terms such as always, never, every, none, 100%, etc. should be avoided when debating a topic because using such terms brings doubt into the topic. If you had said using company time for gaming should be avoided and I almost never even have the time for it at work anyway......your point may have been well received. Instead you stated your case in absolute terms and stated it in such a manner that it did come across as yo were better than other people on the board. I never have time.....I'm always busy at work.....MY background is to be productive at work.....

Like it or not the way YOU wrote YOUR responses YOU came across as pompous. You had the opportunity early on in this thread to apologize for the way you came off. You could have said something like: whoa guys, I'm sorry I came off the way I did. This is not what I meant at all. I was simply stating my workplace. That's great that some of you guys have some flex time at your jobs, which is completely normal in the real work environment (okay I threw that part in for me).

instead you continues to drive home your own personal work ethic of 100% (which is really just an impossibility which is why you lost every one in this thread)

Hey, just avoid those absolute terms and maybe come down here with the majority of the users. It's really not that bad a place to be.

By the way, I had to postpone my family vacation a little bit today because work got in the way. Unfortunately I don't get to tell my job that outages that happen on my personal time will just have to wait. But honestly, I didn't complain about having to work because I have perks like being able to check WIS at work for a reasonable amount of time (5 minutes is usually enough). My family understood too.

Sorry, I know that was too long a rant and was not well organized

a quick personal phone call is just a de minimis theft of the time to which the employer was entitled, eh?

Posted by fd343ny on 8/25/2015 8:40:00 PM (view original):
a quick personal phone call is just a de minimis theft of the time to which the employer was entitled, eh?

That was my point to him also. As he is so "no grey area on internet use being stealing". At my work place the phone has become such a problem with txting that employees are no longer aloud to have them on their person while working. For emergencies the employee have been told to have family members call the office or the supervisor. So clearly my work environment is different than his. So yes taking a personal phone call at my work is worse than using the computer for personal use on break.(because yes we are allowed and before you ask again I am 100% sure we are allowed) And yes employees may walk to their car and use their cell phones on their break if they choose.

wait... did this guy really say a personal phone call during work time was ok? seriously? if true, that makes me think he must just be trolling. no reasonable person could suggest 2m of a personal phone call is some how ok while 2m of a personal computer usage is stealing. did he really say that? i was taking this guy at face value - like, i thought he believed what he said, that he was just misguided and was clinging to his earlier position even though hes since recognized its not as simple. you can't totally fault a guy for being an idiot if he really thinks he is right... but if hes really suggesting personal calls are ok, then he just trolled us all for 14 pages... 

lots of amusement value in this thread

Posted by edgriffith3 on 8/25/2015 9:12:00 AM (view original):
Folks, there's an easy solution and it's right under his user name. "Block this user" will definitely be the most productive thing anyone could do at this point.

That's the spirit: When you disagree with someone but have no real argument, defiantly ignore them instead of admitting this or simply letting it go.

Posted by possumfiend on 8/25/2015 10:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/25/2015 8:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 8/24/2015 1:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/23/2015 10:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 8/23/2015 12:20:00 PM (view original):
shawnfucious, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here in this thread? I can come up with a whole slew of reasons on my own but my reasons are all conjecture. Seriously, what is your endgame? What do you hope will come from all of this?

I'm simply responding to the topic at hand and then to the comments that are made.

Yes, but why?

Why does anyone post or respond to anyone? Why do we communicate with one another?

Are you really going metaphysical on the idea of why people post on message boards and respond to one another?

People post and respond for any number of reasons. I was interested in the motivation driving your behavior in this thread. If that's too difficult for you to answer directly, or if you don't wish to answer, then so be it.

Why the interest in my motivation when it is essentially no different than that of anyone else?

Posted by backboy13 on 8/25/2015 12:50:00 PM (view original):
WIS, please close this thread.

Why? It is a simple discussion. There is no reason to close such a thread.

Posted by emy1013 on 8/25/2015 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/25/2015 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/24/2015 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/23/2015 10:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/23/2015 5:28:00 PM (view original):
the guy already admitted he was wrong, let's just move on

Who admitted they were wrong? Please quote or link this, as I haven't seen anyone do so yet.

you didn't explicitly admit you were wrong, but all the pieces are there. you initially took a position, and agreed with future statements in direct conflict. you didn't explicitly admit fault but you walked back on the original statement nonetheless which is really enough for me. my point is made, your is in tatters. 

to clarify -
paraphrasing, your initial position was nobody should be playing games at work, that it was improper and somewhat mind boggling that anyone would do that, and more, that those doing it were at fault.

later, you agreed if it was allowable at work to play on break, there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, and also, that you really didn't know anything about if anyone else was in that situation or not. these two stand in direct conflict. there's really nothing more to say, you oversimplified, generalized, and were wrong. you admitted there was more to it, if you won't admit that proves you wrong, well there's really nothing else to say. i won't convince you, and you won't convince me or anyone else that you weren't wrong and that you haven't implicitly admitted it. but trust that its abundantly clear to the rest of us that you are in direct conflict with yourself with that combination of statements.

bottom line - you know nothing of anyone's situation, as you agreed. there are normal (read: in the normal range - i never suggested one normal situation precluded other normal situations, as you incorrectly presumed - i merely was saying its in the normal range, as in, you can't rule out that scenario as a theoretical possibility with fringe real world application. but its not really surprising you did so, given your failure here is trying to impose a black and white paradigm on the complexity that exists in real issues in the real world)  - anyway, there are normal situations in which folks could, without doing wrong, use HD at work. you agreed with this, while nitpicking the use of the word normal in a ridiculous and logically flawed manner. regardless - the combination of the two make it blatantly flawed to suggest that everyone who plays at work is at fault, or at the least, to wonder incredulously how anyone could possibly see fit to log into HD at work. 

its really no more complicated than that.

I never said I was wrong, and no one has made any real argument in that remote direction, let alone a successful one.

There was no initial position and later position - they were always the same. There is no contradiction because nothing changed. You just misunderstood.

You believe I'm wrong, clearly, but other than your insistence - which you've just stated is based upon your own misunderstanding - there is nothing showing I'm wrong.

I stand by my statements, including this one: Those who do not have explicit permission to play games (including HD) by using work equipment/connections are wrong to do so.

If you want it to be simple and not complicated, here it is: You think I'm wrong, but have no argument to show it other than your own insistence based upon your misunderstandings.

I suppose the opposing view could be this though Shawn:  You think you're right, but have no argument to show it other than your own insistence based upon your own opinions and feelings of the matter in question and the policies of YOUR own place of employment.

The difference is I have made arguments which at a minimum suggest I am correct.

However, I have also not insisted others are wrong to have their own opinions, as they have done toward me.

Posted by emy1013 on 8/25/2015 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/25/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by backboy13 on 8/25/2015 12:50:00 PM (view original):
WIS, please close this thread.

lulz, nobody is making you click on it this thread and read it.

Agreed.  I'm curious to see if this takes another twist or turn.  It's actually been one of the more interesting "debates" on the boards in quite some time.

Agreed, though I don't see much of a debate here.

Posted by emy1013 on 8/25/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Really, the thought that someone can give 100% effort for every second of every work day is beyond ludicrous.  Nobody, nobody is that robotic.

Your first statement has already been proven wrong, not only by myself but by another poster as well.

Also, working to capacity isn't robotic, and your attempt to classify it as such is an attempt to strawman the discussion.

Posted by fd343ny on 8/25/2015 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/25/2015 8:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 8/24/2015 9:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/21/2015 9:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 8/21/2015 9:52:00 AM (view original):
is it wrong - morally - for WIS to provide the alternative site?

for those who regard it as stealing when one handles personnel matters while at work, is WIS enabling or assisting that theft?  

And are those who patronize WIS supporting an enabler of theft?  follow the money, does the bright line of wrongdoing reach WIS and WIS patrons?

It is WIS job to ensure you have the best access to their site so you will remain a loyal customer.

I'm not sure who said they regard personal matters as stealing. I didn't notice anyone post that particular line of reasoning.

However, if your employer has not given you permission to use their equipment/connection to play games and you do so anyway, then you are stealing. While WIS is providing the access, it is your choice to use it in a manner which is stealing from your employer.

The same reasoning can be applied to other situations. Budweiser is not responsible for every drunk driver who consumed their beer to get drunk. McDonald's is not responsible for obesity and heart attacks because people who ate there are fat or die of cardiac arrest.

Those people are responsible for their own choices - and so the people stealing from their employer are responsible for theirs as well.

not a compelling answer here

shawn continues - I assume - to patronize WIS despite his view that the mirror site is a method that enables stealing by others.  Does it have another purpose - in shawn world view?  Enabling and supporting stealing must be at least as wrong as stealing.  Is it any different from someone who comes into shawn's workplace and provides a way for people to loaf undetected?

By the way, personal matters would be covered by a host of shawn posts that insist that workers should devote 100 percent of their attention to work.  Is there a moral difference between not working while playing WIS or not working while knitting on the job?  Surely the mere use of the device isnt the moral difference.

But that is detail

I wonder whether anyone other than shawn plays WIS at his workplace?

WIS is not responsible for how you use the mirror sites or whether that is something your company/boss/other authority is okay with.

Neither is anyone who uses WIS responsible for your choices/behaviors.

These are simple concepts that usually only need taught to young children.

now the "young children" remark is condescending 

and as a moral matter I dont think your reasoning holds water

consider this thought experiement - if someone created a web site that permitted shawn's workers to evade the safeguards that keep them from personal use of office equipment and require them to work every minute except during authorized breaks - and IF that web site had no purpose other than to assist such evasion - that would be moral in the shawn view of the world - because the maker of such a web site has no responsibility for how it is used?  thats really your view?

The young children remark is a simple fact.  Or is any fact that harms your position somehow condescending in your mind?

Morals are subjective, but as a logical matter, the reasoning holds quite well.

People are responsible for their own decisions and behaviors.

Posted by milwood on 8/25/2015 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Communication 101: the sender puts out a message and the receiver is the one that gets to interpret and put meaning to that message. It is up to the sender to clarify the position when it goes widely misunderstood. As the sender you did a very poor job communicating your point.

I'm not going to spend the time to go back through this thread but at one point you said it was okay to take a quick personal phone call. Not just the emergency one but the quick, yet seldom call. By your own definition you have not given 100% 100% of the time.

It is not up to the sender to anticipate every possible misinterpretation of all possible receivers. It is up to the receiver to clarify any position they aren't sure of before making a response based upon that position.

Taking personal phone calls when necessary often helps one work more productively. This renders your attempt to argue in this direction moot at best.

Posted by milwood on 8/25/2015 8:26:00 PM (view original):
terms such as always, never, every, none, 100%, etc. should be avoided when debating a topic because using such terms brings doubt into the topic. If you had said using company time for gaming should be avoided and I almost never even have the time for it at work anyway......your point may have been well received. Instead you stated your case in absolute terms and stated it in such a manner that it did come across as yo were better than other people on the board. I never have time.....I'm always busy at work.....MY background is to be productive at work.....

Like it or not the way YOU wrote YOUR responses YOU came across as pompous. You had the opportunity early on in this thread to apologize for the way you came off. You could have said something like: whoa guys, I'm sorry I came off the way I did. This is not what I meant at all. I was simply stating my workplace. That's great that some of you guys have some flex time at your jobs, which is completely normal in the real work environment (okay I threw that part in for me).

instead you continues to drive home your own personal work ethic of 100% (which is really just an impossibility which is why you lost every one in this thread)

Hey, just avoid those absolute terms and maybe come down here with the majority of the users. It's really not that bad a place to be.

By the way, I had to postpone my family vacation a little bit today because work got in the way. Unfortunately I don't get to tell my job that outages that happen on my personal time will just have to wait. But honestly, I didn't complain about having to work because I have perks like being able to check WIS at work for a reasonable amount of time (5 minutes is usually enough). My family understood too.

Sorry, I know that was too long a rant and was not well organized

Your first paragraph's point seems to be that some people are incredibly sensitive and expect others to make sure to phrase things in a specific manner or they become offended.  To that I say this: stop adding in meaning that isn't there. I never said I was better than other people, so stop pretending I did.

I informed those who said what you are saying that it was incorrect and not intended that way.  That should have sufficed.

I will not compromise my beliefs because some people can't take what someone says for what it is or accept that not everyone will agree with them.

Your statement about 100 percent work ethic has already been proven wrong.

Perhaps a few people should learn to ask questions about another position before responding to it based on their own (often incorrect) assumptions. It's really not that difficult of a thing to do.

Posted by fd343ny on 8/25/2015 8:40:00 PM (view original):
a quick personal phone call is just a de minimis theft of the time to which the employer was entitled, eh?

Since personal phone calls are permitted (within guidelines) at my job, the point is entirely moot when it comes to my situation.