Ipsy: August complaints

[deactivateduser232015]

Originally Posted by Dockmaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif

It's their business than they have the right not to do business with anyone they want or in this case don't want.  She was obviously being a pain in the butt and they showed her the door.  I really don't have a problem with it at all.  A business owner doesn't owe anyone anything and they get to decide who they want to do business with. 

In fairness, this is the same logic "that businesses have the right not to business with anyone" why stores and services have in the past "chosen" not to service black patrons/other POCs and now in some places LGBTQ+ customers.  I'm just saying the door opens both ways. I try to be mindful of that when I make wide, sweeping statements.

Hm I honestly didn't google that much about her, but wow, she does seem... out there. Who wants to bet she finds MUT and comes in an angry storm to defend herself XDDD ipsy was likely right in this case to end their business with her -- she seems like a pain the rear, but they seemed to handle it in a pretty poor manner. I mean it's one to thing to cancel her account and notify her that they canceled the account, but if it was for that reason they 1) shoulnd't have sent an email that said she could resubscribe (??) and two just should've sent her an email that said "because of your behaviour violations we're ceasing our business with you" along side with the cancellation of her account. She probably still would've put up a big fuss, but I'm just thinking some of the bad things she has on them now is partially due to them not handling the situation well overall.

In any case, hopefully she'll be off their backs now. Though I wonder why she isn't causing a huge fuss for BB because from a quick look at her blog, it does seem like she subscribes

 

[Heather Hicks]

Originally Posted by yousoldtheworld /img/forum/go_quote.gif


Yeah, wow...I always try not to have a reaction to posts like that (the blog post) because there's always 2 sides to every story and of course everyone is going to post from their own perspective. But...I'll just say that blocking, deleting, and canceling an account is a lot of effort for Ipsy to go to for no reason. I don't claim that Ipsy is a perfect company, by any means...it seems very likely that those innocent "inquiries" she describes were abusive spam, and being spammed with things both on a facebook page AND email (both to Ipsy and Michelle...as if Michelle actually has any part of the day to day operations) if they were done as often as it sounds like DOES seem like a reasonable reason to cancel a sub - they're probably tired of dealing with her.

If this is this Chelsea chick, she certainly does sound angry and loud. But I find it a bit disturbing Ipsy would cancel a sub without prior notice (assuming that's what they did). I certainly understand blocking her from Facebook. I could also understand blocking her from certain email accounts (though I recognize this is problemmatic if she remains a customer because she *might* have a legitimate reason to email them someday). Still, I'd feel better if they had sent her a letter to inform her of the impending cancellation and I'm guessing they did not. Still, sounds like she was a very special case. I'm sorry, but my own initial reaction to the blog post was to believe her simply because Ipsy has lost lots of credibility in my eyes from last month. I still think they have LOTS of customer service issues to address. I kind of want to cancel because I fear having to deal with them if I have an issue and I'm sure it is only a matter of time before a snafu hits me. I've been lucky up until now (well, fairly lucky--no missing items in shipping, for example). The months I've been with Ipsy have been great to good (pretty much in that order). But it just seems like (Chelsea aside) they are struggling to keep things together as they continue to grow.

 

[Heather Hicks]

Originally Posted by yousoldtheworld /img/forum/go_quote.gif


But what I"m saying is, from what I've read, I find it hard to believe she was never responded to. It just doesn't add up.

Yeah, that's why I said I *assume* it was without a warning letter. She may have gotten one and she is simply denying it. If I had been Ipsy in this situation, I would have had the letter notarized and sent certified mail!

 

[Chelsea Hoffman]

I don't normally do this, but I noticed a spike in traffic on my blog so I had to come read the forum. Naturally there are a lot of discussion forums with people talking about me -- some with less than pleasant things, some with outright lies -- so I don't often respond. I felt the need to say a few things here in my defense, since my character has become some sort of spectacle here:

1. I never received any warnings of any kind from Ipsy. 

2. I was never abusive under my fan page account, nor bitter. I did jump to the defense of some of the subscribers a few times when other subscribers would say rude things. These are the only times I recall being "nasty" to anyone. I don't like judgmental and catty people, and when I see them bullying others I stick up for the person being bullied. If I come across as a "nasty" or "bitter" person while doing so, so be it.

3. There are certainly always two sides to every story. I'm waiting for Ipsy to actually explain their side with some actual proof and professionalism. I am disappointed that they either can't or will not.

4. As for the Westboro Baptist Church and why they would drop everything to talk to me. Shirley Phelps is a fan of my work. I'm a criminal profiler and author. She follows my crime stories -- so unfortunately I am followed by the entire "church" on Twitter and other venues. I also blog frequently about how stupid they are and how much I wish they'd just stfu and go the eff away and leave everyone alone.

My coverage of their antics and my stance as an atheist attracted Margie Phelps to blog about me on one of the platforms that I also blog on. That sparked the "God Hates Chelsea Hoffman" t-shirt line, btw. It was popular for about a month.

I am not "out there," nor am I a "toxic" person. But I am not afraid to call bullsh*t on people and I am not stupid, nor am I a doormat. There are a lot of things out there online about me by my professional rivals and by family members of suspects and murder convicts who disagree with my coverage of certain crime cases.

So instead of talking about me like I'm Miley twerking on a catwalk, email me and ask me your questions. I'm easy to find and easy to reach. My details are out there.

Thanks.

 

[gypsiemagic]

Originally Posted by JamieO /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Uggggggggghhhhhhh. Here we go.

we always give ourselves away with our mass site visiting /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" />

 

[ButterflyGrl]

IMHO you missed the grand entrance and hopefully exit of DRAMA.

 

[JamieO]

Originally Posted by Kyuu /img/forum/go_quote.gif

In fairness, this is the same logic "that businesses have the right not to business with anyone" why stores and services have in the past "chosen" not to service black patrons/other POCs and now in some places LGBTQ+ customers.  I'm just saying the door opens both ways. I try to be mindful of that when I make wide, sweeping statements.

Hm I honestly didn't google that much about her, but wow, she does seem... out there. Who wants to bet she finds MUT and comes in an angry storm to defend herself XDDD ipsy was likely right in this case to end their business with her -- she seems like a pain the rear, but they seemed to handle it in a pretty poor manner. I mean it's one to thing to cancel her account and notify her that they canceled the account, but if it was for that reason they 1) shoulnd't have sent an email that said she could resubscribe (??) and two just should've sent her an email that said "because of your behaviour violations we're ceasing our business with you" along side with the cancellation of her account. She probably still would've put up a big fuss, but I'm just thinking some of the bad things she has on them now is partially due to them not handling the situation well overall.

In any case, hopefully she'll be off their backs now. Though I wonder why she isn't causing a huge fuss for BB because from a quick look at her blog, it does seem like she subscribes

Are you some sort of psychic?!?!

 

[ButterflyGrl]

Are you some sort of psychic?!?!

Seriously thought the same thing! Lol

 

[deactivateduser232015]

Originally Posted by Kyuu /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Who wants to bet she finds MUT and comes in an angry storm to defend herself XDDD

I'm unclassy so I'm just going to point out that I called it! 

 

[Chelsea Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Kyuu /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I'm unclassy so I'm just going to point out that I called it! 

Only, I'm not angry. Nor am I here for drama. I saw you guys had questions, so I cam here with answers. And I am more than willing to answer any questions you have. So there's truly no need for any anticipation of drama or some sort of online catfight. 

Also, yes my fan page does have three other moderators, but I doubt that they would visit pages with "attitude" under the page name.

 

[gypsiemagic]

I've been looking into their terms of service, I just think its weird that they are considering the subscription and facebook account the same thing.

This is about ipsy on facebook:

We expect all ipsters to abide by these guidelines and the Terms of Use, and (while we don't enjoy it) we reserve the right to remove offending content and ban offenders in order to maintain a safe and positive community. Thank you for being an ipster!

This is about the ipsy site itself. (Terms of use)

1. Termination 
   ipsy may terminate, change, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Site or the Site's services (including, without limitation, content, features or hours of availability), at any time and for any reason. ipsy may restrict, suspend, or terminate your access to all or part of the Site and/or its services, or impose limits on certain features of the Site, if we believe you are in violation of our Terms of Use or applicable law, or for any other reason without notice, penalty or liability. Once you have been banned from use of the Site, you may not thereafter use the Site under a new username or identity. ipsy maintains a policy to terminate the Site use privileges of users who repeatedly infringe the intellectual property rights of others (including those of ipsy).

It doesn't actually say that if you are "in abuse" on facebook that they can cancel your subscription. 

 

[zadidoll]

Just as a remind to everyone to keep things civil. No fighting, bashing or name calling allowed. We're going to allow the conversation with Chelsea to continue for now so long as people keep it civil.

 

[Moonblossom]

Originally Posted by gypsiemagic /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I've been looking into their terms of service, I just think its weird that they are considering the subscription and facebook account the same thing.

This is about ipsy on facebook:

We expect all ipsters to abide by these guidelines and the Terms of Use, and (while we don't enjoy it) we reserve the right to remove offending content and ban offenders in order to maintain a safe and positive community. Thank you for being an ipster!

This is about the ipsy site itself. (Terms of use)

1. Termination ipsy may terminate, change, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Site or the Site's services (including, without limitation, content, features or hours of availability), at any time and for any reason. ipsy may restrict, suspend, or terminate your access to all or part of the Site and/or its services, or impose limits on certain features of the Site, if we believe you are in violation of our Terms of Use or applicable law, or for any other reason without notice, penalty or liability. Once you have been banned from use of the Site, you may not thereafter use the Site under a new username or identity. ipsy maintains a policy to terminate the Site use privileges of users who repeatedly infringe the intellectual property rights of others (including those of ipsy).
   

It doesn't actually say that if you are "in abuse" on facebook that they can cancel your subscription. 

"or for any other reason without notice, penalty or liability."

I'm pretty sure "repeated instances of aggressive or abusive behaviour (whether the poster intended them that way or not) count as "any other reason". That little statement there is legalese for "we can cancel your account if you cause problems for us of any nature".

Chelsea, since you say you are willing to answer any legitimate questions, why did you continue to insist you got a full-sized Benetint when not a single person on the site got one, and not edit or retract that post about how "unfair" it was that some folks were getting a full-sized Revolution lipstick when it came to light that it was a tiny sample and only worth a couple of dollars more than the full-sized lip balm? I'm curious, since that kind of kills the bulk of your argument about "fairness" and a large part of the reason you were badmouthing the service all over the internet.

 

[ButterflyGrl]

Only, I'm not angry. Nor am I here for drama. I saw you guys had questions, so I cam here with answers. And I am more than willing to answer any questions you have. So there's truly no need for any anticipation of drama or some sort of online catfight.  Also, yes my fan page does have three other moderators, but I doubt that they would visit pages with "attitude" under the page name.

If that is true then good, I stand corrected and am happy to retract my statement!

 

[Chelsea Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Moonblossom /img/forum/go_quote.gif


"or for any other reason without notice, penalty or liability."

I'm pretty sure "repeated instances of aggressive or abusive behaviour (whether the poster intended them that way or not) count as "any other reason". That little statement there is legalese for "we can cancel your account if you cause problems for us of any nature".

Chelsea, since you say you are willing to answer any legitimate questions, why did you continue to insist you got a full-sized Benetint when not a single person on the site got one, and not edit or retract that post about how "unfair" it was that some folks were getting a full-sized Revolution lipstick when it came to light that it was a tiny sample and only worth a couple of dollars more than the full-sized lip balm? I'm curious, since that kind of kills the bulk of your argument about "fairness" and a large part of the reason you were badmouthing the service all over the internet.

1. To the best of my knowledge I received a full (or at least deluxe sample) sized benetint. If I misread the net/weight of the package (which has long since been thrown away) then I apologize? 

2. I was among several dozen people who believed that we were receiving full sized UD lipsticks, still believing it until I opened the bag when it arrived not that long ago. I am still among those who believe it was unfair for some to be given lipstick while others were given chapstick. If it would make you personally feel better if I wrote a post that says "they're not full sized, but still worth more than lip balm," I can, though it wouldn't in any way change my opinion on this particular issue, nor do I think it would change the opinions of those who are still perturbed at the issue. I haven't even gotten around to writing about the Aug. bag in the first place as I have been too busy with my work and studies. My girly blog is a side hobby for my enjoyment. Sometimes I go months without updating it. Sorry. I'm just super busy 99.999% of the time.

I also disagree with your statement that I had "badmouthed" Ipsy all over the internet. To the contrary, I still declared my appreciation for them and my happiness with their service in contrast with my minimal complaint. Since I've been reviewing these services (albeit sparingly) I don't feel that sharing a valid "con" against my definitely bloated list of "pros" could constitute as "badmouthing."  I don't believe I need to share links to these things, since it's all documented on my blog anyway. 

While under business law standards they may have covered their tails by adding that they can cancel subs at any time for any reason, they are still responsible for maintaining a public image, and if they get a repeated reputation of mistreating customers (which they appear to be getting), then they kill their own business without the need for "lawsuits" and the like.

I also deny any allegations that I was "aggressive." Assertive, perhaps, but not aggressive. 

 

[gypsiemagic]

Originally Posted by Moonblossom /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Quote: Originally Posted by gypsiemagic /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I've been looking into their terms of service, I just think its weird that they are considering the subscription and facebook account the same thing.

This is about ipsy on facebook:

We expect all ipsters to abide by these guidelines and the Terms of Use, and (while we don't enjoy it) we reserve the right to remove offending content and ban offenders in order to maintain a safe and positive community. Thank you for being an ipster!

This is about the ipsy site itself. (Terms of use)

1. Termination ipsy may terminate, change, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Site or the Site's services (including, without limitation, content, features or hours of availability), at any time and for any reason. ipsy may restrict, suspend, or terminate your access to all or part of the Site and/or its services, or impose limits on certain features of the Site, if we believe you are in violation of our Terms of Use or applicable law, or for any other reason without notice, penalty or liability. Once you have been banned from use of the Site, you may not thereafter use the Site under a new username or identity. ipsy maintains a policy to terminate the Site use privileges of users who repeatedly infringe the intellectual property rights of others (including those of ipsy).
   

It doesn't actually say that if you are "in abuse" on facebook that they can cancel your subscription. 
"or for any other reason without notice, penalty or liability."

I'm pretty sure "repeated instances of aggressive or abusive behaviour (whether the poster intended them that way or not) count as "any other reason". That little statement there is legalese for "we can cancel your account if you cause problems for us of any nature".

Chelsea, since you say you are willing to answer any legitimate questions, why did you continue to insist you got a full-sized Benetint when not a single person on the site got one, and not edit or retract that post about how "unfair" it was that some folks were getting a full-sized Revolution lipstick when it came to light that it was a tiny sample and only worth a couple of dollars more than the full-sized lip balm? I'm curious, since that kind of kills the bulk of your argument about "fairness" and a large part of the reason you were badmouthing the service all over the internet.

Yeah, I definitely see which part they would state if asked, but that is in their terms of service for the site, so if they are including facebook (which actually has its own TOS) under the ipsy.com "site" then its totally legit, I just have an issue saying that ipsy.com = facebook.com/ipsy since technically ipsy owns owns one page and not the other.

I second wondering about the benetint and revolution lipsticks! definitely a fairly worded legitimate question! nice job moonblossom

 

[Moonblossom]

Everyone who got a Benetint got the deluxe sample size, which is much, much smaller than the full size.

And I don't give a fig what you do one way or another, I don't work for Ipsy, I don't represent them. I was just pointing out that the rather alarmingly large pile of "evidence" you'd collected about Ipsy's unfair business practices was all quite faulty, and you kept insisting that you were right and somehow a magical exception to the rule, instead of going "oh, hey, my mistake" when someone commented on it in your post.

I also like how you have completely ignored the quote I posted about your incredibly abusive language towards people on Twitter, which may not be related to the Ipsy issue but does serve to support a pattern of behaviour. People who aren't argumentative and confrontational don't usually suggest that someone look into a "tapeworm diet". There is plenty of corroborating evidence to support the theory that you were booted for upsetting people.

I've said all I'm going to say on this and I'm not going to engage with this issue further. I know I participated in it but it's massively derailed the generally light-hearted tones of these threads, and I'm wondering if maybe it could be broken off into a separate thread?

 

[zadidoll]

I've moved a few posts from the September spoiler thread into it's own thread since it is a serious matter worth having it's own thread for discussion. I know many people have had complaints about Ipsy in August some justified, some not so discuss away.

 

[jrenee]

Originally Posted by zadidoll /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I've moved a few posts from the September spoiler thread into it's own thread since it is a serious matter worth having it's own thread for discussion. I know many people have had complaints about Ipsy in August some justified, some not so discuss away.

Thanks for creating this. Hope folks use it.  I stopped reading the Ipsy threads primarily because the volume of complaints about the August bag was too much of a downer for me. Sigh, hopefully Ipsy resolves it on their end soon, would love to have folks excited about receiving spoilers and bags again.

 

[Chelsea Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Moonblossom /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Everyone who got a Benetint got the deluxe sample size, which is much, much smaller than the full size.

And I don't give a fig what you do one way or another, I don't work for Ipsy, I don't represent them. I was just pointing out that the rather alarmingly large pile of "evidence" you'd collected about Ipsy's unfair business practices was all quite faulty, and you kept insisting that you were right and somehow a magical exception to the rule, instead of going "oh, hey, my mistake" when someone commented on it in your post.

I also like how you have completely ignored the quote I posted about your incredibly abusive language towards people on Twitter, which may not be related to the Ipsy issue but does serve to support a pattern of behaviour. People who aren't argumentative and confrontational don't usually suggest that someone look into a "tapeworm diet". There is plenty of corroborating evidence to support the theory that you were booted for upsetting people.

I've said all I'm going to say on this and I'm not going to engage with this issue further. I know I participated in it but it's massively derailed the generally light-hearted tones of these threads, and I'm wondering if maybe it could be broken off into a separate thread?

See...you asked me a question and I answered you honestly and civilly, to which you chose to attack me. If this was your motive from the get go, why even ask me questions? 

I also chose to ignore a quote you posted about Twitter because it is irrelevant to this discussion. I am sure all of us, including you, have gotten into arguments and "fights" with our enemies, friends and foes. My arguments with random people regarding personal and other matters don't matter in this context, except for that you are trying to use it as fodder to abuse and attack me -- even though you were asked not to by the mod of this forum.

That's a shame, because I believe I was answering your questions and engaging in an adult discussion. I can see now that this was one-sided. /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" />

Like I had stated to another poster: I didn't come here to argue or engage in "drama." I came here to answer questions for adults in a civil manner. If you can't participate in an adult manner without attacking me and using year-old twitter fights with people you don't know and topics you don't know about as some sort of unnecessary ammo against me, then clearly our discussion is over, and I'll just focus on talking to the others.

P.s. -- it's extremely illogical to claim that I was booted for upsetting people on Ipsy this month because I argued with someone a year ago on Twitter.....and an unnecessary attack. I just wanted to reiterate that.