Putting aside the discussions of ethics, let's look beneath the surface at what the question is really about and also ask ourselves if this question meets the broad guidelines of a good subjective question.
The answers to this question so far are opinion based, but many contain detailed explanations to help support those viewpoints. What's more, the ...
Whether gender actually is an issue is irrelevant. The OP believes it is, and that will inform how she approaches the problem. We have plenty of questions about bad managers, problem coworkers, and so on, and we don't go around closing them because that's just the OP's opinion.
People come here with questions. Those questions have contexts. We need to ...
I'd wish we'd be much more harsh on people posting overly broad, quora-like questions, hoping to receive hundred contradicting questions, and pick up one that amuses them at most as accepted. Stack exchange sites won't profit from such kind of questions.
And it's really a boommer, that in the first version even country tag was missing. Please never make me a ...
I think the biggest difficulty is related to two points.
First, you are suggesting to actively poison another teammate and then asking "what happens if I do this?" -- this is really not a good question. It is a perfect example of an XY problem. Your question is really "please justify my proposed solution" and not "here is my problem, how can I resolve it?"
The core question is, as stated:
I am very curious to know from experienced leaders how they tackled the evil of stack-ranking and managed to keep employee morale from sinking like a stone?
This is pretty much actively soliciting opinions.
The OP has no ability to actually influence the situation though. Well, I'm not sure what I'm not the guy deciding ...
I don't think it can be edited to be a good question without fundamentally changing it. It's too disjointed and comes across as a one-sided rant justifying some underlying hidden reason for a reprimand.
A better question is 'How can I deal with a reprimand I feel is unjustified where I am unable to defend myself'
I'm not Lilienthal so I obviously don't know what they were thinking but I have to say I'm not surprised the answer was deleted. As written it simply isn't any more an answer to the question than someone answering a stackoverflow question on C# with
There are vendors that specialize in designing and implementing software in C#. Set up an introductory call ...
While I think it would benefit from a more explicitly stated end goal I have to agree it's on-topic and answerable in it's current form.
I would have been hesitant to hammer it open unilaterally but it was at 4 Reopen votes when I looked so I've cast the fifth.
I was one of the ones who voted to close. Enderland is right, I have voted to reopen. We need to separate the motivation/attitude/wisdom of the querent from the quality of the question.
For that reason, I have voted to reopen.
In my view this is still a good close in spite of the edit. The fallout is going to be disciplinary, legal, or both. Disciplinary action is going to be company specific, none of us know the disciplinary processes for your company, so that is out of bounds as is legal.
A question like "One of my employees poisoned another. We don't have procedures for ...
While I did not VTC, I will not vote to reopen on the following grounds.
The newer question is about how to deal with being paid less than you are worth when you believe being a women is effecting her pay.
Emphasis on the word belive being mine.
The OP presents no evidence of her gender being a factor other than stating that others are being paid more.
That's fair. I edited the question to make that distinction explicit (and link to the other question) and reopened. Answerers should remember to address this specific property of the question (or answer the general one instead if they don't think it matters).
As the question had already a couple of reopen votes, and as I also think it should have stayed open, I proceeded to cast a binding vote, and the post is now open again.
I think the post is quite answerable as it already has several answers, many of them highly voted.
The edit Kaz did made it even clearer and on-topic IMO.
It's too broad because it doesn't give any parameters. What a 10-person company with a capital budget of $5000 can do is very different from what, say, Facebook can do. Knowing something about the parameters -- how much space you have to work with, how many people, what size budget, what behaviors you're trying to facilitate, other design considerations (...
The question leaves a bad taste in my mouth, if you'll pardon the expression, because it seems like you're trying too hard to say "no I wouldn't do this intentionally, nudge nudge wink wink". I'm not saying that's your intention; I'm saying that's how it comes across to me. It makes me think that you're looking for validation but not coming out and saying ...
I think that with the edits this question is on-topic here. I don't think it's about company-specific policies.
I think it should be answered in an IT-agnostic way; if a company has IT policies about installing software then of course that needs to be taken into account, but otherwise, is there a stigma about games? That's a reasonable question IMO.
It may be cleaned up but still should be closed.
When into shock and then told to leave for bleeding. No responsible bar would do that.
Bouncers over the assailant when he went outside. No responsible bar would do that.
Punched just for shaking someones hand?
This is just not believable.
As per now, the question has been reopened.
However I agree in part with Masked Man's answer; saying "and convince them Steve is actively disrupting my work" could be a bit biased, or at least assuming that Steve is actually doing that.
By phrasing it that way you are passively rejecting alternate answers you may get, with other points of view to give a ...
However, this seems to me to be overly rigid, given the question has received 45+ up votes and the top-voted answer has received over 100.
First, I think it is important to remember that the fact that a post has votes or not does not necessary make it on topic. Regardless of the true nature of the post, its score does not excuse it if it were to be off-...