6 ms·

That's definitely part of the problem. You're following the letter of the rule, because yes, it says Free Cancellations, and you cancelled for free. It doesn't

by xethos 11mo ago

That's definitely part of the problem. You're following the letter of the rule, because yes, it says Free Cancellations, and you cancelled for free. It doesn't follow the spirit of the rules though; it's something I've always viewed as the business saying "Listen, we get it, life happens. If you can't make it, don't panic, we've got your back". To book both weekends with the intent of cancelling carries a strong odour of bad faith, and IMO makes you part of the problem. Notably, the free cancellation policy only really works in a high-trust society, which at least one prominent nation seems to be backsliding on - meaning policies like this may be on their way out.

stavros 11mo ago
I don't know, I (and lots of people I know) book multiple dates with free cancellation months in advance and just keep the one we can make, closer to the date. I think this is a pretty widespread and common thing?
- 627467 11mo ago
  Oh yeah lots of "tragedies of the commons" happen because lots of people do things selfishly oblivious of the adverse effects
- mvdtnz 11mo ago
  I would never have even considered doing this. I think it's a jerk thing to do.
- Brian_K_White 11mo ago
  Returning clothes that were worn once for an event is also widespread and common. The problem is it's lying. It's abusing a grace to get something for nothing. Holding a room for you that you will never use is denying it to someone else who was not lying and actually does intend to complete the transaction. So yeah, doing this doesn't explain the hotel committing their own cancellation fraud but it is exactly the cause of the hotels reaction to just not offer cancellations. If someone wants to reserve all the options for themselves but not actually use them, that should cost something. They are getting something, and it's not free to produce, so it should cost something. Then ot wouldn't be an abuse or a minor fraud, just an honest transaction. There should be a "rent the dress" option. And what do you know, thete usually is. It's called the higher rate for the option to cancel. But there is really no way to distinguish this kind of abuse from honest people who had plans change outside their control who you don't want to burn except by collecting and sharing data on everyone to maintain profiles and track history and behavior, and no one wants that right?
  - stavros 11mo ago
    But you know that most websites nowadays do actively want you to order lots of clothes/sizes, try them on, and return for free the ones you don't want, right? This leads to more sales. I think websites/hotels have the same intention with free cancellation. It drives up rentals.
- overfeed 11mo ago
  Lots of people don't return carts, dip their high beams for oncoming vehicles, or intentionally drive through yellow/red traffic light when there's ample time to stop. If those behaviors were adopted universally, life would get miserable for everyone.
- twoodfin 11mo ago
  It’s ridiculously common. Airlines and hotels both charge you for the privilege, it’s not a moral failing to take them up on it!
- TitaRusell 11mo ago
  Cultural thing in my country that would be asshole behaviour. Which doesn't stop people doing it ofcourse. It goes both ways though. A restaurant or hotel will not one-sidedly cancel on you. A deal is a deal. When the ink is dry and money transferred all parties keep their word.
dghlsakjg 11mo ago
> ...high-trust society, which at least one prominent nation seems to be backsliding on For those not living in the true north (Canada), 90% of the time, this is dog-whsitle phrasing preferred by the Canadian right wing to complain about Indian immigrants. Canada does have issues with immigration fraud, but this phrasing of complaint pretty exclusively is used by people who don't like Indians.
- pluralmonad 11mo ago
  While this may be true in some contexts, what reason do you have to believe it is here? All of these supposed "dog whistle" call-outs do not feel constructive to me. I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians (and still don't).
  - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
    This is a US site, patronised seemingly by mostly non-Candians. My purpose is to contextualize who and what the subtext of this phrase's use in Canada within the context of this Canadian story. > All of these supposed "dog whistle" call-outs do not feel constructive to me. I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians (and still don't). The point of a literal dog-whistle is that the intended audience (dogs) can hear and understand the whistle perfectly, while other people do not hear anything at all. Figuratively, a dog-whistle phrase leaves room for debate (like this), and provides cover for people to say unsavory things while still being able to deny the meaning. Well-meaning folks can say things like "I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians" because that is the whole point of the dog-whistle in modern rhetoric. The analogy holds well here as well. You can wade into any right wing space in Canada and you will hear the phrase "low trust society' and "high trust society". It is ALWAYS used in the context of immigrants (low trust) and white Canadians (high trust). It is almost always used in reference to Indian immigrants specifically. The whole point of a dog whistle is that you can take them at face value and see nothing explicitly wrong with the statement. Is it possible that this commenter simply blundered into this phrasing without understanding that it is used specifically against Indian immigrant cultures by the extreme right? Yes. Do I believe that they happened on the exact same particular phrasing and argument that anti-Indian/anti-immigrant groups use was made by pure coincidence? No. If OP did blunder into their statement, they can easily reply and correct their true intent. If I accidentally used a racially loaded statement that signals allegiance with certain groups, I would absolutely want someone to point it out so I can clarify. You can believe whatever you want.
anonzzzies 11mo ago
That's how I always saw it. And do it. I cancel only if I cannot make it.

by xethos 11mo ago

stavros 11mo ago

I don't know, I (and lots of people I know) book multiple dates with free cancellation months in advance and just keep the one we can make, closer to the date. I think this is a pretty widespread and common thing?

627467 11mo ago
Oh yeah lots of "tragedies of the commons" happen because lots of people do things selfishly oblivious of the adverse effects
mvdtnz 11mo ago
I would never have even considered doing this. I think it's a jerk thing to do.
Brian_K_White 11mo ago
Returning clothes that were worn once for an event is also widespread and common. The problem is it's lying. It's abusing a grace to get something for nothing. Holding a room for you that you will never use is denying it to someone else who was not lying and actually does intend to complete the transaction. So yeah, doing this doesn't explain the hotel committing their own cancellation fraud but it is exactly the cause of the hotels reaction to just not offer cancellations. If someone wants to reserve all the options for themselves but not actually use them, that should cost something. They are getting something, and it's not free to produce, so it should cost something. Then ot wouldn't be an abuse or a minor fraud, just an honest transaction. There should be a "rent the dress" option. And what do you know, thete usually is. It's called the higher rate for the option to cancel. But there is really no way to distinguish this kind of abuse from honest people who had plans change outside their control who you don't want to burn except by collecting and sharing data on everyone to maintain profiles and track history and behavior, and no one wants that right?
- stavros 11mo ago
  But you know that most websites nowadays do actively want you to order lots of clothes/sizes, try them on, and return for free the ones you don't want, right? This leads to more sales. I think websites/hotels have the same intention with free cancellation. It drives up rentals.
overfeed 11mo ago
Lots of people don't return carts, dip their high beams for oncoming vehicles, or intentionally drive through yellow/red traffic light when there's ample time to stop. If those behaviors were adopted universally, life would get miserable for everyone.
twoodfin 11mo ago
It’s ridiculously common. Airlines and hotels both charge you for the privilege, it’s not a moral failing to take them up on it!
TitaRusell 11mo ago
Cultural thing in my country that would be asshole behaviour. Which doesn't stop people doing it ofcourse. It goes both ways though. A restaurant or hotel will not one-sidedly cancel on you. A deal is a deal. When the ink is dry and money transferred all parties keep their word.

dghlsakjg 11mo ago

> ...high-trust society, which at least one prominent nation seems to be backsliding on For those not living in the true north (Canada), 90% of the time, this is dog-whsitle phrasing preferred by the Canadian right wing to complain about Indian immigrants. Canada does have issues with immigration fraud, but this phrasing of complaint pretty exclusively is used by people who don't like Indians.

pluralmonad 11mo ago
While this may be true in some contexts, what reason do you have to believe it is here? All of these supposed "dog whistle" call-outs do not feel constructive to me. I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians (and still don't).
- dghlsakjg 11mo ago
  This is a US site, patronised seemingly by mostly non-Candians. My purpose is to contextualize who and what the subtext of this phrase's use in Canada within the context of this Canadian story. > All of these supposed "dog whistle" call-outs do not feel constructive to me. I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians (and still don't). The point of a literal dog-whistle is that the intended audience (dogs) can hear and understand the whistle perfectly, while other people do not hear anything at all. Figuratively, a dog-whistle phrase leaves room for debate (like this), and provides cover for people to say unsavory things while still being able to deny the meaning. Well-meaning folks can say things like "I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians" because that is the whole point of the dog-whistle in modern rhetoric. The analogy holds well here as well. You can wade into any right wing space in Canada and you will hear the phrase "low trust society' and "high trust society". It is ALWAYS used in the context of immigrants (low trust) and white Canadians (high trust). It is almost always used in reference to Indian immigrants specifically. The whole point of a dog whistle is that you can take them at face value and see nothing explicitly wrong with the statement. Is it possible that this commenter simply blundered into this phrasing without understanding that it is used specifically against Indian immigrant cultures by the extreme right? Yes. Do I believe that they happened on the exact same particular phrasing and argument that anti-Indian/anti-immigrant groups use was made by pure coincidence? No. If OP did blunder into their statement, they can easily reply and correct their true intent. If I accidentally used a racially loaded statement that signals allegiance with certain groups, I would absolutely want someone to point it out so I can clarify. You can believe whatever you want.

anonzzzies 11mo ago

That's how I always saw it. And do it. I cancel only if I cannot make it.