We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
An Amendment to the Forum Rules; Please vote respectfully.
Topic Started: Aug 30 2014, 02:01 PM (2,527 Views)
Stephen
Member Avatar
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.

I would not support this change and voted no. Nicolas answered it pretty simply but
I'll add my two cents:

  • Some members encourage PM Support whether via signature or by simply responding to Requests for help via PM. This creates the problem. When I receive a PM requesting support, if I can help I will but I'll also add that in the future all support must be via the appropriate methods and not via PM. If they do it again, I generally won't respond or I'll instruct the user to seek the appropriate avenue for support. I can not recall the last time a user pmed me more than once for support.
  • Ultimately if you have a problem, that is what the report system is for. If a user PMs you for support, you can politely decline, ignore it or report it. Those are the appropriate solutions. If a user still persists, you report it and if necessary contact Nicolas or myself.
  • Instituting such a rule is a contradiction. If any user accepts PMs for support and later changes their mind, they confuse the user. Additionally, as Nicolas points out, some users might abuse such a rule and rudely inform these users. Essentially that brings us back to the days of Backseat Moderating. And I do not support giving users anything that even implies staff sanctioned authority.
  • Jonathan outlined it perfectly. This rule will do nothing because it would involve staff enforcement. And I will not punish new users who make a mistake. Users who do it repeatedly is another matter. But not only would I not punish new users for this, I would overrule any staff who did because it's overzealous, unfair and most important: bad customer service. The fastest way to lose new customers would be to enforce such a rule. Since the problem you outlined falls into that area and not repeat offenders or older users who know better, this amendment would be worthless because no staff member would enforce it.


I sympathize with your problem, but ultimately this will not solve the problem but only create more issues. Your best recourse is the Report PM button.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Billamen
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I agree with this amendment, but at the same time, maybe you are inviting people to sass you by sending you PMs requesting support despite what your signature says. :shifty:

Even though people target you for support questions involving codes, it is unfair to you because if it was posted in the support forum it would get answered faster and others with a similar problem can read the topic, not just who requested help. My above comment was just a thought. Sometimes I feel posting a notice saying "do not PM me for code requests" makes people want to do it even more, if you know what I mean.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nicolas
Member Avatar
"PLES RING IF AN RNSER IS REQIRD."

Ferby
Aug 30 2014, 07:03 PM
I can see all your points and whilst I agree with most of it, I must point out that it is not repeat offenders. It is actually a wide range of users who contact me, not just specific ones. So I cannot just block them from PMing me because it isn't just one person. I do not mind providing support on my own code via private messaging because, at least then, they ask me because its my own code and if I'm not able to help them, I ask them to post a code request stating I cannot help them. But unfortunately support requests for my own codes are quite rare via PM whilst support requests for other codes are very frequent.

I am, in no way, suggesting that we punish users who break this rule but just want it to be acknowledged by staff that although we are in two separate positions, we're not different in providing support and we should be given the same rights to not be bothered with support requests via PM. As Lout has shown, some members (if refused or asked nicely not to bother us) can be quite inappropriate and impolite. It just gets tiresome having to reply to these users that I do not wish to be bothered with requests via private messaging unless it's about my own code. I'd like some sort of system in place to reduce that.
I understand what you're saying, Ferby - and I'm afraid a rule won't change a thing for you.

If a member PMs you for support initially they'll likely do so regardless of a rule. You will then kindly ask them not to PM you for support: with or without a rule. If they continue, you will report them and the staff will step in: with or without a rule.

No change is produced in changing this rule except for an expectation of enforcement which is unrealistic, the possibility of users backseat moderating or otherwise mistreating new ignorant members, and disallowing users who do want to be able to help via PM (often for private boards, specific codes, etc.) from doing so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pete B
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Nicolas
Aug 30 2014, 03:19 PM
If the rule did now say not to PM any member for support - I could see a great number of users responding to people who PMed them for support pointing out the rule, some in a not-very-nice way, and some might go so far as to backseat moderate - and we wouldn't know it happened because it was done over PM. Not everybody would just report users who PMed them for support and enforcing the rule would be fairly challenging from the staff's perspective.

Additionally, we often respond to the users who PM us for support the first time with a certain measure of grace. We might give them their answer, but we'll always gently remind them of the rule and warn note their account. This, too, would be difficult to expect to continue if the rule were expanded to encompass members as we don't know how you've treated or responded to the users.

Finally, some users simply like to make themselves available for support - while I think that's not good for a number of reasons, it is sometimes understandable for codes/themes/etc.


Don't we have PM logging on this board?
It's a bit unreasonable to assume people are going to respond poorly to these PMs, you're sort of punishing users on how they might respond rather then dealing with a problem that is happening right now.*

Stephen
 
Ultimately if you have a problem, that is what the report system is for. If a user PMs you for support, you can politely decline, ignore it or report it. Those are the appropriate solutions. If a user still persists, you report it and if necessary contact Nicolas or myself.

I think the problem is that you can't report it because it isn't against the rules...

Stephen
 
Instituting such a rule is a contradiction. If any user accepts PMs for support and later changes their mind, they confuse the user. Additionally, as Nicolas points out, some users might abuse such a rule and rudely inform these users. Essentially that brings us back to the days of Backseat Moderating. And I do not support giving users anything that even implies staff sanctioned authority.

How exactly does adding a rule imply staff sanctioned authority? Surely it is no different to any other rule. If someone PMs me with advertising I could "backseat moderate" right now.

Stephen
 
Jonathan outlined it perfectly. This rule will do nothing because it would involve staff enforcement. And I will not punish new users who make a mistake. Users who do it repeatedly is another matter. But not only would I not punish new users for this, I would overrule any staff who did because it's overzealous, unfair and most important: bad customer service. The fastest way to lose new customers would be to enforce such a rule. Since the problem you outlined falls into that area and not repeat offenders or older users who know better, this amendment would be worthless because no staff member would enforce it.

Staff rule enforcement standards are not really relevant. I certainly wouldn't perma-ban a newbie who joins and sends an advertising PM, this wouldn't be any different.

Nicolas
Aug 30 2014, 11:56 PM

No change is produced in changing this rule except for an expectation of enforcement which is unrealistic, the possibility of users backseat moderating or otherwise mistreating new ignorant members, and disallowing users who do want to be able to help via PM (often for private boards, specific codes, etc.) from doing so.

Just make the rule "No unwarranted support over PM".
Yes, there is no real way to enforce the rule because newbies won't read the rules anyway. This is probably why when you PM a member of staff there is a warning message reminding you about asking for support. This could easily be expanded to display when PMing any user.

Let me throw out a question. Why exactly is PMing staff for support against the rules?

*I don't know how much of an actual issue this is in terms of volume. If only a few users are getting a couple of support related PMs then it isn't really. Another poll could be 'How many users receive unwarranted PMs regarding support?'

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ferby
Member Avatar
Developer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Okay, I understand.

However, I also agree with Pete B (he posted as I was replying :P )
Edited by Ferby, Aug 31 2014, 05:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stephen
Member Avatar
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.

Pete: There has never been any reason a Post or PM could not be reported. Users use the Report button for topics that need to be closed for example. If a PM is asking for support and the user does not want it, then report it. Yes, PMs are logged. And at that point, we can see whether the user is sending excessive support PMs to other users or not. This does not need an addition to the rules however. The existing rules cover it. And again, it's not going to stop new members who don't read the rules to begin with.

As to your question on staff sanctioned authority, the existing rule states: don't encourage users who offer support via PM. So if a user, any user chooses to accept PM support and later chooses not to, it creates the contradiction I referred to and some users, based on the history and actions of other past users, may more aggressively use such a rule as implied staff sanctioned authority rather than simply report it. As to enforcement, Staff Enforcement IS relevant. It's the key in fact. If you add a rule that will not be enforced, what is the point of the rule? The rule has no power.

Finally, to answer your question: It's for the same reasons we say in the rules not to encourage users who offer support via PM.

A rule change should be instituted if it can resolve a problem. Instead, this will not solve anything. The existing rules cover the instances referenced.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JadedOne
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
I had a stranger on here PM me a few times asking me to log into their board to add/edit codes for them after they saw me respond to a few posts on here. I finally told them no, what they were doing was putting their board in danger and blocked them. So I get how annoyed and frustrated Ferby is.

Ferby maybe you could put that request about PM'ing above your banner and put it in bold lettering? It might cut out some of the unwelcome PMs.
Edited by JadedOne, Aug 31 2014, 11:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ferby
Member Avatar
Developer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
JadedOne
Aug 31 2014, 11:39 PM
I had a stranger on here PM me a few times asking me to log into their board to add/edit codes for them after they saw me respond to a few posts on here. I finally told them no, what they were doing was putting their board in danger and blocked them. So I get how annoyed and frustrated Ferby is.

Ferby maybe you could put that request about PM'ing above your banner and put it in bold lettering? It might cut out some of the unwelcome PMs.
Yes and no. I've already been notified that my signature cannot be too big and I'm not willing to remove The Nerd Domain from my signature just to ask members not to PM me. It's unfortunate that this is a problem because I do like providing support but not being asked to do so.

One question I do have for staff is when you say there's no use changing a rule because it would have no effect, you also say that you still get messages for support yourselves (or at least Ryan said). That would mean the rule is ineffective for you as well so what's the use having it then if it has no effect?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonathan
Member Avatar


Support tickets, forum violations, bug squashing and other ad-hoc jobs generally take up quite a bit of time for staff, so removing the rule would invite more members to ask for PM support. The rule might be ineffective, but it's still a rule. Providing support through PM is very ineffective in most cases.

Members are free to answer support questions via PM if they don't mind doing so, just so long as it isn't encouraged (I.e. "Send me a PM if you need help!" In your signature).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ferby
Member Avatar
Developer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
But you do not encourage (or recommend any users to encourage) members who provide support over private messages and yet you're clearing a path way for them to do so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonathan
Member Avatar


Because there are instances where PM support might be preferred or accepted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ferby
Member Avatar
Developer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Jonathan
Sep 1 2014, 08:23 AM
Because there are instances where PM support might be preferred or accepted.
Then surely it would be down to the user to decide if it's acceptable or not. I've been provided support over PMs before from staff yet the rules state they cannot. This isn't just one-time support where I've targeted them, they've offered me help. It'd be the essentially same thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stephen
Member Avatar
Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall.

Unless you want Nicolas and myself going into PM logs daily and reading everyone's personal messages, we simply can not moderate PMs unless they are reported. The rules already state not to encourage users who offer PM support. And they already state not to PM staff for support. But ultimately, users still do both. However, if you ask a user not to do it, most times after the first offense, they stop. Repeat users you use the report button for and we handle. This is the current state of things. A rule alteration will not alter this state at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
.Reverie.
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
I think in the already present notification should include any members as well. And then link to the ticket area or something.

The most anyone can do is ignore PM's, if they continue to have an issue they will eventually go to the forums hopefully. If you do not like ignoring just have a message ready to copy and paste saying "Please request in the right area and I can see what i can do," Or something along those lines.

However I did vote yes, but I think simply fixing the notification would rightly do it justice as well. I mean most people who do use the PM system will not read the notification either, but there is a chance it will be noticed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ferby
Member Avatar
Developer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
.Reverie.
Sep 1 2014, 01:09 PM
I think in the already present notification should include any members as well. And then link to the ticket area or something.

The most anyone can do is ignore PM's, if they continue to have an issue they will eventually go to the forums hopefully. If you do not like ignoring just have a message ready to copy and paste saying "Please request in the right area and I can see what i can do," Or something along those lines.

However I did vote yes, but I think simply fixing the notification would rightly do it justice as well. I mean most people who do use the PM system will not read the notification either, but there is a chance it will be noticed.
I very much agree with you.

What I ask, as a compromise then, is to have a message appear to all members who decide to message me that I do not wished to be bothered about support unless it's about my own code, and that anyone who wishes to opt into this may do so by contacting the support team. I've taken the time to draft up a Terms of Use for my codes (much like what ksh has in his signature) that I'll allow any other coder to use if they want to. It's not as effective as I would like it to be but I'd like something in place to either reduce requests or to not condone it. I'd much like to continue to provide support out of my own free-will but being bothered to do so demotivates me.


Would the staff like to give their opinion on this? http://bit.ly/1AgK7oe
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Service Discussion and Feedback · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2