> What’s the famous Cardinal Richeleu quote?
Among other things in my past, something a colleague reminded me of as we were going through special training, since the work we were doing had specific training and guidelines for communications, on top of the normal training and guidelines for communications, due to our team working on specifically 'compliance' oriented modules.
Ironically, it did not impact the teams ability to raise concerns or deal with bugs/etc. It was primarily about being clear about messaging in certain contexts, and it wasn't hard to deal with.
> I responded only because “corporations bad” is a mind virus deeply inculcated in a lot of people here,
I'd argue more people are unhappy with the way your typical modern corporation is run, speaking of...
> but those same people mostly would never think that just because something you said could be used against you in court that you did something either morally wrong or illegal
It would be interesting to ask what subset of those people have had to give all their social media account info on application/hire to the job so that HR can keep tabs on them...
I got ahead of myself here, just a bit. Let's go back to:
> the idea that if something you said could be used against you in court you must have done something wrong (the only thing to which I was responding) is not one.
Hard to say based on the muddling of the 'you' here.
Is the 'you' in this statement something the company did? Something you did under (potentially ever-implicit) duress of losing employment? It's hard to respond accurately without knowing the context.
> There are very many non-nefarious, completely legal reasons one might not want a work communication to be visible down the line, just as with personal.
Yeah but at the same time all parties need to protect themselves, and that includes the corporation. As a realistic example, a business may need to retain Teams conversations for an extended period of time, for instance if someone decides to file some sort of EEOC or Harassment claim down the line. If the claiming employee is pulling messages out of context, the full history may aid the defense of the business.
Yet, if the business retains those conversations, they cannot hide them on subpoena.
And, having dealt with more than one attempt at 'character assassination' I can say I'm glad I live in a one-party consent state for recording.
> If someone can’t see that their thinking is cloudy and I bet they experience cognitive dissonance.
Nope I just know to stand by what I say. I've had some managers that don't appreciate the 'level of detail' I include in certain emails, but 90% of those are clowns that were looking for me to, shock, shock, not have enough context to a statement so they could fire or ostracize me by, as you say, 'six words out of context'. At least if I give the full context with the communication, I can point at that and they look like an idiot instead of getting rid of the person politely trying to steer them away from incompetence.