PDA

View Full Version : ALL CAPS emails lead to woman's firing


kluang
09-02-2009, 12:18 PM
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/148175

WHAT COULD BE MORE ANNOYING THAN THIS? MAYBE IF IT WAS BOLD? AND RED?

OK, I can't actually make that text red due to the publishing system I'm on, but it would certainly be annoying, wouldn't it?

And if you worked for New Zealand's ProCare Health, it could even get you fired.

That's exactly what hapened to Vicki Walker, who was abruptly kicked out of her job for sending "confrontational emails" with text formatted in a variety of red, bold, and all caps fonts. Walker had sent the emails to fellow workers within the company, usually with stern and detailed instructions on how forms should be properly filled out.

Someone at ProCare didn't like her approach, suggesting she caused "disharmony in the workplace" and was being too confrontational via email, eventually firing her without warning.

Walker, however, got the last laugh. She sued for wrongful termination and won the case, pocketing $17,000 in lost wages and for other unspecified harm caused due to the firing.

Quite a predicament. Is it actually possible to be confrontational in an email message? With instructions on how to fill out a form? By all accounts, Walker's emails sound rude and brusque, but did she cross a line? Just how angry would an email have to be in order to merit being fired from her job? I know I've sent a "confrontational" message or two to my co-workers in the past, and I've received more than my fair share of them, I think. I never recall anyone getting fired for it.

What do you think? Is it OK to fire someone for misuse of their caps lock button? Feel free to respond in the comments section below. First one to do so in all caps gets fired.

Mal
09-02-2009, 10:34 PM
Nearly every Caps Lock should just be taken out back and shot.

Only Bal's may be spared.

Freshgrease
09-03-2009, 01:47 AM
HI! BILLY MAYS HERE FOR THE SHIFT KEY!

/cpas

Azumi
09-03-2009, 02:19 AM
I LIEK TO TYPE IN ZE CAPS. THAT WALKER LADY WAS LUCKY INDEED.

/caps

Freshgrease
09-03-2009, 02:37 AM
They just used the CAPS deal to act as a scapegoat for the real reason why they fired her: she was out of the designated kitchen/breakroom for too long. Gotta be politico correct :D.

zer0systm
09-04-2009, 07:34 AM
Nearly every Caps Lock should just be taken out back and shot.

Only Bal's may be spared.

:O EVEN ME?


srlsy that's Kiwi's for ya...

uchihademon91
09-17-2009, 03:15 AM
Thats retarded...... How can you be confrontational through the look of text? Its the punctuation which gives a sentence it's intent. Not the look of the letters. True, in the work place you should be more formal with an e-mail that is work related. But to fire someone for it and claim it as confrontational is illogical and plain stupid.

Thats like saying various fonts are confrontational. Say for instance, if you typed a business letter in comic sans font instead of times new roman. Even though the letter was addressed as urgent business matter, the recipient thought it was a joke letter and not of importance and cast it aside. As result the business lost money and the writer of the letter was fired because the letter was too informal for the business place.

At best, all caps can be found as annoying to some, but thats it.

Mal
09-17-2009, 07:19 PM
You sir, are an IDIOT.

See? Confrontational.

uchihademon91
09-20-2009, 06:02 PM
You sir, are an IDIOT.

See? Confrontational.

but that wasnt the issue with the lady getting fired.... the whole email was in caps, and it was instructions or some shit. she didnt use confrontational wording. the text itself ( its appearance) was what was said to be confrontational

Mal
09-20-2009, 06:57 PM
OKAY!!!!!! SO EVEN IF EVERYTHING IS ALL BIG AND RED AND ANGRY LOOKING IT'S ALL OKAY?????? SERIOUSLY????? I'M PRETTY SURE ANYONE READING THIS WOULD FEEL I WAS RATHER UPSET/FRUSTRATED WITH THEM OR JUST PLAIN HATED HAVING TO TALK TO THEM BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE DUMB.cpas

uchihademon91
09-21-2009, 03:02 AM
OKAY!!!!!! SO EVEN IF EVERYTHING IS ALL BIG AND RED AND ANGRY LOOKING IT'S ALL OKAY?????? SERIOUSLY????? I'M PRETTY SURE ANYONE READING THIS WOULD FEEL I WAS RATHER UPSET/FRUSTRATED WITH THEM OR JUST PLAIN HATED HAVING TO TALK TO THEM BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE DUMB.cpas

ya, um .... angry looking is a matter of opinion.... it doesnt bother me, i wouldn't do it, but doesnt seem like a big deal. your pretty sure, ok. i would only judge it by the context. you do seem a lil agitated, not because the size of the font or the color tho.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

EVERYBODY WHO HAS THEIR QUOTA MET BY THEIR DEADLINE, WILL RECIEVE A $200 BONUS. I KNOW TIMES ARE TOUGH BUT GOOD LUCK

is that angry to you. is it giving you that dirty look. i think your associating the "angry look" idea to the color/mood relation. they say yellow is a happy eccentric color, red is an angry color, and so on so forth. but that seems dumb to say that a message is confrontational just because of its color. the all caps thing, if anything expresses importance.

Mal
09-21-2009, 02:16 PM
If it's simply a regular old business message then why would you bother to change the default formatting unless you were a) trying to hint at something, or b) retarded. Were I to receive an email with your message, big red and bold, I'd feel as though anyone who didn't meet their quota could be fired. You can't just take things at face value all the time or you're liable to miss important subtext from time to time that completely changes the meaning of the message.

uchihademon91
09-21-2009, 04:46 PM
i didnt mean to bold, regardless you have a point.

but angry looking text is a matter of opinion. if its all caps and in red, thats all it is. if some one thinks or feel it looks angry then, its opinion. hint at the word think or feel. the opening thread said she was fired simply cause the message was all caps and read, and was SEEN as confrontational. she should have been fired for unprofessionalism, but apparently they took the opinionated route. which was wrong

Mal
09-21-2009, 11:52 PM
http://www.freedommarchusa.org/press/15108_brass_scales_of_justice_off_balanc e_symbolizing_injustice_over_white.jpg

Above is a common symbol of JUSTICE. Is a scale always symbolic of JUSTICE? No, but it is common practice, and most people are aware of this symbolism.

Similarly, typing in all capitals is taken to be symbolic of yelling, and the colour red often symbolizes anger. Yes, it's merely "opinion", but it's an opinion so widely held that it's become common public understanding.

uchihademon91
09-22-2009, 03:22 PM
that particular scale is widely recognized as representing "justice". if you say the word scale in general then the majority would not recognize the word as representing justice.

capital letters represent importance more than yelling. the red letters, ya would more than less symbolize anger. but they should have fired her on the grounds of unprofessionalism not confrontational behavior.

either way she won the suit because it was found as wrongful termination. which proves my point that they should have not fired her for being confrontational, because it was too much of an opinionated reason

Mal
09-22-2009, 06:59 PM
that particular scale is widely recognized as representing "justice". if you say the word scale in general then the majority would not recognize the word as representing justice."That particular scale?" You mean the one I found quickly by Google Imaging "scales"? And of course the word "scale" doesn't make everyone think "JUSTICE". The word doesn't represent justice, the image does.

capital letters represent importance more than yelling. the red letters, ya would more than less symbolize anger. but they should have fired her on the grounds of unprofessionalism not confrontational behavior.Full capitalization of a single word or phrase represents importance. Full capitalization of an entire email is understood to be indicative of yelling.

either way she won the suit because it was found as wrongful termination. which proves my point that they should have not fired her for being confrontational, because it was too much of an opinionated reasonAnd it was an opinionated reason that the court awarded her the victory in the case. Try to come up with real evidence that she was "wrongfully terminated", instead of fallacious arguments like "Person A's opinion is wrong because Person B's opinion is that Person A's opinion is wrong".

balmung5000
09-22-2009, 07:08 PM
HEYO THATS MY SISTER

cpas

uchihademon91
09-22-2009, 09:55 PM
yes that particular scale..... not every scale looks like that, its a specific type of scale and that specific type of scale is used to symbolize justice. if you put a picture of a scale that people weigh themselves on, then nobody would relate that to justice in any way or form.

single words or phrases in all capitalization are more common, but an email in all caps or any message in all caps can still be used to signify importance.


they weighed opinion a against opinion b. and they decided what was morally right in their eyes. most of court hearings are decided on opinion if not all. most things in life are opinionated. thats the justice system.

Mal
09-23-2009, 05:14 AM
yes that particular scale..... not every scale looks like that, its a specific type of scale and that specific type of scale is used to symbolize justice. if you put a picture of a scale that people weigh themselves on, then nobody would relate that to justice in any way or form.What relevance does this have to that argument? Why have you attacked my rhetorical question and not even attempted to counter my actual argument?

single words or phrases in all capitalization are more common, but an email in all caps or any message in all caps can still be used to signify importance.Capitalization is used to emphasize individual, key points in a message. Not that it can't be done your crazy way, it's just incredibly stupid to think full capitalization of an entire message is anywhere near the correct way to signify a message's importance. Honestly, I find it very hard to argue against this because it just seems to me that this should be common sense.

they weighed opinion a against opinion b. and they decided what was morally right in their eyes. most of court hearings are decided on opinion if not all. most things in life are opinionated. thats the justice system.Well you've changed the definition of Opinion B, so I guess I'll have to adjust for this:
"...they decided...in their eyes." It's still Opinion A vs. Opinion C, and still logically fallacious to say "Opinion A is wrong because Opinion C says so." You're completely missing the point of my argument.

uchihademon91
09-23-2009, 10:09 PM
What relevance does this have to that argument? Why have you attacked my rhetorical question and not even attempted to counter my actual argument?

Capitalization is used to emphasize individual, key points in a message. Not that it can't be done your crazy way, it's just incredibly stupid to think full capitalization of an entire message is anywhere near the correct way to signify a message's importance. Honestly, I find it very hard to argue against this because it just seems to me that this should be common sense.

Well you've changed the definition of Opinion B, so I guess I'll have to adjust for this:
"...they decided...in their eyes." It's still Opinion A vs. Opinion C, and still logically fallacious to say "Opinion A is wrong because Opinion C says so." You're completely missing the point of my argument.

the relevance of that is that not all scales are seen as symbolizing justice, just as not every capitalized word is seen as signifying yelling. which is what you implied,

"Capitalization is used to emphasize individual, key points in a message." maybe she thought that every thing in the message was important. i never said she was the smartest bitch in the strip club. maybe she had no common sense. they shoulda fired her for incompetence then.

opinion a is the opinion of the workplace that fired the woman, opinion b is the opinion of the women. "they" are the court system. "they" weighed opinion a against opinion b. in their eyes they saw that opinion b was in the right. who cares if it was logically fallacious, thats how the justice system works.

what is the point of your arguement. my point is that the workplace should not have fired the woman for sending an e-mail in all caps and in red, because they thought it was confrontational. they should have fired her on different grounds. from what was said in the first post, she did not actually say anything confrontational. it just "looked" confrontational. they should have fired her for incompetence or unprofessionalism, not being "confrontational".

Mal
09-23-2009, 11:35 PM
the relevance of that is that not all scales are seen as symbolizing justice, just as not every capitalized word is seen as signifying yelling. which is what you implied,

"Capitalization is used to emphasize individual, key points in a message." maybe she thought that every thing in the message was important. i never said she was the smartest bitch in the strip club. maybe she had no common sense. they shoulda fired her for incompetence then.I don't believe I implied any such thing, and I certainly didn't intend to. Just as there is a difference between scales, there is a difference between capitalization of key points and capitalization of an entire message. Where I to read a message from someone who felt their articles, prepositions, and conjunctions were "important", I would interpret it as yelling, as would most people. Again, the issue here isn't how it can be interpreted, it's how the majority will interpret it.

opinion a is the opinion of the workplace that fired the woman, opinion b is the opinion of the women. "they" are the court system. "they" weighed opinion a against opinion b. in their eyes they saw that opinion b was in the right. who cares if it was logically fallacious, thats how the justice system works.And Opinion C is "their" opinion, the opinion of the court.
You've terribly misunderstood me. You are the one making fallacious arguments, not the court. Would you like me to try and explain this to you? I don't want to have to go to all that trouble if I don't have to, as it will be difficult to explain something so simple in even simpler terms.

what is the point of your arguement. my point is that the workplace should not have fired the woman for sending an e-mail in all caps and in red, because they thought it was confrontational. they should have fired her on different grounds. from what was said in the first post, she did not actually say anything confrontational. it just "looked" confrontational. they should have fired her for incompetence or unprofessionalism, not being "confrontational".My "argument" is that you're dumb, and attempting to defend a defenceless argument.
My opinion on the matter is that the court was correct. As stupid as she is, the woman shouldn't have been fired immediately, but been put under review and warned that her behaviour was unprofessional.

uchihademon91
09-24-2009, 07:04 PM
your going by your own opinion. how do you know the majority would interpret capitalization of a whole message as yelling. i would certainly find it wierd, but wouldnt take it as them yelling.


the whole opinion a against opinion c arguement. i dont see where your going with that. your saying its wrong that the courts opinion said that the workplaces opinion is wrong, and that in itself is worng, is that what your saying? well thats basically how the world works, its opinion vs opinion all the time.


your arguement is that im dumb....ok. how is that. because your interpretation of capitalization is different from mine, so your opinion is right and mine is wrong, so that makes me dumb. thats what you are saying. you have no proof that the majority of people would interpret capitalization of an entire message as yelling. just cuz her workplace did, doesnt mean the majority of the populous does. as that was decided indirectly by the courts opinion.

Mal
09-24-2009, 07:31 PM
your going by your own opinion. how do you know the majority would interpret capitalization of a whole message as yelling. i would certainly find it wierd, but wouldnt take it as them yelling.It's not my opinion that the majority would interpret it as yelling.
you have no proof that the majority of people would interpret capitalization of an entire message as yelling. just cuz her workplace did, doesnt mean the majority of the populous does. as that was decided indirectly by the courts opinion."Proof" cannot exist for inductive conclusions, but I do have evidence:
This form of typography also appears in on-line forums. It was once an inevitable byproduct of using machines with limited support for lowercase text (such as certain dumb terminals, early Apple II models), but as full support of ASCII became standard, it became solely identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behaviour. As a result, netiquette generally discourages the use of all caps.
via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps#Internet)Don't try any tired argument (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html) like "Wikipedia isn't an accurate source!!!!1!"

your arguement is that im dumb....ok. how is that. because your interpretation of capitalization is different from mine, so your opinion is right and mine is wrong, so that makes me dumb. thats what you are saying.The fact that you're dumb has nothing to do with my opinion of you, but your complete inability to argue and understand basic logical fallacies, an excellent example of the latter being:
the whole opinion a against opinion c arguement. i dont see where your going with that. your saying its wrong that the courts opinion said that the workplaces opinion is wrong, and that in itself is worng, is that what your saying? well thats basically how the world works, its opinion vs opinion all the time.Here's the breakdown of your initial argument in this portion of the issue:
"Opinion C says Opinion A is wrong, therefore Opinion A is wrong."
It's not the court that is logically fallacious, it's you.
Your argument is similar to:

Albert says '3' is the number "three"
Courtney says '3' is the 7th moon of Jupiter
Courtney is infallible
---------------------------------------------------------
Therefore Albert is wrong.

See how ridiculous your argument looks in that form?

uchihademon91
09-25-2009, 07:07 PM
well since the american standard code for information exchange says that all caps symbolizes shouting, then i guess the majority sees it as shouting. that makes sense. just cuz they think that it SHOULD represent shouting doesnt mean the majority see's it that way.

again the opinion a vs opinion c thing. still not following you with this. the court said that the workplace was wrong. i didnt say that. thats what happened. im not saying that the court was 100% in the right, but thats what happened. you keep saying that im the one whos saying this, but thats what happened. i dont see your argument here. you keep saying im being logically fallacious, but thats what happened, im just repeating it. so how am i being logically fallacious by repeating the scenario that actually happened. its not my arguement, thats the way it happened.

zer0systm
09-26-2009, 01:38 PM
Silly bitch should have got on her knees if ya know what I mean ;D


IF not, I'm saying she should of given the boss some gobbie to keep her job

and by that i mean suck a dick

and that means put a penis in her mouth.

and if you still don't get it.....well your just a fucking retard...

Mal
09-27-2009, 01:59 PM
well since the american standard code for information exchange says that all caps symbolizes shouting, then i guess the majority sees it as shouting. that makes sense. just cuz they think that it SHOULD represent shouting doesnt mean the majority see's it that way.Because I'm a nice guy, and like to repute everything in it's best possible form, I'll pretend your argument made sense in some way or another: ASCII is for character encoding only. There are no "rules" for ASCI; it does not "say" anything concerning spelling, grammar, punctuation or anything related to any rules of any language. Tthere is absolutely no regulatory group of any kind that says "All Caps means shouting." Nobody thinks that full capitalization of a message "should" represent shouting, they accept that it does represent shouting.

again the opinion a vs opinion c thing. still not following you with this. the court said that the workplace was wrong. i didnt say that. thats what happened. im not saying that the court was 100% in the right, but thats what happened. you keep saying that im the one whos saying this, but thats what happened. i dont see your argument here. you keep saying im being logically fallacious, but thats what happened, im just repeating it. so how am i being logically fallacious by repeating the scenario that actually happened. its not my arguement, thats the way it happened.The fact that something happened is irrelevant to your fallacious argument. Let's go back to my example:

P1) Albert says '3' is the number "three"
P2) Courtney says '3' is the 7th moon of Jupiter
P3) Courtney is infallible
---------------------------------------------------------
C) Therefore Albert is wrong.

P1-3 are the "premises". In any valid argument, if all the premises are true then the conclusion is also true.

P1) Albert says '3' is the number "three"
Even if what Albert says is false, this premise remains true, because what Albert says is independent of what actually is. In this case, however, surely we can agree that Albert is correct.
This Premise is representative of Opinion A - that of the business - on the assumption that the business is correct. The fact that the business' decision wasn't necessarily correct has no impact on the analogy.

P2) Courtney says '3' is the 7th moon of Jupiter
This premise, like the first, is true regardless of what the facts are, because this is what Courtney is saying. Obviously, '3' is not the 7th moon of Jupiter.
This premise is representative of Opinion C - that of the court, deciding that Opinion A is wrong and substituting their own answer.

P3) Courtney is infallible
This is your assumption, that the court's decision is the be all and end all. Your argument was that the business was wrong because the court said so, basically: The court can't possibly be wrong, so obviously the business is wrong.

C) Therefore Albert is wrong.
The conclusion is the same as your own conclusion, that the business (Albert) was wrong - regardless of what they had done - simply because the court (Courtney) said so, and is believed to be infallible.

I'm assuming you still don't get it, so let's try another analogy: First, the basic idea of the fallacy: "You can't use evidence of a certain type to disprove evidence of the same type."

Person A argues "God exists because I can feel that He does."
Person B argues "God does not exist, because I cannot feel anything."

Obviously, "feeling" isn't any kind of evidence, but we'll ignore that fact for the sake of the analogy.
Person B has not disproven Person A. Still don't believe me? Let's make it a little more "real":

Person A argues "I believe Scott exists because I have seen him."
Person B argues "I believe that Scott does not exist because I have not seen him."


Seriously, if you don't see the problem with any of the arguments given above, you should just give up entirely. I mean, arguing anything. Ever.