@Sabertooth I didn't say anything about the company's service levels or whether they would fit into your business model. I was simply responding to your use of the words derisive & shrewd. Nothing in the paragraph you quoted could be construed as expressing contempt or ridicule i.e. derisive. If by shrewd you meant characterized by a sense of the practical, then I agree. However, I'm guessing you meant the more negative definition of cunning practices and trickery. In fact, when I read that paragraph I see a company trying to set the expectations of the customer, upfront, so that everyone is on the same page. They have a goal to respond within 4 hours, but they ask your understanding that it may take a little longer after rolling out a new product or upgrade. Again, if that doesn't fit your business model, then you don't have to use their product, however, I don't see where they were being derisive. As far as guaranteeing they can resolve the issue in 4 hours, does your agency guarantee that they can resolve an issue within a given timeframe before they even know what the issue is? I doubt it. Let's take this to the farthest extreme, just to make a point. Let's say I contact your agency and tell them my toilet's clogged. If your agency had a stated policy to resolve all issues within 4 hours, you'd have to get my toilet cleared within 4 hours, even though that issue is totally outside the scope of your responsibilities. Of course, you could add all sorts of disclaimers related to the scope of the issues the guarantee applies to, etc. etc. but I would expect that to be in a contract, not as part of a generic paragraph simply trying to set expectations. Now let's bring that back a bit closer to the subject at hand. I call a database application vendor and tell them that the response time on my queries has increased from .5 secs to over a minute. Without knowing if the problem is application related, network related, customer equipment related, whatever, how could the vendor guarantee a resolution time? Now take that back one step farther, before the customer even calls the vendor: Are you expecting the vendor to guarantee, on their website, that they will resolve all issues with a specific timeframe? That is an unreasonable expectation – unless it is stated in a contract with a specific price and specific consequences if the contract is not honored. To sum it all up: 1 - Nothing in the vendor’s words are abusive or contain trickery . 2 – If the levels of service offered – and clearly stated up front – don’t fit your business model, don’t use them, but also don’t denigrate their company simply because they don’t fit your needs.

0

I'll keep this simple to keep the argument within the topic. I'm not out to slander the company in anyway & I'm not exactly sure where you are explicitly getting that from. My comment -- taken in full context -- was not intended to be interpreted that way. Recalling the original sentence without deliberately leaving anything out ... I did state that the support page's layout was ideally professional & well laid out nonetheless. If response #2 was purely about defamation as you so claim, there won't be anything positive in the comment. I even prefaced my comment by asking seawatch1 if they'd tried to contact Ashlar in the most effective way, despite his OP that states they haven't gotten an acknowledgement of the problem reported, let alone, a response by phone or email. The OP is not a newbie on CN & I'm sure if he/they weren't frustrated or close to it, he wouldn't have posted here about it & contacting support on a $4000.00 software shouldn't be that convoluted. While I agree with you that we all have different standards & expectations & it's better to be aware of what these expectations are upfront & also agree that "without knowing if the problem is application related, network related, customer equipment related, whatever, how could the vendor guarantee a resolution time?" Although, I'm lost on the relevancy of the assertion since you seem to indicate that your argument isn't about the company's service levels which is what I was highlighting. To use your clogging analogy -- even though it isn't really applicable here -- I wouldn't be satisfied with whomever is supposed to be responding to such complaints -- expectations or not. At the very least, there should be some type of acknowledgement of the problem reported & that didn't happen with the OP's issue here. As far as we know, the OP was not even sure if anyone was aware of the licensing problem reported since there was no response whatsoever before he decided to post here. In other words, if he's not sure anybody got his message, when does the so-called 4hr buffer time start & how is anyone supposed to know when it does? If your toilet's clogged and you emailed or left a message with the plumber, you don't sit there - after several hours or days - if he hasn't called you back to acknowledge or discuss the problem. You find another solution & you don't call him first in the future. You may not be able to fix the problem immediately, but l need to know you are aware of what the problem is & you are working on it, regardless of your upfront expectation ... if we are going to invest several $1000.00's on your products/services that's not too much to ask for -- If you think it's too much hassle, we'll vote with our feet. Windows 7 News!

0

OK. I'll keep it very, very simple: What, in the paragraph that you quoted, was: 1 - derisive 2 - shrewd You have an asterisk next to "derisive" and an asterisk next to a paragraph stating their service level goals, so I can only assume that you find something in that paragraph vocally abusive or expressing contempt or ridicule, as per the definition of derisive.

1

Simply put, the passive nature of their support goals can be improved upon. It reads more like a clause as-is. Their point could have been better conveyed by stating: Our goal is to respond to, and try to evaluate or resolve or whatever most questions within xxxx business hours (Monday-Friday 9am-3pm Central Time). Tickets received immediately after a product or service pack release may take a little longer. No one wants a plumber whose sarcastic goal is to respond to, but not to necessarily resolve a clog as soon as possible. Windows 7 News!

0

Simply put: passive ≠ derisive passive ≠ shrewd passive ≠ sarcastic Sarcastic? Since you never answered my direct question related to your use of the words derisive and shrewd, I doubt you'll be able to point out the sarcasm in a clearly written expectation setting paragraph describing their support goals.

1

The OP got the help he inquired about & that's fair enough for me. I'm sorry to disappoint you if this isn't about you. I just don't feel like completely hijacking someone else's thread to help advance your pontificating agenda. Feel free to start a thread just for that if we can't agree to disagree. Windows 7 News!

0

Come on chaps, clearly you disagree on this one and it looks as if the situation will remain that way. What is good is that the posters query was satisfied so quickly. I have a similar problem in Italy, where a hardware dongle that fits on (I think ) the printer port, was provided for a expensive dos program, but now the os is windows the dongle cannot be accessed. Thus the program cannot be used. Of course one could buy (at considerable expense) the latest version of the program, but one would think a mod would be availabe for the original program. Regards - Mike

0

To paraphrase Maxwell Smart... "Ah, the old I'll find an excuse to end the discussion so I don't have to admit I'm wrong trick."

-4

Is all this really necessary? I got the help I need and I thank you. We were the unwilling, led by the unqualified, to do the unnecessary, for the ungrateful. VietNam War Poster

0

Necessary? No. Fun? Yes.

0