This is a short response while I write up something more substantial.
The true story is very different than the one you just read.
Ben Pace purposefully posted this without seeing our evidence first, which I believe is unethical and violates important epistemic norms.
He said “I don’t believe I am beholden to give you time to prepare”
We told him we have incontrovertible proof that many of the important claims were false or extremely misleading. We told him that we were working full-time on gathering the evidence to send him.
We told him we needed a week to get it all together because there is a lot of it. Work contracts, receipts, chat histories, transcripts, etc.
Instead of waiting to see the evidence, he published. I feel like this indicates his lack of interest in truth.
He did this despite there being no time sensitivity to this question and working on it for months. Despite him saying that he would look at the evidence.
I’m having to deal with one of the worst things that’s ever happened to me. Somebody who I used to care about is telling lies about me to my professional and social community that make me seem like a monster. And I have clear evidenceto show that they’re lies.
Please, if you’re reading this, before signal boosting, I beg you to please reserve judgment until we have had a chance to present our evidence.
Kat, I am really sorry about the severe emotional difficulty. It makes sense that having this post be public would be an extremely challenging thing to deal with, all the more so if you have decisive contrary evidence. I will be interested in engaging with whatever you present, once you have the opportunity.
I think it is important to say, as one of the people who Ben interviewed: my very strong impression has been that Ben is interested in the truth, and that he is acting in good faith. My guess is that if you have strong, contrary evidence regarding the most important claims, then Ben will engage with this evidence with an open mind and will signal boost if relevant.
It appears that you were well-prepared to resort to legal threats against the author. Moreover, it seems you were fully aware of the situation, as evidenced by your statements regarding damaging the employee’s reputation. If the allegations being made were indeed false at that time, why didn’t you take any action to address them back then?
Regarding your statement that “many of the important claims were false or extremely misleading,” it’s worth noting that “many” doesn’t necessarily equate to “all.” Could you please specify which claims are accurate?
As for your assertion that there was “no time sensitivity,” it’s important to acknowledge that the time sensitivity in this case revolved around publishing the article before you initiated or threatened legal action, which you ultimately did. Therefore, it appears quite reasonable for the author to publish the article on shorter notice given the circumstances.
In reference to your statement, “I’m having to deal with one of the worst things that’s ever happened to me. Somebody who I used to care about is telling lies about me to my professional and social community that make me seem like a monster,” did one of your former employees not confirm having a negative experience with you on this forum as well? It appears that more than just two individuals mentioned in the article above.
What has happened to this forum? A member of our community is dealing with one of the worst things that’s ever happened to her and is literally begging for simply the opportunity to share her side of the story and she’s getting downvoted?
I’m not trying to defend Kat. In fact, I think we generally don’t have that great an opinion of each other—I really have no vested interest in protecting her reputation. But at least let her defend herself.
No one is stopping Nonlinear from presenting any arguments. It’s a standard Forum norm that people can post at any time—there’s never been any requirement to give an organisation extra time to prepare. It can be courteous.
And fwiw, Kat, I haven’t read the post. I read the beginning and end, which I hope has given me enough context to understand what kind of post it is. I intend not to read the whole post until your response is ready.
This is a short response while I write up something more substantial.
The true story is very different than the one you just read.
Ben Pace purposefully posted this without seeing our evidence first, which I believe is unethical and violates important epistemic norms.
He said “I don’t believe I am beholden to give you time to prepare”
We told him we have incontrovertible proof that many of the important claims were false or extremely misleading. We told him that we were working full-time on gathering the evidence to send him.
We told him we needed a week to get it all together because there is a lot of it. Work contracts, receipts, chat histories, transcripts, etc.
Instead of waiting to see the evidence, he published. I feel like this indicates his lack of interest in truth.
He did this despite there being no time sensitivity to this question and working on it for months. Despite him saying that he would look at the evidence.
I’m having to deal with one of the worst things that’s ever happened to me. Somebody who I used to care about is telling lies about me to my professional and social community that make me seem like a monster. And I have clear evidence to show that they’re lies.
Please, if you’re reading this, before signal boosting, I beg you to please reserve judgment until we have had a chance to present our evidence.
Kat, I am really sorry about the severe emotional difficulty. It makes sense that having this post be public would be an extremely challenging thing to deal with, all the more so if you have decisive contrary evidence. I will be interested in engaging with whatever you present, once you have the opportunity.
I think it is important to say, as one of the people who Ben interviewed: my very strong impression has been that Ben is interested in the truth, and that he is acting in good faith. My guess is that if you have strong, contrary evidence regarding the most important claims, then Ben will engage with this evidence with an open mind and will signal boost if relevant.
It appears that you were well-prepared to resort to legal threats against the author. Moreover, it seems you were fully aware of the situation, as evidenced by your statements regarding damaging the employee’s reputation. If the allegations being made were indeed false at that time, why didn’t you take any action to address them back then?
Regarding your statement that “many of the important claims were false or extremely misleading,” it’s worth noting that “many” doesn’t necessarily equate to “all.” Could you please specify which claims are accurate?
As for your assertion that there was “no time sensitivity,” it’s important to acknowledge that the time sensitivity in this case revolved around publishing the article before you initiated or threatened legal action, which you ultimately did. Therefore, it appears quite reasonable for the author to publish the article on shorter notice given the circumstances.
In reference to your statement, “I’m having to deal with one of the worst things that’s ever happened to me. Somebody who I used to care about is telling lies about me to my professional and social community that make me seem like a monster,” did one of your former employees not confirm having a negative experience with you on this forum as well? It appears that more than just two individuals mentioned in the article above.
What has happened to this forum? A member of our community is dealing with one of the worst things that’s ever happened to her and is literally begging for simply the opportunity to share her side of the story and she’s getting downvoted?
I’m not trying to defend Kat. In fact, I think we generally don’t have that great an opinion of each other—I really have no vested interest in protecting her reputation. But at least let her defend herself.
No one is stopping Nonlinear from presenting any arguments. It’s a standard Forum norm that people can post at any time—there’s never been any requirement to give an organisation extra time to prepare. It can be courteous.
And fwiw, Kat, I haven’t read the post. I read the beginning and end, which I hope has given me enough context to understand what kind of post it is. I intend not to read the whole post until your response is ready.