Pet peeves in the world of WiFi


I play Words with friends.

In fact, I usually have a dozen or so games moving along at any moment. Games with my wifeÖ games with my sisterÖ and games with people that may not exactly be friends (Iíve never actually met them), but we share a bond thanks to the game and participate in friendly contests.

There is, however, something that frustrates me. Iíve always understood the approach to rematches being simple enough: the person making the last move in one game should request the rematch and make the first move for the next game.

I canít honestly say that I have any really solid reason for why I believe this is the way it should move along. There is no rule book that Iíve seen, and Iíve never exchanged the thought with anyone Iíve played against. Instead, itís just been handled more as polite housekeeping. Put simply, my words: ďThings finished on my watch, and Iíd like to keep it going. Shall we play again?Ē

The part that reinforces this for me has been that most people seem to move ahead this way. Most of the people Iíve played withÖ that I am currently playing withÖ handle the end of one game and the start of a new one in this fashion. Person with the last move in one game makes the first move in the next.

Still, itís a pet peeve. A personal thing. Nothing that expresses a true right or wrong, but just the way I would like things to be. Itís worked out that way far more often than it hasnít, resulting in a scenario where I take it as a bit of a slight when the other person doesnít initiate a rematch when the game ends on their turn.

How often do you encounter things in the online community where something seems to be handled by others in a way that doesnít match up with what you believe is the correct way of moving forward? Probably all the time. In some ways, weíre talking about wireless interactions that arenít that dissimilar from leaving dishes in the sink instead of moving them to the dishwasher, or where you pile up your dirty laundry. Someone in the house wants the remote left in a different place than where you put it, in the same way that another person clicks reply-to-all when you really would prefer that they responded only to you.

On Twitter, there is a huge debate about the way people follow each other. Some people pull this trickÖ and, honestly, most of the great and fun people of Twitter think this is a really dirty trickÖ where they follow you on one day, only to unfollow you soon after you follow them back. In short, if you donít look things over, your numbers stay stagnant while their numbers get a boost. More to the point of it though, they arenít looking at you to offer any kind of interest, attention or support.

Log on to your Facebook account and post something. Anything. Do you think all of your friends will see the post? Chances are, very few of them will. There are algorithms and formulas and this and that at work behind the scenes, filtering and enhancing and swirling around. You could have hundreds of friends on Facebook, like and share and comment all the time, and yet only a few dozen will find your next post in their news feed.

Honestly, most of this matters only once we take into account perspective. Look back at my thoughts on Words with friends and rematches. As much as I believe the person making the last move should initiate the next game, itís possible someone else believes differently. Perhaps they think the winner should start a rematch, or, that the loser should make the first move in a new game. And maybe itís something beyond that, where they didnít enjoy the game and simply didnít want to play again.

The point beingÖ pet peevesÖ we all have our own approach to things. The real answers are found in making attempts to understand those approaches. But acting in an anonymous world does not make it any easier.


If you have any comments or questions, please e-mail me at