It really isn't that bad, under the circumstances. They did some things right:
1) Acknowledge a problem in a timely manner (assuming the really did only get escalation one day ago)
2) Provide specific information on what is being done to fix the problem (working w/account holder, making a donation as a mea culpa)
3) Explain limitations on resolution (legitimate constraints on public comment for privacy-protected matter)
What wasn't done well was:
a) letting it get this far to begin with
b) failing to explain how future problems will be prevented by policy changes
I'm really only seeing damage control as Paypal's motivation behind this statement on their blog.
I wonder how many other folks have had the same problems with Paypal's inconsistent application of their policy (when not just outright obstruction), who don't have the same resources to make noise as the woman running Regresty. And whether they will get similar resolution.
1) Acknowledge a problem in a timely manner (assuming the really did only get escalation one day ago) 2) Provide specific information on what is being done to fix the problem (working w/account holder, making a donation as a mea culpa) 3) Explain limitations on resolution (legitimate constraints on public comment for privacy-protected matter)
What wasn't done well was:
a) letting it get this far to begin with b) failing to explain how future problems will be prevented by policy changes