5 ms·

Please explain why wanting to hear both sides of a story gets an "OH COME ON!" from you?

exogeny 8y ago
It gets a "OH COME ON!" because it's completely irreverent. The actual story here doesn't actually matter. A dog is dead, and there's no recovering from bungling the PR of something that sensitive. Everything in the world is a matter of understanding the marginal impact. There is no universe in which hearing both sides of the story (or trying to save n number of dollars) results in a better net outcome for Wag as a business than apologizing profusely and visibly showing as much empathy as possible.
onion2k 8y ago
We do have Wag's side of the story. They decided to only reimburse costs if a customer signs an NDA, and then they decided to revoke their offer when the customer refused to sign. Wag don't need to add anything more than that for us to know they care more about a very small amount of money than the dogs customers entrust to the care of the walkers they employ. To be honest the money is actually a small and distracting aspect of this story. If it was my dog I'd want to know what happened. The fact Wag won't give any proper answers shows they probably don't know what's happening to dogs people trust their walkers with. That is a HUGE problem for me.
- oldgradstudent 8y ago
  > We do have Wag's side of the story. No, you don't. You only have someone's claims about Wag's side of the story. It sounds authentic, but Internet is full with authentic-sounding false stories.
  - onion2k 8y ago
    Is it more likely that someone is lying on the internet about their dog being killed, with no one they know replying in the comments to call them out, or that a startup is catastrophically bad at PR and just basic human empathy? The principle of Occam's Razor applies here.
    - oldgradstudent 8y ago
      You are making inferences about the situation after hearing one side of the story. As reasonable as it is, it is still coming after hearing one side of the story. And no, Occam's razor does not apply.
- nicky0 8y ago
  It seems you don't understand what it means to hear a side of a story.
- dustincnj79 8y ago
  Does anybody know if wag does any type of background check which might show signs of an unstable individual violence mental health issues or something that might throw up a flare so maybe not hire them if they are not doing so then they are just as guilty as the individual who caused the death of the pet.
philwelch 8y ago
Hearing corporate excuses from a fucking dog walking startup that got someone's dog killed couldn't possibly improve my opinion of them.

It gets a "OH COME ON!" because it's completely irreverent. The actual story here doesn't actually matter. A dog is dead, and there's no recovering from bungling the PR of something that sensitive. Everything in the world is a matter of understanding the marginal impact. There is no universe in which hearing both sides of the story (or trying to save n number of dollars) results in a better net outcome for Wag as a business than apologizing profusely and visibly showing as much empathy as possible.

onion2k 8y ago

We do have Wag's side of the story. They decided to only reimburse costs if a customer signs an NDA, and then they decided to revoke their offer when the customer refused to sign. Wag don't need to add anything more than that for us to know they care more about a very small amount of money than the dogs customers entrust to the care of the walkers they employ. To be honest the money is actually a small and distracting aspect of this story. If it was my dog I'd want to know what happened. The fact Wag won't give any proper answers shows they probably don't know what's happening to dogs people trust their walkers with. That is a HUGE problem for me.

oldgradstudent 8y ago
> We do have Wag's side of the story. No, you don't. You only have someone's claims about Wag's side of the story. It sounds authentic, but Internet is full with authentic-sounding false stories.
- onion2k 8y ago
  Is it more likely that someone is lying on the internet about their dog being killed, with no one they know replying in the comments to call them out, or that a startup is catastrophically bad at PR and just basic human empathy? The principle of Occam's Razor applies here.
  - oldgradstudent 8y ago
    You are making inferences about the situation after hearing one side of the story. As reasonable as it is, it is still coming after hearing one side of the story. And no, Occam's razor does not apply.
nicky0 8y ago
It seems you don't understand what it means to hear a side of a story.
dustincnj79 8y ago
Does anybody know if wag does any type of background check which might show signs of an unstable individual violence mental health issues or something that might throw up a flare so maybe not hire them if they are not doing so then they are just as guilty as the individual who caused the death of the pet.

philwelch 8y ago

Hearing corporate excuses from a fucking dog walking startup that got someone's dog killed couldn't possibly improve my opinion of them.