Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wazoo

Split off from What should I do ??, Attack

Recommended Posts

/snip

It taught me that those negative qualities seem to count for little these days & are easily outweighed in most people's eyes by positive technical & other qualities. It is not a view that I personally hold, but, as usual, I was in a small minority.

/snip

Couldn't agree more... And I must admit Wazoo's outburst made me uncofortable more than once... Though they often remind me of a career miltary uncle who, as a child, I used to tease on purpose just to see him get mad.. Perhaps those fond memories and my knowlege of Wazoo's background make me somewhat more tolerant of his outbursts..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who come here are coming for help. They are NOT curiosity seekers visiting a chat room, nor are they the public passing by and sitting on your park bench, or joining you in waiting at the barber shop.

However, you specifically said that people on this forum are free to come or go if they don't like what is being said.

They are NOT intruders into your space. This is *their* space and you're here to help them.

No one said anything about intruders into 'our' space. In fact, I said that everyone was acceptable.

You have taken on the role of support provider of your own free will and you should be willing to play the role, if not with some technical expertise, at least with good humor and good manners.
None of us have taken on the role of support provider - despite the entrance verbiage on the spamcop pages. We are 'users' and 'people interested in the dynamics of spam' The only reason that we provide 'help desk' services is because people come here expecting help.

If you can't do that regardless of how the user behaves, you shouldn't be participating in these forums.

This is the User Support Group. Either provide the support, or don't post.

If you feel the need to chide, chastise, or criticize the user, then don't post.

- Don -

If that is the way 'official' spamcop/ironport thinks, then they will have to do something different about the way the forum works. As it is, anyone who has an interest in spam, and in particular spamcop, is free to post here. And is free to say that someone is rude or criticize another poster's post - just the way you are doing.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or are we speaking different languages and you do not see the previous quote as a direct question addressed to you?
I saw all that. I'm not going to be distracted by red herrings.

My only agenda is to stop people from being mean to the users who come here for help. There seems to be considerable resistance to that.

- Don -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spamcop Admins, generally: On "Supervision in a Volunteer Environment"[3]

[3] http://www.amtraining.co.uk/ncv/Effective%20Supervision.pdf.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:yW6We...lient=firefox-a

Thanks for the informative reference.

Unfortunately it assumes one unstated point, that there is an interest and desire in having and keeping volunteers which apparently in not the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of us have taken on the role of support provider
Your defense of boorish behaviour is truly eloquent.

The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users.
Maybe that should be changed to read, "meaning users abusing other users."

- Don -

In another age it may have been different, but we now find ourselves in an age where anger, intolerance & rudeness sadly seem to be an acceptable norm.
Not if I can help it. Wazoo and the Moderators have control of these forums. They can do something about it.

- Don -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the informative reference.

Unfortunately it assumes one unstated point, that there is an interest and desire in having and keeping volunteers which apparently in not the case here.

I'd prefer to characterize the "unstated point" of my "assumption" to be that there are choices. It could be this might be a good time for some to step back (out) and contemplate what those choices really are and reflect on what consequences are likely to follow.

For example; the choice between "Stroking" (as in soothing a beast of burden) or "Coking" (as in shovelling coke into a blastfurnace). Such things might give pause for reflection; to some.

Let's all pause and wait to see what "the case here" really is, and if the choices alluded to in [2] and [3] appeal or repel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw all that. I'm not going to be distracted by red herrings.

My only agenda is to stop people from being mean to the users who come here for help. There seems to be considerable resistance to that.

- Don -

Well that does definitely explain things.

And I thought your agenda (objective) was to provide help to users of the SpamCop System. Thanks for putting me straight.

Sorry I did not see your post earlier as it must have been written while I was working on mine.

That is one of the problems with the Forum, post order can be confusing as it is based on when the submit button is first used.

By the way, is is not a red herring, simply a separate but related subject where the question has not been understood by anyone here and therefore no useful reply has yet been provided to the "question"?

Actually you are the one chasing the red herring by thinking that the real issue is "stop(ing) people from being mean to the users who come here for help." The majority, if not all of us, can agree with you on this point. The real issue being discussed (which you continue to fail to recognize) is your lack of support, lack of respect, and total disregard for those that do contribute to the these user based support tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>

My only agenda is to stop people from being mean to the users who come here for help. There seems to be considerable resistance to that.

- Don -

Well that does definitely explain things.

And I thought your agenda (objective) was to provide help to users of the SpamCop System. Thanks for putting me straight.

<snip>

...It should always be borne in mind that when Don writes "being mean" or something similar (for example, "chiding"), he includes referring inquirers to the FAQ (see, for example, 52580[/snapback] and http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...mp;#entry52168). IMHO, he clearly has a different definition of these terms than do (most of) the rest of us. So be it -- he's as entitled to that view as those of us who disagree with him are to ours.

...We're all here to help the users. The enemy is the spammers, not each other, and this too-frequent criticism of one another just isn't productive. If you must discuss others' attempts to answer questions, please make it in a separate post in the Lounge where it belongs. I'm really getting weary of seeing it interspersed within a Forum thread started by a user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you must discuss others' attempts to answer questions, please make it in a separate post in the Lounge where it belongs. I'm really getting weary of seeing it interspersed within a Forum thread started by a user.
Thank you Steve. I split the discussion off into its on topic.

I had run out of time before finishing my previous post so will expand a bit on what Steve added as I was intending to say that most of us do not agree with Don's definition of "rude" Which would included the most simplest of statements: "Please refer to the FAQ"

......There *is* something wrong and rude about just telling them to go read the FAQs.

- Don -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Let's not all (the volunteers) get too wrapped up in what Don posts here. While he is an official SpamCop/IronPort representative he is not AIUI one of TPTB with respect to the SpamCop Forum. There is one and only one PTB of the Forum -- JT -- and, for better or worse Wazoo is his representative as the owner/administrator of the SpamCop Forum. SpamCop/IronPort staff are welcome (and encouraged to participate more than they have in the past) here but their opinion on how we should address each other bears no more weight (at least, not for me) than anyone else (except "newbies," whose opinions rate somewhat lower [although are many times equal or superior to those of us who have been here longer] :) <g>).

...FWIW, I agree with Don and Raju that we should generally adopt a more welcoming, patient attitude towards those who come here asking for help but I couldn't disagree more with his "be nice (as I, Don, define it) or don't post at all" directive, especially with respect to Wazoo, who is so often helpful even when (in Don's view) "chiding."

...Frankly, we discuss this far too much. The activity in these Forums and the number of ultimately satisfied participants is a positive testament to what we (mostly Wazoo) do. Don's views shouldn't be ignored but neither should they be taken any more seriously than anyone else's. Let him have his say about chiding the users, help the users with his replies, and move on without taking him to task over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Hatespam~~,

...Did you forget to add something? All that's in your post is a quote.

...Unless I hear from you otherwise by end of day Friday, 29 December US Eastern time, I shall delete that post on the assumption that it was unintentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had asked a question which at the time I thought was clear. I did not know that YOU were not able to SEE the tech descriptions ( URL to spamcops data ). The response to me was to read FAQs like I was some kind of small child, not only that, I was to wander somewhere for something. A dignified response would have been to inform me that the question was not understood and please post again, PLEASE and THANK YOU.

Thank you.

Moderator Edit: removed a ton of unneeded vertical whitespace, a quoted Reply that had no content seen in the Reply posted ..... and this post was made apparently trying to correct a previous post that ended up containing only the Quoted post ....

Edited by Wazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had asked a question which at the time I thought was clear. I did not know that YOU were not able to SEE the tech descriptions ( URL to spamcops data ). The response to me was to read FAQs like I was some kind of small child, not only that, I was to wander somewhere for something. A dignified response would have been to inform me that the question was not understood and please post again, PLEASE and THANK YOU.

Thank you.

...That's your opinion (and it seems perfectly reasonable to me) and you are entitled to it. My view is that your response, including language that was offensive by any measure, was out of proportion to the mistreatment you perceive was afforded you. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with referring folks to the FAQ and I do not see how it can be interpreted as being treated "like I was some kind of small child." Further, I see no reason for anyone posting to a user-to-user forum to have any expectation about how one will be treated; the bottom line is to get you an answer to your question. If you absolutely had to say something about how you think you are being treated, fine, that's a separate topic; let's not confuse the two, please! :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While all this discusion has gone on, I have been busy doing all sorts of other things.

two laptop hard-drive replacements and software reinstalls - out the door

seven desktop/tower systems repaired - out the door

three chainsaws repaired - out the door

five cars/vans - tuned up, filters/fluids changed - delivered

(BTW: out of pocket - maybe $200 .... income from all of the above - maybe $30)

Four other IPB based forums brought back on-line, one hacked, the others from screwups while trying to upgrade by folks that didn't/couldn't understand the instructions

Two other sites now able to run the Dictinary tool seen in use here (this Forum is listed first as an 'example' site by that program's developer, despite the fact that the support forum for that application is one I use as a really bad example of a 'support forum' ..... my last post there asking if "any of the existing queries/problems have actually been resolved - as some of them date back months" has not been answered, and that's also coming up on two months since asked ....

one nephew home on leave from Basic Training - National Guard

one nephew made a visit, recently back from Iraq

still providing home/health care for folks in three different homes, ranging from cooking, laundry, errands, to physical therapy, handling of prescription drugs amd monitoring of vital signs, on and on ....

getting three web-sites ready for launch - continuing maintenance on a half-dozen others

Focus on SpamCop.net stuff .... Code work on several applications, today's primary item is the new 2.2.1 version of this Forum application ... screen shot taken maybe a half-hour ago that shows just the 'skin' changes between this running version and this next version;

SpamCopWorkScreen.jpg

no bearing at all on the actual functional code at all, which is even more drastic ....

Note: in trying to keep up with just this application, the monitoring/participation of/in (primarily) five other 'support' Forums (another four or five are hit every now and then to check for anything 'new') .... the IPB Forums (actually two separate Forums .. one 'public' .. one 'members/owners only') end up with me having to wade through about a dozen different Forum sections, depending on the subject matter at hand ....

The other applications generally are handled within a single dedicated Forum/web-site ....

The web-page work requires keeping up with the various issues of the hosts involved and any of the changes they make, server settings, software changes, etc.

Now I know that this is just me, my way of spending my day .. I do not expect everyone else to be like this ...

However, it's because of this level of effort I put into researching problems, trying to fix problems, provide solutions, etc. that sets me on edge when I see these "I don't have time" type posts. When trying to decide about finally posting a Bug Report for instance, it might take me the better part of a day in researching all the existing Bug Reports, just to make sure that it hasn't already been posted before .... task made so much more difficult than necessary as I get to wade through the previous hundreds of posts made by others that have already been determined to be "Duplicates" ..... Again, I know that few people are of the same ilk, but .. it's that I have just spent a dozen hours trying to research a problem, come into this Forum and see a FAQ question asked that I know for a fact has an answer posted in the FAQ, using the same words that were used in the asking the question. Simply scrolling down a web-page or lord, help me .. actually using a Find or Search function/tool before posting .... yes, I do get ticked at that ....

and those users that have been asked just what it would take for them to have found it themselves without needing to post getting one of those wild hairs and complaining that they are being called stupid ...???

chiding, berating, etc ...????

The post that set this one off, in my opinion, seemed to show that the user had a whole lot of knowledge lacking in how to use the SpamCop.net tool-set .. thus the suggestion to look at the FAQ in total, rather than just a sngle link for a Tracking URL. I fail to see the "problem" when making the suggestion that there's a whole lot of data aready available in addition to that single piece of data that, at best, would have only served as a jumping off point for whatever that user decided to ask next, after the spam samples had finally been made available .. and whether the spam samples would have been enough data to actually provide answers to whatever was really intended to be asked .. well, we'll never know ....

Any direct help with the FAQ is non existent and any posts directed to moderators are alway and only negative and abusive which he generally prefers to address in the open forums.

Unfortunately, that's true. I learned my lesson a long time ago when I discovered my emails were being posted in public without my permission. I won't be participating in working on the User Group FAQs.

This is actually too funny. It's extremely rare that an "e-mail" gets posted at all. Those made "in public" are those primarily responses to a specific question asked and information is non-sensitive data prvided as that direct response ... these would typically be where I escalated a user's Forum query upstream and I received the answer to that query into my InBox.

I am actually suspecting that the "in public" remarks are actually in reference to some responses provided that I made available in a Forum section only accessible to myself, Moderators, and Staff ... this was done to make sure that "we" were all speaking from the same page on that subject. However, access being limited to just this core of folks is hardly something posted "in public" .... Suspicion being that because as 'Staff' Don makes the logical conclusion that if 'he' can see it, 'everyone' can ....

On the other hand, I have tons of e-mail develeped over the years .... but the posting of any of that e-mail is definitely described as rare. In fact, the heat and abuse I have taken over the years because I can't/wouldn't post any of the e-mail to back up my statements is legion. Many a newsgroup thread has gone sour over the fact that I stated a fact, made a comment, indicated that the data was not for public consumption .... my behind getting reamed and challenged as being some kind of a poser, over and over, yet .... no support/answers offered up by 'staff' in those same threads.

Some of the commentary in this and previous Topics definitely left me with the feeling that I really, really wanted to post some of that e-mail dialog, but .... although being the wrong thing to do was an issue, fueling the fires was the basic decision point that prevented me from doing it. However, now that I've been accused, tried, and found guilty of doing something bad ..... what the heck .... one of my 'favorites' ....

Note that this dialog was about the Wiki, which has the capability of being edited directly by folks that have any interest ....

X-No-Archive: yes

Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20060116050214.023ed9a8[at]admin.spamcop.net>

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:18:08 -0700

To: "Wazoo"

From: SpamCop Admin

Subject: Re: Any problem seen with this?

Cc: Deputies

In-Reply-To: <007901c61a02$11d709c0$6401a8c0[at]msi6378>

References: <007901c61a02$11d709c0$6401a8c0[at]msi6378>

>Does this go along with the mode of "how to get help without getting

>stomped on in the process" ...????

>

>http://forum.spamcop.net/scwik/wikka.php?wakka=SpamCopWhereToGetHelp

That should do the trick. It's sufficiently threatening that it will

likely keep the timid and shy from posting.

>There are some characterizations in there about "Staff" ..

>want to make sure that there's no one that's going to

>get upset yet again at my choice of words.

I couldn't find them.

- Don -

Current URL for the page in reference: Where to get Help

Anyway, sorry for being the focus of all the debate, but ... I simply have too much going on to waste much time worrying about Don's feelings. The bottom line as far as this Forum goes, answers/replies are provided to all posts here (ignoring the spam that still manages to show up) .... whether the answers/replies are used is left up to the user involved. As stated numerous times, having to repeat answers is truly a waste of everyone's time, which is what a FAQ is supposed to be available for ....

Rather than do yet another e-mail that may or may not be replied to, here's a "posted in public" request ....

on the page http://www.spamcop.net/help.shtml

please change the link provided at the line Index of all forums - http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/

to read something like - Forum front page - http://forum.spamcop.net/

or to be safer ... link to http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=home

This to provide an immediate listing of the various resources available

umpteenth request;

The line: General help. Have trouble using SpamCop? Wonder if you are listed on the SpamCop blocking list?

needs to be changed and link modified, as the Blocking List item is now a separate Forum section

(Things like this last request were in fact posted into the Admin Forum section, one as a reference to myself a bit more noticable than mixed in with all the other e-mail traffic, and of course, to let the Moderators also be aware of things being worked ..... There are a whloe slew of these postings of "my outgoing e-mails" that have no responses posted, as my feelings were in most cases that the replies I did get would serve no function to anyone else, other than touching a few more nerves in the wrong way .. and of course, some came with the additional instructin bits that "this was not for public consumption" .... bottom line, I'm not goking tha accusation made, but .... by God, I'm guilty of it now!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with referring folks to the FAQ

There is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing to FAQs. But _HOW_ you do it is the issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing to FAQs. But _HOW_ you do it is the issue here.
...Not as framed by Hatespam~~:
<snip> The response to me was to read FAQs like I was some kind of small child <snip>
or Don (see 52686[/snapback] and 52689[/snapback]). As I understand what they are saying, it is the reference to the FAQ to which they object (as well as how).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing to FAQs. But _HOW_ you do it is the issue here.

Sorry, but I find it very hard to give much credence to one who also states;

Well, I am not sure about that. I myself just skip over all wazoo's replies and read other people's posts. No offense wazoo. You might be doing great technical work, but that's a different issue.

Especially seeing that one-liner after such a massive post, implication being that the content was not even looked at ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous posts in this Discussion have been edited to remove the unneeded content, extreme waste of vertical whitespace, etc. Call it chiding, berating, whatever yet again, but .... there is in fact a Forum FAQ provided with some instructional bits, a Test forum available if one needs to "try" things, and a bit of Help as provided with this application itself .... all linked to to at the top of this (and every page) ... not much 'wandering around' needed.

I had asked a question which at the time I thought was clear.

Yet, even after all of this extra dialog on everything else under the sun, you didn't get around to clarifying the expanded suggested scenarios in my posting;

And the question was what exactly?

How to set filters some where?

How to recognise spam versus non-spam?

How to set up mail-handling in Eudora?

spam handling in general?

Black/White-listing in the SpamCop.net e-mail application?

Actual reporting issue based on so many spams received?

Sorry, but I still don't know what the actual question was, beyond "getting too much spam" ....

Yet again, your opinion, your experience, your background.

As stated, the "question" asked wasn't very good to begin with. Time spent looking at data existing would surely have led to being able to ask a 'real' question, far beyond the mystical and open-ended "what should I do?" ....

I did not know that YOU were not able to SEE the tech descriptions ( URL to spamcops data ).

Yet, the reply was;

No one here can "see" your samples.

with the remainder of that post including the needed referenced item identified as a Tracking URL instead of your provided Report-ID numbers ....

The response to me was to read FAQs like I was some kind of small child, not only that, I was to wander somewhere for something. A dignified response would have been to inform me that the question was not understood and please post again, PLEASE and THANK YOU.

Yes, as above, the 'question' was ambiguous at best .. thusly the additional words provided;

... you may also want to tke a look at the various FAQ entries on a few other things ... maybe your question has already been answered ..????

Not knowing what you were looking for exactly, looking at the existing FAQ entries was a probable solution for you to then come back with a specific questions about a specfic function or two .... I have no idea how you could have read any of that to suggest "do not post here again" ...?????

Actually, your replies to explain / expand anything ahould be made in the Topic you started, not this one ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that should be changed to read, "meaning users abusing other users."

- Don -

Not if I can help it. Wazoo and the Moderators have control of these forums. They can do something about it.

- Don -

As long as you are posting in public view, it is 'admin abusing posters' and is certainly not good for spamcop image.

The point that you do not seem to 'get' is that no one who posts here 'intends' to upset people. People get upset because they think they are going to get 'help' from customer support. Naturally, they don't expect to be addressed as a 'peer' Looking at the FAQ absolutely is good advice, but not advice that customer service will ever give you.

When people do get upset, other posters try to get them to calm down. Nine times out of ten, the upset posters understand that this is a public forum, that people are trying to be helpful, but are not employees. The tenth time, they are the ones who are being rude (or so incredibly stupid) that who cares or knows what is their problem? If I were being paid to know and fix it, I would have to do so, but I am not so I can forget about those who don't seem to understand. And, unless spamcop/ironport changes the help system, that's the way it will happen on the forum - no one is here to give support, but just are interested and like to be helpful.

At one time, the same controversy (but not the same players - Wazoo was not involved at all) went on in spamcop.help. People would come and get a straight answer and be offended because it wasn't 'polite' - not one of the posters accused of rudeness was really 'rude' or intended to be rude. Other posters recognized that the problem was that the answers were not couched in 'customer-speak' but were to the point - just as if you stopped by a shade mechanic and asked what was wrong. If you had been riding the brake and that was causing the problem, the people under the shade tree wouldn't look for a 'tactful' way of telling you that, but you would get really good advice if you listened. None of the posters accused of being 'rude' changed their ways; they just stopped posting. And nobody could ever get posters to stop baiting the idiots who posted. At least in the forum, there is an easy way to move the topic out of the way of more serious posters.

I am not defending rudeness, nor am I defending telling people to look at the FAQ, but I am defending a 'regular' from being criticized by 'admin' in public for not being 'customer service oriented' - especially since spamcop neither trains nor recognizes volunteers. Not only a regular who is faithful, but is seen by many posters (both regular and newbie) as being very helpful.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The response to me was to read FAQs like I was some kind of small child, <snip>

I guess everyone has a different way of saying 'Read the #$% book!', or 'When all else fails read the directions.'

I find the FAQ better directed to answering a user's question than the W3 specs. But that's just me.

The following was extracted from another forum as reference.

I suspect that it has less to do with the W3C needing to update the

system and more to do with you needing to read

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.8 and

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_4 (probably along with

http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml)

[Moderator edit - parenthesis moved out of final link. The 404 haiku was:

You step in the stream,

but the water has moved on.

This page is not here.

- plus a fluffy pussycat - Farelf]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to read more than a page of this thread, it is disgusting.

I've admined forums, I've moderated forums, and not once would I take out an issue with staff members in plain view of the members

Come on admins, take it somewhere else, such a discussion going on between you damages the board.

People come here for support, not for a hissy fit from one admin to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to read more than a page of this thread, it is disgusting.

I've admined forums, I've moderated forums, and not once would I take out an issue with staff members in plain view of the members

Come on admins, take it somewhere else, such a discussion going on between you damages the board.

People come here for support, not for a hissy fit from one admin to another.

The only thing I have to take issue with your post is that there aren't any 'admins' posting. One paid staff member; one volunteer who has been given enough access to the forum innards so that he can keep it working; and several regular posters, of which, two or three actually do some 'moderating' in moving posts, etc.

There are ways to discuss this outside of the public view, but the paid staff members are too busy to use them.

IIUC, the official policy is that this forum is totally volunteer. Although staff members can post, it is voluntary on their part and not part of their duties.

Unfortunately, several of the participants have also been participants in the unmoderated spamcop newsgroup where, as I point out in my last post, 'bluntness' is the norm. It's easier to 'killfile' there, though.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss Betsy, not sure I follow you as one is called SpamCopAdmin and the other is an admin on the board, which is what I meant.

If they do not have a staff section in this forum for their discussions, which most forums use for staff to talk things through, then they need to make one up and keep the above private.

anyway, this whole thread should be moved to a staff area or deleted as it is a really big put off to spamcop to see such a discussion as above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss Betsy, not sure I follow you as one is called SpamCopAdmin and the other is an admin on the board, which is what I meant.

If they do not have a staff section in this forum for their discussions, which most forums use for staff to talk things through, then they need to make one up and keep the above private.

anyway, this whole thread should be moved to a staff area or deleted as it is a really big put off to spamcop to see such a discussion as above.

I totally agree with you. There is a 'staff' section for discussion, but as I said the paid staff (SpamCopAdmin) is too busy to look or post there.

Volunteers should be 'professional' even though they are not being paid. However, there is no 'job description' as such for forum admin or for moderator and no training or even expectations from 'official' spamcop. IIUC, SpamCopAdmin does not post here as a 'representative' of spamcop, but voluntarily as 'Don'. Of course, whatever he says, carries more weight since he does have access to many more facts about spamcop than we have.

The point of the defense of Wazoo is to remind people that all people who post here are 'volunteers' - it is not part of the 'official' spamcop. No one, except for the paid staff, has any connection with spamcop unless they use the reporting services or the spamcop email services. The range of expertise among posters runs from working server admins to technically non-fluent end users.

If the questioner realizes that whoever answers their post is just a person with personality quirks, then the questioner often finds that whatever Wazoo suggests is extremely helpful. If they do look in the FAQ and still can't find the answer and explain why, Wazoo will help. Or if they ignore his post and read what other people have posted - other people try to present other aspects to a question.

This is a mild exchange (remember, I said Wazoo, Don, and I have all participated in the spamcop ng) compared to the first time that Don offered his apologies for the treatment received in the forum. In that topic, the same thing happened. Poster got mad because Wazoo suggested looking in FAQ; posted personal attack on Wazoo which Wazoo responded to. In that topic, however, there were several other posters - all of whom gave hints, suggestions, guesses to the OP on how to solve his problem - all of which he ignored.

At that time, I studied the problem - which had only recently become a problem. Occasionally when we started, we would get someone who was upset, but usually because their email was blocked or they were totally frustrated about something or thought they should be treated as though they were consulting customer service. Usually, an explanation calmed them down and they were grateful for help. A few were completely rude themselves. But as the FAQ started getting more complete, more and more of first time posters were upset over any reply that did not fix the problem. Usually, it was Wazoo since he was the first poster.

My theory is that most people find the answer in the FAQ and don't have to post unless they want to. For those who don't find the answer, they know how to ask a question. The people who get angry at Wazoo's post are in three categories: they haven't read the FAQ and don't intend to because they are too busy - no matter what the banner says, they came here from the official spamcop which says this is the palce to get help and they expect someone to help them; they are too lazy or too ignorant or perhaps too upset to find what they want in the FAQ (the latter usually listens to other posters and eventually is grateful - sometimes even to Wazoo); or they have English as a second language.

For the people who are too busy, too lazy, or too ignorant, there is not much that anyone could say in this kind of forum to make them happy. They have classes to teach people how to handle the 'difficult' customer. The posters on this forum have not been trained in customer service skills (perhaps one or two have for a real job), but even if they have had training, they are not dealing with customers, but stopping by the side of the road to help a stalled vehicle so to speak. If the person objects to the advice or the tone, ok, the poster will move on.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the User Support Group. Either provide the support, or don't post.
Wazoo provides the support. IME the ones who take it as rudeness are the ones who didn't get the hand-holding, all-work-done-for-them answer they were expecting/felt they were owed.

That falls under the "too bad, so sad" rule.
Amen.

If you can't answer them all with logic, reason, and good humor, then don't post.
Pointing them to the FAQs/copious help already available is the logical response when a coherent question hasn't been posed. Especially when instructions on how to pose a coherent question are all over these forums. http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...p;f=6&id=11 is right there at the top of every forum.

If you feel the need to chide, chastise, or criticize the user, then don't post.
If you feel the need to chide, chastise, or criticize the volunteers, then don't post.

...Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×