We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
ignitiondeck.com
We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
#2The word terrorism is reserved for actions not approved by our government. Please don't dilute its meaning by using it for a customer insisting on a refund.
Re: We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
#3The word terrorism is reserved for actions not approved by our government. Please don't dilute its meaning by using it for a customer insisting on a refund.
If you're going to nitpick, please be accurate. Terrorism is the strategy of taking actions to incite terror within a population to achieve some goal. It goes back much, much further than the current concept of a nation-state.
Re: We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
#4Seems the party responsible behind this is vbsocial.com, who at this point, doesn't allow comments. Surprise? I think not.
Re: We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
#5The word terrorism is reserved for actions not approved by our government. Please don't dilute its meaning by using it for a customer insisting on a refund.
If you're going to nitpick, please be accurate. Terrorism is the strategy of taking actions to incite terror within a population to achieve some goal. It goes back much, much further than the current concept of a nation-state.
Its better surmised as just anti-civilian warfare.
Re: We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
#6If "no refunds" is your policy, that's your policy, and there's no shame in sticking to your guns. If that was my policy and a customer told me they'd moved on and would like a refund, I'd tell them "tough cookies" and move on myself.
That said, my products[1] have a full money back guarantee. A very small percentage of my customers have taken me up on it and the ones who have have almost always had a pretty good reason. The refund policy has basically cost me nothing since Stripe refunds their fee.
Re: We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
#7The word terrorism is reserved for actions not approved by our government. Please don't dilute its meaning by using it for a customer insisting on a refund.
It's an analogy. "We do not respond to ultimatums" would also work, but then this post would belong more in their FAQ or policy section than a blog post.
And if anyone has diluted the word "terrorism" recently it has been various governments.
Re: We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
#8The word terrorism is reserved for actions not approved by our government. Please don't dilute its meaning by using it for a customer insisting on a refund.
Sometimes reading the comments helps me decide whether or not to read the article. I wasn't going to read this one, but your comment made me think I should - I fully expected to "+1" your comment, because on the whole, I agree with your statement.
Then I read the article, upvoted the OP, and decided to write this.
A better headline would have been "We don't negotiate with blackmailing, SOB bullies who string us along with songs of high praise only to demand - DEMAND - their money back for no reason after days/weeks of a fully supported free trial, and who threaten us with all the fury of god's own social network".
Well, that would have been a more accurate headline, perhaps not a better one.
Given the article, whose veracity I will for now take at face value, the headline used works for me. I have no problem with this particular bit of hyperbole.
It's certainly more SFW than "We don't negotiate with fuck-stick time-wasting rave-rave-rave-then-bail bullies".
Though I would have read that article before coming to the HN comments. :->
Re: We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
#9I can't possibly imagine the time and energy wasted on this blog post and back and forth with the customer is worth $300. Not to mention the PR implications... you're calling your customers terrorists! Good god. You have an unhappy customer, give him his money back and move on.
Re: We Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're going to nitpick, please be accurate. Terrorism is the strategy of taking actions to incite terror within a population to achieve some goal. It goes back much, much further than the current concept of a nation-state.
Its better surmised as just anti-civilian warfare.
What? No. Terrorism is the incitement of terror within a population. Waging general, all-out war does not accomplish that goal very well - the certain risk of an invading standing army is much less terrifying than the uncertain risk of unseen agents with random but deadly agendas. The goal of war is to conquer or destroy. The goal of a terrorist is to leave a social structure intact as-is, but to spread fear and uncertainty within its ranks. These are totally different purposes.