Hacker News Reader

> CHP officers call this the "personality test" - and they administer it every time you get pulled over, BTW.

This is pretty much true of all police agencies. "Contempt of cop" is one of the worst offenses you can commit in terms of your likelihood of being punished for something minor.

> [T]he procedure is, for the normal person, a once-in-a-lifetime event. But the flunky on the other side of the desk does it every day.

I just had a TV delivered. And then a replacement delivered, but they were unauthorized to pick up the original, so the same two delivery guys had to come back a third time.

All three times, the delivery guys tried to force me to sign an incomplete form. They clearly wanted me to sign for whatever condition it was in and they would check all the boxes on my behalf to cover their own asses. The tactic was plainly obvious.

> The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating.

That's what I usually try to do in this sort of situation. However, it simply was impossible because the delivery guys 1) were rather large and intimidating 2) in my home, where I'm still unpacking and 3) spoke very poor english. Charm simply does not work on underpaid meatheads who don't understand the words your using. Any attempt to communicate clearly resulted in them becoming impatient and visibly annoyed, which resulted in me becoming uncomfortable (in my own home!). So each of the first two times, I just didn't sign my name. I just made an X that is in no way similar to my normal signature. The last time, for the pickup, I wrote "PERFECT CONDITION" over the whole form and then signed my name to that. The delivery guys were clearly pissed that last time because they didn't have another form and that if they dropped the TV, then they couldn't blame damage on me.

Take photographs. 'perfect condition' on a form is not as powerful as 'here are your guys and my TV'. Certainly if you're a renter, take pictures before you move in. Same as landlords, too. Pictures are free and can potentially save a lot of heartache.

Maybe you have reason to be afraid, but...

> Charm simply does not work on underpaid meatheads

Charm, or respect, works on people. Sorry, but when you call them meatheads, it doesn't instill me with any confidence that you treated them with respect. The actions you describe support that fact (mostly through the way you describe it).

Again, maybe you have a reason, but unless you are leaving critical things out, your attitude is what makes it impossible.

Back and forths like are annoying and make this community look pedantic. You know damn well you sometimes deal with people who simply don't respond to your niceties. It's a fact of life, and the commenter was simply pointing that out.

You don't know the situation. Why does it have to be his fault? Some people out there really are assholes and really do just want to take advantage of people.

> You know damn well you sometimes deal with people who simply don't respond to your niceties.

People.

> Again, maybe you have a reason, but unless you are leaving critical things out, your attitude is what makes it impossible.

I said as much.

> Why does it have to be his fault?

It doesn't have to be. I said as much.

> Back and forths like are annoying and make this community look pedantic.

Commenting is not the way to handle this then. Downvote, or flag if you think it's not appropriate. Commenting, however, signifies what I said contributed to the discussion. If it didn't, then any reply would be equally worthless.

The more important part of that sentence, which you elided, was the fact that there was a language communication barrier.

I treated them with nothing but respect in person. I always joke around and make small talk with people in the service industry. I know how far that sort of thing can take you. However, I elected to use the word "meatheads" because it paints a picture: They were large men whom couldn't hold a conversation. Whether or not they could hold a conversation with native spanish speakers was immaterial to the story.

> The more important part of that sentence, which you elided, was the fact that there was a language communication barrier.

It's not more important. You're attitude has nothing to do with language.

> However, I elected to use the word "meatheads" because it paints a picture: They were large men whom couldn't hold a conversation.

Meathead is means far more than that. If you used it merely to mean "people I can't speak with and are large," than you should know it's not what people associate with that word. It's much more derogatory.

> I treated them with nothing but respect in person.

At least the first time.

At once you tell me that they can't communicate, but then you go on to imply that they understand the words you are writing out on paper (Perfect Condition).

Something doesn't add up.

Respect is earned. Treating another person with immediate decency is an honorable thing, but to give respect freely indicates a weakness that will be exploited. They were there to do a job, not have tea and chat about local charity.

> Treating another person with immediate decency is an honorable thing

That's respect.

> Respect is earned.

You are confusing trust with respect. The only people that believe that respect is earned are people that need to an excuse to act like an asshole. Respect costs nothing.

Somewhat clever but signing an 'X' didn't make it not your signature but rather just what you 'signed as'. :P

It's not just a USA thing. You get this in the UK too.

In general though, in these situations you can have too choices - you can be right, or you can get the outcome you want.

Sometimes, happily, the two co-incide. Sometimes they don't, but you just have to put on your big boy pants, smile and suck it up.

As a slight aside, I think this is why Project Management is so valuable as training for life. My aim as a PM is to get my project delivered, and in the course of doing that I have to eat untold shite and do it with a smile on my face - primadonna developers, infrastructure functions that are borderline competent, lethargic business users, bureaucratic change boards etc etc.

In each circumstance I could try and force people to do what I want because they are idiots and I am of course completely correct (!) but that is just satisfying my ego. Instead I smile, ask about their kids, buy them a latte, and meanwhile my project succeeds.

It's not just a USA thing. You get this in the UK too.

I think it's pretty much everywhere. Petty people get a little power (maybe as cops, or customs, or tsa or whatever) and they like using it. Most of those people are fine and try to do the right thing. But there are a few (I think of them as tragic) for whom that is all they really have in life- so they are bullies.

especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy

I realize it was an aside and doesn't take away from the point you were making, but the person who wrote this is Michael Arrington, who, according to wikipedia, is 42. Not really old, but not exactly a 'young rich kid', either.

> It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery.

That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you.

>That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you.

I'm saying that if you're nice to someone who wants nothing more than an excuse to hurt you, and who has no compunction about doing so, then perhaps you won't get hurt.

The end goal is not for them to be nice to you. The goal is for them to refrain from making your life a living hell.

I just think there's another way to look at this situation.

Have you seen The Incredibles? The scene towards the beginning when Mr. Incredible helps the little old lady cheat the insurance system? I think most bureaucrats want to be that person. They want to give the good guy a break; they want to cut people who try hard a little bit of slack. It means more work for them, since they need to spend their own time to make sure those people followed instructions, and there's only so much energy you can give each one. Not only that, but they know the ways the bureaucracy was built a little loosely— the ways to get around things, not ways you should use all the time, but sometimes you have to.

That's the power bureaucrats have, and generally, they want to use it for good. They want to help that little old lady get her check. They want to let that kid go home when his dad dies. And yeah, they want to take a little time off themselves, but who doesn't?

What they don't want to do is go out of their way to help some random idiot who just wasn't paying attention to his own shit, who seems to think because you're paid to process paperwork it's your job to advocate for him, without so much as pretending like he's asking you for a favor. Screw that guy.

And, seriously, what are we asking here? I'm reminded of an Ani Difranco quote:

  “Maybe you don't like your job. Maybe you didn't get enough sleep. 
  Nobody likes their job; nobody got enough sleep. 
  Maybe you just had the worst day of your life. You know there's no escape,
  and there's no excuse, 
  so just suck up and be nice.”

Being nice to a beaurocrat is stupid. Appear to be nice or even charming is one thing but always be willing to throw them under the bus once you are done with them.

And never make excuses for them online in a hackers forum.

> Being nice to a beaurocrat is stupid.

No, being nice to ANYONE (no matter HOW they are spelled) is never "stupid".

Live your life however you want, but that sounds shitty to me.

It sounds pragmatic to me.

It takes someone very naive to be rude to a cop or other government official, knowing how miserable they can make your life with very little effort.

It takes someone even more naive to genuinely care about someone who would be willing to use frivolously the power to make your life miserable.

There are "good" cops and government officials, but they are the minority. When you encounter a random one, you don't know which kind they are, and by the time you find out it's too late.

Pretending to be nice, in this context, doesn't seem shitty to me, it seems like the ONLY course of action a reasonable person can take. And thus it's my MO when dealing with cops or other government employees.

I don't think Cushman is saying pretending to be nice is "shitty".

> Being nice to a beaurocrat is stupid. Appear to be nice or even charming is one thing but always be willing to throw them under the bus once you are done with them.

I think he is saying it is shitty to pretend to be nice and then be willing to thrown them under the bus when you are done with them....

Why not actually be nice? What is stupid about being nice to a bureaucrat? It's not as if a bureaucrat is not a person, and people respond to kindness. Pretending to be nice to someone and then being "willing to throw them under the bus when you're are done with them", sounds pretty sociopathic to me. And I don't know about you but I find sociopathic tendencies pretty shitty....

Never do what you just did in a startup forum.

God, I wish it was the way you describe it. Unfortunately, Mr. Incredible is the exception, not the rule. Most flunkies really don't care about the person in front of them - at least not enough to risk their job (which Mr. Incredible was doing every time he helped someone).

Additionally, it has been my experience that American cops are not shy about showing overwhelming force. Nor are they shy about pushing the boundaries of what they can do to you, what they can cite or arrest you for. Nor do they have any compunction about tricking you into giving them more access or more information than they have a right to.

We live in a society which has somehow learned to ascribe to the philosophy that you should use your power to it's full extent. Discretion is a sucker's game. The MO is: show up to the scene with overwhelming force, and if anyone gives you an excuse, arrest them. Cite them. Take their stuff. Cost them time and money. Punish them. Or, for a federal prosecutor: ignore common sense and threaten a non-violent person with decades in federal prison to get your desired plea-deal. There is no prize for discretion, only convictions.

They're definitely not shy and they talk about it openly (starting 1:30): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e...

They consider their weapons and their other privileges a means to "intimidate and show power". And with this approach, no wonder when they get a chance, they do show power.

I think you are both right. They are humans, who obviously come with all kinda of attitudes. Now it's probably slightly worse because of a position of specific power.

I've met cops that didn't really care, I met some that were super friendly and a few not so friendlies, one couple arrived at a party because of a noise complaint right at midnight when a lot of people were cheering happy birthday. Tried as I could (I was talking to them as their English and the Americans German both weren't great), they didn't understand that yes, that's louder than the rest of the party was before and after and were just assholish all around.

At the resident registration office I had case workers that tried to made me feel bad for everything and just wanted to exercise power as well as those that helped me avoid fees I would have otherwise had to pay.

The worst person was the doctor at the conscription office but as that was my only contact with a military person ever, it's not much of a sample size ;)

So in closing again: they are just humans. And just like humans they often can be manipulated into helping you.

> someone who wants nothing more than an excuse to hurt you, and who has no compunction about doing so

Maybe a few government employees are like that, but most are just regular people who are trying to get through a day of work like anyone else. They are perfectly willing to be nice to people who are nice to them.

I know people who work for the government, so I get to hear about the flip side of what you are saying. Some folks come into any government office with a preconceived notion something like, "This stupid government drone is just waiting to fuck me over." This frame of mind does not typically produce a warm and friendly affect.

It's not a balanced transaction.

You have to ingratiate yourself to them to have them treat you properly, and the only reason for that is their authority.

Psychic bribery is a fine term for it.

It's a subtly but critically different idea: unless you're nice to people, they will be distinctly not nice to you. This is a unfortunate fact in general: even if somebody is not particularly nice to you, you should still be nice in return. However, it is only a real problem if the distinctly not-nice person is in a position of power as in this example.

Unless they hold power over you, don't be nice to anybody who isn't nice to you. Iterated prisoners dilemma: if you aren't willing to defect, they will every time.

If they hold power over you, smile until you stab them in the back.

If you aren't nice to someone that isn't nice to you first, and they do the same, who would ever be nice to one another?

Indeed; the successful prisoners' dilemma strategy is: you're nice to people to start with, but you turn nasty as soon as they do.

You're missing the critical aspect of these interactions: one of the persons is an agent of the state acting under the color of law. The victim is not being nice out of courtesy. They are being nice to avoid having force against them escalated. Were it a private citizen offering the same deal - avoidance of coercive force in exchange for pleasantries we'd call it extortion.

Not that cynical. It's more than just "being nice to people." You could end up annoying someone in such a position just by being nice, but asking too many questions. Maybe they had a bad day, and you're smiling too much.

But not at all untrue.

>> The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating. To engender a spirit of goodwill, joviality and kindness such that the flunky wants to help you.

That is not a practical solution. It sounds almost like a bribe. I'm not saying that you should be rude to anybody, but you shouldn't have to kiss somebody's ass just so that they do their jobs. Is a slippery slope. Now you are kissing their asses, latter that will not be enough and the demands for bribes will be the next logical step. No, the line has to be drawn here.

Politeness is fine, more than that and you are kissing their asses.

So I was pulled over while driving a few months ago.

I was trying to keep up with a friend, I got behind and I made a really stupid, illegal and probably dangerous maneuver in trying to keep up. Happened to be a cop at that intersection who pulled me over.

Officer comes to the car, and asks about what I just did. I pretty much immediately admit to doing it, and tell him that it was a terrible lapse of judgement on my part. He takes me license/reg back and runs it, then comes back and just asks me how long I've been driving. I told him about 5 hours or so, and he says he meant how many years. I tell him 15 or so.

He comments that he can't find any tickets or things on my record, and I tell him I've never had one. He just tells me to not do it again and to move on. I apologized again and told him I appreciated him keeping an eye out for the public safety.

Now I know that you're supposed to be super defensive, and next to an asshole to the cop in citing all your rights and admitting to nothing. But really, I messed up. It was better for me to admit what I did and accept responsibility.

So... this might be the kissing up that the prior post is talking about. Did I technically 'have' to do it? No. But I'm pretty sure if I had done otherwise, I would have left with a ticket.

Maybe, but it's also just as likely to have resulted in a ticket after confessing.

Not sure why you're getting downvoted, because you're absolutely right. In fact, the parent's anecdote is just that: an anecdote. The reality of the matter however is that you should never, ever admit wrong-doing under any circumstances. Use the minimum amount of words for basic communication with the cop, be polite, and then deal with whatever ticket is written (either pay it or contest it in court).

Jeez... what do we teach kids these days?

If you've done wrong, admit it. Don't lie about it.

If you get a ticket, accept it as deserving punishment for putting other lives at risk.

Particularly in the US, talking to the police is a bad idea. There's a famous video about it.

I've seen the video, and know that overall its good advice.

I think though, depending on various factors, that playing 'nice' can definitely get you further than stonewalling the cop. It all depends what you (potentially) did, who you are (being a white, upper middle class male doesn't hurt), and what you think the worse-case scenario will be.

I once had a CHP officer tell me in so many words that if I hadn't admitted to speeding, he would have written me a ticket.

Stonewalling isn't necessarily the best strategy, particularly if you both know you were in violation.

This is quite likely to depend on the colour of your skin...

I definitely considered this. I was driving through the border of a traditionally black neighborhood and college campus. I'm a white male, and it was some frat party weekend on the campus and I got the sense he was looking to nail drunk students.

If I wasn't white, I think its highly possible things would have turned out differently.

Every encounter I've had with police so far (a few traffic stops, being caught dumpster diving, being in a few parks in Boston after midnight), I've found it just to be better to be nice. I've walked away from every situation so far with zero tickets, arrests, handcuffings, etc...

So? If you _know_ you've done something wrong, and you get caught, then you should own up and accept the consequences.

My experience is people have more respect for people who will admit to a mistake/wrong-doing than for someone who will try to weasel their way out of trouble.

If you did something wrong, and know it, I think it's laudable to own up to it and be nice about it. If you get a free pass, great, if not, well, you deserve it.

The OP was trying to do something right, and got punished for it.

Know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. Sometimes pragmatism beats principle.

>you shouldn't have to kiss somebody's ass just so that they do their jobs.

You don't. The person in this story did her job. He wouldn't sign the papers so she seized the boat. She also doesn't have the authority to change the papers. Her job is, if something goes sideways, impound everything and let the other parties sort it out.

The author of the article wanted a small and very reasonable exception made for his case. Everyone would agree that the change from CAD to USD is small and inconsequential and in this case more accurate. But that's not how "the system" works, and so he's not asking them to do their job.

If you just want the public official you're dealing with to do their job, then all you have to do is refrain from being difficult. If you want small special favors, then be nice. It's that easy.

Yours is a minority viewpoint here, and I wish it got more explanation.

If the bureaucrat's only two options were a) let the guy have the boat, or b) take the boat so someone else can sort it out, then I'm definitely more sympathetic to the bureaucrat here.

Is that understanding correct?

From the point of view of the border, the item has already been released from Canada. They almost certainly can't just dump it back on the other side (they would have to refuse it entry to the US). They also can't give it to him w/o the proper paperwork (bureaucracy aside, that paperwork insures that the proper fees and taxes are administered). If he won't sign, the only thing they can do is hold the property. Eventually, they'll bill the owner for the cost of holding it or sell it at auction.

I don't know the code at all, but logic suggests this is the most likely scenario.

He is not explaining how things ought to be, he is explaining how things are. I think you guys agree.

While we're on the topic of explaining how things are... I don't think anyone's too surprised that Michael Arrington failed a congeniality test.

but you shouldn't have to kiss somebody's ass just so that they do their jobs

This is what I thought when I saw the US custom of tipping bartenders.

> That is not a practical solution. It sounds almost like a bribe.

I would say that, for better or worse (worse, obviously), it is both.

> Nestled deep within this fucked up situation is an asymmetry of information that gives the flunky incredible power over someone who is, in almost every other context, perceived to be better than they are (especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy). Most human beings, when confronted with such an imbalance of power, are not going to be able to resist abusing their power.

This is self-congratulatory pop psychology claptrap. But it will probably sell well to a certain (shall we say Randian) subset of the HN readership.

> "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer.

Yes, yes, isn't so unreasonable the way those "flunkies" expect to be treated like worthwhile human beings?

> Yes, yes, isn't so unreasonable the way those "flunkies" expect to be treated like worthwhile human beings?

It is unreasonable for them to use their power to coerce the sort of treatment from people that they mistakenly believe they are entitled to.

This is the case whether you consider them flunkies or community heroes.

Why is it mistaken to expect to be treated nicely? When did it become ok to be an asshole to fellow citizens?

When I go to the convenience store to buy a donut, I am nice to the clerk behind the counter. When I go through customs, I am nice to the agent behind the counter. How are those mistakes?

Expecting that is absolutely fine. Feeling entitled to that is not. You don't get to fuck over other people's days when they fail to extend you a courtesy.

Well I mean, clearly they do get to do that, but that is a problem, not excusable behavior.

I treat clerks nicely because I am a decent person. I treat government officials in positions of power over me nicely because, aside from being a decent person, I understand the score.

Frankly I wish American culture were such that I could just give people $50s instead of putting on the song and dance. Either one is bribery, neither particularly morally superior to the other.

You think you understand the score, but to me it seems more like a persecution complex.

The irony is that in Arrington's situation the border agent tried to educate Mike that this was a rule that could be safely bent in the interest of expedience, but it was Mike himself who insisted on perfect procedure.

If you are dealing with the burrito vendor outside your office and keep it straight business ("super burrito, with steak"), perhaps because it has been a long day and you are tired as hell, there is no retribution. The quality of your burrito service is not compromised just because you failed to be his 5 minute friend that day. Why? Maybe the burrito vendor understands customer service, maybe because the burrito vendor understands that you are peers in an economic transaction, or maybe because the burrito vendor just doesn't have an ego problem. Who knows, who cares.

Fail to pretend to be a friend to that cop, DMV worker, or private security guard at the front desk of your buddies apartment? Good luck not getting hassle or at least artificially degraded service.

EMT or firefighter? Taxi driver? Doctors and nurses? Train ticket puncher? Just like the burrito vendor, no pressure to be their "friend".

Some jobs either attract people with a sense of entitlement, or cultivate a sense of entitlement in otherwise decent people. The root cause of this? Who the hell knows, but everyone who perceives it is not imagining things. If you haven't noticed it, then perhaps you need to tune in.

I've never been hassled by cops, DMV workers, or private security guards. In fact two years ago I screwed up car registration paperwork and a DMV worker was invaluable in helping me get it sorted out efficiently.

Am I somehow special? I doubt it. Maybe I don't have problems with government employees because I approach those situations with positive expectations and I try to be nice to people.

Maybe I do that because I actually know a few people in customer-facing government roles and they are no more entitled or abusive that anyone else I know.

I can tell you though that from their perspective, abuse is a frequent occurence--usually from folks who walk through the door with a sense of persecution. A lot of people view anyone behind a government desk as fair game, since, after all, everyone knows the government is out to get us.

Lying to a federal agent is a felony.

I'm not saying it justifies rudeness, but I can see being quite thoroughly paranoid about signing a federal form that contains a known inaccuracy. The agent's opinion that the discrepancy was unimportant might not have been shared by her superiors.

If people can be subject to federal prosecution for signing a form prepared by government workers, those workers should consider it their job to make sure the contents of that form are absolutely accurate.

Umm, you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life. I guarantee it.

You add in state and municipal codes and you probably are breaking the law right now as you read this and probably in multiple ways.

Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding? Especially given that the tests for which are written so that any commercial vehicle with any wear and tear at all will fail some aspect.

"Standing your ground" on principle is fine I guess if you have as large an ego as Arrington; I would rather focus on what is important and get sh*t done. I also really would advise taking anything he says when it comes to anything he has a vested interest in with a grain of salt. He has less than a stellar record on honesty when it comes to self-reporting.

Yes but it's a bit more damning if you SIGN YOUR NAME to something you know is false. It's easier for a judge or jury to find leniency in breaking a law you didn't know about than knowingly stating a falsehood to be true. It's much easier to twist the situation from "I signed it cause they said it was okay." (Where's your proof? This will turn into a he said she said situation) to a "He intentionally mislead the government in order to [something bad, cheat on taxes, get through customs unlawfully, etc.]"

you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life.

Perhaps. But if that's true, I don't know which laws they are or how I'm breaking them.

Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding?

You have completely twisted what I said. First, I said if someone can be prosecuted for signing a form prepared by government workers. You left that critical condition out entirely. Secondly, and more broadly, I'm not talking about government workers demanding absolute accuracy of us -- I'm talking about them demanding absolute accuracy of themselves.

IANAL, obviously, but it does occur to me that once the customs worker encouraged Arrington to sign the form anyway, should he ever have been prosecuted for doing so -- which I agree seems unlikely -- he had, I would think, a valid entrapment defense. Of course, he probably had no proof that she said that, but being able to argue it might have been sufficient anyway. So I agree, he probably should have signed the form.

But I don't really care about that. Arrington is not collecting a salary paid by my tax dollars; he is simply a citizen attempting to protect himself. Whether he made the right choice or not here is for him to figure out. What I care about is the behavior of my government, which I pay for and which claims to be acting on authority vested in it by its citizens, of which I am one.

At the top of this thread is someone complaining about how "flunkies" love to use complex procedure to punish people.

But in this actual case, the agent seems to have done the opposite--try to help bend the process so Mike could get on with his life. Mike is the one who decided to, in his own words, "stand on principle."

As to how serious that particular bend is, I don't personally know. I would tend to assume that a trained federal agent might have a better handle on that than Mike Arrington, though.

Lying to a federal agent is a felony in the US. Had he signed the papers and gotten in trouble, do you actually think the agents would have admitted their wrongdoing to save him and risk their jobs?

Law enforcement agents are not fellow citizens. They are tools used by the State to engage in class warfare.