3 ms·
Why should anybody believe either the CEO or the ex-employee based only on their word? You're assuming the CEO has all the actual facts and is being honest abou
by Iftheshoefits 12y ago
Why should anybody believe either the CEO or the ex-employee based only on their word? You're assuming the CEO has all the actual facts and is being honest about them. I can envision many scenarios where he may actually have cause to believe he has the actual facts, when he doesn't (e.g. colleagues lying about the employee's resistance to change, performance, etc.).
- TeMPOraL 12y agoBecause CEO has taken a few orders of magnitude more of personal risk here than the ex-employee.
- Iftheshoefits 12y agoNonsense. For starters the employee's actual identity is apparently known and there are comments in one of the threads indicating hiring managers at other companies have taken note of him (negatively). Secondly, being the CEO of a YC company means he's "in the club." Short of explicitly defrauding investors, the limit to this guy's personal risk is very lilely that he may be forced out of his CEO role. Unless he's a very stupid person he has put enough untouchable wealth aside to be just fine should this occur. Even if he hasn't I would suggest his chances of securing funding for another company is not impacted by this drama negatively (in fact, it may have a positive effect). Besides that, even if he did have more at stake personally that is insufficient reason to take his word over the employee's, because there's nothing even close to any objective evidence in such a determination: it's purely subjective based on your own biases.