Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So many teachers here on Dakka, it all makes perfect seance to me now!

 notprop wrote:
So many teachers here on Dakka, it all makes perfect seance to me now!

I would like to see a letter written to GW by the dakka teachers... can you imagine that?

PM's sent. Thanks guys.

 notprop wrote:
So many teachers here on Dakka, it all makes perfect seance to me now!

5 out of 10 for spelling, I'm dead serious

Err yeah I did that on purpose to underline my rapier wit.

It was bound to happen but all I need now is for someone to announce they're an Offsted inspector and my 5 will be increase to an 8 anyway.

I've missed the last 3 pages or so but has anyone apologised to the OP , which they should considering the amount of unwarranted crap that was thrown his way?

Bullockist wrote:
I've missed the last 3 pages or so but has anyone apologised to the OP , which they should considering the amount of unwarranted crap that was thrown his way?

This being the Internet, their lack of participation is probably as much as you'll get from most posters.

Internet cookie to anyone with the stones to make me a liar though.

 azreal13 wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
I've missed the last 3 pages or so but has anyone apologised to the OP , which they should considering the amount of unwarranted crap that was thrown his way?

This being the Internet, their lack of participation is probably as much as you'll get from most posters.

Internet cookie to anyone with the stones to make me a liar though.

My guess would be they all moved to other threads where they could flame someone else.


Alex- Good luck my friend. Please let us now if anything new transpires. You have my respect for handling this thread the way you have despite all the negativity you have received.

Bullockist wrote:
I've missed the last 3 pages or so but has anyone apologised to the OP , which they should considering the amount of unwarranted crap that was thrown his way?

Why? We still have no evidence he acted appropriately, even he admitted he got 'angry', and even if you are 'wronged' making a scene or escalating a fight instantly justifies your ejection. Leaving calmly and doing as your told and writing a letter would have been more appropriate.

And being an unsupervised minor magnifies everything as you really have no rights or expectation of rights. Even if something is done unfairly, reacting poorly dismisses everything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Where are the parents in all of this? REGARDLESS of how the incident turned out with the one employee, there does seem that a responsible parent would use this incident to have a talk with the manager in regards to 'my child will be under your supervision for possibly 6-8 hours a day multiple times in the summer, Please call me if there is an issue with his behavior or a problem involving him and I will come down and see you about it.' I was in my local GW this weekend, and pretty much every kid who was 'left alone' had an agreement with the manager, phone number for parent and a rough idea when the child would be claimed. You would be surprised how 'common' it is for people to do something as simple as ask permission to leave your kid there and give them contact info.

nkelsch wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
I've missed the last 3 pages or so but has anyone apologised to the OP , which they should considering the amount of unwarranted crap that was thrown his way?

Why? We still have no evidence he acted appropriately, even he admitted he got 'angry', and even if you are 'wronged' making a scene or escalating a fight instantly justifies your ejection. Leaving calmly and doing as your told and writing a letter would have been more appropriate.

And being an unsupervised minor magnifies everything as you really have no rights or expectation of rights. Even if something is done unfairly, reacting poorly dismisses everything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Where are the parents in all of this? REGARDLESS of how the incident turned out with the one employee, there does seem that a responsible parent would use this incident to have a talk with the manager in regards to 'my child will be under your supervision for possibly 6-8 hours a day multiple times in the summer, Please call me if there is an issue with his behavior or a problem involving him and I will come down and see you about it.' I was in my local GW this weekend, and pretty much every kid who was 'left alone' had an agreement with the manager, phone number for parent and a rough idea when the child would be claimed. You would be surprised how 'common' it is for people to do something as simple as ask permission to leave your kid there and give them contact info.

Wow back the this again......... Like a record stuck on a track. He wasn't the only one there that was unsupervised. Also the manager got the same complaint from others in the store that day......... Getting 'angry' does not mean he acted out. Why do (most) people always think that getting angry means the same thing as acting poorly.

Wow some people do not want the give up the ship even when it is sinking.

nkelsch wrote:
And being an unsupervised minor magnifies everything as you really have no rights or expectation of rights.

Thought I'd check in to this thread, since it's gone one for 10 pages or the like since I last braved checking in.

Nkelsch, the above statement is I think why I really can't see where you're coming from. I just have no idea where you're getting that from, or why you're viewing the issue from that angle / perspective. Of course underage people have rights, whether or not they are with a parent/guardian. That statement is simply false... there's no other way to say it. Add to it, you were responding to someone asking if there's been an apology, when in fact, there Has been movement on that front! See the quote at the bottom of my post below. They are at the very least investigating, as they should.

As a former teacher (as well as a number of other posters here, it seems!) I never, ever would consider that underage people "have no rights or expectation of rights" just because they are not with their parent/guardian at the time. If there were ever a complaint regarding a situation with a minor, if anything it was taken More seriously than it would be if it were a complaint between two adults. Minors have rights, and society usually does a good job of making sure they are not taken advantage of, by taking situations/complaints like this seriously.

Bullockist wrote:
I've missed the last 3 pages or so but has anyone apologised to the OP , which they should considering the amount of unwarranted crap that was thrown his way?

There seems to be progress on that front, see his update quoted below:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Well, things have moved along a bit. I went into the store this weekend thinking I would simply let it go and never see him again, but then the Store manager asked me for a written letter of complaint. I said I didn't really want to take it that far, given I am unlikely to see him again. He then said that he would like a letter from me because some other people have complained FOR me and he wanted to hear the story from me. I was a little surprised to be honest, I never thought anyone would go so far to write in and complain to the manager about the substitute for me. But I've decided that if some other people took my side, who although he didn't say there names, then I should at least give an account of what happened.

I think I will keep the letter brief and simply explain circumstances without bias (So without adjectives it seems ) so he can get the full picture. Would anyone be up for reviewing my letter when I finish it? I would like someone to point out grammatical errors Word may miss and say if I sound demanding or 'Entitled' which I wouldn't want.

Thanks.

 warriorpriest wrote:



Wow back the this again......... Like a record stuck on a track. He wasn't the only one there that was unsupervised. Also the manager got the same complaint from others in the store that day......... Getting 'angry' does not mean he acted out. Why do (most) people always think that getting angry means the same thing as acting poorly.

Wow some people do not want the give up the ship even when it is sinking.

So...what? Because he wasn't the only one its okay?

I mean, it's good that the OP looks like this is going to be resolved, and the fact that the manager requested a formal complaint indicates that he's probably had issues with this substitute employee before.

I think he meant the opposite, cincy (that because he was not the only one there unsupervised, it was random).

And I agree, the fact that the manager asked for a written letter of complaint, and has apparently had other complaints about the incident from customers, probably means he is looking to take disciplinary action regarding the employee. Even if it is nothing else, it clearly was bad customer service / bad for the store's reputation, and I'm sure the manager wants to make it clear he's addressing it.

 warriorpriest wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
I've missed the last 3 pages or so but has anyone apologised to the OP , which they should considering the amount of unwarranted crap that was thrown his way?

Why? We still have no evidence he acted appropriately, even he admitted he got 'angry', and even if you are 'wronged' making a scene or escalating a fight instantly justifies your ejection. Leaving calmly and doing as your told and writing a letter would have been more appropriate.

And being an unsupervised minor magnifies everything as you really have no rights or expectation of rights. Even if something is done unfairly, reacting poorly dismisses everything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Where are the parents in all of this? REGARDLESS of how the incident turned out with the one employee, there does seem that a responsible parent would use this incident to have a talk with the manager in regards to 'my child will be under your supervision for possibly 6-8 hours a day multiple times in the summer, Please call me if there is an issue with his behavior or a problem involving him and I will come down and see you about it.' I was in my local GW this weekend, and pretty much every kid who was 'left alone' had an agreement with the manager, phone number for parent and a rough idea when the child would be claimed. You would be surprised how 'common' it is for people to do something as simple as ask permission to leave your kid there and give them contact info.

Wow back the this again......... Like a record stuck on a track. He wasn't the only one there that was unsupervised. Also the manager got the same complaint from others in the store that day......... Getting 'angry' does not mean he acted out. Why do (most) people always think that getting angry means the same thing as acting poorly.

Wow some people do not want the give up the ship even when it is sinking.

Any kid 'getting angry' and yelling or arguing with an adult, especially when he is not supervised by his parents is a problem. He should have left without a word and brought his parents to talk to the manager. He had no right to be there, no right to stay, is only there based upon the 'good graces' of the store, and he was neglected and unsupervised by his parents who should have been able to come get him when there was a problem. Regardless what happened, the fact he was unsupervised makes him instantly wrong, he should have left without incident.

If I was a customer and I saw a unsupervised child arguing or causing a scene, I would have asked the store to eject him and/or call the police. Two wrongs don't make a right. Children don't have the right to 'argue', that is what parental supervision is for.

His case would have been stronger if the employee was forced to admit 'he left without incident'.

nkeslch wrote:Children don't have the right to 'argue', that is what parental supervision is for.

Again, this is simply untrue. A minor whose rights (which they do indeed have) are being violated certainly may "argue".

See my post above... again, as a former teacher, the idea that a minor is not allowed to argue with an adult without their parent/guardian present is... well, a bit shocking, and definitely not true! At least, not in the US or UK, or most other developed countries I would imagine.

I can't get past the whole "loitering" thing. Do you not have FLGSes with game rooms where you're at? The shop I work at is quite proud of our game room, and have invested a good bit of money expanding and remodeling it over the years. People are encouraged to hang out, play games, or simply just loiter around. Game room will stay open longer than the store, depending who around has keys to it or we have a key to it we can loan out. And I don't just mean the game room either. People will hang out around the counter/case and chat with the employees and other customers. There's a TV on the shop floor playing whatever the employees feel like putting on, usually comic book movies since we Are a comic shop after all, and there will often be someone or two standing around in front of it watching it. The more time people spend in your store, the more likely they are to buy something from you, even if they don't buy anything from you that particular day. It builds up the good will that a brick and mortar needs to compete with all the discount online retailers.

nkelsch wrote:


Any kid 'getting angry' and yelling or arguing with an adult, especially when he is not supervised by his parents is a problem. He should have left without a word and brought his parents to talk to the manager. He had no right to be there, no right to stay, is only there based upon the 'good graces' of the store

Supposition. Nowhere does he state that he yelled, or argued. Yelling is not prerequisite for being angry. If you had read his letter explaining the events (I have, he PM'd those who offered to check spelling and grammar) you'd know he essentially tried to stand his ground, and when it became apparent it wasn't doing any good, did as he was told. He didn't hulk out and try to insert a Flyrant into the CSA's intimate area.

He was neglected and unsupervised by his parents who should have been able to come get him when there was a problem. Regardless what happened, the fact he was unsupervised makes him instantly wrong, he should have left without incident.

Unsupervised, yes, but neglected? Hardly, as a 14 year old, he is perfectly entitled to be out on his own, and his parents are completely entitled to let him. No laws were broken.

When I was his age, my parents allowed me and my friends to roam the countryside on foot or bike, because they trusted me to behave. A trust I by and large justified. I had no idea I had a neglected childhood until now. Perhaps I should contact social services and see if my parents can be retrospectively prosecuted?

If I was a customer and I saw a unsupervised child arguing or causing a scene, I would have asked the store to eject him and/or call the police. Two wrongs don't make a right. Children don't have the right to 'argue', that is what parental supervision is for.

Again, supposition. You seem to have this impression of what happened, and don't seem willing to let the facts in the way of that. I am seriously beginning to think you must have some sort of personal experience that this is bringing up unpleasant memories of, because your reaction really seems disproportionate and totally disconnected from the facts as they're presented.

nkelsch wrote:

Any kid 'getting angry' and yelling or arguing with an adult, especially when he is not supervised by his parents is a problem. He should have left without a word and brought his parents to talk to the manager. He had no right to be there, no right to stay, is only there based upon the 'good graces' of the store, and he was neglected and unsupervised by his parents who should have been able to come get him when there was a problem. Regardless what happened, the fact he was unsupervised makes him instantly wrong, he should have left without incident.

If I was a customer and I saw a unsupervised child arguing or causing a scene, I would have asked the store to eject him and/or call the police. Two wrongs don't make a right. Children don't have the right to 'argue', that is what parental supervision is for.

His case would have been stronger if the employee was forced to admit 'he left without incident'.

This struck me as very odd. Is a kid not allowed to stand up for himself when his parents are not there? Are you advocating that he should just shut up and let someone else walk all over him? The employee clearly showed no respect to the kid in how he dealt with him. Why must the kid aquiesce to such rudeness? Yes, I understand that in many cases when a kid argues with an adult, many times it may be the kid in the wrong. But from the OP's account of the situation (and his reasonable temperament in the re-telling of the incident as objectively as he can), this is clearly not the case. I really don't understand why you are advocating that he is wrong to act as he did when he is the one who is the victim here. To me, this is almost like telling a rape victim that he/she is wrong for dressing too provocatively (well, not to that degree, but you get my meaning).

Let me ask you, did you ever have a bad experience with a kid in your place of work? It just seems like there is some foundation for your strong conviction.

 RiTides wrote:

nkeslch wrote:Children don't have the right to 'argue', that is what parental supervision is for.

Again, this is simply untrue. A minor whose rights (which they do indeed have) are being violated certainly may "argue".

See my post above... again, as a former teacher, the idea that a minor is not allowed to argue with an adult without their parent/guardian present is... well, a bit shocking, and definitely not true! At least, not in the US or UK, or most other developed countries I would imagine.

As a former teacher too, If you are unsupervised and have an issue, if the parents are not there, the only thing that can be done is have the kids taken in to custody and the parents called. A store should not 'argue' with children, especially unsupervised ones. Staff should say 'where is your parent, ok, I am calling security/police, leave immediately.' The less interaction a merchant has with unsupervised children, the better as it puts them at risk.

Kids lie and are prone to violence, it is dangerous for adults to interact with angry children who are unsupervised for an array of reasons.

Schools are different as while in the school, the professional staff are trained and legally allowed to supervise the kids. In public, there is no expectation that is the case and when on private property, what 'rights' does the child think he has? Right to loiter? right to play his game? Right to hang out for 4 more hours? None. Asked to leave for any reason, you leave. If you argue, or cause an issue, it is dangerous to interact with the kid because they are unpredictable.

The guy asking him to leave may seem unfair, but he didn't infringe on any rights and while he may have been rude or a bad salesman, arguing with him, refusing to leave until police we called and pointing out he is an unsupervised minor doesn't make it better.

Complaining to the store owner hasn't addressed the key issues and that is the lack of parental involvement or taking responsibilities for his own situation and trying to reach an agreement where the store will accept custody of him for long periods of time and have a way to contact parents if needed.

And we do have FLGS, and we have issues with parents 'assuming' there are adults around so someone is 'bound' to watch their kid. That is not the case, and when people leave and the kid is left behind, it becomes an issue. Adults Loitering and Children loitering are two different situations for stores and need to be addressed in different ways as there are some serious liability issues with loitering children which don't exist for adults.

@nkelsch, wow. Although I can relate your opinion of 'limited rights' to minors, no exceptions. Your view is very common back in China during the 50's and is how my dad grew up by. But I never expected an American, teacher no less, to have such a view in today's society.

I can see the points you are making, sales guy did not infringe on his rights; kid should not be 'angry'; bad salesman but not in the wrong of kicking out minors.

But if you look past the minor issue. The OP seem to be a well mannered, respectful person that can be reasoned with, least based on his presentation on this thread. He presentated a case on this forum that 'He was discriminated out of his long term hobby store by a new employee for not buying anything during that particular visit, what should I do?' I think at the very least we as a community we can hear out his complants and give constructive thoughts. Not to discriminate everthing OP presented just because of his age.

The OP raised an issue I do have with GW retail stores, and that is who do they really cater to? GW's retail prices have shun away a lot of +25yr old who knows the value of money. Their reduction of tables/battle bunkers, drove away the 'verteran' who money to burn. and are now restricing padded kids from enjoying 40K from their stores. Verterns knows the GW stores back in the day as 'Hobby Centers'. People do loiter for days and play their games. Today's 'Retail Store' model, do not have good table, very few tables, no free paint to paint models, no discounts. drives long term customer away. So who is the real target audience for retain stores?

nkelsch wrote:

As a former teacher too, If you are unsupervised and have an issue, if the parents are not there, the only thing that can be done is have the kids taken in to custody and the parents called.

What a load of old tosh. That might be the case in the US - in which case, thank goodness I don't live there - but is certainly not the case in the UK. Altho I wonder if your response says more about your own peculiar reality, rather than the US in general.

.

 azreal13 wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
I've missed the last 3 pages or so but has anyone apologised to the OP , which they should considering the amount of unwarranted crap that was thrown his way?

This being the Internet, their lack of participation is probably as much as you'll get from most posters.

I just hope those folks don't act like that in real life, ESPECIALLY at gaming stores. I've had enough with the angry nerd stereotypes, which sadly perpetuate because of angry nerds like the ones in this thread.

Hivefleet- It is not the case in the US, either... or really any developed country that I can think of.

(I was hesitant about replying because I don't want to beat a dead horse / pile on here... but that view is not the one that most US residents have, or at least that I have come into contact with. And it is not the case under the law or what happens in reality, either)

Super Newb wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
I've missed the last 3 pages or so but has anyone apologised to the OP , which they should considering the amount of unwarranted crap that was thrown his way?

This being the Internet, their lack of participation is probably as much as you'll get from most posters.

I just hope those folks don't act like that in real life, ESPECIALLY at gaming stores. I've had enough with the angry nerd stereotypes, which sadly perpetuate because of angry nerds like the ones in this thread.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

As a former teacher too, If you are unsupervised and have an issue, if the parents are not there, the only thing that can be done is have the kids taken in to custody and the parents called.

What a load of old tosh. That might be the case in the US - in which case, thank goodness I don't live there - but is certainly not the case in the UK. Altho I wonder if your response says more about your own reality, rather than the US in general.

If you have a miscreant causing issues at your store, you're free to call the cops on them/call their parents. Is this the normal way of things? No it's not, but it's an option.

 RiTides wrote:
Hivefleet- It is not the case in the US, either... or really any developed country that I can think of.

(I was hesitant about replying because I don't want to beat a dead horse / pile on here... but that view is not the one that most US residents have, or at least that I have come into contact with. And it is not the case under the law or what happens in reality, either)

It's a view that actually does get picked up by shops where they have issues of parents dumping their kids there as a free childcare service. It is not common but it does happen.

That is not the situation in the text you quoted (or the situation if this thread, either) Alf.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

As a former teacher too, If you are unsupervised and have an issue, if the parents are not there, the only thing that can be done is have the kids taken in to custody and the parents called.

What a load of old tosh. That might be the case in the US - in which case, thank goodness I don't live there - but is certainly not the case in the UK. Altho I wonder if your response says more about your own reality, rather than the US in general.

.

its not the case in the US. Just sounds like someone is jaded over something that may have happened to them personally as a teen or with a teen.

 RiTides wrote:
That is not the situation in the text you quoted (or the situation if this thread, either) Alf.

Actually I disagree, RiTides. Nkelsch brought up the point that if there is a minor present without a parent/guardian(I'm elaborating on what he posted a bit but the gist is there) and the minor causes an issue, then the shop generally has to deal with the parent/guardian. A lot of police departments and the like will respond to situations like that kind of heavy handed and press charges even if it is for something as simple as a first time offense shoplifting or something of that nature.

Look, we've been thru all of this already.

GW actively encourage 12 year olds in their store, without parental supervision. Obviously they won't put up with abuse of this privilege. But leave all the old tosh about the law and abuse of minors and leaving them in police custody, because it tells us only about what's inside your head and is nothing to do with reality.

Alex, good luck with that letter, hopefully it will be more coherent and better argued than some of the 'input' on here.

I suggest, and I guess you';ll know, that your argument is more about bad manners towards a customer, than it is about human rights. Put plenty in about how you like the shop, which is why you've spent so much money there over the years. Don't ask for the head on a platter . But I reckon such behaviour should earn the staff member a formal warning.


.