Might be proper, but not very caring support...

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Cabbage Acanthus wrote:

Whether or not LL should do something involving the deceased account is one issue.  I can see how it would be very easy for someone to grief someone by reporting them dead and then having their account placed in limbo.  But, it would be a relatively simple matter for them to verify the story...  I'm really not sure about that one.

What I am sure about is that the way that this was handled by the customer service rep for LL was completely unforgivable.... "That resident would have to contact support."  ... what the heck?  Talk about a slap in the face....

They wonder why the never really took off like they thought that they would....

---

 

Unforgivable? They were only stating the facts. In order to cancel an account the account holder, or a legal representative, would have to contact them. Customer service does not have the time, resources or obligation to investigate every report of murder and or death. If you were to try to log in and found out your account was on hold pending the investigation as to whether or not you were deceased, you would probably be infuriated. I would. 

[Marigold Devin]

---

Cabbage Acanthus wrote:

Whether or not LL should do something involving the deceased's account is one issue.  I can see how it would be very easy for someone to grief someone by reporting them dead and then having their account placed in limbo.  But, it would be a relatively simple matter for them to verify the story...  I'm really not sure about that one.

What I am sure about is that the way that this was handled by the customer service rep for LL was completely unforgivable.... "That resident would have to contact support."  ... what the heck?  Talk about a slap in the face....

They wonder why the never really took off like they thought that they would....

---

Sadly, a lot of people who work on customer services phone lines are multi-tasking, reading from crib sheets, and speed-reading, not a good combination when dealing with particularly sensitive issues. And I particularly hate this about the world generally, Cabbage (and not just the world of SL).  Whenever I've had to contact Live Chat for support, some operatives have been friendly, considerate, while remaining professional, while others have seemed very "textbook", with little in the way of people skills.

In this case, I just feel for Kolby, who is obviously - and very understandably - deeply disturbed and upset by what has happened to his RL work-friend, and there is much more I want to write here, but it would be inappropriate, it is far too personal.

 

 

[Lexie Linden]

---

Kolby Nissondorf wrote:

@Charlotte, once they release the names, could Linden labs at least acknowledge that shes not living anylonger, I.E, posting something on her profile?

 

---

I'm very sorry to hear of the loss of your friend Kolby    I know you feel a bit helpless at this point and hurting. Someone related to her or with legal rights would have to contact the Lab, I believe.  Sending you a virtual hug.

[Cabbage Acanthus]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Cabbage Acanthus wrote:

Whether or not LL should do something involving the deceased account is one issue.  I can see how it would be very easy for someone to grief someone by reporting them dead and then having their account placed in limbo.  But, it would be a relatively simple matter for them to verify the story...  I'm really not sure about that one.

What I am sure about is that the way that this was handled by the customer service rep for LL was completely unforgivable.... "That resident would have to contact support."  ... what the heck?  Talk about a slap in the face....

They wonder why the never really took off like they thought that they would....

---

 

Unforgivable? They were only stating the facts. In order to cancel an account the account holder, or a legal representative, would have to contact them. Customer service does not have the time, resources or obligation to investigate every report of murder and or death. If you were to try to log in and found out your account was on hold pending the investigation as to whether or not you were deceased, you would probably be infuriated. I would. 

---

I stated that there were good issues for them not to alter the account in the first part of the post.  What is unforgivable is them telling a grieving person that his dead friend should contact support.  That was either someone completely not bothering to pay attention or someone actually baiting the OP.  

Either way, it was completely and totaly unforgivable.

Customer support might not have the "the time, resources or obligation to investigate every report of murder and or death." but the do have the obligation to perhaps have just a scruple of human compassion or at the very least maybe read the freaking crib sheet before cutting and pasting the responses or perhaps think about what they are typing to another human being.  Policy is policy but telling someone that their dead friend needs to contact customer support themselves is simply unacceptable.

I welcome your feedback and appreciate your response but I would appreciate it if you would actually read what you are quoting.  

 

 

 

[Charolotte Caxton]

Hi Cabbage. I read every word you wrote and I stand by what I said. The customer support person was just stating a fact. While we all feel for the OP, I don't believe it is fair to say that the customer support person may never be forgiven for not behaving like a crisis response operator.

[Cabbage Acanthus]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Hi Cabbage. I read every word you wrote and I stand by what I said. The customer support person was just stating a fact. While we all feel for the OP, I don't believe it is fair to say that the customer support person may never be forgiven for not behaving like a crisis response operator.

---

The customer support person clearly knew that he was talking to someone about their friend being deceased.  They were stating a fact when they said that they could not alter the deceased's account.

When they added the quip that the deceased should contact support themselves, they were just being a jerk.

They knew darn well what the situation was and when they said that  They were almost definitely baiting the OP and the worst possible time.  I am not holding them to the standard of a crisis response operator, I am holding them to the standard of a customer service rep.  Scratch that, I'm just holding to the standard of a decent human being.

They fail.. big time.

[Charolotte Caxton]

Dear Cabbage, before we go any further, let me just say that I am not arguing with you but I am definitely disagreeing. The reason I am disagreeing is because based on the short conversation between the OP and the customer support person, there was very little opportunity for the CS person to develop a person to person rapport with the OP. For all the CS knew, the OP could have been a griefer trying to disable the girls account out of spite anger or revenge.

I understand that when you take into consideration that the OP had just suffered a tremendous trauma and that he was just trying to do something he thought would be decent and honorable that the customer support persons response to him seems callous and out right rude. My point is, really? Can you even begin to imagine the sorts of call that person gets from abusers of the system? Surely you have seen the amount of grief inworld and on these forums. I'm just saying unforgivable is rather harsh.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

I don't see anything wrong with the CS representative's statement that only account holders themselves can request changes to their accounts. I actually find it quite reassuring to know that random people can't get my SL account deleted by informing LL's customer service that I've passed away.

[Cabbage Acanthus]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Dear Cabbage, before we go any further, let me just say that I am not arguing with you but I am definitely disagreeing. The reason I am disagreeing is because based on the short conversation between the OP and the customer support person, there was very little opportunity for the CS person to develop a person to person rapport with the OP. For all the CS knew, the OP could have been a griefer trying to disable the girls account out of spite anger or revenge.

I understand that when you take into consideration that the OP had just suffered a tremendous trauma and that he was just trying to do something he thought would be decent and honorable that the customer support persons response to him seems callous and out right rude. My point is, really? Can you even begin to imagine the sorts of call that person gets from abusers of the system? Surely you have seen the amount of grief inworld and on these forums. I'm just saying unforgivable is rather harsh.

---

Let's separate the issues here.  I have absolutely no problem with LL not accessing the deceased account based on hearsay.  That is a sound policy and the customer support person was right not to access the deceased's account based on their interaction with the OP, no matter how good and pure his motives were.  Saying that they could not do so was proper, even if they were curt.

Let's just stop obscuring the real issue here.

What I consider completely unforgivable, completely unacceptable, was the snide remark that the LL representative made when he told the OP, grieving for their friend, that their dead friend would have to contact support themselves.

Once again, the LL representative knew full well what they were talking about when that made that intentionally callous, unbelievably rude heartless quip.  it was intentional and there was no other reason to make it than to mess with someone who only wanted to do right by their friend.  

The LL representative's job is to deal with the customer.  No ammount of abuse they might catch from a justifiably annoyed customer base absolves them of not only their professional responsibilities as a represeantative of Linden Lab but also what would pass as the barest shread of human compassion and the barest scruple of common decency.  You don't have to "establish a rapport" in order to not be a complete and total jerk.  

They trolled the OP when he was only trying to do well by his friend.  They did so while representitng LL in a professional capacity.  

I can't stand when people complain about having to do their jobs.  It's their job.  Either do it, do it professionally and courteously, or don't do it at all.  I don't give a rat's cheese about how much crap this guy or gal took before they decided to act in such a completely unprofessional, mean spirited manner.  It doesn't matter.  All that matters is that they reperesented LL in this completely disgraceful way.  Being a CSR is their job.  If they can't handle it...  Well...  The fact that they are working for an outfit like LL is probably the only reason they have lasted this long.

I am surprised that anyone would defend their spiteful, hurtful, mean-spirited snide remark.  

[Griffin Ceawlin]

Snide, intentionally callous, unbelievably rude, heartless, unprofessional, mean spirited, spiteful, baiting, troll jerk? You got all that from that?

[Cabbage Acanthus]

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

Snide, intentionally callous, unbelievably rude, heartless, unprofessional, mean spirited, spiteful, baiting, troll jerk? You got all that from that?

---

Well, what else would you call it?  The LL rep, knowing that he was talking about a deceased person, told the OP that the deceased would have to contact support themselves.  

It was obvously a very poorly timed "smart remark".

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

Cabbage Acanthus wrote:

Well, what else would you call it?

---

Probably none of those things, but if I had to pick one... unprofessional. For neglecting to add "... or the executor/executrix of the resident's estate." The rest? I just don't see it.

[Cabbage Acanthus]

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

---

Cabbage Acanthus wrote:

Well, what else would you call it?

---

Probably none of those things, but if I had to pick one... unprofessional. For neglecting to add "... or the executor/executrix of the resident's estate." The rest? I just don't see it.

 

You can feel free to let them off the hook if you like.  I stand by what I said.  I think they were baiting him in that snide backhanded way that a customer service rep does when they think they can get away with it..  They probably got kicked around by the last dozen calls and saw someone who was nice and vulnerable and went for it.

 

We can agree on unprofessional though.  Fine.  They represented themselves and Linden Lab in a completely unprofessional manner.  

That's totally acceptable, right?  Well, it is LL customer service we are talking about.   This guy is probably the employee of the month.

 

[Griffin Ceawlin]

Fine. That Scout deserves to be crucified because he/she omitted eight words from their response. You win.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Cabbage Acanthus wrote:

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

Snide, intentionally callous, unbelievably rude, heartless, unprofessional, mean spirited, spiteful, baiting, troll jerk? You got all that from that?

---

Well, what else would you call it?  The LL rep, knowing that he was talking about a deceased person, told the OP that they would have to contact support themselves.  

It was obviously a very poorly timed "smart remark".

---

Cabbage, with all due respect, that is the point. The LL rep did not  know he was talking about a deceased person.

I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone would deliver a snide remark about someone being dead, especially when they are a CSR.

If it was a snide remark then I would agree with you, it would have been reprehensible and callous. 

I can more easily believe that giving a text book reply was the more appropriate and professional route to take than trying to get into a discussion such as ' Who died, how, why and you are whom in relation to this account holder and you want me to disable her account because she told you to or you think she would want it that way or she never really mentioned it but she had been playing a whole two months and these would have been her dying wish...'  no.

No, Cabbage. No. When not knowing the situation and being only given a URL of a news story that does not even mention any victims names and even states that the police have not released any names, not that the CSR would have had time to read the article during the live help chat, I don't believe we can jump to the conclusion that the CSR was a reprehensible person that delights in the misery of others. If on the other hand he is, we don't have even the slightest bit of evidence to support that. I respect your opinion and I am certain that there are jerks out there, but once again, I hope you can realize why everyone isn't all in a fuss about this and why once the drama and horror of the situation is removed from the scenario, persons who are calmly just reading a transaction log will only say to themselves, Im glad they don't just go around disabling accounts. Which, I read in your reply to me, you do not have an issue with.

Agree to disagree? Ah...San Diego...

[Cabbage Acanthus]

With customer service reps like this guy, nobody wins.  Except for Scout in question, of course.  He got to make his employer look bad, mess with a resident, and still have time for coffee.. 

Pretty sweet deal....  Yep, he is the only one winning here.  

His job is to make responses.  Omitting eight words from a response, giving him the benefit of the doubt and simply assuming that he is incompetent, is a pretty glaring error considering everything.  Again, this is his job.  He is representing Linden Lab.  

He had ample opportunity to correct it as well.  When he was reminded that the person in question was in fact deceased, rather than make the correction, ammend his stance, he basically "hung up" on the OP by concluding the session.  

He didn't "forget" or "omit".  He meant exactly what he said.

 

[Griffin Ceawlin]

I'm pretty sure live chats are all logged, and if his/her supervisor(s) have a problem with his responses, he'll be sat down and talked to. Your insistence that "he meant exactly what he said" simply isn't supported by that log. But, you go ahead and rage on.

*clicks unsubscribe*

[Cabbage Acanthus]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Cabbage Acanthus wrote:

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

Snide, intentionally callous, unbelievably rude, heartless, unprofessional, mean spirited, spiteful, baiting, troll jerk? You got all that from that?

---

Well, what else would you call it?  The LL rep, knowing that he was talking about a deceased person, told the OP that they would have to contact support themselves.  

It was obviously a very poorly timed "smart remark".

---

Cabbage, with all due respect, that is the point. The LL rep

did not

  know he was talking about a deceased person.

I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone would deliver a snide remark about someone being dead, especially when they are a CSR.

If it was a snide remark then I would agree with you, it would have been reprehensible and callous. 

I can more easily believe that giving a text book reply was the more appropriate and professional route to take than trying to get into a discussion such as

 '

Who died, how, why and you are whom in relation to this account holder and you want me to disable her account because she told you to or you think she would want it that way or she never really mentioned it but she had been playing a whole two months and these would have been her dying wish...'

 no.

No, Cabbage. No. When not knowing the situation and being only given a URL of a news story that does not even mention any victims names and even states that the police have not released any names, not that the CSR would have had time to read the article during the live help chat, I don't believe we can jump to the conclusion that the CSR was a reprehensible person that delights in the misery of others. If on the other hand he is, we don't have even the slightest bit of evidence to support that. I respect your opinion and I am certain that there are jerks out there, but once again, I hope you can realize why everyone isn't all in a fuss about this and why once the drama and horror of the situation is removed from the scenario, persons who are calmly just reading a transaction log will only say to themselves, Im glad they don't just go around disabling accounts. Which, I read in your reply to me, you do not have an issue with.

Agree to disagree? Ah...San Diego...

---

I do respectfully disagree.  The person, was told several times that the deceased had died.  While I do see your point that it would not have been productive to get into a detailed conversatoin about it since there, by policy (and a sound one) there was nothing that the CSR could do.  I get it.

And you do have a good point that the representative of Linden Lab had no way of knowing for sure if the person was dead or not.  Granted.   In fact they probably did not believe the OP.  Thus, their whole snide backhanded remark where they said that the deceased had to contact support themselves.

They had ample opportunity to explain, or clarify that statement when they were reminded that the person that they just said had to contact support was deceased.   They could have perhaps done their job and advised the OP... instead they terminated the sesson leaving that questionable statement unammended, uncorrected.

No, they knew exactly what they were saying.  We can agree to disagree.  I stand by every single word that I have written.  There is no way this can be absolved., justified, or minimized.

[Cabbage Acanthus]

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

I'm pretty sure live chats are all logged, and if his/her supervisor(s) have a problem with his responses, he'll be sat down and talked to. Your insistence that "he meant exactly what he said" simply isn't supported by that log. But, you go ahead and rage on.

*clicks unsubscribe*

---

I do not have access to that log.  Only an employee of LL would.  Perhaps you know something that I do not, but based on the excerpt that I saw here, I feel justified in saying what I have said.

I take exception to the implication that I am "raging".  Quite the contrary.  I am simply calling it like i see it.  I find it interesting that one would find the insisitance that someone adhere to the basic tennants of common courtesy and perform the job that they are paid to do in a professional manner "rage".  

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Cabbage Acanthus wrote:

I do respectfully disagree.  The person, was told several times that the deceased had died.  While I do see your point that it would not have been productive to get into a detailed conversatoin about it since there, by policy (and a sound one) there was nothing that the CSR could do.  I get it.

And you do have a good point that the representative of Linden Lab had no way of knowing for sure if the person was dead or not.  Granted.   In fact they probably did not believe the OP.  Thus, their whole snide backhanded remark where they said that the deceased had to contact suppor themselves.

They had ample opportunity to explain, or clarify that statement when they were reminded that the person that they just said had to contact support was deceased.   They could have perhaps done their job and advised the OP... instead they terminated the sesson leaving that questionable statement unammended, uncorrected.

No, they knew exactly what they were saying.  We can agree to disagree.  I stand by every single word that I have written.  There is no way this can be absolved., justified, or minimized.

---

 

Thank you, Cabbage, you have made very valid arguments defending your position and I respect your stand and conviction.

[Kolby Nissondorf]

I know. this guy kinda wanted me to cancel my premium..if this is where my money is going, then count me out.

-K

[Kolby Nissondorf]

Its just about being caring, or at least showing that you noticed what the person said..not just putting out textbook responses

[Kolby Nissondorf]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

(snip)

No, Cabbage. No. When not knowing the situation and being only given a URL of a news story that does not even mention any victims names and even states that the police have not released any names, not that the CSR would have had time to read the article during the live help chat, I don't believe we can jump to the conclusion that the CSR was a reprehensible person that delights in the misery of others. If on the other hand he is, we don't have even the slightest bit of evidence to support that. I respect your opinion and I am certain that there are jerks out there, but once again, I hope you can realize why everyone isn't all in a fuss about this and why once the drama and horror of the situation is removed from the scenario, persons who are calmly just reading a transaction log will only say to themselves, Im glad they don't just go around disabling accounts. Which, I read in your reply to me, you do not have an issue with.

Agree to disagree? Ah...San Diego...

---

I'm a little curious, Charlotte.  Where in my replies did I ever indicate that I had absolutely no problem with disabling accounts based solely on a secondhand report?   You keep maintaining that I am somehow opposed to a policy that I have little problem with.

Also, why do you keep trying to steer the conversation back to policies that aren't the issue here?  I certainly have little problem with LL not disabling accounts based on hearsay, no matter how well intentioned the person giving LL the information might be.  I am willing to bet that few others, once they carefully consider everyting, do either.

Why do you,and others, mention the "tranaction log" (The actual recorded transcript of the conversation)?  None of us can access that.  Unless, of course they are Linden Lab employees.

Of course, no employee of LL would have so low of an ethical standard as to pose as a regular resident in order to make posts here on these forums trying to steer or derail comversations.  Since that is almost certainly the case, unless LL as fallen far far lower than even I suspect, any mention of a transcript available only to LL employees is completely irrelevant to this conversation.  

We have a screenshot of the conversation.  Unless you are questioning the validity of that screenshot and thus the honesty and integrity of the person posting it, that is all we have to go on.  It's enough of the log to see exactly how badly Linden Lab, through their representative, portrayed themselves.  

I am completely willing to "agree to disagree" if you want to defend that terribly callous snide remark.  I can respect your opinion, even if I do not agree if you wish to say that that the CSR was justified in terminating the conversation when they did and how they did.  I cannot agree with your insistance upon continually trying to steer this conversation back to policies that are far more easy to defend than the completely unforgivable behavior of the "Scout" in question.  

I guess we can "agree to disagree" on that as well.

[Charolotte Caxton]

Good morning, Cabbage. I'm not into animal abuse, but the horse is already dead, why not. You are correct, you have maintained from the start that you were not against not deleting accounts based on heresay, agreed. The post I refer to and I understood the others were refering to was the one posted by the OP, not any hidden LL one. My stance was and is that I don't believe we can call the rep unforgivable.

[Cabbage Acanthus]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Good morning, Cabbage. I'm not into animal abuse, but the horse is already dead, why not. You are correct, you have maintained from the start that you were not against not deleting accounts based on heresay, agreed. The post I refer to and I understood the others were refering to was the one posted by the OP, not any hidden LL one. My stance was and is that I don't believe we can call the rep unforgivable.

---

Interesting...

It is nice that you finally have stopped trying to impy that the thrust of my arguement was not the far more easy to dismiss belief that LL should have disabled the account in question.  Perhaps now we can finally turn to the actual behavoir of the Linden Lab representative in question.

You maintain that he should not be called unforgivable or reprehensible.  Prove it.  Or don't.  All you have done to this point is throw up some statements about how he was right to not disable the account.  Of course he was.

You have said little to nothing concerning the individuals remark that the deceased should contact support themselves and then them terminating the conversation without further clarification of that undoubetly snide remark and without advising the OP further.

I would love to forgive the LL representative in question.  How can I?  What could possibly justify their behavoir?  Please give me a hand with this.  Or perhaps you see nothing absolutely nothing wrong with what they did and how the OP was treated?