And yet you still seem to ignore that the most absolutely on-point case - someone wanted by the US for violating the espionage act in a matter that was very personal to the US President at a politically sensitive time for him, was told to pound sand.
I mean, call me Mr Silly if you want, but I'd think that when we're talking about "Assange being extradited to the US for Espionage charges", the case of "American being extradited to the US for espionage charges" is a bit more relevant than "Egyptians being sent back to Egypt (with unproven US assistance) on the basis of some Egyptian allegations"
I mean, in one the only difference is the nationality of the subject (which makes the case - and precedent - stronger, while the other has the same sort of correlation you'd find between a facebook homeopathy group and the FDA on how to treat covid (the vaguest of similarities, but every detail and fact different)
It's not that you're trying to compare Apples and Oranges, it's that you're trying to compare Apples and Hay, and saying they must be similar because horses eat both.
I get why, as it was made a big deal of 10 years ago, when all this blew up, so it sticks in the mind, but it's a poor comparison at best, and if that is the best you can do to substantiate the position, that's not very strong, is it?
Also, it's almost always ONLY swedes that bring up the case. I can understand why - you feel a bit of shame for it - but trying to jam it into cases with little relevance to the ones at hand (especially when there are better ones) seem like nothing more than a weird form of flagellation.
Ah the Agiza case, it always gets held up as some kind of weird justification.
You did misstate the details of the case though (no worries, many who refer to the case do, it comes because they're repeating what they've been told, not what happened)
So, they were asylum seekers, which failed (one using forged documents) so they were sent back, after getting assurances from Egypt.
That's not the same as guy there, looking to be extradited to the US (possibly) for espionage charges.
literally the only thing in common between that case and assange is 'they were sent overseas' - not even the method is the same, trying to conflate repatriation with extradition.
By contrast, the Howard case is damned near spot on in terms of 'case on point', and the only difference is Howard was american, Assange is Australian.
You're trying to call a dog a hippo, because it also has 4 feet and a mouth, because there was a hippo 20 years ago, and a very similar dog was 30 years ago.
Stop taking their claims uncritically. They've been caught lying too many times.
The stroke was a very very minor one (basically a bad panic attack) - so minor it happened in october and they only broke the news when they did to try and go for sympathy, because they know the court would have asked independent medical experts who'd have said 'its nothing'. Or why else do you think they waited until after the verdict to release news of something that happened on day 1 of the hearing, that they claim impacts the hearing?
And the 'assasination' claim, its literally just 'pompeo talking shit'. As always. EVERYONE else shot hm down, it wasn't 'planned', or 'plotted', it was an insecure loser having a mastibatory fantasy. There was never any plotting or planning. Every claim there was is a fabrication of wikileaks, just like the whole 'Clinton droning him' thing, which was also a wikileaks invention.
Re: Re: What's a little torture of prisoners among nations?'
Is the freedom of press being destroyed though?
What Assange is being accused of is not what any responsible journalist would do. It's something journalism schools specifically say not to do... for this reason.
A lot of those making these claims are doing so on faulty information, treating wikileaks as an honest source, forgetting that they've been caught lying about their own cases in court too many times to count.
Multiple journalists went to prison, a major UK newspaper shut down. no-one claimed the 'end of a free press' then. why? Probably because News International didn't lie to other reporters as wikileaks has done.
"Only a denial of the claims. Which makes no sense for whistleblowers."
Good thing Assange isn't a whistleblower.
To be a whistleblower, means to be aware of conduct through your position, and then to 'blow the whistle on it' by revealing it to the public as an insider.
Worse for your claim, the timeline REALLY doesn't fit. Manning had cables/notes they tried to sell (!) to newspapers but they didn't want them, because they were nothing. ended up giving them away to wikileaks, who then wanted more, and so they got more, and eventually this video, which they edited to push the narrative of a "warcrime" by decontextualizing parts of it to give the desired narrative.
If it were whistleblowing, it'd be "manning finds video and wants to blow whistle on warcrimes shown in it, manning releases video to Assange who publishes it unedited"
When your justification for actions is claimed to be whistleblowing, but you don't get the thing you claim to be blowing the whistle on until after you've been pushing out other things, it just doesn't work.
Also, you don't seem to understand 'defense'. you don't get to defend yourself in an indictment because you literally don't. The defense is not there, the defendant is not represented because its only purpose is to show there's enough probable cause of a crime, no exculpatory counter-testimony (thats for trial)
What you're talking about is a particular kind of defense, a "public interest defense", which is also known as 'justification'. a "yes I did it but this is why' thing. Yes, thats not permitted under the law. But you do get a defense, you can question witnesses and evidence, undermine the process of getting them, question their accuracy.
You absolutely get a chance to defend yourself.
"They'd be less likely to roll over and hand him to the Americans than either the UK or Australia, that's for sure."
Well yes, that was his whole reason for applying for residency there. If only they didn't have those petty sex crime laws....
In fact (as he well knows) they absolutely don't extradite for these crimes. Had he been in Sweden, extradition would have failed, as they did for Eddie Howard, the only CIA officer to defect to the US. In 1991 he was arrested in Sweden in connection with espionage charges in the US for extradition. He was let go. That's despite him being a US citizen, and the espionage case being much stronger, PLUS it was 91 and Sweden was relying heavily on US protection if the soviet fall went really bad, OH, and can't forget that old 'presidential pressure', because what it was in Howard's case is like nothing else. Bush was working a re-election campaign, had been VP when Howard defected, and Ford's head of the CIA. Eddie Howard was PERSONAL to Bush.
And again, Assange knew this, he mentioned it at his press conference announcing his application for residency. It's what made his claim that he was fleeing to the embassy because of 'swedes handing him over to the US' so laughable (that and extradition law precludes handing people on)
Assange's problem is that he doesn't like being held responsible for his actions. he's always considered himself a genious, and if things went bad, it's someone else's fault, not his, so why should he have to pay the price. He's doing the work of God (himself) and how dare mortals with no vision get in his way. It's why wikileaks has had such a high turnover of people.
You never get a chance to defend yourself in an indictment, thats how they work.
And the 'accusations come from a fraudster paid by the CIA' is a claim made by wikileaks, and wikileaks only, and not based on any evidence.
"The same CIA who also plotted to assassinate him."
Yeah, they didn't. It's a constant claim by the social media accounts tied to Assange, but they all reference back to the same yahoo story, the story that no-one reads past the first paragraph or two it seems. Because if you'd read down to the meat of the story, you'd see that the 'assassination' was an idea spitballed by trump and pomeo, and shot down at every turn by those it'd have to pass. Basically, it was on the 'bleach and rectal lights to fight covid' level of consideration.
In short, there's basically 3 people that have strongly and repeatedly talked about assassinating Assange, Pompeo, Trump, and Stella Morris, and the first two stopped talking about it after being told it wasn't going to happen, but with the intensity and ferver she's been going on about it, it's almost like she's wanting it to happen.
Again, they're doing some disingenuous fudging of facts.
He didn't have a major stroke on Friday as the results came out, as you seem to think, He had a very minor stroke (Transient ischemic attack) on day 1 of the hearing, October 27th. If it were medically relevant, they'd have been shouting it at the time.
That they made the announcement when they did, shows its just for publicity, and sympathy, and to try and distract from what would be a major point in the reporting that - YET AGAIN - Assange's defense team lied to the courts.
Re: Lack of research from Mr Bode showing through again.
2500lb is a well accepted 'gut value' for a car. I think the actual average weight these days of new cars is 2800lb, but when you consider many older cars, it brings the weight down (my current car is 2350lb, I've had two volvos that were 2180lbs (the glorious 300 series), and a 140mph 4-seat car (MG Metro twin-turbo) that was 1850lb (including the extra engine stabilizers, intercooler, and a Citroen active antiroll suspension)
so yes, as a shorthand for car "2500lb death machine" is a well accepted common use reference to both average weight, and how easy it is for it to kill.
But if that's the ONLY criticism you could manage to actually level (that you don't understand idioms), says a lot about how good the article was.
It is klingon
and priviledge only applies to attorneys and clients in so far as law enforcement is able to intrude and use it. If either party in any way releases it - even inadvetently - and a news org gets it, it's well within their power, ability and right to publish it.
A-C priviledge is like a trademark - you don't get it and you get to keep it no matter what, you can only keep it if you keep within a very narrow set of rules.
Likewise, a judge can't put prior restraint on a news org. And yes, this is prior restraint. For more, read Mike's latest piece on it.
project veritas asked for, and got a Prior Restraint injunction against NYT today.
Now NYT has to take down its story, and can't investigate, or publish anything else, or conduct any newsgathering, or ask for any documents relating to PV.
Signed by Charles D Wood, Supreme Court Judge in Westchester county (where Jeanine Pino-gris was a judge for 2 years)
I was actually trying to play GTA5 when it happened. I got it last year when Epic had it for free, and never had much time to try it, so i wanted to finish the story off while i had some time.
when loading, it'd give me three escalation popups to launch 'rockstar social' and then it'd quit itself, because rockstar social was offline.
Oh, they sent out more than two tweets in that time period.
They sent out a LOT of tweets from @rockstarSupport in response to the many many thousands of tweets saying "I want a refund" with some variation of "Please open a ticket and we would be happy to help you personally: http://rsg.ms/support *BK"
I did not want to be their social media team (which looks to be BK and SR)
most of it is outsourced, to Asureon (who until recently, also handled pretty much ALL cell phone insurance in the US). Over the last 3-4 years, as they've lost contracts (like DirecTV going to overseas after the AT+T merger), home depot and walmart warranty contracts being cancelled, etc. they've had to focus more on selling than anything else.
So their cellphone support (Verizon, sprint, and I think they just lost T-mobile) now have their metrics not based on actual support stats, or even average call time, or anything else. Instead the SOLE metric that matters is selling protection plans for home electronics and other add-ons.
And by that I mean that Tech support people are now expected to get at least one sale per day. Coaching isn't about better dealing with tech problems, or defusing angry customers, it's now almost entirely about 'rebuttals', and 'sales openings'. And if you don't sell at least 3/week, you're put on a warning plan, and if you don't increase sales still at that point, then you're fired.
Now if you try to lead an ambiguous statement that you could interpret as the customer expressing mild interest, and add it despite them not actually agreeing to it, that's not a problem. If you accidentally click 'add' when you didn't mean to and they didn't want it though, then you get in trouble - not for adding it, but for drawing the customers attention to the whole idea of 'cancelling it', and not 'well go ahead and try it and if you don't like it cancel at the end of the month', hoping they'll forget scam.
I tried signing to visible twice over the summer.
The first time, they took so long to process, that my previous service had expired, and so they couldn't do the port any more. And the reason it took so long to process is that the field for the password to do the port, only takes a-z 0-9. no symbols. So anyone that routinely makes more secure passwords, it'll fail and you have to wait an hour to deal with their (outsourced) reps.
Their solution? I pay for another month on my existing carrier, and then immediately port over to them. I said no.
2 months later, we tried porting my son's phone over. They sent him the wrong sim card, sending him one for an S6 and not a note10. Again, their only real solution was to cancel the account and start again.
And why is it so bad? Well, I've heard rumor's that its because the people on Visible's chat, are those that don't make their stats as a Verizon Tech-Coach (and at Asureon, the ONLY stat that matters for Verizon Tech Coach tech support staff is sales of the Asureon protection plan. Solving things, customer ratings, etc. Irrelevant. And Visible doesn't have that, so the only way to get sales figures to move back up to 'the good account', would be to sell phones.
Gee I wonder why it's so easy to charge phones to accounts on a service that ONLY handles you through a crappy webchat, or through social media DMs
No, that's not ALL Campaign Finance reform is about.
it's also about having to account for things that should count as campaign costs, but which are currently not. It's to get rid of these ways to campaign at our cost and detriment (this is part of what the Hatch Act is about).
For instance, your thing about running a martyr candidate that runs, gets elected then jumps on the hand grenade of this financial hit. It sounds like a great idea, but it's complex to actual carry through. And there are ways to fix it, like making the candidate personally liable for anything unpaid after... say a year. In your scenario, we get what we have already, but they're having to use twice as many people, and go more convoluted. It's a step in the right direction anyway. Not everything has to be perfect.
And yeah, lame ducks, again, already liable to happen anyway, so your problem is... that it doesn't address all situations, only most of them?
On the post: Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered
Re: NN didn't ruin the internet either.
Especially since they like to claim that Net Neutrality rules only got enacted in 2015, and not 1968 when they actually were.
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet you still seem to ignore that the most absolutely on-point case - someone wanted by the US for violating the espionage act in a matter that was very personal to the US President at a politically sensitive time for him, was told to pound sand.
I mean, call me Mr Silly if you want, but I'd think that when we're talking about "Assange being extradited to the US for Espionage charges", the case of "American being extradited to the US for espionage charges" is a bit more relevant than "Egyptians being sent back to Egypt (with unproven US assistance) on the basis of some Egyptian allegations"
I mean, in one the only difference is the nationality of the subject (which makes the case - and precedent - stronger, while the other has the same sort of correlation you'd find between a facebook homeopathy group and the FDA on how to treat covid (the vaguest of similarities, but every detail and fact different)
It's not that you're trying to compare Apples and Oranges, it's that you're trying to compare Apples and Hay, and saying they must be similar because horses eat both.
I get why, as it was made a big deal of 10 years ago, when all this blew up, so it sticks in the mind, but it's a poor comparison at best, and if that is the best you can do to substantiate the position, that's not very strong, is it?
Also, it's almost always ONLY swedes that bring up the case. I can understand why - you feel a bit of shame for it - but trying to jam it into cases with little relevance to the ones at hand (especially when there are better ones) seem like nothing more than a weird form of flagellation.
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah the Agiza case, it always gets held up as some kind of weird justification.
You did misstate the details of the case though (no worries, many who refer to the case do, it comes because they're repeating what they've been told, not what happened)
So, they were asylum seekers, which failed (one using forged documents) so they were sent back, after getting assurances from Egypt.
That's not the same as guy there, looking to be extradited to the US (possibly) for espionage charges.
literally the only thing in common between that case and assange is 'they were sent overseas' - not even the method is the same, trying to conflate repatriation with extradition.
By contrast, the Howard case is damned near spot on in terms of 'case on point', and the only difference is Howard was american, Assange is Australian.
You're trying to call a dog a hippo, because it also has 4 feet and a mouth, because there was a hippo 20 years ago, and a very similar dog was 30 years ago.
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop taking their claims uncritically. They've been caught lying too many times.
The stroke was a very very minor one (basically a bad panic attack) - so minor it happened in october and they only broke the news when they did to try and go for sympathy, because they know the court would have asked independent medical experts who'd have said 'its nothing'. Or why else do you think they waited until after the verdict to release news of something that happened on day 1 of the hearing, that they claim impacts the hearing?
And the 'assasination' claim, its literally just 'pompeo talking shit'. As always. EVERYONE else shot hm down, it wasn't 'planned', or 'plotted', it was an insecure loser having a mastibatory fantasy. There was never any plotting or planning. Every claim there was is a fabrication of wikileaks, just like the whole 'Clinton droning him' thing, which was also a wikileaks invention.
On the post: Banks, ISPs Increasingly Embrace 'Voice Print' Authentication Despite Growing Security Risk
My Name Is Werner Brandes.
My Voice is my Passport
Verify Me.
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re: Re: Re:
Well, I can see why you'd want to be anonymous, with such a stupid, vapid comment like that. Keep that conspiracy crap on Rumble, k?
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re: Re: Re: Re:
yeah, no, wouldn't have happened.
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re: Re: What's a little torture of prisoners among nations?'
Is the freedom of press being destroyed though?
What Assange is being accused of is not what any responsible journalist would do. It's something journalism schools specifically say not to do... for this reason.
A lot of those making these claims are doing so on faulty information, treating wikileaks as an honest source, forgetting that they've been caught lying about their own cases in court too many times to count.
And this isn't the first time this kind of journalistic prosecution has gone on. It was a huge topic in the UK a few years ago, leading to government enquiries etc. Yes, the News International phone hacking scandal. Even ended up with an attempt to get Rupert Murdoch publicly pie'd in the face (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/rupert-murdochs-foam-pie-in-the-face/2011/07/19/g IQA8Ct0NI_blog.html).
Multiple journalists went to prison, a major UK newspaper shut down. no-one claimed the 'end of a free press' then. why? Probably because News International didn't lie to other reporters as wikileaks has done.
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re: Re: Re:
"Only a denial of the claims. Which makes no sense for whistleblowers."
Good thing Assange isn't a whistleblower.
To be a whistleblower, means to be aware of conduct through your position, and then to 'blow the whistle on it' by revealing it to the public as an insider.
Worse for your claim, the timeline REALLY doesn't fit. Manning had cables/notes they tried to sell (!) to newspapers but they didn't want them, because they were nothing. ended up giving them away to wikileaks, who then wanted more, and so they got more, and eventually this video, which they edited to push the narrative of a "warcrime" by decontextualizing parts of it to give the desired narrative.
If it were whistleblowing, it'd be "manning finds video and wants to blow whistle on warcrimes shown in it, manning releases video to Assange who publishes it unedited"
When your justification for actions is claimed to be whistleblowing, but you don't get the thing you claim to be blowing the whistle on until after you've been pushing out other things, it just doesn't work.
Also, you don't seem to understand 'defense'. you don't get to defend yourself in an indictment because you literally don't. The defense is not there, the defendant is not represented because its only purpose is to show there's enough probable cause of a crime, no exculpatory counter-testimony (thats for trial)
What you're talking about is a particular kind of defense, a "public interest defense", which is also known as 'justification'. a "yes I did it but this is why' thing. Yes, thats not permitted under the law. But you do get a defense, you can question witnesses and evidence, undermine the process of getting them, question their accuracy.
You absolutely get a chance to defend yourself.
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re:
"They'd be less likely to roll over and hand him to the Americans than either the UK or Australia, that's for sure."
Well yes, that was his whole reason for applying for residency there. If only they didn't have those petty sex crime laws....
In fact (as he well knows) they absolutely don't extradite for these crimes. Had he been in Sweden, extradition would have failed, as they did for Eddie Howard, the only CIA officer to defect to the US. In 1991 he was arrested in Sweden in connection with espionage charges in the US for extradition. He was let go. That's despite him being a US citizen, and the espionage case being much stronger, PLUS it was 91 and Sweden was relying heavily on US protection if the soviet fall went really bad, OH, and can't forget that old 'presidential pressure', because what it was in Howard's case is like nothing else. Bush was working a re-election campaign, had been VP when Howard defected, and Ford's head of the CIA. Eddie Howard was PERSONAL to Bush.
And again, Assange knew this, he mentioned it at his press conference announcing his application for residency. It's what made his claim that he was fleeing to the embassy because of 'swedes handing him over to the US' so laughable (that and extradition law precludes handing people on)
Assange's problem is that he doesn't like being held responsible for his actions. he's always considered himself a genious, and if things went bad, it's someone else's fault, not his, so why should he have to pay the price. He's doing the work of God (himself) and how dare mortals with no vision get in his way. It's why wikileaks has had such a high turnover of people.
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re:
You never get a chance to defend yourself in an indictment, thats how they work.
And the 'accusations come from a fraudster paid by the CIA' is a claim made by wikileaks, and wikileaks only, and not based on any evidence.
"The same CIA who also plotted to assassinate him."
Yeah, they didn't. It's a constant claim by the social media accounts tied to Assange, but they all reference back to the same yahoo story, the story that no-one reads past the first paragraph or two it seems. Because if you'd read down to the meat of the story, you'd see that the 'assassination' was an idea spitballed by trump and pomeo, and shot down at every turn by those it'd have to pass. Basically, it was on the 'bleach and rectal lights to fight covid' level of consideration.
In short, there's basically 3 people that have strongly and repeatedly talked about assassinating Assange, Pompeo, Trump, and Stella Morris, and the first two stopped talking about it after being told it wasn't going to happen, but with the intensity and ferver she's been going on about it, it's almost like she's wanting it to happen.
On the post: UK Court Says US Can Extradite Julian Assange And Prosecute Him For Doing Things Journalists Do
Re:
Again, they're doing some disingenuous fudging of facts.
He didn't have a major stroke on Friday as the results came out, as you seem to think, He had a very minor stroke (Transient ischemic attack) on day 1 of the hearing, October 27th. If it were medically relevant, they'd have been shouting it at the time.
That they made the announcement when they did, shows its just for publicity, and sympathy, and to try and distract from what would be a major point in the reporting that - YET AGAIN - Assange's defense team lied to the courts.
On the post: Report Showcases How Elon Musk Undermined His Own Engineers And Endangered Public Safety
Re: Lack of research from Mr Bode showing through again.
2500lb is a well accepted 'gut value' for a car. I think the actual average weight these days of new cars is 2800lb, but when you consider many older cars, it brings the weight down (my current car is 2350lb, I've had two volvos that were 2180lbs (the glorious 300 series), and a 140mph 4-seat car (MG Metro twin-turbo) that was 1850lb (including the extra engine stabilizers, intercooler, and a Citroen active antiroll suspension)
so yes, as a shorthand for car "2500lb death machine" is a well accepted common use reference to both average weight, and how easy it is for it to kill.
But if that's the ONLY criticism you could manage to actually level (that you don't understand idioms), says a lot about how good the article was.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: concern should be on the other direction
It is klingon
and priviledge only applies to attorneys and clients in so far as law enforcement is able to intrude and use it. If either party in any way releases it - even inadvetently - and a news org gets it, it's well within their power, ability and right to publish it.
A-C priviledge is like a trademark - you don't get it and you get to keep it no matter what, you can only keep it if you keep within a very narrow set of rules.
Likewise, a judge can't put prior restraint on a news org. And yes, this is prior restraint. For more, read Mike's latest piece on it.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
concern should be on the other direction
project veritas asked for, and got a Prior Restraint injunction against NYT today.
Now NYT has to take down its story, and can't investigate, or publish anything else, or conduct any newsgathering, or ask for any documents relating to PV.
Signed by Charles D Wood, Supreme Court Judge in Westchester county (where Jeanine Pino-gris was a judge for 2 years)
copy of the prior restraint injunction is here:
https://twitter.com/MatthewSchafer/status/1461408689353420805
On the post: Rockstar's GTA Retro Games Was Completely Broken And Support Was Ghosting Everyone
Re:
I was actually trying to play GTA5 when it happened. I got it last year when Epic had it for free, and never had much time to try it, so i wanted to finish the story off while i had some time.
when loading, it'd give me three escalation popups to launch 'rockstar social' and then it'd quit itself, because rockstar social was offline.
On the post: Rockstar's GTA Retro Games Was Completely Broken And Support Was Ghosting Everyone
Oh, they sent out more than two tweets in that time period.
They sent out a LOT of tweets from @rockstarSupport in response to the many many thousands of tweets saying "I want a refund" with some variation of "Please open a ticket and we would be happy to help you personally: http://rsg.ms/support *BK"
I did not want to be their social media team (which looks to be BK and SR)
On the post: Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones
Re: What has happened
My other half worked for them for a while.
most of it is outsourced, to Asureon (who until recently, also handled pretty much ALL cell phone insurance in the US). Over the last 3-4 years, as they've lost contracts (like DirecTV going to overseas after the AT+T merger), home depot and walmart warranty contracts being cancelled, etc. they've had to focus more on selling than anything else.
So their cellphone support (Verizon, sprint, and I think they just lost T-mobile) now have their metrics not based on actual support stats, or even average call time, or anything else. Instead the SOLE metric that matters is selling protection plans for home electronics and other add-ons.
And by that I mean that Tech support people are now expected to get at least one sale per day. Coaching isn't about better dealing with tech problems, or defusing angry customers, it's now almost entirely about 'rebuttals', and 'sales openings'. And if you don't sell at least 3/week, you're put on a warning plan, and if you don't increase sales still at that point, then you're fired.
Now if you try to lead an ambiguous statement that you could interpret as the customer expressing mild interest, and add it despite them not actually agreeing to it, that's not a problem. If you accidentally click 'add' when you didn't mean to and they didn't want it though, then you get in trouble - not for adding it, but for drawing the customers attention to the whole idea of 'cancelling it', and not 'well go ahead and try it and if you don't like it cancel at the end of the month', hoping they'll forget scam.
That's why it's gone downhill.
On the post: Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones
not surprised
I tried signing to visible twice over the summer.
The first time, they took so long to process, that my previous service had expired, and so they couldn't do the port any more. And the reason it took so long to process is that the field for the password to do the port, only takes a-z 0-9. no symbols. So anyone that routinely makes more secure passwords, it'll fail and you have to wait an hour to deal with their (outsourced) reps.
Their solution? I pay for another month on my existing carrier, and then immediately port over to them. I said no.
2 months later, we tried porting my son's phone over. They sent him the wrong sim card, sending him one for an S6 and not a note10. Again, their only real solution was to cancel the account and start again.
And why is it so bad? Well, I've heard rumor's that its because the people on Visible's chat, are those that don't make their stats as a Verizon Tech-Coach (and at Asureon, the ONLY stat that matters for Verizon Tech Coach tech support staff is sales of the Asureon protection plan. Solving things, customer ratings, etc. Irrelevant. And Visible doesn't have that, so the only way to get sales figures to move back up to 'the good account', would be to sell phones.
Gee I wonder why it's so easy to charge phones to accounts on a service that ONLY handles you through a crappy webchat, or through social media DMs
On the post: In Josh Hawley's World, People Should Be Able To Sue Facebook Both For Taking Down Stuff They Don't Like AND Leaving Up Stuff They Don't Like
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's not ALL Campaign Finance reform is about.
it's also about having to account for things that should count as campaign costs, but which are currently not. It's to get rid of these ways to campaign at our cost and detriment (this is part of what the Hatch Act is about).
For instance, your thing about running a martyr candidate that runs, gets elected then jumps on the hand grenade of this financial hit. It sounds like a great idea, but it's complex to actual carry through. And there are ways to fix it, like making the candidate personally liable for anything unpaid after... say a year. In your scenario, we get what we have already, but they're having to use twice as many people, and go more convoluted. It's a step in the right direction anyway. Not everything has to be perfect.
And yeah, lame ducks, again, already liable to happen anyway, so your problem is... that it doesn't address all situations, only most of them?
Perfect really is the enemy of 'better'.
Next >>