3 ms·

It’s rude towards Twitter. This is not a conversation, it’s a box in a form. One of many copies of the same form they’re churning through. I don’t understand wh

It’s rude towards Twitter. This is not a conversation, it’s a box in a form. One of many copies of the same form they’re churning through. I don’t understand why a CS rep / moderator reviewing appeals would take it as a personal slight, because that would require personally identifying with Twitter and its algorithms. Do you think people should be banned for being snippy in a customer satisfaction survey too? Product reviews? A human reads it. A human that should know well enough that they’re not the subject of any negativity therein. The idea that this is a CS rep’s petty revenge is as much of an unsubstantiated fantasy as “they’ll tell the cook to spit in your burger”. It’s far more likely that either the human reviewer(s) is doing a poor job, or there’s something else broken about the appeal process, considering all the other comments referencing nonsensical failed appeals with no evidence of “rudeness”. Like false positives in appeals going uncounted because the appeal decision is itself taken as the source of truth, and reps being incentivized to churn through appeals quick to save on labor costs.

adamlett 4y ago
cgriswald 4y ago
The support person is almost certainly incentivized to get through as many appeals as possible. He's also probably paid very little. He has basically no incentive to help this guy and this guy gave him a disincentive. There's also likely correlation between people who speak this way to others and people whose bans were legitimate. Next. Spitting in a burger is active malice that can get you in legal trouble and I've still seen it happen. (For the record, I didn't let the burger go out and the guy got fired.) There was also a case where a local restaurant cook actively poisoned people he didn't like. Choosing not to help someone when you could is passive and it happens all the time. The worst consequence is you lose your job. One of the few freedoms of low paying jobs is that replacing those jobs is very easy. If you don't believe these things happen, start talking to retail and support employees. Or you can find plenty of forums where people talk about this type of thing. Do I think employees need to recognize that they are representing their company and no one is saying these things to them personally? Yes. Do I think people need to stop talking to "companies" this way? Also yes, even if only because they're more likely to get what they want that way.

adamlett 4y ago

cgriswald 4y ago

The support person is almost certainly incentivized to get through as many appeals as possible. He's also probably paid very little. He has basically no incentive to help this guy and this guy gave him a disincentive. There's also likely correlation between people who speak this way to others and people whose bans were legitimate. Next. Spitting in a burger is active malice that can get you in legal trouble and I've still seen it happen. (For the record, I didn't let the burger go out and the guy got fired.) There was also a case where a local restaurant cook actively poisoned people he didn't like. Choosing not to help someone when you could is passive and it happens all the time. The worst consequence is you lose your job. One of the few freedoms of low paying jobs is that replacing those jobs is very easy. If you don't believe these things happen, start talking to retail and support employees. Or you can find plenty of forums where people talk about this type of thing. Do I think employees need to recognize that they are representing their company and no one is saying these things to them personally? Yes. Do I think people need to stop talking to "companies" this way? Also yes, even if only because they're more likely to get what they want that way.