To be honest, that’s the trouble with written communication all the time.
And it amplifies, with many users of different tongue trying to communicate in a language, that’s not their native one.
But in my opinion - tbh - the wording of @Bas_tien has not been that clear and it still isn’t.
E.g. he insists on calling support “dishonest” though the topic has shown, that (at least some) people do understand this as “ill will” or “lying”. @Bas_tien tries to argue for using another definition and for not meaning Fairphone as such, but just the support.
And then this:
That expressly states:
- accusing Fairphone (sic! the company not Fairphone support)
- internal policy to delay support (if that is not the pure definition of ill will / lying?)
So, those - like me - understanding the word “dishonesty” as an accusation bordering on fraud, were not that wrong in catching the intention.
And the demand to be countered in the “argument” for dishonesty, when this argument is made “I feel/I have concluded/my subjective opinion”. How can one argue a subjective feeling? I e.g. can not prove, what kind of policy Fairphone has. Neither can @Bas_tien. So, how could this be argued/discussed? My personal support experience (years ago) was perfect; but the actual discussion shows, that this - right now - seems not to be normal. While I would tend to put it down to support of a small company being overwhelmed and understuffed (in times of Corona and shutdowns), I fully understand others to feel betrayed and played along. That’s OK, but it is OK as well, to critize any statement in that regard.
I am just doing that argument, to show, that communication is a complicated thing and one should always consider the perspective of the reader as well.
If it shows, that there are some readers misunderstanding the intention, one should consider, that the message has been not as clear as intended.
Putting another accusation on top is not the best way to achieve agreement:
Sorry, that’s complete bollocks in my opinion.
The quotation in itself proves, that critzism is in no way a problem. It’s just, that some people disagree regarding the wording and the implication coming with the wording.
And it’s not about protecting some “aura”, but about different oppinions.
Why e.g. not say:
Group action against … for support I consider dishonest
That’s a wording, that would from the starting point clarify, that support is not by defintion dishonest, but that one user - and at least everyone joining the action - does feel like this.
And it’s simply not the same, whent this is explained in the posting, as the thread title is listed on the starting page, indexed by search engines etc.
That’s it from me on this topic.
I am absolutely in favor of criticism, do encourage it and do it myself quite regularly.
Yet I - from my own experience - know, that one should keep as polite/kind/factual as possible, as subtexts/implications being transfered can counter all the legitimate and good efforts.
Seen the other way around:
All the postings critcising the word “dishonest”, did not accomplish to be read like
“Hey, I feel for you and agree with your infuriation; but I don’t think that word is a good choice.”
but they were translated:
“Hey, we don’t like criticism of Fairphone here.”
So, those criticising the wording (like me) might not have been to good in explaining their intentions as well. At least I will try to do better next time.
Well, this stuff works both ways almost always. Just keep an open mind. 