Argumentative
There are many things I dislike, but I'm going to talk this morning about one in particular: arguments. More particularly, never-ending arguments--or arguments that only have one outcome (that being my total surrender).
Please note going in: I'm going to mostly be talking about things as I feel them--their emotional and psychological impact. This does not match the actual intent or reality of the situation in all cases. Opponent may intend only to examine all the options and offer suggestions, but I may feel that they are badgering me and nagging for total surrender. All of my statements should therefore be considered biased and potentially inaccurate.
I am attempting to construct a network. I do this regularly at work. And, at work, when I get told that the design is wrong and the boss has decided to do things another way, I don't generally take it so hard. They're paying me whether they use my designs or not, though it does rankle when they throw out my designs to go with something the marketing boss designed on a figurative napkin.
But in this instance, I am trying to design a network. And I had to spend an hour and a half last night bantering back and forth about it. And it's agitated me significantly, to the point where I was yelling and swearing at everything and anything in my way on the whole drive into work this morning. (At least I'm the only one in the car. It's my venting time.)
Why has it agitated me? Largely because I have something I'm trying to accomplish, and I have some very specific ideas of how to do it. The countering ideas simply don't do that. At best, it's a compromise which really doesn't accomplish any of the goals that could be desired. Mainly, I want simplicity and traffic isolation. At best, the countering ideas can offer greater complexity and less traffic isolation.
At the rational heart of the argument lies one problem, and one problem only. Do we use one VLAN, or three? Three is perfect, but the vendor may have problems getting three VLANs working correctly the first time. (They're dumb as bricks.) One is easier to request and has a higher chance of being set up correctly.
But for such a simple argument, I'm violently stirred up. Why is that?
Well, for one, the argument was never presented as I explained it above. I'm the one who boiled it down to that. The arguments I heard revolved around it would be harder to explain to the vendor, or it would probably require much troubleshooting on the phone, three VLANs isn't necessary, opponent's home network design is better, yadda yadda yadda. All of which sounded, to my ear, as "I don't want to have to work to explain shit to the vendor. I don't want to spend time on the phone troubleshooting stuff and telling them what they're doing wrong. I'm doing things the lazy way at home, and it works for me, so it should work in this completely different environment too."
Please note! Opponent noted that he uses his home design because he doesn't want to get another router. It's admitted that this is essentially because he doesn't want the added work.
And why the hell would opponent be the one on the phone with the vendor? He's not IT staff. I am IT staff. It's my fucking design. Why wouldn't I be the one on the phone troubleshooting shit? This is an entirely specious line of attack.
But more than that. I can listen to the various network design suggestions opponent has for me, and I can spot the ways they don't address my concerns. So I explain that to opponent. But, what he says is "You're not getting what I'm saying." But I do! He explains it again, and it's the same as before. No, he's not getting what I'm saying! Or he does, and he just brushes over it because he thinks my concerns are overblown, or the actual problems will be negligible.
An hour and a half! It's like shopping with my mother! I can go into a store and spend 20 minutes, and I know what I want. But my mother will insist on keeping me there and bringing me selection after selection. "I just wanted to let you try all the options!" Bullshit! I'm happy with what I've got--what YOU want is to give me as many opportunities as possible to change my mind because you don't approve of my choice!
And I'm nice, so I sit there and take it. I face argument after argument, trying to stand for what I feel is best, and after an hour, all I want to do is just throw my hands up in the air and give in, because I'm tired of talking about it over and over. Fine, I give up, you win! Do whatever you bloody well please, just stop pestering me!
But that hurts opponent's feelings. "I'm just trying to give you ideas and make suggestions!" No, you're not. You didn't once ask me anything like "Have you considered X?" You keep going, "No, blah blah blah." When you start with "No," you're arguing with me. And who works in this business, you or me? You stand there and keep coming up with reasons why you feel I'm overestimating the problems, or why my design is too complex. You whine at me about "Why don't you just try it my way this year, and then we'll know in future whether it works or not!"
Look you well, I'm going to get shit on for everything that doesn't work with IT. I know this, because I get shit on every year I do this job. I knew this going in. But if I'm going to get shit on, it had damn well better be for my own damn choices, not yours.
I've already reduced my design's complexity from previous years. We're not doing nine subnets, five routers, six VPNs, etc. etc. I had three subnets and two routers, is that not simplification? But it's not good enough for you, is it? You won't stop whining until we're down to a one router, single subnet network. Why? Because it worked for you over a decade ago. And you're bragging to me about how you only ever had a problem with STP, so you used hubs to bypass that problem!
USING A HUB AS A SOLUTION IS A FAILURE OF NETWORK DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION, NOT SOMETHING TO BE FUCKING PROUD OF!!!!!
Even your "compromise" network design leaves me agitated. Routers for some rooms, direct connection via switches to other rooms. The VLAN has some routers on it and some mixed devices, because we're trying to shoehorn my goals into your preferred constraints. And you're not even part of IT!
Why the fuck am I even still considering this design? Because I know, as I stated above, that once I throw out all the bullshit and all the dross, I'm still left with a tiny kernel of truth--three VLANs is more likely to be screwed up by the vendor during implementation, than a single VLAN will be. So, do I err on the side of the safety of the network, or do I err on the side of fewer problems during deployment? That's really the only dliemma I should have to weigh.
I keep hearing echoes of an argument in a previous year, when opponent thought my designs were too complex. He yelled at me, over the phone, and told me that I didn't know networks. That I didn't know what I was doing, that I had no experience. I was cool, but I was nettled. I spent months working with the equipment in our university's lab. I was the lab assistant for years. I was the first student instructor for the networking peer support group that was pioneered at the time. I was fixing problems that my instructor couldn't fix, and teaching the class when our instructor's teaching couldn't be understood by anybody but me. And you are going to yell at me and say I have no experience, because you don't like my decisions as the person solely in charge of IT.
Opponent apologized a few weeks later. After being advised that I wasn't going to get much better out of him, I begrudgingly accepted it, such as it was. And it's water under the bridge now--I don't hold it against him. He was frustrated, and sometimes we all say things we shouldn't because of frustration. He and I are very good friends, and I generally get along very well with him.
But this argument is bringing up bad memories and echoes of things long past. I should not have to spend a fucking HOUR on the phone, defending my designs to somebody who isn't my supervisor, isn't connected with IT, and isn't even in my fucking department. I understand that opponent may just be trying to spitball ideas, but opponent's persistence is simply starting to wear me down. I want to stop arguing, and it's almost worth going with a crappy design (from somebody who thinks that hubs are a great solution to solving network problems) just to stop being pestered.
Further, this is coming from a good friend. Others are not so kind. There have been many complaints about opponent badgering people and pestering them until they feel they have no choice but to give up. And he doesn't mean to do that, I'm sure--but you're doing it anyway. Even I am feeling it, and it's left me trying to deal with rage and agitation even now, after a solid night's sleep and the dawn of a new day.
Take a good hard fucking look at yourself and how you approach things, with your "I'm just trying to give you suggestions!" Why are you really doing this? If all you wanted was to raise suggestions, why would you still be arguing for the third or fourth version of your idea after over an hour?
Opponent then sits there and tells me that he'd ask me to design the network for his house, if he builds a house in future. I call total, pure, and utter bullshit. You're fucking proud of your current design, because it's "good enough." And you're spending over an hour arguing with me about a transient network that's only going to be alive for five days, because you feel that it's too complex. If you're going to spend an hour arguing about that, how long are you going to spend arguing about a permanent network that you're going to have to live with? You're full of shit. And you admitted it, too--when I called you on it, you admitted you wouldn't call me in for the first five years.
So, after you experiment and play with things for five years, you might call me in to "consult" on designing a better home network. With God-only-knows how much arguing, given that you're currently offering me an argument ratio of one hour arguing for every 120 hours of network operation. Yeah, maybe I'll pass on that.
I've wasted an hour typing out this screed. I'm going to go away now.
Please note going in: I'm going to mostly be talking about things as I feel them--their emotional and psychological impact. This does not match the actual intent or reality of the situation in all cases. Opponent may intend only to examine all the options and offer suggestions, but I may feel that they are badgering me and nagging for total surrender. All of my statements should therefore be considered biased and potentially inaccurate.
I am attempting to construct a network. I do this regularly at work. And, at work, when I get told that the design is wrong and the boss has decided to do things another way, I don't generally take it so hard. They're paying me whether they use my designs or not, though it does rankle when they throw out my designs to go with something the marketing boss designed on a figurative napkin.
But in this instance, I am trying to design a network. And I had to spend an hour and a half last night bantering back and forth about it. And it's agitated me significantly, to the point where I was yelling and swearing at everything and anything in my way on the whole drive into work this morning. (At least I'm the only one in the car. It's my venting time.)
Why has it agitated me? Largely because I have something I'm trying to accomplish, and I have some very specific ideas of how to do it. The countering ideas simply don't do that. At best, it's a compromise which really doesn't accomplish any of the goals that could be desired. Mainly, I want simplicity and traffic isolation. At best, the countering ideas can offer greater complexity and less traffic isolation.
At the rational heart of the argument lies one problem, and one problem only. Do we use one VLAN, or three? Three is perfect, but the vendor may have problems getting three VLANs working correctly the first time. (They're dumb as bricks.) One is easier to request and has a higher chance of being set up correctly.
But for such a simple argument, I'm violently stirred up. Why is that?
Well, for one, the argument was never presented as I explained it above. I'm the one who boiled it down to that. The arguments I heard revolved around it would be harder to explain to the vendor, or it would probably require much troubleshooting on the phone, three VLANs isn't necessary, opponent's home network design is better, yadda yadda yadda. All of which sounded, to my ear, as "I don't want to have to work to explain shit to the vendor. I don't want to spend time on the phone troubleshooting stuff and telling them what they're doing wrong. I'm doing things the lazy way at home, and it works for me, so it should work in this completely different environment too."
Please note! Opponent noted that he uses his home design because he doesn't want to get another router. It's admitted that this is essentially because he doesn't want the added work.
And why the hell would opponent be the one on the phone with the vendor? He's not IT staff. I am IT staff. It's my fucking design. Why wouldn't I be the one on the phone troubleshooting shit? This is an entirely specious line of attack.
But more than that. I can listen to the various network design suggestions opponent has for me, and I can spot the ways they don't address my concerns. So I explain that to opponent. But, what he says is "You're not getting what I'm saying." But I do! He explains it again, and it's the same as before. No, he's not getting what I'm saying! Or he does, and he just brushes over it because he thinks my concerns are overblown, or the actual problems will be negligible.
An hour and a half! It's like shopping with my mother! I can go into a store and spend 20 minutes, and I know what I want. But my mother will insist on keeping me there and bringing me selection after selection. "I just wanted to let you try all the options!" Bullshit! I'm happy with what I've got--what YOU want is to give me as many opportunities as possible to change my mind because you don't approve of my choice!
And I'm nice, so I sit there and take it. I face argument after argument, trying to stand for what I feel is best, and after an hour, all I want to do is just throw my hands up in the air and give in, because I'm tired of talking about it over and over. Fine, I give up, you win! Do whatever you bloody well please, just stop pestering me!
But that hurts opponent's feelings. "I'm just trying to give you ideas and make suggestions!" No, you're not. You didn't once ask me anything like "Have you considered X?" You keep going, "No, blah blah blah." When you start with "No," you're arguing with me. And who works in this business, you or me? You stand there and keep coming up with reasons why you feel I'm overestimating the problems, or why my design is too complex. You whine at me about "Why don't you just try it my way this year, and then we'll know in future whether it works or not!"
Look you well, I'm going to get shit on for everything that doesn't work with IT. I know this, because I get shit on every year I do this job. I knew this going in. But if I'm going to get shit on, it had damn well better be for my own damn choices, not yours.
I've already reduced my design's complexity from previous years. We're not doing nine subnets, five routers, six VPNs, etc. etc. I had three subnets and two routers, is that not simplification? But it's not good enough for you, is it? You won't stop whining until we're down to a one router, single subnet network. Why? Because it worked for you over a decade ago. And you're bragging to me about how you only ever had a problem with STP, so you used hubs to bypass that problem!
USING A HUB AS A SOLUTION IS A FAILURE OF NETWORK DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION, NOT SOMETHING TO BE FUCKING PROUD OF!!!!!
Even your "compromise" network design leaves me agitated. Routers for some rooms, direct connection via switches to other rooms. The VLAN has some routers on it and some mixed devices, because we're trying to shoehorn my goals into your preferred constraints. And you're not even part of IT!
Why the fuck am I even still considering this design? Because I know, as I stated above, that once I throw out all the bullshit and all the dross, I'm still left with a tiny kernel of truth--three VLANs is more likely to be screwed up by the vendor during implementation, than a single VLAN will be. So, do I err on the side of the safety of the network, or do I err on the side of fewer problems during deployment? That's really the only dliemma I should have to weigh.
I keep hearing echoes of an argument in a previous year, when opponent thought my designs were too complex. He yelled at me, over the phone, and told me that I didn't know networks. That I didn't know what I was doing, that I had no experience. I was cool, but I was nettled. I spent months working with the equipment in our university's lab. I was the lab assistant for years. I was the first student instructor for the networking peer support group that was pioneered at the time. I was fixing problems that my instructor couldn't fix, and teaching the class when our instructor's teaching couldn't be understood by anybody but me. And you are going to yell at me and say I have no experience, because you don't like my decisions as the person solely in charge of IT.
Opponent apologized a few weeks later. After being advised that I wasn't going to get much better out of him, I begrudgingly accepted it, such as it was. And it's water under the bridge now--I don't hold it against him. He was frustrated, and sometimes we all say things we shouldn't because of frustration. He and I are very good friends, and I generally get along very well with him.
But this argument is bringing up bad memories and echoes of things long past. I should not have to spend a fucking HOUR on the phone, defending my designs to somebody who isn't my supervisor, isn't connected with IT, and isn't even in my fucking department. I understand that opponent may just be trying to spitball ideas, but opponent's persistence is simply starting to wear me down. I want to stop arguing, and it's almost worth going with a crappy design (from somebody who thinks that hubs are a great solution to solving network problems) just to stop being pestered.
Further, this is coming from a good friend. Others are not so kind. There have been many complaints about opponent badgering people and pestering them until they feel they have no choice but to give up. And he doesn't mean to do that, I'm sure--but you're doing it anyway. Even I am feeling it, and it's left me trying to deal with rage and agitation even now, after a solid night's sleep and the dawn of a new day.
Take a good hard fucking look at yourself and how you approach things, with your "I'm just trying to give you suggestions!" Why are you really doing this? If all you wanted was to raise suggestions, why would you still be arguing for the third or fourth version of your idea after over an hour?
Opponent then sits there and tells me that he'd ask me to design the network for his house, if he builds a house in future. I call total, pure, and utter bullshit. You're fucking proud of your current design, because it's "good enough." And you're spending over an hour arguing with me about a transient network that's only going to be alive for five days, because you feel that it's too complex. If you're going to spend an hour arguing about that, how long are you going to spend arguing about a permanent network that you're going to have to live with? You're full of shit. And you admitted it, too--when I called you on it, you admitted you wouldn't call me in for the first five years.
So, after you experiment and play with things for five years, you might call me in to "consult" on designing a better home network. With God-only-knows how much arguing, given that you're currently offering me an argument ratio of one hour arguing for every 120 hours of network operation. Yeah, maybe I'll pass on that.
I've wasted an hour typing out this screed. I'm going to go away now.