Feedback talk:User/Silromenar Curutur/CRM Remediating Incorrect Punitive Actions

Proportionate response

I like the idea that ANet take more responsibility for suspensions/bans due to incorrectly reviewed case files. However, I agree with CRMs across the world that it's rarely appropriate to go beyond a formal apology.

Given the massive number of active players vs the all-too-many bots/gold sellers & rules violators, there is no way for any company to prevent mistakes. Since they allow an appeals process, we know that that many true violators are going to protect loudly and some legitimate players will give up in despair. The majority of the time, I think that all that is required by ANet is to offer a reasonable appeals process, quick reinstatement, and a formal apology.

I think ANet should only consider compensation when they fail to follow their own guidelines (and the player is punished as a result of repeated error on the company's part). For example, the case you cited: the reporter of wrong-doing was incorrectly identified as the violator and the case reviewer compounded the mistake by failing to correctly review the file.

How much compensation is appropriate? I think it should be proportionate to the situation. Lifted suspensions are merely inconvenient, so any compensation should be minor. If I were in charge, I would give the CRMs a small budget to address egregious mistakes and I would reward (a) the teams that didn't need to use it at all and (b) the teams that spent their budget appropriately.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Several of the issues you cite, I addressed in the suggestion, such as specifying the player suffering material damages, and saying that compensation should be appropriate to the damages.

Most CRM management-level people (from small business to Fortune 100 companies) I have talked with about internal incidents which materially impact their clients have stated that it is proper to go beyond just a formal apology IF company policy allows for it, and there is some avenue which won't cost the company significantly more than the impacted customer's business is worth. Some have even omitted that latter distinction, believing that one customer's goodwill is worth more than just that customer's business.

There is no way to 100% prevent mistakes. There will be mistakes, to be sure. That said, there are a number of ways to minimize the impact of said mistakes and, where said impact cannot be minimized below a minimum material threshold, a policy of compensation can be used to redress unreasonable negative consequences suffered by any particular player. Formal apologies should always be a foundational part of the process, however, where the mistakes merit going beyond such, the company should have a policy for such.

As for "formal" apologies, they should NOT be "form-letter" apologies. Nothing is emptier than an "apology" that required zero effort to copy/paste or automatically send out. If there is no genuine contrition or effort put forth by the company, then 1) there is no incentive to not repeat the errors, and 2) the customer most likely will be incensed even more. A real, live person needs to take the time to write out a letter, explaining how and why the error occurred, what steps will be taken to correct the process so that the likelihood of it happening again (even to the same player!) is minimized as much as humanly possible, and then do a proper 3-step apology, proactively offering compensation if the situation warrants such.

Material damages can sometimes be difficult to calculate where intangibles are concerned. However, for things like inventory and data loss, service denial, account loss, failed delivery of product from an online store, overcharging, multiple charges, et cetera, definite compensation value can be calculated. In the example which sparked this suggestion, using a litmus I established in another game, if the client is intentionally and incorrectly denied service for more than 12 hours (where the majority of that time is during an off-peak period), or 6 hours (where the majority of that time is during a peak period, or during an company-sponsored event), then compensation is due. For subscription accounts, we added an extra day to their subscription. For non-subscription accounts, we would give them some small in-game benefit, such as a small bump in what we used as "experience points". Further, if support management personnel failed repeatedly to correct an issue, and caused even longer service denial, then the customer was further compensated, up to and including a free month's subscription. This gave us a HUGE incentive to minimize what we called "repeats" or "cascades", because it would be costing the game owner REAL money. As a result of this policy (and proper management practices / support personnel training, plus quick response / escalation for these kinds of problems), we never had single "cascade" failure, at least during my tenure as CM.

I think the specific augmentation about giving support teams a budget which they are rewarded based on minimizing its use is a good one. However, you have to be careful to avoid the automatic disinclination for teams to bias their decisions on using it against the customers' justified needs. A system of review would need to be put in place where all denied cases would need to be reviewed by a party independent from the policy to be sure compensation wasn't justified. For cases which then were turned down improperly, the responsible team's budget would be docked double, and the customer credited with the proceeds.

Silromenar Curutur 18:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)