> Not exactly. Once something come out you study it as much as it is necessary, you assess it, then you employ it smartly - that's how it should be done. Those

> Not exactly. Once something come out you study it as much as it is necessary, you assess it, then you employ it smartly - that's how it should be done. Those "needing evidence" in your depiction seem akin to those who decide to date drug addicts, jump down buildings etc. because "they do not know yet, it could work out fine": the first problem that one has to pose is that those profiles should not manage - that should be the main background idea. Then, if the issue - at human resources level - happens, strategies must be implemented to contain damage. This implies, you do not talk about creating damage lightly. One bad experience for a counterpart makes you lose opportunities forever: the failed counterparts will go, "good to know, now next please". I don't think you've ever actually done any of this. > The first way is diplomacy. Show and reason. If it fails, then artillery. But in that order. Letting someone do a trial is diplomacy...