Jump to content

Cabbage Acanthus

Resident
  • Posts

    975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cabbage Acanthus

  1. It is his job to deal with the customer.  If your auto mechanic did not adjust your brakes properly because he had been dealing with tough maintenance tasks all day long, would that be ok?  If your doctor failed to read your test results because he was "tired" would you be as understanding?  Heck, if the cashier at the grocery store did not put one of your purchases that you paid for in the bag because their hand was a little sore, or refused to scan one of your cupons because the last person he dealt with tried to hand him a bogus one, would you dismiss it so easily?

    I know I would not.  If the scout cannot bear up to the realities of his job choice I have absolutely no sympathy.  I have no sympathy not because I am incapable of putting myself in his position.  I judge him the way that I do because I am holding him to the same standard of performance and conduct that myself or any other of billions of people who are paid to do a task are held.

    I think he came up short.  He failed miserably.

    If we review the original transcript, I think that is far more unfair to characterize the OP as an overly emotional hack job.  That is far more offensive than anything I have said about that sorry excuse for a scout so far.  

    If he is a drooling drone, then perhaps his actions are excusable the same way a cud chewing bovine can't be faulted for their unceasing production of excrement.  if we view him as a person, a living breathing thinking individual who knew exactly what he was doing and saying as he handled this situation, then his actions become far far less acceptable.

     


  2. Kolby Nissondorf wrote:

    I hope you guys understand you are'defending' the same thing.

    Cabbage thinks the guy should have been more caring, Charolotte thinks the guy stuck to the script at the wrong time.

    You guys are both saying the CSR was wrong, (which he was , because when he terminated the session before  i could say something back just proved a point of immaturity that i still hold on to..), but if he were to contact me, I would forgive him.

    In my words, since im the OP, the question I asked was, "Was he right to do this.."

    To answer the OP, in a word, no.  He was not right to do what he did.  His actions were completely unprofessional and unacceptable.  

    If he was dealing with my customers, I would be most displeased.


  3. Charolotte Caxton wrote:

    That is s very good answer, Cabbage. I think your handling of the situation would have been far better. Perhaps had the poor Scout had your tact, hindsight and all around care and compassion for others as you do, all of this could have been averted and no one would have gotten their raw, open and justifiably already damaged feelings hurt. For the record, I am in no way affiliated with Linden Labs other than being a resident just like you.

    I do appreciate the compliment, but this has little to do with care or compassion.  It is basic professional conduct.  You don't have to "establish a rapport" or even like someone to treat them professionally.  I am sure many of us have to deal with people that we would love to be as short and nasty as the Scout in question was to the OP.  We don't do so because of professional pride and a love if not for mankind, at least for our paychecks.

    I am gratified that you believe that my handling of the sitation was better.  But what do you think of the failings of the actual person that is taking money from all of us here in SL with the nominal purpose of providing at least the illusion of customer support? 

    Whether or not our little scout could do better is not the real concern here.  One can always improve.  Was the level of service and his demeanor acceptable?  Do you think that he met the minimum standard of conduct and professionalism for someone that you would want representing your company to your customers.  

    Would you feel secure with this scout dealing with the source of your livelihood?  


  4. Charolotte Caxton wrote:

    Cabbage, we already discussed all this. Remember where I said it was more appropriate at the time to stick to the script instead of getting into a discussion as to who why where and why? See how that just ties into just saying the account holder is the one who had to cancel the account? Also remember where I said the rep couldn't have known whether the person was actually brutally murdered or not? You maintain the rep was deliberately snide, I say there is no possible way you can know that. As far as cutting the conversation short, what do you propose should have been done?

    Well, sticking to policy was certainly appropriate but are you maintaining that Linden Lab was correct in "sticking to the script" when they told the Customer that their deceased friend should contact support when they were in fact informed both prior to and following that statement that the person in question was deceased?  

    As far as their statement being deliberately snide, They made it and then when it was pointed out that the person in question was deceased, they simply terminated the conversation rather than clarify exactly what they meant.  Was that appropriate?

    I already do far too much of LL's grunt work pitching in on the answers forum.  Apparently now we need to advise them on training of their representatives as well...  Ok... fine... It is obvious that nobody else is doing it.

    What I would propose that they do (again, I am truly surprised that I have to say this) is first and foremost not  nastily tell someone that their recently murdered friend would have to somehow contact customer support and then essentially "hang up" on them.  LL is a bit of an insular environment and it is well known that they take their customer base for granted but this should be obvious even to them.

    Instead, it would have taken little time and effort for the person who is being paid to represent LL to perhaps politely but firmly state that it was completely against policy for them to disable or amend the account, state why it was impossible, and then offer recommendations as to what course of action the OP could take.  If you (or LL) want an exact transcript of the exact wording suitable for inclusion in a script sheet that their drooling automatons can use when dealing with a customer I will be happy to provide one free of charge.  


  5. 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?


  6. 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".  


  7. 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.

  8. 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.

     


  9. 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.

     


  10. 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".


  11. 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.  


  12. 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.


  13. 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.  

     

     

     


  14. Marigold Devin wrote:


    Kolby Nissondorf wrote:

    One of my co-works, Lovejean Resident passed away this morning after her life was brutally taken. I contacted support regarding the incident asking them to disable her profile or account, and heres what the response was:

    LLsupport gone wrong censored for forums.JPG

     

    Note that the last two lines were within 3 seconds of eachother right before the operator ended the chat.

     Not saying the Lindens arent helpful, but is this the proper way to act?

     

    -K

     

    I'm sorry to hear you've lost a valued friend, and you must be feeling quite raw emotionally over this, not least because it seems the Scout you spoke to on Live Chat seemed uncaring. It is up to the next of kin, though, to handle any outstanding affairs, and in their own good time, and the Linden employee was following procedure. As others have said in this thread, unless you are legally in charge of a person's personal affairs, there is nothing you can or should do.

    I've known of several people who have sadly passed away in real life, and their avatars still remain in SL, and it's rather lovely to have a kind of memorial to them in this form. I take great comfort from being able to re-read the profile of a deceased friend who helped me so much during my early days in SL, and who is greatly missed by their real life family. 

    If you know of other friends in Second Life who will also be grieving for your lost friend, you should hold a special ceremony inworld at the Linden Memorial sim in a few week's time. 

    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....

  15. LoveAngel covered the procedure pretty darn well.  You need to do that because odds are the seller will never know that you did not get the item unless you tell them by sending them that notecard.  Most sellers are pretty good about re-sending you an item if they can verify that they were indeed paid for it.  They do that by checking their transaction history using the information you send them in that notecard. 

    It's really helpful to send that notecard because (if they are doing well) the seller may have numerous tranactions to go through to find yours so if you let them know exactly when said transaction took place, it makes it easier for them to find it.

    Good luck!

  16. Regardless of whether or not this is legitimate, I would not do it.  It's just a bad idea.  There is no good reason why you should send a photocopy of your credit cards and ID's...

    No good will come of it.  SL isn't worth that sort of risk.  (and it's probably a scam anyway)

    Edited to add:

    Note that this is yet another person who thinks that this forum is an official linden one.  To the OP, the responses you get here aren't from LL.  They are from a peanut gallery of residents who are giving you their opinons.  These are good opinions filled with good info most of the time, but they are still the opinion of an individual person who plays SL and is no more affiliated with LL than you are.  See, the residents here are generally friendly and helpful to each other.  LL decided to exploit that when they set this up.  Dispite being turned in to free labor for LL, most of us still generally wish to help our fellow residents and pitch in here anyway.  Well intentioned we might be, but we aren't representatives of LL and there is no real guarentee that anything we say is anything close to accurate, helpful, or even a remotely good idea.

    LL really should make that more clear when they direct people over here. 

    Further edit:

    To clarify, employess of Linden Lab do indeed post here from time to time and what they say can be considered to be "official"  They have the last name of "Linden" and are the only ones who do.


  17. Amethyst Oodles wrote:

     

    UGGGGHH! Is this LL's way of saying "We don't really care" ??

     

    Yep.  Actually we register so low that they don't even bother saying that they don't care.  They just let you figure out that one for yourself.

     

    Your only real hope is to contact the creator of the item and ask them for help/replacement.  I would not even waste my precious time on this earth trying to get real help out of LL.  Just take what LL gives you and be happy with it.  I think that worthless free accounts like us can file tickets on some issues, but to be honest, I haven't really looked into it because I can't really hope to get a better result than I did when I had a premium account and filed support tickets.

     

     

  18. oooohhh I would be careful about that.

    In one word.. No.

    But.. as long as you aren't selling the items and only using them for your own personal use, you will probably get away with it.  Even so, you are asking for a load of problems if the wrong person sees it. 

    I think you are better off getting a good graphics program and making some "The Little Merman" PJ's for your baby or perhaps "Mickey Marmoset" sheets. 

    Don't mess with Disney... You don't want to run into Goofy and Donald when they are off duty and had a few too many....

    Seriously.. they will mess you up.

    Edited to add: 

    I reread your question and saw where it says you intend to sell the item in question... How can you possibly think that it would be legal to copy a trademarked copyrighted image and slap it on some crib you made and then sell it here?  I know I'm not supposed to call people names here on the forum anymore and we are all trying to be polite but people like you make it very very hard for me not to say what I really really want to right about now....


  19. Deltango Vale wrote:

    That reminds me of a Facebook Teenager I met in Church. Afterward, I learned she was a Child Avi living in the Red Zone with a Vampire, a Fury and a Linden Moderator. Jesus, was I surprised! Yet while each of them had a different Religion (she being a devout Christian), they agreed that Forum Ranks were Wasted on a Newbie ESL'er who, having had too many prunes for lunch, was racking up points discussing her Talking Tummy in three different threads. I, on the other hand, was curious to know whether my friend was a Slave to Viewer 2, but the conversation switched to Merchants and whether money was really Breedable in Second Life.

    Woo! 

    I think you got all the buzzwords in there!

    (applauds)

×
×
  • Create New...