People that "Just don't get it"
Oct. 20th, 2004 12:00 pmHow do you deal with someone, that as far as you're concerned, "Just doesn't get it.".
Every day, we have disagreements. Usually, they can be resolved by discussion.
Usually they are simply disagreements about methodology, but with a similar end goal. An example might be choice of a place to eat, or which route to take to get to work.
Every now and then though, you bump into someone who has a world view that doesn't really include your view.
Currently, there's a discussion on the SINergy board. For those that don't roleplay, it'll seem geeky and obscure. My 'conflict' is that there's one person who is insistant that rules are essential, everything should be codified, and in an ideal world there would be nothing at "ref's discretion".
I have trouble dealing with this opinion. I'm able to discuss relative merits of 'managing' roleplay/combat etc. But they all start with the fundamental concept that the Ref is the guy running the show. There's rules that exist to formalise the game flow, and provide a simple mechanism for combat etc. But they are tools to assist the ref in the storytelling, not the 'central point' of the game.
The issue is a wider one though. There's been several occasions at which I've come to the conclusion that a particular person I'm talking to 'just doesn't get it'. From discussions over Maelstrom about why percentages are pointless in a currency that doesn't have factors of 100, to whether debts and taxes exists as obligations to be paid, or inconveniences to be avoided.
So my question is this. With the people who 'Just don't get it', how do you deal with them?
Do you just write them off as "that arsehole that doesn't get it"?
Do you just ignore them, and hope they go away?
Do you talk to the 'person in charge' (obviously, assuming it's not this person who 'doesn't get it') and try and convince them of your opinion?
Do you just slap them upside the head, tell them to STFU and point at the door?
Skirting around some issues remain a possibility, except every now and then you are in a situation where that possibility doesn't remain open. In this case, the person who I'm having this with is a player in a roleplay game that I help run. And everytime he says (writes) something, I become increasingly convinced that he "just doesn't get it".
I'm also faced somewhat with the situation at work. Our new 'Active Directory' is going to be using a flat namespace across all of Europe and Asia. Yes, that does mean everything in the same domain (And DNS domain). Which means you get name clashes, and so have to make up stupid rules about what you're allowed to call your servers. Not realising, of course, that's precisely the reason why DNS hierarchy was invented in the first place.
Every day, we have disagreements. Usually, they can be resolved by discussion.
Usually they are simply disagreements about methodology, but with a similar end goal. An example might be choice of a place to eat, or which route to take to get to work.
Every now and then though, you bump into someone who has a world view that doesn't really include your view.
Currently, there's a discussion on the SINergy board. For those that don't roleplay, it'll seem geeky and obscure. My 'conflict' is that there's one person who is insistant that rules are essential, everything should be codified, and in an ideal world there would be nothing at "ref's discretion".
I have trouble dealing with this opinion. I'm able to discuss relative merits of 'managing' roleplay/combat etc. But they all start with the fundamental concept that the Ref is the guy running the show. There's rules that exist to formalise the game flow, and provide a simple mechanism for combat etc. But they are tools to assist the ref in the storytelling, not the 'central point' of the game.
The issue is a wider one though. There's been several occasions at which I've come to the conclusion that a particular person I'm talking to 'just doesn't get it'. From discussions over Maelstrom about why percentages are pointless in a currency that doesn't have factors of 100, to whether debts and taxes exists as obligations to be paid, or inconveniences to be avoided.
So my question is this. With the people who 'Just don't get it', how do you deal with them?
Do you just write them off as "that arsehole that doesn't get it"?
Do you just ignore them, and hope they go away?
Do you talk to the 'person in charge' (obviously, assuming it's not this person who 'doesn't get it') and try and convince them of your opinion?
Do you just slap them upside the head, tell them to STFU and point at the door?
Skirting around some issues remain a possibility, except every now and then you are in a situation where that possibility doesn't remain open. In this case, the person who I'm having this with is a player in a roleplay game that I help run. And everytime he says (writes) something, I become increasingly convinced that he "just doesn't get it".
I'm also faced somewhat with the situation at work. Our new 'Active Directory' is going to be using a flat namespace across all of Europe and Asia. Yes, that does mean everything in the same domain (And DNS domain). Which means you get name clashes, and so have to make up stupid rules about what you're allowed to call your servers. Not realising, of course, that's precisely the reason why DNS hierarchy was invented in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 05:37 am (UTC)I don't.