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

A Difficult Situation

blog.sendgrid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 485 posts

Re: A Difficult Situation

#261

Post by burntsushi »

taligent wrote: post #212
seivan wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, just two guys making forking jokes (get it?). Even Github sells merch with the words "Fork you". Zealous oversensitive jaded person like her, taking her time to get the phone out, take a picture, possible geo-tagged of two guys who might not want to be on her Twitter. She has no right to do that. Especially when there was no communication between them. You don't like their jokes, tell them or move away. Look…

> People like that are hard to be around, constantly tip toe. It really isn't. Most of us that actually work in a professional environment aren't making crude jokes about sexual topics. And we sure as hell are on our best behaviour at offsite events. Clearly this is a foreign concept to you.

> It really isn't.

If saying something like "I'd fork him on GitHub" is going to provoke you to publicly shame me, then you're difficult to be around.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#262

Post by taligent »

seivan wrote: post #227
taligent wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People like that are hard to be around, constantly tip toe. It really isn't. Most of us that actually work in a professional environment aren't making crude jokes about sexual topics. And we sure as hell are on our best behaviour at offsite events. Clearly this is a foreign concept to you.

Oh really? Well the question is, I am currently not sure how the person in question would react to a "Fork you" shirt. So...... that's the problem, that was my point. Where is the line? Because apparently that triggered. But somehow, "example" is a foreign concept to you, since you sorta got stuck on the "crude joke" portion. Way to go to miss the whole point.

The "line" for professional conduct is really simple.

If you are thinking about doing something ask yourself this question, "Would I do this if the CEO of our company was standing next to me".

Re: A Difficult Situation

#263

Post by vacri »

mtrimpe wrote: post #142
phillmv wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was totally spineless. Compare: http://braythwayt.com/2013/03/21/evangelism-pr.html

My respect for raganwald just shot through the roof after reading that. As far as I'm concerned that is the most reasonable response so far, by a long shot.

Go read Amanda Blum's piece instead, as it actually has insight and thought behind it. This is just a bit of humour, making egregious errors like "the internet will never forget" (seriously, how many scandals has the internet forgotten?) and "careers are permanently ended" (again, seriously, look at any number of successful public figures and the gaffes they made earlier in life).

Re: A Difficult Situation

#264

Post by toomuchtodo »

_delirium wrote: post #214
gregd wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They fired her because she could no longer be effective in the position they hired her for.

That's the official line, but I don't believe it.

You not believing it doesn't really qualify as a violation of the law.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#265

Post by vacri »

harel wrote: post #210
brennenHN wrote: post #184

My email to Jim Franklin: Hi Jim, You have a mess on your hands, and I understand how hard it must be at SendGrid today. I think you've made a defensible move, and it is hard to hold you in contempt for putting your employees and business first. That said, I'm really disappointed in your response. For as long as there have been tech conferences, they have been hostile to women. Sexually exclusive language is the star…

There's "Reporting" and there's "Reporting to All". She had many options before hitting that "Report All" button and attaching the image. More than that, she "reported to all" providing a singular point of view - hers. Those two guys could have been completely innocent or misunderstood at that point but it would have been too late as they were already semi famous, somewhat shamed and mostly fired. She had a choice -…

The storm-in-a-teacup would have been completely ignored if Playhaven hadn't fired the man. Without that particular event, the total number of people who knew her name would not have increased at all - because people do stuff like this all the time.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#266

Post by GhotiFish »

jarjoura wrote: post #201
GhotiFish wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah. One common factor in everybody involved is that they're incredibly human. Pride, self-righteousness, and immaturity are a few of the qualities on display, but since they're human I accept that a few of these qualities are tolerable, as should we all. No one committed any action that was overtly horrible on it's own. In a vacuum: Two guys were making childish jokes, and a woman was offended and told her friends a…

I have the pleasure of knowing Adria and she's an awesome person, so sure, in a vacuum these events are super silly. However, in this instance, she is a public figure and used her public forum to promote an issue that was personal to her. Developers who make business decisions who rely on SendGrid follow her on Twitter and need to work with her. It's no different than a reporter for the NY Times who covers White Hous…

I like your example.

Obama makes a bone-headed move, lets say he: "didn't veto a bill that allows companies to enforce locking in cellphones and tablets. It's going to be illegal to jailbreak now."

A reporter from the NY time goes on twitter and badmouths The Obama administration for messing up.

Well, this is the first Hacker News hears about it and goes crazy. Those JERKS! Inexplicably support is catalyzed and Obama gets impeached! Later it comes to light that there was some logistical and communication errors, turns out the administration just ignored it because it couldn't become law anyway on some technicality.

Every democrat on twitter raises a huge fuss about the massively inappropriate and biased slander this reporter has made. It's not her job to make tweets like that. Look at what she's done! The administration didn't really do anything wrong in the first place!

Within a day or two, that reporter gets canned due to the fallout, she's caught up in the center of a big scandal that will taint the public's perspective on her integrity, even though she always had and still has integrity.

Maybe Obama getting impeached is a bit of a stretch. Otherwise, I like this metaphor. :)

Re: A Difficult Situation

#267

Post by 14113 »

_delirium wrote: post #252
14113 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that those offering the threats would be to blame but what we were discussing was the cause , who in this case is Adria. Ethics are tricky, and I don't think there are blanket wrong or right answers here. I agree that simply placating a baying mob by tossing someone (metaphorically) to the wolves is not necessarily ethically right from all perspectives, but therein lies the problem: it's about perspective. We…

> For example, ethically a company has to do everything it can for it's shareholders. It's legally required to do this, and has an ethical responsibility to. This is not really the case, either as a matter of ethics or a matter of law. It's a widespread myth that there is an overriding legal responsibility to "maximize shareholder value", but that is not the case, and the myth is based on an over-reading of a century…

Fair enough about shareholder obligations: I only have it on hearsay, from a business lecture as part of my CS course.

To try and understand your perspective further though: do you think it was ethically responsible for PlayHaven to fire their guy? Also, were it not for the DDoS, would the posts on twitter and comments have been sufficient to ethically fire her?

I find it difficult to rationalise how firing someone who's views and conduct are in opposition to the company - and who (as a PR employee) is bringing the company into disrepute is unethical.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#268

Post by eridius »

DannyBee wrote: post #207
taligent wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this is the most ridiculous logic I've seen for a while. Just because I send two emails from my Gmail account doesn't mean they are related and/or relevant.

I'm sorry, are we really discussing whether a person having recently made jokes about penises in public is relevant to whether it's okay for that same person to publicly shame two guys she accused of making jokes about penises in public?

Are you really saying that her personal twitter stream, and being in the middle of the audience at a professional event, are the same thing?

Re: A Difficult Situation

#269

Post by ignostic »

powertower wrote: post #98

They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…

Why do they "need" to do that? Those who care for the details already know them. Further, they're trying to put the issue behind them without blaming anyone.

Rather than fueling the fire further, they shut the door on further argument about who is to blame. In that respect, it's a very wise statement even if it leaves some people unsatisfied.

Post reply on HN