To put it more strongly: I would like to make clear that I have never heard any claims of improper conduct by Drew Spartz (in relation to the events discussed in this post or otherwise).
Thanks, I think taking the time to make this stronger phrasing publicly is quite valuable (and seems to match what everyone else is saying so far). It’s important that we not engage in guilt-by-association.
My understanding (definitely fallible, but I’ve been quite engaged in this case, and am one of the people Ben interviewed) has been that Alice and Chloe are not concerned about this, and in fact that they both wish to insulate Drew from any negative consequences. This seems to me like an informative and important consideration. (It also gives me reason to think that the benefits of gaining more information about this are less likely to be worth the costs.)
I certainly don’t think it suggests he’s a bad actor, but it seems reasonable to consider it improper conduct with a small organization of people living and working together—even if Alice and Chloe don’t see it as an issue. I don’t have a strong view one way or the other, but it seemed worth flagging in the context of your claim .
To put it more strongly: I would like to make clear that I have never heard any claims of improper conduct by Drew Spartz (in relation to the events discussed in this post or otherwise).
Thanks, I think taking the time to make this stronger phrasing publicly is quite valuable (and seems to match what everyone else is saying so far). It’s important that we not engage in guilt-by-association.
Agreed. I would have wanted the post itself to make this more clear.
The article alleges he was dating an employee who seems to have been a subborniate, which someone might claim is improper conduct.
Repost from LW:
My understanding (definitely fallible, but I’ve been quite engaged in this case, and am one of the people Ben interviewed) has been that Alice and Chloe are not concerned about this, and in fact that they both wish to insulate Drew from any negative consequences. This seems to me like an informative and important consideration. (It also gives me reason to think that the benefits of gaining more information about this are less likely to be worth the costs.)
I certainly don’t think it suggests he’s a bad actor, but it seems reasonable to consider it improper conduct with a small organization of people living and working together—even if Alice and Chloe don’t see it as an issue. I don’t have a strong view one way or the other, but it seemed worth flagging in the context of your claim .