Not good enough to volunteer

[Solar Legion]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

---

Solar Legion wrote:

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

---

Ren Toxx wrote:

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

"We have an extensive process and we don't take everyone."

"So you're not looking for any volunteers at all?"

---

Your answer there seems to me a bit of a jump into (negative) conclussions, Gadget, and while I agree that theirs didn't sound any friendlier, if you're truly interested in something it's always good practice to develop a bit of a thick skin when trying to achieve it; a more logical follow-up would've been: 

“Ok. So how do I begin this extensive process?”

. Maybe even add the good old courtesy 

“please”

word, since in that context you were essentially asking for information (and maybe to someone who wasn't, in fact, the person responsible for providing it).

I'll agree that you shouldn't have to jump through too many hoops, especially for something like volunteering... but the opposite is also true: you shouldn't be discouraged too easily :smileywink:

---

You're missing the point (And yes, they were responsible for providing it- I asked to talk to the person responsible for providing that sort of information, and they stepped up).

 

---

Jasmin Helstein wrote:

You only had one short discussion in group chat with one person that probably didn't know you and then it's easy to misunderstand someone. "You're not in our clique, so you're probably not good enough." seems such an unlikely thing to say, even if that's what the other person was thinking. I wouldn't feel so strongly about it.

I can imagine they don't get exited just because someone claims to be able to fill a gap. If they don't know you what reason could they have to let you try anyway ? They don't know if you will be a good teacher, someone should take the time to see  how you are doing, maybe you will quit after two or three attempts, you would probably have to be fitted in a schedule at the expense of someone else's time. So volunteer or not it would require time and effort from them as well.

If you really want to teach

you may get to know the group a little better first and let them get to know you better as well.

---

Except I don't. You're not only missing the point, you're making up totally random ones. And ignoring previous replies in the thread.

Here's my reply for both of you;

This is not a case of me wanting to fulfill my lifelong dream of teaching. This is not me

wanting

to take over a position in this place. I was told they need help, so I wandered over to check it out when I got free time. This is not some strong desire of mine that I want to fulfill. When I got to the sim, they had signs up and tip jars out,

BEGGING

for help. They have affiliate vendors everywhere, with crap saying all proceeds pay for the sim, and it's non-profit, yadda yadda. So, I shrugged and decided to be a nice guy and offer help.

The response I got was to f-off, because I'm not good enough. And that's fine, I simple won't help. It's not my loss. Doesn't bother me at all. I'm still in script help groups, and people can still come to me anyway. I'll just keep doing what I've been doing.

What it did do was it surprised me, considering all the begging they're doing on their sim. They're begging for help, then they blow you off when your help isn't in the form of cash. That gives me insight into the group's attitude and I thought other people should know about it.

---

Asking for volunteers/instructors is 

not

the same thing as asking for help paying their tier.

From the word "go" you made an assumption concerning the sort of help they were asking for and when you were told that they have a process for adding in new instructors, you assumed that it was a brush off.

Each and every time this is pointed out to you, you dance around and around, coming up with more and more excuses and pointing to additional information which has no bearing on the core issue here: You made a mistaken assumption, got a response you did not like and now have blown it quite out of proportion.

There's a reason I retired completely from any sort of mentoring, Instructing and colunteer helping in Second Life - and it's not the general attitude of the groups. It's not the "Gimmie help NAO" attitude of some of the newer users .... It's the attitude of some of the "helpers" when they are given a response they do not like, be it from a group they felt needed help or from a newer user who prefers to learn on their own.

Each and every place has their systems and criteria - deal with it and quit acting as if you were maligned.

---

It was a brush off- I wasn't told anything about the process, I wasn't given an application, I wasn't told who a better contact would be, and all of my follow up questions were ignored. That's the textbook definition of a brush off.

What do users learning on their own have to do with anything at all in this entire thread?

You're coming across as angry and butthurt, and you just said you're not even part of any of these groups.

---

Oh poor, poor you! Told there was a process and expecting the person who responded to be your personal information fountain and be at your beck and call. You were given a response by your own admission and then expected more information. Gee, not getting the information? Contact the owner or find someone in the group that is actually supposed to give you that information.

Angry? Yep! I hate nits that make assumptions using real world criterion which do not carry over into Second Life and who blkow things well out of proportion. Call it a pet peeve from a volunteer who got sick and tired of the BS that other volunteers pulled.

[Paul Hexem]

Maybe I didn't make it clear. I asked to talk to someone in charge of that sort of thing, and then got into IM with a manager that said "I can answer your questions."

 

I wasn't talking to the first random person I saw in group. This was a manager that stepped up and said it was his job.

[Solar Legion]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

Maybe I didn't make it clear. I asked to talk to someone in charge of that sort of thing, and then got into IM with a manager that said "I can answer your questions."

 

I wasn't talking to the first random person I saw in group. This was a manager that stepped up and said it was his job.

---

"I can answer your questions" is not the same thing as "This is my job, I'm a representative". Yet another assumption on your part there Gadget.

Like I said, this is Second Life, where groups generally do not have the same sort of structure as, say, a real world corporation. Especally with these sort of groups.

By and large, each and every manager is at least capable of answering basic questions put to them. This does not make them representatives, nor does it make it their job. Indeed, the last group I ever helped out did not even have a "General Manager" to field the sort of thing you'd have to go to them for (such as what you were looking to do). All of that had to go to the owner.

You assumed you'd gotten someone who represents the group and could give you all of the information you needed. What you got was someone who could answer basic questions and who did not have the applications on hand. Only one bit here do we agree on: You should have been handed off to someone who could give you that additional information. But, as another user already pointed out, bad "employees" exist and some simply have not been caught at it yet. Heck, you might have just caught the sap on a bad day.

In any event, you're under the mistaken impression (and you're not the only one) that a group in Second Life operates the same way as NPOs and corporations do offline. They don't, by and large. The only person/people who represent the group as a whole? More often that would be the owner(s).

[Phil Deakins]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

Group managers in Second Life exist to - GASP! - 

manage the group.

They are not Public Relations officers, they are not the Owner. They are generally the Department Heads.

Some groups set up specific manager roles for HR/PRGeneral use - these are the roles that "reflect on the group as a whole."

To use a very loose example here: Many of the major ISPs and Mobile Phone providers outsource their technical support/customer service call lines to call centers across the US and the world. The quality of these calls (and the occasional manager escalation) is 

not

a reflection of the outsourcing company. It is a reflection of the call center.

When you have a large scale group in Second Life, you end up breaking it up into different departments that are the equivalent of that call center. The users in each department are often chosen by the department heads or managers, not the group as a whole.

You expect the department manager to represent the entire group. In reality, said manager does not do such, nor can he/she speak for the entire group outside of notifying you of their procedures.

I know one thing: if I held the same viewpoint as you do, I'd have long ago left Second Life as a whole.

---

I'm sorry but that all nonsense.

The actions of anyone who represents an organisation to outsiders, including those call centres you mentioned, and including any member of an SL group who interacts with outsiders, as the manager in question did, reflects on the company/group,organisation as a whole to the outsider, and to anyone the outsider cares to share the experience with. That's a fact, and not mere opinion.

You seem to have a thing against Gadget. Perhaps it's historical, but whatever the reason, it's far better to deal only with the facts of the matter in hand instead of inventing objections, like the one I quoted, just for the sake of being negative. You lost that particular argument the moment it entered your head

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

Maybe I didn't make it clear. I asked to talk to someone in charge of that sort of thing, and then got into IM with a manager that said "I can answer your questions."

 

I wasn't talking to the first random person I saw in group. This was a manager that stepped up and said it was his job.

---

"I can answer your questions" is not the same thing as "This is my job, I'm a representative". Yet another assumption on your part there Gadget.

Like I said, this is Second Life, where groups generally do not have the same sort of structure as, say, a real world corporation. Especally with these sort of groups.

By and large, each and every manager is at least capable of answering basic questions put to them. This does not make them representatives, nor does it make it their job. Indeed, the last group I ever helped out did not even have a "General Manager" to field the sort of thing you'd have to go to them for (such as what you were looking to do). All of that had to go to the owner.

You assumed you'd gotten someone who represents the group and could give you 

all

of the information you needed. What you got was someone who could answer basic questions and who did not have the applications on hand. Only 

one

bit here do we agree on: You should have been handed off to someone who 

could

give you that additional information. But, as another user already pointed out, bad "employees" exist and some simply have not been caught at it yet. Heck, you might have just caught the sap on a bad day.

In any event, you're under the mistaken impression (and you're not the only one) that a group in Second Life operates the same way as NPOs and corporations do offline. They don't, by and large. The only person/people who represent the group as a whole? More often that would be the owner(s).

---

You need to give it up. You're losing very badly.

[Solar Legion]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Solar Legion wrote:

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

Maybe I didn't make it clear. I asked to talk to someone in charge of that sort of thing, and then got into IM with a manager that said "I can answer your questions."

 

I wasn't talking to the first random person I saw in group. This was a manager that stepped up and said it was his job.

---

"I can answer your questions" is not the same thing as "This is my job, I'm a representative". Yet another assumption on your part there Gadget.

Like I said, this is Second Life, where groups generally do not have the same sort of structure as, say, a real world corporation. Especally with these sort of groups.

By and large, each and every manager is at least capable of answering basic questions put to them. This does not make them representatives, nor does it make it their job. Indeed, the last group I ever helped out did not even have a "General Manager" to field the sort of thing you'd have to go to them for (such as what you were looking to do). All of that had to go to the owner.

You assumed you'd gotten someone who represents the group and could give you 

all

of the information you needed. What you got was someone who could answer basic questions and who did not have the applications on hand. Only 

one

bit here do we agree on: You should have been handed off to someone who 

could

give you that additional information. But, as another user already pointed out, bad "employees" exist and some simply have not been caught at it yet. Heck, you might have just caught the sap on a bad day.

In any event, you're under the mistaken impression (and you're not the only one) that a group in Second Life operates the same way as NPOs and corporations do offline. They don't, by and large. The only person/people who represent the group as a whole? More often that would be the owner(s).

---

You need to give it up. You're losing very badly.

---

No Phil, I'm not. You are. You lost the instant you attempted to use real life criterion for Second Life groups. They do not work that way - period. The managers manage the group and no one except the owner can represent the group or speak for the group. Period.

I'll say it again: If I applied that BS to Second Life groups - or Second Life as a whole - I'd have long ago left.

Welcome to Second Life, Phil. Get used to things operating differently.

[Phil Deakins]

Silliness won't help you.

I didn't apply RL criterion to SL groups, you did (the call centres). I merely mentioned what you wrote.

To be perfectly honest, your objections to Gadget don't make any sense. I've no idea why that is. Maybe you have something against him, I don't know, but whatever the reason is, you've been writing a lot of stuff at him that makes no sense at all.

For instance:-

In the post that I'm replying to, you wrote that, "The [sL group] managers manage the group and no one except the owner can represent the group or speak for the group. Period." but that's both silly and untrue. It may be true of a group or two that you are in, but it only applies if a group owner wants it to apply, and you've no idea whether or not it applies to the group in question. But it really doesn't matter either way because, if an outsider approaches an SL group, and a manager comes on to deal with him/her, then the manager is representing the group to the enquirer, and how the manager behaves during the enquiry reflects on the group as a whole as far as the enquirer is concerned. It's a fact. You can argue all you want but you can't change the fact.

That was typical of the wrong things you've been posting to Gadget, and there are many more.

 

It's good of you to welcome me to Second Life though. I've only been in SL for 6½ years and it's nice when you old-timers go out of your way to welcome us noobs

[Solar Legion]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Silliness won't help you.

I didn't apply RL criterion to SL groups, you did (the call centres). I merely mentioned what you wrote.

To be perfectly honest, your objections to Gadget don't make any sense. I've no idea why that is. Maybe you have something against him, I don't know, but whatever the reason is, you've been writing a lot of stuff at him that makes no sense at all.

For instance:-

In the post that I'm replying to, you wrote that, "

The

[sL group]

managers manage the group and 

no one except the owner

can represent the group or speak for the group. Period.

" but that's both silly and untrue. It may be true of a group or two that you are in, but it only applies if a group owner wants it to apply, and you've no idea whether or not it applies to the group in question. But it really doesn't matter either way because, if an outsider approaches an SL group, and a manager comes on to deal with him/her, then the manager is representing the group to the enquirer, and how the manager behaves during the enquiry reflects on the group as a whole as far as the enquirer is concerned. It's a fact. You can argue all you want but you can't change the fact.

That was typical of the wrong things you've been posting to Gadget, and there are many more.

 

It's good of you to welcome me to Second Life though. I've only been in SL for 6½ years and it's nice when you old-timers go out of your way to welcome us noobs

---

Wrong on all levels Phil. The manager does not represent the group - period. The manager exists to manage the group, perhaps answer a few basic questions. The owner represents the group. If the owner delegates such representation to another group member, their tag will reflect this. If it does not, the user/group member does not speak for nor represent the group.

I used a call center as an analogy for the very flawed viewpoints of those who wish to aply offline reasoning and criteria to Second Life groups (managers being representative of the group as a whole). Every group that I have ever been in (and I have been in a lot of them in my time here Phil) has been set up that way.

And no Phil, noting I have posted has been "wrong" - it just flies in the face of what you (and Gadget) expect a group to be. I have been pointing out how they are, contrary to what you want them to be.

But hey - you can go on believeing your tripe.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Silliness won't help you.

I didn't apply RL criterion to SL groups, you did (the call centres). I merely mentioned what you wrote.

To be perfectly honest, your objections to Gadget don't make any sense. I've no idea why that is. Maybe you have something against him, I don't know, but whatever the reason is, you've been writing a lot of stuff at him that makes no sense at all.

For instance:-

In the post that I'm replying to, you wrote that, "

The

[sL group]

managers manage the group and 

no one except the owner

can represent the group or speak for the group. Period.

" but that's both silly and untrue. It may be true of a group or two that you are in, but it only applies if a group owner wants it to apply, and you've no idea whether or not it applies to the group in question. But it really doesn't matter either way because, if an outsider approaches an SL group, and a manager comes on to deal with him/her, then the manager is representing the group to the enquirer, and how the manager behaves during the enquiry reflects on the group as a whole as far as the enquirer is concerned. It's a fact. You can argue all you want but you can't change the fact.

That was typical of the wrong things you've been posting to Gadget, and there are many more.

 

It's good of you to welcome me to Second Life though. I've only been in SL for 6½ years and it's nice when you old-timers go out of your way to welcome us noobs

---

Wrong on all levels Phil. The manager does not represent the group - period. The manager exists to manage the group, perhaps answer a few basic questions. The owner represents the group. If the owner delegates such representation to another group member, their tag will reflect this. If it does not, the user/group member does not speak for nor represent the group.

I used a call center as an analogy for the very flawed viewpoints of those who wish to aply offline reasoning and criteria to Second Life groups (managers being representative of the group as a whole). 

Every

group that I have 

ever

been in (and I have been in a 

lot

of them in my time here Phil) has been set up that way.

And no Phil, noting I have posted has been "wrong" - it just flies in the face of what you (and Gadget) expect a group to be. I have been pointing out how they 

are

, contrary to what you want them 

to be.

But hey - you can go on believeing your tripe.

---

Is this 'argument' now really just about definition of terms?  What a 'manager' is?

 

I managed a store in a small retail chain.  I was responsible to know the owner's policies and procedures and carry them out.

One week the owner had fired one of the Managers.  At our weekly manager's meeting the owner talked about it.  He had arrived at the store and found the Manager "disheveled."  His statement to us was, "He made me look bad." 

As his managers he saw us as his representatives.

[Paul Hexem]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Silliness won't help you.

I didn't apply RL criterion to SL groups, you did (the call centres). I merely mentioned what you wrote.

To be perfectly honest, your objections to Gadget don't make any sense. I've no idea why that is. Maybe you have something against him, I don't know, but whatever the reason is, you've been writing a lot of stuff at him that makes no sense at all.

For instance:-

In the post that I'm replying to, you wrote that, "

The

[sL group]

managers manage the group and 

no one except the owner

can represent the group or speak for the group. Period.

" but that's both silly and untrue. It may be true of a group or two that you are in, but it only applies if a group owner wants it to apply, and you've no idea whether or not it applies to the group in question. But it really doesn't matter either way because, if an outsider approaches an SL group, and a manager comes on to deal with him/her, then the manager is representing the group to the enquirer, and how the manager behaves during the enquiry reflects on the group as a whole as far as the enquirer is concerned. It's a fact. You can argue all you want but you can't change the fact.

That was typical of the wrong things you've been posting to Gadget, and there are many more.

 

It's good of you to welcome me to Second Life though. I've only been in SL for 6½ years and it's nice when you old-timers go out of your way to welcome us noobs

---

Wrong on all levels Phil. The manager does not represent the group - period. The manager exists to manage the group, perhaps answer a few basic questions. The owner represents the group. If the owner delegates such representation to another group member, their tag will reflect this. If it does not, the user/group member does not speak for nor represent the group.

I used a call center as an analogy for the very flawed viewpoints of those who wish to aply offline reasoning and criteria to Second Life groups (managers being representative of the group as a whole). 

Every

group that I have 

ever

been in (and I have been in a 

lot

of them in my time here Phil) has been set up that way.

And no Phil, noting I have posted has been "wrong" - it just flies in the face of what you (and Gadget) expect a group to be. I have been pointing out how they 

are

, contrary to what you want them 

to be.

But hey - you can go on believeing your tripe.

---

I'll gotta say it again- if you honestly believe group managers and staff members don't reflect on the group or organization they're a part of, I'd never want to be involved in any group project with you. RL or SL.

Phil's right, you're coming across like you have a grudge against me, completely ignoring any kind of realities.

If this person's job was simply to manage the group, they never should have volunteered to answer my questions. The moment they did, wearing their manager tag, they were speaking for management in general, including the owner(s). And that reflects on the group.

I'll suggest you should scroll back and read the example I gave before, about my own position within an organization. If staff/management didn't speak for owners when owners were unavailable, nobody would respect anything unless it came directly from individual land/or and group owners.

[Paul Hexem]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Solar Legion wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Silliness won't help you.

I didn't apply RL criterion to SL groups, you did (the call centres). I merely mentioned what you wrote.

To be perfectly honest, your objections to Gadget don't make any sense. I've no idea why that is. Maybe you have something against him, I don't know, but whatever the reason is, you've been writing a lot of stuff at him that makes no sense at all.

For instance:-

In the post that I'm replying to, you wrote that, "

The

[sL group]

managers manage the group and 

no one except the owner

can represent the group or speak for the group. Period.

" but that's both silly and untrue. It may be true of a group or two that you are in, but it only applies if a group owner wants it to apply, and you've no idea whether or not it applies to the group in question. But it really doesn't matter either way because, if an outsider approaches an SL group, and a manager comes on to deal with him/her, then the manager is representing the group to the enquirer, and how the manager behaves during the enquiry reflects on the group as a whole as far as the enquirer is concerned. It's a fact. You can argue all you want but you can't change the fact.

That was typical of the wrong things you've been posting to Gadget, and there are many more.

 

It's good of you to welcome me to Second Life though. I've only been in SL for 6½ years and it's nice when you old-timers go out of your way to welcome us noobs

---

Wrong on all levels Phil. The manager does not represent the group - period. The manager exists to manage the group, perhaps answer a few basic questions. The owner represents the group. If the owner delegates such representation to another group member, their tag will reflect this. If it does not, the user/group member does not speak for nor represent the group.

I used a call center as an analogy for the very flawed viewpoints of those who wish to aply offline reasoning and criteria to Second Life groups (managers being representative of the group as a whole). 

Every

group that I have 

ever

been in (and I have been in a 

lot

of them in my time here Phil) has been set up that way.

And no Phil, noting I have posted has been "wrong" - it just flies in the face of what you (and Gadget) expect a group to be. I have been pointing out how they 

are

, contrary to what you want them 

to be.

But hey - you can go on believeing your tripe.

---

Is this 'argument' now really just about definition of terms?  What a 'manager' is?

 

I managed a store in a small retail chain.  I was responsible to know the owner's policies and procedures and carry them out.

One week the owner had fired one of the Managers.  At our weekly manager's meeting the owner talked about it.  He had arrived at the store and found the Manager "disheveled."  His statement to us was, "He made me look bad." 

As his managers he saw us as his representatives.

---

Perrie knows what I'm talking about.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

Wrong on all levels Phil. The manager does not represent the group - period.

---

You just don't get it. Not at all.

When a representative of an organisation meets an enquirer, to talk about the organisation, then the representative is representing the organisation to the enquirer.

In the case at hand, the enquirer made an enquiry to the group, and a manager stepped forward to deal with enquiry. That manager, at that point, was representing the group to the enquirer. And his behaviour, good or bad, reflects on the group as a whole.

It really is that simple. And any brain can understand it. Even half a brain can understand it lol. Not that I'm suggesting you have half a brain, you understand

Now, your group experiences are your own. What they don't do is apply to all SL groups. You see, there are no rules laid down anywhere to state how an SL group must be run. Every group owner runs his/her group in the way that s/he sees fit, and, if they want managers to represent the group for them, then that's what they have. You can't win this argument, y'know

Anyway,I hope that's helped you.

 

Incidentally, the way that call centres treat callers reflects greatly on the companies that hire the call centres. If you get a good session with one, you have a rosy view of the hiring company, and vice versa. At the time you are calling one, the person on the other end is representing the company that hired the centre. That's precisely what the hiring company hired them for. Simple stuff, init?

 

[Solar Legion]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Solar Legion wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Silliness won't help you.

I didn't apply RL criterion to SL groups, you did (the call centres). I merely mentioned what you wrote.

To be perfectly honest, your objections to Gadget don't make any sense. I've no idea why that is. Maybe you have something against him, I don't know, but whatever the reason is, you've been writing a lot of stuff at him that makes no sense at all.

For instance:-

In the post that I'm replying to, you wrote that, "

The

[sL group]

managers manage the group and 

no one except the owner

can represent the group or speak for the group. Period.

" but that's both silly and untrue. It may be true of a group or two that you are in, but it only applies if a group owner wants it to apply, and you've no idea whether or not it applies to the group in question. But it really doesn't matter either way because, if an outsider approaches an SL group, and a manager comes on to deal with him/her, then the manager is representing the group to the enquirer, and how the manager behaves during the enquiry reflects on the group as a whole as far as the enquirer is concerned. It's a fact. You can argue all you want but you can't change the fact.

That was typical of the wrong things you've been posting to Gadget, and there are many more.

 

It's good of you to welcome me to Second Life though. I've only been in SL for 6½ years and it's nice when you old-timers go out of your way to welcome us noobs

---

Wrong on all levels Phil. The manager does not represent the group - period. The manager exists to manage the group, perhaps answer a few basic questions. The owner represents the group. If the owner delegates such representation to another group member, their tag will reflect this. If it does not, the user/group member does not speak for nor represent the group.

I used a call center as an analogy for the very flawed viewpoints of those who wish to aply offline reasoning and criteria to Second Life groups (managers being representative of the group as a whole). 

Every

group that I have 

ever

been in (and I have been in a 

lot

of them in my time here Phil) has been set up that way.

And no Phil, noting I have posted has been "wrong" - it just flies in the face of what you (and Gadget) expect a group to be. I have been pointing out how they 

are

, contrary to what you want them 

to be.

But hey - you can go on believeing your tripe.

---

Is this 'argument' now really just about definition of terms?  What a 'manager' is?

 

I managed a store in a small retail chain.  I was responsible to know the owner's policies and procedures and carry them out.

One week the owner had fired one of the Managers.  At our weekly manager's meeting the owner talked about it.  He had arrived at the store and found the Manager "disheveled."  His statement to us was, "He made me look bad." 

As his managers he saw us as his representatives.

---

That's a lovely story Perrie - and has nothing whatsoever to do with groups in Second Life.

[Phil Deakins]

I think it has a lot to do with this discussion. The point that Perrie was making is that the owner knew very well that what the manager did reflected on him; i.e. his store.

[Solar Legion]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Solar Legion wrote:

Wrong on all levels Phil. The manager does not represent the group - period.

---

You just don't get it. Not at all.

When a representative of an organisation meets an enquirer, to talk about the organisation, then the representative is representing the organisation to the enquirer.

In the case at hand, the enquirer made an enquiry to the group, and a manager stepped forward to deal with enquiry. That manager, at that point, was representing the group to the enquirer. And his behaviour, good or bad, reflects on the group as a whole.

It really is that simple. And any brain can understand it. Even half a brain can understand it lol. Not that I'm suggesting you have half a brain, you understand

Now, your group experiences are your own. What they don't do is apply to all SL groups. You see, there are no rules laid down anywhere to state how an SL group must be run. Every group owner runs his/her group in the way that s/he sees fit, and, if they want managers to represent the group for them, then that's what they have. You can't win this argument, y'know

Anyway,I hope that's helped you.

 

Incidentally, the way that call centres treat callers reflects greatly on the companies that hire the call centres. If you get a good session with one, you have a rosy view of the hiring company, and vice versa. At the time you are calling one, the person on the other end is representing the company that hired the centre. That's precisely what the hiring company hired them for. Simple stuff, init?

 

---

And apparently you do not get it. A manager is not a representative of a group, no matter how you wish to think otherwise. The managers exist for internal group affairs. They can answer basic questions for those outside a group but they do not represent the group.

When someone enquires about a group and another user steps forward to answer those questions, "manager" or not - they do not represent the group. They are doing nothing more than answering questions. It's really that simple.

And no Phil, call centers do not represent the company that hired them. Gee, if that were the case, how many people do you honestly think would bother to do business with any company? Hmm, get one bad employee or "manager" from the center and all of a sudden, the company that hired them is blamed! Why yes, this does happen - and guess what? It shouldn't!

[Phil Deakins]

I'm sorry, Solar, but you lost the argument ages ago. All you're doing now is refusing to accept simple facts. Either that or you live in a far far different world to the rest of us, and what you say really is true there 

[Solar Legion]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

---

Solar Legion wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Silliness won't help you.

I didn't apply RL criterion to SL groups, you did (the call centres). I merely mentioned what you wrote.

To be perfectly honest, your objections to Gadget don't make any sense. I've no idea why that is. Maybe you have something against him, I don't know, but whatever the reason is, you've been writing a lot of stuff at him that makes no sense at all.

For instance:-

In the post that I'm replying to, you wrote that, "

The

[sL group]

managers manage the group and 

no one except the owner

can represent the group or speak for the group. Period.

" but that's both silly and untrue. It may be true of a group or two that you are in, but it only applies if a group owner wants it to apply, and you've no idea whether or not it applies to the group in question. But it really doesn't matter either way because, if an outsider approaches an SL group, and a manager comes on to deal with him/her, then the manager is representing the group to the enquirer, and how the manager behaves during the enquiry reflects on the group as a whole as far as the enquirer is concerned. It's a fact. You can argue all you want but you can't change the fact.

That was typical of the wrong things you've been posting to Gadget, and there are many more.

 

It's good of you to welcome me to Second Life though. I've only been in SL for 6½ years and it's nice when you old-timers go out of your way to welcome us noobs

---

Wrong on all levels Phil. The manager does not represent the group - period. The manager exists to manage the group, perhaps answer a few basic questions. The owner represents the group. If the owner delegates such representation to another group member, their tag will reflect this. If it does not, the user/group member does not speak for nor represent the group.

I used a call center as an analogy for the very flawed viewpoints of those who wish to aply offline reasoning and criteria to Second Life groups (managers being representative of the group as a whole). 

Every

group that I have 

ever

been in (and I have been in a 

lot

of them in my time here Phil) has been set up that way.

And no Phil, noting I have posted has been "wrong" - it just flies in the face of what you (and Gadget) expect a group to be. I have been pointing out how they 

are

, contrary to what you want them 

to be.

But hey - you can go on believeing your tripe.

---

I'll gotta say it again- if you honestly believe group managers and staff members don't reflect on the group or organization they're a part of, I'd never want to be involved in any group project with you. RL or SL.

Phil's right, you're coming across like you have a grudge against me, completely ignoring any kind of realities.

If this person's job was simply to manage the group, they never should have volunteered to answer my questions. The moment they did, wearing their manager tag, they were speaking for management in general, including the owner(s). And that reflects on the group.

I'll suggest you should scroll back and read the example I gave before, about my own position within an organization. If staff/management

didn't

speak for owners when owners were unavailable, nobody would respect anything unless it came directly from individual land/or and group owners.

---

No Gadget - Phil is quite wrong. I have noting against you. I have everything against nits who try to put offline criterion against Second Life anything. I've read each and every one of your responses and examples here. And I've laughed at all of them.

If you honestly believed that group managers and staff members reflect on the group as a whole - what are you still doing in Second Life?

Land rental groups have management positions which act as representatives, ditto shops. They are clearly marked as such. Volunteer groups? Clubs? Pretty much every other group out there? They have managers, department managers, a general manager (that's the representative manager) and an owner.

You spoke to one of the normal managers - by your own admission. You took that person's response to be a reflection of the group as a whole. That was your mistake. That continues to be your mistake.

Sorry to have to burst your bubble Gadget - General staff, low level managers and department heads exist for internal reasons. Had it been me that had to field your questions .... Well now, if it had been a bad day, you'd have been given the exact same response and told to seek out a higher manager or the owner for further inquiries. Why? Lack of patience.

And if you honestly think such a response is a bad one, I have some news for you Gadget - I have personally gotten worse responses and blown them off.

[Solar Legion]

Which does not apply in Second Life. Thus it is a nice story, but has no application here.