Founders Message and Appeal: Community Dynamics

i just had to say your babies are adorable!

It seems to me that some members may want to remember that just
because an individual elects to provide their feedback to companies,
it does not necessarily mean they are seeking the feedback of the
community's members.

I have seen many times where an individual has posted a letter, only
to be immediately subjected to a barrage of hypercritical and personal
attacks. As justification for such conduct, the attacking member
inevitably replies, "You opened yourself up to attack when you chose
to make your comments public."

I would like to remind members that there are a great many reasons by
an individual might decide to make their comments public, other than
for the purpose of soliciting member feedback. Making comments public
empowers others who may have similar complaints or grievances. Public
comments hold companies to a higher level of accountability for their
actions. And public comments benefit all members and guests of the
community, by adding to the database of information and experiences
about companies.

Additionally, public comments provide an opportunity for community
growth and improved understanding of mutual goals, through
constructive dialogue that may benefit both the original poster and
the community alike.

I think Pete's pointhis plea to the communityis to keep conversations
constructive. Responding to posters by making such comments as
"You're being petty," or "You're being unreasonable" is not
constructive. Constructive comments look like this:

"I understand you concern and you make some valid points, but have you
also considered...?"

"I think your sentiment is right on the money, but I fear that your
worthwhile message may be overshadowed by your letter's tone."

The difference is, your comments are directed toward suggestions for
improvement rather than pointless personal criticisms.

As Pete pointed out, the purpose of this board is to serve as a
vehicle for communication between consumers and companiesa means for
providing consumer feedback to companies so that the quality of a
company's products and services may be improved, which in turn
benefits everyone. There are occasionally individuals who would abuse
this board's mission and purpose. Some may abuse it intentionally,
while others may do so inadvertently. If you run across posts that
you feel are detrimental to the community, just let admin know. It's
their job to deal with those issues. Our responsibility, as members
of the community, is to make positive contributions that benefit the
collective membersand those contributions come in the form of
constructive, supportive feedback. Through such actions, we become a
stronger community with a stronger voice. That benefits all of us.

If a an individual posts a public letter, try to make your replies
constructive and relevant to the posted feedback. Some people will
appreciate the feedback, others don't want it. That's okay, too. If
you feel a person is abusing the board's purpose, report it to admin
and let them handle the matter. It all comes down to treating others
as you would like to be treated.

Someone lost interest...

First, I disclose that I am one of those volunteers, albeit for
ShopperCast and not Planet Feedback.

OK, that said...

I posted this a bit down thread, but I want to repeat it because I
think it's so important.

I do not believe that the purpose of Planet Feedback is simply to let
companies know what we think of them. This is certainly a key part of
the site, but I strongly feel that it's not the ONLY purpose.

Call my cynical, but I believe that few companies reform. Sure, some
do. But it's foolish to think that Planet Feedback (or any other
similar site) is going to make a company "change their spots."

Verizon, Microsoft, and AOL don't, I'm sure, don't care one bit about
Planet Feedback. Sorry to say it, but I don't see any of these
companies changing their ways because of the several dozen letters
here. They rely on being big and being able to risk losing a certain
number of customers. Their cost equations say that it's worth losing
100 customers rather than give in to one. Why? Because when you give
in to one customer, you have to give in to all of them. Planet
Feedback, to some extent, hurts consumers.

For example, I recently posted about my positive experience with
Sprint PCS. While Sprint might appreciate the word being spread that
they are a good company, I wonder how many people are now calling
Sprint and saying "you gave Jeffrey a discounted out-of-cycle phone,
why not me?" My positive experience, when shared, makes it look like
Sprint gives out discounted phones just for the asking. Any customer
that is turned down is going to feel doubly bad... not only did they
not get what they wanted, but they feel like they are being personally
picked on. If Jeffrey gets a phone, why not me? Discrimination? Who
knows?

So...

I see another purpose in Planet Feedback and ShopperCast. It's to
create better consumers. If we teach each other how to be smarter,
how to work around the big corporations, and how to write better
letters... that's how we (as consumers) will win.

So, when someone posts a bone-headed letter, here, they need to be
told "hey, your letter sucks." They need to know that their letter is
going into the trash. They need to know that their grab at freebies
or their threats of lawsuits are HURTING consumers. When a consumer
blackmails a company into freebies, that means that legit complaints
are less likely to get recognition.

So, while I think we all agree that some of the comments are mean and
cross the line, I'd say that a significant number of the LETTERS are
totally inappropriate.

Therefore, I'd like to expand on Pete's request. Not only should we
try to foster a better community through comments, but we should also
do so through letters.

While I know Pete wasn't talking about administrators, I do think that
there needs to be a process to get any content, be it a letter or a
comment, removed quickly.

That includes, for example, letters that unfairly attack companies.
That includes, for example, these "I'm getting my lawyer" (see Phyllis
D) letters. That includes letters of pure nonsense (see Dickie H).

I'm not for censoring people's letters. However, if we are to have a
positive community, we need to get rid of the folks that write
horrible letters. They embarrass us all and harm consumers. In term,
and more to the point, they are magnets for harsh commenting.

I think the golden rule (or a cynics version of it) applies: expect
others to do unto you as you do unto them. In other words, if you
write an offensive letter to a company, expect to get back offensive
comments.

On the other hand, take the time to write a sensible letter and do
some basic proofreading (we all make mistakes) and I'll bet that the
harsh comments will be fewer. Eliminated? No. But fewer. And, to
compensate, there will be more positive comments to balance.

In the end, as long as there are (excuse me) moronic letters here,
there will be overly aggressive comments.

I appreciate that Planet Feedback does not have the financial
resources to review letters or comments. I appreciate that the reason
that some clearly over-the-top comments don't get pulled quickly is
because PF simply does not have the funding to pay full time staff to
deal with every possible issue. I also appreciate that it's a fine
line, sometimes, and even when a PF staff member is available,
sometimes a "wrong" decision is made. It happens.

Which, in the end, means that this is a user-policed site. And as
long as there are letters from people who are functionally illiterate,
letters from people who are looking for freebies ("freeloaders" as
Pete says), letters from people who are sue-crazy, or letters from
people who feel that curse words belong in business letters... there
will be commenters to match. And THAT is the community.

Perhaps Darwin is right. In time, we'll have scared away all the bad
letter writers. And those that will be left will be the most rational
and literate ones. And THAT... a cadre of educated consumers... is
really what we strive for.

Lastly, I'd like to put in a plug for ShopperCast. We've seen little
commenting traffic over there. Why? Because the posts aren't moronic
(he says modestly) and therefore aren't inviting the kind of chatter
that we get here?

Perhaps, in the end, what the commenters want IS to attack bad letter
writing. Not to chat about consumer issues?

A professor of mine turned me on to this website this past summer.
The class was called "Operations Management," and for a grade we had
to write either a letter of compliment or complaint to any company
that we wanted. The professor was trying to teach us that all
businesses really do care about customers' opinions. He proclaimed
that Planet Feedback was a powerful tool on the internet that helps
COMPANIES find out what people really think of their business.

I spent a lot of time on this website this summer reading and
responding to posts, honestly I haven't had time since school started
again, but I can see things haven't changed (or maybe they got a
little worse). I asked my professor how on earth this website could
be helpful when many of the letter writers get ripped to shreds by the
posters. I felt much better when he assured me that the companies
don't see the responses (only if they logged on to this website), only
the original letter. That's what makes this website so unique, first
there is a tool to have feedback directly provided to a company, and
then there is a forum for people to discuss their experiences. Don't
you all read Time Magazine? Don't you know "we" were the people of
the year...we have the power to really change things. Unfortunately,
it seems as if there are a few people who respond to letters on this
website who have no idea how businesses work and I found that very
frustrating.

It seems like there are many types of people who visit and comment on
this website. I was frustrated mostly by the disgruntled customer
service workers types. Now, I have been there...I began my "career"
at 16 working at a discount retail store for six years until I
graduated college for the fist time. It was a blessing that I was
passed up for a management position because I really don't have the
disposition to be working in retailso I understand the animosity.
But, after taking many business classes I have learned that most
customer problems are cause by some sort of "disconnect" that happens
at the companynot because the customer is simply a miserable person
and wants to make everyone else's life difficult. For instance, it's
never a customer's fault to have to wait 30 minutes to get a bill at a
restaurant, or to get a scowl from a cashier at a large big box storeI
would be very surprised if the employee training manuals state that
its OK to provide substandard service when the restaurant is busy or
it's OK to be rude to customers because you have had a rough day (or
the 50 other customers you helped before were rude, or you don't get
paid well, etc.). Companies need to know when things like this are
happening...and when the pattern is repeated, we all need to know
about it and take our hard earned dollars elsewhere. Planet Feedback
provides a wonderful outlet for this type of feedback. It is
discouraging when the posters jump down a letter writer's throat for
expressing dissatisfaction over a situation that doesn't seem worthy
(or if the letter isn't perfectly written).

Oh, and I also don't agree that it's always best to "ask to speak to a
manager" or to resolve problems on the spot. I'm not good with face
to face conflict, I get too emotionally worked up and aren't able to
hold my ground. I can form a much better argument if I have had time
to cool down and gather my thoughts...so it's not always helpful to
berate people for not speaking to a manager.

I've been thinking. I know, that's scary stuff, and it happens so
rarely that even I'm not sure what to expect. For what it's worth, I
think I'll share my thoughts. Stop me if you've heard this one.

When I am attacked (and I'm not saying I have been; we're in
hypothetical-land here), my first instinct is to defend myself. If
someone walked up to me and smacked me, my instinct would be to smack
them right back. If someone called me a nasty name or made cutting
comments to or about me, my instinct would be to return the favor.
This is my personal instinctive response to what I perceive as
mistreatment. I imagine that many others share this instinctive
response, since in a truly natural environment it made for a pretty
good survival tactic.

The fact that a behaviour is instinctive, however, doesn't always mean
it's desirable, or even particularly helpful. Just because I
instinctively fight back, that doesn't mean that I necessarily
*should*. Sometimes, in fact, I emphatically shouldn't. Sometimes
all fighting back accomplishes is escalation. When a conflict
escalates, it gets ugly. People get nasty, they carry grudges, and
ultimately they get hurt. So maybe it really is better to turn the
other cheek in some instances. Of course, that is sometimes
impossible (and I hate above all things being a doormat), so when that
happens, you have to either stand up for yourself or find someone to
protect you. In a community such as our own, it should be the job of
admin to protect the users from violations of the TOS, thus
eliminating the need or desire for escalation.

If someone threatens me in front of a police station, doesn't it make
more sense to go inside and tell the people whose job it is to protect
me than to try to slug it out on my own, possibly involving innocent
bystanders in my situation? Maybe, unless it is my perception that
the laws enforced by the police might not strictly speaking apply to
me.

Think for example of a political dissident (still in
hypothetical-land) who is being robbed, but feels that the police will
not protect him due to his opposing viewpoint. Might he decide to
take matters into his own hands and defend himself? He might just do
that. Would he be wrong? Maybe, especially if his fears of a lack of
protection from the authorities were based on false premises. The
point, though, is that the dissident just doesn't know. Is it
plausible to openly disagree and still expect the same protection as
those who applaud the decisions of the state? Or will he one day just
disappear if he seems to protest too much? If the dissident could be
assured that his rights would be protected just like any other
citizen, perhaps he wouldn't feel inclined to take things into his own
hands. For that matter, perhaps he would find he has more in common
with the goals of the state than he thought.

It seems clear that the instigators of the little flame wars that seem
to break out here should get their fair share of the blame. It also
seems clear that rising above is generally a better option than taking
the instigator's bait. What seems even clearer, though, is that in
those situations when rising above is just not an option, we need to
be assured of our protection before we decide to stop defending
ourselves. If we are given a clear message: x, y, and z are not
allowed and will be deleted, then we will have a good starting point
to actually have this discussion.

N.B. I'm not accusing anyone of anything here. I'm speaking in
generalities about some perceptions I've noted on this site. For the
record, I like just about everyone on this site, and wish absolutely
no one here any ill. I have been coming here pretty regularly for
over a year now, so it's clear you guys are doing a lot of things
right. I would love to see this problem addressed, and this site get
even better. Thanks for listening.

OK, people, that's a start, that's very Earth-friendly. Now everyone
join hands. Join hands, please. I'd like to lead you all in some
swaying. Come on, pay attention.

I said do it!

Suggestion: Since some have stated there are people who like to
respond to every letter that is posted, have you thought about
limiting the numbers of comments people can post in a given time
period - 7 days, 30 days?

Hello Pete...first off, cute family...secondly, my keys are sticking
so this posting will be devoid of capitalization and proper sentence
structure. sorry. anyway, back on track, i want to say to you, i've
been around for like 8 years now. i've seen a lot of changes, a lot of
comings and goings. i think a lot of people here are here just because
they want to slam the consumer. they work with the public IRL and
cannot say to them directly, "eff off", so they come here and hide
behind a keyboard and say it. Many letter writers, who do not deserve
it, get slammed. case in point; seanzilla who wrote a letter about
cici's. he did not deserve the crap that people leveled his way.
another letter, the woman had spent some minutes on about 10 differnet
occasions, trying to contact a corporation. she got slammed for
wasting time and how could she have all that free time, blah blah
blah....i popped over to a couple other consumer sites and saw that
the same restaurant and the same mananger, had been the subject of
complaint for other consumers long before this woman had dined
there... ironicaly enough, the people slamming her are here every
freaking day for hours! who is the time waster? anyway, i think that
there are quality posters here...some of them i didn't even like to
begin with but have grown to like now...mary jo comes to mind...i
think venice once called me an idiot, lol, but I like her a
lot....anyway, I am starting to babble...this is what i think; 1. i
would never write and share a letter here and that is sad!!!! 2. i
think MANY people have been scared off from writing letters here
because of shithead posters....3. while 'you should have asked for the
manager" is sound advice, no one should be encouraging people to NOT
write letters here..unfortunately, people are admonished constantly
about using this site to send feedback...4. there should be very clear
posting rules 5. a discussion forum with a 'free for all' would be
helpful....i.e. somewhere people can go and post what they really
wanted to say....yawn, i could say more, but i'm sleepy....and the
keys are sticking and annoying the eff of out of me...so, goodnight
all

Dear Pete,
I'm a new member of Planetfeedback, and posted my first letter,
Diabetic Aid Rerfusal, before I read the mission statement. I found
Planet Feedback because it was suggested as a way to remedy problems
with companies on another site. Unfortunately, as much as I'm aware
you'd probably want to know where, I have forgotten.
After getting dragged through the gauntlet by the commenters, I went
back and read the mission statement. I came to realize that the
personal stuff is not what you intended this site to be about, and
yet, if you get harangued, possibly it means that your letter was not
convincing.
I know I told the truth, but hardly anyone believed me. That is my
fault, because the Planet Feedback membership is probably made of the
same slice of the population you might find working in many customer
relations departments. It is the job of the consumer to make their
letter convincing, and it is good for us, for me, anyway to know
whether or not I've done that. High school tactics are going to be
used because unlike in a company, no one is going to be held
responsible for what they say, and in a way the audience is
challenging you to a sort of popularity contest. The result should be
that you learn, and I think I have. That's positive.
So what have I learned? Well, here's one. To be brief. The mob will
grasp onto any shred that's not perfect, and hammer you with it to the
exclusion of all the good points you've made. But, so will the
company. Each element you provide them that they know they're not
responsible for, is a weapon you're placing into their hands. Just
like the readers. So limit the letter to a few, concrete observations.

Yes, there are a few self appointed 'representatives' of the Planet
Feedback philosophy. A guy like me should take a look at them, see who
and what they are, and then go listen to someone who really has
something to say.
Or take a moment and have some fun at their expense! You know what
to expect, and that means you're one move ahead and can checkmate them
any time you want.
The chat room atmosphere doesn't go along with your mission
statement. But it may evolve, and if I can, I'm going to push it in a
forward direction.
I was a recent first time visitor, and didn't leave in total disgust
even if I was condemned before anyone had finished reading my first
sentance. But you know what? All my thoughts are now clearer than they
were before I showed up here, and that will serve me well in the near
future. Thanks.

Much like Chris, I too debated as to responding to this post. I am
doing so because I very much agree with the concept of Planetfeedback
and feel the correct form of participation is essential to successful
dialog.

I've also witnessed several examples of selective censoring. What you
are requesting will only seem to work when a set of guidelines are
equally and consistently enforced. Those who are favored need to be
held to the same standards as any other. And everyone should respect
the differing opinions of others.

Things are DONE rather.

Pete,

I debated whether to comment on your post or not, but decided in the
end that I would due to the fact that I made a sincere call out to you
a few times on here to rectify a situation.

I would like to echo what those have said before me, for the most
part. I do not know you well enough, to accuse you of blind faith.
However, that's what it often seems like when certain things can carry
on here by the site moderator unchecked. It's fair and healthy to
discuss what the "rules" and standards of PFB should be. I just think
it is also fair to expect that there would be a level of
professionalism from the top ranks. I think it is fair to say that
there are more than a handful of users that wish you would/could more
closely monitor what goes on here from an administration level. While
this is not the original topic of your letter, the administration sets
the tone for the website, and the idea of tone is part of the
dialogue.

With regards to moderators - I was one of the ones against them.
Maybe I was one of the few, or the many, who knows. I left the site
because of the idea. For what it's worth, I left because I disagreed
on the roles of the moderators, etc, but I felt it was perfectly
within your rights to do what you wish with the site. I am just the
user, no more.
I was not bitter or upset, nor was I against moderators because I was
worried about my posts. I just had issues with how it was handled
from start to finish and simply exercised my right to stop coming to
PFB.

First, the moderators just "show up" one day, like they were picked in
the middle of the night and sent off on a mission. Maybe I missed the
calling for people to apply, but it sure looked smelled of
preferential treatment. Maybe if you went back to moderators, you
could open it up for applications and let whomever is interested
apply. Even better, you could let the community look at the list of
applicatants and vote for the top 3,4, whatever that they want. In my
opinion, moderators chosen by their peers would have much better
success.

Next, you started seeing one moderator say something is off topic and
another go over his head and say something along the lines of "I don't
agree and it's ok to talk about". Moderators need to be marching to
the same beat and talk about differences "behind the scenes". I also
would think that moderators would be much better served just watching
out for violations, deleting the offending message and notifying the
poster. This is instead of the re-directing type posts that I always
had a chuckle at, such as "Ok, why don't we look at it this way
instead of being hard on Timmie about wanting free pancakes for
life".
Obviously I am exaggerating, but the point is, I think moderators
could do good, if their job was more enforcement and less
parent-like.

Finally, I would not be here if I did not honestly believe in the
site. I first used this site many years ago (2000 I believe) after
unsuccessful issues with T-Mobile (then VoiceStream). Only after a
PFB letter did I finally get my just refund. Since then, I have stuck
around through many iterations of PFB, and was sad when it went down
for awhile. One has to accept that this is as much an entertainment
site as it is a useful Consumer site. This is the nature of the beast
when you allow comments. However, without the commenting feature,
this site would be dead.

I know I have rambled on, something that happens with a topic of this
breadth and depth. Hopefully, you will have a moment to read this and
find at least one worthwhile statement or idea.

With Regards,
Chris

I guess I just don't understand why if admin posts something they
regret later, they can pull it. Or they can be mean to a commenter who
merely has another opinion, get nasty with them, tell them they are
free to go somewhere else, or that they will be banned...

I had a discrepancy with a post aimed my way, and anyone who saw it
can verify there was no way this person was talking to anyone but me.
I reported it, and a few others reported it as well, and were told
before it could be removed, it had to be approved by upper management
because we don't have moderators.

I copied the TOS, changed the color of the words in every way the post
was in violation, yet the post was allowed to remai up for about a
week. Had I known you were in charge, I would have gladly e-mail you,
but all I knew to report to were two people, one of whom never
responded at all, I assume it was the storm, and the other one
basically told me to shut up and suck it up, in other words.

It's some double standards. What does it take to get yo uto see that
the poeple you "trust completely" aren't fair to everyone? Do we need
to copy and paste all correspondence before they decide to randomly
pull it before it can be noticed?

I am not trying to come off harse, I just want to understand.

While I greatly appreciate you taking the time to address this issue,
the problem is this is a bigger issue then you have acknowledged. You
state that when a problem arises we should hold fire and let you all
know. You wish for us to stop the personal attacks. Yet when we do
contact administration with such complaints we are met with a wall.
Even e-mails directly to you have gone unanswered. Specifically
e-mails from me.

I can only speak for myself but I always hold myself accountable for
my words. I can't recall a one of my comments being removed by admin
but I have asked that my own comments be pulled because I crossed not
only the guidelines of the site but my own guidelines for the way that
I would like to treat people. It is hard to hold myself to those
standards when it seems as if no one is going to look out for me when
I am treated inappropriately. Additionally when one of us feels that
the person we are supposed to be e-mailing with these problems has
just added to the problem... what are we supposed to do?

The bigger problem is the fact that we don't know what we can or can't
say. E-mails to a certain member of admin have been met with "I'll
pass it along" resulting in HIGHLY offensive posts to stay around for
days, even as long as a week. Then we get told that we are "giving as
well as we got" or that we "asked for it" if we defend ourselves and
then the comments aren't pulled. Just last week I as well as a few
others approached a member of admin because he told another commenter
that if she didn't like the way he did things she was welcome to
leave. I was informed that if I didn't like what was said, I could
leave. And the trend followed down through the exchange to the other
posters who called this person's actions into question. That wasn't
until after I was threatened with banishment for simply questioning
this person's professionalism. You can bet your tushy that the entire
exchange was pulled by the next morning. What are our options when
such things happen? Who do we count on for help?

You wish for take a different direction with our commenting. I think
the only way for this to happen is for us and the administration to be
on the same page. That requires equality all around; for letter
writers, the commenters and the administration.

While I (and I'm sure everyone else) have no problem with there being
rules on what can and cannot be said, I personally have an issue with
the lack of consistency that the admin on this site have shown. Time
and time again, the same people get knocked for their comments while
many worse comments remain on the site, or are eventually pulled with
no further rebuke from the admin. I've seen one person's comment get
pulled, but the person that she supposedly "attacked by name" has done
exactly the same thing multiple times and her comments have and still
do remain. Rules aren't a problem; they're a good thing. Lack of
consistency leads to questions of personal vendettas and a preference
to new people over your regulars who have been around for a long time.


I would ask that admin be more consistent with their "discipline" and
that admin refrains from the same snarky behavior that they discourage
from commentators. Being told "if you don't like it, leave" makes
people want to, well, LEAVE. Who still says that? That's a comment
born of immaturity, not real managorial skills. I love this site and
have (up till now, let's see what happens with this one) not had any
problems with my own comments being pulled, nor have I been publically
berated as some others have, but it makes me uncomfortable. I'd just
like to see more consistency and fairness on the part of the admins.

Its good to hear from you Pete. We were all beginning to wonder if you
were still around or if you jumped ship.

You mention: excessive "freeloading,"

What is that, in this context? Just curious. Thanks!