Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurus3 | Hacker News Reader

This story is probably true, but it feels like we're only hearing half of it.

Why wasn't the employee terminated immediately when the behavior became apparent? That would certainly qualify as termination with cause.

I know you sweep their behavior under the rug of "mental illness," which by definition means they weren't thinking clearly, but why would anyone possibly commit career suicide like that? Were they trying to extort you for money? Why would they do that for a paltry 30% of their salary when they could've just stayed with the company for 4 months instead?

I think what I dislike about this comment is that it comes across as almost bragging about bankrupting someone with a mental condition: "Right before it bankrupted them...guess what stoped happening. We dropped it without taking a cent. Hasn't been a problem."

View on HN

I can't imagine anything less productive than debating the details of a story introduced anonymously like this.

Anonymous anecdotal evidence is the buffer overflow of comment sections.

How does HN not have a rule against it?

Because an unpersuasive argument doesn't degrade civility the way an uncharitable one does.

There are expert storytellers, of course. However, a thorough online discussion may reveal inconsistencies in one side’s story or make it more solid. (Non-linear, too solid a story may be a flag in itself, etc.)

The nature of the subject appears to be such that disclosing any meaningful detail involves putting a lot on the line, which is quite frustrating.

Why is it poor taste to ask for more info? If we're going to use it as a justification that there are legitimate uses for non-disparagement clauses, it seemed best to clarify.

If you're suggesting the conversation could lead to revealing their identities, then you're right. That's an aspect I hadn't considered.

It's about as far from the principal of charity as you can get, to take the side of an unnamed counterparty in the dispute of a stranger whose name you don't even know, and to try to use it as evidence that that person has some sort of grudge against those suffering from mental illness. I didn't think this needed explaining, but there you go.

Thanks for both of your comments. Can't reveal much, but I do want to clarify. We never took a cent more than the money we had paid for the agreement. As I said we dropped it as soon as it became clear to the party they wouldn't win.

As for why...I ask myself that everyday. They wanted their options quadrupled and we wanted to fire them immediately, but their medical condition came out and that made it difficult to do anything for HR reasons. Honestly it was a perfect storm.

Hardest weeks of my life. Recognize that. Too often the corporate guy is the big bad wolf until proven innocent. More often it's just a consequence of having to make decisions with people's lives. In this case it was between bad and worse. Not a day goes by that I dont think about that person. But if we hadn't been able to stop them in court they may have hurt 100s of our employees, customers and investors. I mean, a scale of human destruction orders of magnitude greater than the damage to themselves. I don't think any humans are more valuable than others. As a consequence of that I'll do morally difficult things to benefit 100s at the expense of 1.

That's true.

FWIW I wasn't saying he had a grudge against people with mental illness, just that it was a bit strange to include that detail about bankrupting someone with a condition.

See above ^. Thanks for the offer, but please do what you think is best. I'm not offended and maybe someone learns from our back and forth

As a matter of style, your request for more information wasn't simply that; it feels more like an attempt to find reasons to entirely dismiss it. Also, the request shows no awareness of the fact that humans are complicated and in fact do do self-destructive things that aren't in anyone's best interests.

Ignoring such details, the story still clearly simply communicates the point that there are situations in which non-disparagement clauses can be morally useful; namely, those in which the disparagement is malicious, fraudulent or unfounded, only some of which are remediable without such a clause. Getting down into further detail on this particular story wouldn't seem to help anyone.

(I don't see anyone stating it was "poor taste", but maybe edits happened)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com