[cookiecaper]

We're too fast to discard people in this community. The linked article is heavily editorialized; it doesn't represent anything like even-handed coverage. We should give important figures in our community the benefit of the doubt, and learn how to respectfully disagree with one another. Even if something is illegal, it's not necessarily self-evidently immoral, and Catmull et al easily could've made anti-poaching pacts without the intention of suppressing employee wages.

We're only getting one side of the story here: the story of the DOJ, which has its own political interests. And in typical fashion with these highly sensationalized scandals, bullying and shame are deployed to force people into one camp or the other. People are discouraged from finding a middle ground, trying to empathize with both sides, etc. They're told, "X is bad, and Y did X! How can you still act in any reasonable manner toward Y? He must be banished!"

We need to be careful and we need to quit feeding our own to the wolves. We need to back off of our hair-trigger. So far, I know of no documentation that shows clear mens rea on the part of Catmull, and even if that is shown, it doesn't mean all of his contributions should be thrown out the door. That's very simple-minded, silly thinking.

[chris_mahan]

Once you've demonstrated you have no integrity as a human being, the onus is on you to demonstrate, through your actions, that you have changed.

[shiven]

Sorry to invoke Godwin's law here. But now your defense of Catmull is quickly devolving into "What about all the good things Hitler did?".

[cookiecaper]

Do you understand how absolutely absurd it is to compare the perpetrator of one of the world's most expansive genocides to two executives that agreed they wouldn't actively poach each others' employees?

Also, what about all the good things Hitler did? I think that's a historical perspective that's often lacking. It can be satisfying to paint people who've committed crimes as Satan incarnate, but that's not realistic, and selling a fantastical version of history as definitive can have serious long-term consequences.

[shiven]

Also, what about all the good things Hitler did?

None of the good deeds matter anymore once the level of bad deeds exceeds a moral threshold. Just as there is redemption for exceeding your past bad deeds with present and future good deeds, so there is damnation for doing the opposite.

Now, we can argue till we are blue in the face about what the moral threshold should be, but it varies from person to person, society to society and civilization to civilization. In this day and age, Ed Catmull (arguably with intent) conspired to harm other human beings' earnings, something that not only affects those humans directly, but indirectly their immediate families as well.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to speak from the perspective of someone who is financially all set, without monetary concerns that can adversely affect your children's education (public vs private schooling, college vs no college), a family member requiring expensive healthcare (chronic disease, terminal care) or concerns about home ownership. In my mind, you being free of such burdens (for whatever reason), are free to take the other (higher/lower) road of thought. But just because you are not affected by someone artificially limiting your income, does not mean others who are affected should shut up and suck it in without calling out the perpetrator for what they did. In their mind, and for many here, Ed Catmull is now damned.

You are welcome to call it silly minded and simplistic, but that does not change the facts of this case.

[cookiecaper]

I think it's absurd to place the moral event horizon [1] somewhere in the obscure fineries of anti-trust law. This is what I mean when I say that no-poach agreements are not an egregious or blatant moral crime.

Did you know there are real people living among us that don't agree with anti-trust law? They don't think it should exist, they think it's unfair legislation meant to disadvantage successful players. Are all of these people also "damned", to use your elegant and gracious terminology?

I'll reiterate, as I have many times up to this point, that Catmull may have been wrong, that he may have been breaking the law, and that his actions may have had the indirect side effect of suppressing overall industry wages (even if mens rea is eventually shown and an email wherein Catmull explicitly states that his goal is to depress employee wages emerges, the effect of the no-poach agreement would still be indirect). But there is another side to this story that people refuse to recognize because they now have it ingrained in their heads that this is a good v. evil, corporate bigwig v. innocent little guy case, and they won't allow themselves to empathize with the other side in fear that they may be considered guilty by association (as some in this thread have already done with me).

At its root, such feelings are the result of rhetorical tactic to win the case by shame. People will cast events like they could only be perpetrated by the dirtiest scoundrels alive, but it's not a reflection of reality. This kind of thing is the bread and butter of political pundits. We should be able to see through those tactics here, but over and over again, it's proven that most of us can't, as we lead witch hunts to drive industry luminaries away simply because people in this industry can't understand how to disagree in a civil manner. It's very discouraging.

I hope that you reconsider the case with a broader, kinder perspective.

[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon

[shiven]

Throughout this thread, your defense of Ed Catmull's actions has been nothing short of heroic. But, to what end?

Why would he deserve such a defense and not some random other sociopath in a position of power? Or Rajat Gupta? Or Raj Rajaratnam? Or Steven A Cohen? According to your thesis (i.e. the fashionable disaffection of the have nots against the haves), none of their crimes are heinous enough to justify a slap on the wrist, leave alone jail time.

Did you know there are real people living among us that don't agree with anti-trust law? They don't think it should exist, they think it's unfair legislation meant to disadvantage successful players. Are all of these people also "damned", to use your elegant and gracious terminology?

Do these real people agree with the punishment meted out to the gentlemen I listed above? In all honesty, their crimes affected their "victims" less directly than the actions of Ed Catmull affected his employees and their families.

We should be able to see through those tactics here, but over and over again, it's proven that most of us can't, as we lead witch hunts to drive industry luminaries away simply because people in this industry can't understand how to disagree in a civil manner.

We should also see through the cult of the personality that haunts the industry, at the same time and not excuse inexcusable behavior just because someone is accomplished or successful, in one way or another.

I hope that you reconsider the case with a broader, kinder perspective.

You are appealing to a sense of compassion that was completely, utterly and evidently absent in Ed Catmull and other members of the wage-supression cartel. Why do they deserve such kindness, when they showed neither that, nor remorse for their actions?

Again, you have not clarified the part about your perspective, wherein I asked if you, personally, would have been disadvantaged by the actions of Ed Catmull and friends? There, perhaps, lies the root of disagreement to begin with?

As for me, I was not directly affected, but I do wholeheartedly empathize with those who were.

[cookiecaper]

> Throughout this thread, your defense of Ed Catmull's actions has been nothing short of heroic. But, to what end?

An even-handed, rational discussion of the issues at hand. In my opinion, the discussion up to this point has been absolutely farcical. Actual comparisons to Hitler? Give me a break.

My hope is that my posts decrease the prevalence of that utterly ridiculous level of hyperbole. We should try to consider the perspectives of all parties involved, especially when the career and good name of a community member is on the line.

>Why would he deserve such a defense and not some random other sociopath in a position of power?

He deserves a defense because you're calling him a sociopath and the trial, if there is one, hasn't even started yet. Even if Catmull had already been convicted, "sociopath" is a clinical term that's not determined by legal proceedings, and it's not appropriate to misapply like this. That's absolutely inexcusable, unprofessional behavior.

Not all criminals are sociopaths. Not all people we disagree with are criminals.

>According to your thesis (i.e. the fashionable disaffection of the have nots against the haves), none of their crimes are heinous enough to justify a slap on the wrist, leave alone jail time.

Personally, I think many insider trading convictions are hogwash. It's possible that some aren't, and some of those guys had mens rea and deserve to be imprisoned for the theft they perpetrated, but I think we should assume good faith until disproven. Nothing in regard to the "Pixar cartel" has yet demonstrated mens rea, and even if such a thing existed, I wouldn't be prepared to demonize Catmull. I don't think we gain much of anything from that type of behavior.

>Do these real people agree with the punishment meted out to the gentlemen I listed above? In all honesty, their crimes affected their "victims" less directly than the actions of Ed Catmull affected his employees and their families.

I can't speak for everyone, but as all of your listed persons were convicted of insider trading, I can say there are definitely people that don't think that should be illegal either, or that believe only egregious cases should be prosecuted.

>We should also see through the cult of the personality that haunts the industry, at the same time and not excuse inexcusable behavior just because someone is accomplished or successful, in one way or another.

I completely agree that we shouldn't give people a pass on criminal activity based solely on their position in a company or government. We do need to have some baseline courtesy here though and recognize that people are innocent until proven guilty, that Catmull has a very long history of good deeds that is at odds with his characterization as an evildoer, and that the consequences of a witch hunt can be very serious and very sad. We have a legal system that handles these sorts of complaints in a fair and civilized manner, and we should at least let that flesh out before we start drawing conclusions, burning books, and arraying computer scientists trying to run a business in league with genocidal fascist dictators.

>You are appealing to a sense of compassion that was completely, utterly and evidently absent in Ed Catmull and other members of the wage-supression cartel. Why do they deserve such kindness, when they showed neither that, nor remorse for their actions?

This is the primary point of contention here. You are assuming that Catmull et al acted with evil intent, and you're applying vastly inappropriate labels even if that were the case. You refuse to acknowledge that a legitimate business purpose could have been addressed by the no-poach agreement, and you refuse to acknowledge that these legitimate business purposes could've been a motivation to the executive staff of the six major animation houses that were party to this agreement.

>Again, you have not clarified the part about your perspective, wherein I asked if you, personally, would have been disadvantaged by the actions of Ed Catmull and friends? There, perhaps, lies the root of disagreement to begin with?

I would have been. While I'm an entrepreneur and reasonably well-paid when all of my income is taken into account, I'm still a middle-class guy who has to work for a living. I couldn't go more than a few weeks without a paycheck of one kind or another (I have both W2 and 1099 income). As much as I'd like to be one of the insanely wealthy people who pop up on HN occasionally, it hasn't happened for me yet. Maybe someday.

I don't see how that's relevant to the overarching argument, though. I can perhaps empathize with Catmull more easily because I've had employees and I've directed organizations before, but I don't think that experience is pre-requisite to understanding that this activity doesn't make someone a monstrosity.

[bsimpson]

You've had a handful of very insightful responses in a thread that is otherwise busy sharpening their pitchforks. Thanks for keeping it real. =)