5 ms·

It's not right, because now it's in the whistleblowers' best interest to get in on the scam and enrich themselves instead of reporting anything, since the act o

It's not right, because now it's in the whistleblowers' best interest to get in on the scam and enrich themselves instead of reporting anything, since the act of whistleblowing is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot while biting the hand that's feeding you. I suppose it is right depending on who's side you're on.

OGforces 5y ago
It’s not in the best interest of a whistleblower to get in on the scam. The trope of “incentives” is overblown. People don’t directly respond only to a single incentive. It’s in the best interest of the whistleblower to keep his head low instead of report.
milesvp 5y ago
I think you are in agreement with the parent post. There was an implied /s in the tone. Systemically it’s a huge problem to favor investors over whistleblowers and fines. You want incentives to be aligned wherever possible, and being able to declare bankruptcy in order to protect the very people benefiting from unscrupulous acts just leads to more unscrupulous behavior.
- sombremesa 5y ago
  > There was an implied /s in the tone. I strongly disagree with this, because the GP has used the term "harmed investors". I think it's a dangerous practice to go around claiming other people's posts are tongue in cheek. That's how we come to allow 'locker room talk'.
  - milesvp 5y ago
    The heavy use of ellipses is a common giveaway for sarcasm in casual writing in the US. But I agree, part of what makes "good" sarcasm is that it's easy to interpret as being either for or against something depending on the audience, and this leads to issues like "locker room talk", allowing some unfortunate ideas to persist because it appears people agree with them. I also think sarcasm should be used sparingly on this particular forum, it's important to try to limit the possibility of ambiguity in order to foster better discussions.
mcguire 5y ago
"...it's in the whistleblowers' best interest to get in on the scam and enrich themselves..." That has always been the case.

OGforces 5y ago

It’s not in the best interest of a whistleblower to get in on the scam. The trope of “incentives” is overblown. People don’t directly respond only to a single incentive. It’s in the best interest of the whistleblower to keep his head low instead of report.

milesvp 5y ago

I think you are in agreement with the parent post. There was an implied /s in the tone. Systemically it’s a huge problem to favor investors over whistleblowers and fines. You want incentives to be aligned wherever possible, and being able to declare bankruptcy in order to protect the very people benefiting from unscrupulous acts just leads to more unscrupulous behavior.

sombremesa 5y ago
> There was an implied /s in the tone. I strongly disagree with this, because the GP has used the term "harmed investors". I think it's a dangerous practice to go around claiming other people's posts are tongue in cheek. That's how we come to allow 'locker room talk'.
- milesvp 5y ago
  The heavy use of ellipses is a common giveaway for sarcasm in casual writing in the US. But I agree, part of what makes "good" sarcasm is that it's easy to interpret as being either for or against something depending on the audience, and this leads to issues like "locker room talk", allowing some unfortunate ideas to persist because it appears people agree with them. I also think sarcasm should be used sparingly on this particular forum, it's important to try to limit the possibility of ambiguity in order to foster better discussions.

mcguire 5y ago

"...it's in the whistleblowers' best interest to get in on the scam and enrich themselves..." That has always been the case.