People who think CS is "NotAlwaysRight.com"

[Gravekeeper]

Right, plus you were in the overnight shift. Certain people who buy pants at 2am must have a few bolts loose. I wonder if the day shift ever got Vick.

That client eventually cancelled because of Vick and his assorted crazies. As well as the stalker incident which I believe I detailed before on CS.

I'm sure with many of these BS stories on CS, there's some half truth to the story (there was a customer who took the misplacement of a sign personally and with extreme rage... but the cashier didn't tell her to f-off, and there was no police officer conveniently in the line who remembered the customer's face on some outstanding warrant memo he received the week before.

Yeah, either they try to top Vinegar Boy, or the latter half of the story reads like a revenge fantasy. >.>

Yeah... sorry to hear that.

Let this be a lesson to all, this industry WILL break you.

I can't return to the customer service industry now after the PTSD diagnosis. I need a new outlet for my lunacy. ;p

[Gilhelmi]

I could understand someone just finding CS, and posting stories from the last 10 years.

I have, for example, posted about some of my US Army experiences. I left the Army in 2012 and some of my stories go back to 04'-05', with many in-between.

So it is possible that someone has a dozen stories, from the last several years.

[TheHuckster]

I could understand someone just finding CS, and posting stories from the last 10 years.

I have, for example, posted about some of my US Army experiences. I left the Army in 2012 and some of my stories go back to 04'-05', with many in-between.

So it is possible that someone has a dozen stories, from the last several years.

That's true. When I posted stories on CS I had a backlog from my days in retail 10 years prior. I think a lot of the stories that bring up the BS meter are those that just seem so contrived. As Ree mentioned about comparing it to "notalwaysright.com" the issue isn't even that the stories are outrageous, but more about the resolution of the stories.

I don't want to cite examples, since I'm not sure if that would be breaking the rules around here, but the few stories that I've seen on CS that Ree might be talking about are those that almost seem ripped off of notalwaysright. One of the reasons I hardly ever go on the notalways sites anymore is because half of the stories are almost repeats of prior stories.

Like, okay, I'm sure at some point in history, a customer said something nasty about the employee in a foreign language, and they became red-faced when that employee says "have a nice day" in a perfect tongue in that foreign language. But to have at least one of these occurrences every month, as it seems to happen on notalwaysright? Seriously?

Or the customer who mistakes a fellow customer for an employee. Yes, that happens to me from time to time, and when I inform them of their mistaken identity, they laugh it off and move on. And, again, at some point in the past there might have been someone with a few screws loose who didn't believe the customer and told management to "fire" them... but this seems to be reported on notalwaysright way too often to be at all believable, especially when the dialog is almost word-for-word identical to the last.

And I'm not the type who doubts every story, because I myself have had crazy things happen to me, both on and off the job. But it's when the story is almost written as if it used Gustav Freytag's principles of plot development that I start to wonder how much of the story is true.

[Ree]

^^^^^
Yeah, what TheHuckster said. Also:

I'm sure with many of these BS stories on CS, there's some half truth to the story (there was a customer who took the misplacement of a sign personally and with extreme rage... but the cashier didn't tell her to f-off, and there was no police officer conveniently in the line who remembered the customer's face on some outstanding warrant memo he received the week before.

(And Gravekeeper)

Yeah, either they try to top Vinegar Boy, or the latter half of the story reads like a revenge fantasy. >.>

[Seshat]

Ironically, I posted one of my stories on Not Always Related, and got shot down as unbelievable.

Well, it was about ME, so I guess maybe it was unbelievable.


In case anyone's curious:

Mum was washing the walls (old house, I guess they needed it). I was somewhere between 4 and 6 - not yet in school, and we moved into that house when I was 4.
I was 'helping', the way a child that age does.

Me: Mum, does God like clean walls?
Mum: Why don't you ask him?
Me (goes just outside, shouts to the sky): God, do you like clean walls?
Me (comes back inside): He said he does.

Time passes.

Me: Mum, does Santa like clean walls?
Mum: Why don't you go ask him?
Me (same): Santa, do you like clean walls?
(pause)
Me: No, not you God! You've had your turn!

[Peppergirl]

I guess that's just the double-edged sword that the FTSTS rule is.

Trust me when I tell you that there are times that we mods collectively want to high-five someone for employing the FTSTS toward a strongly-suspected bullshit story, but unfortunately have to reign ourselves in and act accordingly publicly.

[kaycivine]

Trust me when I tell you that there are times that we mods collectively want to high-five someone for employing the FTSTS toward a strongly-suspected bullshit story, but unfortunately have to reign ourselves in and act accordingly publicly.

I'm going to be honest and admit I had to google what the FTSTS rule was

[Peppergirl]

Ah, we should have spelled that out. Not every one has been around a super-long time and knows what it means. Sorry!

[TheHuckster]

Thankfully there are still some good stories on CS.com that can be considered plausible. I especially enjoy the stories from people whose jobs simply tend to attract the worst of people. You just have to weed out the noise from those who try too hard to weave a yarn.

[SkullKing]

Plus my output has completely stopped since I was grievously disabled for obvious reasons. I haven't been back to work in just over a year now.

What obvious reasons? (sorry, I am a bit slow)

Ah, we should have spelled that out. Not every one has been around a super-long time and knows what it means. Sorry!

Since I had to google it too I am spelling it: "Failing to see the suck" rule. Essentially don´t tell anyone you fail to see the suck in their story

[HYHYBT]

You know, it's not true that you have to enforce that rule. You could revoke it; you could alter it to allow leeway for legitimate questions; you choose not to. That's your choice, and you have reasons, but it IS a choice and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. Collective "you," of course.

(And unless you reply with nonsense, that's all you'll hear from me on that in this thread, because we've had this argument before.)

[Peppergirl]

Alrighty, then. Seriously, thanks for making me howl with laughter.

[Peppergirl]

Whew - now that that's out of my system.

When I signed up to be a mod, I agreed to uphold the rules of the forum. Most rules I agree with, some I don't. There are many times I would much rather let a thread go to shit, with people slinging poo back and forth, simply because (on a personal level) I happen to agree with the person who broke the rule.

However, as a mod, it's my job to uphold the rules of the forum. If I 'chose' not to, then I'd have to leave my post as a mod. It's as simple as that. I choose to stay as a mod, and therefore I choose to uphold the rules of the board.

I'm really not sure how that equates to us (collective us) being dishonest when we say that there are often times that we personally agree with the person who broke the rule.

[EricKei]

(note - I'm a mod over at CS, so I'm posting from that POV for the purposes of this response only, by request)

HYHYBT- Actually, yes, it IS the case that we need to enforce the FTSTS rule, along with all of the others. When we signed up to CS, or to here, or to anywhere else, we agreed to abide by all of the rules, whether we agreed with them or not -- and those of us who signed up to be mods, by extension, agreed to enforce all of the rules, for the same reason.

If abiding by any given rule was a breaking point for me as a user, I'd stop posting at CS/wherever. If enforcing a rule was a breaking point for me, I would take it up with the site owner (Raps) and, if he were willing to alter whichever rule it was, discuss it with the admin and mod team to see if anyone else felt that way, and to discuss possible changes, if so. If, as a result, the rule was to remain as it was, I would simply step down as a mod. If I am not willing to enforce those rules, I should not be in the position of "Moderator" and have that nifty banner underneath my handle.

That being said, as for FTSTS in particular, yes, I DO think it's a perfectly valid rule for CS, though it would not make sense at many other boards. The whole point of the forum there is to allow people to talk about things that have happened at their workplaces, or seen elsewhere (for Sightings), and to be able to do so without fear of getting flamed into oblivion for the high crime of blowing off some steam and ... 'embellishing' the facts, so to speak. (Blatant fiction on the site is another issue, but I digress).

Put simply, FTSTS is nothing but flaming by another name, and will not be tolerated. Flaming, trolling, & debating are expressly verboten over at CS (the last one is why we have Fratching). If someone doesn't like what the OP has to say, or thinks they're full of shit -- That's fine! That's wonderful! -- Then that person is both welcome to, and expressly expected to (by the rules), leave the thread without comment and go find something else to comment upon in a constructive manner.

[Peppergirl]

Thanks, Eric - you always sum things up better than I can, so I appreciate your input.

HYHYBT - my snarkiness aside, I was replying to your post before you edited it to add the 'leeway' thing. I actually can agree with that, believe it or not.

On a personal level, I do wish there were a way to pick and choose how to apply the rule and give leeway for certain circumstances, but we simply don't have the manpower to do so. FWIW, we do discuss each report and try our best to moderate the thread in question on a case-by-case basis.