Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[dastardly stem]

No need to consider 'ifs'. Open Stories Foundation does have a sexual harassment policy in place now. It's much more relevant than a comparison to Apple:

Exactly.

Fact: Open Stories Foundation released their policy in 2018.

Fact: John posted the policy publicly and declared that he had never violated it.

Fact: John had in fact violated the policy with Rosebud.

These facts are not disputable.

Then why the F did you run down all sorts of rabbit trails complaining about seemingly everything under the sun without ever explicitly and clearly defining this violation? Why pretend that you held information that was something worse? Im guessing you have no answer here.

[drumdude]

You caught John out in a lie. And you caught him violating a policy put in place by this exact situation.

If Rosebud hadn't made such a fuss I'm pretty sure they would have a boilerplate sexual harassment policy in place, just like Apple. If it's good enough for a 2 Trillion dollar corporation, I think it's good enough for a 2 employee nonprofit.

Open Stories Foundation's policy now goes above and beyond, which ironically probably proves that the board has more control over Open Stories Foundation than John does.

[Kishkumen]

So who, according to John, was in charge of Open Stories Foundation? (this is why it helps to read all the evidence before drawing conclusions)

I am aware of this stuff, JP. Here's the thing: those like you who want to claim Rosebud is some kind of victim and that JD sexually harassed her only want to count the technicalities one way, and that's very telling. This is because you guys are ginning up this idea that Rosebud is a victim, and so you must find the technical grounds on which JD is a perpetrator so that you can justify attacking him ceaselessly, as though this were some moral crusade for you. But, as you have acknowledged, it isn't a moral crusade at all--it is your personal animus against JD that is driving you. You have called him a tax cheat and a liar. You are spending your good time listening to any person who might have had a flirtatious interaction with JD. Frankly, you're behaving like a creep.

You think JD is creepy, but you are behaving like a creep. Your obsession with JD makes you look creepy. Your insistence that anyone who has a bone to pick with JD is his "victim" and a "survivor" is ludicrous and baffling.

Let me ask you this:

At what point did Rosebud become a victim of JD in your mind?

When she started fooling around with him willingly before she was working with him?

When she, as a person who was carrying on a consensual affair with JD, hired by Open Stories Foundation?

When she went to Joanna Brooks to help arrange how the two would be able to resolve the end of their affair and going their separate ways?

When she and John were offered, by Joanna Brooks, the option of resigning and being rehired as independent contractors?

Or when she realized that John was not going join her in her plan to force Joanna Brooks to resign?

Or when she got upset about JD's two options email in October of 2012 and then responded with a threat to accuse him of sexual harassment?

You see, I am going with the last option. She didn't feel sexually harassed at all until after she decided that this was the leverage she could use to get revenge.

[dastardly stem]

In essence, it appears, JD, and/or the board, facilitated her termination (made an employment decision) based on submission to or rejection of sexual verbal and physical conduct.

So, Rosebud was fired for accepting a job based on sexual favors and John got to keep his job even though he hired someone on the basis of sexual favors?

Are you seriously trying to rephrase my conclusion with this question? It's not very close at all.
Who said anything about Rosebud accepting a job? I suggested the employment decision was terminating her employment.

[jpatterson]

Can one violate a policy before it existed?

You're intentionally missing the point.

John posted the policy and in the same post, said he had never sexually harassed anyone.

At best, that's some very Bill Clinton-level obfuscating he's engaging in. You and I both know that paragraph in the policy was written for one reason and one reason only.

[drumdude]

I suggested the employment decision was terminating her employment.

The context there is that it's quid-pro-quo. John tells Anne she must have sex to keep her job, and Anne either accepts or rejects that.

John telling Anne they're breaking up isn't quid-pro-quo. There's no behavior to accept or reject.

[jpatterson]

She didn't feel sexually harassed at all until after she decided that this was the leverage she could use to get revenge.

And I've repeatedly made the point that in situations of abuse, many people don't realize they are being abused until they are separated from the abuse. Lots of victims blame themselves and/or are made to think they are the one actually at fault.

You clearly have zero experience researching these really complicated issues, so you should really just sit this out.

[consiglieri]

Let's take a look at Apple's sexual harassment policy. You know, one of the largest corporations in the world.

If Open Stories Foundation had the same sexual harassment policy in place that Apple has today, would John have violated it? Note that nowhere in Apple's policy are relationships between subordinates and superiors prohibited.

I'd say it could reasonably be argued that an employment decision was made based on an individual's submission to or rejection of sexual verbal and physical conduct.

In essence, it appears, JD, and/or the board, facilitated her termination (made an employment decision) based on submission to or rejection of sexual verbal and physical conduct.

I think the record shows Rosebud got fired because she continued to ask for a sexual and romantic relationship after JD refused.

If Rosebud had ceased and desisted as JD asked, there is no reason to suspect the board would ever have gotten involved.

Rosebud could still have been working for Open Stories Foundation doing the thing she loved if she had just backed down when asked and cooled her jets.

Sexual harassment can be a two-way street.

[drumdude]

You and I both know that paragraph in the policy was written for one reason and one reason only.

Good Lord I think we can all finally agree on something.

[jpatterson]

I suggested the employment decision was terminating her employment.

The context there is that it's quid-pro-quo. John tells Anne she must have sex to keep her job, and Anne either accepts or rejects that.

John telling Anne they're breaking up isn't quid-pro-quo. There's no behavior to accept or reject.

Quid pro quo is one of several sexual harassment dynamics. It's not the only one. Absence of quid pro quo does not necessarily equal absence of harassment.