5 ms·

> Why are we so quick to side with the employer in this matter when we know nothing of the situation at all? It's called collateral damage. There is no context

> Why are we so quick to side with the employer in this matter when we know nothing of the situation at all? It's called collateral damage. There is no context, outside of fantasy, where the admin could be in the right to do this.

treyfitty 9y ago
Eh, I'm inclined to agree with you that the ex admin isn't "right" but the essence of my statement is that he may have been carrying out what was his optimal strategy. If you treat people bad, they'll treat you bad. If you nuke Russia, Russia will nuke you. It's the Nash Equillibrium where each party is faced with a game and certain situations call for your best move. But your best move should account for what I'll do, and that should be factored into your initial move. Mutually assured destruction is actually a powerful deterrent. Do we know what the ex-admin's situation was prior to all this? Only then should we pass judgement.
- kelnos 9y ago
  Morally, I'd say the ex-employee doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the employee had been wronged and their actions only negatively impacted the employer, then I'd be sympathetic, but all of Verelox's customers have been damaged, some of them perhaps irreparably, by this. Getting back at your employer with such huge amounts of collateral damage is never acceptable.
- cat199 9y ago
  I find it hugely improbably that ex-admin's situation entailed being wronged by all of the customers whom he impacted by this action. You are basically justifying the 'killing of innocents' here..
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    If we assume that the firm did awful things to the employee, we can't also consider those who employed the firm to do those awful things "innocent".
nickpsecurity 9y ago
What if the customers' data was preserved, archived, and sent to them as links? And just the VPS was trashed? Now, we're talking a brief disruption instead of total loss which the customers indirectly signed up for by going with a cheap, small player instead of one qualified to provide higher availability and security. The collateral damage would low to non-existent for the users depending on how critical the service was. The direct damage would be to the employer. If the employer was the bad guy (hypothetically), would you still state there's no context or any situation whatsoever where the employee should cause them damage?
- valuearb 9y ago
  Pedantry. If their employer was a James Bond level super-villain about to shortly kill millions you could construct this scenario. Otherwise there is no scenario where inflicting what you term a "brief disruption" (but what they'd likely describe as an awful, painful and expensive) to thousands of innocent customers is justified. Customer costs could easily be millions, if 1,000 customers each spend over ten hours of worker time dealing with that disruption. If the employer did something illegal, report them to the authorities. If they wronged you, other employees, or customers, take them to court and publicize their malfeasance. If you can't do any of those things because what the company did wasn't wrong or illegal, and instead wipe their servers, you are a sad little loser who can't handle the fact that they just didn't like you, and for good reason.
  - treyfitty 9y ago
    Man, your comment is so far off base and patronizing, that I think you're the sad loser here. The ex-admin in question probably understood the impending customer harm. But the customers are the veins of a company- without them, they're not a company at all. The ex-admin just played dirty- something that he thought was the only way to win a lopsided battle against a force much greater than he. In David V Goliath, Goliath was taken down... with a slingshot. A weapon. And he's celebrated as someone over coming a stacked challenge. The customers were the ex-admins slingshot. The difference is that the law doesn't allow this behavior
  - 9y ago

treyfitty 9y ago

Eh, I'm inclined to agree with you that the ex admin isn't "right" but the essence of my statement is that he may have been carrying out what was his optimal strategy. If you treat people bad, they'll treat you bad. If you nuke Russia, Russia will nuke you. It's the Nash Equillibrium where each party is faced with a game and certain situations call for your best move. But your best move should account for what I'll do, and that should be factored into your initial move. Mutually assured destruction is actually a powerful deterrent. Do we know what the ex-admin's situation was prior to all this? Only then should we pass judgement.

kelnos 9y ago
Morally, I'd say the ex-employee doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the employee had been wronged and their actions only negatively impacted the employer, then I'd be sympathetic, but all of Verelox's customers have been damaged, some of them perhaps irreparably, by this. Getting back at your employer with such huge amounts of collateral damage is never acceptable.
cat199 9y ago
I find it hugely improbably that ex-admin's situation entailed being wronged by all of the customers whom he impacted by this action. You are basically justifying the 'killing of innocents' here..
- jessaustin 9y ago
  If we assume that the firm did awful things to the employee, we can't also consider those who employed the firm to do those awful things "innocent".

nickpsecurity 9y ago

What if the customers' data was preserved, archived, and sent to them as links? And just the VPS was trashed? Now, we're talking a brief disruption instead of total loss which the customers indirectly signed up for by going with a cheap, small player instead of one qualified to provide higher availability and security. The collateral damage would low to non-existent for the users depending on how critical the service was. The direct damage would be to the employer. If the employer was the bad guy (hypothetically), would you still state there's no context or any situation whatsoever where the employee should cause them damage?

valuearb 9y ago
Pedantry. If their employer was a James Bond level super-villain about to shortly kill millions you could construct this scenario. Otherwise there is no scenario where inflicting what you term a "brief disruption" (but what they'd likely describe as an awful, painful and expensive) to thousands of innocent customers is justified. Customer costs could easily be millions, if 1,000 customers each spend over ten hours of worker time dealing with that disruption. If the employer did something illegal, report them to the authorities. If they wronged you, other employees, or customers, take them to court and publicize their malfeasance. If you can't do any of those things because what the company did wasn't wrong or illegal, and instead wipe their servers, you are a sad little loser who can't handle the fact that they just didn't like you, and for good reason.
- treyfitty 9y ago
  Man, your comment is so far off base and patronizing, that I think you're the sad loser here. The ex-admin in question probably understood the impending customer harm. But the customers are the veins of a company- without them, they're not a company at all. The ex-admin just played dirty- something that he thought was the only way to win a lopsided battle against a force much greater than he. In David V Goliath, Goliath was taken down... with a slingshot. A weapon. And he's celebrated as someone over coming a stacked challenge. The customers were the ex-admins slingshot. The difference is that the law doesn't allow this behavior
- 9y ago