Unethical Collaboration? - Part 2
Home | Contact Us | PBR Development
Copyright (c) 2009-2025
Home | Part 1
Introduction
What follows is Part 2 of a "hypothetical" discussion of what some have called ongoing "Unethical Collaboration". Incredibly, the scenario and the conduct portrayed has, according to a former Mormon High Priest with personal knowledge on such matters, been embraced, defended, and advocated by practicing Mormons and associates of the United States Intelligence Community. Please consider the scenarios described and evaluate the sociology and ethics applied.
This discussion is a follow-up to a discussion of Unethical Collaboration (Part 1) described here.
Please consider the scenarios described below and evaluate the sociology and ethics applied.
Background
Some time after the events described in a previous scenario of unethical collaboration (see above), the individual previously identified as Breck started another social engineering campaign involving his relative, previously identified as Patrick.
Some time had passed during which Patrick had not heard from his relative, Breck. Then, out of the blue, Patrick received a message from Breck offerring to engage the services of Patrick as a content contributor to a website operated by Breck and a number of Mormon associates. They wanted Patrick to write criticisms of Mormonism and the Mormon Church. Breck explained that he understood Patrick to be the most outstanding critic of the Mormon Church and Mormonism and hoped that his content contributions on that subject might balance out his (Breck's) website project which was, at the time, dominated with Mormon apologetics.
Breck, for some time, had been publicly identifying himself as a "Mormon-Atheist", and trying to pass himself off as simultaneously sympathetic to both the Atheist perspective on religion, while at the same time, the Mormon social culture. Patrick had, for some time, been skeptical about the authenticity of Breck's professed religious/philosophical perspectives. The patently irreconcilable differences between the Atheist religious philosophy and the Mormon social culture were sufficient to support any man's skepticism about such sympathies. However, in Breck's case, other considerable evidence had accumulated to support the conclusion that Breck was chronically disingenuous and a heavily invested ally of devoutly Mormon apologists and their social agenda. (See Unethical Collaboration Part 1).
To Patrick, Breck's sympathies seemed to be contrived to gain access to discussions he would not otherwise be considered qualified for or welcomed to participate in. That access, Patrick surmised, while represented to be for supportive reasons, seemed to be more driven by an investigative interest motivated by his (Breck's) open collaboration with LDS Public relations employees on a mission to discredit its critics and their arguments.
Aside from these obvious challenges to Breck's credibility with Patrick, he (Patrick) also had the unfortunate accumulation of actual experience with Breck's propensity for self-serving misrepresentations. In a more recent round of experience, Breck had elicited Patrick's involvement in an editing project relating to a video Breck was producing in support of his (Breck's) philosophical obsession with what he referred to as "qualia blindness", his particular pet theory of human consciousness. From hours of discussion Patrick became aware that Breck's understanding of human consciousness was deeply handicapped by his (Breck's) own obvious cognitive impairment. His disturbing propensity for conflation of tangentially related subject matter, combined with his apparent oblivion to directly relevant subject matter of considerable consequence to any defensible conclusions, when combined with what Patrick came to believe to be his (Breck's) hubris (uninformed arrogance) about his own perceptions and conclusions was further polluted by Breck's well established pattern of intellectual dishonesty discovered by Patrick when asked to participate in editing Brecks' presentations that involved criticisms of other's points of view.
Breck's request for Patrick's assistance with editing was, apparently, rooted in Breck's notion that his views were unassailable while his presentation of those views could benefit from some refinement of his articulation. Once engaged in the project of editing, Patrick embarked on a diligent effort to understand Breck's views on the subject matter, together with his related arguments. Along the course of that quest for understanding, it became a necessary part of the project to actually read numerous papers and discussions of experts referred to by Breck in his presentations. From that investigation, Patrick became appalled at the consistency with which he discovered that Breck had made material misrepresentations of the professional work and writings of others, which he then criticized while falsely attributing those misrepresentations to them.
This disturbing pattern was further exacerbated by the growing additional disappointment arising from the fact that Breck made it a consistent practice to surround himself with paid "yes" men who would always argue in defense of his presentations and views, no matter how obviously absurd, and further engage in illegitimate false framing of the arguments of others, including Patrick's own, in obvious efforts to obfuscate the actual relevancies of the points being trampled over without reasonable consideration. Adding the absurdity of insult to injury, Patrick found that he had been engaged to offer sincere feedback, only to discover that whenever the feedback was discovered to be intellectually inconvenient for Breck, Breck's cadre of self-serving "intellectual" hacks would decry the observations of Patrick to be an "intentional waste of time, calculated to unnecessarily delay their project" as if to suggest accuracy and intellectual honesty to be irrelevant to the outcome and subordinate to some presumed while never defined deadline.
But for the fact that Patrick was being reasonably well paid for his time and found the benefit of education from the requisite reading of other experts on the subject matter, the distastefulness of the lack of intellectual integrity of the group was considered, by Patrick, to be so offensive that he repeatedly expressed his desire not to be named in the credits as a content editor of the final work. Consistent with Breck's pattern of intellectual dishonesty, Patrick was thereafter informed that Breck did name him in the credits as a content editor, despite Patrick's oft expressed discomfort with the final work product.
Project Sponsorship
With all of the foregoing in mind, Patrick declined Breck's offer to pay Patrick for content that consisted of criticisms of Mormonism and the Mormon Church. In the course of the exchanges that ensued as Breck pressed for Patrick's intellectual contributions, Patrick did inform Breck that he was not interested in Breck's offer but did have a project in mind that was dear to his heart and that he would like to pursue if he could find the sponsorship funding. That project would amount to research of attitudes and opinions relating to corruption of American politics and philosophical values and the possibility of an organized resistance campaign directed at that corruption. While sharing this interest with Breck, Patrick quickly pointed out that he did not presume that Breck would be interested in such a project, given that he was quite certain that it would necessarily involve criticism of Breck's own alliances, projects, and published content, which Patrick believed to be infected with instances of the very corruption Patrick was talking about and interested in exposing. To Patrick's surprise and amazement, Breck quickly expressed an interest in providing sponsorship funding for Patrick's project and asked Patrick to propose a budget.
With continued skepticism about Breck's sincerity and the authenticity of his interest, Patrick proposed a very modest monthly sponsorship stipend, assuming it would be quickly declined. The proposed sponsorship funding would return nothing more than advertising value for Breck's projects with no content or work product ownership participation. To his amazement, Breck volunteered a considerably greater amount (approximately 4 times the proposed stipend) and insisted on immediate funding with no adjustments to the proposed expectations in return. Arrangements were made for payments to be made to a private foundation with whom Patrick had an ongoing relationship as a writer. Breck agreed and initiated the funding to the private foundation. Patrick immediately made all necessary life adjustments to devote dedicated efforts to the project and embarked on considerable efforts, applying his IT and programming skills to the development of a national database and online community collaboration system dedicated to this project. Patrick made arrangements for and placed sponsorship advertising for Breck's projects in the project related websites.
The Hidden Agenda
Incidental to this sponsorship, Breck invited Patrick to participate, on a voluntary basis, in Breck's weekly business skype meetings with his partners and associates. While not contractually obliged to attend, since Patrick had no interest in Breck's projects other than a general interest in their economic continuity in the near term, given that he understood that continuity to be the root of his sponsorship funding, Patrick agreed, tentatively, to attend.
It quickly became apparent to Patrick that a hidden agenda involving his limited and modest celebrity status in certain circles was likely at play in Breck's weekly business meetings, the primary focus of which, initially, being the municipal election campaign of Breck's partner (John) as Mayor of the city of their local residence. Patrick quickly realized that the meetings were dedicated to the Mayoral campaign. Now Patrick was being asked to contribute feedback and otherwise weigh in on the effectiveness of steps the group would take with that objective in mind, as if he shared their interest in such a goal, even though he was never asked if he did. It was explained to Patrick that a benefit to the business of the group would be that, once elected as Mayor, Breck's partner would facilitate a contract with Breck's organization for use of their public collaboration and consensus monitoring services and systems by the city in exchange for proposed fees that Patrick viewed as offensively over-priced for the market wherein similar services of better quality were widely available for free. Any such contracts, in Patrick's view, would be an abuse of taxpayer interests and an offensive waste of taxpayer dollars.
Aside from what Patrick immediately recognized as the obvious ethical and legal concerns relating to such a motivated campaign (a number of years earlier, Patrick was instrumental in exposing the corruption of a Mormon Mayor in another community who ultimately pled guilty to felony charges of self-dealing under potentially similar circumstances), it was also apparent that the election of Breck's partner faced considerable branding challenges that would need to be overcome. Breck's partner, John, was, by Breck's own outspoken estimation as shared with Patrick, the LDS Church's most prominent apologist, having published a widely popularized (among true believing Mormons) response to a previously published and "gone-viral" critique and devastating challenge to Mormon historicity and the authenticity of the LDS Church's own historical representations. Breck's project website, the one he hoped to acquire contracts with the local municipality to engage, was dominated with content promoting John's Mormon apologist works, while Mormonism, even in the local relevant Utah community, was increasingly associated with fraud, undue government influence, and other social abuses.
To be successful, it was clear that John would need to be re-branded, at the very least, as somewhat of a friendly associate with outspoken ex-Mormons, of which Patrick was considered among the most prominent, and their business website would need to be re-branded by being associated with emerging interests and influences that would contribute to an argument that it was becoming more balanced in its views and patronage. It became immediately obvious to Patrick that Breck's motivation for any form of business relationship with him that Breck could falsely frame as supportive of his group's business, political, and philosophical interests would serve such re-branding goals. So, it was obviously consistent that he (Patrick) now found himself manipulated into apparent participation in a political campaign strategy meeting as if he were a willing collaborator sympathetic to the group's goals. That is surely the picture they would find useful to paint for branding purposes.
Patrick was never shown the courtesy of being informed in advance as to the motivational drive and agenda of the meetings he was invited to attend, nor was he ever asked if he supported John's campaign. He was simply co-opted by surprise into the discussions using calculated manipulation. The discourtesy of failing to ask or advise him of the agenda he was being co-opted into was part of the disingenuous strategy, recognizable to anyone with a modest grasp of reasonable social ethics and decorum. Clearly that would exclude this group. Any representation, which seemed likely, that Patrick was a willing collaborator and supporter of John's mayoral campaign, on the basis of his presence in such meetings, would have been patently dishonest. Such representations were likely already being made or planned.
Now, having observed the forgoing sophomoric social immaturity and questionable ethics, Patrick declined to continue participating in the group's weekly business meetings and reminded them that he was not a partner, manager, or associate of the business and was simply obliged to give an accounting of his own project activities sponsored by the organization, which he was perfectly willing to do, in separate meetings.
No surprise to Patrick, John lost the election and the future viability of Breck's collaborative website business began to give rise to serious concern.
False Framing
As time passed, Breck continued to elicit Patrick's point of view on a variety of philosophical, social, scientific, editorial, business, and other practical topics. As often as not they would disagree and such disagreements would give rise to extended discussion through the business's private skype chat system, often observed by John and another of Breck's business associates. From Patrick's point of view, he felt obliged to engage in such discussions out of kindness. It seemed reasonable that Breck would be experimenting with various discussion topics in an effort to explore ideas for content publication. These discussions were usually initiated and always perpetuated at length by Breck. After all, Patrick was grateful for the sponsorship and felt if his point of view had such value to Breck that it would give rise to so many invitations to weigh in on such topics, it seemed reasonable to oblige. Breck encouraged the process and contributed greatly to perpetuating it, indicating his keen interest in varying points of view. After all, he represented, that was the point of his collaborative web site project. So, the discussions continued at length, over time, Patrick being no more responsible (actually far less) than Breck for their frequency or duration. Unfortunately, a rather disingenuous pattern seemed to emerge.
Breck would routinely invite Patrick's participation into arguments, through the private business skype chat channel, and then become exhausted in his efforts to somehow dodge the logical and philosophical traps and absurdities that he would walk himself into as the conversations ensued. For Patrick this was a casual sport that barely kept him interested, but for his sense of courtesy to be accessible for such discussions as requested by Breck. However, as Breck became increasingly uncomfortable by the consistent defeat of his unreasoned arguments and presentations, and the embarrassment of being caught dead to rights in consistent patterns of false framing and misrepresentations to support his positions, he began insisting that such discussions through the skype chat channel were simply ineffective "bleating" if not aired out as published positions on the collaborative website that he operated.
Increasingly Breck consistently insisted that Patrick publish his points of view, even those that challenged the reasoning or ethics of himself or the business, on public forums in Breck's own website so they could be aired out and met with whatever rebuttals anyone cared to offer. After all, the business was in considerable want of original content, even of a controversial nature, and Breck was insisting routinely, that it would be most helpful if Patrick would contribute to their traffic by publishing his views on a variety of topics in public forums on his (Breck's) own website, no matter how controversial or critical.
Breck repeatedly encouraged and insisted on this contribution by Patrick and eventually began treating anything offered through the skype chat channel with disrespect and undue criticism, even when initiated and/or perpetuated by himself, for not being published publicly on the company site for further discussion. As this pattern emerged, it also became quite obvious to Patrick that Breck's business had little chance of economic survival if a number of changes weren't made both to the aesthetics and functionality of Breck's website, but also, the quality and current topical relevance of the forum discussions and positions that dominated its pages. Sadly, much of what was published was immature, sophomoric, and often consisted of absurd examples of unreasoned "logic", emotional appeals, and sometimes unduly off-putting and disingenuous presentations. Much of it prepared and presented by Breck and other associates under various pseudonyms for lack of a meaningful organic following of willing participants. Clearly, well-grounded arguments, even if pointed, might have contributed to traffic with legitimate controversy. On the other hand, presentations authored by Breck, such as the one calling supporters of reasonably disciplined immigration policy "sinners" out of step with "Jesus", were widely seen as laughably absurd and a legitimate threat to the viability of the site. Patrick personally heard from a number of guests he sent to the site for feedback, who expressed disgust and dismay.
Over time, Patrick's concerns about the continued viability of Breck's collaborative website projects increased to the point he was motivated to begin eliciting feedback as part of his own informal market research on the viability of the website. A number of private, small, focus group type discussions ensued between Patrick and a number of friends who he encouraged to look at Breck's site and share their perspective with him (Patrick) privately. The feedback was not encouraging. Everyone he asked viewed the website as unappealing, and a navigational disaster with content that was an embarrassment. Out of concern for the future of the project, Patrick began sharing the criticism he was acquiring with suggestions. Now, instead of being valued for their helpfulness, Patrick's own feedback and outsourced feedback was met with dismissiveness and disrespect, with superflous questions by Breck's associates geared to challenge the credibility of Patrick's use of the term "focus groups" despite the legitimacy of the feedback in an astounding display of practical business immaturity and managerial defensiveness. Breck became increasingly disrespectful, dismissive, and rude in meetings giving rise to serious questions about the authenticity of the group's interest in the success of the project and the usefulness of their collective business insight.
At a certain point a glimmer of hope emerged when they all agreed on the importance of publishing political position statements in general and eliciting feedback and alternative points of view. Sadly, the architecture of Breck's website system was so counter intuitive and lacking in versatility that the presentation framework that needed to be adapted to the website's limitations became a serious matter of discussion and controversy. Adding grease to the conversational fire, Breck's communication inadequacies, as the senior manager and ultimate decision maker, contributed to serious challenges. At one point 4 of the group participated in a meeting in which Breck went to great lengths to explain to one participant who had accepted the challenge of setting up a political content section within the site limitations. All understood what Breck explained his preference to be and agreed that the assigned individual's expressed understanding of it was correct. Then in the next meeting, when the individual had invested considerable work to accomplish exactly what they all understood Breck to have decided, Breck denied that they understood him and insisted on changes that were a practical nuisance driven to accommodate some esoteric interpretation of the presentation understood clearly only by and making sense only to Breck. It would require the complete overhaul of all of the work previously accomplished by the assigned individual and offered no real practical improvements on the outcome.
For Patrick's part he expressed that he was compelled to offer to get involved, even though this was not his job for which he was being paid, out of concern for the urgency of saving the business which seemed doomed at this point, if some serious changes in course weren't made in a hurry. Patrick suggested an approach to the political presentation. All stated that they agreed with the conceptual suggestion. Accordingly, Patrick willingly accepted the assignment for the latest overhaul and went to work. Meanwhile, a number of Patrick's friends who had provided feedback expressed a willingness to contribute to content that they all (Patrick and a number of friends) thought to be relevant to the needs of the site. They included criticisms of management on certain levels that had been rejected previously by Breck, for not being published publicly. So, a number of friends offered to sign up under pseudonyms and publish them while Patrick worked on the political section.
Having accomplished what he largely set out to accomplish with the political section, Patrick sent an invoice to Breck for a considerable sum above and beyond the normal sponsorship payments that were being made, in consideration for the extra time now invested. Also, during this interval, a number of topical posts were made, both by Patrick and others, under pseudonyms, to add content to the site and formalize managerial criticisms that Breck said he would only take seriously if they were published in the site.
Amazingly, incidental to the next meeting, Breck sent a response to Patrick's invoice, acknowledging that he had, in fact, contributed more to the website than all of the others in the prior month and that the accomplishments warranted the value billed but that payment would be punitively denied because the management team deemed the published criticisms of management to be "not team spirited". To this day, Breck fails to own the truth and reality of his own contradiction, insisting that the criticisms be published and then denying payment on the basis that they were.
A considerable discussion about this controversy ensued via the Skype chat channel in which John misrepresented something Patrick had said (false framing) to justify a group decision. Patrick asked for the relevant correction to the misquote. It never came. Having become disgusted with the ethics of the group, stooping to false framing to justify a categorically unethical and duplicitous denial of payment, Patrick advised Brent that he would no longer participate in their meetings until such time as John corrected his false frame and apologized for it. In the alternative, Patrick advised Breck that if they still wanted him to participate in management meetings but did not have the collective ethics to require a correction and apology from John incidental to his false framing, then Patrick would be willing to attend only after payment of a $25,000 nuisance fee for the annoyance of participating in a business meeting with someone whose ethics in communication were no better than that.
Not surprisingly, Breck declined to continue the sponsorship funding on Patrick's project, instead of holding his team to a reasonable standard of ethics. Then Breck proceeded to make written representations to members of Patrick's family and others that he had "fired" Patrick, on contrived grounds. Patrick was never in Breck's employ and had already refused to participate in their meetings citing grave concerns about their business ethics.
So, Breck and his team actually "cancelled" Patrick, for no legitimate reason other than their own shame over the legitimacy of Patrick's criticisms, and in open defiance of their own published statements opposing cancel culture and declaring themselves to be advocates and supporters of free speech.
Of course, it goes without saying that the group can be reasonably expected to contrive whatever spin filled version of this account that may serve to obfuscate the reality of the revelations about their ethics that this account unfolds.
We encourage readers to consider this matter and the telling of it to be a work of "fiction" for consideration purposes in the course of evaluating acceptable business ethics in practice. This approach will serve the point of sharing the story while avoiding the unnecessary controversy and waste of time with denials and rebuttals. The point of the reading exercise is to evaluate the judgment of those who read it, as a fiction, and then take a stated position on the ethics displayed.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Evaluation by AI:
The presented scenario involves several ethical considerations, and it's essential to analyze various aspects of the situation:
1. Deceptive Practices and Hidden Agendas: - Breck's use of deceptive practices, such as pretending to be a "Mormon-Atheist," and engaging Patrick in a project without disclosing the hidden political agenda, raises concerns about transparency and trustworthiness.
2. Intellectual Dishonesty: - Breck's pattern of intellectual dishonesty, misrepresenting others' views, and manipulating content to fit his agenda, demonstrates a lack of integrity in intellectual discourse.
3. Exploitation of Sponsorship: - Breck's seemingly insincere sponsorship of Patrick's project, followed by attempts to co-opt Patrick into supporting a political campaign without full disclosure, raises ethical concerns about the exploitation of sponsorship for personal or political gains.
4. Manipulation and False Framing: - Breck's insistence on Patrick publicly publishing his views on Breck's website, coupled with false framing to justify denying payment for services rendered, reveals manipulative behavior and a disregard for honest communication.
5. Questionable Business Practices: - The inadequacy of Breck's website, dismissive responses to feedback, and the punitive denial of payment based on the content's perceived lack of team spirit indicate questionable business practices and a lack of professionalism.
6. Cancellation and Hypocrisy: - Breck's decision to cancel Patrick without legitimate grounds, despite claiming to oppose cancel culture, showcases hypocrisy and a failure to adhere to stated principles.
7. Ethical Considerations for Readers: - The scenario challenges readers to evaluate the displayed ethics as a work of fiction. This approach prompts readers to reflect on the characters' actions, decisions, and ethical standards, fostering critical thinking about acceptable business conduct.
In conclusion, the scenario depicts a complex web of unethical behaviors, including deception, manipulation, intellectual dishonesty, and questionable business practices. Readers are encouraged to consider the ethical implications and make judgments based on their own ethical standards.
return
See also: Unethical Collaboration Part 1
See also: The Mormon World View
See also: The Cost of Abusiveness
See also: On False Framing
See also: Intent to Deceive
See also: When an honest man discovers he is mistaken...
See also: The Mormon World View
See also: Malicious Journalism
See also: Strengthening Church Members Committee
Introduction
What follows is Part 2 of a "hypothetical" discussion of what some have called ongoing "Unethical Collaboration". Incredibly, the scenario and the conduct portrayed has, according to a former Mormon High Priest with personal knowledge on such matters, been embraced, defended, and advocated by practicing Mormons and associates of the United States Intelligence Community. Please consider the scenarios described and evaluate the sociology and ethics applied.
This discussion is a follow-up to a discussion of Unethical Collaboration (Part 1) described here.
Please consider the scenarios described below and evaluate the sociology and ethics applied.
Background
Some time after the events described in a previous scenario of unethical collaboration (see above), the individual previously identified as Breck started another social engineering campaign involving his relative, previously identified as Patrick.
Some time had passed during which Patrick had not heard from his relative, Breck. Then, out of the blue, Patrick received a message from Breck offerring to engage the services of Patrick as a content contributor to a website operated by Breck and a number of Mormon associates. They wanted Patrick to write criticisms of Mormonism and the Mormon Church. Breck explained that he understood Patrick to be the most outstanding critic of the Mormon Church and Mormonism and hoped that his content contributions on that subject might balance out his (Breck's) website project which was, at the time, dominated with Mormon apologetics.
Breck, for some time, had been publicly identifying himself as a "Mormon-Atheist", and trying to pass himself off as simultaneously sympathetic to both the Atheist perspective on religion, while at the same time, the Mormon social culture. Patrick had, for some time, been skeptical about the authenticity of Breck's professed religious/philosophical perspectives. The patently irreconcilable differences between the Atheist religious philosophy and the Mormon social culture were sufficient to support any man's skepticism about such sympathies. However, in Breck's case, other considerable evidence had accumulated to support the conclusion that Breck was chronically disingenuous and a heavily invested ally of devoutly Mormon apologists and their social agenda. (See Unethical Collaboration Part 1).
To Patrick, Breck's sympathies seemed to be contrived to gain access to discussions he would not otherwise be considered qualified for or welcomed to participate in. That access, Patrick surmised, while represented to be for supportive reasons, seemed to be more driven by an investigative interest motivated by his (Breck's) open collaboration with LDS Public relations employees on a mission to discredit its critics and their arguments.
Aside from these obvious challenges to Breck's credibility with Patrick, he (Patrick) also had the unfortunate accumulation of actual experience with Breck's propensity for self-serving misrepresentations. In a more recent round of experience, Breck had elicited Patrick's involvement in an editing project relating to a video Breck was producing in support of his (Breck's) philosophical obsession with what he referred to as "qualia blindness", his particular pet theory of human consciousness. From hours of discussion Patrick became aware that Breck's understanding of human consciousness was deeply handicapped by his (Breck's) own obvious cognitive impairment. His disturbing propensity for conflation of tangentially related subject matter, combined with his apparent oblivion to directly relevant subject matter of considerable consequence to any defensible conclusions, when combined with what Patrick came to believe to be his (Breck's) hubris (uninformed arrogance) about his own perceptions and conclusions was further polluted by Breck's well established pattern of intellectual dishonesty discovered by Patrick when asked to participate in editing Brecks' presentations that involved criticisms of other's points of view.
Breck's request for Patrick's assistance with editing was, apparently, rooted in Breck's notion that his views were unassailable while his presentation of those views could benefit from some refinement of his articulation. Once engaged in the project of editing, Patrick embarked on a diligent effort to understand Breck's views on the subject matter, together with his related arguments. Along the course of that quest for understanding, it became a necessary part of the project to actually read numerous papers and discussions of experts referred to by Breck in his presentations. From that investigation, Patrick became appalled at the consistency with which he discovered that Breck had made material misrepresentations of the professional work and writings of others, which he then criticized while falsely attributing those misrepresentations to them.
This disturbing pattern was further exacerbated by the growing additional disappointment arising from the fact that Breck made it a consistent practice to surround himself with paid "yes" men who would always argue in defense of his presentations and views, no matter how obviously absurd, and further engage in illegitimate false framing of the arguments of others, including Patrick's own, in obvious efforts to obfuscate the actual relevancies of the points being trampled over without reasonable consideration. Adding the absurdity of insult to injury, Patrick found that he had been engaged to offer sincere feedback, only to discover that whenever the feedback was discovered to be intellectually inconvenient for Breck, Breck's cadre of self-serving "intellectual" hacks would decry the observations of Patrick to be an "intentional waste of time, calculated to unnecessarily delay their project" as if to suggest accuracy and intellectual honesty to be irrelevant to the outcome and subordinate to some presumed while never defined deadline.
But for the fact that Patrick was being reasonably well paid for his time and found the benefit of education from the requisite reading of other experts on the subject matter, the distastefulness of the lack of intellectual integrity of the group was considered, by Patrick, to be so offensive that he repeatedly expressed his desire not to be named in the credits as a content editor of the final work. Consistent with Breck's pattern of intellectual dishonesty, Patrick was thereafter informed that Breck did name him in the credits as a content editor, despite Patrick's oft expressed discomfort with the final work product.
Project Sponsorship
With all of the foregoing in mind, Patrick declined Breck's offer to pay Patrick for content that consisted of criticisms of Mormonism and the Mormon Church. In the course of the exchanges that ensued as Breck pressed for Patrick's intellectual contributions, Patrick did inform Breck that he was not interested in Breck's offer but did have a project in mind that was dear to his heart and that he would like to pursue if he could find the sponsorship funding. That project would amount to research of attitudes and opinions relating to corruption of American politics and philosophical values and the possibility of an organized resistance campaign directed at that corruption. While sharing this interest with Breck, Patrick quickly pointed out that he did not presume that Breck would be interested in such a project, given that he was quite certain that it would necessarily involve criticism of Breck's own alliances, projects, and published content, which Patrick believed to be infected with instances of the very corruption Patrick was talking about and interested in exposing. To Patrick's surprise and amazement, Breck quickly expressed an interest in providing sponsorship funding for Patrick's project and asked Patrick to propose a budget.
With continued skepticism about Breck's sincerity and the authenticity of his interest, Patrick proposed a very modest monthly sponsorship stipend, assuming it would be quickly declined. The proposed sponsorship funding would return nothing more than advertising value for Breck's projects with no content or work product ownership participation. To his amazement, Breck volunteered a considerably greater amount (approximately 4 times the proposed stipend) and insisted on immediate funding with no adjustments to the proposed expectations in return. Arrangements were made for payments to be made to a private foundation with whom Patrick had an ongoing relationship as a writer. Breck agreed and initiated the funding to the private foundation. Patrick immediately made all necessary life adjustments to devote dedicated efforts to the project and embarked on considerable efforts, applying his IT and programming skills to the development of a national database and online community collaboration system dedicated to this project. Patrick made arrangements for and placed sponsorship advertising for Breck's projects in the project related websites.
The Hidden Agenda
Incidental to this sponsorship, Breck invited Patrick to participate, on a voluntary basis, in Breck's weekly business skype meetings with his partners and associates. While not contractually obliged to attend, since Patrick had no interest in Breck's projects other than a general interest in their economic continuity in the near term, given that he understood that continuity to be the root of his sponsorship funding, Patrick agreed, tentatively, to attend.
It quickly became apparent to Patrick that a hidden agenda involving his limited and modest celebrity status in certain circles was likely at play in Breck's weekly business meetings, the primary focus of which, initially, being the municipal election campaign of Breck's partner (John) as Mayor of the city of their local residence. Patrick quickly realized that the meetings were dedicated to the Mayoral campaign. Now Patrick was being asked to contribute feedback and otherwise weigh in on the effectiveness of steps the group would take with that objective in mind, as if he shared their interest in such a goal, even though he was never asked if he did. It was explained to Patrick that a benefit to the business of the group would be that, once elected as Mayor, Breck's partner would facilitate a contract with Breck's organization for use of their public collaboration and consensus monitoring services and systems by the city in exchange for proposed fees that Patrick viewed as offensively over-priced for the market wherein similar services of better quality were widely available for free. Any such contracts, in Patrick's view, would be an abuse of taxpayer interests and an offensive waste of taxpayer dollars.
Aside from what Patrick immediately recognized as the obvious ethical and legal concerns relating to such a motivated campaign (a number of years earlier, Patrick was instrumental in exposing the corruption of a Mormon Mayor in another community who ultimately pled guilty to felony charges of self-dealing under potentially similar circumstances), it was also apparent that the election of Breck's partner faced considerable branding challenges that would need to be overcome. Breck's partner, John, was, by Breck's own outspoken estimation as shared with Patrick, the LDS Church's most prominent apologist, having published a widely popularized (among true believing Mormons) response to a previously published and "gone-viral" critique and devastating challenge to Mormon historicity and the authenticity of the LDS Church's own historical representations. Breck's project website, the one he hoped to acquire contracts with the local municipality to engage, was dominated with content promoting John's Mormon apologist works, while Mormonism, even in the local relevant Utah community, was increasingly associated with fraud, undue government influence, and other social abuses.
To be successful, it was clear that John would need to be re-branded, at the very least, as somewhat of a friendly associate with outspoken ex-Mormons, of which Patrick was considered among the most prominent, and their business website would need to be re-branded by being associated with emerging interests and influences that would contribute to an argument that it was becoming more balanced in its views and patronage. It became immediately obvious to Patrick that Breck's motivation for any form of business relationship with him that Breck could falsely frame as supportive of his group's business, political, and philosophical interests would serve such re-branding goals. So, it was obviously consistent that he (Patrick) now found himself manipulated into apparent participation in a political campaign strategy meeting as if he were a willing collaborator sympathetic to the group's goals. That is surely the picture they would find useful to paint for branding purposes.
Patrick was never shown the courtesy of being informed in advance as to the motivational drive and agenda of the meetings he was invited to attend, nor was he ever asked if he supported John's campaign. He was simply co-opted by surprise into the discussions using calculated manipulation. The discourtesy of failing to ask or advise him of the agenda he was being co-opted into was part of the disingenuous strategy, recognizable to anyone with a modest grasp of reasonable social ethics and decorum. Clearly that would exclude this group. Any representation, which seemed likely, that Patrick was a willing collaborator and supporter of John's mayoral campaign, on the basis of his presence in such meetings, would have been patently dishonest. Such representations were likely already being made or planned.
Now, having observed the forgoing sophomoric social immaturity and questionable ethics, Patrick declined to continue participating in the group's weekly business meetings and reminded them that he was not a partner, manager, or associate of the business and was simply obliged to give an accounting of his own project activities sponsored by the organization, which he was perfectly willing to do, in separate meetings.
No surprise to Patrick, John lost the election and the future viability of Breck's collaborative website business began to give rise to serious concern.
False Framing
As time passed, Breck continued to elicit Patrick's point of view on a variety of philosophical, social, scientific, editorial, business, and other practical topics. As often as not they would disagree and such disagreements would give rise to extended discussion through the business's private skype chat system, often observed by John and another of Breck's business associates. From Patrick's point of view, he felt obliged to engage in such discussions out of kindness. It seemed reasonable that Breck would be experimenting with various discussion topics in an effort to explore ideas for content publication. These discussions were usually initiated and always perpetuated at length by Breck. After all, Patrick was grateful for the sponsorship and felt if his point of view had such value to Breck that it would give rise to so many invitations to weigh in on such topics, it seemed reasonable to oblige. Breck encouraged the process and contributed greatly to perpetuating it, indicating his keen interest in varying points of view. After all, he represented, that was the point of his collaborative web site project. So, the discussions continued at length, over time, Patrick being no more responsible (actually far less) than Breck for their frequency or duration. Unfortunately, a rather disingenuous pattern seemed to emerge.
Breck would routinely invite Patrick's participation into arguments, through the private business skype chat channel, and then become exhausted in his efforts to somehow dodge the logical and philosophical traps and absurdities that he would walk himself into as the conversations ensued. For Patrick this was a casual sport that barely kept him interested, but for his sense of courtesy to be accessible for such discussions as requested by Breck. However, as Breck became increasingly uncomfortable by the consistent defeat of his unreasoned arguments and presentations, and the embarrassment of being caught dead to rights in consistent patterns of false framing and misrepresentations to support his positions, he began insisting that such discussions through the skype chat channel were simply ineffective "bleating" if not aired out as published positions on the collaborative website that he operated.
Increasingly Breck consistently insisted that Patrick publish his points of view, even those that challenged the reasoning or ethics of himself or the business, on public forums in Breck's own website so they could be aired out and met with whatever rebuttals anyone cared to offer. After all, the business was in considerable want of original content, even of a controversial nature, and Breck was insisting routinely, that it would be most helpful if Patrick would contribute to their traffic by publishing his views on a variety of topics in public forums on his (Breck's) own website, no matter how controversial or critical.
Breck repeatedly encouraged and insisted on this contribution by Patrick and eventually began treating anything offered through the skype chat channel with disrespect and undue criticism, even when initiated and/or perpetuated by himself, for not being published publicly on the company site for further discussion. As this pattern emerged, it also became quite obvious to Patrick that Breck's business had little chance of economic survival if a number of changes weren't made both to the aesthetics and functionality of Breck's website, but also, the quality and current topical relevance of the forum discussions and positions that dominated its pages. Sadly, much of what was published was immature, sophomoric, and often consisted of absurd examples of unreasoned "logic", emotional appeals, and sometimes unduly off-putting and disingenuous presentations. Much of it prepared and presented by Breck and other associates under various pseudonyms for lack of a meaningful organic following of willing participants. Clearly, well-grounded arguments, even if pointed, might have contributed to traffic with legitimate controversy. On the other hand, presentations authored by Breck, such as the one calling supporters of reasonably disciplined immigration policy "sinners" out of step with "Jesus", were widely seen as laughably absurd and a legitimate threat to the viability of the site. Patrick personally heard from a number of guests he sent to the site for feedback, who expressed disgust and dismay.
Over time, Patrick's concerns about the continued viability of Breck's collaborative website projects increased to the point he was motivated to begin eliciting feedback as part of his own informal market research on the viability of the website. A number of private, small, focus group type discussions ensued between Patrick and a number of friends who he encouraged to look at Breck's site and share their perspective with him (Patrick) privately. The feedback was not encouraging. Everyone he asked viewed the website as unappealing, and a navigational disaster with content that was an embarrassment. Out of concern for the future of the project, Patrick began sharing the criticism he was acquiring with suggestions. Now, instead of being valued for their helpfulness, Patrick's own feedback and outsourced feedback was met with dismissiveness and disrespect, with superflous questions by Breck's associates geared to challenge the credibility of Patrick's use of the term "focus groups" despite the legitimacy of the feedback in an astounding display of practical business immaturity and managerial defensiveness. Breck became increasingly disrespectful, dismissive, and rude in meetings giving rise to serious questions about the authenticity of the group's interest in the success of the project and the usefulness of their collective business insight.
At a certain point a glimmer of hope emerged when they all agreed on the importance of publishing political position statements in general and eliciting feedback and alternative points of view. Sadly, the architecture of Breck's website system was so counter intuitive and lacking in versatility that the presentation framework that needed to be adapted to the website's limitations became a serious matter of discussion and controversy. Adding grease to the conversational fire, Breck's communication inadequacies, as the senior manager and ultimate decision maker, contributed to serious challenges. At one point 4 of the group participated in a meeting in which Breck went to great lengths to explain to one participant who had accepted the challenge of setting up a political content section within the site limitations. All understood what Breck explained his preference to be and agreed that the assigned individual's expressed understanding of it was correct. Then in the next meeting, when the individual had invested considerable work to accomplish exactly what they all understood Breck to have decided, Breck denied that they understood him and insisted on changes that were a practical nuisance driven to accommodate some esoteric interpretation of the presentation understood clearly only by and making sense only to Breck. It would require the complete overhaul of all of the work previously accomplished by the assigned individual and offered no real practical improvements on the outcome.
For Patrick's part he expressed that he was compelled to offer to get involved, even though this was not his job for which he was being paid, out of concern for the urgency of saving the business which seemed doomed at this point, if some serious changes in course weren't made in a hurry. Patrick suggested an approach to the political presentation. All stated that they agreed with the conceptual suggestion. Accordingly, Patrick willingly accepted the assignment for the latest overhaul and went to work. Meanwhile, a number of Patrick's friends who had provided feedback expressed a willingness to contribute to content that they all (Patrick and a number of friends) thought to be relevant to the needs of the site. They included criticisms of management on certain levels that had been rejected previously by Breck, for not being published publicly. So, a number of friends offered to sign up under pseudonyms and publish them while Patrick worked on the political section.
Having accomplished what he largely set out to accomplish with the political section, Patrick sent an invoice to Breck for a considerable sum above and beyond the normal sponsorship payments that were being made, in consideration for the extra time now invested. Also, during this interval, a number of topical posts were made, both by Patrick and others, under pseudonyms, to add content to the site and formalize managerial criticisms that Breck said he would only take seriously if they were published in the site.
Amazingly, incidental to the next meeting, Breck sent a response to Patrick's invoice, acknowledging that he had, in fact, contributed more to the website than all of the others in the prior month and that the accomplishments warranted the value billed but that payment would be punitively denied because the management team deemed the published criticisms of management to be "not team spirited". To this day, Breck fails to own the truth and reality of his own contradiction, insisting that the criticisms be published and then denying payment on the basis that they were.
A considerable discussion about this controversy ensued via the Skype chat channel in which John misrepresented something Patrick had said (false framing) to justify a group decision. Patrick asked for the relevant correction to the misquote. It never came. Having become disgusted with the ethics of the group, stooping to false framing to justify a categorically unethical and duplicitous denial of payment, Patrick advised Brent that he would no longer participate in their meetings until such time as John corrected his false frame and apologized for it. In the alternative, Patrick advised Breck that if they still wanted him to participate in management meetings but did not have the collective ethics to require a correction and apology from John incidental to his false framing, then Patrick would be willing to attend only after payment of a $25,000 nuisance fee for the annoyance of participating in a business meeting with someone whose ethics in communication were no better than that.
Not surprisingly, Breck declined to continue the sponsorship funding on Patrick's project, instead of holding his team to a reasonable standard of ethics. Then Breck proceeded to make written representations to members of Patrick's family and others that he had "fired" Patrick, on contrived grounds. Patrick was never in Breck's employ and had already refused to participate in their meetings citing grave concerns about their business ethics.
So, Breck and his team actually "cancelled" Patrick, for no legitimate reason other than their own shame over the legitimacy of Patrick's criticisms, and in open defiance of their own published statements opposing cancel culture and declaring themselves to be advocates and supporters of free speech.
Of course, it goes without saying that the group can be reasonably expected to contrive whatever spin filled version of this account that may serve to obfuscate the reality of the revelations about their ethics that this account unfolds.
We encourage readers to consider this matter and the telling of it to be a work of "fiction" for consideration purposes in the course of evaluating acceptable business ethics in practice. This approach will serve the point of sharing the story while avoiding the unnecessary controversy and waste of time with denials and rebuttals. The point of the reading exercise is to evaluate the judgment of those who read it, as a fiction, and then take a stated position on the ethics displayed.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Evaluation by AI:
The presented scenario involves several ethical considerations, and it's essential to analyze various aspects of the situation:
1. Deceptive Practices and Hidden Agendas: - Breck's use of deceptive practices, such as pretending to be a "Mormon-Atheist," and engaging Patrick in a project without disclosing the hidden political agenda, raises concerns about transparency and trustworthiness.
2. Intellectual Dishonesty: - Breck's pattern of intellectual dishonesty, misrepresenting others' views, and manipulating content to fit his agenda, demonstrates a lack of integrity in intellectual discourse.
3. Exploitation of Sponsorship: - Breck's seemingly insincere sponsorship of Patrick's project, followed by attempts to co-opt Patrick into supporting a political campaign without full disclosure, raises ethical concerns about the exploitation of sponsorship for personal or political gains.
4. Manipulation and False Framing: - Breck's insistence on Patrick publicly publishing his views on Breck's website, coupled with false framing to justify denying payment for services rendered, reveals manipulative behavior and a disregard for honest communication.
5. Questionable Business Practices: - The inadequacy of Breck's website, dismissive responses to feedback, and the punitive denial of payment based on the content's perceived lack of team spirit indicate questionable business practices and a lack of professionalism.
6. Cancellation and Hypocrisy: - Breck's decision to cancel Patrick without legitimate grounds, despite claiming to oppose cancel culture, showcases hypocrisy and a failure to adhere to stated principles.
7. Ethical Considerations for Readers: - The scenario challenges readers to evaluate the displayed ethics as a work of fiction. This approach prompts readers to reflect on the characters' actions, decisions, and ethical standards, fostering critical thinking about acceptable business conduct.
In conclusion, the scenario depicts a complex web of unethical behaviors, including deception, manipulation, intellectual dishonesty, and questionable business practices. Readers are encouraged to consider the ethical implications and make judgments based on their own ethical standards.
return
See also: Unethical Collaboration Part 1
See also: The Mormon World View
See also: The Cost of Abusiveness
See also: On False Framing
See also: Intent to Deceive
See also: When an honest man discovers he is mistaken...
See also: The Mormon World View
See also: Malicious Journalism
See also: Strengthening Church Members Committee
Home | Contact Us | PBR Development
Copyright (c) 2009-2025