Posting CS agents' names

[#1]

4candles - If the rule didn't exist then there would be no need for mods to edit people's posts and no need to remind them of the rule.
I don't see any need for the agent's name to be on the ticket in the first place. If they didn't put their names on the tickets then there would be no need for a rule and no need for all the editing and annotating of posts.

And if they have no way to respond to the posts, that shouldn't matter. I'm sure I can find plenty of quotes posted on these forums from other people who have no access to them.

[#2]

I really think agents names on tickets is very important:
anonomous messages are so less customer friendly
if you reply, you need to see that the same person or someone different replied.
It enables you to praise or chastise if you need to elevate problem to management.

[#3]

Quote from: geewizz

I don't see any need for the agent's name to be on the ticket in the first place. If they didn't put their names on the tickets then there would be no need for a rule and no need for all the editing and annotating of posts.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like to deal with real people, even if it is via an electronic ticket.
On videos, blogs, EODs, Usenet and forums internal and external, PN staff are painstakingly transparent and accountable. On my tickets, they make themselves accountable to me. Should I wish to 'publish' a ticket, there are potential problems, outlined in this thread, if the agent's name is included.

[#4]

After giving some thought to this subject and seeing the pro's and cons on both sides I would suggest a slight variation. If a ticket is quoted verbatim (in quotes) then the CS name can be included, however if it is just an extract or comment then it must not be used. The reasoning behind this is that the person said what they said and it can be verified by other Plusnet staff to be accurate. However if the full message is not used then this could easily change the context of what as been said and I do not thing it is right that an actual person be linked to those comments on an open forum. It also means that people can't post targeting individual staff members.

[#5]

That still doesn't answer the point of a ticket they answered poorly when they had only just started and then someone looking many months later.

[#6]

*techguy suits up in F1 drivers fireproof  overalls and prepares to comment
I think geewizz just wanted a bit of trolling action as to be honest, the question has been answered comprehenively by myself and others.

[#7]

I don't think that Geewizz is trolling here, and would suggest that such comments are a little harsh.
What he is doing is playing "devils advocate" though, which I see no wrong with.
Shall we let the matter drop there now..?

[#8]

apologies for the harshness but yes think we should

[#9]

How about this then? http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,69990.msg563193.html#msg563193
Same issue, different angle.Why should people feel so intimidated by rules that have no reasonable excuse for existing in the first place?
I'm still waiting to hear a good reason (or the "official" reason) why CS agents' names have to be excluded from every quoted ticket.That's not playing devil's advocate, it's simply questioning something that i feel hasn't been addressed.

[#10]

The fact that Agent's can't reply themselves is a good enough reason for me, it is clearly not a good enough reason for you though.

[#11]

... and before someone asks why they can't reply, would you rather they spent their time answering tickets and calls or trawling the forums in case someone has made a post referring to them?

[#12]

These are the community forums for discussion amongst those who choose to take part. It's not an official support channel. What is discussed is what the agent said and that is open for discussion whether their name is on it or not. The actual name of the agent is in most cases completely irrelevant. As far as most of us are concerned, the communication quoted is from someone in Plusnet and that is all that we are interested in.
What difference is there between posting a quote from a CS agent and posting a quote from another website, say a news item, which has the quotes attributed to names of people who do not use these forums?
My point is that the editing of posts is excessive interference for the sake of a rule that appears to be meaningless.
That is why I asked the question.
I can see from the replies that there is a lot of support for the rule from a lot of posters who don't like the rules to be questioned and consider it some sort of an affront. I didn't intend to rile anyone into lateral thinking so I'll close my questioning and leave you all to enjoy your forums the way you like them.

[#13]

Quote from: Peter

The fact that Agent's can't reply themselves is a good enough reason for me, it is clearly not a good enough reason for you though.

If it is good enough reason then equality for all and no names should be used on this forum unless the person is in a position to reply.

[#14]

Quote from: geewizz

These are the community forums for discussion amongst those who choose to take part. It's not an official support channel. What is discussed is what the agent said and that is open for discussion whether their name is on it or not. The actual name of the agent is in most cases completely irrelevant. As far as most of us are concerned, the communication quoted is from someone in Plusnet and that is all that we are interested in.

Absolutely right, which is why the approved method is to post the ticket number - the response can then be easily located by another member of Plusnet staff if required.

Quote from: geewizz

What difference is there between posting a quote from a CS agent and posting a quote from another website, say a news item, which has the quotes attributed to names of people who do not use these forums?

The difference is that quotes on another website have been placed in the public domain, responses on tickets are not. They are visible only to the account holder and Plusnet staff.

Quote from: geewizz

My point is that the editing of posts is excessive interference for the sake of a rule that appears to be meaningless.

You might just as well say the police arresting someone for burglary is excessive interference. There is no point in having rules (or laws) if they are not enforced. The one thing that is guaranteed in both the laws of this land and the rules of these forums is that there is no interference if someone abides by the rules or laws.

[#15]

Quote from: jelv

...There is no point in having rules (or laws) if they are not enforced. The one thing that is guaranteed in both the laws of this land and the rules of these forums is that there is no interference if someone abides by the rules or laws.

True enough, but it does not stop you discussing said rules / laws, proposing changes and having those changes accepted so becoming the new rule / law.