Re: [cobalt-users] (no subject)

["[RaQ2] Chuck" <nagy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Chip wrote:

>  >> Well, once you've dealt with the actual problem, I should think that
>  >> letting a bunch of people who administer Raq servers know who this person
>  >> is might be a good thing. That way, no one who reads this list will get
>  >> stung by the same guy.
> 
>  >Bad idea, defamation of character unless you already convicted him of it..
> 
> Actually not true.  Truth or facts are an affirmative defense for claims of 
> defamation.  And one can even mention that someone is accused of something, 
> as long as one says "so-and-so is alleged to have locked Joe Schmow out of 
> their Raq system before leaving employment."
> 
> And one could certainly, without any risk, state "so-and-so worked for 
> me.  He did not leave on amicable terms. He would not be eligible for 
> rehire"  and that would definitely get the message across.
> 
> I just strongly feel that people who are that destructive deserve to have 
> their deeds be known.

It is certainly tepmting to do justice yourself, howerver, you ought to be
careful. This behaviour can backfire, and the guy can do even further harm
to you even indirectly. Among the Fortune 100 best companies to work for,
you will *never* find policies that allow tarnishing a persons reputation
no matter in what terms the person left the company. There is a reason for
that.