throwaway77077's post seemed appropriately self-doubtful to me. I'm not walking away from this feeling certain that I should never work with Andrew or Rubicon. But I do value throwaway77077's work in looking into who it might be, and honest representation that it is a guess, backed up by these specific pieces of evidence.
It's exactly what I'd hope for in this case. (Besides Suster just coming out with it, but who likes to look like an a-hole?)
Remember, Andrew can (and hopefully will) come here to defend himself - if he's a VC in SV, he really should have at least one friend who frequents this site and cares enough about him to forward the debate.
Of course I'm serious, and I'll run my mouth all I like. You don't post that many identifying details about someone without wanting, on some level, for the person's name to come out, so it's time to stop screwing around.
HN is high-profile enough for Mark Suster to see this (hi, Mark!) If I've done a terrible, horrible thing by pointing out this guy fits a whole lot of the things Mark mentioned in his post, Mark can correct the record here by telling us I'm completely wrong and it was someone else.
> If I've done a terrible, horrible thing by naming this guy based on a whole lot of circumstantial evidence, Mark can correct the record here by telling us I'm completely wrong.
You're asking him to risk his legal strategy to fit what is a cheap debating tactic.
I think the parent responder's point was that you're using a throwaway account because you're making a claim of which you're so uncertain, that you're not willing to risk staking your own reputation on its accuracy. Ironically the claim you're making affects the reputation of the person you're identifying at least 100 times more than your own, whether it turns out to be right or wrong!
In short, whether or not you're right, you're a) being reckless and potentially libelous given that you don't actually know any details about the issue in question other than what was stated in the blog post, b) completely aware of what such statements can do to someone's reputation, and c) simultaneously more concerned about how your actions affect yourself than how they may affect others.
Now, I'm not saying that I disagree with your sentiment. If someone is a bad actor, then I'd prefer to figure out how to help others avoid getting taken by them. But how many witch hunts do we have to see happen only to find out there's another side to the story, before we stop encouraging witch hunts?
The HN guidelines don't discuss whether it's OK to post information about individuals like this. @dang, if you're here, can we make it explicit that this isn't OK on HN?
[disclosure: I don't know the doxer, doxee, or Mark Suster]
[edit: I thought doxing was the word for this - have clarified]
Calling out bad actors is now doxing? That's an impressive broadening of the definition. Are you just trying to tar behavior you don't like for some reason, or do you seriously think calling out bad actors is somehow equivalent to, eg, gamergate assholes posting Felicia Day's home address? Andrew Roman's address or ssn has not been posted; the only thing going on is the linking of his name with his actions.
It seems I had the definition of doxing slightly wrong - I've updated the comment.
[tangent: You've made a lot of invalid assumptions about my motives. I find it's often better to try to get on the same page as someone else before attacking them.]
Perhaps if you would like not to be misinterpreted -- if that indeed is what it is -- you should use words that mean what you intend. Grumping that I don't understand when you used the wrong word is ... special.
> the only thing going on is the linking of his name with his actions.
And linking his name with unverified claims about somebody's actions. Ever tried not to think of a pink elephant when someone told you not to? Try it. Don't think of a pink elephant. It works about as well as "don't let this damning claim tarnish X's reputation in your mind, because it might be wrong."
HN doesn't have a "no doxing" rule; that's a Redditism. That doesn't make the now-dead comment you're referring to a good one. There's something especially and ironically cowardly about using a throwaway account to level a serious accusation at a real person based solely on a couple Google searches; even if the commenter is right, they're wrong to have done that. And we don't need a magic doxing rule to see it.
The tacit identification in the post is an interesting strategy. Why not just explicitly identify the individual? Are there legal implications here or is he trying to manufacture more drama by getting the reader more involved?
i presume he doesn't want to be the one to out the guy, which might be viewed negatively. instead, he gave just enough details to let someone else to do the outing.
I surmise that the interest in this post (both the retweets that brought it to my attention as well as the upvotes that propelled it to the top of the front page almost immediately after I submitted it) is largely driven by an expectation that the investor described in the article would be outed.
It's been noted by you and others elsewhere in the thread, but a reading through that lens leaves the impression that the details provided were intended to have exactly that effect.
i think in general, given this landscape, it's just safer to publish without 'naming names' as a way to also protect the company. The last thing all the investors would want would be for the company to get a bad name for leaking information to one bad investor- putting the fault on the founder for his or her mistake, which takes away from the product and team with a silly scandal.
I'm sorry to see evidence of a rare bad actor, but that doesn't warrant holding back critical data from the many good actors who want to invest.
Simple P&L statement & balance sheet: Provide it to all investors who ask. That's just basic common sense.
Would YOU invest in a company that wouldn't even tell you these basic financial metrics? Would this author invest without it?
And, I've seen far too many "startups" who don't even know what simple financial things are (balance sheet, P&L, cash-flow, margin), and that illiteracy is NOT going to end well.
So, the pain may be real, but the advice given is not IMO correct.
Agreed 100%. Suster is way off base here with his conclusions. Any investor worth his/her salt will need to review basic financial info before putting money down.
If you can't trust an accredited investor with your financial data then don't take their money.
And if that investor inappropriately divulges confidential information, then take it up with a lawyer as it seems the company in question is in the process of doing right now.
He's not arguing against disclosing financials during the course of raising money. He's against giving minority shareholders continued access to financials. aka information rights.
Asking up front is one thing, being obligated to provide to a minority shareholder ongoing is another entirely.
I think it really sucks that there are shady investors out there, but I think the solution should be outing them, not punishing good investors. This blog post by Derek Sivers comes to mind: http://sivers.org/punish
I think a VC/founder review database would be great. http://www.thefunded.com/ is a good start, but doesn't seem to get many updates.
I'm an angel investor and a VC, and I feel handicapped when I don't get information on how a company is doing. It's the founder's decision whether they want to share anything with me, but in general, the more context I have the more helpful I can be. I think limiting information to investors lowers the risk of information leaks by a little but also lowers the utility you can extract from those investors by a lot. Also, to be honest, I think leaks of non-financial info can be much more damaging than leaks of financial info.
I'm of the opinion that it's perfectly fine for the author not to name names. While there was a clear message that this VC would never want to work with the "unnamed" name, there are countless examples of people being forced to work together in the future, even after making such claims. Not naming names provides a degree of wiggle room if such a case arises.
I may be offbase here, but I read all the details provided by the author as a sort of trail to be used for an implicit identification. I'm guessing the author is smart enough to know that these details could be used, given all the work displayed for every Satoshi post on the board.
So, I read the post as the author not explicitly naming the investor, but at the same time, providing enough information for someone motivated enough to track them down. It's the mark of a clever investor, having it both ways.
Bringing on a VC is such a huge commitment and with capital becoming easier and easier to come by, I'm often baffled by why there's currently no place online to openly talk about investors and others' experiences with them.
It seems terribly one-sided that investors demand company financials, founder profiles, go through the entire due diligence process, while the community is relatively hush-hush about openly discussing bad experiences and shitty investors.
Why You Don't Want To Use The Panini Presses in the Downstairs Cafeteria (bothsidesofthesandwich.com)
We all know the downstairs cafeteria is changing fast. Others have discussed the new panini presses and greater variety of pizza recently added to the cafeteria menu. Most of these developments have benefited diners, although I've previously written about the darker side of things in these blog posts:
* Why I Don't Love Meat-Lovers Pizza
* Ham Is A Sandwich Best Served Cold
Now, you might think that the panini presses to the downstairs cafeteria are an unmitigated good. They only increases the number of things you're able to eat, right? Hot sandwiches in addition to cold?
Wrong.
Let me give you an example from just last week.
I was at the panini machine heating up the Mark Suster Special -- an culinary invention whose ingredients, until recently, were known only to myself -- when a classmate of mine asked if he could put his sandwich into the machine at the same time. Normally I don't let other people use the panini machine at the same time as me, since it takes longer to heat the sandwiches with two in there instead of just one. But sometimes, their sandwich ingredients will infuse the Mark Suster Special with extra aromatic zest, so this time I agreed.
The sandwich turned out fine. Or so I thought at first. What I didn't know was that this individual -- who I will not name, but who sits in the front row of Mr. Boyd's 3rd period English class and the last row of Mr. Lowry's 7th period chemistry class -- would later go around claiming that he invented the Mark Suster Special and its near-perfect ratio of meat to cheese. In fact he divulged this ratio to everyone sitting in the second row of Mr. Vining's 4th period algebra class.
When I found out about this, I was flabbergasted. This classmate was trying to get all his friends to try out a sandwich that wasn't really his -- a clear violation of my intellunchual property rights. I only found out about it because this unnamed individual was bragging about the sandwich while sitting in the second row of Mrs. Roth's 2nd period history class, just to the left of my friend Ken.
I don't know how this will play out, but I've already filed a complaint with the appropriate authorities. The only reason I tell you this story is that it's becoming more and more clear to me that you can get "burned" by panini presses in more ways than one. If you absolutely must use the panini press, it's best to wrap your sandwich in tin foil first, lest unnamed individuals -- who are co-captain of the JV lacrosse team -- try to claim your sandwich idea as their own.
These days, it seems the thieves aren't just in the second-floor study area. They're in the downstairs cafeteria as well.
I'd suggest snagging Bothsidesofthesandwich.com and translating the rest of Mark's content for consumption by the rest of the world. You clearly have a knack for it.
I am not a lawyer. The directors can share "inside" information with specific investors and other parties. Those parties then become "insiders" themselves and may not buy or sell shares.
reply