Lmao. How is this fair?

So does that mean people are OK with an org openly saying they will blacklist you for cancelation?

in the confirmation text they sent it read, "please don't cancel 1 hour before". Second part was (We'll block you if you cancel 3 times).

I went to the page, and it says they "reserve the right (sp)" to refuse service and blacklist.  That isn't the same thing as "openly saying they will" do anything.  My neighborhood liquor store has a sign that says they have the right to refuse service to anyone, I don't think this is that different.  I might disagree with ranking cancellation above crime or video, but it isn't my business to make that policy.  I know the board has been slow recently, but you really are grasping for straws here.  

Getting blocked after three cancellations is reasonable.  The wording on their webpage could be better, but as usual, Rocket is overreacting.

You are so correct my pasta packing friend

It very well could just be a clear statement of a fact (clearly without making the statement they still can refuse service and BL anyone they want for any reason they want) perhaps to make some that have been more difficult customers -- say frequently cancelling, or as you note other more serious acts -- that they don't have any *right* to the services.

I’ve seen very similar text in confirmation messages from other orgs over the years. To me this is neither shocking or new.

We all have to take into account the type of business that’s involved. There’s a big difference between a personal service appointment where a specific time is reserved exclusively for you, and one where you are just one of a number who have the same time slot. In the former, there is usually a loss of income, whereas in the latter there probably isn’t.

Lately they don't really have a much of roster so I don't think guys will miss them too much.

Tell me, do you think it's *ever* OK to bl for a cancellation?

I'm surprised you take this so seriously.  They've always been able to BL anyone for anything, so I'm not sure why folks are just waking up to this.  

Re: You are so correct my pasta packing friend

"clearly without making the statement they still can refuse service and BL anyone they want for any reason they want)"

If you really think this policy is radically different from the sign in the mini mart or my barber has in her shop, I don't know what to say.  I respect the right of both my barber and this org to run their businesses how they like.  You seem to think that just because a private business is open they are obligated to serve everyone, I don't agree with that.  I say grasping for straws because you are making the jump from "reserve the right to blacklist" and saying that automatically means you will be blacklisted even if you have an emergency.  If you are a good client, I honestly don't think that would happen but even if it does, it is their business and not mine.  It probably does happen once in a while but not to good clients, most likely if a guy is generally a pain in the ass but hasn't had any previous infractions.  At the end of the day, you can just choose not to do business at this place if you don't like their policy.  It doesn't bother me, just like it doesn't bother me when I go get a haircut.  

My barber shop doesn't have a sign that says it will blacklist me if I cancel. Moreover, I know that even if they refuse to serve me, they are not going to go to every single barber shop in the metro area and tell them to also not serve me.

to one of the most-read posts (nearly 10,000 reads) on this board.  I wrote it four years ago and it's still just as valid today.  Read number 6 for the parameters on excess cancellations.  

Absolutely cdl. Great post. Every business I've ever owned or managed has fired or blacklisted clients who we have had a problem with. And it's our decision. Virtually every business does it. And good businesses share information with other similar businesses. Try to get car insurance after having 3 or 4 at fault accidents. You can't, or it's prohibitively expensive. Why? Because auto insurers share claims information. There's a uniform database. Same with health insurers, property insurers and title insurers. Heck, try to see a good doctor or lawyer after you've sued another doctor or lawyer for malpractice. Even country clubs and yacht clubs. Get thrown out of one and the entire local community knows you're a problem member and the other clubs will blacklist you too. That's the only tool that businesses that deal with the public have to keep out the clients and potential clients that they deem to be not good for their business or reputation.
.
On the other hand, if you're a good customer businesses will provide good references for you that will assist you in being accepted by other similar businesses when the need arises.
.
The moral of the story: keep your word, treat people nicely, show up on time, do what you promise to do, and pay your bills and you'll do well with any business, including KOrgs. Do the opposite at your own peril.

No wonder there is only one person who participates in this forum that doesn’t get it. Maybe someday he will, too.

I've never seen an org openly write this before.

that post aged very well

Take a look at LSC rules about time and cancelation:

We have this one guy who, like the Lorax, “cares a whole awful lot” about k-girl marketing and business practices.

on my list where bookers went to the trouble to alert other bookers of a blacklist.  Those are physical abuse, and "stiffs and shorts."  Abuse if self-explanatory, and any guy who doesn't pay the full rate (except when he's getting a do-over from the booker for a bad experience, in which case he may be getting a discount of $20 to $100 from the house share.  The girls still gets her full rate.) when he leaves will find that within a couple of hours, he won't be able to book anywhere in that city.  Everyone will have his name and phone number very quickly.  

Every instance of filming I've heard the guy would get BLd from everywhere too.

Hey Rocket, I just looked on their site, from my computer and phone, and the statement is still up for Lucky.

That also seems to suggest that the term blacklist in that ad is not being uses as some local area or wider banning but only for that particular girl -- not even an agency wide statement.

Having it be for a particular girl explains a lot.

of a guy taking a photo and getting blacklisted by the GIRL, not the org, so your examples seem like outliers to me, but I will concede its certainly possible depending on the severity of the situation.  In the one example I gave, he was BL'd because he posted it on a board somewhere and the GIRL, not the org contacted the board and said it was unauthorized and without her knowledge.  As a result, he was also banned from that discussion board.   Anyone who wants a photo should just ask the girl for one.   If he's a good enough customer, he will probably get one.  That's usually reserved for regular customers.  I knew the girl, and saw the photo myself, so she is the one who told me how this went down.

Second. All in favor.

It is back up. Interesting. Thank you for letting me know.

You are the one making an assumption about chronic cancelation or whatnot. Nowhere on the website does it mention chronic (or singular, for that matter) cancellation.  

most likely not a native English speaker or even one well educated in English.

The hypothesis with least assumptions when someone sees "no smoking" means that no smoking is allowed.

The subject header of the reply to him is incorrect.

...drugs, toys, crime and video.  Yes, they say cancellation is the most important, but there is another reason as well.

I'm an electric man, myself. Much simpler.

That is a lay person's (and uniformed to be honest) statement of the idea. Like most bumper stickers it's something of a half truth that gross over simplifies the concept.

It could be that he actually doesn’t understand Occam’s Razor. And each of these explanations cause small shifts in his understanding.  

That is not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is that because they have bad command of the language, that they meant something else from what they wrote.  And that one is questionable at the very best.

Strawman? Lol. How pathetic. Same thing with saying my statement about Occam's razor is wrong where it is exactly the definition. One of my co-workers, a quite good developer, was a huge fan of Occam's razor and had posters of it all over his office.  

Like I've been saying for a long time (and others have too). He should take that razor and find a better use for it. All this discussion requires is a lick of common sense, which our Board Troll lacks.

I think engaging in an argument about reason and logic with him is an utter waste of time. Though, yes, I know I’ve been sucked in upon occasion, too. I spent too much time training techies to be able to quickly stifle my “I know the answer” response. Sigh.

No wonder he had to use networking to get jobs. Fail to use the simplest logic possible.  

the only razor that should be talked about this much is the one that a sexy, shapely (insert the shape of your choice, actually insert into the shape lol!) #9 model material Kgirl would use to remove any unwanted hair on her Kitty!  
She might want a landing strip!

Right at the top of the wikipedia entry:
"Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity",[1][2] ***sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one."[3]*** " Emphasis added

"The Rockford Files" entitled "Irving the Explainer," 11/18/1977.

Maybe the org took it down and Lucky had them put it back up.

Lol.

Well a noob might. But you’ve also shown us that a very experienced, yet stupid veteran also takes offense.

I counted one instance of attempt to compare such warning to a blanket "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for anything" and barbershop.