Look, there is a difference between safety issues, govt regulations, laws, and some bureaucrat making a purely arbitrary decision that makes little sense on the face of it.
Saying to someone that they can’t use the computers because they have already used them for 2 hours when no one else is using them now doesn’t make sense to me. Asking for an explanation as to why you can’t use computers no one else is currently using is not an irrational question. It demands a rational answer other than ‘those are the rules and being a blind robot, I can not bend them’. If you’re satisfied with that sort of answer then all the more power to you. Me, I’ll get a fake mustache and stand in line again. But then, I’m the sort that would get up and give others a chance if I’ve gone over the regular time limit.
I paid attention. I simply reject your reality and replace it with my own.
I must have missed the part where you work at the library. Perhaps you could repost it for me in letters which can be seen from space?
Uh-huh. My point still stands. Either the person has the power to change this policy and is a drooling mouth-breather because he or she didn’t realize that by investing $1.98 in highlighters there could be a computer policy which would satisfy all and sundry or… they don’t want to change the policy.
Also. Objection: hearsay.
You didn’t refute shit. You just started kicking your feet and screaming. Unless you’re trying to imply that the parts in red are the words that Jesus said, in which case I take it all back. You’re right, everyone else in the universe is wrong, would you like some pie?
Also, it’s as nauseam. I tried bolding it for you before, but apparently you only understand Aramaic.
Now that that’s done with, how about another stab at a justification for this draconian computer policy?
A flat 2 hour limit has three advantages over the highlighter system.
-
It is easy to enforce. “You’ve been on the computer for 2 hours? Ok, you’re done now.” No fuss, no muss. The person administering to the computers doesn’t have to make any decisions so they (theoretically) don’t have to waste any time explaining the policy and its nuances to library customers. This extra time can be used to do something productive. They are after all being paid.
-
There are no grey areas. The policy is simple to state and understand in clear language, so there is virtually no chance of misunderstanding. This helps to insulate the staff from the public, and vice versa. After having the policy explained, everybody understands how it works so there won’t be any surprises. Conversely, the policy is so simple that a mean-spirited staff member can’t use it as a tool to piss off the customers. It’s just not complicated enough.
-
It can be used to get rid of troublemakers in a non-confrontational manner. “Oh, I’m sorry Mr Stinky McFartsalot, you’re two hours are up. Scoot!” Instead of having a confrontation, the troublemaker is tolerated for 2 hours and then quietly ejected. The staff doesn’t have to try to defend kicking people out. This obviously doesn’t apply to someone like Mr Pervy McJerkovson who is masturbating to the Lexis citations, but it’s good for the low-grade annoying people you’d like to get rid of but don’t want to cause a scene.
-
Faster turnaround. The library is offering a service to the public. The more public they serve, the better. Even if that means that the service is marginally less useful to the people they’re offering it to.
-
It is resistant to being gamed. Because the policy is so simple, it is very difficult to use it to get advantage which would piss off the other computer users. Making bad blood. Your proposed policy has a couple of mechanisms for this. One obvious one is to delay your re-up time so that it is a few minutes after the time of the person next to you. That way, if someone comes in and puts themselves on the waiting list, the chump you’re sitting next to gets kicked off and you get a bonus hour. Even though you both came in at the same time. Win! Depending on how the computers are distributed in the Stoid Library of the Future, there may be other ways to tweak the system. Once you think you have something beautiful and foolproof, show it to a D&D player and ask them what they think…
Now, there are 5 possible reasons for the policy at your local Law Library. Given the lawyerly–though fundamentally trivial–nature of the subject, I trust you won’t object if I apply the criteria of rational basis* in evaluating the necessity of the computer policy?
- Link is to wikipedia. I would have cited Westlaw, but I just couldn’t get a computer that had access…
I have nothing to add but my own little annoyance at a rule enforced without thought:
We were two couples in a bar playing tabletop shuffleboard near some pool tables. We were the only customers there. We kept our shuffleboard scores on a little chalkboard nailed to the wall right next to the shuffleboard table and the pool tables. Shuffleboard was a free game.
The security guard for the shopping center came in, apparently on his routine patrol, and erased our scores. He told us the chalk board is for pool scoring only.
I politely told him that nobody was playing pool. His retort was that someone could possibly come in and play pool.
I stated if someone came in to play pool, I would happily erase our scores in favor of the pool players. His retort was to repeat that the chalkboard is for pool scoring only.
We grumbled amongst ourselves and borrowed pen and paper from the bartender without a problem.
Fucking Gaudere. ad nauseam.
Carry on.
Seriously? When Kimmy mentioned it I thought it was ludicrous for several reasons, starting with the fact that there’s no way to know, in terms of keeping Lexis/Westlaw (they are different companies, by the way, different policies) happy about it. Unless they have “secret researchers” they send out to law libraries to try and overcome the policy…see if the clerk cracks and BAM! Withdraw their service! Although that would be quite the time suck, since each “secret researcher” would have to fuck around wasting two hours before testing the clerk.
So how do they track it at your library? Maybe that’s the secret…in LA, the log in is anything, any keys at all so you have no way to know who is using the computer (which is why it would require secret researchers, which is why I don’t think it’s the case in LA).
Then there’s the essentially repugnant underlying facts; Westlaw and Lexis have library pricing but they get to dictate to the library that each individual human patron only gets two hours on a given day, which the library has to police for them, so they can market their services to lawyers??? SERIOUSLY?
However, it is a good explanation for why I couldn’t get an answer, and why the policy is “inherited”. IF that is the true answer that lies behind the policy, my guess is that it is either fully known to only one or two people, or maybe even none at all. LexWest may have stated the rule to someone very unStoid-like in their willingness to accept whatever rules are laid before them without question, someone who simply said “Oh, your rule is 2 hours per patron? Ok…done.”
This is all starting to look much more sinister…
But then there’s the whole FREE Lexis online. That kinda counters the idea that Lexis (at least) would be so control-freaky.
I am right now plunging into the serious work of the appeal and I am strongly considering buying one of the pay-as-you-go plans for the next month. They have day, week, and month a la care menus now. Still damn steep, but full access to the Shep, deerings, and proper cross referencing would be fabulous. (The free Lex doesn’t allow direct linking, very irritating. )
No they didn’t. They either assumed it was round or didn’t care one way or another.
Thanks for the info, Smugface McRichardDawkins!
As you note, the free version of Lexis is a very pared-down version of the product. As to your how “How would Lexis or Westlaw know?” question, the answer is simple: A library are not going to take the risk of losing their advantageous pricing just to make the recreational litigants of the world happier. And yes, Lexis and Westlaw want to engage in some price discrimination. Law students get it for free because each company wants to build brand loyalty with future practitioners (most law students prefer Westlaw, and most lawyers use it too). And while it is a nice advantage to be able to get on Lexis or Westlaw whenever you want, most practitioners don’t need to do so everyday (especially if you have a library of your own case files and memoranda), and since lawyering is a business, yes, Stoid many practitioners would dispense with their own subscription if the library were giving away unlimited access.
Frankly, your stage five freakout over the suggestion makes me think that you’ve contemplated this (Lexis and Westlaw limitations) might be in the offing and dread the deleterious effect it will have on your appeal.
Actually, now that I think about it, the chalkboard was not for pool scoring but was for a pool table waiting list. That sounds even more absurd since both of the two pool tables were open.
This is not an ad populum argument. We’re not discussing an objectively true fact like “the Earth is round”, nor are we discussing philosophical issues such as whether Jesus truly was the Son of God or just another hippie preaching peace and love, man. I merely suggest that when the resounding chorus from those reading your thread is that you’re wrong, you ought to reconsider your position.
You say you’re willing to accept that you may be wrong, but all evidence points to the contrary. It’s as if you spray Teflon on your head everyday so you can wipe away facts and reason with a damp sponge before they penetrate into your brain. It really is okay to admit you’re wrong once and a while.
Just a comparison, dude. 
How does your point stand? Wasn’t your point that I was telling it to the guy up front? Or are you referring to your point that all attempts at change are pointless and destined to fail because all options have already been considered and rejected by everyone?
I am referring to the factual parts of our show. The parts where I was actually in the room and participating in events being described? Because I’m not here to discuss imaginary events and discussions, you’ll have to take that up with others.
Thanks!
FTR: It was just the first thing that crossed my mind, not an idea I’m wedded to.
Since they dole it out in one-hour chunks, not really. Which is actually why this was all news to me and I’ve been getting far more than that all along. They have a piece of legal size paper printed on both sides with 14 boxes with space for names and an extra for the waiting list. If you sign up at 10am on Computer 1 (Box 1, front page of sheet, far left side, tiny area to sign in on) with Clerk A for an hour, then spend an hour in the stacks, and come back and sign up on Computer 14 (box 14, back side of sheet on the right) with Clerk B, it’s really easy to come back and sign up for Hour 3 on Computer 14 with Clerk B, which is evidently what I’ve innocently been doing up to now.
Evidently not.
Not to mention the fact that there’s about 8 different people in and out of that desk who will sign you up, so once you know the rules, overcoming them deliberately would be a snap.
It’s all very sloppy and haphazard, which, again, is why it took a year for me to find out about it.
[themasses]
No you wouldn’t! If pool players came in you would have argued that you were there first and you deserved to keep using it! The bar probably already had this problem and the security guard knew it and he knew if he told you that you would have said that you were different but you aren’t everyone acts exactly the same in this situation and they knew it so just stop being so difficult and follow the fucking rules!
[/themasses]
No, thank YOU! Dawkins ROCKS!
You’re being told that you’re acting like an obstinate ass, which is a matter of opinion. Certainly you can argue that everyone else’s opinion of your behavior is wrong. However, the Wikipedia site you linked to offers this as an exception to the ad populum rule:
Therefore, if 74 people think you’re being an obstinate ass and you do not wish to be seen as such, then you really ought to reconsider your position. If you don’t care, then by all means keep on keepin’ on.
Why is she wrong to ask what the purpose of the policy is? Why is she wrong to argue if it makes no sense? Why was she wrong to ask for the third hour when she has used these same computers longer than the two hours the current desk drone is limiting her to currently? Maybe the current clerk isn’t reading the correct policy for, as she says, she hadn’t been subject to it up to this point.
Heaven forbid that the staff have to deal with the public (their customers).:rolleyes:
Holy freaking cow.
Thank you for proving my point. You don’t get it and you never will. People treat you the way they treat you for a very good reason. That goes for this MB and IRL. Until you decide to change your behaviour people will continue to shit on you.
Because I do not agree that it is effective OR polite to respond to a perfectly reasonable question by saying the same thing that prompted the question, and, in so doing, completely disregard the question that was asked.
I can also argue (and I would be correct) that your assertion that “everyone” shares the same opinion as you do is not a true assertion. Unless of course the definition of “everyone” that you use is “the people who agree with me”, which of course would be different.
Your argument appears to be that the people in this thread who have chosen to make their opinions of me known, calling me an obstinate ass, obnoxious twat, and so forth, fall under the exception to the fallaciousness of numbers rule because these are the people whom I should view as the arbiters of “social convention, such as etiquette or polite manners” and, if I wish to gain acceptance into this tony group, I must therefore look to them to understand what is and is not a correct and acceptable way to interact with others.
Hmmm. I believe I will stick with being an obstinate, obnoxious asstwat, but thanks anyway.
Leander, I know how much you want it to be the case, but people do not shit on me. Quite the opposite. (Apart from the trial, of course, but that’s a unique situation)
Well, not from you. You’re a delicate flower who would never pitch a fit and scream at some peon behind a counter for 20 minutes because of some imagined slight.
Are you contending that every single person is kind and gentle and polite and won’t have some kind of a screaming meltdown? Because if those people exist, then sensible policies will help the staff to deal with those people.
Now for your other questions.
Why is she wrong to ask what the purpose of the policy is? She’s not wrong to ask what the purpose of the policy is. She’s perfectly within her rights to ask. After the second or third time she starts to give the impression that she’s not in it for the information, but she can ask.
Why is she wrong to argue if it makes no sense? Because she’s arguing with someone who she knows doesn’t have the authority to change the policy.* If she argues with the peon behind the counter she’s either bullying that person because they can’t fight back with her–she being the customer and all–or she’s hoping that they’ll give in because it’s not worth it to them to fight and let her have another hour at the computer.
- (Note for Stoid: You don’t have to riposte your contention that you were simply seeking information to use in your Quioxtic quest to change the world. I read it the first time. I usually ignore everything you post in gigantic red letters because it makes you look crazy.)
Why was she wrong to ask for the third hour when she has used these same computers longer than the two hours the current desk drone is limiting her to currently? That’s not wrong either. If she wants to ask and the drone wants to give it to her, then fine. You’d better watch out because Stoid is about to storm in and post in gigantic Jesus text about how she wasn’t asking for more time and [wall of repetitive nonsense removed by the editor]. The reason people are tearing into Stoid isn’t because she asked for a third hour. It’s because she’s swearing up and down that she had no intention of trying to wheedle a third hour at the computers and how dare we insinuate that and in the next breath she calmly explains how she was going to go about trying to wheedle the third hour.
Maybe the current clerk isn’t reading the correct policy for, as she says, she hadn’t been subject to it up to this point. Or maybe a lot of things. Maybe nobody had the cajones to tell her to gtfo before, because they knew she’d flip her shit and they didn’t want to deal with the inevitable pro se lawsuit. Who can tell?