BigDoug wrote:Bonobo wrote:I have also disliked quite some of the examples of admin behaviour that have been posted in this forum, some were really childish … i.e. they acted like a child would that feels hurt: bash all around w/o caring whether you hit a culprit or an innocent person, and not caring about whether the reaction is appropriate. BUT this is a free service, and I assume that most admins do their work on an honorary basis. Therefore I’d also not expect the kind of mature, “professional” behaviour I’d expect in a … hotel … or a restaurant … or … from a social worker or my therapist <shrug>.
It's an interesting comment. Let's look at the analogy in a bit more detail.
Suppose that you enter a hotel and join the queue to talk to the staff at the reception desk. They greet you politely. You ask about the check-out time and they reply that it's 10 a.m. So far, all good.
However, you believe that the check-out time should be noon. The reception staff reply that it's not the hotel's policy, so you begin to list the reasons why it should be noon. When they don't agree, you point out that they're not very good reception staff and really shouldn't be working there. The check-out time at other hotels is noon, etc. A queue forms behind you as you press your point with the reception staff. When a customer in the queue asks you to wrap it up, you then argue with the customer as well as continuing to argue with the staff. After a period of time, the reception staff tell you to leave, so that they can help other people check into the hotel.
Let's suppose that a similar episode happens on a weekly or fortnightly basis for years, as you point out the flaws in the hotel for them to fix (e.g., the curtains are the wrong colour or the free wi-fi isn't fast enough or there aren't enough free peanuts at the bar). The result is almost always the same (i.e., telling the staff how to do their jobs and rarely reaching an agreement). Note that you are never a paying customer at the hotel.
Now you've walked through the entrance and ask about the check-out time yet again. What are the expectations of the front-desk staff? Are they unprofessional if they expect another unsatisfactory encounter?
Let me fix that analogy for you so that it actually fits the events as described by xDragon.
- xDragon purchases some Coca Cola in the movie theater. xDragon's drink is served in a blue cup, but the establishment also uses yellow cups as well.
- The usher tells xDragon that only drinks purchased inside the theater can be taken into the screening room.
- xDragon tells the usher that he did purchase the drink inside the theater, but the usher says that the drinks sold inside are always served in yellow cups, which is factually incorrect.
- After an attempt at intelligent communication with the usher fails, xDragon goes back to the vendor and has his drink put in a yellow cup.
- The usher sees xDragon come back with a yellow cup and says that this is perfectly fine and lets him inside the screening room.
- After xDragon sits down to enjoy the movie some ushers come to kick him out of the theater for "not following the usher's direction".
- xDragon call the customer service number at the theater and asks for an explanation of the instructions he did not follow, given the very clear fact that he had indeed follow the usher's instructions, despite the fact that they were stupid instructions containing logical inconsistencies. The person on the line says, "Screw off, you troublemaker" ("troll").
- xDragon calls a senior manager at the theater and asks for an explanation. He never explains which of the usher's instructions were ignored by xDragon and simply says that xDragon should not have disagreed with an usher in the first place.
- When xDragon continues to press for an explanation, the manager says that he's already explained his position and hangs up. When xDragon calls again, the manager puts fingers in his ears, says "Not listening~" ("deleted") in a sing-song voice and hangs up.
- This repeats a couple times, and xDragon decides to share his experiences on a site that discusses local movie theaters among other movie-related topics.
- People who probably did not read the original post reply that the tiny print on the back of the movie ticket says that drinks can only be consumed in the lobby. A retro-active justification, which perhaps should have been the one given when xDragon called customer service the first time.
- The usher's instructions that were ignored by xDragon remain shrouded in mystery.
- The manager posts obviously nonsensical parable that obfuscates the key facts. It fools no one who actually read the original post.
I feel really sorry...not for xDragon, but for the theater staff, who just keep making themselves look worse and worse.
Of course, it's quite possible (maybe even probable) that xDragon has made trouble in the past and the theater staff were just tired of any interaction with him. That doesn't change the fact the theater staff are quite clearly in the wrong in this specific instance. Given the facts, which are not in dispute, it matters not whether xDragon had trolled in the past or not. Mature people would have admitted already that they made an error in judgment because of their past interactions with xDragon and let it be that (e.g., "He's always doing bad stuff, so we assumed that he was doing bad stuff again without actually thinking about it. My bad. He didn't actually ignore any of the usher's instructions"). Just seems like a classic case of some people being incapable of admitting when they're in the wrong. What reasonable person here would not forgive volunteer workers for making a mistake if they simply admitted it?
From what I see, nyan has already admitted error and apologized, which is very civilized. Javaness apologized for not paying more attention to xDragon's communication. Doug is the only one who dug a bigger hole for himself.
KGS Admins do a difficult job and they do it for free. However, it is not a contradiction for a person to simultaneously appreciate that fact and point out when the admins are in error.
