4 ms·

> Any time a head-to-desk, business-null developer gets exploited, they say "just desserts" This behaviour from anyone is just a really big black stain on huma

> Any time a head-to-desk, business-null developer gets exploited, they say "just desserts" This behaviour from anyone is just a really big black stain on humanity. It's one thing to leverage someone else's work for the gain of all, it's entirely another to totally exploit their good nature and hang them out to dry while you take all the benefit. Business is supposed to be a win-win-win situation not a win-but-screw-everyone-else-over-in-the-process situation. While I can see that the author was incredibly naive, I can totally understand his naivete, having been burned like this myself in my earlier years. Being burned like this obliterates any trust you have for working with founders on future startups and makes for a potentially toxic working relationship in any similar situation. Also, I think people's opinions of situations like this really lets their true colors shine through. Those who are victim blaming and shaming the author by pointing out the lack of apparent contract or that he should have known better are really just justifying the abhorrent behavior of the founders who have totally exploited someone else for their own material gain. The personality trait that lets you treat other people like that is sociopathic. Shame on them.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Sure. But naieve? Worked for weeks on the project, but only talked about ownership for what, 3 seconds? That was galactically bad due diligence. Had they asked anybody for advice, that advice would have universally been "You're being played; get something on paper!"
- caminante 10y ago
  Also, this is HIS side of the story. At that, it doesn't come off favorably.
- balabaster 10y ago
  I'm not saying it wasn't naive. Naivete is really only evaluated in hindsight. Before then it's either known or unknown risk and only the person in the situation is in a position to evaluate that. He may not have perceived he was being exploited, he may have been led up the garden path etc. etc. etc. Not everyone is business savvy, not everyone knows to do due diligence, or even what due diligence is. That doesn't mean you should exploit them, nor that they deserve to get exploited any more than the girl out at night wearing her clubbing attire deserves to get raped. The author won't make this mistake twice. But he equally could've come out far ahead here if the co-founders hadn't been total douchebags and had acted honorably towards him - but they didn't. Douchebags.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    There's no evidence they didn't mean exactly what they thought they'd said. "Will you be our employee with good stock options?" Name-calling isn't helping here. Its easy to take the side of the technologist here (on HN). I get that. I'd say the owners also learned a lesson - explain clearly what you mean! Don't leave an employee hanging, wondering if or assuming they will get more than you can give. And the 'rape' metaphor is inappropriate. We're talking business, which has rules. Its not what you deserve in business, its what you negotiate. That's all.
    - balabaster 10y ago
      > Its not what you deserve in business, its what you negotiate. That's all. Business is a human transaction. It's not about exploitation. It is this sentiment that allows people to justify exploitation of others for their own gain. It's unacceptable.
RodericDay 10y ago
Hey, for what it's worth, I totally agree with you. Yeah the guy was naive, but also, he's not asking for anything! All these people saying "suck it up and move on"... that's exactly what he did! They seem to be upset that he didn't just go out quietly.
- balabaster 10y ago
  There could be any number of reasons why they show angst over this: 1. They've been burned like this before and didn't have the courage to stand up for what they believed in. The author's standing up for what they believe in throws this in their face. 2. They identify with those that exploit others and feel that their behavior is justifiable because the author "had it coming to him for being so naive." 3. They are happy to accept that this is just the way things are and deal with it rather than rock the boat for the benefit of everyone in it. 4. They perceive this as just another whiner that got screwed and they're sick of listening to it, but rather than do anything about it, they just tell the whiner to stop whining and suck it up. 5. They see this behavior works for co-founders because most victims slope silently away with their tails between their legs and hope that when they model this behavior, their victims will do the same. I say kudos to the author for writing the piece. It sucks he had to learn that lesson the hard way. I hope things turn around for him going forward.
adwn 10y ago
> Those who are victim blaming and shaming the author by pointing out the lack of apparent contract or that he should have known better are really just justifying the abhorrent behavior of the founders who have totally exploited someone else for their own material gain. That's a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to condemn the exploiter while also pointing out where the exploitee made bad decisions. Analogy: Advice like "Don't insult random strangers" does not justify or excuse physical violence by people who have been insulted.
- balabaster 10y ago
  It's not a false dichotomy at all. When people's default position is "you should have known better and done better" towards the "exploitee" as you put it without any blame portioned to the exploiter, you're victim blaming, in the exact same way as the girl who got raped "had it coming to her because she should've known better than to walk around downtown dressed that way."

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Sure. But naieve? Worked for weeks on the project, but only talked about ownership for what, 3 seconds? That was galactically bad due diligence. Had they asked anybody for advice, that advice would have universally been "You're being played; get something on paper!"

caminante 10y ago
Also, this is HIS side of the story. At that, it doesn't come off favorably.
balabaster 10y ago
I'm not saying it wasn't naive. Naivete is really only evaluated in hindsight. Before then it's either known or unknown risk and only the person in the situation is in a position to evaluate that. He may not have perceived he was being exploited, he may have been led up the garden path etc. etc. etc. Not everyone is business savvy, not everyone knows to do due diligence, or even what due diligence is. That doesn't mean you should exploit them, nor that they deserve to get exploited any more than the girl out at night wearing her clubbing attire deserves to get raped. The author won't make this mistake twice. But he equally could've come out far ahead here if the co-founders hadn't been total douchebags and had acted honorably towards him - but they didn't. Douchebags.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  There's no evidence they didn't mean exactly what they thought they'd said. "Will you be our employee with good stock options?" Name-calling isn't helping here. Its easy to take the side of the technologist here (on HN). I get that. I'd say the owners also learned a lesson - explain clearly what you mean! Don't leave an employee hanging, wondering if or assuming they will get more than you can give. And the 'rape' metaphor is inappropriate. We're talking business, which has rules. Its not what you deserve in business, its what you negotiate. That's all.
  - balabaster 10y ago
    > Its not what you deserve in business, its what you negotiate. That's all. Business is a human transaction. It's not about exploitation. It is this sentiment that allows people to justify exploitation of others for their own gain. It's unacceptable.

RodericDay 10y ago

Hey, for what it's worth, I totally agree with you. Yeah the guy was naive, but also, he's not asking for anything! All these people saying "suck it up and move on"... that's exactly what he did! They seem to be upset that he didn't just go out quietly.

balabaster 10y ago
There could be any number of reasons why they show angst over this: 1. They've been burned like this before and didn't have the courage to stand up for what they believed in. The author's standing up for what they believe in throws this in their face. 2. They identify with those that exploit others and feel that their behavior is justifiable because the author "had it coming to him for being so naive." 3. They are happy to accept that this is just the way things are and deal with it rather than rock the boat for the benefit of everyone in it. 4. They perceive this as just another whiner that got screwed and they're sick of listening to it, but rather than do anything about it, they just tell the whiner to stop whining and suck it up. 5. They see this behavior works for co-founders because most victims slope silently away with their tails between their legs and hope that when they model this behavior, their victims will do the same. I say kudos to the author for writing the piece. It sucks he had to learn that lesson the hard way. I hope things turn around for him going forward.

adwn 10y ago

> Those who are victim blaming and shaming the author by pointing out the lack of apparent contract or that he should have known better are really just justifying the abhorrent behavior of the founders who have totally exploited someone else for their own material gain. That's a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to condemn the exploiter while also pointing out where the exploitee made bad decisions. Analogy: Advice like "Don't insult random strangers" does not justify or excuse physical violence by people who have been insulted.

balabaster 10y ago
It's not a false dichotomy at all. When people's default position is "you should have known better and done better" towards the "exploitee" as you put it without any blame portioned to the exploiter, you're victim blaming, in the exact same way as the girl who got raped "had it coming to her because she should've known better than to walk around downtown dressed that way."