This is not that though. This is just developers being unable to handle constructive criticism, and when they can't win the argument on merits, went for the HR option. It happens.

I've had it happen to me too, but my response was to resign on the spot (I was already not satisfied with the company).

The "toxic behaviour" I had done? I reverted a commit on the master branch that didn't compile, and sent a slack to the Dev who had committed it saying "hi! There appears to have been a mistake in your latest commit, could you please check it out and fix it? I've reverted it in the meantime since I need to deploy this other feature"

The dev responded by force pushing the code that did not compile to master and contacted HR.

I decided there was greener grass on other pastures. I was right.

▲

cjbgkagh 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

When I started breaking the build would end up with the person who did it having to wear the dunce hat for the day. This was before git so there are now fewer excuses for breaking the build today.

▲

tom_ 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Carmack says he can't post the actual discussion, but clearly you have access to it - can you post it?

▲

simoncion 7 days ago | parent [-]

Even if that didn't violate NDAs & etc, that would be super rude. You realize that, right?

▲

tom_ 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, of course. The point of my heavy-handed post was to try to find out what is actually going on here. Does this person have any insider info? Or are they (as many are in the discussion, and as I suspect is the case here too - but I am going only on the balance of probabilities!) just using this as an opportunity to relate this to their own grievances, so they can discuss those?

We've only got one side of this particular story, we don't know what happened from the other person's point of view, we don't know what form this HR complaint took - or any of the other details. We can bet, just as I did in my last paragraph, but in my view the odds are more questionable and the topic more likely end up as unproductive venting. Any good comments will get lost.

Still, it's also true that the link is just there as a starting point for discussion, and the discussion can take any forms that the readership would find interesting.

▲

theshackleford 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s also super rude to make claims as to what occurred and why in any situation you yourself were not privy to or involved in but I don’t see you rushing in with the same vigour to point that out.

▲

simoncion 7 days ago | parent [-]

> It’s also super rude to make claims as to what occurred and why in any situation you yourself were not privy to or involved in...

Do you know that that's what's going on here?

▲

theshackleford 7 days ago | parent [-]

Yes. Seems pretty clear from the post to me that they are making assumptions based on a similar event in their past, not that they were involved first hand in this event.

▲

simoncion 6 days ago | parent [-]

>> Do you know that that's what's going on here?

> Yes. Seems pretty clear from the post to me that they are making assumptions...

So you don't know what's going on; you're assuming. Cool.

▲

theshackleford 6 days ago | parent [-]

> So you don't know what's going on; you're assuming. Cool.

Incorrect. Their post makes it clear they were not involved in their own words. It's called reading comprehension.

▲

simoncion 6 days ago | parent [-]

> It's called reading comprehension.

Right back at you.

	▲	theshackleford 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, except I’ve already displayed I’m capable of it whilst you have displayed only the opposite.

▲

7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]