Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[master_dc]

My current question is:

If “no” means “no”, is Rosebud harassing JD once he says it?

Unfortunately this case is not so simple. Both had satiated it needs to stop, at different times throughout their trip down the “river.” I think they are both guilty of some degree of sexual harassment. They were both board members. JD was executive director, by title, but he deferred to JB. Rosebud was identified for the Executive director role, but the board never voted on it. They collaborated, seemed the input from other board members throughout. But we all know Open Stories Foundation is Mormon Stories, and that is JD. he was in power. He asked for her to leave Open Stories Foundation. But to make it even harder to grasp, the two of them had talked about this situation multiple times before. If/when they broke up, the plan appears to be for Rosebud to walk away. I think that is why JD asked her to follow through on what she said she would do. This is where the issue is. He asked her to leave. I would probably do the same thing in that situation. And it is a mistake. It is obvious that this was a real relationship, real feelings. It was just doomed from the start. JD jumped the gun locking her out of the tools she needed to perform her duties while she was still employed, that is hostile. He was in a tough spot, of his own making.

[Dr Moore]

I have been hoping for your input because I figured you would have something to say about the dynamics and risks of small startup operations. So, you would say that there is a practical reason for the 15-employee bar?

Reverend,
Here is an article from 2006 which delves into the small business exemption on Title VII.

This statement on page 2 captures the intent of my comments as well as I could ever hope to achieve.

Exempt firms, therefore, tend to be the sort that provide self-employment as much as profits for their owners.

That's really it. When it comes to asking whether or not John "sexually harassed" Rosebud, he did not. He could not have because Open Stories Foundation was not only exempt from Title VII, it also had no sexual harassment policy in place.

Let's recognize something else. John made things hard on himself by setting up the new venture, Open Stories Foundation, as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, complete with a "board" and all the trappings of something larger and, perhaps aspirationally, well-governed. But we should not mistake that attempt to punch above his weight class for what it was. Open Stories Foundation was, in the eyes of US law, a means of self-employment. As such, the law regarding hiring and firing employees was fundamentally different than a normal business. We really cannot even use the term "sexual harassment" to describe what happened. Or at least, I think the law has no basis for assigning such an adjective.

Open Stories Foundation was also, therefore, first and foremost, an uncertain venture of hopeful means of self-employment for anyone who joined him in those early days. That 100% means Rosebud. She was not an employee in any traditional sense of the word. Her ability to sustain employment at Open Stories Foundation depended, more than any other factor, on her ability to assist John in building a sustained revenue stream for the business. Not just some revenue, but sustained profitable revenue, meaning something repeatable over time within the vision John had laid out.

Rosebud's CTW program was just okay, and John knew it. These events were crazy time commitments, and generated patchy revenue and profits. You can hear Rosebud talking on her interview about how she kept working at the model: charge $50, charge $10, what's the right price for events? You know what her contribution was? Charge $0 and then people will give generously. Guys... come on. $0 admission fees for capital and people intensive events in a new venture is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT, a reliable sustained revenue and profit model. John saw it. She wanted to own that business but under John's banner. He was 100% within his rights to cut her out of the whole thing -- affair or no.

It's actually very clear from messages in 2011 and 2012 that John's view of the return on investment for live events was dubious. She insisted they could work, but he disagreed. Moreover, he wanted to focus on school, meaning the single global podcast platform was the central vision. Scalable. Profitable. Repeatable. Looking back as a business decision case study, I want to credit John with a stroke of brilliance here. He cut back in order to win from the core strength.

Disagree? Look where we are today. His podcast generates enough to pay him $200k+/year. Will someone please list one single ex-Mormon/prog-Mormon business model based on live events that generates consistent, profitable revenue? Anywhere? In the world? It's been 10 years. John was right. Rosebud was wrong.

Again, forget the affair. It really is irrelevant to the business decision. Once John and/or his board realized Rosebud was no longer viable as a venture partner, the Title VII exemption says that John's right to pursue self employment supersedes Rosebud's right to prejudice-free employment. So she lost her love and her "job." You know what, both of those unfortunate outcomes share a single person to blame: Rosebud herself. Sucks for her, but it also sucks for John that the risk he took bringing her aboard didn't work out. She was a venture partner's disaster in every sense.

Look back at Rosebud's texts and emails -- you will clearly see in her language an eyes-wide-open understanding that her "employment" was nothing like a defined company role. She was a creator and owner. She was there to, as they say, "eat what you kill." She couldn't kill anything, so John and his board asked her to go eat somewhere else. This whole vendetta about "sexual harassment" is a smokescreen.

[Lem]

What I am more interested in, however, are your thoughts, so I will repeat my question: are you suggesting that if a woman would have just "ceased and desisted", and "just backed down when asked and cooled her jets" when a superior was finished with her as a sexual plaything, she could have kept her job?

Especially when she was not done with him as her sexual plaything! Why should she not speak out when she wants more sex from JD? She should be able to demand as much sex from him as she likes!

[Kishkumen]

Well, Nadine Hansen investigated Rosebud’s claim and determined that JD had not sexually harassed Rosebud. Unfortunately, Rosebud did not cooperate with the investigation she had requested. She preferred dumping her information on a website and criticize the investigation she voluntarily hamstrung. She must have had her reasons for choosing a cyber-lynch mob over an adequate investigation.

[consiglieri]

I say this like a victim can gain power by actually demonstrating she was treated unequally.

A subordinate who lost her job as a result of a relationship with a superior has already demonstrated she was treated unequally.

I still don't understand your comment here:

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.

When I asked about this before, you brought up Rosebud's post about JD's erectile dysfunction, which I agree is inappropriate.

What I am more interested in, however, are your thoughts, so I will repeat my question: are you suggesting that if a woman would have just "ceased and desisted", and "just backed down when asked and cooled her jets" when a superior was finished with her as a sexual plaything, she could have kept her job?

Please answer my question first.

I did not ask if it was inappropriate.

I asked if it constituted sexual harassment.

I await your reply.

[Esme]

Well that's a load of bollocks. Of course you can use that as a defense. Poor signage is most definitely a reason for appealing a speeding ticket. At least in this jurisdiction.

Depends on the location. Many places have default speed limits set. So you should at least be aware of the default speed limit and can't just say "I didn't know" or "There was no sign."

[Kishkumen]

I have been hoping for your input because I figured you would have something to say about the dynamics and risks of small startup operations. So, you would say that there is a practical reason for the 15-employee bar?

Reverend,
Here is an article from 2006 which delves into the small business exemption on Title VII.

This statement on page 2 captures the intent of my comments as well as I could ever hope to achieve.

Exempt firms, therefore, tend to be the sort that provide self-employment as much as profits for their owners.

That's really it. When it comes to asking whether or not John "sexually harassed" Rosebud, he did not. He could not have because Open Stories Foundation was not only exempt from Title VII, it also had no sexual harassment policy in place.

Let's recognize something else. John made things hard on himself by setting up the new venture, Open Stories Foundation, as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, complete with a "board" and all the trappings of something larger and, perhaps aspirationally, well-governed. But we should not mistake that attempt to punch above his weight class for what it was. Open Stories Foundation was, in the eyes of US law, a means of self-employment. As such, the law regarding hiring and firing employees was fundamentally different than a normal business. We really cannot even use the term "sexual harassment" to describe what happened. Or at least, I think the law has no basis for assigning such an adjective.

Open Stories Foundation was also, therefore, first and foremost, an uncertain venture of hopeful means of self-employment for anyone who joined him in those early days. That 100% means Rosebud. She was not an employee in any traditional sense of the word. Her ability to sustain employment at Open Stories Foundation depended, more than any other factor, on her ability to assist John in building a sustained revenue stream for the business. Not just some revenue, but sustained profitable revenue, meaning something repeatable over time within the vision John had laid out.

Rosebud's CTW program was just okay, and John knew it. These events were crazy time commitments, and generated patchy revenue and profits. You can hear Rosebud talking on her interview about how she kept working at the model: charge $50, charge $10, what's the right price for events? You know what her contribution was? Charge $0 and then people will give generously. Guys... come on. $0 admission fees for capital and people intensive events in a new venture is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT, a reliable sustained revenue and profit model. John saw it. She wanted to own that business but under John's banner. He was 100% within his rights to cut her out of the whole thing -- affair or no.

It's actually very clear from messages in 2011 and 2012 that John's view of the return on investment for live events was dubious. She insisted they could work, but he disagreed. Moreover, he wanted to focus on school, meaning the single global podcast platform was the central vision. Scalable. Profitable. Repeatable. Looking back as a business decision case study, I want to credit John with a stroke of brilliance here. He cut back in order to win from the core strength.

Disagree? Look where we are today. His podcast generates enough to pay him $200k+/year. Will someone please list one single ex-Mormon/prog-Mormon business model based on live events that generates consistent, profitable revenue? Anywhere? In the world? It's been 10 years. John was right. Rosebud was wrong.

Again, forget the affair. It really is irrelevant to the business decision. Once John and/or his board realized Rosebud was no longer viable as a venture partner, the Title VII exemption says that John's right to pursue self employment supersedes Rosebud's right to prejudice-free employment. So she lost her love and her "job." You know what, both of those unfortunate outcomes share a single person to blame: Rosebud herself. Sucks for her, but it also sucks for John that the risk he took bringing her aboard didn't work out. She was a venture partner's disaster in every sense.

Look back at Rosebud's texts and emails -- you will clearly see in her language an eyes-wide-open understanding that her "employment" was nothing like a defined company role. She was a creator and owner. She was there to, as they say, "eat what you kill." She couldn't kill anything, so John and his board asked her to go eat somewhere else. This whole vendetta about "sexual harassment" is a smokescreen.

Thanks, Dr. Moore. That is not really my world and so I never would have seen things in this light. Do you think this fight about sexual harassment is a continuation of the fight about the business model? It seems like JP, Rosebud, KK, and Matt Long in complaining about JD’s worthiness, sincerity, and fitness might really be expressing their dissension from his business model. In their minds, if he makes decent money, he is a moral failure.

[Lem]

I have been hoping for your input because I figured you would have something to say about the dynamics and risks of small startup operations. So, you would say that there is a practical reason for the 15-employee bar?

Reverend,
Here is an article from 2006 which delves into the small business exemption on Title VII.

This statement on page 2 captures the intent of my comments as well as I could ever hope to achieve.

Exempt firms, therefore, tend to be the sort that provide self-employment as much as profits for their owners.

That's really it. When it comes to asking whether or not John "sexually harassed" Rosebud, he did not. He could not have because Open Stories Foundation was not only exempt from Title VII, it also had no sexual harassment policy in place.

Let's recognize something else. John made things hard on himself by setting up the new venture, Open Stories Foundation, as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, complete with a "board" and all the trappings of something larger and, perhaps aspirationally, well-governed. But we should not mistake that attempt to punch above his weight class for what it was. Open Stories Foundation was, in the eyes of US law, a means of self-employment. As such, the law regarding hiring and firing employees was fundamentally different than a normal business. We really cannot even use the term "sexual harassment" to describe what happened. Or at least, I think the law has no basis for assigning such an adjective.

Open Stories Foundation was also, therefore, first and foremost, an uncertain venture of hopeful means of self-employment for anyone who joined him in those early days. That 100% means Rosebud. She was not an employee in any traditional sense of the word. Her ability to sustain employment at Open Stories Foundation depended, more than any other factor, on her ability to assist John in building a sustained revenue stream for the business. Not just some revenue, but sustained profitable revenue, meaning something repeatable over time within the vision John had laid out.

Rosebud's CTW program was just okay, and John knew it. These events were crazy time commitments, and generated patchy revenue and profits. You can hear Rosebud talking on her interview about how she kept working at the model: charge $50, charge $10, what's the right price for events? You know what her contribution was? Charge $0 and then people will give generously. Guys... come on. $0 admission fees for capital and people intensive events in a new venture is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT, a reliable sustained revenue and profit model. John saw it. She wanted to own that business but under John's banner. He was 100% within his rights to cut her out of the whole thing -- affair or no.

It's actually very clear from messages in 2011 and 2012 that John's view of the return on investment for live events was dubious. She insisted they could work, but he disagreed. Moreover, he wanted to focus on school, meaning the single global podcast platform was the central vision. Scalable. Profitable. Repeatable. Looking back as a business decision case study, I want to credit John with a stroke of brilliance here. He cut back in order to win from the core strength.

Disagree? Look where we are today. His podcast generates enough to pay him $200k+/year. Will someone please list one single ex-Mormon/prog-Mormon business model based on live events that generates consistent, profitable revenue? Anywhere? In the world? It's been 10 years. John was right. Rosebud was wrong.

Again, forget the affair. It really is irrelevant to the business decision. Once John and/or his board realized Rosebud was no longer viable as a venture partner, the Title VII exemption says that John's right to pursue self employment supersedes Rosebud's right to prejudice-free employment. So she lost her love and her "job." You know what, both of those unfortunate outcomes share a single person to blame: Rosebud herself. Sucks for her, but it also sucks for John that the risk he took bringing her aboard didn't work out. She was a venture partner's disaster in every sense.

Look back at Rosebud's texts and emails -- you will clearly see in her language an eyes-wide-open understanding that her "employment" was nothing like a defined company role. She was a creator and owner. She was there to, as they say, "eat what you kill." She couldn't kill anything, so John and his board asked her to go eat somewhere else. This whole vendetta about "sexual harassment" is a smokescreen.

Unfortunately, yes, ethics go by the wayside when money talks. That's really quite a despicable description of the state of events you have given, Dr. Moore. When we describe victims as engaging in a vendetta that is just a smokescreen to the important business of making money, we have truly lost our touch with an ethical, humane and civilized approach.

[consiglieri]

Well, Nadine Hansen investigated Rosebud’s claim and determined that JD had not sexually harassed Rosebud. Unfortunately, Rosebud did not cooperate with the investigation she had requested. She preferred dumping her information on a website and criticize the investigation she voluntarily hamstrung. She must have had her reasons for choosing a cyber-lynch mob over an adequate investigation.

I am starting to wonder whether Rosebud made the 2018 Open Stories Foundation claim with the actual goal of being exonerated.

I think her hamstringing the investigation she herself requested has a logical explanation.

To continue to allow Rosebud to “play the victim.”

I mean, that is how she put it in her “blackmail email,” isn’t it?

[Esme]

So when she was pressing JD to have intercourse and he was declining, was she consenting? This was late summer of 2012.

I think the relationship possibly had many consensual and non-consensual things going on throughout it.

As an example, let's consider a date-rape situation. A guy rapes his girlfriend on a date. She doesn't consider it rape at the time and continues to text him that she loves him and asks when can they get together again? She SHOULD consider it rape but she doesn't because she thinks rape only happens when it's a stranger. And she's in denial because she can't imagine labeling her boyfriend as a rapist. She thinks that if she continues to act like nothing bad happened, then she can convince herself that nothing bad happened.

Later, she learns what date-rape actually is and realizes what happened to her. (Very common with victims in this situation. Unable to see it as rape at the time, only coming to terms with it many years later.)

If she tries to pursue anything legally now, her texts will be used against her as proof that the sex was consensual because clearly she didn't seem upset about it, and was texting him the next day asking when she can see him again.

I don't think just because Rosebud asks JD for sex that it means everything about their relationship was consensual. She can at times feel scared, like her job is on the line if she doesn't do what John wants, and at other times feel attraction for him and want to advance their sexual relationship.