6 ms·

Why? Why is "we made a mistake, we're offering to fix it" not enough? What more could they say? Do you want the name of the rep who made the mistake? Do you wan

Why? Why is "we made a mistake, we're offering to fix it" not enough? What more could they say? Do you want the name of the rep who made the mistake? Do you want them fired? Neither one of these seems remotely reasonable, but I'm not sure what else you could want. It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy. It happens.

fdr 14y ago
I agree that things happen, but I think people are often suspicious that a vendor is making life more difficult than necessary systematically on the supposition that "de jure" need not match "de facto". Just a brief statement of intent and mechanism of the mistake would help in a public forum.
wtvanhest 14y ago
What more could they say? Do you want the name of the rep who made the mistake? Do you want them fired? Neither one of these seems remotely reasonable, but I'm not sure what else you could want. It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy. It happens. You are making an assumption that it was human error. If it in fact was human error, they could state that and say that they also searched their database for the words Linux to make sure this hadn't happened with other reps. [Added]: They could then make a public statement about the amount of times it had happened and the total refund they issued. If it happened to 100 users at $1,000/per user, then they could issue $100,000 in total refunds. Further they could state that installing another operating system does not ever void the warranty.
papsosouid 14y ago
>Why is "we made a mistake, we're offering to fix it" not enough? Because I don't want to have to waste my time trying to drum up media attention when it happens to me. >What more could they say? Explain how this mistake happened in the first place, and what they are doing to prevent it from happening again. It doesn't help me that I may be able to publicly shame them into giving me an RMA. I want to know that I will, 100% for certain get an RMA without having to jump through hoops. >It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy How do you know this? Who says it isn't policy to reject RMAs when another OS has been installed, and they only back down if someone creates a scene? Given those two possibilities, they need to demonstrate that it really was just a mistake, and that they are training their staff so it doesn't happen again. It isn't like this is an easy mistake to make.
- eropple 14y ago
  >It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy How do you know this? Personally, I know this because they've never given me a word of trouble on an RMA when I've done this, and Newegg's record is so staggeringly positive that I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (it sort of reads like you have an axe to grind about them, but I'm not going to accuse you of it without proof), but as far as I'm concerned, Newegg has the credibility to leave it at "we screwed up, it's fixed" unless it reoccurs.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    >It feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (it sort of reads like you have an axe to grind about them, but I'm not going to accuse you of it without proof) That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick. >but as far as I'm concerned, Newegg has the credibility to leave it at "we screwed up, it's fixed" unless it reoccurs. That's wonderful for you. How does it follow then that everyone else should also just accept your belief in them on blind faith? The question was "why is this not good enough?". I explained why. Your personal lack of concern is not relevant, given that the question is addressed to people who are concerned. Your opinion does not negate others' and no amount of random people saying "I like them still" will address the actual concerns I pointed out.
    - shabble 14y ago
      Moving rapidly off-topic: That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric4.htm#Apophasis http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric4.htm#Apophasis I'm often surprised by discovering certain rhetorical devices that are old and widely spread enough to have their own name.
    - 14y ago
Terretta 14y ago
> wrong about the policy In that case, it's interesting that they had RMA form boilerplate for the situation.
- kenrikm 14y ago
  Exactly, that form did not seem if it had been written for that specific case but rather something they could select in the system for why they were returning the item.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
Could DanielStraight or anyone link to the Newegg apology he's quoting, it doesn't appear to be in the article or linked from it?

fdr 14y ago

I agree that things happen, but I think people are often suspicious that a vendor is making life more difficult than necessary systematically on the supposition that "de jure" need not match "de facto". Just a brief statement of intent and mechanism of the mistake would help in a public forum.

wtvanhest 14y ago

What more could they say? Do you want the name of the rep who made the mistake? Do you want them fired? Neither one of these seems remotely reasonable, but I'm not sure what else you could want. It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy. It happens. You are making an assumption that it was human error. If it in fact was human error, they could state that and say that they also searched their database for the words Linux to make sure this hadn't happened with other reps. [Added]: They could then make a public statement about the amount of times it had happened and the total refund they issued. If it happened to 100 users at $1,000/per user, then they could issue $100,000 in total refunds. Further they could state that installing another operating system does not ever void the warranty.

papsosouid 14y ago

>Why is "we made a mistake, we're offering to fix it" not enough? Because I don't want to have to waste my time trying to drum up media attention when it happens to me. >What more could they say? Explain how this mistake happened in the first place, and what they are doing to prevent it from happening again. It doesn't help me that I may be able to publicly shame them into giving me an RMA. I want to know that I will, 100% for certain get an RMA without having to jump through hoops. >It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy How do you know this? Who says it isn't policy to reject RMAs when another OS has been installed, and they only back down if someone creates a scene? Given those two possibilities, they need to demonstrate that it really was just a mistake, and that they are training their staff so it doesn't happen again. It isn't like this is an easy mistake to make.

eropple 14y ago
>It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy How do you know this? Personally, I know this because they've never given me a word of trouble on an RMA when I've done this, and Newegg's record is so staggeringly positive that I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (it sort of reads like you have an axe to grind about them, but I'm not going to accuse you of it without proof), but as far as I'm concerned, Newegg has the credibility to leave it at "we screwed up, it's fixed" unless it reoccurs.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >It feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (it sort of reads like you have an axe to grind about them, but I'm not going to accuse you of it without proof) That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick. >but as far as I'm concerned, Newegg has the credibility to leave it at "we screwed up, it's fixed" unless it reoccurs. That's wonderful for you. How does it follow then that everyone else should also just accept your belief in them on blind faith? The question was "why is this not good enough?". I explained why. Your personal lack of concern is not relevant, given that the question is addressed to people who are concerned. Your opinion does not negate others' and no amount of random people saying "I like them still" will address the actual concerns I pointed out.
  - shabble 14y ago
    Moving rapidly off-topic: That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric4.htm#Apophasis http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric4.htm#Apophasis I'm often surprised by discovering certain rhetorical devices that are old and widely spread enough to have their own name.
  - 14y ago

Terretta 14y ago

> wrong about the policy In that case, it's interesting that they had RMA form boilerplate for the situation.

kenrikm 14y ago
Exactly, that form did not seem if it had been written for that specific case but rather something they could select in the system for why they were returning the item.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

Could DanielStraight or anyone link to the Newegg apology he's quoting, it doesn't appear to be in the article or linked from it?