Score one for the little guy

Printable View

07-17-2008
abachler

Score one for the little guy

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/148427

lol, they gave him a bad review for 'poor performance'. I guess they think he doesnt know what he is doing. While I couldnt agree with him if he crashed the system, the fact he set it up so they can still use it and just cant get admin access is friggen hilarious. I wonder what their excuse for a poor performance review is. Obviously the system works or they woudlnt be using it and woudlnt need access. Maybe he was late to work after working 14 hours the previous day. Maybe he didnt kiss enough ass.
07-17-2008
Mario F.

That they depend on one man alone to get it back to work is the scariest thought. Poor performance on him? I don't know. Definitely, bad administration on them.
07-17-2008
abachler

That an organization their size has noone else capable of backing up the database and reinstalling the software is perhaps the scariest thougth of all.

As for their claim of denial of service. i think all he has to do is say he gave them the passwords and they just assed up the system. He isnt responsible for what they screw up
07-17-2008
nvoigt

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/148427

lol, they gave him a bad review for 'poor performance'. I guess they think he doesnt know what he is doing. While I couldnt agree with him if he crashed the system, the fact he set it up so they can still use it and just cant get admin access is friggen hilarious. I wonder what their excuse for a poor performance review is. Obviously the system works or they woudlnt be using it and woudlnt need access. Maybe he was late to work after working 14 hours the previous day. Maybe he didnt kiss enough ass.

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe he was just a poorly performing admin with an attitude. If all they did to him was a bad review, then he should have just taken it. If it was unfair, then he should have protested or walked away and let them see how much better his successor will perform. Keeping the password locking out all other admins is childish. This is not David vs Goliath in Galilee, it's Jo vs. Bob in kindergarden flinging mud.
07-17-2008
Mario F.

In any case he wrecked any chance of ever performing on the same line of work. Considering his current pay, I'd say it was pretty dumb too. No one said system admins need to be particularly bright.
07-17-2008
abachler

That is assuming he even did anything at all. He may have just quit over the bad review (that does happen) and they did in fact ass up the system and are now looking for a scapegoat.
07-17-2008
maxorator

If they don't have access to the network, how do they know he installed some tracing system or rig the system? IMO they are just mad because the man doesn't want them to get rid of him so easily and they spread false rumours to get rid of him.
07-17-2008
Thantos

The guy is a douche regardless. It isn't like he is trying to prove some vulnerability. He got ........ed off about a poor review and decided to act out.
07-17-2008
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thantos

The guy is a douche regardless. It isn't like he is trying to prove some vulnerability. He got ........ed off about a poor review and decided to act out.

Or he is just a scapegoat and quit over a bad review, did nothing to the system, but they screwed somethign up, cant run it and now they are trying to cover their asses by claiming it was sabotage by him.
07-17-2008
Mario F.

On that case I think you linked to the wrong article.
07-17-2008
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

On that case I think you linked to the wrong article.

Checked the link, its the right one. Or was you bein' sarcastic?
07-17-2008
Thantos

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

Or he is just a scapegoat and quit over a bad review, did nothing to the system, but they screwed somethign up, cant run it and now they are trying to cover their asses by claiming it was sabotage by him.

Yeah because that is soooooo likely.
07-17-2008
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thantos

Yeah because that is soooooo likely.

Oh yeah, noone eeeever gets scapegoated by corrupt officials, thats just a concept I made up. It can't possibly happen in the real world, we would 'know better'.
07-17-2008
Thantos

Seriously, what is the likelyhood of that being the case?

Look at this way: What does the company gain from this? IMO they lose a lot. Not only does it show that an admin with sub-par performance had access to change the password but it shows the company doesn't have the means to quickily and easily recover from the situation. And they gain...

Now the guy doesn't seem to gain anything except for revenage which is a powerful motivator in of itself.
07-17-2008
VirtualAce

Bad performance review does not necessitate the company thought he was incompetent which he obviously is not.

It could mean bad attitude, bad work ethic, bad attendance, etc, etc. The entire read is so vague.

Saying it's poor performance would be like me asking a question here on how to improve my computer's poor performance. That ecompasses about a million different things.
07-18-2008
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thantos

Seriously, what is the likelyhood of that being the case?

Look at this way: What does the company gain from this? IMO they lose a lot. Not only does it show that an admin with sub-par performance had access to change the password but it shows the company doesn't have the means to quickily and easily recover from the situation. And they gain...

Now the guy doesn't seem to gain anything except for revenage which is a powerful motivator in of itself.

Its a government agency, not a company. What the admin gains is deflection of responsibility for the problem and a continued career in governement. If they had to accept responsibility it might terminate their career, so they chose to terminate his instead, i.e. scapegoating. This probably isnt the first instance, its just the first one that came back and bit them in the arse.

I would be interested in actually reading the performance review though, it might give some insight into the problem, as well as the performance reviews of the admins involved and the guys predecessors. Im betting there is a paper trail showing a pattern of scapegoating or at the least poor hiring and management practices.

When things go wrong, blame the people making the decisions, not the guys following orders.
07-18-2008
Mario F.

I think I agree here.

However, I suspect there's a little more involved in here. If you look at it carefully, there's a tight relation between this and aliens. I don't know, but it's either aliens that drove him mad into doing this to experiment on the human race capability to get out of a tough spot, or it's all a cover up to hide the fact the government is responsible for the earthquake in Turkey some years ago.
07-18-2008
Neo1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I think I agree here.

However, I suspect there's a little more involved in here. If you look at it carefully, there's a tight relation between this and aliens. I don't know, but it's either aliens that drove him mad into doing this to experiment on the human race capability to get out of a tough spot, or it's all a cover up to hide the fact the government is responsible for the earthquake in Turkey some years ago.

Lay of the crack dude..
07-18-2008
indigo0086

Maybe it's because I'm Marathonning X-files, but Mario's argument makes sense.
07-18-2008
Mario F.

Of course it does!

My cousin-in-law on my mother's side told me that a friend of a friend overhead someone saying that that person's 3rd degree uncle was abducted by aliens once. When inside their ship, before being subject to experiments, he saw the aliens where monitoring a governmental secret earthquake making facility built under the Langley Porter's in San Francisco.

Crack indeed! I know these things. What does abachler know? I keep my eyes open.
07-18-2008
VirtualAce

Quote:

Or he is just a scapegoat and quit over a bad review, did nothing to the system, but they screwed somethign up, cant run it and now they are trying to cover their asses by claiming it was sabotage by him.

If you really believe that, you scare me. In most cases the obvious answer is the right one. Obvious answer here based on what the guy did after his review was that his performance before the review was less than exemplary. There are certainly better ways to fight bad reviews than mucking up a million dollar system. To me that shows a character flaw which means he probably did other things to warrant the bad review.
07-19-2008
abachler

You are probably right, but without all the facts noone can make that determination. We shouldnt assume, based on primae facie evidence, that the most likely answer is the only answer, or that those few cases where it is not the correct answer do not warrant proceeding with caution in every case and not making off the cuff determinations of innocence or guilt just because a man has been accused.

Means Motive and Opportunity are requisite in commiting a crime, but they do not prove guilt in and of themselves.