What's in a Name?

"You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me, and you'll be armed." -- Malcolm Reynolds

Every time I attach my name to my opinion on the internet, I take a little bit of a risk. It's a small, almost imperceptible risk, but one that could have real consequences that stretch beyond the scope of this online ether. For a long time, I did not write that name. I wrote a made up name. I did it because it's safer. It's a small, almost imperceptible amount of safety, but that barrier between the online me and the real me felt like a well insulated firewall, a safety blanket lining, a pillow of anonymity between myself and my strange bedfellow the internet.

I still use that nom-de-plume, but more as a clarification than a mask. There is the Sean that is also Elysium, rather than the Sean that is Dad, or employee or last place in fantasy football. It's a different Sean in distinct and meaningful ways -- at least to me -- but it's still me.

If I was going to stand up and have an opinion, a voice in the crowd, then I was going to take ownership and responsibility for what I say. My words would be mine, and I would be accountable for them.

There are a lot of reasons people might choose not to be the One True Themselves online. It would be easy to lump everyone who stands behind a false identity into one group and say, "they're the problem," but not only would that kind of indictment be aggressively sweeping and naive, it would be patently unfair.

The recent Blizzard Real ID program was but one example of hundreds that brought the problem of being yourself online to light, which is that any exposure holds the potential for destructiveness and abuse. There are online forces that revel in anarchy, chaos and indiscriminate meanness in a way I simply don't understand, and it is flatly ignorant to not realize that the possibility for random online violence is omnipresent.

Cyber-stalking, abuse and campaigns of harassment take a real world toll.

And, why can these people conduct campaigns of online terror without repercussions of their own? Because they hide behind their own cloaks of anonymity. Online anonymity has power, it unbinds people from responsibility, accountability and consequence. While many choose anonymity because it insulates the online from the real, others choose it because it is allied territory from which long-range attacks can be fired without fear of reprisal.

This is who I take exception with. The most recent example is that of the disgruntled employee at EA Mythic who has opted to slink in the shadows and lob questionable allegations with all the classic hallmarks of conclusions drawn as much from watercooler gossip and ham-fisted logic as actual information. In his righteous fury, he casts broad and wide dispersions, and gleefully throws his soon-to-be former bosses, who presumably paid him for his service and never once engaged in indentured servitude allowing him at any time to take his disatisfaction to another employer, under the bus.

The one piece of information conspicuously missing from his tirade is obvious. His name.

Why is it not there? If the treatment was so egregious, the mismanagement so obvious and the culture so destructive, why not stand up and be part of a solution? Because if his identity is revealed, given the careless, probably baseless and irresponsible nature of the post, he’ll have a hell of a time getting another job in the industry, and he knows it. That act of omission, of the cowards path of hiding in the closet and sniping without identity, reveals the impotence of his rant. It’s a selfish act, meant not to change a culture or a company, but to slake a primal lust for revenge.

Because of this, he deserves neither sympathy nor serious consideration. He deserves reproach for a whack-job delivery.

The company I work for recently suffered the vocal annoyances of someone similar, a nameless individual who posted his litany of complaints online anonymously. Internally, the response was not, “oh thank goodness someone is finally speaking up for us little people.” No, instead it was derided as a cowardly and unprofessional act, the retaliation of someone with not enough brains to stay employed and not enough guts to stand up and take responsibility for their complaints.

I don’t indict everyone who speaks behind a mask, particularly those who do so responsibly, because it’s not always the wrong choice, but I applaud and want to be counted among those who stand behind their words. If I drag you through the mud, you'll know that it's me doing it.

Comments

Given the (often) atrocious writing and poorly formed thoughts rife throughout their postings, isn't it fairly easy for someone (i.e. a direct manager) to suss out who these anonymous griefers are?

I have to think someone would recognize the writing style and vocabulary of some of these people.

a pillow of anonymity between myself and my strange bedfellow the internet.

Beautiful.

And besides that, a great piece. No company is perfect, but every company has one of those whiny jerks who takes every imperfection as an affront, and as fuel for their own dissatisfaction.

The anonymous internet just gives him a louder voice.

I agree with you Mr. Sands - if that is your real name. I basically always write off these anonymous complaints. If you won't stamp your name on your words then I assume you don't really stand by them.

Considering that person is obviously in the art department and on their way out, I'm sure they know who it was already.

I've recently starting sharing my real name with the gwj community because I trust it. So, please no one steal my identity.

Also, I think having real names out there or linked to our online aliases are how things are going to shake out in the future. Would this community be the size it is if our public faces were "Certis, Elysium, rabbit, Demiurge, pyroman[fo]" and etc?

No. It grew because you guys were honest about who you are and you have faces that people can know and homes that you let people in to. It grew because people know you could be trusted.

Anonymity will end up just being for people with something they want to hide. That's my take on it, anyway. Moreso in the business world. People suck. That's a rule. If you can't deal with it where you are, go somewhere else.

SallyNasty wrote:
I agree with you Mr. Sands - if that is your real name. I basically always write off these anonymous complaints. If you won't stamp your name on your words then I assume you don't really stand by them.

I assume you don't stand by this post.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
I agree with you Mr. Sands - if that is your real name. I basically always write off these anonymous complaints. If you won't stamp your name on your words then I assume you don't really stand by them.

I assume you don't stand by this post. ;)

Nah, i am just lobbing e-bombs because you don't know who I am!

Also my company is terribad - they do horrible things and are bad all around. No one should buy their products because they are so bad. I work there, so I should know.

I want to believe that it is industry wide for game companies that succeed despite their major disfunctions. There are relatively little degrees of seperation in the industry. So those companies I worked for and the stories relayed about companies my coworkers worked for were at least 50% dysfunction.

But there is real reason for this. The product fluctuates between favoring art over science or science over art depending upon what part of the development cycle is currently being worked on and even simultaneously. Its almost impossible to not have too many cooks in the kitchen. The amount of passion, intensity and focus that is required to perform the work, you may as well say that everyone in the company except for the kiss-asses are cooks or at least sous chefs in the kitchen.

Its akin to in regular companies the battle between accounting, marketting, and sales over what to do with the product. Oh, but wait, game companies have that too, on top of trifold production dysfunction.

So the reality is, most people are unhappy most of the time where any insignificant slight has the potential to fuel a rash blog rant.

My point is that there are three truths in the game industry:

One, its dysfunctional and intense.

Two, games tend to take on a life of their own during development, reaching arbitrary milestones in spite of dysfunction and mismanagement.

Three, if you work in the game industry you have an ego that can easily fester into self righteousness.

Wait, you mean we're allowed to have internet handles that aren't just homonyms of our real names?

Some of us have valid, RL reasons for not wanting to expose who we are when we interact virtually. For one, it allows us free speech without fear of reprisal. And I don't mean the government, for they have to respect it, but I don't want some employer Googleing my name, finding my handle, and then refusing to hire me because my political ideals differ from his own - or he sees someone who posts on Gamers with Jobs as unprofessional or immature. Granted, this generally allows more ass-hattery as it removes the obvious consequence of identity, but I have multiple identities I care about. I've used this handle since 1992, and it is my internet identity. I do not want it tarnish anymore than I want my RL name tarnished, but I also wish the two to never mix, as they are different sides of the same coin. That's not to say that if someone was to try hard enough they could just figure it out (some goodjers have found me on facebook) but I try to leave as little casual evidence as I can just lying around. Occasional googles of the two identities also allows me to cross reference and remove any areas where I may have been a bit sloppy.

Mytch wrote:
Wait, you mean we're allowed to have internet handles that aren't just homonyms of our real names?

Yes, but only if they poorly disguise your real name.

The problem is that, if you work in an industry like the games industry, that's small an insular... being the whistleblower means you're never able to get a job in that industry again. I think there is a real fear of recrimination against people who do this sort of thing and i don't think it's cowardly that they do it behind a curtain of anonymity because that one act could cost them their entire life.

Of course, i don't think that spewing vitriol and hate is the right way to go about this sort of thing but i don't think that removing or including someone's name actually adds or takes weight from an argument or position (unless they're a big deal... i mean, who cares what John Smith at Epic thinks.... but if it's Cliffy B then whoa!).... The argument or statement of the position itself is what makes or breaks the very nature of a complaint for me. If it's just bitching and bile spewed forth from the abyssal cavity within the soul of someone who is hurting then that's a lot less 'valid' (or perhaps true is a better word) in many cases than a more considered approach.

Duoae wrote:
The problem is that, if you work in an industry like the games industry, that's small an insular... being the whistleblower means you're never able to get a job in that industry again.

A lot of people make this argument and I am never convinced. The game industry isn't special in its size and insularity - ALL industries are small and insular. That doesn't stop people from talking trash and getting hired by competitors. I have seen it loads of times. The only thing special about the gaming industry is the internet.

Some of us have valid, RL reasons for not wanting to expose who we are when we interact virtually.

Which I totally support and understand. My point is strictly that people who use that anonymity to go on the attack are not to be supported, not that everyone should start using their real names.

A lot of people make this argument and I am never convinced. The game industry isn't special in its size and insularity - ALL industries are small and insular.

I agree totally. If what you're up in arms against deserves the light of day, then you have nothing to hide by bringing it out. Taking ownership of your statement is a good thing, it encourages civil and productive discussion instead of simple bitchy sniping. Look at all the people who write about games for a living that have gotten into the industry -- they weren't denied entry because they have an opinion. In fact, that they were able to analyze issues critically and form an intelligent commentary was exactly why they were prized and hired in many cases.

If someone is incapable of forming a comment about an issue without alienating everyone on the planet, then that person should keep their trap shut.

I second the keeping your trap shut, part. But I disagree really strongly with the rest.

What's an "attack"? Who gets to choose what discussions require real names to be valid? Too many people think that just because I disagree with you means I'm on the attack. Is there some subset of the Marquis of Queensbury rules that dictates when just a slap of the glove is necessary or a full, formal introduction of both parties is required? How do we tell the difference and keep that associated with the discourse so it doesn't go astray?

The very limited application of your opinion also concerns me. If just having issues finding another job, it only affected their professional career, and it only affected the actual person with foot-in-mouth disease I could see some of your point. The problem is, that's not at all the case in real life.

I've been trying to figure out a polite way to say this. But maybe I should stop trying to be polite and just do it. So here goes.

To be brutally frank, YOU may not have a problem. But that doesn't mean that the problem does not exist. You as an adult, white, male have a certain amount of intrinsic protection that is not afforded many other people. For any other kind of person, adding their real identity to the discourse has many, more far-reaching consequences.

I'm sorry if you feel attacked. You shouldn't. Those who agree with you are many and this is pointed at all of them. And heck, you already know my name. So while we're at it, let's put a few of the usual comments I get to rest.

What you are being used as a pejorative
You are a manly man, not a girly girl. Right?

There are hundreds of ways our language uses the word "girl" in a derogatory sense. When you describe something as "girly", you mean it's fragile, irrational, and weak and imply that it's inferior.

Multiply that by the literally hundreds of different ways the attributes of being female, a different race, or different sexual orientation are used to describe something as bad, wrong, or not good enough. I am a human being. And you cannot just write me off because my plumbing and interface hardware doesn't match yours, I don't use them the same way you use yours, or they're a different color.

We can put the shoe on the other foot. How do you feel when someone uses the word "manly" as a euphemism for uncouth, unwashed, barbaric, or stupid? Or something you do or say gets dismissed by a woman as a "man thing"? Welcome to a little tiny taste of my world.

I already get crap in professional circles when some of my more uncouth, unwashed colleagues meet me in person and find out my gender. I have to prove to them that I'm capable of doing my job in a way that men don't have to. The only proof I can gather seems to wear off as well; I have to do it over and over for of these same people. And for some of them no amount of it will never be good enough.

I am right now facing a huge problem with a project at work that my male predecessor never had to face because the person in charge of the other organization is aware of my gender and doesn't believe I'm competent despite knowing I actually built and still maintain the thing the other guy has been managing. When there was a problem before, the guy managing would ask me, I would tell him what to do, he would forward that to the other guy, and they would do it without a single thought. But if I tell them directly using the same exact procedures, I go through a three week long review loop confirming that's what has to be done. Then they blame me for the project slipping. I don't know what's going to happen.

Grow a Pair! Man Up!
The common meme that anyone who has an issue should just suck it up and live with the status quo is living in a fantasy land.

I cannot "grow a pair." For one thing, I already have a pair of something. I think they must be famous. When some people find out I have them they insistently ask for pictures of them and can get quite surly when they don't get them.

Maybe if you had a good chance every time someone online found out you were male they inundated you with requests for pictures of Big Jim and the Twins you'd understand why this is an annoyance. Or maybe not. Maybe you'd be flattered and send them a whole gallery of action shots. I don't know.

I also love the "man up" variant. I find a certain grim irony in the person telling me that it's perfectly okay for me to tell the whole world I'm a girl, while using language implying I have pretend to be the very thing I'm not to do it.

Throwing the Race/Ethnicity/Religion Card In All Directions
Just coming in saying "I'm this-kind-of-person and I think this is fine" doesn't excuse it bothering other people. It's a valid point that you don't mind it, but that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else. Just because strippers appreciate (or at least don't mind) men staring at their breasts doesn't mean that all women want that. And even some strippers aren't too keen on it when they're off the clock.

You are not somehow exempt from having to think about this just because you identify with one of these categories. I am a white female. Since I have the girl-issue, why do I have to worry about race? Because it's still not right. Or, to put it in a more familiar way, even though you're black you don't get a free pass to make Latino, homosexual, or sexist slurs.

Besides, there are places in this world where maybe you don't get as much of a free pass. Until fifth grade I went to a school where being called "white" wasn't always a very nice thing. We lived near the Alaska Native village of Gakona. There, it's roughly equivalent to the Japanese term "gaijin."

You're just afraid because you don't understand the internet
This one's came out bigtime when the RealID thing was at it's height. It's a two-fer. You imply that I'm a stupid Luddite, as well as belittling my concerns.

I say YOU don't understand the internet. Finding many people doesn't require a funny hat and a magnifying glass. Unless your target's name really is Jane Doe, it's frighteningly easy to find a lot about someone even if they're very careful and don't use Facebook or MySpace.

Google-Fu is not the only source of information. There are many third party services that for an extremely low fee will search and collate public information from many sources to give people a distressingly complete dataset. It's not because people are being foolish and typing stuff in public places. You'd be shocked how much stuff is required by law to be public information, and these services take advantage of that. If you pay property taxes or have a voter's registration card, for example, you're in these databases.

There is no screening as to who gets access to this information. All you need is the subject's first and last name to start. Adding info you got from Facebook or MySpace or whatever just makes it better. The more info you have to start, the more detailed you can get. Physical address, phone number, you name it.

And to leave it all to art, many of them pay for Google ads that show up next to the results list when you're searching on names. And just the free taste they give you before you have to pay shows someone's home city on most of these services.

Besides, it's not just the Internet. Being careful to whom you reveal your gender to is part and parcel of the female condition; particularly if you're a single woman. It's not just a game-thing or an internet-thing. I was taught in safety classes to not put my first name on my return address when I send snail-mail. My phone number is unlisted. I'm supposed to travel with a secondary lock for hotel room doors.

And unless you're trying to somehow suggest that women don't get assaulted in real life, I think you'd better just leave this one behind.

Which Witch is Which?
Unless your name is extremely unique, odds are there are results from more than one person in there and unless someone knows you in a very detailed fashion it can be difficult to tell whose life any particular factoid comes from. The possibility of errors is very high. So, what recourse does any other Jane Doe who gets harassed or in some way harmed in real life have against this?

And when I say extremely unique, I mean EXTREMELY. I'm sure that guy from Blizzard figured there weren't that many people out there with the last name Whipple, but he found out the hard way. And I'll bet so did whoever has the wrong phone number that was first posted as being his.

This Stuff Has More than a Half-Life
You don't get to decide how long this is part of the public discourse. With Internet, it's there forever. There's no way back. You can't unsay it; apologies will not erase it. Not even a crowbar will help. And while I do believe that consequences should be applied, but I do believe they should be fair, and proportional. You don't hang an albatross around someone's neck for the rest of their life without a much better reason than they're a mouthy asshat.

I generally understand, if not agree, with this position when it comes to the whole RealID kind of issue. However to suggest that since the exact line between RealID and loud-mouth, pot-shot, hit-jobs like this clown may be a tricky one to define it can't be done is deeply problematic to me.

If a person is going to drag someone else's name through the mud on the internet, they're a coward if they don't attach their name to it. End of line for me.

I'm not going to be able to comment on the whole I'm a white male angle. I am comfortable in simply operating from the knowledge that you and I are going to have trouble finding common-ground to agree on with that angle, so it's just best to leave it. I do think you're addressing a far reaching range of issues that are in many cases constellations away from what I'm talking about.

Nicely put. Like it or not, humans are (in my experience) prejudiced to some degree, first impressions matter, and so on. It's just what we do.

I wonder how different the impressions of EA Louse would be if they had given less information about themselves, didn't say they were being made redundant, hadn't said what they did, or any indication of who managed them or where they were in the company structure. Just that they were in the position to make certain observations.

Doesn't it matter what is being said? And for what reason?

Whistleblowers should be protected. Not outed and blackballed.

If on the other hand what someone is saying is nonsense why not just ignore it?

goman wrote:
Doesn't it matter what is being said? And for what reason?

Whistleblowers should be protected. Not outed and blackballed.

If on the other hand what someone is saying is nonsense why not just ignore it?

There are worlds of difference between whistleblowing and anonymously calling your employers a bunch of dickheads.

Elysium wrote:
I generally understand, if not agree, with this position when it comes to the whole RealID kind of issue. However to suggest that since the exact line between RealID and loud-mouth, pot-shot, hit-jobs like this clown may be a tricky one to define it can't be done is deeply problematic to me.

If a person is going to drag someone else's name through the mud on the internet, they're a coward if they don't attach their name to it. End of line for me.

I'm not going to be able to comment on the whole I'm a white male angle. I am comfortable in simply operating from the knowledge that you and I are going to have trouble finding common-ground to agree on with that angle, so it's just best to leave it. I do think you're addressing a far reaching range of issues that are in many cases constellations away from what I'm talking about.

As I mentioned, I very much agree that this person chose the very wrong venue for those comments and should have made better choices. And I also want to reiterate my apology for any hurt feelings. But I've been through this over and over. Even in our quiet little corner of the intarwebs here we see this. The examples that helped structure my comments came from other threads on this forum.

And my comments apply to this EALouse situation too. Is that artist a woman? Say she was, and went through whatever caused her to speak up like that. By your lights she should have tacked her name on them. Should that mean that she should have to face the consequences of opening her yap plus the secondary set of fallout she would get because she's female? It's already hard enough to be a female in the technology industries, not to mention the issues artists face in the very code-driven games industry. Is it fair to compare her decision with that of the male who opened his yap because she weighed the situation and made her choice to speak anonymously with that extra weight in mind?

In my mind you can't make a blanket statement like that. It's a Catch-22. You can't know all the reasons why a person would choose to stay anonymous if they do, in fact, stay anonymous. Maybe they are a craven scumbag. Maybe they're gay, their partner is in the industry, and they live in the Bible Belt. You don't know. And consequences of making everyone who speaks have to drop any protection against other prejudices afforded by anonymity can be way beyond finding a job in their particular whistle-blown industry.

I will shut up because we may be right in that we can't find common ground on the rest of it. But it's not constellations away. Those of us who have to worry about it can't get away from it. It's there every day, and it follows wherever you go.

The information presented by louse, whether it was by a male or female, could have been delivered in a less vitriolic, hateful way. It wasn't. It was someone with a chip on their shoulder pissing on the company he/she works for and fellow employees. It wasn't done to help anyone or anything, it was just hateful and kind of sad. There's a difference between whistle blowing for a good cause (EA Spouse, Corporations doing illegal, dangerous things, etc.) and what this was. One deserves anonymity, one does not.

Trying to shoehorn this into a women's issue is far afield of what Elysium actually wrote about and sits squarely in the realm of the hypothetical. The only reality here is what was actually written by Sean and the originating anonymous article. I don't consider it reasonable discourse to use a ton of inferences and assumptions as a basis for an argument.

You make a lot of great points but they belong in a thread with a topic dedicated to the actual subject matter you're bringing to light. Dumping it all on Sean's lap seems patently unfair to me.

EA Louse is not a good writer. What we saw was a rant by an angry, disgruntled employee who didn't express himself well. And I think that makes EAL a very easy target, but not one that deserves the kind of armchair verdict you're delivering here, Sean.

I don't defend the content of the rant, but I think you should take a moment to consider the difference in professional situation between you and EAL. You put your name to stuff that really won't affect your professional well-being or that of your family, right? You can write whatever you please about this or that topic because it probably won't ever stop anyone from hiring you, or cause you to lose a paycheck that you need. I don't mean that you're unaccountable for what you say, but you're considerably less encumbered than someone who works in the industry.

And yes, a rant like this is an unprofessional attack. Probably full of misinformation and petty grievance. I don't know. But I also don't know if EAL is a cowardly scumbag or just someone who tried to do a job at a screwed-up company, who was maltreated, and eventually just tried to strike back. It's possible that EAL is not the kind of person who would ever act like this, but circumstances and stress pushed them into doing something like this. I don't know and neither do you. But most people don't write things like this about their employers, ever, and there might be a reason for this kind of extraordinary breach.

Should EAL have just quit and found work that was more agreeable? Certainly. But maybe someone like EAL faces a lot of day-to-day financial stress and uncertainty and isn't sure about where that next job will come from. And maybe working for Mythic has exacerbated that anxiety. I don't know. I'm just saying that people cling to lousy jobs and put up with abuse that they shouldn't, just because they're scared. And I have been there. Repeatedly.

I have never said anything about my former employers in public. Does that make me a good person? Maybe. But I had one employer who was seriously abusive of his position and his employees, and I had another who was just incompetent. And let me tell you: bad employers hold all the cards.

The exact kind of crappy boss that you hate, that inspires this kind of rant, is also the kind of crappy boss that won't take kindly to open and honest criticism. That won't tolerate disagreement and discussion. In fact, a boss like that is likely to use every weapon in his arsenal to intimidate employees and silence them. And they thrive on the decency of the normal, decent people that work under them. People who won't hit back because they're more professional than that.

I don't know the circumstances. Neither do you.

I will admit my views on this are a little strained right now. A family member is one year away from retirement and pension, and she just got a new boss. 14 years of unblemished service are in danger of being wiped out because of a petty tyrant who has wielded "insubordination" charges and negative performance reviews like a cudgel. He has invited discussion only to find out who his enemies are, and then done his best to discredit them and win grounds for termination. Hell, I'm worried about writing his because he's the kind of person who scours Google for information relating to employees. I'd like to ask the GWJ community for legal advice, but I can't because I use my last name.

So while I don't like the way this EAL thing went down, I allow for the possibility that it might be understandable. And I try not to judge someone for how he acted during what appears to be one of the worst times in his life. Sometimes people slink in the shadows because they've been forced to.

momgamer wrote:
Is it fair to compare her decision with that of the male who opened his yap because she weighed the situation and made her choice to speak anonymously with that extra weight in mind?

Yes. Actually, it doesn't matter what the poster's gender is. The post is just a rant about how much the management at Mythic sucks.

If you're going to kill your career, you might as well do it in public. It's not like it's going to be too hard for EA to figure out who this actually is, and make sure they're blacklisted everywhere.

Did I cop out when it comes to this delima?

I don't defend the content of the rant, but I think you should take a moment to consider the difference in professional situation between you and EAL. You put your name to stuff that really won't affect your professional well-being or that of your family, right? You can write whatever you please about this or that topic because it probably won't ever stop anyone from hiring you, or cause you to lose a paycheck that you need. I don't mean that you're unaccountable for what you say, but you're considerably less encumbered than someone who works in the industry.

Then if it carries such potential for recourse, a point I'm not actually willing to concede, then it is best left unsaid. Every day I make the choice (a pretty easy one actually) to not drag my company's or industry's dirty laundry out on the internet.

I don't know the circumstances. Neither do you.

I don't believe that excuses accountability. Dislike as much as I might, his words and actions have an impact, they are grenades tossed from the shadows, and to I'm not of mind to withold judgment for lack of knowledge on his reality, because that completely dismisses the reality of the people who do end up paying the cost for his irresponsibility.

I stand by the sentiment that if what you are about to say is tantamount to professional suicide if you attach your name to it, then it probably isn't your place to go around saying it, or if you do say it, do so in a constructive way. I am just not inclined to let it pass, because there are so many better choices that _should_ (not just could) have been made.

I tend to go with momgamer and RobZacney on this one. I've had issues with people on the internet and gotten fired for filing a formal complaint on my boss. I don't think I'd ever want to mix the two. And I'm an average white male. I can't see subjecting yourself to the kind of sh*tstorm you'd invoke for publicly calling out your boss.

Besides, not everyone is as awesome of a writer as the people at GWJ. Maybe our sheltered little corner lets us forget, but not everyone is born with a rapier wit and sense of humor.

Kannon wrote:
I tend to go with momgamer and RobZacney on this one. I've had issues with people on the internet and gotten fired for filing a formal complaint on my boss. I don't think I'd ever want to mix the two. And I'm an average white male. I can't see subjecting yourself to the kind of sh*tstorm you'd invoke for publicly calling out your boss.

If you're getting laid off or fired(assuming that there is absolutely nothing shady going on), you simply don't do what EAL did. You choose not to put up a rant about how the management is completely incompetent in a public space.

You secure recommendations from the people you trust. You then walk away quietly.

You don't commit career suicide by posting an accusatory rant at your managers, anonymous or not.

cube wrote:

If you're getting laid off or fired(assuming that there is absolutely nothing shady going on), you simply don't do what EAL did. You choose not to put up a rant about how the management is completely incompetent in a public space.

You secure recommendations from the people you trust. You then walk away quietly.

You don't commit career suicide by posting an accusatory rant at your managers, anonymous or not.

I agree it's a stupid thing to do, but I can see why. I went with the sane, quiet option because I knew it was a losing battle. I still ended up losing my apartment, most of my stuff is still in storage, and Sthillary and I had to move back to Nebraska on a wing and a prayer. I can see why staring down a similar situation would make someone lose their mind.

Elysium wrote:
Every day I make the choice (a pretty easy one actually) to not drag my company's or industry's dirty laundry out on the internet.

This.

If anything, Sean's situation would only be comparable when he decides to start sharing undisclosed information about his company with the only intent of shedding some light on whatever is frustrating him. Until then, he's as liable for writing articles as I am for writing this post.

In full disclosure, Sergio Papini.

(Also because I love drama)

Rob Zacny wrote:

I don't know the circumstances. Neither do you.

But making a post in a public forum begs speculation. The thing is - it really isn't punching your boss in the throat by telling the internet he is a jerk; it is inviting speculation on your character, not on his.

When the teen girls find out my real name, it's all over. That's why it's *Legion* forever, baby.