Evil Genius Games bleeding personnel?

[JLowder]

I also find it unethical to ask the guy a question and then fault him for answering it.

I faulted him for his answer (and the original post implying employee stances using what amounts to confidential communications), not for answering. There is a very large difference.

 

[Retreater]

I did not say they are selling personal customer data like names, but EGGs investors are saying that EGG has been selling demographic, audience, and engagement data as well as selling their survey responses to Studios and advertisers:

Sorry. I wasn't writing about you specifically - just sort of a general timbre in the discussion.

I did read the page you linked. It's kinda gross to read about the hobby in such cold, business language - but I'm not a business person.
The part about monetizing customers and charging subscriptions to get the rules was icky to me, though.

 

[FrogReaver]

I faulted him for his answer (and the original post implying employee stances using what amounts to confidential communications), not for answering. There is a very large difference.

Could be a large difference, but in this particular case there’s no answer he could give that wouldn’t have resulted in fault being found and most likely the same one. Prove me wrong, tell me how he could have actually answered your question differently that wouldn’t result in similar ‘that’s unethical’ accusations.

 

[JLowder]

Maybe but there are some fundamental differences between that and this. An ethical professor should recognize those differences IMO.

1. Confidentiality had already been pierced by the former employees that were vagueposting about ethical issues at their former company.

2. It seems both reasonable and ethical to make a public statement about those accusations.

3. Further, when asked about whether these were the issues the former employees had issue with - one of the least one sided responses possible was given, summarizing the employees own words, instead of claiming to know what they thought without mentioning any corroborating evidence. (I mean anything he says is one sided - right?)

4. Why not want them to post full resignation letters? it’s extremely likely there’s even more confidential info in them. That accusations made in them are completely one sided. Which most likely leads to indirectly disparaging the employees by at a minimum publicly denying their accounts.

With all stakeholders considered I think he’s managed to walk the ethical line about as well as is humanely possible - at least regarding the communications.

Employers have no intrinsic right or expectation of confidentiality from employees in regards employment status or for the general reasons they quit. In other words, posting "I no longer work at Company X because I do not agree with the company's policies" is not a breach of confidentiality. Even if the company had severance non-disparagement clauses, which the NLRB has been frowning on for rank and file employees in recent rulings, the wording of the ex-employee public statements made so far is so vague they would likely not apply. If a former employee divulges trade secrets, that's a different discussion, but no posts I've seen have done so.

On the other hand, the employer made a public post implying a stance for the former staff on the AI/tech issue. At best, the implied position is unclear. At worst, he implies the staff quit because they oppose the policy he posted--that is, they support the use of AI and blockchain in RPG product creation. If so, that pro-AI use position would have negative career implications for those ex-employees, given the general animosity toward AI among creators in the RPG market. He then refers to what are likely confidential employee communications to shore up his original implications, even while denying the former employees the ability to do the same.

Might those resignation letters contain trade secrets? Possibly. So he should not have selectively cited them publicly in his bid to show "transparency," particularly in defending the original post implying the stance of staff on AI issues. To defend themselves, the former staff would have to refer to their communications with him, even just as summary, which could get them in legal trouble.

He's the one with the power here. The portions of the public posts where he even suggests employee positions is a bad use of that power and, inasmuch as they breach employee confidentiality, are not a proportional response to the original employee posts.

 

[JLowder]

Could be a large difference, but in this particular case there’s no answer he could give that wouldn’t have resulted in fault being found and most likely the same one. Prove me wrong, tell me how he could have actually answered your question differently that wouldn’t result in similar ‘that’s unethical’ accusatio

No, there is a large difference. You accused me of being unethical for doing something I did not do.

Beyond that, you are asking for speculation. Could there have been posts that would have made the exchange run differently? Of course. But there's no need to play hypothetical games here. The conversation is about what was posted, not what may have been posted.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, there is a large difference. You accused me of being unethical for doing something I did not do.

You mean you didn’t ask someone a question that there is no ethical way of actually answering? Why don’t you prove that? 1 counter example is all it takes!

 

[thirdkingdom]

Employers have no intrinsic right or expectation of confidentiality from employees in regards employment status or for the general reasons they quit. In other words, posting "I no longer work at Company X because I do not agree with the company's policies" is not a breach of confidentiality. Even if the company had severance non-disparagement clauses, which the NLRB has been frowning on for rank and file employees in recent rulings, the wording of the ex-exmployee public statements made so far is so vague they would likely not apply. If a former employee divulges trade secrets, that's a different discussion, but no posts I've seen have done so.

On the other hand, the employer made a public post implying a stance for the former staff on the AI/tech issue. At best, the implied position is unclear. At worst, he implies the staff quit because they oppose the policy he posted--that is, they suppoprt the use of AI and blockchain in RPG product creation. If so, that pro-AI use position would have negative career implications for those ex-employees, given the general animosity toward AI among creators in the RPG market. He then refers to what are likely confidential employee communications to shore up his original implications, even while denying the former employees the ability to do the same.

Might those resignation letters contain trade secrets? Possibly. So he should not have selectively cited them publcly in his bid to show "transparency," particularly in defending the original post implying the stance of staff on AI issues. To defend themselves, they would have to refer to their communications with him, even just as summary, which could get them in legal trouble.

He's the one with the power here. The portions of the public posts where he even suggests employee positions is a bad use of that power and, inasmuch as they breach employee conmfidentiality, are not a proportional response to the original employee posts.

I agree, and I say this as a business owner with two businesses and about a dozen total employees, but preventing/discouraging employees or ex-employees to discuss their experiences -- whether it be salaries, or unethical behavior, or anything else -- is advantageous to only employers and detrimental to employees. It is already an uneven playing field -- especially in the US -- and attitudes like that only serve to increase the power imbalance.

 

[JLowder]

You mean you didn’t ask someone a question that there is no ethical way of actually answering? Why don’t you prove that? 1 counter example is all it takes!

No, I asked a very open initial question that could have had all kinds of answers that would have taken the discussion in a different direction.

I also answered your demand for speculation. If you want to play those games, you can speculate on what answer you are fishing for here that would make you stop the tedious demands for speculation.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, I asked a very open initial question that could have had all kinds of answers that would have taken the discussion in a different direction.

I notice you don’t claim any answer to your ‘open question’ would have been ethical.

I also answered your demand for speculation. If you want to play those games, you can speculate on what answer you are fishing for here that would make you stop the tedious demands for speculation.

No games. Sincere question. One counter example is all I’m asking for. Maybe we should start simpler though. Is it ever unethical to ask someone a question that they cannot ethically provide an actual answer for?

 

[JLowder]

I notice you don’t claim any answer to your ‘open question’ would have been ethical.

No games. Sincere question. One counter example is all I’m asking for. Maybe we should start simpler though. Is it ever unethical to ask someone a question that they cannot ethically provide an actual answer for?

You seem really invested in changing the topic of the thread here. Tedious trolling is tedious. You've had your answers on the speculation trolling. Move along.