by Azaroth | July 30th, 2007
Now, the skinny of this situation is that Sprint kicks out thousands of their own customers for requiring too much CS time. Interestingly enough, CS jockeys and, well, everyone working at a company that involves a computer or two in some way seem to be dancing and squealing with glee. Tales abound of how “crazy person” x, y, or z have taken thousands of precious CS hours that should have gone to “more worthy” customers.
And by my tone, you’d guess I disagree with the general stance that this is okay. And I do. But it’s not because I haven’t dealt with crazy retards sucking up all of my time when it should have rightfully been spent on someone who was worth it. I was the sole source of CS for quite some time after IPY launched, and even after that, generally any and all craziness was directly aimed at myself. But those are two other posts about volunteers and why they sometimes require more time than they save, and also about letting your lead people be visible and reachable by anyone who is drooling close enough to a computer.
The point here is that, regardless of how much trouble I was caused by these people, whether the situation was preventable and I’ve learned something or the person in question was just… nuts – the customer IS always right.
I learned so many lessons about handling people that I’d probably break the server this blog is running on if I typed them all out. But the point is that I learned and will be much more prepared next time. I’ll then proceed to make new mistakes, even maybe a few old ones once in a while, and I’ll learn something new (and re-learn when necessary).
For instance, one of the major things that was unearthed about this Sprint case is that some of the users who were banned from the service were exploiting systems to gain free time. Here’s a protip guys – people WILL invariably exploit anything that’s exploitable. Especially if there’s some kind of gain involved for them. But even if there isn’t. I believe that at this point, when the exploitation is discovered, it becomes Sprint’s obligation to fix the exploitable system. I realize frustration can run high and banning people is simpler — most especially when others are benefiting from the same exploitable system, but the logical step to me would be to simply revoke any and all gains acquired through exploitation of the system, and a tweak in the system’s design to disallow further exploitation.
And maybe a lesson learned.
For instance, I think I read that someone had “earned” himself $5000 of free time, somehow, through a design flaw in this particular system. He wanted it sent in check form.
Now, of course this makes you want to immediately tard smack the fellow in question. But what’s so hard about a form letter sent out to all of the people like this informing then that they exploited the system and their “credit” would be revoked, and then, you know, fixing the problem that allowed the situation in the first place. Probably not much. Any lawsuit that may follow certainly wouldn’t be avoided by an out and out banning from the service.
Of course, the next time I’m running a service, I may turn into a huge hypocrite on this issue. But one of the things that I’ve learned is that you can’t have Stallone running around Judge Dredding people’s asses in any kind of service, and especially in a video game. The Policeman can absolutely not be the Judge. That shit doesn’t work. Sorry. Decisions on bannings/jailtime/executions/whathaveyou MUST to come down from an (at least generally) impartial source. This is why these Sprint bans remind me of something some lone shard admin would pull while doling out his own brand of frontier justice while wearing white jockeys and a six shooter in his computer chair. It just can’t be like that.
However, some others regaled the internets with stories of generally innocent, yet lonely, woman who called constantly because a certain CS representative’s voice was “sexy”. Obviously she’s putting a large strain on the amount of available customer service left over for others who actually have problems. But she’s not doing anything illegal, or even shady… she’s just annoying and lonely. What’s the answer here? Is the customer wrong once again?
Of course not, and banning this person is silly. However, implementing legal speak into the ToS about using large amounts of CS time revoking your right to phone time with people (relegating you to email only, which is easier to deal with and less time intensive), or whatever, may have been a better idea. Of course this is pushing something into the contract with everyone else that they might take note of and raise a stink over. Which is in turn affecting everyone to settle one problem. However, you’re also solving this problem in the future. And I doubt the first idea off the top of my head would be the best one that could be concocted anyway.
The fact is… learn from your CS situations, adapt, and move forward better suited for, well, Customer Service.
And put some pants on guys.
Loading ...
As I’ve said before, your experiences running a free shard are not directly applicable to running a commercial service. It’s easier to deal with the fucktard on a free service because that person isn’t threatening your financial livelihood (such as it is in some smaller games). You can write off the mouth-breather after a few incoherent emails when they’re not paying to enjoy your service. Your problematic customers become a lot more aggressive when there’s money on the line.
There’s also the problem of “fixing the exploit”. In the case of Sprint, what’s the fix? Not allow people more than X credits per month? What about someone who has legitimate complaints that just happen to go over that limit? Fuck ‘em, right? Should they stop giving out credits to sooth a problem? That sounds like a real popular CS move that certainly won’t generate any internet-based rants. So, you have to fix the problem in such a way so that you stop the exploiters but so you don’t hurt your legitimate customers.
The only issue that I can see as a software developer that would have a straight-forward software fix is making sure that the amount of credit doesn’t go over a certain amount, so you don’t get $5k worth of credit built up for a single customer. But, here’s the rub: why should a business pay tens of thousands of dollars in software fixes (and the new bugs this could introduce which could cause other CS problems, not to mention the costs that get passed on to the consumers) when the simple answer is, “No, you don’t get a check for the credits we’ve given you.” Even a baby-eating corporation like Sprint still has to watch the bottom line.
Finally, as far as the CS issue about the woman taking time goes, you’re ignoring an important fact here: the law. You have to be very careful about treating your customers differently without a specific reason. Refusing to answer her calls could open the company up to a discrimination law suit. Why are they making her use email instead of calling? Is it because she’s a woman? Or, because she’s a minority and they recognized that in her voice? Even a lawsuit without merit costs money to defend against in court. Having an air-tight reason for not talking to her, such as terminating the business relationship, makes the defense as easy as possible.
In the end, the optimist in me says that none of these cases needed more rules, restrictions, etc. In online games, it’s often a shame when rules come in and restrict what was once a really fun system because some asshole had to come along and exploit the hell out of it. There are these things called common sense and common courtesy that, unfortunately, aren’t all that common. And, the most effective way to deal with these issues is to deal with people that exploit the systems instead of just adding more potentially confusing and arcane restrictions. Thankfully, we’re dealing with a small number of people that truly abuse the systems like this, but we’re still talking about the minority of the people taking vast majority of the time here. It’s easier and better overall just to deal with these individuals instead of restricting everyone.
My thoughts as someone who has been in the tough situation of dealing with paying customers in these types of scenarios.
Well, I’d certainly dislike being in a position where one customer threatened my livelihood. However, I’ve definitely been in positions where one customer threatened the entire life of the service. I’m sure you have as well. These cases are not tricky to deal with on the level we’re discussing, so maybe I’m a hypocrite. Who knows.
However, I think writing off the mouth breather was all too often my problem. But I’ll tell you what… our “customers” were no less aggressive whether they were paying money or not. These people made every day of my life a pain in the ass. I can’t even begin to explain – however, the fact is that these people thought I owed them, and acted toward me as though they were paying me for this service. This was a constant theme throughout, and I think you’d be surprised if you were to put up a free game.
These people do not distinguish between “for free” and “for pay”. They want the same things regardless.
It’s sort of the same problem Sanya (I think? I forget) touched on when she said (and I’m probably quoting her terribly inaccurately here) that everyone seems to want the premium service whether they’re paying the premium price or not. $300 service whether they’re paying $10 or not. Well, trust me, they want that service just the same if you keep lowering the price. It makes no difference when the price gets so low that it becomes $0. “The customer” is still always “right”.
In fact, as I’ve said before, I would never, in my life, run a free service again. In my opinion, it raises far too many more problems than it avoids. If it avoids any. Ever try to ban a problem player on a free service? Ever consider the type of people that gravitate toward free games? Etc.
As far as fixing the exploit, I can’t really go into detail on that. I don’t know anything about the design of said system. So no, I can’t help that I have no answer for that. But there’s usually going to be an answer, and it doesn’t have to involve “Fuck ‘Em”, and it doesn’t even have to involve pissing everyone else off. As I touched on, solutions are good… but solutions that punish “everyone else” are what is called a “bad solution”.
As far as telling the person they get no check, I did say that this would probably be a good idea. The ban following this may, however, be unnecessary. In my opinion.
The woman is the same story. I’m truly not sure how implementing rules about phone time used (and then relegating to email, or even limited phone time) is any more slippery on the legal side of things than outright banning a person. “You relegated me to a different kind of customer service response because of my hours used, which you can show, and your ToS which applies to all who use your service, which you can also show… because I’m A SCIENTOLOGIST” seems much less likely to hold up as a valid gripe in court than “You outright banned me out of the blue with little or no language pertaining to this situation in your ToS BECAUSE I’M A SCIENTOLOGIST”.
However, you’re right that the situation may not be the best one. I’ll take it on the chin with this one, because I knew very well that criticism would likely follow this post. However, in my defense, I did type it in 20 minutes. The level of thought that went into these “solutions” is best describe as “out of my ass”. I’m sure someone spending more than 20 minutes on the problem (and actually, y’know, knew the specifics of the situation) could come up with some very valid solutions that didn’t end in “Ban the customer”. At least I really, really hope so.
I’ll give you one thing though, it certainly is a shame when rules and restrictions are forced upon a game world because of exploiters. Maybe I’ve been unlucky because of the type of service I ran, but I’m not sure the people exploiting or looking to exploit these things are as large a minority as you make them out to be. That may also be where I gained my, possibly twisted, opinion that outright bannings are less than perfectly morally defensible, and often probably cause a lot more trouble than simply finding a way to fix the problem for all of the generations of players that follow (oh, and try not to put too many restrictions on that game world, because that sucks).
I suppose part of the origin of that may also be that I was dealing with some pretty nutty fuckers. Who were also impossible to actually ban from the service. For these reasons, a lot of problems often DID follow bannings of serious problem players (like being stalked for several years, for instance) and the bannings were very often totally ineffective as long as the person in question had used a computer before once or twice in their life and knew who to acquire a different IP and email address.
However, my take on the situation is a result of my personal experience, I don’t think it’s any less valid than the next man’s. Free services and for-pay services both have their ups and downs, where I’m sure someone with exclusive experience in one or the other would see more pitfalls in their own based on experience in one area and lack thereof in the other.
This was a constant theme throughout, and I think you’d be surprised if you were to put up a free game.
I helped administrate a free text MUD in college. So, I’ve been on both sides of the coin. Let me tell you, adding money and commercial interest to the mix change things quite radically. Yes, there are pompous assholes in both cases, but the pompous asshole that pays you $10/month has at least a bit more mental justification for shitting down your throat when something gets his or her panties in a twist.
I’m truly not sure how implementing rules about phone time used (and then relegating to email, or even limited phone time) is any more slippery on the legal side of things than outright banning a person.
It’s the difference between a sign saying, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” compared to a sign that says, “We reserve the right to make anyone use the back door instead of the front door.”
And there’s a reason why those first signs are so common in businesses and why game terms of service often include that type of wording: you need to have the ultimate say in getting rid of a problem customer, especially one that affects the quality of service for other customers.
I’m sure someone spending more than 20 minutes on the problem (and actually, y’know, knew the specifics of the situation) could come up with some very valid solutions that didn’t end in “Ban the customer”. At least I really, really hope so.
This is where the commercial argument also works in my favor. I believe this happened at a time where most players were paying $30/month for one account to play M59. So, I am certain they probably tried other options before the banhammer came down. No company willingly throws away income that they can salvage, so banning this person, at least in this case, was probably the solution of last resort.
In both these cases, the bans probably helped other customers. One of the worst things about phone support is getting put on hold. As a legitimate user of Sprint service, it kind of burns me up that my 30+ minute time in queue with a billing question happened because a scamming fucktard was tying up a CSR and manager trying to get free credits. I’d rather have the company ban that person so that I only have to wait 25 minutes instead. ;)
Anyway, my goal here isn’t to criticize you, but to show the other side and some weaknesses in your opinions. Despite how casually we talk about it, banning isn’t a snap decision. I’ve worked long and hard with some people to resolve issues. But, sometimes you just have to ban a person, unfortunately.
Of course, and I fully understand that sometimes people just need to be banned. Especially when that customer is a detriment to the experience of other users on your service.
On a small scale, banning the woman on the phone might have seemed like a prudent decision. But what about a larger scale where she gets banned and you start to realize you’re going to have a new lonely phone woman every week? At that point you’re better off introducing a strategy for the general situation aimed at a long term fix to the problem.
Knowing that though, is it ever right to just ban, given that it’s also less than totally morally defensible? It may be cost effective and a good short term solution. I’m not sure it’s right. So in a situation like that, if a solution can be found that’s clean, easy, and involves little more than writing (and a little lawyer time), I think it needs to be considered before the ban.
Things become less straightforward, of course, when you start involving programmer time and game rule alterations.
You do run the risk of implementing a poor solution to a problem in either case, and banning is probably pretty often the simpler of the two options. So it’s always a judgement call. But if we’re specifically talking about the examples mentioned to this point, I would advocate finding different solutions to those problems, were I involved.
Of course, maybe at some point I’ll have as little patience for CS timesuckers as I do for griefers. Although, as it is, an innocent pain in the ass gets a lot more patience out of me than a deliberate pain in the ass. And mildly altering CS or a ToS in the hopes of improving both and hardening them against future problems is a hell of a lot different than altering the game itself to retard the retards.
But in no way have I ever been afraid of laying down the banhammer. In fact I was a little notorious for being pretty hardassed and quick to pull the trigger on people. So maybe I’m just trying to strike a balance with myself before I do something else in the hops that I don’t repeat past mistakes.
Sprint has 44 million subscribers.
I don’t think “cost” had anything to do with this.
In any event it just doesn’t seem like the smartest move possible on their part. I can’t imagine the PR is great, either.
Well of course it wasn’t… It’s Sprint.
Actually, these customers didn’t get a bad deal. They were obviously unhappy, Sprint let them out of the contracts they were otherwise stuck in, and just blew-off whatever balances were outstanding.
But since it’s Sprint, I’m gonna stick with the theory they did it for nefarious purposes. Probably something involving their executive stock options, and kicking puppies.