I can relate to your points. Several issues with apps where solved only by help of the community after Fairphone support told me they couldn’t check on all apps. So enthusiasts do their work without being paid for it.
Lucky me, my FP3+ is working now as it has to. So I have no reason to join your group action. But I really wish you success!
But whatever its worth in my case all issues where solved after I set up my SD card as external storage.
Update on my Fairphone 3 case itself.
Few days ago, they finally offered a partial reimbursement or to swap my phone.
I refused to get reimbursed 220 euro as they offered (they based their price on my support ticket starting 5 months ago, rather than forum topic creation 16 months ago). I instead accepted their proposition to send them the phone to get it replaced. Frankly, for 400 euro, I would have asked to be reimbursed. I didn’t try any bargain, because I thought it wouldn’t be fruitful.
Regarding several recent comments from @existentionaut and @amoun , I think then again the subject is drifting, and I seam to be wrong only because I dear complaining, aka breaking the taboo.
In few words, I am accused of going on “crusade”, taking “torch and a pitchfork”. I never offered nor intended to centralize request, or help a particular case, neither start up a new consumer organization. If one looks at the options I have listed on the first post (who did ?), they concern processes which are to be engaged by a single person. The “group” part of the action here is about information on what is possible, and refusing to accept that only those having time to loose to pressure Fairphone support by email be considered. Everyone with issues should, consumer law should be respected.
I’m also being advised to just return the phone (while I was denied it until few days ago), or being angry (blame the messenger if you can’t counter the message), or why didn’t I do anything for " ‘2 years’ " (note here that @amoun pretended to quote me, while I did not write that). If you read the current topic, I have explained many times everything I have been doing in 16 months, and how and why my understanding of the situation changed. Which lead me to the current topic. Also @amoun highlights that topic creation is worth nothing according to Fairphone policy, which is one of my main criticism. Repeating it won’t help. Trying to find argument on why this policy could be taken as fair or unfair would be more constructive. Finally, I wont to reassure everyone that indeed I have a roof over my head, and food in my fridge. But I don’t see how this, and any previous comment I mentioned, is related to my consumer right not being respected. Neither are my argument accusing Fairphone of having internal policy aiming to delay support (aka dishonest support), being considered, discussed, countered. Actually, it looks like there’s a consensus that 5 months is too long, and that most would be disappointed if they were in the same situation. Consider also the people which actually ARE in the same situation, which is another argument I brought, and that hasn’t been commented either. Maybe denied, trying to corner me as a single individual.
Getting back to the main subject. That is what to do when you think you suffer from the problem describe here : No sound 50+% of the time in calls, until reboot - #174 by Bas_tien
I would like to list what I think came out useful so far :
_ to get offered to swap your unit, you have to ask, many times, over and over, and it eventually works. Or at least it worked for me, and for that guy : No sound 50+% of the time in calls, until reboot - #131 by freierfunden
_ If you encounter a problem, ensure that you understand the consequences of writing on the forum vs opening a ticket. Because only the ticket opening date will be considered in case at some point in the future you prefer to be reimbursed. Assuming the offer they gave me, that is 220 euro based on the support ticket start done 11 months after purchase, and assuming a linear progression, that gives us : 230/11 = 19.2 euro per months. The more you wait, the more you may consider to get reimbursed for a phone not working as expected, but the less you have interest to, coz you would simply loose your money. I would then advise to always do forum and support topic in parallel.
_ the action listed in the first post are still valid I believe. I am not continuing that way for now, as the swapping is in progress. But I may get back to it at some point. I have searched on the net about ODR success story, but I didn’t find accessible material. If anyone does, or has alternative measures, please don’t hesitate to post. I understand that ODR aims to case like the present. That is a simple procedure, with the use of mediation “While the application of ODR is not limited to disputes arising out of business to consumer (B2C) online transactions, it seems to be particularly apt for these disputes” (Online dispute resolution - Wikipedia)
It is frightening to see time and time again how easily you are misinterpreted. How little the exact wording is recognized, and you have been precise, at least in your initial statement. I have followed this thread and a lot of time could have been saved, if your words had been read carefully. In any case, your situation is a warning to me.
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.
I am amazed to still read that the creation of a topic in the forum does not count for support. This forum is completely independent from Fairphone so it is completely normal they base their refund price on the date of opening the ticket.
Very often people giving advices here say to open a ticket at the support. There is a reason for that. I think it should be the rule for every topic related to a bug or defective phone.
I am aware, that @Bas_tien started to be less precise while answering comments. But his initial statement is quite clear. He wants to spread information and he wants the support to give him a straight answer.
You can only be objective to some degree facing a big company as an individual. You can’t verify your hypothesis by undertaking empirical studies. He felt left down and asserted the community for similar problems, which there were.
The critical comments were not directed at his arguments, but at the word “dishonest”. This word is the core of his criticism. But the push back was on a feel-good level. So it is easy to get the impression that is was to protect some “aura”. See
I think @Bas_tien wrote rather reasonable in the beginning. And also here
But you posted constructive criticism
Which is very refreshing. Had he used these words, it would have been clearer.
Someone has changed the title of the topic, adding single quotes around the word dishonest.
I can see that it has been done Saturday the 23rd of January between 18h43 and 19h39, because the emails I receive as notification from new posts include the current title of the topic.
No-one asked me about that. No warning was issued. And nothing show that the title has been altered. I would have had appreciated that a post explaining the decision of editing the title comes along the alteration. At least for transparency sake.
I have looked at the Fairphone Forum FAQ (FAQ - Fairphone Community Forum), which says that users can flag posts, and that “moderators reserve the right to remove any content and any user account for any reason at any time.”.
Thought, I would like to know who changed it ?
Was it flagged ?
Was the decision taken by one or several moderator ? Was it a consensus ?
Did that decision involve an admin too ?
Looking at the Forum/About (About - Fairphone Community Forum)
I see that there are 4 admins, all Fairphone employees, and 12 moderators, 4 Fairphone employees and 1 ex employee. All-in-all it’s 8 current employees amongst 16 admin and moderators, with all higher position (admin) being held by employees.
All this keeps on sheding an interesting light in the whole situation. There has been several arguments brought in the recent posts, and I can see that effort has been put into it, which I appreciate and thank the contributors for. I’m thinking now @BertG and @dornhe . Please forgive me if I forget someone, I do not mean to be exhaustive here.
I would like to consider the following arguments that have been brought :
_ a language issue, related to the different origins of people, as well as a title that would be misleading for different people. Here the argument brought also uses the fact that some people were unhappy about the wording. This seams to me like a snake eating its tail. The few complaining about it, using their own complain as a proof of the relevance of their complain.
_ That post (Group action against Fairphone for 'dishonest' support on Fairphone 3 - #27 by Alain_Guillet) says that “This forum is completely independent from Fairphone”. I do not think so, because it is hosted by Fairphone, and rules mostly by Fairphone employees (8 out of 16 admin/moderators are Fairphone employees). I do understand why Fairphone would want to legally decouple the Forum from the support, and how it is done using legal tools, but I am highlighting here that the separation is not that clear. The need of a legal separation actually comes from the need of separating them. Looking at how community is brought forward in Fairphone communication and promotion, and the composition of the people managing it, I would have found reasonable that the start of my problem, used to calculate the return price, would be calculated from the topic creation date. I am not challenging the law now, but the duplicity of Fairphone with the Community Forum.
_ In that post (Group action against Fairphone for 'dishonest' support on Fairphone 3 - #26 by BertG) it says :
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?)
Is Fairphone support a different entity than Fairphone ? I would assume Fairphone has a support activity, as required by consumer law. Plus I do say in the same sentence what I am accusing them for, that is delaying the support. I think that this argument tries to play with words.
internal policy to delay support is not the “pure definition” of ill will and lying. At best, it might be an example of it, but this is up to the reader interpretation.
Looking more in details to the definition of dishonest I posted earlier (dishonest meaning - Google zoeken), it says :
“behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way.”
Looking now at deceitful (deceitful - Google zoeken), it says :
“guilty of or involving deceit; deceiving or misleading others.”
Ok, going for deceit (deceit - Google zoeken)
“the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth.”
This is what I accuse the support of Fairphone of.
I am supporting that by the following arguments :
_ the treatment of support in my case, and in other cases, according to many forums posts. Please look at previous posts where this argument is well developed (delay, no offering return/reimbursement, trying to pretend it is another problem).
_ the calculation of the starting date of my problem. As explained above. Please do consider how much I tried to be precise, and made a difference between legal and what can be expected, especially under the light of the Forum administration and its use as communication and promotion support.
_ the energy put into trying to deny me the right of using the word dishonest. I think what I have called the taboo so far is a reality, but could be renamed “Fear of bad reputation”. I have not thought of that until @BertG actually phrased it (Group action against Fairphone for 'dishonest' support on Fairphone 3 - #26 by BertG) “[…] as the thread title is listed on the starting page, indexed by search engines etc”
It has been mentioned in several posts (Group action against Fairphone for 'dishonest' support on Fairphone 3 - #24 by dornhe and Group action against Fairphone for 'dishonest' support on Fairphone 3 - #28 by dornhe which are both from @dornhe )
that I have some degree of precision in my posts (I try to, but yet again, I’m still an everyday normal guy, without all the time in the world). Which means that anyone seeing that title could read the first post (at least), and make up their mind.
Never the less, I have backed my use of the word dishonest with actual definitions from Oxford Languages dictionary, and I have explained what lead me to those conclusions, several times. In that same definition, I have not found any of the words that have been used to reproach me the use of dishonest (ill-will, crusade, etc). In the end most of the topic is about some people disagreeing with the use of the word dishonest, and dragging the topic away from its prime intention.
I hope that the title alteration will receive more explanation soon…
I would like the original title to be put back.
I wish that this discussion would be more about the quality of the support of Fairphone 3 rather that about words definition. And also about what you can do as a consumer, if you think that the support is not up to standards. It seams reasonable that such topic is of interest, and might turn useful. No organization (public/private, profit/non-profit) is perfect. Refusing criticism and avoiding a topic by focusing on side subject does not help to improve the situation. I actually think that denying problems has strong negative impacts, for user (obviously), but for Fairphone on a longer term.
This decision was taken by a user who has gained rights to edit titles by spending time on the forum (a Trust Level 3), and not by a moderator. I will not name anyone and I will privately discuss this with the user in question together with the other moderators.
Be aware yourself, you can view edits done to your posts and by whom by clicking on the little pencil icon in the top right corner of your post.
Admins are very little involved in the forum moderation, mainly in the forum administration, as their name involves.
If half of the moderators are FP employees, it is mainly for a better visibility on the actions taken and easier communication, but all actions are taken by the #communitymoderators (click for a list). We are currently six.
It is hosted by Fairphone because they encourage their community and want it to live. That doesn’t mean they will interfere with it by using posts for legal means (e.g a date).
I agree that the difference between the Fairphone company and the Fairphone community forum isn’t very clear, and this subject has been brought up multiple times in the past, and is currently being discussed among the moderators.
All this to say: all support from the forum is unofficial. You can’t await from Fairphone to consider the date of the creation of the topic on the forum instead of the date of the creation of your support ticket.
I have changed back the title to how it was before.
I feel you. I’m also extemely disappointed on the company as a whole. The hardware is ok, the software is foul but the customer support is the worst of it all. Fair? my ass!
But I’m so convinced this is a lost battle and I already gave up. They are a company, I’m pretty sure they have a legal department working fulltime on protecting the company from the customers (you only need to read their ToS or read a reply from support). Going to court will most likely mean additional expenses and it is not clear they will acknowledge their responsibility.
I’m turning my back on Fairphone and all this bullshit and assume my loss. I have become used to rebooting the phone on a daily basis already and I’ll keep doing that until the phone eventually breaks. Then I’ll throw it away and buy another one.
The only thing I’m certain of is I will never ever invest one more cent on anything related to this company.
I have wasted enough time and money. Up until now I always recommended this phone to people. I’m doing exactly the opposite now, Fairphone is a cheap product with an expensive price.
I think you guys are way too picky and almost crossing the border of censorship.
Who cares if the title is not proper? Does the title have any legal implication? It is a user forum!! of course you’ll see titles and texts you do not agree with.
You think “dishonest” is not the proper word or is a bit too harsh? Do you think we care what you think about other people’s wording? Just put your opinion, if you disagree, you are entitled to that. But unless there is a clear insult or foul wording, touching someone else’s post (or trying to push someone else to change their text) is just censoring, plain and simple. Very much in line with Fairphone’s attitude, I’ll grant you that, but it is abusive and censoring nonetheless.
Do you think the forum and every post made has to be made for your personal comfort?
That’s a good advice for you too, isn’t it ?
Please reread the post you are referring to, the title was changed by a user, not a moderator or administrator, and the change was taken back. So there is no need to blame the forum administration for censorship.
I can completely understand, that you are disappointed, I had some unlucky experiences with software faults, hardware problems and service too. But is it necessary to behave in an unpolite way against the volunteers that try to help people like us here in the community?
Firstly, please explain to me how “please, change your title” is “being helpful”. Or even worse, how forcing a title change upon others is being helpful?
If this is your concept of “help” I don’t want to know your concept of “fair”.
Secondly, did I mention mods or admins? did you read what I wrote? Just because it is a power user who does it, it does not mean it is not censorship. Just because someone is a volunteer it does not mean they are free to censor. Because if volunteering gives you green card to do as you please then this may not be a company controlled board, but it is not a community board either: it is a board owned by 6 people and the rest can only aim at pleasing those 6.
You are free to think I’m just being impolite, I don’t really care. I think I’m simply stating the obvious, according to the dictionary.
“Censoring: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable”
To be clear, I’m not saying these 6 people are censors. By using censoring I’m not defining the people or the general rule of law, I’m defining some of the actions some of these people did.
Changing someone else’s title, or even pushing someone else to change their title, IS censoring. Unless, of course, the title/text includes harassment or insults, but this was not the case.
If you choose to be offended, go ahead. I regret nothing.
You answered a ‘Community Moderator’ so of course you addressed your complains to the community administration, although the change was taken back by them. And I don’t understand why you say this forum is no community board, when a community member had the possibility to change the title.
But I can’t see, that you want a helpful discussion, you just want to state your point of view. This is a result of your bad user experience, understandable, but not helpful for others than yourself.
Just like your comments. Just like going after him to make him change a word someone dislikes. I know I’m not helpful, but neither are these answers of yours or people trying to make him change a word. At least I’m not pretending.
You answered a ‘Community Moderator’ so of course you addressed your complains to the community administration
You still did not understand what I said. I’m saying anyone who thinks he should change the word “dishonest” and either push him or simply change it, are practising censorship. If the one doing it is an admin, yes I’m critisising the action performed by the admin. If it was a user, then I’m critisising what the user did.
I don’t care who does it, the fact is still a fact. I told you already once and I’ll repeat it one last time in case you did not read it: I’m not acusing the whole admin/mod or user base as a whole. I’m not even saying the person who did it is a censor. I’m saying THE THING they did is censorship.
You can argue all you want and turn things around to make them look different. The reality is what it is, you messing with it won’t change a thing.
But I can’t see, that you want a helpful discussion, you just want to state your point of view.
You are right, here, though. As I said, I gave up on Fairphone so I don’t really care at all about being helpful to the company or community building. I’m extremely pissed, yes, and for all I care, the whole company can go bankrupt and the community disappear.
But this does not mean I’m not right. I’m defending the right of someone to use the words they like, even if the rest of us don’t like them. I really don’t see anything wrong with this and I see something wrong in not allowing people to use the words they choose. Very wrong.
You think otherwise, fair enough. We don’t need to agree on everything.