Your interpretation of this apparently ambiguous conversation

[GeekDrew]

Given the following txt conversation, and knowing that party 2 is the supervisor of party 1, should party 1 install the network switch?

1>SO is putting another computer in office 0107, too few net drops, need a switch
2>i don't do localized switches any more
1>i figured you'd just delegate that out to someone
2>i don't do them, not you or anybody else
1>ok

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Given the following txt conversation, and knowing that party 2 is the supervisor of party 1, should party 1 install the network switch?

1>SO is putting another computer in office 0107, too few net drops, need a switch
2>i don't do localized switches any more
1>i figured you'd just delegate that out to someone
2>i don't do them, not you or anybody else
1>ok

No, your team does not support this anymore.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Given the following txt conversation, and knowing that party 2 is the supervisor of party 1, should party 1 install the network switch?

1>SO is putting another computer in office 0107, too few net drops, need a switch
2>i don't do localized switches any more
1>i figured you'd just delegate that out to someone
2>i don't do them, not you or anybody else
1>ok

Supervisor said no. Why do something the supervisor specifically said not to do?

 

[GeekDrew]

But did the supervisor really say no?

 

[Nik]

Yes, the supervisor said no. What part of "not you or anybody else" is confusing?

 

[GeekDrew]

Nobody else sees any room for argument due to ambiguity in that conversation?

 

[Nik]

There's no ambiguity. The only way it could be more clear is him saying "I, your supervisor and therefore authority figure over you and your actions at this place of business, do hereby forbid you from installing network switches until further notice" or something similarly absurd.

 

[daw123]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Nobody else sees any room for argument due to ambiguity in that conversation?

As Nik said. Nope.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Nobody else sees any room for argument due to ambiguity in that conversation?

"i don't do them, not you or anybody else"

i guess if english isnt your first language and/or you lacked common sense id understand why youd think that statement was ambiguous.

 

[her209]

If its not part of the job responsibilities, I don't see how the super can tell them to do it.

 

[Beanie46]

Nothing ambiguous in what he said.

"I don't do them." Supervisor speaking, meaning "WE" or "I and everyone I supervise" don't do them any more.

But then he added, and I guess to satisfy your thickness of head, and/or argumentativeness you've already displayed, "Not you or anybody else." That was meant for you specifically. Get the message?

I guess not, though, given your thread title and post.

My suggestion, go ahead, install it. Then get ready to make friends with everyone else in the unemployment line.

Good luck!

 

[Beanie46]

Crap....dp!

 

[sandorski]

Clearly the Super wants you to use a Robot to Install the Local Switch. Get on it.

 

[GeekDrew]

Party 1 is a coworker, and party 2 is our supervisor. She interpreted his message as you have (Nik, et al), so she didn't install the network switch. A week or so later, I got a call asking about the status of getting a PC installed in that office. When I inquired, she explained the situation. I read the txt conversation and interpreted it as:

1>SO is putting another computer in office 0107, too few net drops, need a switch
2>i don't do localized switches any more
1>i figured you'd just delegate that out to someone
2>i said that i don't do them, i didn't say that you or anybody else can't install them
1>ok

We got in touch with the boss and he confirmed that my interpretation was correct... so my coworker then took care of installing a network switch.

I can't believe that I'm the only person that sees that conversation as too ambiguous to act upon.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
But then he added, and I guess to satisfy your thickness of head, and/or argumentativeness you've already displayed, "Not you or anybody else." That was meant for you specifically. Get the message?

I guess not, though, given your thread title and post.

I was not party 1, prick.

 

[Snapster]

You don't install it

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Beanie46
But then he added, and I guess to satisfy your thickness of head, and/or argumentativeness you've already displayed, "Not you or anybody else." That was meant for you specifically. Get the message?

I guess not, though, given your thread title and post.

I was not party 1, prick.

Speaking of Ambiguous, cut some slack for being so in the first place.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Party 1 is a coworker, and party 2 is our supervisor. She interpreted his message as you have (Nik, et al), so she didn't install the network switch. A week or so later, I got a call asking about the status of getting a PC installed in that office. When I inquired, she explained the situation. I read the txt conversation and interpreted it as:

1>SO is putting another computer in office 0107, too few net drops, need a switch
2>i don't do localized switches any more
1>i figured you'd just delegate that out to someone
2>i said that i don't do them, i didn't say that you or anybody else can't install them
1>ok

We got in touch with the boss and he confirmed that my interpretation was correct... so my coworker then took care of installing a network switch.

I can't believe that I'm the only person that sees that conversation as too ambiguous to act upon.

Doesn't sound very ambiguous to me, but there's always an interpretation factor.

The supervisor should have been more explicit...If "I don't do them anymore for you or anyone else" means anyone else is permitted to do them themselves, then he sounds like a sh!tty non-solution-minded person that doesn't articulate well

He should have just said its up to the individual to do them now and that's it, none of the 'don't bother me for it' bs, As if your coworker was asking for hand-holding. :roll:

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Supervisor is an idiot -

1) I figured you would delegate...
2) Yeah, you do it
1) Sure

See no confusion.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Party 1 is a coworker, and party 2 is our supervisor. She interpreted his message as you have (Nik, et al), so she didn't install the network switch. A week or so later, I got a call asking about the status of getting a PC installed in that office. When I inquired, she explained the situation. I read the txt conversation and interpreted it as:

1>SO is putting another computer in office 0107, too few net drops, need a switch
2>i don't do localized switches any more
1>i figured you'd just delegate that out to someone
2>i said that i don't do them, i didn't say that you or anybody else can't install them
1>ok

We got in touch with the boss and he confirmed that my interpretation was correct... so my coworker then took care of installing a network switch.

I can't believe that I'm the only person that sees that conversation as too ambiguous to act upon.

With the way you've reworded it, I can see how the super would have wanted them to do so but simply explained that he personally doesn't do them anymore.

The lack of progress would be the supervisor's fault for being ambiguous.

 

[her209]

Oops, wrong thread.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Beanie46
But then he added, and I guess to satisfy your thickness of head, and/or argumentativeness you've already displayed, "Not you or anybody else." That was meant for you specifically. Get the message?

I guess not, though, given your thread title and post.

I was not party 1, prick.

Speaking of Ambiguous, cut some slack for being so in the first place.

I don't think GD intended to be ambiguous. He probably posted this to see if others would also react the same way, e.g., not install the switch and then stare clueless when the supervisor was like wtf why didn't you install the switch.

2>i said that i don't do them, i didn't say that you or anybody else can't install them

That interpretation changes this entire thread's connotation.

 

[GeekDrew]

Supervisor is far from shitty... he's by far the best boss I've ever had. That response was simply ambiguous (unintentionally). I just wanted to see if anyone else interpreted it the way I did.

 

[Nik]

Well what do I do now wif da pitch forks and torches

 

[nerp]

So do you guys ever get work done or do you stand around asking who is responsible for doing things all the time?