3 ms·
> ...are there are other circumstances where you feel like you have to choose between ethics and the law of the jungle? I can choose to conduct myself in an et
by 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
> ...are there are other circumstances where you feel like you have to choose between ethics and the law of the jungle?
I can choose to conduct myself in an ethical manner. I can't assume you will do the same. Get it?
If you go through life under the mistaken assumption that nobody is willing to hit below the belt, and you never take action to prevent and defend against such blows, you will eventually be hurt. There's nothing wrong with accepting the fact that some folks will play dirty, and please don't fall into the trap of believing that taking action to protect your interests requires you to play dirty too. It doesn't.
Once again, if you acknowledge the motivations of other individuals and the pressures they might come under, you are less likely to be caught off guard by actions they might take in response to them. If you adjust your behavior accordingly, you can often incentivize them to do the right thing when they otherwise wouldn't had you acted passively and/or obliviously.
- tptacek 12y agoAm I misreading you? It sounded like earlier you were saying that it's justifiable to ruthlessly renege on agreements because if you don't, you're sure to take losses. If that wasn't what you were saying, I made a mistake, and apologize.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y agoTo be fair, I can see how my original comment could be misread. I wasn't endorsing the behavior being discussed, I was simply trying to convey the idea that investors should accept reality: most founders are going to pick and choose their battles. Realistic investors shouldn't expect founders to go to bat for them unless they have an incentive to. Example: if you invested $25K in a $250,000 seed round and haven't talked to the founder in six months, don't be surprised if he doesn't fight tooth and nail for your pro rata rights.