How to not read a ticket



  • Step 1) Ticket is submitted requesting "Mark X, Y and Z accounts as "we know they're not loging in for 9 months, so disable the automatic account-hasn't-been-touched-so-I'll-disable-the-account-bot"" (In a much more verbose and repeditive way)


    Step 2) Ticket is recieved by middleman, who marks in the ticket, "Preven accounts from being disabled" (In other words: the same as before but in the author's own words and in a much more verbose and repeditive way)


    Step 3) Ticket recieved by resolver who is confused and asks the submitter for clarification


    Step 4) Submitter says "Prevent accounts from being disabled" (In other words: the same as before but in the author's own words and in a much more verbose and repeditive way)


    Step 5) Resolver disables the accounts. I've confirmed this



  •  Well, the accounts won't be disabled by the bot now.



  • Well, it does make me happy to know that many places have idiots working for them, it's not just my building.  Hooray!



  • If the users won't be logging on for 9 months, surely it makes more sense to disable the accounts, note why they are disabled and approximate date expected to be re-enabled, and when the users return to work, they call the helpdesk and the accounts are re-enabled?



  • @cdosrun said:

    If the users won't be logging on for 9 months, surely it makes more sense to disable the accounts, note why they are disabled and approximate date expected to be re-enabled, and when the users return to work, they call the helpdesk and the accounts are re-enabled?
    GTFO with your sense making.



  • @cdosrun said:

    If the users won't be logging on for 9 months, surely it makes more sense to disable the accounts, note why they are disabled and approximate date expected to be re-enabled, and when the users return to work, they call the helpdesk and the accounts are re-enabled?


    True. However, it'd also make sense to A) deny the request instead of disabling the accounts and 😎 Inform the user why it was denied and C) Find out when they actually leave before disabling the accounts so you don't end up with users who are actually still supposed to be working but can't because their accounts are disabled.



  • @Lingerance said:

    True. However, it'd also make sense to A) deny the request instead of disabling the accounts...

    Security-wise, if you know for certain that the account should not be used for 9 months then disabling the account seems like the right thing to do; and if the user has confirmed this to be the case then, for 9 months at least, disabling the account should not affect the user.

    Provided the colleague then set a reminder to re-enable the account in 9 months time, setting the ticket to resolved seems more than reasonable to me (leaving the ticket open could mess up SLAs, etc)

    The only apparent WTF would be taking the user's request at face value; and actually pertained to the changing function of the "automatic account-hasn't-been-touched-so-I'll-disable-the-account-bot" - the user apparently confirmed just wanting to be able to log into the system in several months time without having to log another ticket to have their account re-enabled. I've done enough support to know that for most users you should focus giving them what they ultimately want, rather then trying to implement their requests as per theirs guesses at how it the system may support them.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @cdosrun said:

    If the users won't be logging on for 9 months, surely it makes more sense to disable the accounts, note why they are disabled and approximate date expected to be re-enabled, and when the users return to work, they call the helpdesk and the accounts are re-enabled?
    GTFO with your sense making.


    Sorry. I forgot where I was. I'll try to make amends by indulging in a popular forum pastime- pretending you completely misunderstood my post, and that you are the idiot, not me.

     What I meant was to immediately disable the accounts, and under no circumstances reenable them prior to 9 months. After 8 months, lose the ticket and force the customers to come in a show a government issue photo ID and attend an account security training class before re-enabling the account. Reading Comprehension FTW!

     Is that enough? Or should I have used messed up HTML tags to try and format the text, then blamed CS as the TRWTF?



  •  Actually, the first post almost reminded me of a [url=http://chroniclesofgeorge.nanc.com/]George[/url] ticket 😕



  • @nat42 said:

    The only apparent WTF would be taking the user's request at face value; and actually pertained to the changing function of the "automatic account-hasn't-been-touched-so-I'll-disable-the-account-bot" - the user apparently confirmed just wanting to be able to log into the system in several months time without having to log another ticket to have their account re-enabled.
     

     

    I get the feeling there may also be a delete-accounts-which-have-been-disabled-for-6-months-as-they-must-be-obsolete-bot too.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.