Not Being the Nice Guy (split from Random Rants OA)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The font is just the extra cherry on the crap sandwich, as they say.
 
Until today. My coworker started yelling at me and I was going to apologize until he started cursing and calling me all manner of nasty names loud enough that the whole floor went quiet. Now I just hope HR doesn't get involved.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Dude...lighten up...seriously...and stop insulting me, there's no call for that whatever.
 
Dude...lighten up...seriously...and stop insulting me, there's no call for that whatever.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
The entire point of a fellow employee getting involved with an unsecured workstation is so that the offending employee doesn't get reprimanded (or outright fired) by management. By incorporating the chiding with a prank, you give them an opportunity to laugh it off while also being aware that they royally screwed up.

Letting them know they screwed up and then throwing them to the wolves anyways will just get you branded as "that guy". It's also unhelpful.
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.
 
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'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.
 
Well that makes sense, I was assuming the 'team' would include some sort of team leader.
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.
 
because treating it as trivial is precisely the problem:

I'm treating it as trivial precisely because I think there is a near-zero chance that anyone is actually going to do it.
 
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.

I'm treating it as trivial precisely because I think there is a near-zero chance that anyone is actually going to do it.
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.
 
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.

But this is exactly how this works in computer security contexts in real life. Google "white hats" and you will see what I mean.
 
But this is exactly how this works in computer security contexts in real life. Google "white hats" and you will see what I mean.
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
 
But this is exactly how this works in computer security contexts in real life. Google "white hats" and you will see what I mean.
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.)
 
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
Has anyone actually said this?
 
You realise that white hats disclose the breach to the company in private, to give them an opportunity to fix the problem first?

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.

Has anyone actually said this?

Not in so many words, but since you sort of berated him yourself it was kind of implied.
 
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.
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!

Not in so many words, but since you sort of berated him yourself it was kind of implied.
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.
 
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!

Black hats may use that excuse dishonestly. Do you think hobbs is using it dishonestly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom