4 ms·

I understand I'm the wrong gender to be saying this, but I don't see harassment there. Maybe there was harassment (dozens of emails over a week could be it, but

I understand I'm the wrong gender to be saying this, but I don't see harassment there. Maybe there was harassment (dozens of emails over a week could be it, but she never says what the emails say or even how much it is). It's just "harassment". I'm willing to believe that the guy was being threatening and harassing, but I also read into that evidence a guy who is socially inept and frustrating to work with, but not sure on the harassment part. A further example, when she texted one of the mentors, she got back: I am not trying to be too invasive in the reasons, but would like to know the reasons of the early split. To which she states: This mentor said he wasn’t trying to be invasive, but he was. Then she says that how they really should have responded was (edit: this is another actual response): Thanks for letting me know, [I’m] sure you had good reasons and I’m glad to hear that you’ll continue on with [Project]. OK, I get why you'd prefer the second response, but considering what happened, it's not rude for them to ask what's up, and they even padded that question so as to not be demanding. It's possible that's an unusual situation for them. I kind of get the feeling that neither person is really fun to work with, but that's based on what's in this blog post. I don't mean to be a jerk or victim blame or anything like that.

openasocket 9y ago
> I'm willing to believe that the guy was being threatening and harassing, but I also read into that evidence a guy who is socially inept and frustrating to work with, but not sure on the harassment part. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Harassment is an action, not an intent. You can harass someone because you are socially inept, but that doesn't mean you aren't harassing someone, and it explains the behavior but certainly doesn't excuse it. > Then she says that how they really should have responded was: That wasn't text of how she imagined he should have responded, that's a quote from an actual response she got from one of her mentors
- leereeves 9y ago
  There's a difference between harassment and someone refusing to stop pursuing a legitimate claim. Is he a cofounder or an employee? Difficult question, but certainly a legitimate one.
frahs 9y ago
You know, in isolation I felt similarly about this specific example. But looking at the rest of the article, you'd have to be blind if this is the one example you choose to pull out after reading the whole thing. I think there's some confirmation bias going on here
amaranthine 9y ago
OP here! If Mark was an employee who was fired and refused to leave the premises, he'd be escorted off by security. If he promised to show up a few weeks later to talk to the board of directors or investors, they'd similarly bring in security. That's what happened here (or what he threatened to do, anyway.) After a really bad weekend, he was "fired". Then, over a series of emails with escalating demands he eventually threatened to show up at the project booth falsely representing himself on the project. Yet, he was offered exactly what he'd have gotten if he stayed on the project. As for the rest, it's probably harder to see this if you've never had to do it before, but it's really exhausting being asked to repeatedly justify your actions in a situation like this. When you find that one golden person who says, "I trust your judgment", it's honestly shocking. It feels good to have your judgment trusted when you go to someone saying, "Hey, I was in a bad situation and had to make a difficult decision" and they say, "That sounds tough, but I bet you made the right choice," rather than, "Tell me why you did that?"
- falcolas 9y ago
  > When you find that one golden person who says, "I trust your judgment", it's honestly shocking. That's because most people's judgement is not always good. Just see "Mark" as an example. In addition, they were probably not questioning your judgement, but instead attempting to see if there's anything else they could have done, earlier. It's common practice when a good employee makes or requests a dramatic change - it's a sign of good management that they are trying to identify and fix potentially systematic problems. As for the rest, I honestly think that any harassment was limited to Mark. It's just not that uncommon for companies to give the squeaky wheel grease to get them to just shut up. On the flip side, the constant references to "subtle threats" reflects a bias at play by the listener, not necessarily the actual intent of the speaker.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > If Mark was an employee who was fired and refused to leave the premises It's not clear to me from your post that this was an employer/employee relationship. It seems apparent that Mark felt as if it were an equal partnership. Was there anything in writing going into Startup Weekend that defined the terms of the relationship?

openasocket 9y ago

> I'm willing to believe that the guy was being threatening and harassing, but I also read into that evidence a guy who is socially inept and frustrating to work with, but not sure on the harassment part. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Harassment is an action, not an intent. You can harass someone because you are socially inept, but that doesn't mean you aren't harassing someone, and it explains the behavior but certainly doesn't excuse it. > Then she says that how they really should have responded was: That wasn't text of how she imagined he should have responded, that's a quote from an actual response she got from one of her mentors

leereeves 9y ago
There's a difference between harassment and someone refusing to stop pursuing a legitimate claim. Is he a cofounder or an employee? Difficult question, but certainly a legitimate one.

frahs 9y ago

You know, in isolation I felt similarly about this specific example. But looking at the rest of the article, you'd have to be blind if this is the one example you choose to pull out after reading the whole thing. I think there's some confirmation bias going on here

amaranthine 9y ago

OP here! If Mark was an employee who was fired and refused to leave the premises, he'd be escorted off by security. If he promised to show up a few weeks later to talk to the board of directors or investors, they'd similarly bring in security. That's what happened here (or what he threatened to do, anyway.) After a really bad weekend, he was "fired". Then, over a series of emails with escalating demands he eventually threatened to show up at the project booth falsely representing himself on the project. Yet, he was offered exactly what he'd have gotten if he stayed on the project. As for the rest, it's probably harder to see this if you've never had to do it before, but it's really exhausting being asked to repeatedly justify your actions in a situation like this. When you find that one golden person who says, "I trust your judgment", it's honestly shocking. It feels good to have your judgment trusted when you go to someone saying, "Hey, I was in a bad situation and had to make a difficult decision" and they say, "That sounds tough, but I bet you made the right choice," rather than, "Tell me why you did that?"

falcolas 9y ago
> When you find that one golden person who says, "I trust your judgment", it's honestly shocking. That's because most people's judgement is not always good. Just see "Mark" as an example. In addition, they were probably not questioning your judgement, but instead attempting to see if there's anything else they could have done, earlier. It's common practice when a good employee makes or requests a dramatic change - it's a sign of good management that they are trying to identify and fix potentially systematic problems. As for the rest, I honestly think that any harassment was limited to Mark. It's just not that uncommon for companies to give the squeaky wheel grease to get them to just shut up. On the flip side, the constant references to "subtle threats" reflects a bias at play by the listener, not necessarily the actual intent of the speaker.
LyndsySimon 9y ago
> If Mark was an employee who was fired and refused to leave the premises It's not clear to me from your post that this was an employer/employee relationship. It seems apparent that Mark felt as if it were an equal partnership. Was there anything in writing going into Startup Weekend that defined the terms of the relationship?