Greed and Avarice at deviantART

12 min read

Deviation Actions

nsfbr's avatar
By
Published:
1.3K Views

:community::community::community::community::community:


Main Entry: av·a·rice
Pronunciation: 'a-v&-r&s, 'av-r&s
Function: noun

: excessive or insatiable desire for wealth or gain



---------Update---------


What makes a good leader?  Lots of things.  Mocking the community when it demands answers isn't one of them.  Yes, spyed I am talking specifically about you.  

Or is it bad form to direct my comments right at you?  I'd have some shred of respect for you if you didn't hide behind being vague in your sneering disregard for us.  

Yes, some things are simpler than they seem.  How's this?  You are a coward and a fraud.  It all stems from there.  Pretty simple, huh?


Of all the crap you have in your journal at the moment, this is most wrong:  "What we have lost is a well respected public figure from within our team."  Actually, what we have lost is the ability to respect and trust the leadership of the company deviantART, Inc.  

As I've tried to make clear, that lost of trust and respect is through your actions that amount to a complete disregard for your fiduciary responsibilities as CEO.  You would have been fired for your acts were the acts not to include the theft of majority ownership for you and your cohorts.  It won't stand, and when it doesn't you will be gone in a heartbeat.

Also of notable bile is this "My silence on this matter is out of respect for deviantART first and foremost. There are elements of confidentiality at play and I am legally obligated not to disclose details. This has become a matter of public interest; but the rules of the law have not changed in that process."

Let me be clear here - This is a lie.  As CEO he is not held to be silent by any company NDA.  He is the one person who is free to release himself or others from that.  Further, any advice from lawyers advising him to stay silent is aimed at protecting himself, not dA, since clearly he is damaging dA by doing so.  Therefore, it is a further fiduciary breach that you are guilty of in doing this.  

I'm sure you sleep well.  I really am.  That you do so while this place has been exploding says more than I ever could.

Think about that people.  Have you been sleeping well?  He has.


We need a *disgust* emote.  Not a fcuking llama one.

Note:  Please do not flame anyone on their page.  No matter what level of contempt you have for the thief over at "HQ", keep the interactions civil.  Obviously, I don't think that extends to one's own journal, in part because of the mocking of the community he is doing in his own.  


---------End Update---------



I believe this journal to be true in its entirety.

This is the abbreviated history of how we got to be here, in total chaos on the 5th anniversary of deviantART's opening day.  It is quite disturbing because, quite simply, it parallels an experience that I have had to deal with in my business life that actually in part led me to seek deviantART as a refuge from the pain and stress it brought me.  

They say that everything happens for a reason.  Perhaps my reason for being here is to bear witness to what has taken place.  Everything in this journal is true to be best of my knowledge.  Most has been gleaned from what has been hidden in plain sight, but left unconnected and not clarified.  Perhaps, it was made public in hopes someone would connect the dots, perhaps it leaked like water in a wooden pail and just did.  I don't know.  What I do know is that if, after reading this you still think there is any question as to what has taken place and what you need to do I can't help you.  

We each have a moral obligation in life to be true to the principle of standing on the side of right.  I'm not asking you to do this alone.  Clearly, I'm willing to take whatever posting this brings my way.  Good or bad.  Note that I do not believe a single word to be untrue.  If anyone can prove otherwise I will delete it or change it to be more accurate.  My intent is singular – to shine a light on something that I find abhorrent.  The theft of one's most important possession, earned through sweat and blood by fraudulent means can not stand.  

---

Genesis

At the beginning, Angelo and Mccann were the money.  They invested in Scott's vision that he and Matthew brought to life.  In my eyes that doesn't make either founders, but it does grant them some ownership in the company.  Matt didn't wind up with any ownership rights for whatever reason, probably because it wasn't about money then or now or perhaps because he forfeited his ownership when he left.  Whatever.  There was a significant amount of money put in ($15k according to Angelo both in a recorded interview and in a transcript of an online conversation) but Scott was the largest shareholder with a 45% stake, Angelo had 25%, Mccann 15% and someone who I don't know named Ian 15%.  I would love to know who Ian is, but that is secondary.  (Edit:  Ian is Ian G. Lyman as noted here .)

As is typical in any fledgling operation, Scott agreed to a vesting of his ownership.  It was contingent upon so many years of full-time employment in the company.  There was some, very unattractive vesting rate if he only worked part time, this creates an incentive to have him work full-time.  (Explanatory:  In a start up, there are the creators, people who breathe life and energy into something, and the money.  Typically, the money has the smallest, though significant interest but is fully vested at the get go.  That makes sense because money is a tangible thing, so the investment is made at a point in time.)

At some point, Angelo was made CEO and Scott President.  This suited Scott because what he cared about was the inside stuff, what Angelo cared and cares about is the physical plant, or hardware side of things and presenting dA to the world.  If everyone is honest and on the up and up none of this is a bad thing.

This is how I see the entire process of Scott's vesting working.  If he resigns from his position, he loses his interest, or most of it, unless he has fulfilled the requirements to have already become fully vested.  If he is let go without cause, like if the company shut down  - or if the company simply decides that through no fault of Scott's it just wants Jesus Christ himself to take over as President - he gets fully vested immediately.  

Motive.  

But, if he is fired for cause he gets nothing more than whatever percentage  was vested at the time of dismissal, plus perhaps a fixed additional amount as a settlement to avoid a ruckus.

(Note, I originally had this as follows:  But, if he is fired for cause he gets nothing.  Nada.  Zilch.  In the course of my fact checking I now believe that to be not quite the case.  So he only gets a large portion of his ownership stolen, not all.  It also explains what had previously confused me:  Why bookdiva and Jark make a point of establishing that Jark had worked full time hours for dA for years.  Jark's part time status was used as a weapon in the fraud.)

Execution.

In December mkinne saw a PIP being drafted, or otherwise got wind of it.  A PIP being a Performance Improvement Plan.  They are used on the one hand to motivate a problem employee to improve their performance or risk being fired, or on the other hand as I have seen done, used to provide the excuse needed to fire someone who we simply want to remove for cause from their job.  It is not difficult to create a PIP that is in reality impossible to fulfill while seeming innocuous.  A key is to include in it items that knowingly contrast with basic issues under debate between top management.  The best ones are those that would be morally impossible for the recipient to undertake.  When PIPs are used for improper means as I happen to believe one was here, the most effective thing to do is to not wield them too soon.  The preceding environment should be made rather hostile in the best case over the primary disagreements at issue (besides the underlying ownership motive) such as direction of the organization, use of funds, etc.  As a direct predecessor, orders should be given with absolutely no concessions in order to locate which issues will serve the best for inclusion in the PIP.  For example, if the concept of groups and deviant scaling were 180° counter to what Scott thought were in the best interests of the community, it would make sense to direct him to take the lead in selling them to the community.  (This is a hypothetical example as I have no direct knowledge of Scott's feeling on them.)

Continuing on, Scott being quite shaken by this act took a while before he began to deal with it.  Then he began to attempt to engage with Angelo and did this by bringing up a whole slew of issues.  It is typical for this to be done, in fact it is the reason for the PIP.  What has been staged is a problem employee who is attempting to change the subject to other matters.  In essence, the case is being made that instead of doing his job, he is arguing about things like ownership and board positions and losses of title and credit for founding the company.  On the surface, they are unrelated and with the proper spin (and proper incentives reinforced by false praise, portraying a sympathetic front (Jark is being soooo difficult.  He never understands my position.) and an appearance of future benefit (we need to generate revenue so I can pay you guys what you are worth) this can be used to effectively delude and win the allegiance of the staff.

The whole Summit played right into things.  It was an opportunity to overwork the staff, which ironically can inspire loyalty - especially when it is actually pulled off - because of the bonding experience it provides.  Given what had previously been being whispered into people's ears, the fact that Scott could not have physically participated in the hard work in LA prior to the Summit is less important than the fact that he didn't.  Scott probably did praise people and thanked them, but either 1) He was a bit less generous than he should have been since his anger towards Angelo is raging.  or 2) It actually made matters worse for some because of hidden resentment already present by this point.  Of course the above is not true for a significant fraction of the staff.  None of the reactions indicate that they are necessarily bad people, but is simply basic human psychology.

After spending time with his family and sounding his thoughts against various people, he decided that he could not let things go without bringing them to a head.  So he undertook to confront Angelo via emails.  The rest is history.





--

Some notes:  I've connected the dots.  I've done everything I can to both look for alternative explanations and to check my facts.  My sources are essentially all public.  This is an analysis based on my own prior experience and evaluation of those sources to answer my own burning question:  Why?

This is not necessarily what happened.  If I start with the premise that the information I have is true, it is the only possible thing that makes sense to me.  If someone can challenge my facts or put them together in another way to come to a different conclusion, I'd love to see it.  I only ask that it be logical and include ALL the facts as I've done.

Finally, if someone can show to me that an item is incorrect, and prove that or at least bring it into a sufficient degree of question in my mind, I will change or remove it and note that it was done.  I take no joy in posting this.  But someone had to.  I am sick to death of people pretending like this was anything other than a premeditated, thought out theft.  Call it what you like.  I find it disgusting.

Update note:  I will be making slight changes to this as I have time.  The changes will be explanatory, to provide embedded links to source material, and to make corrections as I find errors.  I don't expect much of the last sort, since I've spent the better part of a week making sure of things, but I'm sure there are mistakes possible.  That is what happens when trying to uncover the truth with legal constraints on one side, and active distortion and deflection on the other.  

Please link, discuss and give me feedback as much as possible.  Anyone who wants to mirror this, do it first, then ask if it is okay.  The answer is yes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Scott Jarkoff and you others responsible for this place. It was a place of much good while it lasted. I will toast you in person some day, regardless of the outcome of things here.

Educate yourself. Speak to others about the issues. Discuss things. Think critically. Question your own views. Question authority. Respect others. Respect yourself.
© 2005 - 2024 nsfbr
Comments420
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Sunyavadin's avatar
Superbly crafted hypothesis from the data at hand.