So you go into my post and complain about self promotion, just to find out that you are just as guilty? So you post a few other links here and there, but you are consistently self promoting Windy Citizen. Windy Citizen is no different than Examiner. It's all crap on the surface with a few writers who may occasionally produce an interesting article.
You then go on to gripe about what an injustice Examiner is when you publish a website that is basically the exact same thing as the Examiner, if not worse? I am not delusional. Examiner sucks. But coming from you it's quite ironic.
Furthermore, isn't the point of social media sites that the creme rises to the top and the crap sinks? That's the whole idea of voting. I've had several articles rise quickly and get a lot of votes. I've had some sink because they are crap. If I hadn't had some that were successful, I would stop posting my links here. But the truth is that posting my links on this site has been rather successful because I've had some articles gain a lot of votes.
Also, your facts on how much Examiner pays are completely off. Examiner pays $0.01 per click. That's $10 per 1,000 and I earn $1500 a month writing around 15-20 articles. It seems that some people want to read my stuff. So why do you take it upon yourself to police the site when there are others who actually enjoyed the article? 7 people voted it up because they liked it. Having to promote my own articles isn't something I gripe about. I'm not an entitled journalist. I'm a guy that works in a cube that makes money on the side by occasionally humoring people.
Perhaps it is inconceivable to you that someone could like reading something that you don't like.
I post here because I hang out here, talk about my startup with the folks here and like to let them know how it's going. If no one votes up my stuff, that's fine. I contribute to 10 threads for every one I submit.
You post here because you want to make money off their clicks.
And WC ain't examiner. It's hacker news for Chicago. We've got some local examiners starting to post their stuff over there. I just hope it doesn't get out of hand like it has over on reddit.
Shouldn't the authority figure giving the indirect order to volunteer be truthful and inform his subordinates that it isn't an option and that not participating in the "volunteer" activity will have consequences and name those consequences to the subordinates? Indirect mandatory volunteerism is in itself lying. Fight fire with fire.
No. This is very fundamental. Either you value truth or not.
The whole assumption in this article is that the boss is powerful and the employee is weak. I can think of no better way to demonstrate your weakness than by being scared to be truthful.
It's possible to be creative and tactful without lying, but ultimately, you either give up the day, b/c you value your job more than proving a point, but don't lie and compromise yourself in order to have your cake and eat it too. Then you're no better than a scammer who values money above all else.
http://twitter.com/360JobInterview http://twitter.com/truebusiness
Those two organizations who are serious businesses seem to have no problem finding the humor.