[ SECRET POST #5097 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5097 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 45 secrets from Secret Submission Post #730.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

DA

It's also only fair then, to be incredibly lenient about people not wanting to spend money on things that are unreliable or nonexistent, considering the exact same economic crisis applies to them too and their own employment may be gone or not secure

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Yes, I agree that if OP is in a situation of economical trickiness themselves, then obviously that changes everything. From what OP wrote, I took it that financial considerations weren't a problem for OP.

If you want to use economic terms to think about it, imagine business A sells a ton of its products to business B, and business A is in trouble. Assuming business B is doing all right, B might extend extremely lenient terms to business A to help prop it up. This would be good for B, because it gets to keep its established relationship with its trusted supplier. But it's also a good thing to do for society, because if A can economically recover, it doesn't go bust, people don't lose their jobs, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Yes, but assuming the economic crunch is hitting business B, which is likely considering the circumstances we live in, expecting them to extend extremely lenient terms to anyone, or finding them a dick for not doing so, is a stretch imo

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I totally agree.

OP didn't say anything about being hit by the economic crunch, or needing to save, or anything like that. They talk about being frustrated, not about needing money. If there were other relevant details OP didn't mention, then yes, things would be different.

I don't know what you want me to do here though.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt, but maybe acknowledge that most people have a limited amount of discretionary income and that it is unfair to expect anyone to continue to pay for services that they aren’t receiving. Prematurely declaring OP an asshole because you think that not declaring up front that you’re a regular person subject to regular financial constraints means you’re some ultra wealthy person who can afford to toss money down a pit indefinitely kind of makes you the asshole. You could continue whining about people pointing that out to you, or you can acknowledge that you were an asshole and that you’ll try to be better in the future. Your call.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not just that OP didn't mention any financial dimension to their decision. Both they, and many other people in this thread, mentioned active non-financial reasons for canceling their subscriptions - the emotional feelings of annoyance of not getting what they were paying for, because it's a business transaction and you need to get what you pay for and get your money's worth or you've been wronged. In fact, that's what practically every post in the thread that's supporting OP says, including the one that I was initially replying to in starting this thread. They say a Patreon is a contract, the artist has an obligation to deliver on the contract, if they don't deliver on the exact terms of that contract you have a right to feel emotionally frustrated, and that's a good justification for canceling your subscription. So I think that there is a point of view that people have where they object to this for reasons that aren't basically financial.

And I think that specific point of view is assholish. I don't think that A Contract's A Contract, I think you should have some human consideration for the person on the other end of the deal if you're able to, and caring more about your emotional feelings that someone's taken advantage of you is a bad but unfortunately common way to look at human interactions.

[(Anonymous)]

What bizarre alternate universe do you live in where "I've given you money in exchange for [thing], you repeatedly haven't delivered [thing], and I now have neither the money I gave you nor the thing you promised" isn't basically financial? The vast majority of humans do not have infinite money. Anything amount spent on one thing cannot be spent on any other thing. That's the entire reason that someone not delivering after you pay them is really fucking annoying.