Nah… because the computers are all about access to the legal stuff. I’m pretty sure someone just couldn’t think of how to create a system that would be fair to people who had not been on for two hours already when the computers filled up, so they just made this really dumb, simplistic rule.
By the way… while the things that bug me definitely bug me…very little bugs me. 
Life’s far too short.
It’s a judgment call based on the circumstances and the amount. When it’s just a few bucks then it’s usually a better call to to give the customer the lower prices. Especially if they’re polite. That’s also assuming you’re pretty sure the customer didn’t switch the prices themselves.
If the difference is pretty significant you apologize for the mistake and offer *some * compensation. That’s when certain customers get pissy.
I’ve pointed out to some customers that the writing on the sign with the price is actually a different item.
“Well I didn’t see that”
“I understand that. But you see it now right? I’m sorry for the confusion but I can’t sell that item for the other items price.”
“Well that’s false advertising”
Um no it isn’t.
A recent favorite.
The store I work at buys overstock and closeouts and resells at good prices. One company we buy from uses 0.02 to designate closeout. We try to take that off but one customer found a pair of pants we sell for $10 that would be $20 to $30 any place else that had 0.02 on them and went to the register and handed the cashier two pennies. She laughed thinking it was a joke and then realized the guy was serious. Our price tag was in plain view and she explained.
“I don’t care, it says 2 cents and that’s what I expect to pay.” She sent him to me.
He shows me the pants
Yes, and?
He shows me the tag for 0.02. I pointed out our price tag and gave him the same explanation the cashier just had.
“That’s not my problem. They were hanging up with this on them and I expect to pay that price”
I kept it short. Looked him in the eye and said clearly
I am NOT selling you these pants for 2 cents!
Then the man in his mid forties stomped off like some petulant three year old. He was cartoon like. Funny.
In Australia, if an item has the wrong price on it, you’re legally obliged to either honour the price or you can (theoretically) withdraw the item from sale, but that’s a massive Dick Move and should only be invoked in extreme circumstances.
However, you’re not obliged to honour lower prices on a 42" TV that has the price ticket for a 32" TV (and clearly says such) on it, or that sort of thing…
I think everyone is missing the very simple answer of why, on this day, the librarian enforced the rules and said she could no longer use the computer.
Stoid says:
“I deliberately park about 5 blocks away, for the exercise.”
“I hike in the midday sun the 5 blocks to my car and back. (Actually, I dance. I listen to my ipod and boogie down the street…”
“A MUCH more lively and entertaining way to travel on foot. Also accounts for why I get extra hot and sweaty.)”
What was that?
Extra hot and sweaty?
The librarian didn’t want a stinky, sweaty chick dripping all over the chair, keyboard and mouse.
It’s a law library not a gym.
I’d hosaanna that except for the homeless folks. Yipes!
Wait…:eek:
I still don’t see what the harm is, in occasionally asking “why”. I know about rules and bureaucracy. Sometimes it’s a matter of a simple “We were directed to do this”. Sometimes it’s a “We tried your way and it didn’t work”. Depending on the job it could be as dramatic as “This rule will keep you from killing yourslef”.
I’ve found that when someone independently declares something to be required or mandatory and then can’t explain why, it often turns out that it was no more that his own 'latest great idea that will turn bad".
There are people out there who did ask why, and when it came down to it, the “why” didn’t exist anymore (if it ever did), and the person got rewarded for a Cost Saving.
Sometimes WHY will benefit the agency or company.
Why can you not understand the reason for the policy? The library has 14 computers. Time on the computers is a limited resource. No doubt the library has experienced situations in the past when one or more users hogged a computer for four or five hours straight, while other patrons waited to get access. If those other patrons were browsing the shelves, or reading, or talking quietly, or doing something other than watching the hogs at the computer like a hawk, they might miss the window of time in which the hog(s) got up and re-signed for the computer.
So they created a policy – two hours on a computer per user per day. That gets the computer hogs off (eventually) and allows other patrons to use the computers.
However, if the librarian at the desk explains this to you (or, to use a different example, a patron who wanted to be bitchy), the patron could then counter “Yeah, but there’s nobody else here!” And then the librarian would respond, “True, but if a group of people came in all at once and needed to use the computers, you would be taking up their time.” To which the patron would reply, “I’d log off if somebody needed the computer!” And then the librarian would respond, “We’ve been told that before, and it didn’t happen, and when we asked the patron to log off, s/he refused, things escalated, it got abusive, and eventually we had to call in a SWAT team. Tear gas was used, and the patron was finally clubbed unconscious and dragged out, still clinging to the computer. We had to completely replace that unit, and now we’re being sued. All because we tried to be nice to some computer hog. So the policy is, two hours per day on the computer.”
How would hearing all that make it any different for you?
Mostly the reason for those unreasonable policies is because setting an across the board policy and sticking to it is easier and ultimately more efficient than evaluating every request on a case by case basis. Once you start making exceptions you open the floodgates, and cause a lot of grief for the guy who eventually has to put his foot down. But this can’t be explained to the customer without getting the “I thought this was customer SERVICE” speech and that’s 10 minutes right out the window.
The 2 hour limit thing is a PERFECT example of this.
Oh, and remember when this message board only had one rule; “don’t be a jerk”. Yeah, they don’t do that anymore. Same thing.
Well, it wouldn’t go that way because my part would play differently.
But in a general sense, yes. Because again, rather than getting whiny and asking to be made a special exception, I would do the same thing I would do in a job situation: come up wtih a better way to achieve the end result without the wasteful and unnecessary denial when there are computers free. And no, not to the lowly powerless clerk. To someone in a position to listen. But it starts with discovering exactly what they think they are accomplishing that they believe is fundamentally impossible to achieve any other way. I can guarantee you I will.
.
I definitely object to the policy and want to see it changed. However, if the answer were something similar to the examples I gave in the OP, that would also be better and less upsetting.
The OP was actually directed much more at the response itself, if you read it again you’ll see that. Tell me we’re all gonna die. Tell me God told you so. Tell me you don’t know that kind of shit for $10 an hour. Just don’t RESTATE the goddamn policy, that’s INFURIATING.
To my ears, it’s very similar in feel and impact to my asking what time it is and having the response be “blue”. Or “the time you asked me the time”. It’s nonsensical, it makes me think you didn’t hear me. it’s non=responsive. It’s drone-like. It’s mindless, unhelpful and more than vaguely snotty at times, and when it’s not, it sounds like the person is severely mentally challenged, and while I have nothing against the mentally challenged in theory, dealing with them when I have a goal in mind, be it information or action, is maddening.
Please, if I ask a question of any kind, answer the question in a way that indicates you understood it, that’s my first concern. If it’s rude or unhelpful, that can be addressed in a different rant.
Again… I wouldn’t approach it from a position of exceptions. I would approach the policy as a whole and come up with something better. Hell, the simple thing I mentioned earlier would be enough: once you are on hour three, your name is highlighted as an “overlimit” - if there are people waiting, you’re out. How much simpler could it be? And it could even be separated: hour 3 is yellow, hour 4 is blue, so the blues get the boot before the yellows.
Incredibly simple. And no idle computers.
Considering how much is involved in legal research, how deep the rabbit hole goes, so to speak, 2 hours is painfully brief.
But what I (and many others) have said/indicated/spelled out/shown/related through life experiences is, ANY interaction with the public that shows ANY chink in the armor of the policy has the potential to be a lose/lose proposition for the clerk. It will waste their time. It will make them feel badly. It will likely make them angry. So why should the clerk do that?
On the other hand, they can state the policy. If the patron objects/whines/demands an explanation/rants and raves/does anything other than accepts the answer, they re-state the policy. This COULD make the patron angry, but it allows the clerk to remain disengaged. It’s a win/lose, but that’s a better outcome from the clerk’s perspective.
And after seeing your additional post: I guarantee you a similar policy was tried in another library, with results not too far off what I posted (patron refusing to leave the computer, despite being over the time limit). Many policies and procedures are put in place to govern the most objectionable actions/behavior. Makes it stricter for those of us who do/would follow the rules, but them’s the breaks.
Once again, no one is telling her that she’s an annoying twat because she asked why. They’re telling her she’s an annoying twat for asking THREE TIMES. :rolleyes: And it has been told to her several times WHY such a policy makes sense. She doesn’t give a shit.
Stoid’s continuing responses in this thread are only making me believe even more strongly that she didn’t really want an answer to satisfy her innate curiosity. She wanted an answer so that she could get her foot in the door to start arguing about why the policy is a bad one. If someone tells you that the policy is 2 hours on computers, and you ask why, and they say that it’s because the policy is 2 hours on computers, then the logical thing to do is to either 1) accept it, and plan your library time accordingly, or 2) ask who is responsible for setting the policy, get their contact infomation so you can express your displeasure to them directly, and go on about your day.
Instead, Stoid seems to have gone with option 3: Repeat your question and get the exact same answer two more times, become frustrated and upset, and then bitch about it on the Internet.
That’s a whole different issue. My comment was more directed at people who don’t seem to want to explain anything, even once.
Couldn’t Stoid write or email to the Head of this library service, thus hoping to get a considered answer regarding the whys and wherefores of this policy? All right, it’s slower than asking the library assistant at the desk, but it would presumably get an answer from the organ grinder.
A. You are the only one who got bent about the thriceness.
B. I repeat: WAY more obnoxious to NON-answer a perfectly legitimate question than for me to try to get an answer. It isn’t as though I stood there like a 4 year old saying “why? Why? Why? WHy?”, I communicated like a reasonable person and explained why I was re-asking: yes, I understand what the policy is, Im trying to understand what the policy is designed to accomplish.
C. I’ve been told why other people have the opinion that it makes sense (“it” being, I believe, restating the policy in response to my question). I disagree.
Note for the record: any matter which does not lend itself to rigid scientific proof one way or another is an opinion. Many things can contribute or detract from the legitimacy of a given opinion. In MY opinion, counting the number of people who agree about it is almost completely worthless as a means of weighing the value of any idea, opinion, or belief.
If you disagree, I invite you to pick up pretty much any history book. You’ll discover that pretty much everybody believed ridiculous and stupid things at various times. Or walk into a church or mosque or other religious gathering place. Go to a Scientology gathering. A UFO conference. Watch “Threes Company”, which was willingly watched by millions of people for years.
I never have and I never will climb on board with something that does not make sense simply because a dozen or a hundred or a thousand or ten million other people think it does. All I need is one person who makes a good argument that resonates with me and I’ll sign up. 73 people making the same bad argument to me just means 73 people accept the same bad argument. Color me unimpressed.
There’s really no need to speculate. I’ve been completely forthright about what I was doing and thinking, and I never once claimed I was jsut trying to satisfy my curiosity.
But I also specifically said that I had no intention of arguing with the clerk, or in fact arguing with anyone. Nor did I.
And several times I’ve said what I did do, which happens to be what you suggested, with a couple of extra attempts at an answer thrown in.
Really, why do you just flat out ignore what I plainly say, multiple times? What’s the payoff in that?
Yes, and I will, and I said a few times I was going to do that!
Again: point of thread NOT the library policy. point of thread irritation at repetitive non answers to normal questions, has happened many places not library. Expressed willingness to receive sarcastic and bitchy answers right in OP. Re-expressed same just a few posts up. Now talking like cave person in futile attempt to penetrate.
It’s obviously irritating to hear the same questions repeated when you’ve already addressed them. If you just keep repeating yourself, maybe eventually they’ll get the point.