A sign Roommate was having sex in Dorm Room? -- LiveWire College Forums

1. An argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy that can occur when there is an argument. Name calling for the sake of name calling is not an argumentum ad hominem.

Name calling is name calling, nonetheless. Are you a college student? Then I would expect you to act that part.

2. If you are your own OVERSEER [note, I was talking about an overseer of YOU, not the residents] then there is actually NO oversight. I am talking about someone above YOU who would take note of [somehow] your not becoming suspicious.

And I already answered that. If the Housing, Main Office/Manager(s), finds that you've not done your job, on your shift, it comes back to 'haunt you'.

If WHAT gets back to you. If you don't investigate the kids and get them in trouble, then there IS nothing to get you in trouble.

If it gets to the Main Office/Housing Manager(s), that you didn't take it into your hands to investigate a suspicion, there is plenty to get one in trouble.

What don't you understand about that?

The part where you're not understanding plain English...

Even if someone above you found out, how could they say, "Even though they were quiet and non-disruptive, you should have KNOWN they were drinking". They can't, plain and simple.

Because, if you find that bottle in their room, you're supposed to inquire about it. And, if you don't, it comes back to you, because it was your shift. It's not about them being quite/nondisruptive...it's about, say, that bottle being in existance, during your shift, during your room checks. It's up to the RA (or CA, for us) to handle the situation.

There is a difference between using discretion when busting a drug overlord to busting two kids having sex.

And if hte contract places both on the same level, what do you expect us to do, eh?

The name calling is attributed to my disgust with your lack of compassion for your fellow students. I am a sophomore at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Well, then, act your age. You're a sophomore in college, not in high school. The name calling? Is not necessary, nor appropriate, for a young male your age/status. I don't care about compassion. I care for my job. I want to keep my job. And if that means breaking some student hearts, so be it. That is a part of a job. You either take it wholly, or you don't take it at all.

Ok. you are not getting the point. SUSPICION IS SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!

did that sink in? what is suspicious to me, might not be suspicious to me, so how is suspicion objectively quantified? How do you ascribe blame to someone based on their lack of suspicion. it is IMPOSSIBLE to do. Like I said, I am not arguing that you should ignore kids clanging bottles and singing pub songs at 4am. I am saying that if you hear one clink, or hear through a door at 2am some kids talking [about whatever] you should belay your suspicion until such a time that your investigation is warranted [when your suspicion is properly founded.]

What part are you not getting when I say suspicion, on our contract, is by EVERY MEAN, a reason to investigate, objective, or not.

Ok. what if they say, "We just wanted to study in the hall, or not in the room". Then what?

If it's after hours, yes, it would still lead to an investigation, b/c loitering is not acceptable on my watch. It's against the lease. You do'nt hang out outside the dorms, in the hallways, for any reason. You signed that lease, you follow those rules.

It could still be considered suspicious, do you knock on the door? What if he is in his boxers when he answers, should you be able to go in? all of this may be suspicious, but what if he is alone, trying to go to sleep? It is my position that YOU should have the repercussions on falsely intruding and accusing the individual.

If there is suspicion, we are allowed in the rooms. If we suspect, it doesn't matter the state of the tenant. Once we knock, it's our jurisdiction point, and all we have to do is walk in. But, most of us don't do that, unless it takes more than one knock. We wait for the proper permission, out of gratitude.

Furthermore, even IF they give you that answer, you still have the discretion to say, "Ok, tell your roommate that he is breaching the contract, and that I want his girlfriend to leave. I'll check back in 10 minutes and if she is not gone, I'll have to write an IR."

Nope. He's breaking the contract. It's like if you break the law. You either broke it, and have to accept the consequences, or you don't break it, and don't have consequences to deal with. He doesn't get a ten minute break. He gets his first warning, straight from the horse's mouth. And, if it's a second warning, he gets a fine. A third warning is automatic suspension from the lease. Anything further, and he's out of the building, with a report to the Campus Dean.

What is so hard and terribly dangerous about THAT?

Nothing is hard, nor dangerous about it, but I'm not about to break my contract, nor do I expect college students with the maturity of adults, to break theirs.

So it is safe to assume then, that your school does not make freshman live in the dormitories instead of living in an apartment or something not supplied by the school?

Nope. Freshman don't have to live on campus. That would be absurd. Many can't afford campus life. We don't have lower end dorms. We have the fancier end. Single rooms, single baths...etc. We basically have apartments. Either freshman live on campus, in an apartment, or at home.

Okay, let's have an example.

I'm on my shift.

I notice a young fella sitting right outside his dorm room.

He's got his study books in his hands, and he's very into his history text.

It's past 1 a.m. He's not supposed to be in the hallway. He's loitering.

I make my way over to him, kneel before him, and kindly ask, "Jordan (because we know our tenants), why aren't you in your room? It's past 1 a.m., sweetheart."

He looks up at me, and he replies, "I was trying to study, in the room, but Mason brought his girlfriend back. I thought I'd give them some privacy."

I'd sit down beside him, and tell him, "You know the rules, honey. You're not supposed to loiter in the hallways. And your roommate knows he's not supposed to have a member of the opposite sex in his room past 1 a.m."

Jordan just shrugs it off.

Into which, I have to not only write him up, for loitering, but I have to then go knock on the door.

Mason answers. He's in his boxers.

"Hi, Mason! How are you, this morning?". Into which he replies, "Um, studying."

I'd then have to say, "Oh? Well, I have reason to believe you're breaching contract, and you have your girlfriend, Michelle, in there. You know the rules, Mason."

And, from there, Mason either owns up (which i would expect an adult to do), or lies, with, "No, I'm alone." And I'd inquire as to why Jordan made up a story about being in the hall, and, basically, Mason would be cornered. I'd have to write him up, too.

It's just as simple as that.

(Jordan and Mason actually exist. Well, not by name, but this did happen with me.)

Say I didn't inquire. And the next CA steps up, and comes into the hallway, and Mason is letting Michelle out of his room. He writes up Mason, and reports it to the Housing Office. But it's not his shift that was supposed to report Michelle. It was mine.

-------
*Forever & Always...Yours*

Quote: from TigressaLynnMae at 7:59 pm on July 3, 2008

Name calling is name calling, nonetheless. Are you a college student? Then I would expect you to act that part.

1. Yes, name calling is name calling. name calling is not Argumentum ad hominem which is more along the lines of "you are stupid therefore what you are arguing is false". Which was not the case.

2. College students can not call heartless brown-nosers names? Since when? If, at some point, I feel the need to stop arguing logically [which is not working in this case] and simply resort to a bout of name calling out of sheer frustration, how does that make me any less of a college student?
Maybe if my only response to your posts were "Shut up IDIOT", but that, too, is not the case.

And I already answered that. If the Housing, Main Office/Manager(s), finds that you've not done your job, on your shift, it comes back to 'haunt you'.

And yet that is not the question. THE question is, HOW would such a thing leak if you are not there to get them in trouble.
And subsequently, HOW would such a thing leak if, when it becomes noticeable, you DO take action?

You seem to think that I am advocating anarchy. I am not saying leave them be, I am saying wait until your suspicion turns to [or closely nears] knowledge. Then warn [unless the case of a repeat offender], THEN persecute.

If it gets to the Main Office/Housing Manager(s), that you didn't take it into your hands to investigate a suspicion, there is plenty to get one in trouble.

1. Again, HOW would it get back if they do not get in trouble, and if it never escalates past a point which might yield SLIGHT suspicion?

2. If such a point is never reached, and the event somehow DOES get back to the head, you'd have to be an idiot not to be able to get out of trouble. By simply saying, "I had NO suspicion that they were doing so-and-so, there was nothing to lead me to believe that" They can't very well say, "Liar, you should have ESP, you SIGNED A CONTRACT!"

It doesn't work like that.

Because, if you find that bottle in their room, you're supposed to inquire about it. And, if you don't, it comes back to you, because it was your shift. It's not about them being quite/nondisruptive...it's about, say, that bottle being in existance, during your shift, during your room checks. It's up to the RA (or CA, for us) to handle the situation.

ok. again, this instilled fear of "if it comes back to you". THIS can not happen, an empty bottle in a residents room WILL not reach the Head unless it is by your own doing. That bottle will not anonymously show up on the desk of the dean with a video of you witnessing it and doing nothing about it. This is REAL life.

Tell them to get rid of it, its a FUCKING bottle. Tell them to throw it away and never let you see one again. What is the big fucking deal about that little bit of courteous discretion?

And if hte contract places both on the same level, what do you expect us to do, eh?

Yes, I'm quite sure the disciplinary repercussions of having sex with your girlfriend at 1:05 am are equal, according to your contract, to those following the indictment of a drug lord.

Grow up, the rules are there to prevent strangers from staying in the building after hours and to prevent a disruptive atmosphere in the place of organization and safety. A room-mate sitting in the hall is not anarchy, get the fuck over it, tell the kid to tell his roommates girl to go home, then go back to your own room and go to sleep.

Well, then, act your age. You're a sophomore in college, not in high school.

I've already addressed this point. Name calling has no age limit, I do not deny that it is immature, but one act of immaturity does not beget universal immaturity.

The name calling? Is not necessary, nor appropriate, for a young male your age/status.

It may not be becoming of me, but that does not say anything about its appropriateness.

I don't care about compassion. I care for my job. I want to keep my job. And if that means breaking some student hearts, so be it. That is a part of a job. You either take it wholly, or you don't take it at all.

Wrong. There are a majority of RA's who would disagree with you. Again, I AM NOT CONDONING ANARCHY I am saying that seeing as how suspicion is subjective, wait until there is some OBJECTIVE evidence to start your little witch hunt.

What part are you not getting when I say suspicion, on our contract, is by EVERY MEAN, a reason to investigate, objective, or not.

ok. You are a REAL dense one.
1. Suspicion in your contract is grounds for investigation.
granted
2. Violations of the rules can be done either suspiciously or inconspicuously.
you MUST accept this, surely not ALL violations are caught.
3. There are differing levels of suspicion, some which may or may not be supported.
This is a given
so we are left with
4. SUSPICION IS SUBJECTIVE.
If there are many levels of suspicion [ranging from an odd feeling, to outright near-knowledge] then there are levels of which we may PERCEIVE something as suspicious.

If, then, there exists those levels of perceived suspicion, HOW can one objectively quantify [stop me if these words mean nothing to you] one's perception of suspicion. In otherwords, how can one say, "this should have been suspected" if different people perceive events differently than others.

I am not arguing that suspicion should not be a valid reason for investigation. I am arguing that unless the act is obviously suspicious, why is there a need to feed your flaunting, unfounded, guess-work suspicions? Warn the room-mate, knock on a door and say "There better not be drinking going on in there, I'm going to check your room if you do not quiet down"

Anything beyond that is --and this is not name-calling, this is truth-- just being a complete, pompous ass. No rule-violation that goes unpunished CAN or WOULD find its way to the dean, because being an RA you would investigate if the suspicion grew to a more noticeable degree.

If it's after hours, yes, it would still lead to an investigation, b/c loitering is not acceptable on my watch. It's against the lease. You do'nt hang out outside the dorms, in the hallways, for any reason. You signed that lease, you follow those rules.

1. You really are a dick.
2. THEN TELL THE KID TO SIMPLY GO TO BED. Don't theorize as to the possible sexual deviance his room-mate may or may not be up to simply because the kid likes to study in the hall way. Investigation my ass, I have the feeling that you feel REAL good about yourself after filling out an IR.

If there is suspicion, we are allowed in the rooms. If we suspect, it doesn't matter the state of the tenant. Once we knock, it's our jurisdiction point, and all we have to do is walk in. But, most of us don't do that, unless it takes more than one knock. We wait for the proper permission, out of gratitude.

ok, thanks for answering the question.

Out of curiosity. Would you be willing to support a contractual stipulation that listed a gradient of repercussions for false investigations/invasions of privacy?

Nope. He's breaking the contract. It's like if you break the law. You either broke it, and have to accept the consequences, or you don't break it, and don't have consequences to deal with. He doesn't get a ten minute break. He gets his first warning, straight from the horse's mouth. And, if it's a second warning, he gets a fine. A third warning is automatic suspension from the lease. Anything further, and he's out of the building, with a report to the Campus Dean.

What a fucking douche-bag.
What is ten minutes? You can't give the kid a break for having sex with his girlfriend?
I'm sure I'll get that same "It's the contract" bull shit, but I don't care. Name-calling is all you deserve.

The day that it is universally accepted to do what it is you are describing is the day I denounce my citizenship from the human race and go to live on my own somewhere away from people.

Nothing is hard, nor dangerous about it, but I'm not about to break my contract, nor do I expect college students with the maturity of adults, to break theirs.

Yes, hide behind that stone wall of a contract. It would be TERRIBLY illegal to warn a kid that if his girl isn't gone in ten that he will get in trouble, [of course, if this happens frequently, by all means, write him up].

Nope. Freshman don't have to live on campus. That would be absurd. Many can't afford campus life. We don't have lower end dorms. We have the fancier end. Single rooms, single baths...etc. We basically have apartments. Either freshman live on campus, in an apartment, or at home.

Then of course, your stance is more reasonable, but still absolutely absurd to the degree which you adhere to it.

Okay, let's have an example.
I'm on my shift.
I notice a young fella sitting right outside his dorm room.
He's got his study books in his hands, and he's very into his history text.
It's past 1 a.m. He's not supposed to be in the hallway. He's loitering.
I make my way over to him, kneel before him, and kindly ask, "Jordan (because we know our tenants), why aren't you in your room? It's past 1 a.m., sweetheart."
He looks up at me, and he replies, "I was trying to study, in the room, but Mason brought his girlfriend back. I thought I'd give them some privacy."

so far so good, I accept this as proper behavior.

I'd sit down beside him, and tell him, "You know the rules, honey. You're not supposed to loiter in the hallways. And your roommate knows he's not supposed to have a member of the opposite sex in his room past 1 a.m."
Jordan just shrugs it off.

Now we need to get into some details
by shrugs it off do you mean
1. He ignores your implication that he is to return to his room. or
2. That he starts packing up but fails to comment as to his room-mates actions.?

Into which, I have to not only write him up, for loitering, but I have to then go knock on the door.

Now, if Jordan starts to pack up and head to his room, do you still write him up [trying to fully understand your actions here]
Knocking on the door, however, IS warranted at this point, in THIS situation. [Not so if he did not specifically imply that his room-mate had a girl over]

Mason answers. He's in his boxers.
"Hi, Mason! How are you, this morning?". Into which he replies, "Um, studying."

Ok, now, of course, your suspicion is paramount, he is guilty until proven innocent, correct?

I'd then have to say, "Oh? Well, I have reason to believe you're breaching contract, and you have your girlfriend, Michelle, in there. You know the rules, Mason."

True, in this case you do. But not so in the case you originally posted, or in any case since the room-mate would not say freely "Mason [lets call him that] has a chick over, he likes to break rules". He would more likely say, "Oh, is it past 1? I'm sorry I lost track of time, and go to his room"

And, from there, Mason either owns up (which i would expect an adult to do), or lies, with, "No, I'm alone." And I'd inquire as to why Jordan made up a story about being in the hall, and, basically, Mason would be cornered. I'd have to write him up, too.

Or he could say, "I don't know, I had her over earlier, but she left"

And would you STILL inquire further?

It's just as simple as that.

perhaps on paper...

(Jordan and Mason actually exist. Well, not by name, but this did happen with me.)

Say I didn't inquire. And the next CA steps up, and comes into the hallway, and Mason is letting Michelle out of his room. He writes up Mason, and reports it to the Housing Office. But it's not his shift that was supposed to report Michelle. It was mine.

ORR. You simply say, "Hey Jordan, its past 1 get on to your room" and be done with it all.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome. --Isaac Asimov

629 users online 172635 members 1626 active today Advertise Here