4 ms·

> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with. That has

by sameerds 11mo ago

> Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with. That has the same vibes as a customer support helpline that has no intention to actually help.

WA 11mo ago
> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel Especially coupled with this non-apology.
- ryandrake 11mo ago
  Corporations are never sorry for their actions, they're always sorry about how you feel.
wussboy 11mo ago
"Your call is important to us." But, not important enough to actually hire enough people to answer it.
dublinben 11mo ago
That’s corporate for “would you like to discuss this off the record away from public view?” Especially with a non-native English speaker who may be more comfortable expressing themselves in writing asynchronously.
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
  Absolutely. Rule #1, always leave a paper trail when talking with companies. The social contract is long broken, there is no room for "off the record".
jameslk 11mo ago
It may be viewed that way, but it’s also useful to empathize with someone and get more detail/nuance that can’t be conveyed simply over text. Especially when someone is not happy. I usually do the same thing when the medium is text and someone is not happy. Tone conveys a lot of useful information. Even better if you can see a person and their body language. I don’t think the cynical view of the staff person’s intentions is fair, though I don’t know the person’s history nor do I have dog in this fight.
- npinsker 11mo ago
  The request by itself is fine; it's not about that, but about the nuance within the word choice and what it conveys. It appears the OP is an incredibly valuable community member that has been deeply affronted and hurt by the recent changes. Any attitude other than "I'll move heaven and earth to make this right for you" will likely feel insufficient. Even failing that, I'd at least expect an attitude of "I really, REALLY don't want this to ever happen again". I see neither. The staff member comes off as robotic because there's zero conciliatory tone or admission of wrongdoing at all in the message. "I'm sorry you feel this way [about the workflow]" puts the onus on OP, and doesn't convey a hint of remorse -- even "I'm sorry our workflow has intruded on yours" would of course be better. "Would you be interested" should be "Would you be willing"; "to talk about this further" could be "so we can better understand what went wrong". These nuances matter a lot when people are offended. If they're this incompetent at communication over text, I don't know that I'd bother with a video call.
  - jameslk 11mo ago
    Fair point. The non-apology is not helping I agree and would have been better left off altogether. I’m guessing this staff person is not very high level and just trying to help and connect the right people. That is, if you’re not very high up in an org, you may not feel you have the authority to speak on behalf of the org as a whole. I don’t have much context to know. Mozilla could of certainly handled it better as an org, that I would agree with.
  - metabagel 11mo ago
    I think the response is completely professional and appropriate. It's a request for more information.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
  - N_Lens 11mo ago
    The fact that your comment is needed to explain these basic nuances says something about the emotional skills of HN readership.
ssolarsystem1 11mo ago
it seems like kiki(mozilla staff) want to talk on the phone because texting is not enough in this serious situation. kiki has been working in the community forum, so i don't think it's just CS action.
DocTomoe 11mo ago
Kiki is a corporate emissary caught between empathy and policy. I believe she genuinely wants reconciliation and understanding (“Would you hop on a call?”) but speaks in the soft dialect of institutional mediation. Her motivation is damage control through dialogue - to rebuild trust without ceding systemic control. She carries the company’s tone of “we’re listening,” but not yet its willingness to yield.

WA 11mo ago

> I'm sorry for how you and the Japanese community feel Especially coupled with this non-apology.

ryandrake 11mo ago
Corporations are never sorry for their actions, they're always sorry about how you feel.

wussboy 11mo ago

"Your call is important to us." But, not important enough to actually hire enough people to answer it.

dublinben 11mo ago

That’s corporate for “would you like to discuss this off the record away from public view?” Especially with a non-native English speaker who may be more comfortable expressing themselves in writing asynchronously.

johnnyanmac 11mo ago
Absolutely. Rule #1, always leave a paper trail when talking with companies. The social contract is long broken, there is no room for "off the record".

jameslk 11mo ago

It may be viewed that way, but it’s also useful to empathize with someone and get more detail/nuance that can’t be conveyed simply over text. Especially when someone is not happy. I usually do the same thing when the medium is text and someone is not happy. Tone conveys a lot of useful information. Even better if you can see a person and their body language. I don’t think the cynical view of the staff person’s intentions is fair, though I don’t know the person’s history nor do I have dog in this fight.

npinsker 11mo ago
The request by itself is fine; it's not about that, but about the nuance within the word choice and what it conveys. It appears the OP is an incredibly valuable community member that has been deeply affronted and hurt by the recent changes. Any attitude other than "I'll move heaven and earth to make this right for you" will likely feel insufficient. Even failing that, I'd at least expect an attitude of "I really, REALLY don't want this to ever happen again". I see neither. The staff member comes off as robotic because there's zero conciliatory tone or admission of wrongdoing at all in the message. "I'm sorry you feel this way [about the workflow]" puts the onus on OP, and doesn't convey a hint of remorse -- even "I'm sorry our workflow has intruded on yours" would of course be better. "Would you be interested" should be "Would you be willing"; "to talk about this further" could be "so we can better understand what went wrong". These nuances matter a lot when people are offended. If they're this incompetent at communication over text, I don't know that I'd bother with a video call.
- jameslk 11mo ago
  Fair point. The non-apology is not helping I agree and would have been better left off altogether. I’m guessing this staff person is not very high level and just trying to help and connect the right people. That is, if you’re not very high up in an org, you may not feel you have the authority to speak on behalf of the org as a whole. I don’t have much context to know. Mozilla could of certainly handled it better as an org, that I would agree with.
- metabagel 11mo ago
  I think the response is completely professional and appropriate. It's a request for more information.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- N_Lens 11mo ago
  The fact that your comment is needed to explain these basic nuances says something about the emotional skills of HN readership.

ssolarsystem1 11mo ago

it seems like kiki(mozilla staff) want to talk on the phone because texting is not enough in this serious situation. kiki has been working in the community forum, so i don't think it's just CS action.

DocTomoe 11mo ago

Kiki is a corporate emissary caught between empathy and policy. I believe she genuinely wants reconciliation and understanding (“Would you hop on a call?”) but speaks in the soft dialect of institutional mediation. Her motivation is damage control through dialogue - to rebuild trust without ceding systemic control. She carries the company’s tone of “we’re listening,” but not yet its willingness to yield.