Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Always Go Home with the Lady Who Brought you to the Dance

bothsidesofthetable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: Always Go Home with the Lady Who Brought you to the Dance

#11

Post by mdda »

[deleted] wrote: post #7
coffeemug wrote: post #3

I used to think negotiations were simple - just come in with a reasonable, middle of the way set of terms, treat the counter-party as a reasonable, benevolent entity, and everything will work out all right. I quickly discovered that while there are some people who work this way, for the most part if you adopt this approach people will eat you alive. You won't even know what hit you. I'd use the "reasonable terms" pri…

[deleted]

What wasn't stated was whether the Termsheet had any kind of no-shop clause.

Re: Always Go Home with the Lady Who Brought you to the Dance

#12

Post by hluska »

proofpeer_com wrote: post #5

This is an experienced VC writing total bullshit. He should know better. In love and war, everything is fair.

I don't think I agree (at least not completely).

Sometimes, when you get a reputation for behaving unethically, you limit the types of people who will do business with you. Consequently, you paint yourself into an unethical corner. When the only people who will do business with you are unethical, it increases the amount of risk you face in each transaction. Moreover, when you do get taken advantage of, few people care as you reaped what you sow.

On the other hand, if you behave ethically, other ethical people will be drawn to you. This lowers your risk per transaction. And, I suspect it will help you sleeP a little better at night!

Re: Always Go Home with the Lady Who Brought you to the Dance

#14

Post by jerf »

proofpeer_com wrote: post #5

This is an experienced VC writing total bullshit. He should know better. In love and war, everything is fair.

In the phrase "all's fair in love and war", love and war aren't (or at least shouldn't) be meant metaphorically. This isn't war and it sure isn't love. (Which also isn't referring to the full set of the million things "love" can mean but specifically to romance.)

Re: Always Go Home with the Lady Who Brought you to the Dance

#16

Post by Drbble »

billforsternz wrote: post #13

I thought the catchphrase was "Dance with the lady who brought you to the dance". I guess that's quaint and old fashioned nowaways, so it's been updated to don't "hook-up" (a euphemism for something more intimate) with someone else!

Yeah, it is "dance with one that brought you" (or "what brung ya", or similar).

Re: Always Go Home with the Lady Who Brought you to the Dance

#17

Post by Drbble »

jerf wrote: post #14
proofpeer_com wrote: post #5

This is an experienced VC writing total bullshit. He should know better. In love and war, everything is fair.

In the phrase "all's fair in love and war", love and war aren't (or at least shouldn't ) be meant metaphorically. This isn't war and it sure isn't love. (Which also isn't referring to the full set of the million things "love" can mean but specifically to romance.)

Not really.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Alls+fa...

The point is, though, it is an excuse, not an ethical argument.

Re: Always Go Home with the Lady Who Brought you to the Dance

#18

Post by Drbble »

davyjones wrote: post #15

What about ethical behaviour of the new VC in the last case? It's like the old VC did due diligence and the new VC "used" all that work without a shred of decency.

Almost as those their was "social proof" or "a validated market".

NDA or no way.

Re: Always Go Home with the Lady Who Brought you to the Dance

#19

Post by msuster »

coffeemug wrote: post #3

I used to think negotiations were simple - just come in with a reasonable, middle of the way set of terms, treat the counter-party as a reasonable, benevolent entity, and everything will work out all right. I quickly discovered that while there are some people who work this way, for the most part if you adopt this approach people will eat you alive. You won't even know what hit you. I'd use the "reasonable terms" pri…

I understand that view. And I've certainly been burned. Still, if you're dealing with a VC there is much you can do to reference check them before signing a term sheet. This involves talking with portfolio companies that DID NOT succeed.

I spoke about it here: http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/02/08/how-do-you-ref...

Re: Always Go Home with the Lady Who Brought you to the Dance

#20

Post by msuster »

cperciva wrote: post #8
coffeemug wrote: post #3

I used to think negotiations were simple - just come in with a reasonable, middle of the way set of terms, treat the counter-party as a reasonable, benevolent entity, and everything will work out all right. I quickly discovered that while there are some people who work this way, for the most part if you adopt this approach people will eat you alive. You won't even know what hit you. I'd use the "reasonable terms" pri…

I don't know Mark Suster, and maybe I'm completely misreading this, but the whole story seems rather self-serving to me. His "ethical dilemma" was whether to agree to a deal changing in such a way that he would be paying 50% more... and when he said that no, he wasn't going to pay 50% more, we're supposed to accept this as a great triumph for ethics? I'm a great believer in behaving ethically, but this is not the sor…

Fair comment. I could see why it might come across that way.

The impression I meant to leave was that I risked losing out on the deal all together because the CEO could have simply done the deal with the other investor.

I would rather that have happened than to screw over the VC who convinced me to look at the deal in the first place.

Post reply on HN