Comment by huggyface | Hacker News Reader

Comment by huggyface | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Earlier this week – days after Zynga bought OMGPOP for $210 million – a now former OMGPOP engineer named Shay Pierce wrote a column for gaming news Web site Gamasutra explaining that he would not join Zynga because it is "evil." He said that companies like Zynga think of users as "weak-minded cash cows.""

Come on. OMGPOP was a fast rising company with a very green CEO. Expectations that they're going to act like the CEO of Oracle (boom, bad example) or something seems out of place. The CEO is a person just like everyone else, and had a moment of weakness.

The CEO took it personally. And rightly so, because in his implications Pierce was saying that everyone else were willing to join an "evil" company that treats people as "weak minded cash cows". When we make personal statements of values and their justifications ("I don't eat meat because I don't like murdering innocent animals, blood on my hands"), we naturally raise the hairs of those who make different decisions.

EDIT: Normally I just bear those downvotes, but in this case I find them a little disturbing. The whole narrative around this has taken on a distinctly "we are the 99%!" type of schism. The CEO is a human being too, and there is no reason to value or respect the opinion of Pierce.

You're over analyzing it: it's not a "we are the 99%" schism. It's just a guy in a leadership position being a first class douche bag.

It's also independent of whether the other guy was "right" or "wrong". I've had plenty of moments of weakness in my life, and none of them compelled me to rip in to former coworkers on Twitter.

It's very childish, to say the least, to take offense and lashing out upon hearing of someone else's morals.

Or more accurately, it's self-centered, oblivious and aggressive. I'm more than content with the outcry all over the net.

It's very childish, to say the least, to take offense and lashing out upon hearing of someone else's morals.

Many would see Pierce's media efforts as childish and unprofessional. I originally saw it presented with the title "The one smart OMGPOP employee", and it was pretty obvious what the deal was (when you make demands and the other side ignores you, it means you aren't in a position to make demands).

Further his "morals" went so far as demanding that they provide some sort of oddball waiver for him, which they didn't feel worthy of the time required. I'm not sure if you're reading a different story than I am, but the one I read had him completely fine with joining Zygna until they said stuff it, at which point he retroactively gained a higher calling.

Many would see Pierce's media efforts as childish and unprofessional.

Well, he explained publicly why he opted out of the employment offer.

when you make demands and the other side ignores you, it means you aren't in a position to make demands

And so what? Should I look down upon him because he's "weak" when compared to Zynga?

Further his "morals" went so far as demanding that they provide some sort of oddball waiver for him, which they didn't feel worthy of the time required. I'm not sure if you're reading a different story than I am, but the one I read had him completely fine with joining Zygna until they said stuff it, at which point he retroactively gained a higher calling.

Well, it was your post which introduced differing morality into the question, as a justification for Porter's tantrum. Pierce himself waives any claim to being an "idealist", in his words[1]. On the "oddball waiver" I won't comment; that's a Silicon Valley thing, don't wanna be culturally insensitive.

1. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/167244/Turning_down_Zynga...

That is not an "oddball" waiver. Saying that creative people continue to own what they owned before they took the job is a common contract feature. I know we have that in the IP agreement that our developers sign -- anything they explicitly list as theirs continues to be theirs.

"Very green" is a bit of a misnomer here—Porter's been the CEO of OMGPOP since 2009, and was a SVP at Richard Branson's Virgin Group before that.

"Moment of weakness" maybe, but not from an inexperienced guy.

Porter's been the CEO of OMGPOP since 2009, and was a SVP at Richard Branson's Virgin Group before that.

"SVP" of "Virgin USA", which was an absolutely minuscule offshoot.

He has been a CEO of a tiny company for two years, prior to that acting essentially as a glorified salesperson. That is absolutely green.

And president of Teach for America in 1994? That was a pretty well-known organization even at the time, at least in DC.

He has 20 years of executive leadership. Irrespective of what you think of the actual job activities or of a particular title, how can you possible color that "green"?

I've never been CEO of anything and even I know when I'm being an asshole.

I'd hardly call Dan a "very green" CEO.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/danporter

Reluctant to comment, since this is circumstantial and may be seen as not adding to the discussion, but for what its worth, I've heard (long before this incident) many cases in which Dan Porter has exhibited this type of behavior (immoral actions), and that this headline in itself is not an isolated incident.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com