5 ms·

>Y Combinator has a zero tolerance policy for inappropriate sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders. This implies that some sexual or romant

>Y Combinator has a zero tolerance policy for inappropriate sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders. This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate. If that's not the intended message, inappropriate should be replaced with something like 'any and all'. While I'm not in any startup circles at the moment I would be curious for some clarification. Is it ever acceptable for an investor to pursue a romantic relationship with a founder? After the founder is funded (by another investor), for example. Or if the founder initiates? EDIT: anyone want to explain the down votes? I point out what I find to be a confusing point in the message and ask for clarification. I didn't even express an opinion on the overall matter one way or the other. I simply asked for clarification and made what I thought was a useful suggestion. In what way is anything I wrote offensive or otherwise worthy of being down voted?

minimaxir 12y ago
> This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate. No it doesn't. Grammatically, the "inappropriate" is used for vocal emphasis.
- zdean 12y ago
  No, the "inappropriate" is a qualifier...so there is an implication that certain behaviors are appropriate. There are many ways the statement could have been worded to state a zero-tolerance attitude...this was not one of them.
  - falsestprophet 12y ago
    There is a cohort of people here who seem to be upset with English grammar. It's bizarre.
- avalaunch 12y ago
  I think it does imply exactly that but don't really know how to argue the point. But regardless of whether it actually does or not, I doubt I'm the only one that thinks it does and thus if that wasn't their intent they should update the message to be more clear.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  It may be intended that way but it's not semantically appropriate. I noted the same ambiguity as the grandparent poster immediately and found it somewhat confusing given the 'zero tolerance' clause that immediately preceded it. Every definition of the word 'inappropriate' relates to specific contexts. Using it as a universal is simply wrong, however common it might be in some circles.
swombat 12y ago
Is it ever acceptable for an investor to pursue a romantic relationship with a founder? After the founder is funded (by another investor), for example. Or if the founder initiates? As a founder and MD of a company, quite simply, the answer is a bold NO. Most of the opposite gender population is outside your company (or pool of possible investments). If you feel the urge, fish there, not in the tiny pond which you have a weird power relationship with. Getting romantically involved with people inside your company or which you're considering for investment is reprehensibly bad judgement as an owner or anyone in a position of authority and should obviously look like a Really Bad Idea (tm) to you if you are in that position of authority. It's a bit like the old "should a teacher date a student" chestnut. Whether or not the student "initiates" is irrelevant. Just stay away from it, it's a terrible idea. If the founder/student "initiates", then they are the one acting inappropriately, and your thought should not be "hmm, maybe I should go along", it should be "oh shit, this could be a big problem, how do I get out of this tactfully?"
- avalaunch 12y ago
  While most of the opposite gender population is outside your company (or pool of possible investments), most the opposite gender population that you interact with on a regular basis is likely not. That's not to say I disagree with you on your overall point. I just found that argument to be a little too dismissive of the reason one might be dating within their company or pool of possible investments.
  - swombat 12y ago
    Irrespective of that, it's still a terrible idea to be dating in that pool. If we're talking about a 50'000 people company, than maybe it's ok so long as there's no direct business relationship, but if you're the MD of a small company you should simply not entertain dating people within that company. Just the potential for a sexual harassment lawsuit by itself should be enough to stop anything in its tracks - let alone the moral and ethical implications.
jonnathanson 12y ago
"This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate." That's a stretch. I think most reasonable individuals reading the statement would conclude that "inappropriate" is an emphatic descriptor, and not a categorical divider.
- avalaunch 12y ago
  I consider myself reasonable and that's not how I read it. It wasn't until I visited the comments that I realized others were interpreting the phrasing differently. And if grammatically it can be correctly interpreted as either an emphatic descriptor or a categorical divider it seems less harmful to simply use a different phrasing entirely.
loganu 12y ago
YC founders often do YC more than once. If you choose to pass on funding and date a founder, what happens when you they do their second lap? What if you choose not to invest, date a founder, and then start to consider funding another startup that is in the same cohort and close to the founder you are dating? There could be questions about what information you have that you shouldn't. It's a full-stop "don't do it." There's too much potential to hurt and divide the community and lots of smart, attractive people outside of YC.

minimaxir 12y ago

> This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate. No it doesn't. Grammatically, the "inappropriate" is used for vocal emphasis.

zdean 12y ago
No, the "inappropriate" is a qualifier...so there is an implication that certain behaviors are appropriate. There are many ways the statement could have been worded to state a zero-tolerance attitude...this was not one of them.
- falsestprophet 12y ago
  There is a cohort of people here who seem to be upset with English grammar. It's bizarre.
avalaunch 12y ago
I think it does imply exactly that but don't really know how to argue the point. But regardless of whether it actually does or not, I doubt I'm the only one that thinks it does and thus if that wasn't their intent they should update the message to be more clear.
anigbrowl 12y ago
It may be intended that way but it's not semantically appropriate. I noted the same ambiguity as the grandparent poster immediately and found it somewhat confusing given the 'zero tolerance' clause that immediately preceded it. Every definition of the word 'inappropriate' relates to specific contexts. Using it as a universal is simply wrong, however common it might be in some circles.

swombat 12y ago

Is it ever acceptable for an investor to pursue a romantic relationship with a founder? After the founder is funded (by another investor), for example. Or if the founder initiates? As a founder and MD of a company, quite simply, the answer is a bold NO. Most of the opposite gender population is outside your company (or pool of possible investments). If you feel the urge, fish there, not in the tiny pond which you have a weird power relationship with. Getting romantically involved with people inside your company or which you're considering for investment is reprehensibly bad judgement as an owner or anyone in a position of authority and should obviously look like a Really Bad Idea (tm) to you if you are in that position of authority. It's a bit like the old "should a teacher date a student" chestnut. Whether or not the student "initiates" is irrelevant. Just stay away from it, it's a terrible idea. If the founder/student "initiates", then they are the one acting inappropriately, and your thought should not be "hmm, maybe I should go along", it should be "oh shit, this could be a big problem, how do I get out of this tactfully?"

avalaunch 12y ago
While most of the opposite gender population is outside your company (or pool of possible investments), most the opposite gender population that you interact with on a regular basis is likely not. That's not to say I disagree with you on your overall point. I just found that argument to be a little too dismissive of the reason one might be dating within their company or pool of possible investments.
- swombat 12y ago
  Irrespective of that, it's still a terrible idea to be dating in that pool. If we're talking about a 50'000 people company, than maybe it's ok so long as there's no direct business relationship, but if you're the MD of a small company you should simply not entertain dating people within that company. Just the potential for a sexual harassment lawsuit by itself should be enough to stop anything in its tracks - let alone the moral and ethical implications.

jonnathanson 12y ago

"This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate." That's a stretch. I think most reasonable individuals reading the statement would conclude that "inappropriate" is an emphatic descriptor, and not a categorical divider.

avalaunch 12y ago
I consider myself reasonable and that's not how I read it. It wasn't until I visited the comments that I realized others were interpreting the phrasing differently. And if grammatically it can be correctly interpreted as either an emphatic descriptor or a categorical divider it seems less harmful to simply use a different phrasing entirely.

loganu 12y ago

YC founders often do YC more than once. If you choose to pass on funding and date a founder, what happens when you they do their second lap? What if you choose not to invest, date a founder, and then start to consider funding another startup that is in the same cohort and close to the founder you are dating? There could be questions about what information you have that you shouldn't. It's a full-stop "don't do it." There's too much potential to hurt and divide the community and lots of smart, attractive people outside of YC.