Does anyone know the Ford Customer Service rep that is on this board?
04-27-2024, 08:56 AM
#11
OK, sounds like we may have interpreted that post differently.
To me it appeared he expressed his opinion that the account appeared to him to operate like a BOT, that it doesn’t appear to him to provide actual/tangible help and then openly speculated, without proof, about what may actually be done with the requested info (ie: he said “perhaps”).
I’ve observed many other posts by other users that seem to convey similar observations and opinions.
haven’t seen many posts that indicate receiving actual tangible help/results.
To me it appeared he expressed his opinion that the account appeared to him to operate like a BOT, that it doesn’t appear to him to provide actual/tangible help and then openly speculated, without proof, about what may actually be done with the requested info (ie: he said “perhaps”).
I’ve observed many other posts by other users that seem to convey similar observations and opinions.
haven’t seen many posts that indicate receiving actual tangible help/results.
The following users liked this post:
digitaltrucker (04-27-2024)
04-28-2024, 06:07 PM
#12
In my experience, when an OEM wants to take a technical question ‘offline’ it means they don’t want to be transparent.
There are many reasons to act this way.
It is never in the equipment owner’s interest to see a technical question that applies to multiple people, taken ‘offline’ by the OEM.
It means they want to engage in ‘asymmetrical information’.
All it takes is a quick read of current events to see examples of lack of transparency on the part of technical equipment manufacturers.
Frankly, while I don’t think that FoMoCo gives a rat’s patoot about what is said here, I wouldn’t put it past them to ‘annotate’ an interaction through an online forum.
My guess, the mission of the ‘notabot’ is a gatekeeper for the corporate legal department.
Also, at the risk of annoying the forum moderators, I would estimate there is a 5 to 1 ratio of apologists to complainers here.
And by that I mean propaganda in either direction.
There are real people here with real problems and ‘the corporation’ does a crummy job of solving them.
I am one of those people. And we are all just one technical problem away from that.
I have watched serious technical problems wind their way through the courts in class actions against OEMs and the OEMs fight tooth and nail to deflect responsibility.
The most recent one I watched on a vehicle I owned was hilarious
A Detroit court ruled against the vehicle owners. I was shocked. Say it ain’t so.
There are many reasons to act this way.
It is never in the equipment owner’s interest to see a technical question that applies to multiple people, taken ‘offline’ by the OEM.
It means they want to engage in ‘asymmetrical information’.
All it takes is a quick read of current events to see examples of lack of transparency on the part of technical equipment manufacturers.
Frankly, while I don’t think that FoMoCo gives a rat’s patoot about what is said here, I wouldn’t put it past them to ‘annotate’ an interaction through an online forum.
My guess, the mission of the ‘notabot’ is a gatekeeper for the corporate legal department.
Also, at the risk of annoying the forum moderators, I would estimate there is a 5 to 1 ratio of apologists to complainers here.
And by that I mean propaganda in either direction.
There are real people here with real problems and ‘the corporation’ does a crummy job of solving them.
I am one of those people. And we are all just one technical problem away from that.
I have watched serious technical problems wind their way through the courts in class actions against OEMs and the OEMs fight tooth and nail to deflect responsibility.
The most recent one I watched on a vehicle I owned was hilarious
A Detroit court ruled against the vehicle owners. I was shocked. Say it ain’t so.
04-30-2024, 04:12 PM
#13
Junior Member
The following users liked this post:
digitaltrucker (04-30-2024)