Not liking rules = SC

[Rageaholic]

This is something I see on both this forum and on CS. Even though I rag on controlling rules and restrictions (mostly when it comes to the public schools), I have only been told this once on here. Quite often, when a thread goes into discussing the purpose of rules, laws, or policies, someone will say something like "We've all heard customers argue the same thing" or "That's a very SC tactic". I think that arguement is bull because a lot of the time the rules are pretty unfair.

For instance, I've argued cell phones in schools many times on here. I think for schools to outright ban cell phones is ridiculous. It's one thing to require students to turn them off or on vibrate during tests, but to ban them completely in a place where students will spend 35 hours a week? Come on, they were invented for a reason. The school is the one being sucky by making such a dumb rule, not the students who bring cell phones.

I get it, there are probably times when people deliberatly break rules just to be an asshole, and a lot of rules do make sense, but just because something is a rule, doesn't mean it's worth enforcing or following. And I don't know about everyone else on here, but I usually don't break the rules anyway, I just complain about how stupid they are. But sometimes even complaining about the rules is enough to generate a "you're being an SC" responce.

[KnitShoni]

Complaining about the rules is one thing. Everyone complains about at least one rule. Does that make us all SCs? I think we sometimes forget that what defines an SC is the behavior they exhibit when having to face the rules in question.

[Boozy]

Complaining endlessly about corporate rules to minimum-wage cashier who can't do a thing about it = Sucky.

Complaining about pointless or ineffective corporate rules to someone who CAN do something about it (ie, the corporate office customer complaints division) = Not sucky.

Complaining about rules we don't like, to no one in particular, just for the sake of complaining = Fratching.

[Rapscallion]

Also worth noting that we have more than one section on CS.com for minor suckage or just general chatting. If you think something on there isn't sucky, hit the report button - if we agree, we'll more than likely drop it into GWC or MiM or CoC.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

Complaining endlessly about corporate rules to minimum-wage cashier who can't do a thing about it = Sucky.

bolded for emphasis... I wouldn't say that complaining to a cashier is inherently sucky... not dropping it though after they've pointed out that there is nothing they can do is pretty sucky.

[Rageaholic]

From what I can tell, a lot of the rules cashiers have to enforce are rules they have to follow. Like they can't accept a return without a reciept. That's something that a cashier would have to do, but wouldn't be able to. I could see where it would be annoying to customers, but I would think it would be more annoying to the cashier to be put between a rock and a hard place. Bullying the cashier over it would be extremely sucky; persistent people are a royal pain in the ass.

The rules I was thinking of were more general rules that require enforcing, like the cell phone one. When someone brings their cell phone to class, they aren't expecting the teachers to provide the cell phones. They are bringing their own phones, so in that instance, it's the students who are being told what to do. In some instances, what they are being told to do is common sense (don't fight, don't bring drugs to school, ect), but with schools, they take it to ridiculous extremes. How would bringing a cell phone be sucky? Is it just because it's the rules? I'm sorry, but it's a stupid rule. It's not inconviencing anyone, it's not asking a favor of anyone, it's just doing something that normally wouldn't be an issue, but because they say it's against their stupid rules, they make it a problem.

Cell phone rule is just an example because there are a lot of other rules and even laws that I think are downright stupid. (of course disobeying laws have more serious concequences than school rules or store policies so that's a different ballpark, but I wouldn't say someone is a bad person for breaking a law).

[KnitShoni]

As far as cell phones, I don't think it's really that simple. Teenagers love their phones, and will use them during the school day if allowed to. That can be very disrupting to the teacher and other students. My school district's policy allows phones to be brought, but they must be silent/off. If there is proof the phone is on, i.e. it ringing or the student using it, it gets taken away and the parent has to retrieve it.

[Android Kaeli]

If you have a cell phone and it goes off in the middle of class, then it's sucky. It's interrupting the class itself, all because the student didn't bother to turn it off. Bringing a cell phone to class isn't breaking the rules, having it on and it goes off during class *is* breaking the rules. It's annoying, it's rude, it's disrupting a class.

Because of idiots that can't understand the basic concepts of "turn cell phones off", these rules are in place. It's the same with other such rules, all because of a small group of people that thought that certain things didn't apply to them because they were special snowflakes. I don't like certain rules in places that I frenquent, heck new rules and guidelines were put into effect at a couple places BECAUSE of the dumbasses.

[smileyeagle1021]

and even laws that I think are downright stupid. .

Not to mention contradictory.
There is a traffic law in Utah that if you are in the carpool lane you can only move over if it is at a designated entrance or exit to the lane (as marked by a double dashed line rather than a double solid line)... however it is also law that if there is an emergency vehicle to move to the right to make a path for said emergency vehicle. Which law do you follow because to follow one will require you to violate the other (either clear the path and cross the double white line or don't cross the double white line and impede the emergency vehicle).

[Plaidman]

See, I love my school. While they have a no cell phone rule, we all tend to break it, even teachers. It's the one's that abuse it that get in trouble, like talking to friends during class, or texting answers to friends, listening to IPOD with recorded answers etc.

Teachers and staff there understand that as adults and even some teenagers have emergencies, be it work-related for those that are in mangment (Like me before my long term leave), family issues, etc etc. But it needs to be on vibrate, and you need to leave the building to talk.

I've seen some students try to talk to friends on cell phones. They don't last long.

[Rageaholic]

If you have a cell phone and it goes off in the middle of class, then it's sucky. It's interrupting the class itself, all because the student didn't bother to turn it off. Bringing a cell phone to class isn't breaking the rules, having it on and it goes off during class *is* breaking the rules. It's annoying, it's rude, it's disrupting a class.

Because of idiots that can't understand the basic concepts of "turn cell phones off", these rules are in place. It's the same with other such rules, all because of a small group of people that thought that certain things didn't apply to them because they were special snowflakes. I don't like certain rules in places that I frenquent, heck new rules and guidelines were put into effect at a couple places BECAUSE of the dumbasses.

Well to be fair, sometimes you can forget it's turned on. It's super super annoying having some god damn ringtone go off in the middle of class, but a lot of the time, the students forget they have it turned on. I think they should just have it on vibrate; that way if there is an important call, it won't disrupt anything, and the student can just be excused.

I see what you mean though. Rules that restrict everyone are unfair, so I don't see breaking them as sucky. It's the people who do sucky things to put the rule in effect who are sucky, or in this case, at least annoying. Still, I think some schools take the cell phone annoyance too far and become really obsessive about it. I can understand it being annoying, but jeez!

[AdminAssistant]

A vibrating phone is just as distracting and annoying as a ringtone. Gosh, I wonder, how did people ever handle emergencies before cell phones?!?! It's very, very, very rare that the emergency is so dire it can't wait until after class.

I keep my phone on me while I'm teaching, but that's so that if there's a disruption, an aggressive student, or even something as serious as a shooting, I can call campus police immediately.

[jackfaire]

A vibrating phone is just as distracting and annoying as a ringtone.

Is it because your the only one speaking and so it's quieter in the classroom?

In the office everyone's phones on vibrate and you can't tell unless it's yours.

[KnitShoni]

That, and some phones seem to vibrate louder than others. My husband's phone is louder than mine when they're both on vibrate.

[lordlundar]

Not to mention contradictory.
There is a traffic law in Utah that if you are in the carpool lane you can only move over if it is at a designated entrance or exit to the lane (as marked by a double dashed line rather than a double solid line)... however it is also law that if there is an emergency vehicle to move to the right to make a path for said emergency vehicle. Which law do you follow because to follow one will require you to violate the other (either clear the path and cross the double white line or don't cross the double white line and impede the emergency vehicle).

Not really contradictory if you give it some thought. A lot of places have similar laws on the books, and a detail that notes that emergency vehicles always get priority over some arbitrary line on the road. The only condition where you're not to do so is if you can't do it safely (going to cause an accident or endanger lives to do so).

Then again, the way police are in Utah, I'd honestly believe that they would but you for crossing the line to give clearance.