I'll admit that I stopped at the Fashion Square Mall last year for lunch and while walking to the food court I saw the Gamestop where Chris had maced that one employee. I'll even further admit that I went inside and looked around and then asked the employee behind the counter about Starwars Battlefront 2. While we were talking I casually asked the man if he was aware of an incident back in 2014 or so where a man in drag maced an employee after being caught defacing a display. The man said he had heard nothing about it and I even showed him the video of Chris in action and the man was surprised that that had happened there. I think that incident is largely forgotten by the current store employees and probably long time mall operations employees are the only one's who remember Chris.
Hmm, that's interesting and a little surprising. I would have thought that would be the sort of thing that would be handed down by employees shooting the shit. Every place I have ever worked has always had legends about the funny and interesting things that have happened there, even if they aren't particularly exciting to an outsider.
It still seems possible that if Chris wandered in and an employee who was working the time of the previous incident was working, the employee might say "oh no, we can't have this bullshit again." Although the more time passes, the less the chance of that happening there is.
Nah, nah - you got it all backwards! CWC isn't apologizing to them and expecting them to accept said apology and make things right; CWC is forgiving them and is offering them the peaceful contract to sign as proof of their acknowledging his forgiveness and, by signing the contract, are agreeing to make amends for treating him so unjustly in the first place by lifting the ban, with the promise they'll take no further action against him should he act out again.
Good point on two counts. He goes into it with the attitude that the other person is at least equally in the wrong and equally as eager to apologize, grant concessions, and move on. And he does have a tendency to play both sides of a negotiation, so he lays out not only the apology and concessions he makes but the apology and concessions he feels the other person should make. And then feels like the other person has rejected his apology if they haven't accepted every term of his peace treaty.
And while I said that he thought he messed up the previous time and accepted some blame, I don't claim that that extended to feeling the ban was ever justified. He acknowledges that he shouldn't have maced the guy, but he thinks the ban in response to it was a huge overreaction. Which then makes the aggrieved feeling a lot stronger than the guilt.
It's kind of like if you bump into someone while carelessly walking through a bar and spill their beer, and then they punch you in the face. You might have felt bad about the beer and tried to make reasonable amends, but as soon as they punch you, you see them as completely in the wrong, and beyond maybe acknowledging if pressed that you should have been more careful, you feel very little guilt, and a whole lot of anger. For Chris, the macing was the beer spilling, and the ban was the punch in the face.
