Not Being the Nice Guy (split from Random Rants OA)
- Thread starter hobbsyoyo
- Start date
- Status
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Sad fact of life is that one inevitable meets people with poor anger management, people with problems that cause them to discharge on others, etc. Some times I even feel for these people, when I can notice the underlying issue... but best policy is only to try to help them out of it if they're friends going though a rough time and deserve any help/toleration. Otherwise they're to be regarded as toxic colleagues, keep them away and don't let them ruin your day.
Mise
isle of lucy
Love the irony of two 12 year olds making a crap joke then telling me to lighten up. There are plenty of actually funny pranks in this thread, but cos they're hilarious man children they just love the idea of sending an email propositioning themselves for sex. "teeheehee, SEX!!! He wants to have SEX with me!!! GAY SEX!!!!! hahahahahaha." witty, witty adult men.
Lexicus
Deity
Dude...lighten up...seriously...and stop insulting me, there's no call for that whatever.
Mise
isle of lucy
Yeah, you're right, sorry. I shouldn't have insulted you. What you're suggesting is completely immature and dumb though. I'm not going to lighten up, because if people actually follow your suggestion in a real office, there is a potential for serious consequences. What you are suggesting is downright irresponsible in a professional environment.
Lexicus
Deity
The part you seem to have missed is that I didn't suggest that (@Timsup2nothin did). I also have no intention of doing anything remotely similar to it. I simply told you to lighten up because it seems like you're taking it far more seriously than anyone else in the thread is.
If you really think there is a potential for "serious consequences" you can leave it that. Insulting people over a silly joke in an online forum makes you look like the immature one.
I might be missing the nuance of this donut prank, but wouldn't sending an email to everyone on the team do a pretty good job of outing someone's bad habits? It's like snitching to management via a megaphone.
Mise
isle of lucy
I'm taking it seriously because it is serious. I'm not going to "lighten up", because treating it as trivial is precisely the problem: sending unauthorised emails of a sexual nature from a coworker's computer to another employee is actually a serious matter. I'm not going to "leave it at that", so... deal with it? Ignore it? I dunno, that's your call. People are still talking about it so I'm going to keep telling them how dumb it is.
And yes, I do look immature for insulting people online, you are right. Again, apologies to you and Tim. I will reiterate that the suggestion is immature, dumb, probably illegal, and wildly hypocritical.
'Lighten up' is a pretty poor refuge to retreat to after making a suggestion that isn't really socially acceptable.
Well that makes sense, I was assuming the 'team' would include some sort of team leader.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
No worries. This whole thread is confusing and I did not want it to be created in the first place. In fact, I'm 100% sure the original intent of the thread was because @Commodore had made some inflammatory remarks that derailed the rants thread. But after being split off it descended into madness where now we're talking about sending sexts from coworkers accounts instead of either Commodore's posts or the actual OP.
Lexicus
Deity
I'm treating it as trivial precisely because I think there is a near-zero chance that anyone is actually going to do it.
Mise
isle of lucy
Gonna sound off again, so fair warning to Lexicus.
The reason I call this wildly hypocritical is that the stated aim of any email-sending prank is to teach people to take computer security protocols seriously. But the means of achieving that aim is to breach computer security protocols, by sending unauthorised emails from their computer. It's equivalent of teaching people to lock their front door by walking in and pissing on their living room carpet.
The argument that this is a good way to "teach someone a lesson" is particularly weak, because the lesson is learnt not by positive, healthy reinforcement, but by humiliating and shaming someone. Humiliation is not, in my experience, ever a positive learning experience. I contend that the stated aim is not the true (or at least, the only) aim; it is simply to have fun at someone else's expense. This is why the "email of sexual nature" is so perverse: not only is it an attempt at humiliating a colleague, but it is an attempt to humiliate them sexually. It's just completely unacceptable in a workplace.
I am not so concerned about the "doughnut" email, because the potential for serious consequences is fairly limited. It is, in principle, a very poor way of teaching people about adhering to computer security protocols, since "shame" is a terrible way of teaching people, and since it requires you to breach computer security protocols yourself. The only advantage it has is that apparently people find this fun? So are more likely to enforce the norm in the workplace?
It seems like there are far better ways of teaching people, and far better ways of dealing with unlocked computers.
The reason I call this wildly hypocritical is that the stated aim of any email-sending prank is to teach people to take computer security protocols seriously. But the means of achieving that aim is to breach computer security protocols, by sending unauthorised emails from their computer. It's equivalent of teaching people to lock their front door by walking in and pissing on their living room carpet.
The argument that this is a good way to "teach someone a lesson" is particularly weak, because the lesson is learnt not by positive, healthy reinforcement, but by humiliating and shaming someone. Humiliation is not, in my experience, ever a positive learning experience. I contend that the stated aim is not the true (or at least, the only) aim; it is simply to have fun at someone else's expense. This is why the "email of sexual nature" is so perverse: not only is it an attempt at humiliating a colleague, but it is an attempt to humiliate them sexually. It's just completely unacceptable in a workplace.
I am not so concerned about the "doughnut" email, because the potential for serious consequences is fairly limited. It is, in principle, a very poor way of teaching people about adhering to computer security protocols, since "shame" is a terrible way of teaching people, and since it requires you to breach computer security protocols yourself. The only advantage it has is that apparently people find this fun? So are more likely to enforce the norm in the workplace?
It seems like there are far better ways of teaching people, and far better ways of dealing with unlocked computers.
At least we agree that someone would have to be completely dumb and immature to even consider this as an acceptable thing to do in a workplace. I sincerely hope that you are correct, and that there is no-one that dumb and immature here on CFC.
Lexicus
Deity
But this is exactly how this works in computer security contexts in real life. Google "white hats" and you will see what I mean.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Doesn't matter. I was totally in the wrong and deserved to be screamed at and called a long list of obscenities. Not to mention the guy who did the screaming did his own donuting on someone else previously and it really doesn't matter that people on the team enjoyed the pranking. I crossed the wrong person and that's enough reason to be berated. /s
Mise
isle of lucy
You realise that white hats disclose the breach to the company in private, to give them an opportunity to fix the problem first?
Whereas black hats exploit and/or publicise the breach for personal gain?
The white hat response is to have a quiet word with the person who left their computer unlocked, while the black hat response is to send unauthorised emails from it, for the lulz. What you're describing is indeed how this works in computer security contexts in real life -- if you are a black hat hacker. (Or, more accurately, a 4 chan script kiddie.)
Mise
isle of lucy
Has anyone actually said this?
Lexicus
Deity
Yeah, but think about how different the stakes are in that kind of situation. The doughnut trick seems a lot more analogous to white hat than to black hat behavior, particularly because the intent is to help the "victim" avoid potentially serious punishment.
Not in so many words, but since you sort of berated him yourself it was kind of implied.
Mise
isle of lucy
But it's literally not what white hats do? The white hat response is a quiet word, whereas the black hat response is to send unauthorised emails. Because that's literally what black hats do! I mean, a lot of black hats will say "I'm helping them with their computer security" or "this will teach them to secure their servers properly". They literally use that excuse!
I agree that the consequences are less severe, but if you're going to tell me to google what white hats do, then don't immediately dismiss what white hats actually do!
I don't think I addressed him once in this thread. And I assumed that the berating Hobbs was referring to was the guy who berated him in the workplace, as described in his first post.
Lexicus
Deity
Black hats may use that excuse dishonestly. Do you think hobbs is using it dishonestly?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
