Smuggler Archive
Thread: Finaly I know why we are hated
outlanderBZ
Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:46 am
#28
Ternque01 wrote:
Are we blowing stuff out of proportion again?
i think so. the CSR was probably bored.....
MISTagent01
Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:41 am
#29
/sigh
Hasn't anyone heard the phrase, "You ask a stupid question, and you'll get a stupid answer?"
The CSRs are outsourced in India; how in god's name are they going to change game mechanics?
It was a question submitted with no reasonable intent.
If anyone expects a better answer than the one given, shame on you.
Also, I'd rather see a CSR reply in that manner, than just getting the standard, "This is a known issue."
SpinningCloud
Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:52 am
#30
I submitted mine as a bug report which doesn't create a CSR ticket. I think he submitted an actually ticket which probably wasn't the right thing to do.
However, any company's personel that interact directly with customers ought to do so professionally...especially a company with the size and experience of Sony.
I wonder if the CSR responding read it very litterally, like;
A Dancer Dances,
A Musician makes Music,
So a Smuggler should smuggle.
And came up with some 'litteral' babble about a
Artisan that makes art and
a Commando that (though he couldn't figure out what a Commando would litterally do) commands?
I would have thought that anyone could have figured out that what was intended was that professions with titles have skills related to that title...all except Smuggler that is.
All in all though the first part of the answer was meaningless babble. The second part of the answer was all that was needed IF an answer was needed at all. Sending it as a bug would have been a better idea IMO.
atone48732
Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:41 pm
#31
nice CSR.......
/groan
no wonder the smuggler profession is a mess
/sigh
TomoRainer
Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:49 pm
#32
SpinningCloud wrote:I submitted mine as a bug report which doesn't create a CSR ticket. I think he submitted an actually ticket which probably wasn't the right thing to do.However, any company's personel that interact directly with customers ought to do so professionally...especially a company with the size and experience of Sony.I wonder if the CSR responding read it very litterally, like;A Dancer Dances,A Musician makes Music,So a Smuggler should smuggle.And came up with some 'litteral' babble about aArtisan that makes art anda Commando that (though he couldn't figure out what a Commando would litterally do) commands?I would have thought that anyone could have figured out that what was intended was that professions with titles have skills related to that title...all except Smuggler that is.All in all though the first part of the answer was meaningless babble. The second part of the answer was all that was needed IF an answer was needed at all. Sending it as a bug would have been a better idea IMO.
Yeah, it's got to be an extremely literal interpretation of the ticket. In which case the line about commandos was effing hilarious.
ValiantHalibut
Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:56 pm
#33
If I was the CSR I would've been worse. Just because we're customers doesn't mean that they have to cater to our every whim and happily bend over when we want to whine. The employees of SOE are not our personal butlers.
SpinningCloud
Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:05 pm
#34
Actually Valiant anyone that deals with customers had better be curtious no matter what the situation or, in most companies that are succesful, get their butts fired.
You think that you'd be rude to a customer that asked that question? And do you think that any supervisor worth his salt would let you get away with it?
*raises eyebrows*
I sure wouldn't put up with it as an employer.
ValiantHalibut
Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:21 pm
#35
If someone walks in with a leading question that ultimately says "you suck" then I see no reason not to respond in kind. The passive-agressive ticket was utterly pointless and could not have benefited the community or the game in any way. Why pander to that kind of person? There's a belief in our society that people in the service industry have no rights and have to take whatever you dish out to them. It's a myth that has been perpetuated by corporations that want to maintain as large a customer base as possible dispite a dillution of the worth of the product.
At the very least, the CSR's response might have taught the poster that he was being an idiot and that he should think before he posts pointless tickets.
SpinningCloud
Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:38 pm
#36
The problem Valiant was the first part of the response was nonsensical...sorry, it just made no sense at all even on a sarcastic level.
And in ANY industry, the success of a company is always better off with customer relations people that find alternative ways of dealing with 'troublesome' customers. My advice is to not take customer relations jobs and leave it to people that can deal with things like that in other ways.
As for the validity of submitting a bug or CSR report in that form I've stated that I think it was better off as a bug report.
The reason behind saying something over and over again is simple; the squeeky wheel gets the oil. Guerilla Marketing says someone notices something one of 3 times and you need 9 exposures before you've made a lasting point...27 times past their face, but most advertisers don't stop there for obvious reasons; it's an average.
The principle is quite simple, if you don't say it over and over then they'll simply figure it isn't important enough to bother with.
Now HOW you say it is another matter and I tend to agree that for the first billion or so times maybe a simple statement is enough. Sometimes though other means of saying something are appropriate. When is sarcasm appropriate? That's rather an individual call. For me it was appropriate when I did it. I rather think just repeating my bug reportword for word might not have been
JediArashi
Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:12 pm
#37
Ternque01 wrote:
Bug or not, it seems like a poor choice of avenue.
I humbly disagree. Any avenue is appropriate if it garners results. We can only utilize the paths that they lay out for us. Was it the best way to do it? No, probably not, but I saw some support for this type of protest on this forum. I think given other options, this way is fairly civil.
The point of the ticket wasn't to actually ask a question to be answered but to make a statement. However it ended up being worded, I know that the intent was to simply make a statement that we know for sure someone would read. What is the alternative? Post here? Who hasn't posted here with these complaints? It hasn't worked, so some thought to try another way.
If you have an issue that needs to be addressed by passing laws, who do you ask? You may need to ask you Congressperson, but you know what...it's easier to speak with your local representative. They can work as an advocate with the congresspersons' or legislatutes ear close at hand. The CSR's, whether outsourced or not, have other ways to get information to SOE that we don't have access to. If they start seeing a trend, I'm sure that they would mention it in one of these channels. It's a long shot for sure, but hey if you know, for sure, that they are going to read what you have to say...why not let them know.
I don't necessarily agree with what was said, but I think using the route is viable.
ValiantHalibut
Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:24 pm
#38
I knew I never should have posted anything.
The response was not nonsensical. It made perfect sense and was in the spirit of the initial ticket. The ticket was implying that if you have no knowledge whatsoever of what the names of the professions mean then you can parse them to discover their meaning. Thus musician would refer to music, therefore it could be assumed to mean "one who plays music." Dancer clearly contains the word "dance" and therefore could be assumed to mean "one who dances."
The main problem with this is that it is an overused rhetorical tactic that is designed to be effective based on its initial face value but that has no depth whatsoever. The ticket assumes a lack of knowledge that any intelligent person must have - namely, an understanding of what the professions do. Therefore, yes, a dancer dances and yes, a musician plays music. However, a commando - as the CSR so deftly pointed out - cannot be said to "command." Nor can an artisan, in the context of the game,be considered "one who makes art." That shows the flaw in the statement - it's designed, like so many things in our society, for shock value. Once you consider it for a moment it becomes nothing more then a pathetic attempt at attention grabbing.
The CSRs response, therefore, makes perfect sense. He was pointing out the flaws in the argument presented to him, and he used a similar method to do so. If the poster didn't want a passive-agressive response, he shouldn't have posed a passive-agressive question.
About the succes of a company being better off with certain types of customer relation- that depends on the company. Any company where the revenue is generated by people being in a place - either virtual or physical - has different rules. If you go to some clubs and act like a jerk to the bartender, server, bouncer or whatever then you're going to find yourself outside staring at the door. For what it's worth, though, his ticket was begging a vitriolic response whatever the context.
What you're saying about marketing does have value. You're right about the squeaky wheel getting the oil, there's no question there. However that doesn't change the fact that his method of squeaking, so to speak, was idiotic and confrontational. Considering that, I have absolutely no problems with the CSR responding in kind.
If you're going to dish it out, as they say, you better be willing and able to take it.
Kamileon
Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:37 pm
#39
First of all, it really is a non-sensical response from the CSR.
ValiantHalibut wrote:
I knew I never should have posted anything.
The response was not nonsensical. It made perfect sense and was in the spirit of the initial ticket. The ticket was implying that if you have no knowledge whatsoever of what the names of the professions mean then you can parse them to discover their meaning. Thus musician would refer to music, therefore it could be assumed to mean "one who plays music." Dancer clearly contains the word "dance" and therefore could be assumed to mean "one who dances."
The main problem with this is that it is an overused rhetorical tactic that is designed to be effective based on its initial face value but that has no depth whatsoever. The ticket assumes a lack of knowledge that any intelligent person must have - namely, an understanding of what the professions do. Therefore, yes, a dancer dances and yes, a musician plays music. However, a commando - as the CSR so deftly pointed out - cannot be said to "command." Nor can an artisan, in the context of the game,be considered "one who makes art." That shows the flaw in the statement - it's designed, like so many things in our society, for shock value. Once you consider it for a moment it becomes nothing more then a pathetic attempt at attention grabbing.
The CSRs response, therefore, makes perfect sense. He was pointing out the flaws in the argument presented to him, and he used a similar method to do so. If the poster didn't want a passive-agressive response, he shouldn't have posed a passive-agressive question.
About the succes of a company being better off with certain types of customer relation- that depends on the company. Any company where the revenue is generated by people being in a place - either virtual or physical - has different rules. If you go to some clubs and act like a jerk to the bartender, server, bouncer or whatever then you're going to find yourself outside staring at the door. For what it's worth, though, his ticket was begging a vitriolic response whatever the context.
What you're saying about marketing does have value. You're right about the squeaky wheel getting the oil, there's no question there. However that doesn't change the fact that his method of squeaking, so to speak, was idiotic and confrontational. Considering that, I have absolutely no problems with the CSR responding in kind.
If you're going to dish it out, as they say, you better be willing and able to take it.
As you said yourself, that implication from the ticket was that if you don't know anything about the professions, you can parse their meaning from the title. This doesn't mean asinine over-literal, and grammatically incorrect potential interpretation to dismiss the actual point that Smugglers cannot do what their profession is intended to. The word "Commando" means what the profession does, and the word "Artisan" means what the Artisan profession does. Just because you can be a smartass and pick out a word from the letters used to mean something else does nothing whatsoever to deflate the ticket-filer's original argument. "Commando" doesn't freaking mean "to command" and you, and the CSR damn well know that. If the CSR is going to call people on arguing semantics, that's a big frickin' pile of it, right there.
Secondly, despite what you think is fair play in arguments, a CSR ticket is not an arguement or a debate. It is absolutely, and in no way, the role of customer service to make sure that bug reporters can take it as well as they can dish it out, or give anyone passive-agressive answers, regardless of the tone of the original bug report. PERIOD. That is entirely uncalled for and unprofessional. I've spent my time in customer service and tech support and there's absolutely NO WAY anyone would have been allowed to "return fire" to a customer. In fact, a good chunk of customer service is dispelling and calming down upset customers... not fighting back, inciting, or being passive-agressive.
Aelik Orrigo: Smuggler, Pilot, and Ranger. Kettemoor