[Diamons]

"Since our sysadmin was not getting paid, he refused to perform this, essentially holding the site hostage for a while."

You don't pay the man and you expect him to do work for you, and then you blame him for holding the site hostage?

Sorry, what?

[richforrester]

3 parties in that statement.

1) the people writing this, who did all the hard work

2) the system admin, hired by party 3 -

3) the people that should do the paying.

1 Has the right to whine at the expense of 3 not paying 2. To me, in that statement, that's what they're doing. They aren't saying 2 is the guilty party, just saying that the method is not one they appreciate, since the people suffering from party 2's actions are party 1.

[jsmeaton]

I agree with you, but the specific language used could have been better. "Essentially holding the site hostage" implies that the ex-employee had a responsibility to do some work, which he did not.

[richforrester]

Oh, I guess we disagree on that part then. To me it's pretty clear that they mean there's no way for their beloved baby (the site) to be returned because the person holding the power to return it is unwilling to do so. A bit like a school with kids locked inside and the janitor won't open the doors because the school didn't pay him.

Hah. Analogies.

(Yeah, I stretched it there.)

[dirkk0]

Now even I understood it.

[alan_cx]

I think the word "hostage" was just a statement of fact, and not a value judgement. I don't think the author blamed the sysadmin for doing so.