I can't speak for those people. I'm talking about mainly about the people that are filtered for non games coordinator reasons, or for not agreeing with your filter list.
I've never played the games or even commented on them and he has me filtered. I believe it was after I said that he wasn't a good games coordinator because he was childish about feedback. He does exclude anyone that doesn't 100% agree with him
This example really makes no sense unless Johneh was the boss and had the right to exclude his employees. Because in a work situation, there's always someone to complain to, whether it's HR, management or whoever, Qwert2.
Bosses attend parties and he would see that, say, Gertrude was missing and be like, "Where's Gertrude?" and would catch on. XD
Point is neither of your metaphors work! :P
Qwert2 I'm saying your scenario is not logical because Johneh has no power in your metaphorical scenario. And the boss would judge how good of a party he's arranged by the opinion of the guests, not the biased organiser. XD
This scenario is pretty unrealistic in the way you've set it up.
Do security stop the excluded guests from attended their own office party?
Like I said, you both suck at metaphors. XD
To relate yours to something irl for me, both my sisters worked in Mothercare several years ago. Their manager sucked, she had a handful of favourite employees who she would just hang out with in the back office, leaving less staff actually running the shop.
When the Christmas parties came along, each year less people wanted to go. But they were ALWAYS invited otherwise it's not an office party.
One year, my sisters did a separate party for the staff that actually worked in the shop. XD
But you see my point here?
No boss would allow an employee to exclude other employees unless they were fired. He could put them off wanting to come, but he still has to invite them.
Unless Johneh was the boss, otherwise the scenario isn't logical. XD
The point you made about the 'party organiser ' deciding who goes to the party and who doesn't rather than the 'office boss' is exactly the point that qwert2 was trying to make? Like you said the decision as to who gets invited to the party shouldn't come down to the person who organizes the event, but rather the owner of the office.
It's weird because you are debating Drew's metaphor for not being 'logical' when the whole point of this metaphor is to show how the situation ISN'T logical due to Johneh's decisions and actions. Regardless of whether approve of the stars coupons events or not, if people like him or not as a person or a games coordinator, EVERYBODY should have the option to play as like you said, they are a member of the office and if all the people from the office aren't invited, then it's not an office party.
Millzipede I get the point of it but the scenario doesn't work irl. The metaphor is a fail.
Imagine putting it in children's birthday party metaphor because I haven't done one yet. XD
A kid has a party and his mum tells him to invite the whole class.
But there are a group of kids in the class who bully and harass him, so he tells his mum not to invite them.
Why should they be allowed to come for games, fun, free cake and party bags? That's not fair, right?
Plus, he let someone else run the coupon event with the sign up not being through him literally this week. So it's not a repeated cycle or an issue anymore.
If Johneh is not inviting his filter list to his events, the way it could be justified is if he states that in the blog about the event.
He could say,
"If you've been filtered, you aren't invited to this event. If you truly wish to participate in this particular event, please mail *someone* explaining why and I'll decide whether or not to add you to the random.org list of user names."
So it's technically still open. ;)
