4 ms·

> Is it a good legal/corporate decision to hide the person who claims to be the original and let him listen to the interview with the other candidate? Consider

> Is it a good legal/corporate decision to hide the person who claims to be the original and let him listen to the interview with the other candidate? Consider the situation from the perspective of the interviewer: They don't have all of the background we did while reading this blog. They haven't even had time to process what Connor #1 said by the time that Connor #2 arrives. The decision to hear them both out for a few minutes is reasonable, IMO. At that point in time, Connor #1 could have been lying as far as the interviewer knew. Letting them both exist in the meeting immediately cleared up any confusion.

Stamp01 4y ago
Which one do I shoot!?
- dhosek 4y ago
  Best to be sure. Shoot them both.
travisjungroth 4y ago
Letting them both in the same room at the same time was probably the safer thing. Maybe there’s an argument, or maybe one bounces, clearing it up. But having one person hide is riskier. It means a random person could eaves drop on my interview by just pretending to me and telling this story. I mean, super cool though. I imagine my adrenaline would be going as the interviewer. I’d probably chill out when I realized this was identity theft with extra steps, not a Kyle Reese situation.
- comboy 4y ago
  Imagine inventing all of this just to listen to your interview. Incentive to do that would have to be pretty wild.
  - travisjungroth 4y ago
    Stalkers gonna stalk. The “all of this” would just have to be getting the interview link/time (calendar or email access) and then showing up a bit early to tell the story. It is very very unlikely and I don’t judge the interviewer for how they handled it.
- axus 4y ago
  Definitely a Jerry Springer moment when he "could not stand this anymore" and jumped back into the conversation.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  >It means a random person could eaves drop on my interview by just pretending to me and telling this story. Only if the random person somehow found out the meeting code.

Stamp01 4y ago

Which one do I shoot!?

dhosek 4y ago
Best to be sure. Shoot them both.

travisjungroth 4y ago

Letting them both in the same room at the same time was probably the safer thing. Maybe there’s an argument, or maybe one bounces, clearing it up. But having one person hide is riskier. It means a random person could eaves drop on my interview by just pretending to me and telling this story. I mean, super cool though. I imagine my adrenaline would be going as the interviewer. I’d probably chill out when I realized this was identity theft with extra steps, not a Kyle Reese situation.

comboy 4y ago
Imagine inventing all of this just to listen to your interview. Incentive to do that would have to be pretty wild.
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  Stalkers gonna stalk. The “all of this” would just have to be getting the interview link/time (calendar or email access) and then showing up a bit early to tell the story. It is very very unlikely and I don’t judge the interviewer for how they handled it.
axus 4y ago
Definitely a Jerry Springer moment when he "could not stand this anymore" and jumped back into the conversation.
Thorrez 4y ago
>It means a random person could eaves drop on my interview by just pretending to me and telling this story. Only if the random person somehow found out the meeting code.