Debs resigns

[Exophase]

I actually do think Craig should assume some responsibility for this. Not because he forced people to do it, not because it's the natural response and that makes it okay. But because he knew anger was mounting and he didn't do anything to try to quell it himself when he could have. And in the end he just publicly blames the userbase for Debs' resignation which looks cheap and unprofessional. But that's no worse than what we've come to expect from him. All he does is blame other people, I've never seen him admit resentment or guilt towards any of his actions.

 

[Askarus]

As I said, didn't know it was that bad.


On the other hand it's somehow understandable, that some people get angry if they only hear the shit from Debs Craig told her.

Again, it doesn't matter how bad it is, if it was one or one hundred, the point I'm trying to emphasize here is that if you do anything, no matter if it is malignant or benign, you made the choice, no one coerced you into it (except in cases where coercion has happened of course, I'm hoping I don't have to explain why what is going on here isn't coercion).
Write the nasty emails if you want, just don't say that Craig is responsible for those emails. It isn't Craig's fault that people wrote nasty emails any more than it is the boss's fault that the man in my previous analogy went home to beat his wife. Just because someone is an asshole to you does not give you carte blanche to act like an asshole yourself.


Should people be mad at Craig? Probably, he hasn't been transparent with anything, pretty much ever. Should we then automatically forgive people (whether few or many) who sent these threats because "it's human nature"? I say no. I also reject that it is "human nature". Human nature to be angry, perhaps, but humans have successfully not blown themselves up over petty squabbles on several occasions, so I'm quite certain it is within our ability to not send nasty emails no matter how angry we might be.

If people always had choice why is there so much manipulation in this world?

People are driven by emotion.

If one knows how to hurts that emotions or use them otherwise then there isn't much of a choice.

No one choses every of his/her actions.

Sometimes people do things without choosing it.

It doesn't change the fact that it's bed behavior but for me the guilty guy is the one who brought them so far.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

As I said, didn't know it was that bad.


On the other hand it's somehow understandable, that some people get angry if they only hear the shit from Debs Craig told her.

Again, it doesn't matter how bad it is, if it was one or one hundred, the point I'm trying to emphasize here is that if you do anything, no matter if it is malignant or benign, you made the choice, no one coerced you into it (except in cases where coercion has happened of course, I'm hoping I don't have to explain why what is going on here isn't coercion).
Write the nasty emails if you want, just don't say that Craig is responsible for those emails. It isn't Craig's fault that people wrote nasty emails any more than it is the boss's fault that the man in my previous analogy went home to beat his wife. Just because someone is an asshole to you does not give you carte blanche to act like an asshole yourself.


Should people be mad at Craig? Probably, he hasn't been transparent with anything, pretty much ever. Should we then automatically forgive people (whether few or many) who sent these threats because "it's human nature"? I say no. I also reject that it is "human nature". Human nature to be angry, perhaps, but humans have successfully not blown themselves up over petty squabbles on several occasions, so I'm quite certain it is within our ability to not send nasty emails no matter how angry we might be.

If people always had choice why is there so much manipulation in this world?

People are driven by emotion.

If one knows how to hurts that emotions or use them otherwise then there isn't much of a choice.

No one choses every of his/her actions.

Sometimes people do things without choosing it.

It doesn't change the fact that it's bed behavior but for me the guilty guy is the one who brought them so far.

@Askarus ^ agreed 100%...

Again I say...if you run a company like shit....expect shit to happen AND most definitely the owner of the company is totally responsible for it  = angry,irate,lathering at the mouth consumers. :angry:   What is so hard about this to comprehend?? Why can't you see this is human nature [at it's worst] and has been apparent since the beginning of industry!!?? In this case the worst display of human nature here falls upon Craig's lap....the absent CEO.

 

[notaz]

I don't know if she got paid or what, if not it's all the more understandable that she wouldn't want to deal with much more work than she signed up for.

Supposedly she's ICP ltd. director, whatever that means:

https://www.duedil.com/director/913467415/debbie-leigh-jones/directorships

And Jacquelyn is Company Secretary.

 

[Exophase]

Sounds like she has a stake in the company and its earnings then.. but not necessarily a salary.

Am I reading this right that she became director of Openpandora Ltd but only in 2012?

 

[WizardStan]

If people always had choice why is there so much manipulation in this world?

People can be manipulated into doing something, absolutely. If someone emotionally manipulates me into doing something that seems like a good idea at the time but then turns out it wasn't it doesn't change the fact that I still made the choice. I can say that I made the choice based on false pretenses caused by the emotional manipulation and depending on the situation that can make the manipulator guilty but it was still my choice to go along with the manipulation.Unless the manipulation is actually coercion: another person making threats against you, your family, or property. "Do X or else I will do Y". That's a cake-or-death situation. It's still technically a choice but isn't a fair one at all. I am only talking about fair choices. The people sending the threatening emails in this case absolutely made their choices fairly.

People are driven by emotion.

Reacting based on emotion is still a choice. You may not have put any conscious thought into it but parts of your brain figured out what was going on and responded accordingly. If the action was a mistake then it was still your brain that made that mistake whether you took the time to think about it or not. I would expect that if the exact same situation arose you would have learned from the past mistake and, even without thinking about it, make a completely different choice. Of course, that only works if you actually accept the fact that the choices you make are yours alone.

It doesn't change the fact that it's bed behavior but for me the guilty guy is the one who brought them so far.

If you can explain exactly the fundamental difference between the man who goes home and beats his wife because of how his boss acts, and the man who sends threatening emails to a secretary because of how her boss acts then I will have no choice but to accept your stance as valid and mine as wrong.In both cases you have one person directing harm towards an innocent person because of emotional distress from third. Find the flaw in that last statement and you are absolutely correct.

 

[moxie]

I am completely on WizardStans side here. I think some people are misunderstanding it. The point is not to say that people should not get angry, or that people should always be rational, or whatever - The point is that if you decide to write an email or KS comment or whatever to say that Debs is a whore and should throw herself off a cliff, then it is your responsibility. Writing that to Debs, who has (as far as I've heard, at least) done nothing to deserve that (quite the opposite), is nothing but being an asshat and a dickwad. And that is your own choice - You are not forced to be that by Craig being something alike. In just the same way as WizardStans story about the voss, the man and the wife - you are not excused for being a dickwad because you are upset. You are not excused for raping someone because she had a short skirt and you hadn't had any for a month. You are not excused for robbing the convenience store because you've blown your money on the horses and now has to find food until salary day. You are not excused for being a dickwad because you are in a really shitty mood.

What would be the better thing to do? Well, obviously, a huge improvement would be to direct emails and comments towards Craig. Why is that better? Because he is the one responsible for you (I'm using a general "you" here, of course - I'm in no way trying to imply that any of the present gentlemen would stoop this low) being out of your money, out of information and out of patience. There is some sort of desert here.

Is it reasonable to be angry? Yes. Would it be reasonable to express this anger in an email? Yes. Would it be reasonable to send this email to an employee who has no actual power over the situation? No, that is just being an asshat, just as much as you are an asshat if you take out your frustration on call center employees or hotel cleaners or whatever. You are responsible for your actions, both what they are and where they are directed. That a particular action is somehow justified does not mean that any praticular direction of this action is justified.

And, still: It is your responsibility, not Craigs. It is your job to make sure your actions make sense. "Craig made me angry, so I told Craig to suck his own and jump off a cliff" - Makes sense. Possibly an overreaction (possibly), but it is still possible to discuss in terms of who deserved what response and so on - You (because it is you who makes the action) can explain this course of action in a way that is comprehensible.  "Craig made me angry, so I called Debs a whore and told her to jump off a cliff" - You're an asshat. Because, it is still you who does this, and there is no way in hell you can explain this in a way that makes you not an asshat.

Interestingly, the old greeks actually believed the action controlled them. When Achilles kills his enemies in a fury and drags their dead bodies around the battlefield, it is not Achilles who does this (according to contemporary thought) - It is the spirit of anger that possesses him and makes his body do angry things. However, we are not ancient greeks, and we do not believe that the power of frustration possesses us and makes our bodies perform asshattery.

 

[mcobit]

I hope she isn't responsible in any way for this stuff if she's director.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

I do not agree with the Greek mythology example given . It is too far fetched and fantasized. I do agree with Askarus. 

The root of the problem here is simply cause and effect. That is to say if one works for a poorly managed company and can not or does not do anything to help rectify the problem and if they choose to stay and carry on then that person is just as culpable for the disgruntled consumers as much as the CEO is. I respect the fact that this girl finally resigned. This was the admirable thing to do. This trojan horse has a crack in it's structure and the CEO is responsible for all accountings from head to toe and whatever is outside trying to dismantle it  no matter how unpleasant.

Actions bring negative,positive reactions...there is no prim and proper behavior here when individuals who work hard for their wages think they are being scammed hundreds of pounds. This can elicit the worst behavior in some. Owning a company one must accept and be responsible totally for it's actions and  the consumer's reactions and accept the consequences either way. This is basic business ethics and yes sometimes situations get unethical. It goes straight to the top tier!! Remedy the problem to change the response of the public or deal with the response.

Let me steal 300 pounds of your money or your loved one's and let us see how gentlemanly you might react to me when you see me with a wad of that money in my fist. Am I responsible for your anger,,,YES I am.

If everyone was flattering the company does not the CEO take responsibility for that too?,,,and hopefully rewards his/her staff 

Oh yes and thank the greek gods that irate emails,letters and phone calls is all he has to deal with...it could be much worse. Perhaps it will be but I hope not.

 

[MarkW]

Some data on Openpandora LTD. If you want to stump a small sum, the annual accounts are a matter of public record......

Technically and according to the historical summary, openpandora Ltd is insolvent.....

 

[Asiyura]

Some data on Openpandora LTD. If you want to stump a small sum, the annual accounts are a matter of public record......

Technically and according to the historical summary, openpandora Ltd is insolvent.....

Except that, AFAIK, it's not OpenPandora ltd. that produce iCP2, but iControlPad ltd.

 

[moxie]

The fact that people are idiots does not mean that they are excused for being idiots, and even more: The fact that someone is an idiot still does not absolve one of responsibility of ones actions. Not even Craig-frustration.

Which is the point of the greek example: We do not believe that fury possesses and controls our physical bodies. Neither do we really believe that Craig made us so frustrated that we really couldn't help ourself from calling Debs a whore. Saying "Craig made me do it!" is simply false, and I can't possibly see anybody seriously meaning this. That sentence would usually be a coverup for one of these two:

* I did this bad thing, and I'm too ashamed to admit my guilt

* I really think Debs deserves to be called a whore, so I said so.

Both these are somewhat "dirty" in that they'd tarnish the person who did send a message, and so blaming Craig is a convenient way out. It is, however, false, and I can't see anybody truly believe it.

Now, if you want to argue that Debs really do deserve to be called a whore and be adviced to jump off a cliff for the crime of hanging on and trying to help Craigs customers (that is "choosing to stay and carry on"), then we can discuss that (and in that case, I'll have a few choice descriptions for you too), but that is another question. The question here is "If I decide to send an abusive email to the obviously influenceless secretary of a company because I don't like how the head of the company is running said business, is this the responsibiliy of said head of company?". I, and WizardStan, maintain that you, and only you, are accountable for your own actions. No matter your personal mood.

 

[ramboky]

Those people sending abusive emails are entirely responsible for their own actions, not Craig. 

 

But Craig is entirely responsible for putting Debs in a position where she's likely to receive abuse. She was trying to get the answers backers were asking for but he was hiding behind her like a coward and doing nothing. Ultimately Craig was the likely target of the anger but because Debs was the only one with the courage and decency to answer she unfortunately and unfairly bore the brunt of it.

 

I cant help but wonder at the reasons Debs seems to be the director of all of Craig's enterprises. I hope it doesn't bite her on the ass.

 

[moxie]

Now we're talking I agree completely.

I wonder if Debs knows that she is director?

 

[Exophase]

Looks like she is a director (one of three), but not the director.

 

[WizardStan]

I, and WizardStan, maintain that you, and only you, are accountable for your own actions. No matter your personal mood

Thank you.

 

[Timstertoo]

Isn't she Craig's girlfriend/wife/fellow traveller in life?

And if so, she's resigning from what? Living at his place? It's not as if she going to be away from it or him. Although if she were a smart girl..

The example Exophase gave was well out of order whatever your standards are but Craig could have protected her from this by simply giving regular updates and having a somewhat decent form of communication with his backers. The wolves were always out there, it was Craig's choice to throw her to them. I find it most of all naive, especially after his experiences on this board with the Pandora, for him to think everyone would patiently and silently wait for a device that's way overdue. And that's being nice because the other option is that he knowingly put her in the firing line.

Certainly not saying that these people are right to talk to her in that way, they might be right to be upset but they are still idiots for the way and to whom they vent it. But I wouldn't let my wife walk through certain parts of town alone either after dark. I pick her up or make sure someone else sees her home safely. Craig did not only send her out in the dark alone in the wrong neighbourhood, he pissed all the people of in the area and then told them she'd be there. 

I think this is more about Craig trying to find the moral high ground and trying to be percieved as a victim more then anything. "You were mean and now you will have to wait even longer because I have less staff, so there."

As for being bit in the ass, the only one who might be in danger of that is Link and I feel sorry for him that he appears to be stuck between a rock and a hard place if this goes on like this. He is the first one the yanks can go after if there is any legal basis for a court case. (no clue if there is)

edit: I was  h34r: 'd by Ramboky so basically what he said. I agree with Moxie and Wizardstand that the people who wrote things like the cliff and bitch thing are completely responsible for their own behaviour by the way. As are the people that sent her flowers or farted in her general direction.

 

[Exophase]

I always thought Jacqueline was Craig's girlfriend but I don't really know..

 

[Mr_Loon]

I hope she isn't responsible in any way for this stuff if she's director.

Being director of a small limited company such as iCP ltd. is often in effect a 'ceremonial' role. The role of director does not necessarily give you any decision making power. I suspect this is the case here.

Got to agree with all the wise owls on this thread. It's a damn shame on several levels. 

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

I say if you own a company and are actively involved and vested in it you ,,and only you,, must be responsible for how your company is perceived. Yes people do have the choice on how they behave but circumstances such as this can incite anger and insults!! Like inciting a riot so to speak. Leaders and owners of all types have done terrible things that have swayed the masses towards hatred aimed at them and their associates...sad but true. I do not condone this but it is a ugly side of reality.

Why can't you understand this is beyond me.?? Like I said before...let me rob you or your spouse of 300 pounds and show up at your door and let us see how civil you will act. Be in the real world for pete's sake.

As I said...if this company was doing a stellar job then there would be nothing but great reviews and compliments...why is this?? it is because of the companies policy and outcome..and the CEO is responsible for such....and yes the staff hopefully gets the glory of it too financially and emotionally. Great emails and phone calls...blah blah blah ... :lol:

We all would agree then that the company is put together well and the owner has done a grand job as has his staff ,,,if this was the scenario,, but alas it is not rather it is the exact opposite.

Maybe the fact that we so disagree might be a sociological/economical/geographical outlook through different eyes.

I understand your point but I do not appreciate Moxie challenging me with 'choice descriptions'.

I am done here because I will never agree with you and vice versa. So rant on if you must...have at it. I've said all I have to say and I feel now this discussion is becoming a side versus side show and I sense anger.

Thank you.