h a l f b a k e r y"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
It often takes courage for a victim to come forward and take action against an attacker. It is dangerous to speak up and stand out. For example, a robber who gets arrested after your tip will likely learn your name in the course of the trial and might take revenge.
I suffered a very minor version
of this dilemma recently, when a book I had ordered online never arrived, and my e-mails to the sender were never answered. I could have blackened the sender's reputation using the trust system on the site, but what if they accused me back? Who's to say that my word can be trusted while theirs cannot? Were the few dollars I lost really worth aggravating someone who, for all I knew, both was a thug and knew my address?
To combat this tendency,
introduce fake, non-violent evil into the system.
Advertise this widely.
Make disappointment a much more frequent experience, and openly reward people who complain about being cheated in the fake instances. Not for their courage - it would simply be a kind of lottery.
"We will prevent one of hundred books being delivered. If you complain about that, you'll get your order and a $25 gift certificate."
That means that if I feel cheated, there is a large chance that this is just a test, and I'll be much more likely to complain in an attempt to get my reward for calling on the fake cheater. If I end up blackening some *real* cheater's reputation by accident, the cheater has no reason to take revenge; they were exposed by mistake.
Note that once everybody knows that this is being done, it can stop happening.
[I agree with many of the commentators that there are other ways to improve both one's own safety when dealing with other people online (use services that guarantee your money back if you're dissatisfied), and to improve a customer's perceived safety (a responsive and respectful customer service that follows up on complaints, for one).]
[link]
|
| |
I like the idea but it would really suck if you were waiting eagerly for your package to arrive and happened to be the unlucky one in a hundred. |
|
| |
True. It would be better for this to happen somewhere where you don't lose by having to wait - maybe where the crime is an event, not an absence. I just couldn't come up with a good non-violent eventful crime. |
|
| |
Works in the book example, but the 'fake murders' scenario gets a little distressing. :) |
|
| |
One way to let yourself off the hook is to use the very 'exposed by mistake' theory you propose: |
|
| |
Complain loudly that you don't get a second chance to check the delivery address you supplied (or something similar). The cheater has no reason to take revenge when the fraud is revealed since you assumed they did the right thing and that it was simply 'the system' that failed. |
|
| |
HB is definitely the home for ideas where "Fake [thing] protects real [action]." |
|
| |
+ for a new flavour of this HB theme. |
|
| |
This seems to me an interesting twist on the security X-Ray machines that insert fake images of guns and knives to see if operators are awake. In both cases a suitable response is sought to be provoked from a fake event. + |
|
| |
//Were the few dollars I lost really worth aggravating someone who, for all I knew, both was a thug and knew my address?//
I don't know whether the facility is available in the States, but in th UK you can rent a PO Box number, a mail drop in effect, and just collect any deliveries from the Post Office rather than using a home address. Not really worth it for a one-off but if you don't like giving out your home address to complete strangers then it's a good option.
//"We will prevent one of hundred books being delivered. If you complain about that, you'll get your order and a $25 gift certificate."//
I like the intent of the idea but what happens if you don't complain? Does the book get delivered anyway? If so then it undermines the point a bit, doesn't it. If not then that's fraud. Logic trap. |
|
| |
I think I'm missing something crucial here, but your reward for being a complainant should be the resolution of your complaint. Some companies offer equitable consideration such as free shipping, a higher quantity without a raise in price, faster shipping at no additional charge, et cetera.
Your word against theirs? The proof is in the VISA receipt. You can prove that you were charged for goods/services not delivered - - they can't prove delivery. Regardless, there are still many mechanisms to prevent fraud and many ways to hold corporations and individuals accountable for poor service. To actually require a reward for demanding a company make good on their contract seems lazy. You get what you ask for. |
|
| |
In a related story, a friend of mine recently purchased a computer (the deal was 'too good to be true!') from a disreputable online firm. He faced similar hopeless feelings. He asked my advice and I told him to go through his credit card company. He had a full refund by the end of the week, courtesy Visa. Because I'm a vile bastard, I also tracked down the owner of the company. Within an hour of my friend discussing the problem with me, I sent my buddy the Owner's personal e-mail address, home address and home phone number (to even the score in terms of 'a thug knowing where you live'. He had the same concern.) Gotta [-] until I understand. |
|
| |
Looks like you're talking ethics and detective work, I'm talking game theory. |
|
| |
I like it [jutta], seems to be a very workable approach. Whether the company would accept the damage to their bottom line is another matter. At the moment you getting burnt costs them nothing. Bun nonetheless. |
|
| |
I'm talking about business, cost vs. benefit, and human nature.
- Such a policy would encourage customer complaints. Customer complaints make a company look bad. Companies don't want complaints.
- A company who will take your money, fail to deliver, and then ignore your correspondence >doesn't care what you think.< They will not reward you for complaining
- Customers don't want bad service. A company implementing such a policy would pledge a certain minimum percentage of patrons would receive substandard service (in addition to regular mistakes.)
The application isn't feasible IMHO. |
|
| |
//it would really suck if you were waiting eagerly//
Subtle tweaks could help avoid this. For instance, if you pick "next day" shipping, it might automatically drop your order from fake fraud consideration. |
|
| |
Ah ha! now I understand why some of my ideas got so many fishes - you were just testing me weren't you Jutta? And to think I never complained about the bakery system mis-applying fish - what would my reward have been? |
|
| |
I think it would backfire. So much
extra noise in the system would
get annoying, and I'd stop
complaining about any of it. |
|
| |
That, and some people (more than presently, I imagine) would try to complain even when they get what they paid for. |
|
| |
[zen_tom]: how can you market human frailty? Customer service is already a marketing staple. |
|
| |
Every decent company I know wants customer complaints (except maybe Apple). They want the opportunity to interact with their customers and makle things right. What they absolutely don't want is customer apathy. In fact, there are gurus who speak of the magic of "creating complaining customers" as a lofty goal. |
|
| |
I like this notion and wish I knew a way to try it out on a decent scale and study the outcome. |
|
| |
"Thank you for complaining about our,
um, service issues. We are more than
delighted that you take an interest in
our business and for that we are
obliged to offer you our company
branded cement shoes as our special
gift to you. Those who receive this free
gift are also ellegable for our late night
cruise by the scenic East River." |
|
| |
I can see where some companies may
take an approach closer to your
suggestion rather than this scenario
above. + |
|
| |
They do try to make right when they are
in the wrong. |
|
| |
Not sure but they did horrible damage to themselves by appearing as if they just couldn't be bothered by their end users and even their dealers. |
|
| |
The "invention", if there is one, is a game-theoretical trick that can be applied to systems that match a certain formula. So, the implementation depends on the surrounding system. You reward players who do something that, when done frequently, tips a system's balance towards extreme cooperation. |
|
| |
Let's say there's a species of inedible poisonous snake that you want to exterminate, and another species of snake that looks like the poisonous snake, but is perfectly harmless and, in fact, tasty. (An instance of "mimicry.") You want to convince the local predators to go for snakes that look like the poison snake. So, my idea is to import lots and lots of the harmless snakes. Both get eaten. Sometimes, a predator hits something inedible, but the abundance of good food that looks the same makes it worth trying. The overall number of dangerous snakes decreases. |
|
| |
The overall number of dangerous snakes may have decreased, but very likely the number of total snakes in the area has increased by virtue of the introduced species and its reproduction. And that's just BAD!...because we all know that all snakes are just plain good-for-nothing incarnate evil. I don't like this game. |
|
| |
I neither said that nor believe it. (The line you quote doesn't mean that.) |
|
| |
This strategy should also be effective
for workplace sexual harrassment -
another nonviolent "crime" where the
victim does not take action because of
feared reprisals. |
|
| |
yes, I'll just harrass somepeople to make them more likely to complain... |
|
| |
The revenge thing: People often don't require a locical reason to seek revenge. |
|
| |
yes, I'll just harrass somepeople to make them more likely to complain... |
|
| |
The revenge thing: People often don't require a logical reason to seek revenge. |
|
| |