Thanks for the memories, Thomas (I think).

I remember that drug post from a few years ago. If was about an English PhD who posted that he needed drugs to cope and I really ripped into him. I wasn't upset so much that he "smoked to relax" but that it ended up here, where it could have easily been misunderstood by someone impressionable (and young). I got shredded by my fellow hn'ers that day. Amazing that you remembered it.

You're right, I won't work with anyone whose ethics I suspect. Pretty simple, I think.

For the record, I'm certainly not a saint. Once you get to know me irl (hopefully that will come about some day), you'll see. It's just that I have never found any substitute for pristine business ethics, and I occasionally point that out here. The feedback, both kinds, is usually quick and predictable.

I'm not disappointed, just concerned, that's all.

For what it's worth:

I winced at the "tell them we're oversubscribed" recommendation, but didn't think less of them for it.

I am in exactly the same point with a product right now and wish I could find better advice than "make stuff up and throw it out there to see if it sticks". Credibility is expensive. I can't burn it on cold emails. You may not think I'm a liar for pulling that stunt... but you're not going to jump on the next email I send out, and I can't have that.

But, I sell to F500's, and WePay sells to neighborhood soccer teams. It probably worked peachy for them.

I think you're deeply naive about how human ethics work. You really cannot easily judge someone else until you have walked a mile in their shoes. I see it a lot: people thinking that character is more important than circumstance, when the reverse is true the vast majority of the time. Character really counts for very little, and in any case you cannot reliably infer much from the ethics of decisions in one circumstance to predict behaviour in another circumstance, unless the circumstances are similar in ways that match the causal reasoning of the agent making the ethical choices - and that reasoning is a hidden model, requiring you to read minds to figure it out, or saving that, hanging around that person for months and years.

For example, things like jaywalking - did you know that jaywalking is statistically safer than crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing in the US, on a per-crossing basis? If you knew that, would it change your opinion of the "ethics" of someone who broke that law? Some people put staying alive at a higher premium than obeying the law. But someone who didn't know that may just think they're a jackass.

It's also easily gamed. When people have such a simplistic and naive view of ethics / morality / character, their adversaries can put on little morality plays to fool them into a false sense of trust.

You're equating ethics with the law. They are not the same. In some circumstances, it may be seen as ethical to break the law. One that comes off the top of my head would be... what if you're wife is going into labor and you need to speed to get to the hospital? Obviously the scenario presented has its own set of circumstances, but at face value it could be seen as ethical to do so. Or, how about to speed-up and pass someone?

No, I'm not. I'm criticizing a particular mindset which has rules in mind (which may or may not be the law) and judges people by how closely they follow those rules, on the basis that people who break rules in one area may break rules in other areas, simply because rules are rules.

upvoted and appreciated. thanks for the insight.