:39 PM
| link to this | reply
None of the latter changes the fact that you have said if you pay for someone's account then you are responsible for that account. I maintain my opinion that the latter is both appallingly unfair and ridiculous.
posted by
Moohahaha
on June 28, 2004 at 10:28 PM
| link to this | reply
We welcome feedback but please do not reach conclusions based on only some, not all, of the facts.
1. Firstly, please keep in mind that most member complaints are confidential, since they are made privately via email and so you may not know all the facts about a specific suspension.
2. As we said just a few lines before, if one of your accounts is suspended, e.g. by violating Blogit policy three times, your other accounts may also be suspended. That depends on the circumstances, which include confidential member complaints and emails that are not made public.
3. Only a small handful of members have been suspended in the history of Blogit. That is, it is rare that a member is suspended let alone all associated accounts.
4. Finally, subscribers may also pay for their membership via check. Credit cards are not the only payment method we accept.
We are done responding on this topic. If you have any suggestions on how to improve Blogit policies, please read the responses here on Community Help and the Blogit policies and then contact us using the Email Us page. Thank you.
Robert
Blogit Policy Team
posted by
BlogitStaff
on June 28, 2004 at 9:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Ridiculous
So, while Mahnarch urged the joo to conduct herself more appropriately (in another example of such, he asked her to not be so vitriolic re her estimated earnings and how they changed etc when she lashed out about such) and he himself behaved appropriately, he is automatically wiped out because he happened to pay for her subscription? If it really is as simple as that, it is horribly unfair.
Why not simply ban the person who behaved inappropriately (after the three warnings) and let the person who paid for their account know? Why ban the person paying as well, especially if they had urged the other person to behave appropriately? I do not understand the "logic" of this at all.
Forgive me if this in itself sounds vitriolic - I do not mean to be offensive or antagonistic. I am, however, angry and feel entitled to be. I myself was considering paying for a friend whom has no credit card of their own and the sheer unfairness of what I am reading here does nothing but encourage me otherwise.
posted by
Moohahaha
on June 28, 2004 at 7:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Responsibility
If you use your credit card to pay for an account, you will be responsible for that account.
If one of your accounts is suspended, e.g. by violating Blogit policy three times, your other accounts may also be suspended. That depends on the circumstances, which include confidential member complaints and emails that are not made public.
Robert
Blogit Policy Team
posted by
BlogitStaff
on June 28, 2004 at 6:00 PM
| link to this | reply
PS: Just to clarify - when I say Mahnarch advised the joo she was in the wrong about the poem and to "chill out" about it, I meant that he told her she should admit her mistake and stop reacting with such misplaced anger towards those who pointed it out to her.
posted by
Moohahaha
on June 28, 2004 at 3:22 PM
| link to this | reply
I wholeheartedly agree with Tamara.
Additionally, from what I saw of Mahnarch online, he often tried to soothe his sister, the joo, and asked her to see reason when she reacted inappropriately to certain situations within Blogit. He encouraged the joo to befriend the Whamenator when the joo reacted badly to her, and succeeded; he pointed out that the joo had in fact wrongly presented the poem as her own and advised her to chill out about it; he was never anything but witty and kind and fun with the rest of us. Banning him because he chose to pay for his sister's account seems appallingly unfair.
If I paid for someone else's account here, would I be automatically banned if they acted inappropriately? Seriously. I want to know.
posted by
Moohahaha
on June 28, 2004 at 3:14 PM
| link to this | reply
What I know of them was only what I've seen here on Blogit - and I have never seen Mahnarch act inappropriately.
posted by
Tamara99
on June 26, 2004 at 4:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Tamara99
We cannot discuss a specific case in public, since we must protect member privacy. It sounds like you personally know the people you mention, and can vouch for their actions, so I can certainly understand that you might disagree with our decisions in that case. However, we have to make our decisions based on the available facts, which include confidential member complaints and emails that are not public.
Thank you for the suggestion regarding gift subscriptions. At this time, we do not offer gift subscriptions of the kind you mention, but perhaps we will in the future.
Robert
Blogit Policy Team
posted by
BlogitStaff
on June 26, 2004 at 1:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Blogit -
Your metaphors are mixed up. Mahnarch was not letting The Joo use his account. Had he done that, then I wouldn't have said a word. He had his account, and she had hers. Totally different scenario.
I've worked in the Wireless industry for seven years, so I am *WELL* familiar with the legal responsibilities of a cellular phone account.....and the person whose name is primary on the account is the ONLY one responsible for it. Giving someone a cell phone as a gift does NOT make you legally responsible for their account. If the two of them had cellular phones, and her account went to collections - we would NOT turn his service off just because he bought her a phone.
He simply gave her a gift by paying for her subscription, and you punished him for it. This is not a good policy because it discourages people doing referrals, and bringing friends and family aboard by giving them a gift subscription.
I *highly* recommend you rethink this for the future.
--T99
posted by
Tamara99
on June 26, 2004 at 9:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Runs_at_dawn
Most member complaints are submitted via email, and are thus kept confidential, so we cannot reveal them. This provides a safe avenue for members to report violations without being targeted by the violator.
Robert
Blogit Policy Team
posted by
BlogitStaff
on June 25, 2004 at 11:26 AM
| link to this | reply
Tamara99
Actually, such responsibility is quite typical. For example, if you use your credit card to set up a cell phone, and hand it to someone else, you are still responsible for the activity on the cell phone. I will review the language to see whether this can be made even clearer.
Social security numbers are highly sensitive information, so it does not make sense to require a member to submit it until necessary. In any case, they are not a solution since those who wish to violate Blogit policies would simply provide a false number.
Robert
Blogit Policy Team
posted by
BlogitStaff
on June 25, 2004 at 11:25 AM
| link to this | reply
I agree with Tamara99
I also don't understand why is it that Blogit staff does not reveal the reasons behind a person's banning, suspension etc.
posted by
Runs_at_dawn
on June 25, 2004 at 9:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Yes "YOUR" account. Not "Your sister's account"
Regarding responsibility, the Terms of Use states, "You are responsible for all activities that occur in your Blogit account." I am not certain how this could be made more clear, so if you have specific suggestions, please let us know.
If my brother and I signed up, and used one credit card to pay for our accounts (note the word "our" and the word "accounts" plural), I would NEVER have interpretted that statement to mean that *I* was responsible for HIS account.
Perhaps you *should* require some type of identification, such as social security number, since you ARE paying us, and at least TWO blogit members have earned more than $600 this year - which means you are legally responsible to report that on a 1099 to the IRS. Doing so would clarify when someone just has multiple accounts, and when they are really different people.....and prevent you from unnecessarily punishing an innocent party.
posted by
Tamara99
on June 24, 2004 at 9:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Tamara99
We always welcome feedback, but please keep in mind that most member complaints are confidential, since they are made privately via email. As a result, any conclusions by members regarding our decisions are made without full knowledge of the facts.
Regarding the possibility of allowing suspended members more than three chances to violate Blogit policy, we have found from experience that this simply does not work. For example, associated accounts are almost always used to repeat past behavior such as verbal abuse. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their actions.
Regarding responsibility, the Terms of Use states, "You are responsible for all activities that occur in your Blogit account." I am not certain how this could be made more clear, so if you have specific suggestions, please let us know. Allowing people to avoid responsibility by simply saying they are someone else does not make sense, since they could make such claims every time.
Regarding copyright, yes, we do follow the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in requiring evidence before removing infringing content. Despite limited resources, we have frequently gone the extra mile to contact content authors to obtain evidence, e.g. when members have not felt comfortable doing so directly, but that did not appear necessary in the case you mention (please see your last email on this issue).
Robert
Blogit Policy Team
P.S. Blogit does not require social security numbers.
posted by
BlogitStaff
on June 24, 2004 at 2:19 PM
| link to this | reply
When we sign up, did we give you our social security #'s for tax reporting purposes? If so, it should be fairly easy to distinguish between multiple personalities (such as Chris2303 & Jesus_Christ) vs family members sharing a credit card.
I did not see anything in there that said we would ever be held responsible for someone else's account. I believe a better way to have handled this would be to ban the guilty party, and put the other accounts on warning - advising them that they were associated with the guilty party, and *IF* they violate the rules, that they are already on strike 1 by association.
Considering how you responded when I showed you an account that had blatantly posted Simon & Garfunkel lyrics (ie - you did nothing), I believe you overreacted to this situation by banning people who were not involved.
--T99
posted by
Tamara99
on June 23, 2004 at 11:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Ouch.
posted by
sparkietheduck
on June 23, 2004 at 6:54 PM
| link to this | reply
I can see why you got rid of him
but I still think it was unwarranted.
this website becomes more and more boring by the minute... perhaps that is your ultimate goal?
posted by
homegirl
on June 23, 2004 at 12:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Information
We cannot discuss specifics related to a particular case, but here are several possible scenarios in which associated accounts may be suspended, some of which have occurred in the past:
- A member allows a suspended member to use their account.
- A suspended member creates another account using false registration information
- A single person is using multiple accounts for the purpose of disruption and/or to avoid detection
- A single person has set up multiple accounts to deliberately cause disruption by creating multiple personas, e.g. "good", "bad", "male", "female"
- A single person sets up multiple accounts that are used by others, in which case they are responsible for the actions of the people using the other accounts.
These scenarios are covered by the Conduct Policy. We are always looking for ways to improve the Conduct Policy, so please do let us know if you have any suggestions.
For information on the process we follow when reviewing policy violations, which typically follows a "three strikes" approach involving multiple warnings before accounts are suspended, please see the Policy Violations help page.
Robert
Blogit Policy Team
posted by
BlogitStaff
on June 23, 2004 at 10:19 AM
| link to this | reply