undefined | Better HN

0 pointstreyfitty8y ago0 comments

Eh, I'm inclined to agree with you that the ex admin isn't "right" but the essence of my statement is that he may have been carrying out what was his optimal strategy.

If you treat people bad, they'll treat you bad. If you nuke Russia, Russia will nuke you. It's the Nash Equillibrium where each party is faced with a game and certain situations call for your best move. But your best move should account for what I'll do, and that should be factored into your initial move.

Mutually assured destruction is actually a powerful deterrent. Do we know what the ex-admin's situation was prior to all this? Only then should we pass judgement.

0 comments

kelnos8y ago

Morally, I'd say the ex-employee doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the employee had been wronged and their actions only negatively impacted the employer, then I'd be sympathetic, but all of Verelox's customers have been damaged, some of them perhaps irreparably, by this. Getting back at your employer with such huge amounts of collateral damage is never acceptable.

cat1998y ago

I find it hugely improbably that ex-admin's situation entailed being wronged by all of the customers whom he impacted by this action.

You are basically justifying the 'killing of innocents' here..

jessaustin8y ago

If we assume that the firm did awful things to the employee, we can't also consider those who employed the firm to do those awful things "innocent".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse