Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace
Again.
The banner case is a team decission and if you dont believe that I cant help that.
Discussing cases in "public" isnt something we do since the NDA doesnt allow us too.
|
Obviously NDA doesn't allow you to discuss the case in public. However, I'd really expect that the NDA does allow you to convey the reason of a particular warning to a customer (how on earth could a customer know what (s)he did wrong if you weren't allowed to?). From here on, it's the customer's descision whether or not (s)he wants to announce the descision in public. In this case, he's done so.
You're really performing great acts of escapism if you're going the route that you're implying there was more to the deletion of the banner than butter gave out (which would imply that you aren't indeed telling your customers exactly why you're deleting their banners for), or, alternatively, that butter was speaking off her mind (thus implying that the banner wasn't removed for the reason butter gave to the customer, which would then result in a grand act of unprofessional behavior on the side of butter blatantly lying to a customer on a case where the customer's being punished for misbehaviour).
Really, Captain Planet, even with the chivalric rescue vibes, how hard is it to actually convey the customer the actual reason of the punishment (here; removal of the banner), and why isn't a multihunter capable of doing it reliably (here: butter)? You should seriously either consider sacking these completely incompetent multihunters (butter) for not being able to tell the truth to the customers, or revise your NDA (if you're actually not allowed to tell your customer the collective reason to your collective descision).
Phew. God. You'd have career in People's Republic of North Korea.