update: I ghosted my ex, and she’s about to be my new boss

by Alison Green on September 26, 2017

Remember the letter-writer who had ghosted his long-term girlfriend 10 years earlier and just learned she was about to become his new boss? Given the outrage of much of the internet over the letter, I didn’t expect to receive an update, and I’m grateful that he sent one in. Here it is.

I admit I wrote my original email in a state of panic. I was on my holidays when I found out and a friend of mine gave me your email. I did not realize my message would be fully replicated on your blog. I am sure you get tons of requests and I thought I would be lucky to get a reply within one of those short scenarios at max. By the time the blog was posted and I was returning home, my initial panic started to dissipate as I found out more about Sylvia’s situation. Just in time to discover the story going viral, both online and offline. I can say that in no way I expected that writing to a very popular but a niche professional blog would result in such Internet s*t storm. I am sorry for not engaging with your readers, but given the toxicity of many commentators, I did not seem much sense in doing it. I am still very much freaked out about the whole experience but since I promised to give you my update, here it is.

Those who blamed me for ruining Sylvia’s life for good were wrong. She has done very well for herself. She is married, with kids and her husband is originally from here. They relocated because of his business opportunity, not because she would be stalking me or would orchestrate this in some elaborate vendetta. It is a crazy coincidence but as some readers pointed out, our professional world can be very small.

I immediately reached out to Sylvia, along the lines of your kind advice and also offered to discuss the way forward in person. Here, I appreciate many useful comments from your readers on what to write. She did not get back to me. I was not sure she was still using her old email address and with a return to school day fast approaching, I re-sent the email to her new work email. I also dropped a short message to the HR, without providing full details. Next morning (Sunday!) I got a call from the chair of our board of overseers, asking me to meet him as soon as possible.

I met with him, together with Sylvia, the same day. As you can imagine, this meeting was incredibly embarrassing for me, personally and professionally. Fortunately, unlike some of your readers hope, they did not think the past failed relationship was a sackable offence. At the end, there is not that much interaction between the director and employees on daily basis. The chair was more worried about possible gossip and related implications for the organisation. Ours is an expensive enterprise, this is a conservative place and nobody wants any scandal. At the same time, they considered it was necessary – as they framed it – to put some measures in place to avoid possible problems in the future. I was also told in no uncertain terms that although the schedule for the year was already set, it was far more difficult to replace the director than an employee (me). I do not want to go into too much details but I found the proposed measures rather excessive. It would make my position unattainable, even in a short run. Therefore I resigned on the spot. My resignation was later accepted.

In a summary, as many of those self-righteous people on the Internet hoped, I came out of this with no job, no severance and no prospect for another job in this city. Obviously, I have to leave as I need to make a living. I will be shortly moving back home for several months to work as a substitute teacher, with an agency. I will see what next later. So I had my comeuppance. I am most certainly not asking for pity. I only wish there were not other individuals bearing the blunt of my immaturity in the past. (My partner cannot join me due to visa issue and family situation.)

I wrote back and asked if he’d share how Sylvia seemed, as well as what measures they’d proposed. He said:

I do not know how it was for Sylvia. I have not seen her since. She seemed fine. She was not gleeful, very matter of fact, saying it was possible to work together and etc. The chair did most of the talking. I found out later that her husband comes from a prominent family here, everyone knows them. Nepotism is prevalent in this culture and family status really matters. The chair knows them. I just do not understand why she had to get him involved. We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately.

The measures included things like we are never to talk to each other without a third person present, all meetings documented, no discussion about her and the management with my colleagues, not even in watercooler chat, limit our interactions beyond the school, meaning no socialising for me. I do not understand how this could work. It would be very much out of character for me and my colleagues and friends would get suspicious. Although not presented at such, it felt very punitive.

As you said in your initial response, it was unlikely it would somehow work out. It is very difficult to come to terms with it. The Internet craze just added an extra bizzare layer to it. 

You may also like:
{ 1,535 comments }

{ 1,535 comments… read them below }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    Hi. The comments are coming on in this post too fast for me to moderate in any meaningful way (and definitely not with any consistency), so I’m going to simply remind people to read the site rules before commenting, particularly the ones about being constructive and staying on-topic. (I know people won’t follow those rules 100% without heavy moderation on a post like this one, and I don’t think there’s any way around that perfectly, but I hope people will try.) Thank you!

    1. DancerInTheSnark*

      There are already more than a thousand comments here, but I just had to add my $.02. In terms of this whole scenario as a management issue–as so many have pointed out–the conditions put in place protect *both* Sylvia *and* the OP from negative workplace repercussions. Sylvia can’t retaliate against the OP and the OP can’t sling baseless accusations at her, either. Since the OP was the one to contact HR (although Sylvia may have done the same on her own, once she got his email at her professional address), his pearl-clutching shock that HR actually got involved is, frankly, baffling.

      As for the restrictions put in place on their interactions, the only one that raised a red flag for me was “no discussion about her and the management with my colleagues, not even in watercooler chat”. I understand it was a measure put in place to prevent him from undermining her authority by gossiping and spreading his version of what happened to her subordinates, but if this were happening in the United States, that would be a violation of labor law. That said, the OP is clearly not a reliable narrator, so who knows how this condition was framed to him in reality? He interpreted his own email to HR as *Sylvia* going over his head, the other measures put in place to protect both of them as punitive, and the involvement of the chair as merely evidence of nepotism, so it’s not hard to imagine him taking an injunction not to undermine his boss with personal gossip as an all-encompassing gag order.

      So those are the workplace issues. As for the larger moral universe in which all of this is taking place: whatever the dynamic of their relationship may have been (provided she wasn’t abusive to him, which he makes clear she wasn’t), however much the whole thing may have run its course or he may have needed to move on, there’s an honorable and a dishonorable way of leaving a relationship, and he chose a profoundly dishonorable path. This whole bananas story is proof positive of the old adage that you should be kind to people on the way up, because you might meet them again on the way down.

      1. Ego Chamber*

        “I understand it was a measure put in place to prevent him from undermining her authority by gossiping and spreading his version of what happened to her subordinates, but if this were happening in the United States, that would be a violation of labor law.”

        Really? Discussing working conditions with coworkers seems like a different thing than telling people you used to bang your boss/were in a long term relationship and abandoned her/other interpersonal situations that could affect working conditions but aren’t entirely appropriate for idle discussion with coworkers.

        1. DancerInTheSnark*

          That’s exactly what I meant. If (and that’s a big if), the chair had issued a blanket directive that he couldn’t discuss his boss or management *at all* with his co-workers, then presumably that would also preclude him from discussing working conditions or asking about salaries, which would definitely be a violation of labor law in the U.S. But as I said, the OP is hardly a reliable narrator, and it’s entirely likely he interpreted a requirement not to share this personal history with his colleagues as an all-encompassing gag order–or presented it that way to AAM to gin up sympathy.

      2. Annonymouse*

        I took this to mean that he should be neutral or non committal in his answers.

        What do you think of new director?
        *They seem ok
        *I don’t know, I don’t work closely with her
        *Hey, how about that sportsball/ tv show/ new movie?

        Are all reasonable answers

  2. AvonLady Barksdale*

    Wow, I didn’t expect an update! My first reaction to this is that if Sylvia got the chair involved and strict measures were put in place, then she’s not as “fine” as the OP thinks she is. For what reasons I will not speculate (meaning, I will spend a lot of time speculating, but I don’t want to make assumptions here), but I hope the OP’s communication with her included an apology.

      1. AvonLady Barksdale*

        She likely has a wonderful life beyond him– but that doesn’t mean she’s “fine” with him. Someone who has completely moved on and forgiven would not require a third party present during all conversations. Something else is up here.

            1. Rusty Shackelford*

              I don’t know… he seems happy to blame *anyone* as long as it isn’t himself. I don’t know why it would matter whether Sylvia or the chair came up with them.

              1. Snark*

                My feeling is that he wants to minimize his sense of responsibility for Sylvia’s feelings about this by telling himself that she’s actually totally cool with everything, it was just that meddling director jumping in and screwing everything up with those punitive stipulations. And so he’s telling himself, hey, she’s married, she has kids, she didn’t even say much, she’s good, why can’t we be good?

                1. Annonymouse*

                  As one of the commenters who wrote if you had to look for a new job it wouldn’t be unreasonable let me point out why:

                  1) even if your ex did get over it and could work with you she would have SERIOUS questions about your judgement

                  2) if she had difficulty working with you, as your discussion with the chairman pointed out, it’s much easier to hire a new teacher than a new director. Meaning any choose me or her scenario would not work out in your favour.

                  3) if she couldn’t keep it professional then she’s in a position to make your life hell. Not good for you.

                  The reason so many people weren’t on your side is because you didn’t acknowledge how bad what you did was, tried to make yourself the victim and tried to paint her as the bad guy, calling her “emotional and obsessed” because she got upset that her live in partner just disappeared.

                  Even in this situation after the talk – where I am looking at these actions as actually PROTECTING you (so no one could accuse you of being unprofessional or she couldn’t do anything vindictive) you make yourself a victim.

                  The conditions didn’t seem that bad to me – I also read it as “don’t socialise with her out of work” not “don’t talk to your coworkers outside of work.”. If the latter is true then I can see how that would impact you.

                2. Annonymouse*

                  Also if you’re the one that sent an email to HR they would have had ask her about it and once the history came to light of course higher authority was going to get involved.

                  So actually you’re the one that got him involved.

              3. Elizabeth H.*

                I cannot believe the insane moralizing that commenters here are still perpetuating. Is it so possible to believe that some people can move past unpleasant or sad experiences without lifelong trauma and PTSD? It seems like such a lack of imagination about how adults normally behave, and an excess of imagination of the lurid type for picturing OP as the most heartless villain of all time.

                2. Elizabeth H.*

                  Yes, at you, Rusty Shackelford, Not Yet Looking and others. I do feel that many, many commenters here are doing this, that’s why I posted it.

                4. NotAnotherManager!*

                  I don’t really think it’s unfairly moralizing to express that OP treated his ex quite badly and in a way that violated significant trust. It’s perfectly normal not want to work with someone who treated you quite badly in the past. It doesn’t imply trauma or a failure to move on, more of having an experience, learning from it, and not being interested in a repeat.

                  I have my share of crappy exes (including one who probably rivals the OP’s behavior), have moved on to lead a fulfilling life and rarely, if ever, think about them. Doesn’t mean I’d hire one of them onto my team at work or be thrilled to have to see one of them every day.

                5. Snark*

                  Then, Elizabeth, you are well and truly off base. To the point that you need to either reframe how you’re approaching us to include just a bit of benefit of the doubt, or exit this conversation entirely, because I neither said nor implied anything about trauma or PTSD or lurid moralizing.

                6. Snark*

                  And whether or not she continues to be traumatized, I think OP is constructing a narrative where he is the real victim here, where it all could have worked out and he could have worked with her if not for the director and his stipulations that forced him to resign. I think the restrictions were practical and considered, and I think Sylvia had agency in this matter that OP is deliberately minimizing.

              4. Moose and Squirrel*

                Pretty much. He doesn’t get that what he did was a big deal and a crappy thing to do, even if she’s moved on to a good job and happy family life.

              5. Alice Samsaral*

                Thank you for bringing that up. He still maintains a ghoster’s mindset. Very willing to manipulate, play the victim card and the blame game. Maybe 10 years did not seem like enough time for him to mature.

            2. Specialk9*

              This one is a professional chaos demon – breaking things and then framing himself as the perpetual victim.

              That single marginal nod to his having been a total tool – ‘my immaturity in the past’ – was diluted by the machine gun of blame elsewhere – at Alison for putting it, ‘the toxicity of many commenters’, ‘self-righteous people on the Internet’, ‘I just do not understand why she had to get him involved, no need to go to the top immediately’. And his utter concern with himself (embarrassing for me, excessive measures, unattainable, – he meant untenable, no severance) and utter unconcern for her (she’s fine, she’s married with a kid, and anyway she benefits from nepotism, why’d she have to be so mean and get the chair involved to hurt meeee).

              Chaos demon and perpetual victim.

              2. lokilaufeysanon*

                This is a great update. LW has all the classic signs of being a perpetual victim, too. He made his ex seem like some crazy stalker in his first letter – and come to find out, they had been dating for three years and living together. He still doesn’t seem to understand how what he did was wrong and that he hurt someone. He bellyached in his update as much about “toxic comments” as he did offer an update – gotta be a victim!

                LW, at present, you are a buffoon. You need to do some serious soul searching to understand why people felt the way they did about your letter. I think it’s great that your ex has married, has kids, and a new job. However, that doesn’t erase what you did to her and I seriously doubt you actually tried to genuinely apologise to her at any given time. You should have done that. And of course your old place of employment are going to want to keep their new director – especially after the previous one had just left. That was a smart decision on their part, not nepotism. Their rules weren’t that onerous, in fact they might have offered YOU some protection, too. (Even without such a rule in place, you don’t need to participate in “watercooler chat” about the ex you ghosted.)

                1. lokilaufeysanon*

                  This wasn’t meant to be a reply to anyone’s comment, but a stand alone. I even clicked the link to make a new comment and this is what it did. This site seriously needs a better commenting system than this one.

              4. snuck*

                And this is why, even if she was over the relationship, she agreed to the measures.

                The watercooler talk requirement might sound restrictive… but water cooler comments are where the most innocuous comments can create the most damage… I get the impression that they are making it very, abundantly clear he’s not to talk about her… anywhere. Dr Seuss… not here, not there, not over here, not over there, not ANYWHERE. It’s odd to be so specific, so I can only guess they are questioning his ability to follow this reasonable request.

        2. a1*

          “..she’s not as “fine” as the OP thinks she is..”

          I took this as a general “fine” and not specific to him. I also got the feeling that the chair was the one requesting the restrictions, not her.

        3. Katie the Fed*

          Actually she did the right thing by alerting the chair that one of her new employees had previously been in a relationship with her. That’s pretty normal. The chair came up with these restrictions.

          1. Anononon*

            Right? I was going to say, it is absolutely professional and appropriate to alert your supervisor (in this case as the director, she could only go to the chair) or HR about a previous relationship with someone you’re supposed to manage. The conditions don’t seem bad, and to me they sound like the chair came up with them to protect the employee from potential retaliation or the appearance of retaliation!

            1. Jesca*

              This is exactly what I was thinking as well. Companies do not want exes working with each other especially in a manager-subordinate level. Its bad.

              And I’m sorry the OP feels like everyone believes he got his come-uppance, when really its just life. Its the same for that woman who could not get a job at the place where an ex school friend worked due to their past issues. Sometimes you do something to someone who later on has all the power, and then their comfort and retention in that situation becomes more important than yours. Its just life. I mean yeah, the way it turned can be viewed a pretty karmic, but in the end, its really just life!

                1. motherclucker*

                  Indeed. Often hard to find those in parenting.
                  One could also frame this consequence like, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” Glad this woman doesn’t have to deal with this guy.

                2. snuck*

                  I don’t think this is revenge Motherclucker… this is just the reasonable outcome of what happened a few years ago.

                  Even if the breakup had been handled more ethically… morally… the outcome could still be the same… “Don’t hash up old stuff, don’t create new drama, in fact just don’t talk about each other and pretend this never happened” is a pretty reasonable outcome. Even if they’d parted well, and were still amicable… I’m not sure I’d want them in the same line of command.

              2. Trekkie 1701*

                “This is exactly what I was thinking as well. Companies do not want exes working with each other especially in a manager-subordinate level. Its bad.”

                Now, now. It works out so well on the Orville.

            2. Umvue*

              Yes, exactly.

              The situation worked out exactly as I think it should have. I’m so used to reading about organizations who assess risk weirdly that it’s kind of refreshing to see a case where it seems to have been handled well. It seems the OP hasn’t quite come to grips with the situation he was in or his role in it, but maybe that will come with time.

            1. Taco Salad*

              Exactly.

              Frankly, I’m still getting an immature/everyone’s-out-to-get-me vibe from the OP (as I got with the original letter). I think it’s probably best that he no longer works there. It’s a shame he can’t find other work in the country and his partner can’t move with him, but it also sounds like he still needs to grow up a bit.

              1. Hills to Die on*

                Same. He seems really bitter and maintaining a lack of self awareness. But I wish him well. Onward and upward.

              2. Alli525*

                I’m definitely getting this vibe too. He simply does not care about Sylvia’s well-being, which, ok, we’re all selfish when it comes to “do I care about my coworker more than I care about myself?”, but it’s always disappointing to see updates that seem clear that the OP hasn’t learned anything or grown from the experience.

              3. Dust Bunny*

                This.

                ‘ . . . the self-righteous people on the Internet . . . ” etc. Whatever, man. You made this bed. I’ve never not gotten a job, but then I’ve never pulled anything anywhere near this heinous on somebody, either, romantic or otherwise. I don’t care if you get yours personally, but, yeah, I think you earned a professional blow-up.

                1. JanetM*

                  I’m sorry — I am going off on a tangent here, but — you’ve never not gotten a job? You’ve gotten every job you’ve ever applied for? That’s impressive, and I’d love to know how you did it.

                  (For the record, I’ve gotten most of the job I’ve applied for, and I’m happily in year 24 at the university, but I’ve certainly been rejected in the past, including when I applied for a promotion here a number of years ago.)

                2. Ego Chamber*

                  @JanetM The secret is either being very selective as to which jobs you apply for, or Dust Bunny meant they’d never not gotten a job they interviewed for, which is still tricky but easier than getting a job out of every application.

                  I’ve been offered every job I’ve interviewed for except one (I applied at a Halloween store when I was a teenager and didn’t realize wearing a Halloween-themed t-shirt under my blazer with nice slacks was underdressing for an interview at a place where everyone worked in Halloween-themed t-shirts and jeans. The other person I saw interviewing showed up in a full suit with a pencil skirt and stiletto heels: that’s when I realized I was tragically underdressed.)

                  My secret is selective applications, because I have the luxury of a savings account that lets me be more selective than I would if I didn’t have savings, and I grew up poor so I know how to live on next to no money if I have to.

              4. Managed Chaos*

                So much this. From acting victimized by his letter (that he sent in willingly) going viral to the rest of it…. yuck.

                1. la bella vita*

                  Seriously! Maybe it wasn’t the OP’s intent, but I read the beginning as blaming Alison for the fallout for publishing his letter. That he chose to send in. To a very public advice blog.

              5. Lissa*

                Eh, I actually disagree. I think it would take a much better person than me not to react defensively to having that level of Internet outrage directed at them, anyway.

                1. fposte*

                  I agree with you and therefore cut him slack in his reaction to the comments; however, his reaction to the situation at his school is still suboptimal.

                2. Gurl*

                  Same!! We’ve all done bad things (and anyone who says they hasn’t is lying. Sometimes it happens unintentionally. It’s just life. Those who haven’t done wrong, throw the first stone…). It doesn’t necessarily make you a horrible person who deserves to be lambasted. Yes, maybe he’s immature and yes maybe he should be more remorseful, but we don’t know for a fact that he’s not sorry for it in some respect. I would definitely struggle with not being defensive to this kind of thing, too.

                3. Sick Of Jerks Like LW*

                  Well, sure it would be tough not to be defensive, but then again you and I would be experiencing that from the level of “hurting people in ways that are probably kinda shitty but we are all human and sometimes make really stupid & thoughtless mistakes and also thoroughly regret it” not from the level of “making pre-meditated plans to hurt someone in such a spectacularly heinous, heartless, and callous way that most people would be totally shocked and appalled to hear about it”
                  The whole thing went viral, and LW got the backlash from the internet that he did, precisely *because* what he did was so astonishingly cruel, and a decade later not only does he still refuse to own up to it, and go out of his way to minimize it, he actively tries to portray the person he did something HORRIBLE to (and their reasonable reaction) as the asshole and himself as the victim…and DGAF about anything else than CYA and not disturbing his current comfy life.
                  Maybe he should start reflecting on the fact the THE WHOLE INTERNET has just told him that what he did to Sylvia and how he presents it is pretty flipping awful behavior instead of getting all butthurt about hearing the truth.

                4. Anion*

                  Yes, I’ve been the subject of much smaller, more localized internet outrage (over something essentially made-up by others). It’s incredibly shocking and painful.

                  And I’m sorry, but I do believe it’s toxic. The rush to judgment by others, the declarations that one is some kind of sociopath, the condemnations and eagerness to see someone else feel pain, the insistence that someone does not feel sorrow or guilt simply because you’re (the universal “you,” not any one individual) not “seeing” it in a single letter/video/comment…and so many other things. I absolutely believe it’s toxic. It’s creating an environment where people are afraid to reach out for help or admit to feelings for fear of being the target of condemnation themselves. It encourages people to think that ALL “good” people think and feel the exact same way. It encourages people to get swept up in a mob mentality; it discourages basic human kindnesses and things like giving others the benefit of the doubt.

                  I’m not saying this specifically happened here over this letter, but I don’t know what sorts of things the OP was seeing said about himself elsewhere on the internet, either. And while we all have the right to judge others based on our own feelings etc., I also think it’s important to remember that we’re judging people we don’t know based on very little, that everyone makes mistakes, that we were/are not personally involved in whatever situation so we can’t know what it was/is like, and that it can be very easy to misread tone in letters or comments.

                  I read this update and see someone who’s got every right to feel punished, to feel like he’s lost everything and like what he’s lost is disproportionate to the “crime.” I’ve been the perpetrator of a badly handled break-up or two myself (admittedly none as bad as the OP, but still); I’d hate to think that one of those could not only come back to cost me my job, my home, and my significant other, but would also earn me the sneering condemnation of thousands of internet strangers, who, after hearing of my losses, would declare that I deserve it for the crime of handling a break-up badly years ago. This is the OP’s actual, real life we’re talking about here; what he did was bad, but he hardly deserves to be made homeless for it. The fact that no one else is saying this, and that people are still sniffing that he hasn’t “learned his lesson” and rolling their eyes at his pain–like he should have expected the abuse of thousands when he asked for advice on a blog–is just…really sad to me.

                  So yeah. I’m sorry, but I think “toxicity” fits. And I think it describes what’s happening to our entire culture, frankly, when other people’s lives are treated as sport on such a grand scale and everyone is eager to find another outrage to join, another opportunity to gang up on a stranger, without even considering that there’s another side to the story (think of all the internet hoaxes we see; it seems like every month there’s some new viral outrage that turns out to be entirely false, but the fact that they all turn out to be false doesn’t seem to make people reserve judgment until the facts are in. They just keep leaping in with both feet) or even just that there for the grace of whatever gods might exist go we, and it almost never hurts us to try to be kind to others even if we feel they’re wrong or behaved badly or unkindly themselves.

                  Sorry, /soapbox now.

                5. Minorty voice*

                  Fully agree with Anion. I feel very sorry for the LW and for everyone involved – the new partner and Sylvia. We should all be mindful that there are real consequences for all these people. The mob mentality does not help and is also against the rules of engagement on the site.
                  I wonder what Alison thought of the restrictions they proposed. To me, they also look rather severe, especially in the context of expatriates and foreign culture. Maybe one is expected to attend social events with co-workers in that environment and it would be odd if the LW suddenly declined the invites. It all seems to be construed in a way to push him out.

                6. Denise*

                  I disagree Anion. Frankly I find your extreme level of sympathy for a person whose shown no true sympathy or respect for others is twisted and honestly

                  He wasn’t “made homeless”, he resigned because he didn’t like the reasonable restrictions that had to be put in place largely because of his past actions. Basically he did exactly what he did 10 years ago, didn’t want to lay in the bed he made and blamed everyone except himself.

                7. cee gee*

                  “This is the OP’s actual, real life we’re talking about here; what he did was bad, but he hardly deserves to be made homeless for it.”

                  are you forgetting that sylvia is also a real person who very well could have found herself homeless as well as a result of her partner moving out unexpectedly and refusing all contact? this by default means that along with all the “emotional” attempts to reach him that he essentially blocked her from, he was also refusing to acknowledge things like shared bills or bills that might have been in his name or income she was expecting to split.

                  i agree that joining in on an internet manhunt fueled purely by emotions and virtual pitchforks of outrage is inappropriate and potentially, frighteningly exaggerated, and outright abuse from internet trolls is not deserved.

                  however.

                  this is still a real thing he did in real life to a real person, not just some imaginary internet viral sensation.
                  the people reacting solely to the viral internet sensation obviously are out of line.
                  the people considering the real-world consequences to sylvia are NOT out of line.

              6. Belle*

                Agreed. Relationships are hard especially when you’re young but if you can’t accept responsibility for your actions and admit you were in the wrong, you aren’t going to go anywhere.

                2. Sahura*

                  It won’t let me reply directly to Snark but…haha, no he didn’t. He never thought to apologize to her before ending up in a situation where it could affect his professional life, and then it was still all about him. When introducing the situation he said it was “obsessive” when his live-in partner of 3 years LOOKED for him after he moved out without a word. This guy has no concept of “wrong.”

                3. Snark*

                  No, I meant that as an overly literal and joking reference to the fact that OP did actually go somewhere – he left the country to ghost Sylvia.

              8. Elizabeth*

                What’s great is we have no idea that he truly can’t find other work in the country – he’s ditching his partner to go to another country AGAIN! BTW, did he talk to that partner before resigning on the spot? Could something else have been worked out? He is still exhibiting extremely selfish behavior in his relationships!

                1. Bartlet for President*

                  In fairness, he may be obligated to leave the country due to his own visa issues. It sounds like he’s not a permanent resident of the country he was living in, and therefore his visa in that country was likely tied to his employment – no job = visa rescinded. Some countries don’t give a huge window of time to find a new job before the person has to leave. [I think the last country I lived in only allowed six weeks between ending a contract, and producing a new one that had to start within a certain period of time – or, the visa was gone.]

                2. Elizabeth H.*

                  This is so ridiculous – how can you possibly infer this? Your comment is wildly speculative and seems motivated by the desire to be dramatic. In addition to speculating about whether or not he discussed this with his spouse, are you going to speculate that he didn’t brush his teeth that day either?! I feel like this is pettiness and lurid fantasy at this point.

                3. Oryx*

                  Elizabeth H., I don’t think the spouse thing is speculation. He says in his letter he resigned on the spot. That doesn’t usually mean he had time to talk this over with anyone beforehand.

                4. Zillah*

                  Are broad statements like this really helpful? We have no idea how the OP conducts himself in his current relationship, and there’s more than enough to criticize about the OP’s conduct without accusing him of voluntarily “ditching” his current partner to go to another country because he didn’t go into detail about his prospects of finding other work in that country in a timely manner.

              9. Winger*

                How interesting. I didn’t see the original message until just now. I am actually quite taken aback at how many people are commenting on OP’s “everyone’s out to get me” vibe, and saying he needs to grow up, and he’s bitter, and lacks self awareness, and so on. I didn’t get that vibe at all. I didn’t read into the comments under the original article so I dunno how messy the discussion got (I’m glad to see that he evidently didn’t wade in) but for me this is an unexpected reaction.

                1. Georgia*

                  Agreed, and something else I considered is that we don’t know what led to his “ghosting” her. Could have just been a jerk move, or she could have been someone who simply made breaking up impossible. The fact that she hunted him down and had several confrontations involving even his family suggests that she could well have been resistant to breaking it off. They wanted different things at the time, perhaps she wasn’t receptive to his reluctance. I’ve been in situations where a friend or family member wanted more than me out of our relationships and wouldn’t hear of my avoidance or parting ways, wouldn’t hear that we had different ideas that made our relationship impossible, and made it very difficult to move on with my life—in one case I felt like a hostage to what my family members wanted even as I faced personal danger from a narcissist and another predator. Maybe he didn’t know how to handle it. I can see a forgiveable act of immaturity in that case especially. In any case ghosting is cruel, a letter would’ve done, or at least some follow-up, but just that she hunted him down/there were confrontations tells me she probably would’ve made it difficult for him to move on anyway.

                2. Dot Warner*

                  Really, folks? They’d been living together for years and he just vanishes, and she’s the irrational one because she tried to find out where he was and if he was OK?

                3. Working Hypothesis*

                  Georgia: If someone I lived with disappeared with zero word, my first step would be to contact their family to find out if anyone knew where they were. Not as a “confrontation” or because I was unwilling to accept their choosing to break up with me, but because I’d be terrified that they were dead or kidnapped or something, and I’d be frantically trying to learn whether anyone knew if they were SAFE!

                  If somebody vanishes without a word of explanation after you’ve been living together for two years, the idea that they’re doing this in order to break up with you is so far out that I don’t even think it would occur to most reasonable people for quite some ways into the process of trying to find out what the hell happened to them. The first several thoughts would involve their lying dead in a ditch, or unconscious in an unknown hospital after an accident, or something like that… and of *course* you would contact their family and any close friends in order to find out if anyone knew anything about where they were likely to be found if one of those things were the case. It’s got nothing to do with being unwilling to accept a breakup, because a breakup just isn’t on the radar as one of the possibilities that might be happening, at that stage. Only if you later find out somehow that they’re alive and well and off in another country doing their own thing might it slowly start to occur to you that this vanishing act was their really bizarre way of breaking off the relationship… by which time you’d already quite likely called, not only their friends and relatives, but the police.

                  If, on the other hand, someone I’d been living with for two years vanished without warning, but left me email, or a note taped to the refrigerator or something, saying, “I’m breaking up with you. Don’t expect me home,” I would think they were an impressively horrible jerk, but I wouldn’t go looking for them. I think that’s also true about most people.

                  The upshot: just as, in this case, the LW brought his consequences on himself by sending that letter to HR (which then had to notify the top boss), in the original incident he brought the consequences of having his family and friends contacted on himself, by refusing to do something so basic as leave an effing note to tell his partner of three years that he wasn’t dead.

                4. Candi*

                  Winger, Georgia, the ‘she might be the problem’ thing was discussed, dissected, and analyzed in the comments of the first letter.

                  General consensus, based on the LW’s words, was that he was 99% likely to be the actual problem in that relationship.

                  He didn’t just ‘ghost’ her; he packed up, left town, and didn’t contact her until the directorship hit him in the face. His family had to fill her in.

                5. Lauren R*

                  Agree with Working Hypothesis. It would be weird if she DIDN’T try to find him. When someone you love and live with just disappears with no trace that’s a big deal. She cared for him and he vanished. After 3 years I’m sure my head would spin when I realized the truth because who on earth just leaves the country without telling their girlfriend and expects them to get the hint?? I don’t think anyone would jump straight to that conclusion because if you think highly of someone you’d want to believe they’d never do that to you or think of you so coldly.

                  I’m generally anti-contacting family members when it comes to break up drama but he didn’t actually break up with her and he didn’t even leave a note. She was probably just scared and not actively trying to drag other people into it or cause problems.

                  I can’t imagine the pain of realizing your partner of three years left with no warning, leaving you to cope with all the loose ends they left on your own. Who gets to deal with the rest of your stuff, telling concerned friends where he is (presumably he didn’t notify everyone but her), not to mention the potential of falling behind financially if you were counting on their income for rent/utilities/etc. Moving your life to another country can’t happen overnight so he had time to show her consideration and didn’t, and all because he couldn’t deal with a “we want different things” talk. It’s sad some people are treating her like she’s irrational for reacting with hurt and confusion to a hurtful and confusing situation.

                6. Wilhelmina Mildew*

                  Winger- I have a brother who is a LOT like this guy, in that he does terrible things to people constantly and then whines about how awful and mean everyone is when they get justifiably angry, cut him out of their lives (like a did a LONG time ago), seek revenge, or react however they react to being betrayed, lied to, used, stolen from, cheated on, etc. He just CAN NOT seem to understand why everyone is so unfair to him. And this LW right here? All his blaming, minimization, excuses, justifications, gaslighting, etc as to why he isn’t to blame, it’s not his fault, everyone is so unfair, etc. are exactly- and I mean EXACTLY, like they learned it from the same textbook- the same techniques my brother uses when he whines and cries that all the people that he has seriously screwed over are such jerks to him. And there are people who STILL take him seriously and have sympathy!
                  If you’ve never been around people who act like this, sometimes it can be really hard to see it because it really is hard to believe that such remorseless assholes exist, or that they will bend the truth or outright lie any way they feel like to always make themselves look like a sympathetic victim.
                  I mean, look what this jerk did! Rather than take his (very mild) lumps and submit to the chair’s VERY reasonable, VERY professional, and VERY easy to follow measures, he had a tantrum and took the nuclear option- resigning on the spot. And here he is, ONCE AGAIN, whining and crying because he does not like the results of HIS OWN, FREELY CHOSEN ACTIONS (no job, having to move out of country, being separated from his partner.) He COULD have chosen to put on his big boy Pull-Ups, kept his head down, done his job quietly for the rest of the year, then looked for a new job somewhere he could easily take his partner, etc. No, he CHOSE to sabotage his life and is AGAIN putting the blame on others- The Impossibly Draconian Measures! Nepotism! I contacted HR but it’s HER FAULT the chair got involved! and so on.
                  NO taking responsibility for any of his actions, either in the past or now. This is a grown man in his 30s or possibly even 40s. It’s way past time he start acting like it.

                7. Wilhelmina Mildew*

                  Georgia: Dot Warner, Working Hypothesis, Candi, Lauren R., (and so many others) have made their points- she didn’t even know she was being broken up with, there was no reason for her to assume that was the case, and her reaction to coming home to “missing live-in BF” was reasonable, rational, and justified.
                  But we live in a culture where any kind of normal emotion in women is seen as something pathological, especially negative ones like worry or anger, so it’s really easy to classify her frantic, panicked efforts at trying to find out if her BF was alive or hurt or whatever as “hysterical and obsessive”. I mean, in a realistic world, once she found out the truth- that he had dumped her in a spectacularly shitty, callous, cruel, and coldhearted manner- no one would bat an eye if she ripped him a new one in an email or phone call, which would be a reasonable, rational, and justified reaction to that level of shitbaggery. But the one we *actually* live in would classify even a one line email saying “EFF YOU, YOU SCUMSUCKING DIRTBAG” as obviously the crazy ranting of an out of control, irrational, maybe hormonal female, because female anger always = crazy lunatic insane person in our society.
                  It really, really bothers me (and I think it’s really telling) that we have an LW here who, even while trying to minimize his actions and deflect blame, has still fully admitted that, due to his own immaturity and cowardice, he did a really, truly, objectively horrible thing to someone who loved him. And even though he pulls the really ugly “obsessive and hysterical” card out of the misogyny deck, he describes her as that way AFTER he abandoned her (and when it was totally legit behavior), not before. Despite bending over backwards to make himself look good, he still does not ONCE mention anything weird or out of line his girlfriend did during the relationship that made him want to leave, just his own cowardice- and I will tell you that FOR SURE if there had been anything, he would have seized onto it like a drowning man clutches a life preserver, because people who work that hard to avoid blame and consequence for their own actions will grab onto anything they can to twist it out of shape in their defense. And especially after the backlash he got, you’d REALLY think he’d be all “I didn’t mention this before, but I ditched her because she did [weird, creepy, boundary violating thing]. BUT STILL with ZERO evidence at all of the GF doing anything wrong people are still picking this thing to pieces trying to find reasons why she MUST be at fault and why LW MUST have been justified in doing something so fucking hideous to her.
                  I’m going to add that I have seen this a LOT IRL even in cases where the man is an obvious socio/psychopath; actively abusing, terrorizing, or stalking someone; an objectively terrible partner and/or father etc and the woman is NORMAL. Somehow, someway, people have to look for ways that it is always the woman’s fault. I, personally, have an abusive ex that I broke up with in 1989 and have not seen in person since then, and have been completely NO CONTACT with since ’91 or 92, who lives in another state 1000’s of miles away, has a wife and three kids, and TO THIS DAY stalks me, tries to pump mutual friends from back then for info (which creeps them out), who kept in touch with my late parents for decades just to get info about me (they weren’t close AT ALL when we dated), who tells people he “is still in love with me”, who found out my cell # and crank called me for weeks until my husband picked up and told him to back off, whose made several FB profiles trying to friend me (blocked them all)…and there are still a few people that think I am delusional or making it up, or wonder what I am doing to encourage it. Some of these people are women who have themselves been stalked and harassed by abusive exes and it just blows my freakin’ mind. There are a lot of shitheads in this world, who don’t need any more reason to treat people badly other than that other people exist.

                8. Bea*

                  People who think she should have been like “Oh he’s gone, guess we broke up then, on with my merry way then!”, you need to watch some stories about people who vanish because they’re kidnapped or murdered. A spouse/partner who acts like that is the first suspect and most likely involved. o.O It’s not normal to be ghosted by a long term partner, at least grow a set and leave a Dear John letter. Even then it’s odd behavior and most people will want more answers and seek them out but at least it’s not as suspiciously psychopathic.

            2. Jadelyn*

              That was my assumption – I’m in HR at my org and if we got notice of something like this, then we’d absolutely be bringing in the EVP or President over whichever SVP or Director had the issue. That’s like…the first person we’d reach out to to tell them we have a Situation that needs to be addressed. I rather doubt she was the one who brought in the chair, tbh.

          3. Fiennes*

            Agreed. It shows an effort to be thoroughly professional and avoid even the appearance of retribution — not some kind of escalation as the OP seems to think. If she’d genuinely had it out for him, she wouldn’t have brought the matter to the chair’s attention.

            1. Jadelyn*

              This is a good point – if she’d wanted to screw with him, she’d have kept it quiet and just used her position to undermine him over time, or whatever. As I said above, I don’t think she brought in the chair, I think it’s more likely HR did that, but even if she did it wasn’t for purposes of retribution – if anything, bringing the chair into this limits her ability to get retribution if that’s what she wanted.

            2. Beckie*

              Exactly — many of these restrictions are put in place to protect him from any perceived or attempted retribution by her. OP, I hope you realize that the workplace did make a good-faith effort to make this situation work for everyone involved.

              1. Mel*

                That’s exactly what I came here to say! In a situation even vaguely like the OP’s I would *definitely* want all my meetings with my manager recorded and I would *definitely* want a witness present every time we talked. That’s all definitely for the OP’s protection.

                1. KK*

                  I personally do think trying to limit his social contact with other coworkers is going too far (and yes, would definitely raise suspicions), but everything else seems normal.

                2. Bartlet for President*

                  K – I read it as the OP had to limit their interactions with Sylvia outside of work – not their coworkers as a whole.

                3. FortyTwo*

                  That reveals a bit about what OP *thinks* the power dynamic is vs. what it really is. He needs the protection from Sylvia because she is his superior. He seems to believe that Sylvia requested a witness because she might feel threatened by HIM. He doesn’t get it.

                4. Lynn*

                  Yes, exactly FortyTwo. He’s upset that *she* brought in a third party, because he sees it as something only for her benefit. He failed to consider that the third party is also for his benefit, to protect him from retaliation, because he still thinks of himself as holding far more power and importance than he actually does (despite emailing AMA).

                  This carries through the entire situation. He felt he had a right to be free from “drama,” so she had no right to expect an actual break up. He wanted to disappear, so she had no right to followup and find out what happened. He wants to keep his behavior “between us,” so she shouldn’t have brought in the director (even though it was likely HR after his email). He must be able to socialize freely, so of course he’s leaving his partner behind. It’s all him, him, him all the time, which is ok in a small child, but appalling in an adult.

          4. Jesmlet*

            I think if all she had done was just alert the chair, they wouldn’t have put so many crazy restrictions. Clearly there were at least hints of a bad ending to the relationship and she likely implied that they couldn’t just be cordial and normal on their own. They really do seem pretty restrictive – don’t talk about the directer ever because you had a relationship with her 10 years ago? That’s not a condition you impose on a standard breakup so clearly something more was said

            1. Halster*

              It’s not unusual to put restrictions between the interactions of a manager and a supervisor if they had a past relationship – it actually seems quite important to minimize the appearance of unprofessional behavior

              1. Anion*

                Yes, but it wasn’t just “Don’t be alone with Sylvia.” It wasn’t even just “Don’t discuss Sylvia at all with any colleagues.” It was, “Don’t discuss Sylvia or any other member of management with any colleagues.” It specifically said, “Not even water-cooler chat.” So in effect, he’s right–it meant he couldn’t socialize with his colleagues at all (could barely speak with them at all) because how many casual or social conversations between co-workers *never* bring up any member of management in any way? What was he supposed to do, go out for drinks with his co-workers and immediately leave the table if someone said, “Bob said he wants us to get new office supplies, but I don’t want to?”

                1. Halster*

                  I feel like you can definitely discuss many things that don’t involve management! Weather, politics, sports, your home life. And it says “don’t discuss”, which means that likely he wouldn’t have to walk away, just not *comment*

            2. Perse's Mom*

              Depending on where the school is located (the original letter says “international school”), if they’re particularly conservative in that area, it could be in large part because of their previous involvement – if there’s always a third party present, that’s a gossip-shield.

            3. lawsuited*

              I don’t see how restricting LW from gossiping about the director is at all problematic. It would not impact any of his work duties, and would limit gossip in general which is a positive thing. Quitting a job because you really want to be free to gossip about your director behind her back is soooooo weird to me.

          6. Isonomist*

            Agree completely. She would have been making a mistake to discuss with him without at least HR present. She’s the one in the management position, so it’s up to her to make sure there are no misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

        4. Temperance*

          I don’t necessarily agree. He has shown himself to her to be untrustworthy, so it’s entirely possible that she was just protecting herself.

          I also don’t think that it’s necessary for her to have forgiven him to have moved on with her life. Some things are not forgivable.

            1. Ms Jackson*

              God, I wish more people understood this. Sometimes people don’t change and aren’t sorry, so why would you forgive that?

              Also, the world is a big place. It’s entirely possible to simultaneously believe a person could have grown and changed and also believe that the opportunity cost of finding that out so you can forgive them is too high! You could be using that time to meet other people, perfect the violin, play with your kid, fix the toilet, organize a relief effort for Puerto Rico, you know? It’s perfectly fine to decide you’d rather spend your time doing something else you enjoy than spend it letting somebody prove themselves to you again so you can forgive them. Like, “I never want to see you again, hope you grow up, good luck” can, with a little time and distance, be a sincere wish.

              1. Kate, Short for Bob*

                Yes! All of this! No one who’s been “wronged” has any responsibility for the other person’s redemption, and forgiveness is only meaningful if there’s to be a continued relationship.

                1. Alli525*

                  I’ll quibble that forgiveness is only meaningful for the OFFENDER if there’s going to be a continued relationship. The offended party should pretty much always try to find some measure of forgiveness, just as a part of the grief and moving-on process. Otherwise a grudge can turn poisonous (I speak as a Taurus with lots of family trauma).

                2. Snark*

                  And sometimes, apologies aren’t currency you feed into the “I screwed up” machine until a forgiveness drops down the chute. Sometimes you apologize and it creates no closure, no absolution, and no resolution. And that’s okay, it’s worth it anyway. But forgiveness is not transactional.

                3. Specialk9*

                  @Snark “apologies aren’t currency you feed into the “I screwed up” machine until a forgiveness drops down the chute. Sometimes you apologize and it creates no closure, no absolution, and no resolution. And that’s okay, it’s worth it anyway. But forgiveness is not transactional.”

                  *Yes*. FORGIVENESS IS NOT TRANSACTIONAL.

                  My parents like to hound me about forgiving a person who has never apologized, recognized their wrong or tried to fix it, piled on new wrongs, and in the process destroyed two kids I love. They can unicorn-rainbow their way to being ok with this person, but I won’t.

                  I was hurt as a child by their unicorn-rainbow inability to assess risks, so I have no tolerance for it now. I don’t owe forgiveness on demand.

                4. Mina*

                  In all honesty, I don’t think any measure of forgiveness is necessary, at least for me. I think not stewing in the negativity is absolutely critical to healing, but at the same time, I’ve made peace with the fact that I’ll always have some small amount of ire toward some people, and use that ire to sniff out others who would try to pull the same crap. I’d rather find some way to transmute or sublimate that into something productive.

                5. Temperance*

                  @Alli: I vehemently disagree with the idea that forgiveness is for the victim. You can move on without absolving the aggressor.

                  I hate one of my SILs for something that she did that she can never make amends for. It doesn’t eat at me as much as “forgiving” her would.

              2. Mina*

                Yeah, forgiveness is not mandatory for healing, and I highly resent folks who push that on me, especially since in this particular case of mine, I forgave willingly and nothing changed. And past experiences of mine with others have indicated that time and distance are essential, not forgiveness. I view those people with little rancor, and the only time they take up brainspace is the blue moon whenever I see their names. I still have not forgiven them, I probably never will. Despite this, life has been pretty smooth and the opposite of bitter.

                1. Specialk9*

                  Exactly. There can be real peace and tranquility in declining to forgive. But you can never convince forced-forgiveness-pushers.

                2. Mina*

                  Yup. Also, it can be a way of choosing yourself first, by honoring your anger and accepting it. For me, forgiveness usually entails premature letting go/burial of those feelings, and it adds undue pressure. I don’t owe my offenders that extra emotional labor, especially if they’re not changing or apologizing.

                3. Georgia*

                  I completely agree. Forgiveness was never for me, but for my offenders. It never gave me relief, instead it created a sense in my offenders that they could repeat their aggressions. There was no consequence for them, there was no accountability—all I had to protect myself was my resentment. I learned my grudges protected me from repeated offenses. Forgiveness is *mine* to distribute and I reserve the right be conservative with it. I owe it to no one, I don’t just give it freely.

              3. Cactus*

                A very good point. One of the last things I said to a particularly bad ex-boyfriend was “I hope you have a good life, but I can’t be part of it anymore.” I don’t feel vengeful toward him….but I also don’t feel the need to forgive him.

          2. Annabelle*

            I agree, especially with your second paragraph. I’m also happily married, but that doesn’t mean that I’ve completely forgive past partners for their reprehensible behavior.

          3. Jen S. 2.0*

            Agree totally. It’s been 10 years, so of course Sylvia has moved on and continued her life, but that has nothing to do with whether she has forgiven OP. Personally, I feel like OP is shirking his own responsibility with the dismissive observation that she is happily married with kids. What does that have to do with OP’s cowardly behavior? “She eventually turned out all right after I wronged her terribly” doesn’t mean “… so my wronging her terribly should have no consequences for me.” A wound heals, but doesn’t mean there isn’t a scar. I’m sure Sylvia has the therapy bills to prove it.

            I mean, haven’t many people had bad break-ups, where you’re not still actively hurting, but you still aren’t yet indifferent toward that ex? Just because you’ve had successful relationships since, and maybe even ended up in a much better place, that doesn’t mean you now have nothing but happy great feelings for that person who treated you terribly. (Note: this applies to jobs, too. Just because you now have a much better job doesn’t mean you’re happily indifferent to the place that treated you terribly and fired you unfairly, or not still experiencing post-traumatic stress from that place.)

            1. Mina*

              I think there’s this misconception that when someone’s “turned out all right” or “moved on,” they’ve been restored to who they were before they were wronged/abused. This is not the case. You’re not going to be the same person you were prior to that, even if you’re overall happy.

            2. Wheezy Weasel*

              “She eventually turned out all right after I wronged her terribly” doesn’t mean “… so my wronging her terribly should have no consequences for me.”

              +1 right here.

        5. Hc600*

          I am “fine” three years after a breakup with an ex, but because he lied to me and about me in ways that were financially and personally harmful, and could have had negative professional impacts if I hadn’t discovered his duplicity when I did. I would not want to give him the opportunity to twist any of our interactions to suit his needs so never being alone would be important to me.

        6. Layla*

          Having a third party was sensible. Probably had more to do with potential litigation than forgiveness, for Sylvia.

        7. Kateshellybo19*

          It might simply prove she doesn’t trust him and doesn’t want to give him the opportunity to cause a :he said she said” drama.

        8. Leslie*

          No half way competent HR department would do anything but require a third party at meetings. The potential liability if there were a complaint would be too great. Given the information he provided HR it was a necessary logical step to protect everyone involved.

        9. Disconoo*

          It could be entirely possible that the stipulations were designed as a preventive measure in case of future workplace disagreement. As the wronged party is now his boss, the chair may have been concerned that any future discilpinary action etc could turn into a nightmare he/said she said scenario. Could you imagine that sylvia has to reprimand him for something, and him blowing up that its all because of their past. As was stated the school does everything to minimise chance of scandal. Having a 3rd party in for discussions and documenting them seems like reasonable measures to me. I don’t think its an issue of her not being ‘over it’ per se. But rather an issue that understandably she doesnt trust the character of one of her employees. He frankly owes her an apology and i think he needs to move on. Karma is a thing.

        10. Grecko*

          I disagree. She needed a third party to protect herself. She had a prior relationship with OP and knew him to be a dishonest person who doesn’t take responsibility for his actions. If she keeps it to herself she opens herself up to future potential accusations that she is treating him unfairly.

      2. Partially Bigoted Zealots*

        She can have a good life and still be incredibly upset by what happened. I agree with AvonLady, she doesn’t seem “fine” about the situation–and that’s okay! If you had a longterm partner who abandoned you when you went out of town it’s okay to hold a grudge even if you’ve moved on.

        2. KHB*

          Agreed. There’s kind of an insidious myth out there about survivors of abuse and other terrible behavior, that if they’re doing well for themselves/are happy sometimes/are able to function in the world/aren’t a sobbing emotional basket case huddled in the corner, then they must be fully healed (or must not have been hurt all that badly in the first place). But it’s not true.

          1. Rusty Shackelford*

            And even if they *are* fully healed… if you physically batter me, that experience doesn’t go away after my broken bones mend. Emotional battering isn’t any different. The fact that you’ve healed doesn’t mean it never happened in the first place.

            3. Mazzy*

              But Sylvia isn’t a “survivor” she got ghosted not abused. And it wasn’t last week, it was years ago. In the self-help program I attend, the vote would be unanimous – Sylvia needs to move past this by now

              1. Oryx*

                She wasn’t ghosted in the “the guy I went on one day with didn’t call me back” kind of way. The man that she dated for three years and LIVED WITH just up and vanished to another country without a word one weekend while she was on vacation.

                1. Prost!*

                  It sure seems like mental or emotional abuse to me. If my boyfriend of three years just up and DISAPPEARED one day, with all his stuff, I’d probably be questioning my own mental health and wondering if I’d just made him up out of thin air.

                2. Managed Chaos*

                  I can’t even imagine the mental anguish, not from the ghosting itself, but the torment of thinking your loved one was in trouble, maybe hurt or killed, and then compounded by learning it was intentional to cause that distress.

              2. Rusty Shackelford*

                Some people would consider his treatment of Sylvia emotional abuse. And we don’t know that Sylvia hasn’t moved past this. Either HR contacted the chair, or Sylvia did, because having a past romantic history with one of her reports is A Thing That Should Be Reported. Did Sylvia suggest the constraints? We don’t know. It might have been all the chair’s doing. All I’m saying is, what happened to Sylvia happened to Sylvia. No one gets to say it shouldn’t influence her now, even if she “got over it.”

              3. Observer*

                Firstly, he did more that the standard “ghosting”. Secondly, “moving on” doesn’t mean “forgive and forget”, it means to stop stewing. This is a significant difference. And it looks like Sylvia HAS stopped stewing, at least sufficiently to get on with her life.

                But, it doesn’t mean that she will ever trust the OP in the least bit. And, if she saw the letter (hard to tell), she’d know that she really SHOULD NOT trust him, because he still clearly doesn’t take responsibility AND he also is twisting her reaction in a way that could harm her. Why would she expect anything different going forward? It may be 10 years after the abandonment, but it’s weeks after his attempt to portray her as a needy flake.

              4. Detective Amy Santiago*

                The fact that the LW even called it “ghosting” is a huge part of the problem. He abandoned a woman he lived with for two years without so much as a letter.

              5. Partially Bigoted Zealots*

                1. She was abandoned by a long-term, live-in partner. That easily qualifies as emotional abuse (a real thing.)
                2. Sylvia can move on (and indeed, sounds like she has) and still be influenced by what happened, and not want to deal with him. Forgiveness isn’t about repairing a relationship–it’s about not letting someone live rent-free in your head. She moved on and got better that doesn’t mean she is required to build bridges with him.

              6. Jen S. 2.0*

                I also wouldn’t be surprised if OP’s final disappearance wasn’t his first time exhibiting bad behavior, and that goes double because of OP’s continued lack of desire to take responsibility, as evidenced in these letters. So, no, we don’t know whether there was emotional abuse … but the action that precipitated this situation likely did not live in a vacuum.

                1. Sahura*

                  The feeling when she got home must have been extraordinarily painful. thinking he’d show up in a couple hours, wondering if he was kidnapped, realizing his belongings are all gone, imagining him having an affair, freaking out over whether he was dead…unbelievable cruelty.

              8. Turquoise Cow*

                The members of your self-help program don’t get to decide, nor does anyone else, whether Sylvia was emotionally traumatized by the experience, or whether she ought to get over it. She was the one who experienced it. Even if the rest of the universe thinks it was no big deal, it doesn’t matter if she thinks that.

              9. Bloo*

                We don’t know anything about their relationship beyond what the LW told us. He’s the kind of person who will abandon the partner he lived with without a word. Who knows what else was going on there. He’s certainly not a reliable narrator. We also don’t know what wreckage he left behind – financial entanglements, etc.

                1. Salamander*

                  Bloo’s right. For all we know, she might have been trying to contact his family to get half of the rent he owed for that month.

              11. jennygadget*

                I’m not sure how you call what he did anything other than emotional abuse, but even putting that aside for the moment…

                The ghosting was years ago, but him showing up in her life – at her workplace – is super super new. And there’s nothing here to indicate that she hasn’t already “move[d] past this” in any case.

              12. Bess*

                But your comment seems framed as if Sylvia is actively seeking out some kind of retribution for this, when she’s not. Her partner of 3 years left the country without even telling her where he’d gone. You don’t have to be actively holding onto any kind of grudge for that kind of abandonment to affect every relationship you have for the rest of your life.

              14. Jesca*

                Ok here is the thing I have noticed with these self-help concepts. “Self-help” concepts are used quite successfully in cognitive behavior therapy and the like, yes. Re-establishing your inner affirmations to yourself, forgiveness, and living more in the moment. Yes. All beautiful things. But forgiving is for 1)your own benefit and 2) to establish inner peace with the situation so you are not tormented by it any longer. Forgiveness takes a long as time and a lot of self reflection. But EVEN WHEN you reach forgiveness, its doesn’t mean you just effing forget! When you have experiences with other human beings that are negative, letting it go is healthy – anger can be destructive. BUT that doesn’t mean you have to allow that person back into your life or that you just suddenly forget who they are as a human. You do not have to like everyone.

                I have had some people do some pretty vicious things to me, and they are out there in the world. I do not think of them much. But I also don’t wish them ill will. I accept who they are, that its nothing to do with me anymore, and I move on. In that same token I don’t want them in my life. Trust is broken and I hate drama and whatever else.

                And even with all that said, do you not understand that healthy management sees and addresses early on the concern of exes being in a power dynamic? LOL nothing is crazy about how this situation was handled.

              15. Moose and Squirrel*

                Ghosting is the wrong word for what happened here. They were together for three years and lived together.

              16. Anion*

                Yes, thank you. The OP’s behavior was wrong. He did the wrong thing. Sylvia was right to feel wronged. But the idea that he abused and traumatized her to the point where she’d need extensive therapy just seems like…a little much to me.

                I said above that I’ve been the “bad” one in break-ups, but I’ve also been the one badly broken up with. All painful experiences at the time–and I admit, once or twice in the last twenty-odd years I’ve started thinking about one or two of them and felt, for a moment, a faint twinge of that same pain–but that was years ago. And quite frankly, as I said to my beloved SD just the other day, I’m glad for those break-ups now because without them I might not have ended up with my super-beloved husband. I think it would be pretty upsetting for him if I still needed therapy, or if I referred to myself as a “survivor” of some kind of “abuse” (isn’t that pretty insulting to actual abuse survivors?) because an ex broke up with me in a less-than-optimal way.

                And that is honestly all the OP did. He broke up with his live-in girlfriend poorly. He did something that, honestly, other live-in-couples and spouses have done to each other and still do. He moved out of their shared home without telling her. It was wrong. It was irresponsible and selfish. But that’s kind of it.

                He didn’t actually *owe* her anything but a conversation or letter telling her he was leaving. They weren’t married. They didn’t have a child. He didn’t force her to have an abortion against her wishes. He didn’t beat her. He didn’t spend thousands of dollars on her credit cards and then skip town. He didn’t post nude photos of her on the internet. He just moved out of their shared home. People do it every day. Married people, people with children–people who actually do owe each other more than just a conversation or note–do it every day. Heck, a friend of mine’s mom did it to her husband (my friend’s stepdad) when we were twelve; he came home from work one day and they’d packed up everything and left. I thought it was lousy then and I still do, but I don’t think it made my friend’s mom an abuser or that she never deserved to be happy again, and she was *proud* of what she’d done–she hadn’t done it out of fear or not knowing how to have the conversation, she’d done it because she just didn’t care enough about him to bother and didn’t “feel like” having some long boring talk with him. And she wasn’t a kid barely in her twenties, either, she was a full-grown adult with children.

                1. Decima Dewey*

                  That Sylvia may or may not have needed extensive therapy is speculative. What is not is that OP broke up with her by apparently disappearing from the face of the Earth, at least as far as Sylvia knew. Even a Post-It note on the door reading “See You Never, Sylvia” would have been kinder.

                2. Denise*

                  Your intense defense of this type of shitty behavior indicates that you are probably one who commits or would easily commit these types of behaviors yourself. Instead of trying to get the rest of us to stop thinking these behaviors they the LW, and presumably you, think are a-okay, ask yourself why you’re so okay with these type of behaviors and work on fixing yourself. You & LW are the ones with the poor mentality here, NOT the rest of us.

                3. Denise*

                  Your intense defense of this type of shitty behavior indicates that you are probably one who commits or would easily commit these types of behaviors yourself. Instead of trying to get the rest of us to stop thinking these shitty, unacceptable behaviors are no big deal and a-okay, the way LW and you apparently think they are, ask yourself why you’re so okay with these type of behaviors and work on fixing yourself. You & LW are the ones with the poor mentality and moral compass here, NOT the rest of us.

            1. Specialk9*

              Mina, I’m really not just following you around today, but you keep saying exactly what I’m thinking.

              1. Mina*

                Awww. ::hearts:: I’m blushing over here.

                And here, have some hugs, because healing is a long and arduous journey. I hope you have a good day today.

            2. Temperance*

              Mina, your comments here are making me constantly nod my head in agreement. Thank you for representing the often-ignored perspective of the abuse victim.

              1. Mina*

                You’re welcome, Temperance! The pressure to forgive can be overwhelming, and I’ve found that it’s just made me beat myself up more. When I read comments on other blogs from people who also didn’t forgive, I noticed that they weren’t bitter or angry, they were FINE. Forgiving offenders is up to the individual victim, and nobody else gets a vote.

                I hope you’re doing well tonight.

          4. Allison*

            It’s true. I’m in a mostly good place after an emotionally abusive relationship in high school, and a sexual assault at 19, but I still have battle scars from those things, and emotional wounds that may not have healed fully or correctly.

          5. Specialk9*

            It’s a self serving myth by abusers and enablers, and by people who want to sing happy songs and not think of bad things.

          6. Candi*

            Cinderelly, Cinderelly
            Night and day it’s Cinderelly
            Do the dishes and the mopping
            They always keep her hopping

            But it’s fine because she got to marry a prince, right?

        3. The Cosmic Avenger*

          Yep, this. It’s possible to totally move on, and yet still not want to deal with someone who turned your life upside-down ever again. It sounds to me like she (or the board chair) was making sure that, if she did have to deal with him professionally, it would be kept professional and there would be zero drama, because she shouldn’t have to worry about the OP causing more drama in her life.

          What the OP is failing to see is that she’s not trying to get him fired from a workplace where she does not work; at worst, she is trying to keep her workplace as drama-free as possible. (And that’s assuming the stipulations were hers, not the chair’s.) In my opinion she has that right, at his expense, since the former issue was totally his responsibility, and she was willing to put up with his presence to a limited extent as long as it was kept professional.

          1. Jessie the First (or second)*

            And it hardly even seems to be “at his expense”! Don’t seek out Sylvia outside of work, don’t gossip about her, don’t go have private conversations with her.

            That was about as mild a response as possible, it seems to me, but he quit on the spot!

            1. JB (not in Houston)*

              Yes, I’m wondering if there were other conditions, or if these conditions would be so out of the ordinary in that work place that it would some unmentioned problem, because these don’t seem that big of a deal and perfectly reasonable steps to put in place under the circumstances.

            2. Annabelle*

              Yeah, these seem like pretty doable conditions to me. Unless people are constantly gossiping about higher-ups, I don’t really see how any of that was worth quitting over.

              1. sam*

                me too – and even if they turned out to be untenable in the long run, OP could have worked through them in the short term while he job searched, rather than resigning on the spot, which is an abrupt, rash action that seems to have put himself and his partner in an even worse situation.

                1. me2*

                  It’s almost like OP has a tendency for impulsive over-reaction without any thought of consequences merely to protect his immediate feelings or something.

                2. JB (not in Houston)*

                  That’s where I am on this. It’s quite possible that the restrictions would have effectively isolated him from his coworkers and his main social support in the country, which few people could handle, in which case I would blame him for quitting–but you don’t quit then and there! You start looking for another job first!

              2. Jess*

                They do, right? How hard is it to not gossip about or hang out on weekends with your boss? Most people manage it fine. And the ban on 1:1 meetings is as much for his protection as hers; that way he has protection from retaliation. And he quit on the spot over this?

                1. Kathlynn*

                  It’s not just not gossiping, it’s no discussion of anyone or thing about management. And because of the socializing restrictions, he can’t even ask if she’s going to be attending in order to follow that restriction. If someone talks about her or management he can’t even say something positive.

                2. Steve*

                  If I were the OP I would have been glad for the restrictions. Having a chaperone at meetings (which are few and far between) and documenting them protects OP just as much as Sylvia and the company. Keeping your mouth shut is a small price to pay for knowing that Sylvia is keeping her mouth shut, too. And overall, having a clear set of rules set out that you can follow, makes it easier to know that you’re meeting expectations. Unless we’re missing something (was OP banned from any chatting at water cooler? socializing with any coworkers, not just Sylvia?) this seems like it was a huge win for OP!

                3. Kathlynn*

                  But we don’t know that Sylvia will keep her mouth shut. I had a similar restriction (no talking about a relationship), and I dealt with it. But then both of the other people involved corned me and asked me about it. (a discussion of this would be off topic) I also do not know that they were ever told not to discuss the incident, or not to bad mouth me.
                  And he’s not just not allowed to talk about her. He’s not allowed to talk about management at all (which would violate multiple laws in canada and the US iirc). He could get in to trouble for asking if she was attending something, or agreeing with a positive comment about management.

                4. AnonAnalyst*

                  Honestly, these seem like pretty normal ground rules even if their relationship had ended amicably. I frankly don’t understand why they were so onerous that the OP had to quit on the spot.

                  I am really curious as to what the OP expected to have happen since it sounds like he was appalled at the measures that were proposed.

                5. Specialk9*

                  Well, this is the only part I’m going to agree with chaos demon on – at international schools, your co-workers are the only friends you have, and they often stand in for family too. You celebrate national holidays together, like Thanksgiving, and birthdays, and go out drinking or to the pub to watch the soccer game. If she does those things, he can’t, and he can’t contact her to ask if she’s going, add he can’t explain why he can’t do anything.

                6. Observer*

                  @Kathlynn, it didn’t say he’s not allowed to ever be at the same social event, it said limit socializing WITH HER.

              3. Gadfly*

                And you have to wonder if perhaps becoming a brief international sensation made the powers that be inclined to dot i’s and cross t’s VERY carefully…

            4. ss*

              I agree. All the stipulations seemed to be quite basic to avoid any he said/she said flareups that could result in potential legal harassment issues. And all basic behaviors you would have expected a civil person to do on their own anyway.

            5. Dust Bunny*

              Yeah, this is pretty much how I treat my coworkers, anyway, with the exception of a very few with whom I happen to share some interests and whom I count as friends aside from work. Nothing against any of them; I just don’t have any reason to contact them. This almost seems like a flounce on the LW’s part. Another way to feel victimized by the situation.

            7. Genny*

              It’s possible this is a tight-knit expat community that frequently hangs out together outside of work. In which case, if she hangs out with the group, he wouldn’t able to hang out as he used to. That might explain him saying it would be out of character for him (not to hang out with the tight-knit group) and that his friends and colleagues would notice.

              1. EJ*

                Yeah–not that I’m saying OP is being totally reasonable and handling things well, or anything, but having lived/worked overseas myself, I feel like the commenters going “What’s the big deal? How hard is it to avoid seeing your boss socially outside of work?” don’t quite understand how small expat communities can be. It can be next to impossible to avoid ever seeing someone at social functions. Outside of certain big cities with a significant presence of people who come from other countries for business reasons, which doesn’t sound like OP’s situation, it’s entirely possible that every expat in a 50-mile radius knows every other one and will invite literally all of those people to their parties because there’s like twenty of them total. That being the case would pretty much cut OP out of anything that’s not one-on-one hanging out with a friend (especially since, as someone else pointed out, he’s not allowed to ask if Sylvia will be there or not).

                OP screwed up badly in his initial relationship with Sylvia and seems to be wallowing in self-pity and blaming everyone else for everything, so I get why people aren’t willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything whatsoever, and the other restrictions seem reasonable, but I can see why he thought that particular one would destroy his social life.

                1. Specialk9*

                  Exactly. Unless you’ve been an expat, esp in a small community, this doesn’t make sense. It would virtually eliminate his social life.

                2. Lynxa*

                  But surely he could have toughed it out for a couple of months until he had another job lined up, or a way to take his partner out of the country with him.

                3. ReanaZ*

                  I am an expat and I understand what you’re saying here.

                  But also…I don’t know what country the OP is in, but likely there are literally millions of other people in that country he could be friends with other than the 50 expats at his school. The horribly insular (and often bizarrely racist) exclusively of expat communities isn’t the only way to expat or to have friends?

                  Losing your social group in a break up sucks. It’s also super survivable, and a natural consequence to treating your partner like crap.

                  And it’s definitely not such a death sentence than you’re going to be able to convince a bunch of people that you were being so severely persecuted by a handful of reasonable protective restrictions that the decision to quit your job on the spot (!) even though it lost you your home, life in your current country, and your current partner was so a reasonable thing to do that it is above any criticism.

                4. Numenaster*

                  Recall that Sylvia has married into a family that is prominent in this country. She is now well connected in the larger society and not limited to just the expat community for her socializing. The chances that her presence would foreclose OP from all socializing are between slim and none, even if she were childfree.

                  I have also taught overseas as a long term resident, and I second ReanaZ’s point that OP is displaying some racism in his concept of who is fit to socialize with.

                5. HR Pro*

                  I’m confused… why couldn’t OP ask if S would be at a social function? All he needed was one other person present. Or could ask the person inviting him “hey, who have you invited!” or, upon learning of a social event he really wanted to attend but S would also be in attendance…ask for a quick conversation with HE or Chair. ANY of these options were open to OP but would require both effort and discretion on his part.

          2. Turquoise Cow*

            It seems like the “never be alone” stipulation protects him as much as it does her. What if there’s a performance review or something similar – on her own she might decide to be rather vindictive to him. It’s unwise for part of a couple to supervise the other; it’s equally if not more unwise for part of a former couple to supervise the other. In the first, because there might be favorable acts; in the second they are likely to be unfavorable. If I were the OP, I’d certainly be concerned that an ex would be professionally unfair.

            The fact that he didn’t agree to these conditions indicates to me that he doesn’t quite realize that she is the one with more power than he in this situation. She can hurt him professionally, she could make his life miserable at the school in many ways. The chair and HR are protecting him as much as Sylvia.

          3. Witchsistah*

            Actually, it’s good for Sylvia that the OP left because he’s Nay have tried to cook up some bullshit and drama on her it he’d have stayed.

      3. Kitty McFurball*

        I have a great life 11-years after my ex did something similar — beautiful apartment, beautiful child — but I would do exactly the same thing in her shoes.

    2. WriterLady*

      Came here to say much the same… but given the tone of the update, I’m not holding out a whole lot of hope.

      2. Jadelyn*

        That’s what I was coming here to say. I’m still seeing a lot of defensiveness and framing it as “the internet piled on me unfairly” rather than “I did a really reprehensible thing and people are calling it what it was.” Not to mention, he’s framing the very reasonable repercussions he’s facing as if they’re some awful punishment, and again there’s a strong undertone of “this isn’t fair, I’m the victim here!”

        Sadly, I don’t see any indication that OP has taken responsibility beyond the most superficial level.

        1. me2*

          Yeah, some people try to deflect criticism by loudly beating themselves up before others can do it. I get the sense that he’s saying how terrible he is as deflection only, not actual remorse.

            1. Jadelyn*

              I don’t think it’s about an appropriate amount of self-flagellation, so much as it is the rest of the context surrounding it – if a person says “I did something terrible”, and their actions reflect a mature understanding of what they did and an acceptance of the consequences thereof, then that is probably genuine remorse. But when “I did something terrible” is accompanied by “but everyone’s being so unfair to me!” and the person is trying to brush off or minimize what they did, then that “I did something terrible” starts looking awfully performative.

            2. Genny*

              I think the person who got fired for calling out sick to view the eclipse is a really good example of someone who understands why what they did was wrong and why the consequences were what they were. I don’t recall that LW trying justify their actions or cast blame for being fired in either her initial letter or her follow-up. This LW, however, is still casting blame on everyone else while only taking a little of it for himself.

              1. Not So NewReader*

                I thought credit card guy did okay too. This was the guy with $20k (?) on a company card. And he had a few punches in the comment section. When he came back with his follow up we found out he did great. I loved how he turned things to work for him, a food budget meant eating better, an entertainment budget meant freebies like taking walks. He use his unfortunate situation to take a look at his life in total. He let his poor choices thoroughly teach him in good ways.

                We have had a few other OPs who have just decided “this is it. I need advice and I am going to find some pearls of wisdom here to fix my job/life.”

                1. Mina*

                  I was impressed by the LW who was jealous of her co-worker and the other LW who was bullying her subordinate for not fitting in with the rest of her team. Both realized what they did was wrong, and while I found the latter REALLY frustrating in both her letters and in the comments on the first one, the second one showed some promising introspection and wanting to correct course.

          2. Sylvan*

            At this point, we ripped him a new one in the comments on his first letter, he quit his job, he’s moving back home, and his SO isn’t able to travel with him. If you were him, would you want to do anything that looked like an opening for more criticism? I wouldn’t. If I felt remorseful (and I’m not sure how much insight he has right now, so who knows what he’s feeling), I still wouldn’t want more trouble.

            1. Tiger Snake*

              See, I don’t follow the logic here, because the letter writer doesn’t have to send a follow up. Sure, we all like to know what happened, but its not like agreeing to provide updates is a contract of entry to get Alison to answer your first letter. He’s not being forced at gunpoint to tell us all what happened.

              So, given that he knew how strongly people felt from his previous letter that he’s made his own bed, this all reads like a combination of “Well I hope you’re all happy, I lost my job and I’m suffering for my supposed ‘crimes’ now.” and “No, you just don’t understand – let me show/correct you, and then you’ll see I’m the victim here.”.

        3. Wendy Darling*

          Also it all happened because of nepotism and why did Sylvia have to go get her powerful husband involved because otherwise none of this would have happened!!!

          OP comes off like exactly the guy people thought he was from the first letter.

          1. Layla*

            Note as well that he never even considers that a woman in a director level role could possibly have any clout herself…

          2. Yep, me again*

            No, the LW is actually someone given to rash decisions and doesn’t recognize it. He abruptly decided to leave Sylvia without telling her, hence making rushed decisions about his future. And now he’s abruptly quit his job because of bad decisions in the past.
            Also, he’s got an attitude of entitlement when it was his fault this mess started to begin with. Sorry, not sorry for him.

          3. Elizabeth*

            Especially since he “resigned on the spot” without consulting his current partner who he now is ditching to find another job in another country!!! Learned nothing!!!

    3. TK*

      Yeah I think whatever emotional immaturity allowed him to do the sin the first place is giving him a totally skewed concept of the traumas people keep with him (and I don’t think that’s too strong a word to use to coming home to find your live-in partner missing). She can be married with kids and still not be fine! It could have taken a lot of hard work to get to a place of trust with her current partner. (And what an odd thing, to note that she wasn’t ‘gleeful’).

      1. ImogenQ*

        You can also be, on balance, fine and that still doesn’t necessarily mean you’re fine with what happened. Just that you’ve moved on.

        1. Matilda Jefferies*

          I saw a meme the other day that says “You don’t have to rebuild a relationship with everyone you’ve forgiven.” Sylvia may well have forgiven the OP, and she may well be fine with her life as it is right now, but that doesn’t mean she has to be, or will be, fine with working with him every day.

          3. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

            Yep.

            And at least in my experience, sometimes it’s much easier to forgive after you’ve decided that no further relationship will exist. It helps the wounds heal without being reopened.

            1. Alli525*

              That is true to my experience too. I have one parent I’ll never speak to again, and I’m pretty decently recovered from that one… but the parent with whom I had to start a “this has a start date but an undefined finish date” no-contact rule–that relationship is much more painful now because I know I’ll have to go in and do the work at some point soon to try to salvage it one last time.

              1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

                Yeowch, yes. I have a parent and step-parent from whom I’m happily estranged; my life got so much easier once they stopped trying to force their way back into my life. The thought of trying to salvage something with someone like them again would be… urg.

                Good luck, friend.

      2. CoveredInBees*

        Yes. Her life doesn’t need omnishambles for her to still be hurt or simply mistrustful of him. I certainly would want distance from an ex who treated me this way despite having a pretty great life today.

    4. Regina Phalange*

      I wouldn’t count on it based on the victimy update and utter lack of self awareness. And if there was an apology, it certainly wasn’t sincere being he’s still referring to his horrible actions as “immaturity.”

      1. Justme*

        That’s what I got out of the update too. And a fair bit of snarkiness on his part. I’m glad for the update, but still.

        1. Anna*

          I think I’d be a bit snarky if what I thought was going to be a straight-forward request for advice blew up into an Internet viral thing where everyone and their neighbor had an opinion and none of it very nice to me. He may have had a bad attitude, but I’m not sure it’s fair to say he deserved every bit of vitriol the Internet threw at him.

          1. President Porpoise*

            Yeah, a lot of people commenting here totally disregarded the ‘be kind’ rule with great glee. And it did not reflect well on many of them. It’s possible to give painful advice and condemn bad behavior without being nasty.

          2. Karen D*

            Yeah. When it blew up on Buzzfeed (and yes, the update is ALREADY on BF as well) the piling-on became utterly epic. I can’t imagine any human being enduring that without feeling bruised.

            Also to be fair, I think people are downplaying the circumstances that led to him quitting. When you add up everything they spelled out, it would have resulted in him being on a very short leash indeed.

            I do believe the bad professional outcome is definitely a case of actions having sometimes unforeseen, and sometimes horrific, consequences. Did he “deserve” to lose this opportunity in this way? That’s up for debate, certainly, but it is something you could definitely see happening.

            I don’t think anyone deserves the kind of brutal, public raking-over-the-coals that he got from a bunch of strangers who were basically piling on for their own entertainment/amusement.

            1. Karen D*

              Also, I am a little annoyed with Buzzfeed that they are basically taking the copyrighted material off this blog and reposting the entire thing on their site. They do link to AAM but then they reproduce pretty much his entire post, which is a no-no for bloggers (the rule is you can use a short excerpt but not the entire post).

              1. Jane*

                Buzzfeed has a lot of very questionable business practices, a lot of which center on how they do — or mostly don’t — remunerate their content producers.

              2. music*

                I’m pretty sure they did that with Alison’s permission and consent, though. It was certainly advertised as a co-production.

                1. Candi*

                  Snort.

                  BF has said before they totally had permission from Wakeen to post their original articles on teapots. Turns out Wakeen never heard from them, and his site restrictions say don’t repost without asking.

            3. Sahura*

              I don’t think calling his disgusting, selfish behavior disgusting and selfish is unwarranted. He has done nothing to deserve coddling and he shows barely a touch of remorse unless it’s for the sake of his own career. Maybe if he didn’t come off as such a sociopath, people could relate. Nothing he felt from the Internet’s reaction is nearly as bad as what he did to Sylvia the day he moved out unannounced.

            4. Night of the Lepus*

              He knew this was a public forum. However brutal his detractors have been, they haven’t lied. Until he gets past his adolescent blaming game and understands that Sylvia was being wise and professional and correct in her actions, he is going to look like a petulant and silly man. The scorn of strangers is the least of his problems.

            5. Anion*

              Especially when said people are pretty much outright saying he was likely abusive to Sylvia throughout the relationship, and that he’s clearly an unrepentant user and all-around scumbag who thinks everything should be handed to him on a silver platter and that he should suffer no consequences, ever, for his own behavior.

              Jesus Christ.

              “Take the OP at face value” has been completely discarded here, and everyone is deciding nothing the OP has said is true and interpreting every action he describes in the worst possible light for him, simply because they don’t “feel” like he’s sorry based on his email, which he did not have to supply, and which understandably reflects some shock and horror and pain at the fact that he asked for advice and got called an abusive scumbag all over the internet for the evil crime of breaking up with his girlfriend badly.

            6. barelyprofessional*

              yes to the changing of the job being extreme- this is a leadup to constructive dismissal but it’s almost like people don’t care since they don’t agree with his personal life…

          3. Schae*

            He sent a request for advice to the internet, to a site where people comment (a fact he was well aware of as he mentioned in his original email) and is surprised by comments? lol.
            If you put your hand in the fire, do not complain that you got burnt.

            He then also insinuated that the woman he abandoned got her job because of nepotism. And is surprised by the vitriol? lol again.

            1. Anna*

              Yeah, um, the existence of the Internet does not give you permission to be a jerk. That sort of attitude makes it seem like we aren’t responsible for what we put online because the Internet is not people. Does that mean you don’t think you’re responsible for being shitty online? lol, I say, and lol again.

              3. Layla*

                I agree with you Anna but I also think that applies to the OP. If a real life acquaintance told you that story, would you nod and smile and provide neutral advice? Or would you tell him he was a jerk?

                1. Mina*

                  I mean, I could probably nod and maintain a neutral expression, and tactfully tell that acquaintance it wasn’t exactly the best idea while internally screaming. And then go all WTF as soon as I was alone and distance myself.

              4. Temperance*

                If someone that I knew, or met, told me this story in person, my reaction would be less measured and far less kind and polite.

              5. Candi*

                You don’t get to be a glassbowl, but you do get to point out what’s objectively wrong with someone’s actions as they describe them, and state your opinion on why what he said he did was bad behavior, and point out that his attitude, expressed in his words, is not helping with the perception of the situation.

              7. Traffic_Spiral*

                Honestly telling someone “what you did was deeply messed up, and what’s more messed up is the fact that you are both trying to minimize it and seem to really not care about it except for how you personally might be adversely affect by it,” isn’t being a jerk. That’s just being honest.

                1. Karen D*

                  It’s gone pretty far beyond that, though, and everyone seems to feel compelled to get their licks in.

                  It puts me in mind of that old Steve Allen short story we all read in junior high – “The Public Hating.” As others have noted, the guiding principles of this site have been pretty well trampled. Granted, some of the worst offenders here are not regulars, but regulars are doing it too … and things are 100x worse on BF.

            2. Jen S. 2.0*

              In addition to the nepotism insinuations, it’s not for nothing that he’s framing this as “losing” his job.

              No, he quit. Of his own volition. Before even trying. Because it might have been a little bit tough to stick to some strictures. To avoid difficult situations with his boss, whom he abandoned.

            3. Anion*

              Yes, people who ask for help and advice deserve to be raked over the coals for the crime of doing so. As Anna so succinctly puts it, the existence of the internet does not give you permission to be a jerk. I find it incredibly sad that the response to a person in pain is to laugh at them for being stupid enough to reach out for help to other human beings.

              1. Layla*

                If you write in about something dreadful you’ve done and are completely remorseless, you will get raked over the coals. He’s not a ‘person in pain’, he’s a person who has caused pain, and does not care. And on top of that has described the person he hurt – who has been incredibly gracious – as a crazy, obsessive ex, who only got her job due to her powerful husband.

                As I said to Anna, the ‘jerk on the internet’ factor goes both ways. Writing into an advice column isn’t a free pass on terrible behaviour.

                1. Anion*

                  I know some are interpreting his “nepotism” comment as implying she only got her job because of her husband; I did not interpret it that way, and I’m not alone there. So I don’t agree that he described her that way. And none of us were there after his ungracious and unpleasant dumping of her, so we can’t say if she was obsessive or not.

                  The rest of my comment was replying specifically to the idea that if you ask a question on the internet you should expect to be insulted over and over again, in quite nasty terms; the idea that you somehow “deserve” to be insulted over and over again because you reached out for advice. The idea, basically, that it’s okay for people to jump on a stranger like wolves because that stranger dared to put him- or herself out there. I find that idea incredibly upsetting on its face.

                  Of course asking for advice isn’t a free pass on terrible behavior; of course people have every right to tell this young man he behaved badly and should feel bad about it. But calling him four-letter-names and saying he’s a liar who probably abused Sylvia throughout their relationship goes beyond constructive comments about his behavior. Refusing to give a person the benefit of the doubt over even the slightest details, insisting they feel no remorse, and nitpicking their wording to prove them wrong, goes beyond that. I read the above letter and see someone feeling dazed and upset–someone in pain, even if you think that’s not possible, and even if he deserves that pain. Perhaps it’s because I’ve been in a very similar situation, and I know that what one says in that frame of mind isn’t always the best reflection of what one is feeling, that I see it that way. But I have a right to do so, just as others apparently have a right to claim he is a serial abuser because they themselves were once abused.

                  I believe in being kind to others, and even meeting rudeness with as much kindness as possible. I believe sympathy and empathy and assuming good (and good will) in others is the way to be the best person I can be. I believe if we all did so, the world would be a better place. So that is what I try to do, as much as possible. And I believe this young man would be–as almost every person is–more inclined to analyze his behavior if the criticism wasn’t so vicious.

                  Again, I am clearly not the only person here who sees some of the comments here this way. You said you agree with Anna, but disagree with me for saying the same thing?

                2. Denise*

                  I find it funny that people are seeing him as the person “in pain”. Moved on and married, or not, I highly doubt this was particularly fun for Sylvia or something she has enjoys revisiting. I doubt that when she landed this big position an e-mail from a shitty ex was the way she wanted to celebrate. I highly she enjoyed having to share this information with her superiors. And if, or more likely when, this begins to leak to some other people I doubt she’ll enjoy them knowing this information. But, no, LW is the only one who has suffered or felt any pain. Sure.

                3. Layla*

                  What I said to Ann, Anion, was that I agree with her – but I think it also applies to the OP. I said the same thing to you.

                  The OP characterised his ex as ‘obsessive’ because she looked for him after he abandoned her at Christmas without a word. He didn’t even have the courtesy to break up with her.

                  He behaved badly, expressed ‘jerk on the internet’ behaviour and was criticised for it.

              2. Night of the Lepus*

                No-one is giving the OP a bad time because he reached out to other human beings. He is being given a bad time because he behaved atrociously and doesn’t seem to care beyond lamenting the consequences to himself. He is being given a bad time because he caused immense pain and refuses to look at his actions without blaming others. As to your lovely belief that we should all believe the best in people, well that is not quite true, as you point out: ‘none of us were there after his ungracious and unpleasant dumping of her, so we can’t say if she was obsessive or not.’ So your benefit of the doubt and thinking the very best of everyone does have limits doesn’t it? You are quite prepared to believe less than the best of Sylvia.

                As to this idea that ‘this young man would be–as almost every person is–more inclined to analyze his behavior if the criticism wasn’t so vicious,’ I see no evidence of any readiness to analyze at all, and would remind you that your initial advice to him was to ‘walk away’ which some witty and wise commentators reminded you was basically all he does anyway! He walked away from Sylvia years ago, he walked away from his job now, and your answer is that he should walk away from the responses to his question! I do not think it is kindness to recommend to him that he continue in exactly the same behaviour that brought so much misery. I think you are indulging him, and actively encouraging him to avoid thinking about consequences.

      2. Not Tom, just Petty*

        I so want to point out to this mature poster that he means untenable and brunt, but I am controlling the urge.

    5. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      I don’t mean to be contrarian, but did she even involve the chair? It’s unclear from the letter if Sylvia notified the chair or if HR did. Regardless, if I were in her position, even without any feelings of animosity, if OP had emailed me several times, I would probably refer the issue up the chain, as well. Whether that means others above me escalated it, too, isn’t always knowable.

      At any rate, I’m sorry that OP and his partner are having to deal with finding new employment. Although I felt his original letter lacked introspection (the update seems to continue that theme), I wouldn’t want to wish ill to anyone.

      1. designbot*

        I don’t think she did, he said “I also dropped a short message to the HR” before hearing that the chair wanted to speak with him immediately. I think he did that to himself, and I have no clue why he’d blame Sylvia for getting the chair involved.

        2. Anononon*

          Ding ding ding ding ding!

          The letter writer obviously didn’t think through the consequences of his actions here. Of course HR is going to alert the chair to a potential conflict with this brand new director they’ve hired.

          1. designbot*

            He also didn’t think through the potential consequences of writing to a highly popular, very public blog. Does thinking this is a pattern make me a ‘toxic commenter?’

            1. Candi*

              Well, in this letter, he calls AAM niche.

              Guess he missed the way intern dress code and graduation boss posts last year went viral.

              And U. S. World, and Inc, and The New Yorker…

        3. breadandbutterfly*

          I want to make #blamesylvia a thing for when people blame others for the consequences of their actions.

          Poor Sylvia. I hope she writes into AskAManager (or anyone, really) to give her side of the story!

        4. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

          Agreed. In general, OP seems to attribute a lot of intense behavior to Sylvia when it’s highly likely/probable that his actions caused whatever came next. I hope he’s able to reflect on that, because it will keep coming back to bite him otherwise.

          1. Jen S. 2.0*

            True. “I have no idea why she went straight to this crazy strong powerful action!!! (…that ultimately caused all kinds of inconvenience for me!)” Because it was a REACTION, that’s why.

          2. Not So NewReader*

            It’s pretty intense for a person to stop speaking or seeing another person, that is an intense action.
            This one bumps up a few notches because the other person was his SO.

            What baffles me is doesn’t OP understand that if your SO is MIA that you call the police and notify family pronto? If his SO/kid/dog was missing would he just say, “Oh well. Life goes on.” We get news headlines about stuff like this.

            I think that she had a third person in the room so she would not strangle him. Just my thought.

            1. designbot*

              I think they dragged her there as well as him. After all, he’s the one who roped in HR. At that point all she can do is display that she is the more professional party here, which it sounds like she pulled off with ease.

        5. DArcy*

          It’s clear that the only reason he’s blaming Sylvia for supposedly “getting the chair involved” when her rank inherently means going to HR means escalating to top management is because he pretty much is going with “automatically blame Sylvia for everything”.

        6. Observer*

          Because it’s never HIS fault that any problems arise? It’s always someone else doing something to him?

          1. Agatha_31*

            What he did to Sylvia – a selfish and thoughtless move – was no biggie. What Sylvia did to him* was totally overboard and mean. When he left Sylvia, it apparently didn’t occur to him to consider the impact his actions have on her life but he felt it was really unfair of Sylvia to try and FIND HIM, but when he quit because he didn’t like the rules being put in place (because of his past actions), it’s Sylvia’s fault that his current partner is suffering for his decision/actions. It’s nepotism that’s at fault for him deciding to quit rather than deal with a super reasonable consequence of keeping his job but just needing to agree to specific guidelines that were being put in place to protect Sylvia, the employer, AND HIM. Man… cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

            * Assuming she did. Like many others I suspect that even with a vague explanation, HR spotted the red flags from a mile away and it was them that sounded the alarm. I mean it’s part of their job. And the rules mentioned reinforce my suspicion because they smell like typical HR precautions when personal relationship issues might be a problem.

    6. Sketchee*

      I also didn’t expect an update. Remember this person lived with Sylvia and wrote “I simply moved out and left the country.” That’s a very extreme thing to do, even though I realize it happens. Given that circumstance, I don’t find any of the measures to be extreme.

      If you’re going to have the opportunity to have a job with the person you moved out, then it’s a great plan to keep you on a really short leash.

      I also looked for mention of an apology and hope he told her clearly and directly that he accepts responsibility, regrets what happened. and would make amends. I think resigning – even if it was possibly for his own comfort – was the best option for everyone

    7. Halster*

      I think it’s quite possible she was concerned about her reputation, given the other information! The ban on watercooler talk etc indicates that she didn’t want this getting around, and if the information was out, any interaction between the two of them would likely lead to a lot more gossip. It seems very reputation-protecting, which is entirely fair

      1. kb*

        I think it’s especially fair considering it seems the OP has mischaracterized her and their past before by not mentioning the gravity of his actions. If I were in Sylvia’s shoes, I would be worried about him introducing his narrative to coworkers first– where she is an ex who had issues letting go and tracked down family members– and Sylvia, being the superior, could not really professionally counter with her side of the story that makes her actions completely understandable.

        1. winter*

          Agreed. As a superior, she would not have any reason to talk with her employees about their shared past, it would be weird. OP however could float whatever version of events sounds most flattering first, potentially causing a real hit to her social standing and authority.

          1. pakeha*

            And in a conservative country the fact that she’s a woman may well be something that already counts against her, so his version of events could be even more damaging than it seems on the face of it.

      2. Gadfly*

        And there might even have been an element of her (or management) thinking “crap, if this gets out people are going to know I’m THAT Sylvia” and not wanting to deal with that getting out right away.

    8. greenbellpepper*

      I took involving upper management (if it was her who did so) as very much a professional decision rather than a personal one. If I were in Sylvia’s position, I’d absolutely get upper management (whoever that might entail) involved — she hasn’t seen this guy in years, and has no idea why he left. How can she possibly feel comfortable managing him without protection from a third party? She has no way of knowing that he’s not going to go to the chair on *her* if he doesn’t like decisions she makes and say that she’s retaliating against her for how the relationship ended. From OP’s letters he doesn’t necessarily seem like he would, but how does she know that?

      That said, totally understand if she isn’t entirely “fine.” As others have said, she can be happy and better off and still have feelings about this relationship and how it ended.

    9. Kate*

      I don’t know. She could be “fine” working with OP, but realized the optics of the situation might not be so good. The restrictions may have been put in place to protect Sylvia’s reputation rather than her emotions. If her and OP had a conflict over something in the future, people could point back to this history (particularly since the original letter went viral so everyone knows just how horrible OP’s actions were). It was also unclear to me if Sylvia even involved the chair. OP sent a note to HR about the situation, so they may have decided upper management needed to step in.

      1. JB (not in Houston)*

        Exactly. If I were in Sylvia’s situation, I’d want to loop in HR, at the least, and talk about measures to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

        1. JessaB*

          Exactly, is a good review because she’s worried about his reaction or fearful of him? Is a bad review revenge? This cannot go well. No matter how her behaviour might shake out, which side she’d go to, even if she was being as objectively honest as she could be, how would anyone know if she was being fair? In either direction. The conflict of interest is real, and it’s a big deal.

          1. Lady at Liberty*

            Agreed- I don’t think he would ever have been able to see anything she did objectively, and the situation would have been horribly untenable.

      2. JessaB*

        Particularly since this seems to be occurring in an area of the world where reputations are incredibly important especially women’s. She’s married to someone high profile. Someone socially and possibly politically important. It’s not a nice thing to say but in a lot of cultures this kind of thing getting out in a way that positions HER badly, reflects on her husband too. And her kids. And it sucks, but it’s a major deal. This has the potential to erupt way larger than just water cooler gossip. In a culture that values nepotism (for good or bad,) this kind of thing can spiral out really, really fast.

        I bet the restrictions were very much to protect her reputation, both as a boss and a teacher, and as a person living in the spotlight of a very important spouse.

    10. INTP*

      She could be “fine” with him emotionally but still not feel inclined to inconvenience herself or endure gossip for his benefit. It doesn’t sound like she went out of her way to make anything difficult for him, she just also didn’t go out of her way to protect him from the consequences of his actions. It would be weirder if she had concealed this from HR and her husband to protect him, imo.

    11. Anon HR*

      She did exactly the right thing. He’s demonstrated that he’s not mature enough to work for her without gossip and characterizing her negatively – not only the way he handled the breakup of their relationship, but also the way he described her in the original letter. He’s trying to point the finger at her for the difficulties here, but he’s brought this on himself with both his past and current behavior. If he’d acted fairly and professionally, he’d still have a job and be living with his family.

      Going to her supervisor/HR to say that she had a previous relationship with someone who would be reporting to her is 100% correct. The stipulations may well be a reaction to his “freaking out” since he’s admitted that wasn’t confined to this anonymous forum. Why believe that will change now?

      1. Cathie*

        She knows him, and I suspect she thought he would try to undermine and sabotage her leadership. Even his update shows a lot of hostility and victim-blaming on his part — notice how he slides in the “nepotism” remark, implying she got the Director job because her husband is an influential person in that country.

        1. Sahura*

          He also manipulates his descriptions of her, but his actions were so inexcusable that he comes off as the bad guy even in HIS OWN version of the story. Saying Sylvia was obsessive…for trying to find her partner of three years after he disappeared? Imagine how else he’s described her fairly reasonable behavior in order to diminish his own faults. That hasn’t stopped here and I imagine it wouldn’t have if he’d gotten the job.

      2. JessaB*

        Also though the stipulations could be the same they give for any potential conflict of interest – don’t blather about each other, don’t do anything important face to face alone, don’t deliberately hang out after work, etc. It’s a reasonable set of restrictions for ANY set of people with conflicts (unless they’re married or otherwise coupled, but that should be a “not in the same chain of command,” issue.)

    12. KEM*

      My ex fiance ghosted me way back when and while I may have moved on in life, I would NOT be fine working with him.
      I’m glad this guy gave an update but I don’t think he really sees what he did. It is obvious in his last sentence: “a summary, as many of those self-righteous people on the Internet hoped, I came out of this with no job, no severance and no prospect for another job in this city. “

      1. Mazzy*

        Well a lot of the commenters were self righteous, which usually makes the other party double down on their stance

      2. Mina*

        I love how that last sentence completely neglects how he was the one who chose to resign, *on the spot*, without negotiating or consulting his partner.

        1. TWanon*

          Exactly. And I don’t really see how the measures proposed were so unreasonable. Document meets, don’t gossip about management, don’t hang out with her outside the workplace. How is that worth a resignation and an end to future prospects?

          1. Mina*

            There’s some good discussion among (former) expat commenters here about how not socializing with her might exclude him from the community. Since I was only abroad for a year, I’m deferring to their judgment.

            Having said that, I wonder why OP couldn’t have taken a couple nights to discuss things with his partner and put a plan in place. My sympathy for him is limited because he had options that were less extreme than immediate resignation, and he didn’t consider those nor the impact on his partner.

        2. TWanon*

          Exactly. And I don’t really see how the measures proposed were so unreasonable. Document meetings, don’t gossip about management, don’t hang out with her outside the workplace. How is that worth a resignation and an end to future prospects?

      3. Not So NewReader*

        But no one won here. This is a part that OP is missing. If any one person fails that does not mean that others have won by default. This is not how the world/life/workplaces operate.

        No one won here, OP. No one.

      4. constablestark*

        No, I read that the same way too. I was actually thinking that HR knew nothing, then they got the notice from LW, and then they might have done either one of two things:

        a) Asked Sylvia about it, at which point she’d have to be forthcoming about the fact that he tried to contact her twice, which sends a signal to HR that there *is* something to talk about, or

        b) Saw the email, considered the power discrepancy, and just scheduled that meeting as a precaution.

        It’s more likely that it was OP’s own email that triggered the meeting. HR would wonder why this employee had such keen interest in making sure that things were right between him and the new director they just hired.

    14. Jess*

      If Sylvia had a brain in her head she would have pushed those conditions to protect herself from accusations of bias against the LW and the administration would have been grateful if she did.

      The LW was offered the best imaginable outcome for himself. Instead he decided to uphaul his life because he didn’t have the moxy to deal with his situation. That’s not karma. Or comeuppance. It’s a pattern.

      Sad trombone.

    15. Elizabeth West*

      Someone else may have already said this (I expected zillions of comments before I got back from an errand), but Sylvia may have realized this could get ugly in terms of gossip and brought the chair in on it as a preventive measure.

      1. Not So NewReader*

        You know we talk about examples of “good boss behaviors” and this is one. Sylvia’s boss knew he had to step in so he did. While the rules may have been stringent, they may have been necessary to keep the situation from escalating.

    16. Former Hoosier*

      Or perhaps she wanted to make sure that this was all above board so that she was protected later. There is no erason to assume her actions were vindictive.

    17. Faye*

      My guess is that she got the chair involved because she wanted to stave off any potential appearance of impropriety, considering she’s his superior.

      1. kb*

        Yeah and honestly, even if OP had ended the relationship in a better way, Sylvia probably would have needed to notify HR or the chair to give a heads-up that she and OP were formerly involved. If it came out by accident later there could definitely be an appearance of impropriety.

        1. Jess*

          Exactly, I really don’t know what better outcome he could have imagined.

          The positive thing about this having gone viral is that Sylvia’s staff will take about five minutes to find out OP wasn’t pressured out of his role because of her, but chose to d-bag himself out of it. Not so much by what he did ten years ago (though I’m sure that’ll increase sympathy for her) but by the incredibly poor way he has handled Sylvia’s and his school’s efforts to make the situation work.

          The only impact this will have on morale is irritating all of OP’s former co-workers when they have to cover his hours until he’s replaced because he quit without notice at the beginning of the school year despite the woman he abandoned and gaslit a decade ago trying her best to participate in a reasonable plan to keep him employed.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKdcjJoXeEY

    18. EverFabulous1*

      I see it’s still all about him and he continues to dwell in his own bubble not accepting any responsibility here. He’s upset that she married well and told her husband (i.e. The man who truly loves her and more importantly PROTECTS her) “Guess who is my new employee?” He’s upset that this situation that he created is causing him great embarrassment among prominent people who can pretty much end his career.

      I also see why he initially declined to mention the ‘measures’ put in place at this job. Why all of a sudden would he need to talk to Sylvia without a third person present?; have undocumented meetings with her and discuss her and the management (I.e., Sylvia’s husband & inlaws) with colleagues?; or interact beyond the school, and socialize with her?

      He is angry that the internet called him exactly what he is, a self absorbed F#*kboi. He seems to forget he wrote in asking what he should do while omitting key details because he knew it would make him look badly. He writes in again playing the victim card. I’m glad he had sense enough to resign. Hopefully his partner reads this and has the good sense to ghost on him because he has not demonstrated that he has changed his horrid ways. And shout out to Sylvia for living her Oprah best life with a man who is worthy of her, has his own money and his wife’s back. Glad she came out on top and hope she can someday laugh that this loser’s rejection was truly her protection.

    19. SJ*

      Even if I were “fine” i.e. forgiven him and moved on, I still wouldn’t trust the man to speak with him alone or to trust that he wouldn’t ruin my reputation at the school. His decision to ghost her after three years of dating (including two years of living together) shows he is not to be trusted. I think it was a very smart move on her part to get HR involved. Imagine how her husband felt to know her ex reached out to her and they would be working together.

  3. TK*

    ‘They relocated because of his business opportunity, not because she would be stalking me or would orchestrate this in some elaborate vendetta.’

    I will have to go back and wade through the comments but… I don’t remember this ever even being suggested. Perhaps somewhere else on social media? Or in his mind’s eye?

    Anyway, the consequences for him don’t seem particularly great or close to terrible, all things considered… Perhaps karmic justice can only take the form of heartbreak! (Kidding, kidding.)

    2. CMDRBNA*

      Some comments on the original thread leaped over several more plausible explanations (like, duh, some professional circles are pretty small, and smaller still if you’re an expat) and decided that obviously Sylvia had planned this whole thing in some elaborate, decade-long revenge scheme to get back at this guy.

        1. EddieSherbert*

          Yeah, people got a little over the top for that letter, and I think it’s fair the OP addressed it…

      3. MCL*

        From the original letter: “Sylvia was rather emotional and became obsessed with the relationship, tracking me down, even causing various scenes with my parents and friends.”

        But, keep in mind – this is his description of her behavior after he suddenly left a 3 year serious relationship with zero explanation or warning. Her behavior seems perfectly reasonable to me! But that’s the only information about her behavior post-relationship that was provided in the original letter.

        1. fposte*

          That’s not a suggestion that she moved to this school to stalk him, though; that’s the conjecture that’s being referred to here.

          1. MCL*

            Right – I was just quoting the extent of the information about her post-breakup behavior provided in the original letter. I believe that the stalking conjecture came from commenters.

        2. sunny-dee*

          Ah, I remembered that he was accusing her of stalking and being obsessive, but I didn’t remember he limited that only post-break up. I thought he was also hinting that she may still be following him. My bad.

        3. Specialk9*

          It’s hard not to read “stalker” into his word choice (“obsessive, emotional, tracking me down, scenes with parents and friends”), and he did it deliberately. He’s smearing her character with carefully described interactions that are normal for a live-in partner disappearing without a trace.

          That’s not some commenters going off the rails… that’s him renting a road roller, gravel truck, and mallet to move those rails so they point into a ditch.

          1. Elizabeth H.*

            As I said in the comments in the previous post, no matter how terrible what he did was, it is STILL POSSIBLE that she was stalking him. And if so, she isn’t exactly Simon Wiesenthal here

            1. Jessie the First (or second)*

              “it is STILL POSSIBLE that she was stalking him”

              Well, I suppose anything is possible. Our entire universe could be located in a marble that is being played by an alien race, just as in the end of Men in Black.

              But we should deal with probabilities here, yes? Rather than speculating about ways we can contort a situation so that it is opposite what the plain narration here tells us?

              1. Anion*

                The plain narration here tells us she caused scenes–as in more than one scene–with his family and friends.

                1. Jessie the First (or second)*

                  In THIS update. Elizabeth is talking about this update as well as the first, that it is still possible she is stalking him. Really? That’s what you get from this?

                2. Anion*

                  @Jessie the First (or second), I did not get the impression from Elizabeth that she thinks Sylvia was *still* stalking the OP, at all. I would not agree with that assessment if it was indeed made. I’m saying it’s not impossible that she did so in the aftermath of the OP’s poorly done breakup with her.

                3. Elizabeth H.*

                  No, of course I didn’t mean that I think it’s still possible she is stalking him! I meant immediately after the breakup, years in the past. What he referenced as causing scenes, involving his family etc. in his first letter. What Anion said.

            2. Anion*

              Yes. My mom had a boyfriend she really loved; I’ll call him “Keith.” They were together a couple of years. Keith talked about marriage. He was buying a house and borrowed money from her to help make the down payment, because it was going to be “their house” as soon as they got engaged.

              We all figured Keith would be an even bigger, official part of our family soon, so we had a big birthday party for him one year and we all bought him really nice gifts–my mom especially.

              Two days after his birthday, he broke up with her. He’d been seeing another woman for several months (he did not give back any of the expensive gifts we’d just given him two days before). And that was it. He never said goodbye to my brother and I, he never answered another of my mom’s calls, nothing. He mailed back a box of her stuff.

              He never paid her back the $10k or so she’d loaned him. She used that to start chasing him down. She’d show up at his work at all hours. She called incessantly. She called and wrote letters to his boss. For like a year after their break-up, she did this.

              I think Keith was a total jerkweed. I think if I ever ran into him somewhere I’d give him a dirty look and tell him I don’t have anything to say to him. I don’t think my mom deserved to be dumped like that at all (with the admission that he’d been cheating for months while talking to her about marriage), much less two days after giving him a great party and presents. I certainly don’t think it was cool of him to basically steal ten grand from her. I think she was absolutely wronged by him, *absolutely.*

              That doesn’t mean she wasn’t stalkery and obsessive, though, or that I think she was justified in any of her actions toward him (writing letters to his boss?!?!). The fact that he wronged her didn’t give her carte blanche to behave like a lunatic, frankly. And if Keith had written to AAM and called her “obsessive,” I wouldn’t expect people to decide Keith is obviously lying about her behavior to make himself look better, either.

              It’s possible for the OP to treat Sylvia badly in his method of ending the relationship AND for her to have become obsessive and weird about it beyond what might be termed “normal” upset/angry behavior. I get what people are saying about her calling his family etc. to make sure he’s alive, but why is she calling them beyond that? Why is she causing “scenes” with them? They had nothing to do with it; what does she expect them to do?

              Just as his apology doesn’t mean he deserves forgiveness, his method of leaving her doesn’t mean she deserves anything from his family and friends.

              1. Jessie the First (or second)*

                Although you say he broke up with your mom. In this situation here, OP didn’t break up with his live-in girlfriend and then leave – he disappeared, with no note or call or anything. I’d expect a few scenes, certainly, because I’d expect her to panic. Where was he? What happened? It’d take a while for her to figure out that his disappearance was deliberate and that he was breaking up with her that way.

                But the idea that we are going to litigate here that she may have been awful is bizarre. Why? In this update, what awfulness is on display from her? OP doesn’t mention any. OP says she seems fine, in fact.

                1. Mina*

                  I find it really upsetting that others are trying to find some way that Sylvia’s behavior in the relationship may have justified OP going to such extreme measures, when so far, she’s shown herself to be professional and gracious. Enough.

                2. Anion*

                  @Mina Who is doing that? I’m certainly not. I don’t think Sylvia in any way deserved to have her live-in SO just take off on her like that, and I honestly don’t see anyone else here claiming that, either.

                3. Mina*

                  Upthread, where people say that Sylvia might have done something to provoke his leaving, and also still pursuing the angle that she may have been stalking him, here.

            4. Working Hypothesis*

              us to believe they do. For example, the accusations of having gotten her job via nepotism are totally not supported by any facts. Neither is the claim that she’s the one who contacted the big boss, instead of HR doing so.

              So because, of the several times in which the facts given don’t match the interpretation, I have to regard the LW as a low-accuracy witness where Sylvia and her action are concerned.

            5. Sas*

              But dear what reasonable man would do what he did to someone and then, and now years later, label Sylvia a stalker? Having your cake and eating it, much?

        4. EverFabulous1*

          And based on everything he’s said, his descriptions of Sylvia are questionable at best. Unstable women, don’t go on to become Directors of businesses or schools (and remain- as they made it clear Sylvia wasn’t going anywhere, but he was easily replaceable); nor do they marry into wealthy families with clout like she obviously has.

  4. Regina Phalange*

    This was everything I hoped it would be, and more.

    xoxo,
    Self-Righteous Person on the Internet Leaving a Toxic Comment

      1. Editor Person*

        Same. As much as we are happy for people who see the error of their ways, our Ghoster friend and the Subway Seat Hogger updates are more fun to read.

      1. RVA Cat*

        Not to mention self-absorbed.
        Let’s just hope he notified his current partner of his move instead of ghosting *again*!

    8. Rat in the Sugar*

      So, do we just ignore Alison’s rule about being kind to letter writers when it suits us? This isn’t directed specifically at you, Regina, but just at people in general (you mentioned toxic comments so I left my reply here). It’s one thing to say that the letter writer seems unaware or immature, but there are comments now calling him a dick and an asshole and hoping his current partner leaves him. I mean, the rule isn’t “be kind to letter writers because they may actually be a nice a person and you shouldn’t be mean”, it’s “be kind to letter writers because unkind comments discourage people from writing in”.

      1. No Sympathy Here*

        I’m thinking the fact that even his update has already gone viral would be the bigger deterrent from writing in. This guy still doesn’t seem to grasp that what he did is absolutely heinous and is still whining about how unreasonable everyone is being toward him. Since we’re 500 comments deep; I’m sure Alison will point out the rule when she decides things are taking a nosedive on her blog.

      2. Frozen Ginger*

        I don’t think a lot of the comments on the first post were unkind. I think people were just pointing out that dropping out of a long-term relationship with no notice is not “ghosting” and is a much bigger deal than OP had given the impression it was.

      3. M Bananas*

        I have to disagree with you here. Being kind does not necessarily mean be sypathetic and in some cases (in which this one, I think, can be included) it doesn’t even have to mean be gentle.
        Being blunt with a person so ridiculously un-self aware, deflective and self victimizing about the reality of consequences can be a kindness, in a ‘wake-up call’ sort of way. Though from the tone and rhetoric of the update it doesn’t seem to have had any effect.
        Nevertheless I agree that the sheer amounts of critic LW got due to the virality of the post is daunting to anyone, but that’s not on AAM or any specific commenter, it’s simply another consequence.

      4. Jen S. 2.0*

        It’s not automatically unkind to call a spade a spade. There’s also a difference between things that are cruel and / or mean, and things that are wrong. OP seemed not to like that a LOT of people told it like it is … but that wasn’t mean or wrong. He did a terrible, reprehensible, selfish, hurtful thing, and behaved in a way that made it unsurprising that karmic revenge was barreling toward him at highway speed. But he was acting like he had no idea how this terribly inconvenient and unfair thing could be happening to him, and wrote to ask for advice on how to continue avoiding responsibility. Here, he now has up and quit his job rather than be inconvenienced (…again, as a direct result of having selfishly hurt someone else), and is acting like it’s anyone else’s fault he “lost” his job.

        I don’t think it’s unkind to state those facts in a way that describes how most people see these actions, and not how the OP is trying to position himself.

        Terrible, reprehensible, selfish, and hurtful are not unkind words; they are factual words describing an unkind action.

    9. laurelz*

      I love that he petulantly resigned on the spot over not being allowed to socialize, leaving her and their employer in the lurch, thereby recapitulating his earlier offense.

      He’s a piece of work.

        1. Jadelyn*

          I don’t see that at all. They put into place very reasonable guidelines to try to avoid or preempt the possibility of conflicts of interest and get ahead of the optics of the situation. Those guidelines actually protected both parties. I really don’t see where you’re jumping from “we’re not firing you, but we need to have some restrictions in place to protect both of your professional reputations, as well as the organization’s reputation” to “clearly they wanted him gone”.

          1. laurelz*

            Right? All of that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. And yet his objection is no talking about her to colleagues, “not even in watercooler chat”, and his interpretation of limiting the9r interactions outside the school as a total ban on socializing at all?

            He’s a petulant flouncer who has now left yet another girlfriend behind while he leaves the country.

            1. Anion*

              Not just “no talking about her.” It was “No talking about any management at all, not even watercooler chat.”

              How long do you think you could go at your job without ever discussing any member of management with any co-worker, even in passing?

              None of us were there at that meeting. We don’t know in what way these restrictions were laid out, so to claim the OP is definitely wrong in how he interpreted them seems unfair to me. I read them the same way Trout Waver did. It’s not unreasonable to do so.

          2. Trout 'Waver*

            You don’t see the obvious Catch-22? “You’re prohibited from saying anything about Sylvia, but we’re going to make you act in such a way so that everyone asks you about her. Oh, and document everything.”

            Also, “It’s tougher to replace a director than a regular employee”, though true, is not something to say to someone you intend to keep around.

            2. Layla*

              It’s more what you say to the person who a) emailed HR in a panic b) has a history of egregious behaviour.

            3. Jadelyn*

              Clearly the catch-22 you’re seeing isn’t as obvious as you think it is, because no, I don’t. It’s entirely possible for him to simply say “I’d rather not talk about it” and change the subject if someone asks. And what’s wrong with asking someone to document everything, exactly…? It protects both of them.

              Look. There was no really good way to handle this, especially since the previous post went viral. They were never going to be able to keep it under wraps enough that they could pretend it never happened. The organization, it seems to me, was trying to make the best of a bad situation, and they made a good-faith effort to try to set guidelines that would allow everyone to continue working there. Was it ideal? No. But nothing was going to be ideal, not really, because the situation itself is tangled enough and with enough visibility to be the sort of thing you can’t really make ideal solutions to. It was at a point of having to look for ways to reduce the damage done, rather than solving anything.

              I read “it’s tougher to replace a director than an employee” not so much as having an implied “…so get out” attached to it, but as a simple clarification that they’re not going to let her go in order to prioritize his employment with them. More like “look, we’re not firing anyone, but if you can’t behave according to the guidelines we’re putting in place to protect the both of you and the organization from the potential repercussions of this situation, you’re going to be the one who needs to go, not her.”

              2. Jen S. 2.0*

                “…you’re going to be the one who needs to go, not her.”

                Agreed. Again, they’re calling a spade a spade. It’s less that this sentiment is mean or cold or whatever, and more that sometimes the truth hurts.

              3. Trout 'Waver*

                We’re going to have to disagree on this one. It’s obvious to me. Also, the letter writer said it was the case, and we’re asked to believe letter writers.

                1. Jadelyn*

                  Yeah, but we’re talking about a known unreliable narrator, so I’m not particularly inclined to prioritize his unavoidably subjective read of the situation and what it really means over reviewing what the OP conveyed was actually said to him and what else that might really mean. I’m taking him at face value that they told him a director is harder to replace; I’m just not buying that that inherently means they were trying to get rid of him.

                2. Mookie*

                  No one’s doubting that those were the conditions set forth. We are expected to treat those as a fact. His interpretation of them as overly strict is subjective and there’s no harm in disagreeing with him there.

                3. Anlyn*

                  This writer is the very definition of an unreliable narrator. There’s some serious “woe is me” in this update.

            4. Working Hypothesis*

              Well, it’s not something you say to someone you’re planning to bend yourself wildly out of shape for the purpose of keeping around, but that’s pretty different from necessarily being someone you actively want gone. My read on the situation was that they were cautioning him, “This is not an easy situation for anyone. If you behave responsibly and avoid making it worse, we can keep both of you on, and would prefer it that way. If you insist on making it worse, be aware that you are not irreplaceable and will be replaced.”

              He chose to make it worse by resigning in a huff, and they accepted his resignation because, well, he *isn’t* irreplaceable. If he wants to resign in a huff, he’s not someone they really want there anyway. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that they wanted him to leave, let alone that they somehow engineered these horrible, terrible, impossible restrictions — which are actually pretty easy for anyone with reasonably good boundaries to keep — for the secret purpose of *forcing* him to resign in a huff.

              If they had really not wanted him there, they’d doubtless have simply fired him, rather than offering him a chance to show he was capable of responsible behavior and then watched as he proved that he wasn’t.

            5. TWanon*

              How gossipy do you have to be that avoiding speaking about a particular person at the water cooler registers as irregular? And no one would notice him not interacting with her outside of work, since as far as anyone knew they were strangers with no reason to socialize. Sylvia could have simply documented her meetings with all employees and LW’s situation wouldn’t have stood out at all. I’d certainly have tried negotiating for that before resigning on the spot.

              1. Siaynoq*

                I totally understand why leadership would tell him not to talk about management as a blanket requirement – so it doesn’t turn into watercooler Clue that still targets Sylvia. “Well, the stalker harpy who ruined my life ISN’T Claire, and it ISN’T Marco…”

                Yes, I think the OP would be this childish, especially considering he’s demonstrated no comprehension that these restrictions are being put into place to protect HIM, that they are trying hard to keep things civil and professional, that how he treated Sylvia (or even them having a relationship) would warrant firing and they are trying to keep him on anyways.

      3. Alli525*

        I wonder what Sylvia and the other meeting attendees said once he got up and left? (Other than “well, that’s more information than I got from him the LAST time he left me.”) Would’ve loved to have been a fly on the wall in that room.

        1. Casey*

          My bet is that Sylvia is mortified that she’s brought all this drama to her new job – drama which is absolutely not her fault. It sounds like she was willing to do what it took to deal professionally with him and to bear the burden of the additional work (scheduling ever meeting with a third party, documenting etc – all require extra effort!).

      4. Elizabeth*

        Plus not consulting his partner about his decision to resign, and now he is leaving the country (which she/he cannot join) to look for a new job! No lessons learned! Toxic!

      5. Your Weird Uncle*

        He’s like a teenager who broke his Xbox (or Playstation or whatever the kids are playing these days) because his parents told him he needed to get off of it. ‘SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO, MOM?!? YOU’RE WHY I CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS!!!’

    10. LSP*

      I mean, I get that OP is embarrassed by his story going viral the way it did, and some people were definitely quite harsh, but his level of defensiveness seems misplaced.

      Dude, just own it, fully, and without all the snide comments and equivocations. That’s the only way to move on from this with any dignity in tact.

  5. Euchre*

    Thanks for the update!

    The restrictions they wanted to place on you don’t seem that onerous to me, but I guess you’re the best judge of that.

    1. CB*

      Agreed – if they don’t have much daily interaction in school, how likely is it that limiteing interactions outside of work would mean he couldn’t socialize? Unless the entire staff usually socialize at the school director’s house – which seems unlikely – or he expects her to be hanging out with them a lot – which given her children and her prominent husband’s career also seems unlikely? If he is the sort of person whose entire identity is ruined if he can’t engage in water-cooler gossip about management, that’s another thing to reflect on as he rebuilds his life in a new place. Nobody wants that in an employee.

      1. Jill of All Trades*

        Expat communities are extremely small in some parts of the world. When I lived abroad, if I wasn’t able to socialize or be around a particular person I worked with, I likely wouldn’t be able to visit with a number of my friends (who overlapped substantially with my colleagues). If his expat community is just as small, I could see it essentially ruining his social and work lives.

        1. BPT*

          But is that worth leaving the country and your partner over? Like yes, it would really suck to have the bulk of your social group taken away. But you can’t deal with that for a year while you job search to stay in the country with your partner? It wasn’t just him leaving, he’s leaving another partner behind. People’s social groups fluctuate all the time – friends move, you might move to a new place, people get busy with families, etc. Most people are able to deal with this – maybe not to this extent, but I can’t say I would have quit and moved away from my partner because I had to have a third person in meetings, couldn’t gossip, and had my social circle shrunk.

          1. Genny*

            In one expat community I was in for a bit, it would be a big deal. The community was in a place where on a good day, you were restricted to the small, nicer parts of town and everyone went to the same handful of places. Then the security situation rapidly deteriorated to the point where the community was basically only basically allowed to go to work, their home, or their coworkers homes. If what happened to the LW happened in an environment like I just described, even waiting a year could be really difficult (and in fact, a lot of the expat community left because of the restrictions). I’m not saying the LW was right, but I can envision some scenarios where sticking it out for a year could be really, really difficult.

            1. BPT*

              I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a big deal, but even the way OP presented the stipulations didn’t say that he couldn’t ever run into coworkers or socialize with them. Had to “limit his interactions with her outside of school.” And quitting on the spot just sets you up for a harder job hunt. And he LEFT HIS PARTNER AGAIN because he didn’t want to deal with limited socialization for a time. Like I said, people often go through times in their life when they’re limited in socialization, whether its because of illness, kids, work, family, etc. He would have still had his partner. Nobody is saying it would have been super easy, but to me it just seemed like he was throwing a tantrum because he had any consequences to his actions.

              I mean, in your situation it seems like people left because of security concerns and almost being under house arrest. That does not seem like the case here.

              2. Lauren R*

                It’s also worth noting that since he quit and has to leave the country he’ll lose ALL this social relationships anyway, including the relationship he has with his partner. So it’s not like he actually came out better socially by leaving on the spot, especially when the restrictions definitely don’t sound so harsh that he’d never be able to enjoy time with his coworkers or need to cross the street if he saw one in public. I saw it as that he’d simply need to avoid having social or one-on-one interactions with the director herself when possible and that he wasn’t allowed to discuss his former relationship or management’s handling of the situation with any of his coworkers.

                He can definitely make new friends in his new country but I’m not seeing how the restrictions on socializing with his coworkers would have been lonelier than just leaving everyone and everything you know behind completely and very suddenly, without the promise of employment elsewhere and after likely burning a bridge with your former employer.

                1. Working Hypothesis*

                  A back corner of my brain is wondering whether there’s some reason why getting out of the country and away from the current partner would be to the LW’s advantage… and therefore it’s convenient to use Sylvia and the Dramatic Resignation as an excuse. “I’m not breaking up with you on purpose — those big meanies made me leave. MADE me, I tell you!”

                  (Is it just me, or does Sylvia and the Dramatic Resignation sound like the title of a Nancy Drew-style mystery?)

                2. Decima Dewey*

                  I wonder if the restrictions became “too onerous” because of things he said in the meeting:

                  Chair: There must be a third person present whenever Sylvia and OP meet.

                  OP: But I can tell everyone we used to live together.

                  Chair: No.

                  OP: But my coworkers should know how Sylvia—

                  Chair: No. Don’t go there.

                  OP: But–
                  And so on.

          2. Mookie*

            But is that worth leaving the country and your partner over?

            Well, he did it once before. So I guess he knows what he’s doing.

        2. Anonymous Poster*

          Yeah, this is why I could see these restrictions being really harsh. It could even be to the point where he couldn’t go to the grocery store – the only American grocery store in town – because of these restrictions.

          We don’t know enough details about his situation to know just how harsh or lenient the socialization restrictions are.

          1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

            It’s not a restraining order. He can’t go to the same parties she does, but I don’t see ‘must maintain 500+ feet of distance’ in that.

            1. BPT*

              Right? People are reading so much into that. It’s never presented as a restraining order. He says he has to “limit our interactions beyond the school.” Then he jumps to “no socialization for me ever,” which if his first phrasing is correct, seems like an overreaction. The restriction to me says “don’t visit her home, if you’re at a school function don’t be overly friendly, maybe think twice about going to a party she’ll be at.” It says “LIMIT”, not “we’ll fire you if you get within 100 yards of her.”

        3. Leslie*

          But they’re not expats. He’s a local and they’re moving to be closer to friends and family. There’s no reason to expect that she’d want to join his social circle.

          1. Humble Schoolmarm*

            I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed this! If Sylvia is happily married to a local resident (and one of some importance as well) it would seem likely that she would have a social circle beyond the teachers in the school.

            This might also be a good place to add, although it may be different for international schools, there are a lot of school directors or principals that prefer not to socialize extensively with their staffs. I’ve worked with more than one who only shows up for the dinner portion of the Holiday party and never joins the less formal events.

    2. tl*

      It says a lot that the organization was like “ok, you can have your job as long as you don’t 1) talk shit about the director of the organization to your colleagues, 2) corner her one-on-one, or 3) try to fraternize with her outside of work” and he resigned on the spot because he can’t conceive of a job in which he’s not entitled to do these things with/to a manager far above him.

      1. Rusty Shackelford*

        Right? And he’s actually leaving *another* romantic partner behind after losing this job, and even then, it’s apparently a more acceptable choice than those three very reasonable restrictions.

        1. Emma*

          From what I’ve heard of international schools, it seems like coworkers are often a social hub. So since Sylvia is a new employee, and I’m assuming planning to hang out with them, it would probably make it so that he wouldn’t have friends/social opportunities, or they’d be very limited.
          I can understand why she’d want that limitation, but I can also understand why it would be challenging for the letter writer (moreso than if he weren’t working at an international school).

          1. fposte*

            Yes, that’s what I thought; either he or Sylvia has to isolate themselves from the whole social group, and the school reasonably decided it wasn’t going to be the director.

            1. Anna*

              Honestly, it’s not really reasonable to ask either one of them to do it. It is kind of untenable to refuse either one of them the first line of support in a new country. Take it from someone who has known people who taught overseas and who has lived overseas, if you’re told you’re not allowed to socialize with anyone from your new job, you’re probably not going to last anyway.

              2. J*

                Except it’s not *really* a new country for either of them. He is established enough there to have a partner and he didn’t want to leave. She has in-laws in the area. Neither of them were in a situation where they just landed and had no other options for a social circle.

              3. Mary*

                But it’s not a new country for either of them: she’s married to a local with kids, and he’s also got a partner who, if they are an expat, are an expat from a third country. It sounds inconvenient, but not “life will literally be unlivable so I’ll quit and leave my job, my community and my happy relationship behind.”

              4. Observer*

                And, it’s not clear from what the OP says that the restriction meant NO socializing – he said “limit interactions” not “don’t ever be in the same room with her.” So I’m a bit confused here.

            2. Jesmlet*

              Right, honestly I don’t blame him for resigning over this stipulation. Telling him he has to essentially give up all his friends in a foreign country really sucks since I’m assuming the circles are pretty tight knit. Not saying it wasn’t a reasonable thing given the circumstances, but if I were him, I’d have quit too. This is obviously not something they would’ve asked had it been an amicable breakup.

              1. Safetykats*

                I’m not sure why we are assuming he would need to give up all his friends, or that his or her only social support would be other school employees. He says he has a local partner with family. He also says that her husband is from a prominent local family. Neither case sounds like the kind of expat who has no social options outside of coworkers. In fact, if her husband is from a prominent local family I would assume that she probably has no need to build a social life around subordinates she has never met.

              2. Tuxedo Cat*

                He wasn’t told that. He was told to limit socializing with Sylvia outside of the school.

                Sylvia has a family, with kids. While I’m sure she’s going to socialize sometimes with people from the school, I can’t imagine she’d be out and about with them all the time. If the OP were worried about someone inviting Sylvia, he could take the initiative and organize outings with like 4 people so that it’s not suspicious Sylvia was excluded.

                I have friends who work at an international school. There are a lot of friendships formed within the school, but the ones I know have other friends too.

                1. Mookie*

                  Exactly. If they hadn’t met up before in all this time, they don’t have a lot of mutual acquaintances.

              3. Working Hypothesis*

                But he wasn’t told that. He interpreted it as being told that, but there is no evidence to suggest that it’s really true.

                What he was told was, we are informed, to “limit” interactions with Sylvia outside of work. He wasn’t told he could never be at the same events she attended; he wasn’t told that he couldn’t see their mutual friends when she wasn’t there (and if she’s married to someone who doesn’t work at the school, there WILL be times when she isn’t there); he damn sure wasn’t told that he couldn’t see his other people who aren’t part of the school… and we know he HAS other people who aren’t part of the school, because he has a partner who’s local, and *their* family and friends.

                So he’s trying to make like he’s being forced to give up aaaaaaaall his friends tooooooootally, and it’s sooooooo unfair… when the more realistic description is, “You’re expected to stay out of her way, in terms of work-social group stuff. There are a whole lot of ways you can do this. You can spend more time with your partner and their family and friends, who aren’t connected with the school anyhow. You can invite your friends from the school to spend time with you, in ones and twos, rather than general parties to which the whole gang gathers. You can attend the bigger parties, which have enough space and people that it’s possible for you to stay on the other side of the room from her without making a big obvious show of it. What you can’t do is to keep ostentatiously showing up at every work-social event that happens and getting in the way of the new director when she’s trying to get to know her staff, because that’s more important to this school than your social life going exactly the way you’d like it to.”

                1. Denise*

                  Exactly. People are acting as if they took out a restraining order. What makes the “omg this is so unfair, they’re forcing him out of his social circle” stuff even more odd to me is that limiting interactions with exes when the break-up was bad is the norm. Most people don’t walk into an event or bar and see an ex they had a bad break-up with and go sit at their table or join their conversation etc. Both sides usually prefer to keep their distance.

          2. Fiennes*

            Though as OP had already been there for some time, it seems like he might’ve already had social ties, local friendships, etc. and maybe I’m misreading the conditions, but it looked to me like he could’ve socialized with other employees on a one-on-one basis, just not with the group when Sylvia would be present.

            1. Bagpuss*

              yes, that’s how I read it. It might limit his social life, given that the ex-pat community may be pretty small, but it would not stop it.

              I thought the restrictions seemed fairly reasonable, and while they might well mean that OP felt hi position would be untenable long term, it rubs me the wrong way that he chose to resign immediately, meaning he had to leave the country and his current partner to find work, rather than, say, sticking it out for a few months while he looks for another job in a different city, or a different country where his partner could accompany him, or spend some time planning what steps would be needed for his partner to be able to move back with him.

              It says a lot that rather than face some potential embarrassment and social restrictions, he is willing to give up a job and leave his partner, and without, apparently, giving that partner any input into that decision. And that he sees that as “It’s a pity other individuals bear the brunt of my immaturity in the past” rather than “I made a further decision which has a big negative impact on my current partner” – I don’t think the immaturity is all in the past!

              1. AnonAnalyst*

                Yeah, I can certainly see how it might make for a sucky few months, or however long it would take for new opportunities to open up or for OP and his partner to come up with a longer term plan. And I don’t blame the OP for deciding that he isn’t going to stay at this job under the current circumstances.

                But there’s a world of difference for me between “I definitely cannot live with these conditions long term and will be moving on when the time is right” and “I can’t live with this and am quitting immediately, consequences be damned (but which happen to include having to leave the country and my current partner).” That’s a pretty extreme step to take right off the bat.

                1. Working Hypothesis*

                  And one which shows just as little regard for his current partner as the original offense showed for his previous one.

          4. CB212*

            I agree that international schools tend to have a very close expat social community, but I’d also say that the director of a conservative prep school in the Philippines isn’t going to any happy hours or other hangouts with her teachers. She isn’t a fellow employee who needs that or probably (as manager) is allowed that contact. She’s going home after work to her respectable family and maybe planning a faculty tea. And the restrictions weren’t a blank wall between them, it was “limiting their interactions” – that wouldn’t mean he couldn’t attend the school prize dinner or holiday party at her home or whatever would bring them to the same room.

          5. Amy*

            I mean, that’s likely true, but he could always socialize by planning his own things and inviting only the people he wants to/can hang out with to them. Which isn’t to say he should set up a social environment that includes everyone but Sylvia–that would be a problem in and of itself. But I’m guessing he has some close friends in his school and some people who are, you know, casual acquaintances and decent coworkers but nothing too close. He could easily host gatherings, set up movie outings, etc. with the former group to get his socializing, and just tell the latter group that he’s really busy lately to excuse any absences they might notice.

            1. Kathlynn*

              And if he hosted an event, and someone invited Sylvia along with them, especailly if they didn’t tell either party that the other was going to/hosting the event. And the LW wouldn’t be able to say anything, and would have problems even dealing with that situation (unless he was “suddenly sick” and canceled the event, but I could see the rules being used against him even in that situation)

              1. Fiennes*

                I can’t imagine Sylvia agreeing to come to an OP-hosted event. This seems like the ideal time for “another commitment that evening.” And as others have said, socializing between the head of a conservative prep school and her teacher employees probably wouldn’t be extensive in the first place.

              2. Rusty Shackelford*

                That really sounds like a straw man argument to me. You can worry about him crossing her path in the hall or people bringing uninvited guests or finding out she goes to the same gym, but basically, they were told not to socialize together. There seems to be almost no chance that she would then show up uninvited to an event he was hosting.

              3. Amy*

                There are plenty of ways to frame an event as ‘small thing I’m organizing for a couple people’ and not ‘open thing, invite whoever you want!’. This also isn’t actually a legal restraining order–it’s an employer’s request, I’m betting if this chain of events somehow happened and the person who brought Sylvia confirmed that they didn’t tell OP who they were bringing, OP wouldn’t be fired for something obviously outside their control. My original point–that there are ways to maintain a social life other than work-organized events–still stands, I think.

              4. Working Hypothesis*

                What kind of world do you live in, where it’s impossible to host the kind of event at which everybody knows you don’t bring along uninvited guests?

                I mean sure, there do *exist* types of events to which it’s all right to bring uninvited guests, and some communities hold more of them than others. But I have literally never heard of a social group in which it was ALWAYS, no matter what the specifics of the invitation, regarded as totally cool to bring along uninvited guests without even checking ahead with the host. At very least, “I haven’t seen you in a while and I’m dying to catch up, just the two of us. Want to come to brunch with me, and we’ll have a long talk?” is the kind of thing which virtually everyone can identify as meaning “Outsiders not welcome.”

          1. bikes*

            Whoops – was replying to the Rusty Shackelford comment in particular, not Emma’s follow-up. I also think it’s weird he is willing to bail on his partner so easily–he seems much more concerned about getting to socialize with colleagues.

              1. SignalLost*

                To be fair, it’s possible that the visa issue is partly his – I’m not an expert but if he’s in country on a teaching visa, wouldn’t it expire automatically if he resigns voluntarily?

                1. Jeanne*

                  Yes. If he has no job, his visa is not valid. If he is teaching, it may not be possible to get another job until next school year. Therefore, he must leave.

                2. Working Hypothesis*

                  Which means that, by choosing to throw a tantrum over the rules and resign in a huff, he was making a unilateral decision to leave his partner. That doesn’t strike me as any more mature than it was the last time he did it. They didn’t make him resign; he decided to resign. He doesn’t have a right to do that and then complain that they forced — forced, I tell you! — him to abandon his partner and flee the country. They didn’t.

                3. The Other Katie*

                  It depends on the country. In some countries the visa is tied to the job, and you might get a few weeks or months grace period to transfer to another employer (if you can find one, having resigned on the spot from your last one). In others you get a visa for a set period of time.

                1. Managing to get by*

                  He did have the option to work there until either he was able to find something else or his current girlfriend was able to sort out her visa issues or he was able to find a position in a country they could both move to.
                  I’m not referring to his girlfriend as his partner, because he doesn’t sound capable of partnering with someone.

            2. EddieSherbert*

              We didn’t get much context for how/what is up with the current partner besides visa issues (maybe they found that out after they/he moved? Maybe they’re working on getting the partner there?), but it is definitely easy to jump to conclusions after this whole drama.

      2. a1*

        I didn’t take it quite this way. If you work in the same place, even if you don’t interact a lot with each other in day to day circumstance, you will pass each other in a hall, or find yourself waiting for the coffee pot. In that context it does seem odd or hard to make sure there is always someone else with you at all times. As for fraternization, I didn’t take it as just the two of them either. That would mean no after work happy hours, or other social events. And that, too, would seem odd.

        Look, what this guy did was crap. Really horrible. But why not just say he can’t be employed there and be done with it? I guess they got the same result, so maybe it doesn’t matter.

        1. MuseumChick*

          She had a full-time job, children, and a husband who it sounds like has a busy work schedule. That is not the type of person that goes to a lot of work happy hours or other after hour events. And even when they do it’s usually a quick thing “Hi Everyone! Sorry I can’t stay long. Kids at home/date night with hubby/catching up on some paperwork.”

          The rules they set were completely reasonable but this guy can’t handle anything being outside his control.

          1. Steph B*

            Eh. I’m a full time working mom with a husband that has a busy work schedule and I totally LIVE for work happy hours / after hour events.

              1. Steph B*

                The whole point of my comment is that what seems obvious to someone (oh, so-and-so has kids + husband with busy job, and so will not want to do happy hour) isn’t always the case, and I actually think that line of thinking can be totally detrimental in the long run if one adopts it in their workplace/after work events. Especially because I’ve seen it happen where I’ve worked, and seen it happen WAY more to moms than dads. I am sure it is mostly well intentioned, but it happens.

        2. Partially Bigoted Zealots*

          I don’t think we need to be completely literal here. They don’t need a 3rd person present when they pass in the hall or get to the coffee shop at the same time. They’ll need one if they have a meeting about work, or some other official thing, but not as two ships passing in the night.

          2. Alli525*

            This is correct. When the founder of my previous (Wall St) company decided to open up an investment banking arm of the firm, he had to put up a Chinese wall (this is an actual term in finance) due to SEC and other regulatory bodies. He wasn’t allowed to meet with our IB head *about business* unless our head of compliance was present, but if they ran into each other in the hallway, they were perfectly free to talk about the kids or whatever.

            The only difference here is that Sylvia has no reason to ever want a “hey how are the kids” conversation with OP, so those conversations just… won’t happen… because she won’t want them to.

            1. JanetM*

              It’s also a term in law, where a large law firm might end up with clients on opposite sides of a civil suit.

      3. Kathlynn*

        Actually, to take the OP at his word he is not allowed to discuss management (not just his ex) at all. It’s also not stated that he only has to limit his interaction with only her. It sound like he has to limit any social interactions with work people. And even if it’s just her, if the environment is small, then he would have to withdraw, because he would never know if she’s going to them, especially since he isn’t allowed to talk about her,

        1. Observer*

          Why would you say that- it’s pretty explicit that he needs to LIMIT his interaction WITH HER.

          I don’t know if it’s really as bad as he says, but there is no reason to invent restrictions that the OP didn;t mention – he’s not shy about downplaying negative effects to him.

      5. Kathlynn*

        He said that he isn’t allowed to talk about managment or his ex at all. That is a lot more then just not bad mouthing them.

        1. Julia*

          But he isn’t exactly a reliable narrator. He keeps trying to spin this like he is being put upon, we don’t know exactly how the higher ups worded it.

          1. Jess*

            Oh my goodness, can you imagine if he is actually an unreliable narrator and already managed to make himself look so absolutely atrocious as a partner, colleague and employee?

      6. JessaB*

        It really looks totally different when you phrase it that way, right? I mean fairly neutrally. This is NOT an outrageous set of requests.

        Although depending on the culture of both the locale and the job, I would worry about being squeezed out on any grounds they could find, so if I did take the job it’d be just until I could get myself another one. And I’d certainly go home and think about it rationally and talk to my partner before I outright quit. I wouldn’t do it in the moment at any rate. I mean it’s even possible that despite the stuff that happened in the past, they do think he’s hire material, if he’d been apologetic and realised how he’d been, they might have been willing to work with him to move him somewhere else, or help find him another place, while he worked for them until they could also begin to replace HIM. Now he’s got no hope, and certainly no assistance, he left them high and dry without someone in the job at all.

        But I guarantee whatever grapevine is in place in his job field in the area, is going to be buzzing like a hive of bees about how they were reasonable and he just up and quit. With a side order of “just like he did to her” years ago.

      7. Creag an Tuire*

        I mean, reading between the lines I can see how what seems reasonable on paper could quickly make his workplace an awkward and uncomfortable place in practice (if the professional community is typically close-knit and social, than OP will become conspicuous by his absence, and given that the first post ‘went viral’ word would have probably gotten around that OP was Casper the Unfriendly Ghost even if Sylvia never breathed a word about it).

        That said, OP made the choice to leave with no severance, no job lined up, and no partner rather than take his slings and arrows for a while while getting his affairs in order. Make of that what you will.

      8. anon for this*

        In a previous workplace I saw precisely this tactic used to get rid of an employee who had behaved inappropriately towards another employee (but in a way that did not rise to the level of a contract-terminating offense). He couldn’t be fired, but they didn’t want him to stay, and obviously the other employee was not comfortable around him, so, he was barred from any meetings where the other employee was present (so, all of them) and from any sort of on-site function or gathering. He was not permitted to be in any hallway or in the breakroom or in the copy room or in any other room when the other employee was present. He had to make sure he didn’t end up in the elevator with the other employee. And so on. Other employees avoided him because they didn’t want to have to play the avoidance game and because being seen with him in any capacity quickly became viewed as being on ‘his side’ — if no one was supposed to know, in this instance, maybe that’s not an issue, but it was one at my old workplace.

    3. sunny-dee*

      Yeah. And she really had to involve HR — there are rules, or at least conventions, about managing family / friends / lovers. If she didn’t reveal it, she could have gotten in trouble.

      And the rules were basically “don’t gossip about her, don’t socialize with her, don’t have private meetings with her.” The private meetings thing is strict and I could see being a pain, but the other two are entirely reasonable and should be obvious and easy.

      1. CB*

        Also, he’s the one who wrote to HR, that we know of! If this place is as closed and conservative as he suggests, I’m sure they called in the director to avoid any hint of scandal. Private schools don’t take these things casually.

      2. breadandbutterfly*

        But she didn’t involve HR- he did! I’m sure HR sent the Chair because it was involving a Director and her future subordinate.

        1. Anna*

          And, well, since they director and the new subordinate had a previous relationship, it makes absolute sense to have another person (like the director’s boss) there to be another party to the conversation.

      3. JessaB*

        But no private meetings also protects HIM from her coming back and saying things that are not true. That protection actually flows both ways. She can’t say he’s acting unreasonable and he can’t say she’s treating him unfairly.

    4. Gingerblue*

      Yeah, that all seemed pretty minimal and common sense to me? Don’t be alone with Sylvia, don’t badmouth Sylvia or management, and don’t intrude on Sylvia outside work? The OP seems to think that, having created this incredibly awkward situation and having approached Sylvia and HR to officially put the awkwardness on record, it’s outrageous that any of the burden of mitigating the awkwardness should be on him.

      1. SarahKay*

        That was how I read it too. He went to HR – did he think they wouldn’t do anything? Okay, as we’ve seen from previous AaM’s that *can* be true, but I certainly wouldn’t assume it was likely that HR would just shrug and let them both carry on.
        As far as the restrictions go, I can see that in a smallish social circle in a foreign country they are perhaps tougher than elsewhere, but they all struck me as eminently reasonable and what you might expect a business (or, in this case, school) do require in such a situation. The ‘no meetings without a third person present’ in particular I would expect if one person had to supervise a long-term ex, even without a bitter break-up – you’ve got to protect both sides, and the company itself. Add in a bitter break-up and the other restrictions again seem only reasonable to minimise any future gossip or potential harassment.
        I have some sympathy for OP for the way this all blew up on the internet, and quite a lot of sympathy for his current partner being stuck due to visa restrictions, but none at all for the actual outcome as regards his employment.

        1. JessaB*

          And it kind of is possible to go to places she might be while not interacting with her. If it’s the kind of culture where you have to go to a bunch of places you find someone you like (even your partner,) and you make sure you stay on the other side of the room and don’t talk to her.

          But that only happens after you’ve proven you can do your job thoroughly and properly and not make a whisper of an issue for anyone for a decent amount of time, like months not weeks. Once you’ve a track record of being mature and handling things, THEN you go to the party and stay the heck away from her. At a distance that anyone taking a photograph could not possibly frame you both in one unless it’s a forced together department thing.

          But the idea that you can’t stay away at all for any reason? No that doesn’t work. If you can’t stay away long enough to prove that you’re not a problem, long enough to prove that you respect her and her space and her need to not be around you, then you really can’t do the work. And quitting was probably a good idea.

          (NB “you” meaning the OP not any prior posters.)

    6. Collarbone High*

      The restriction on socializing does seem to me to be potentially unmanageable.

      I spent several years as an expat and our community was extremely small and close-knit; co-workers at all levels of our organization socialized *constantly.* A typical week might involve a movie, four or five lunches, a couple of dinners, Sunday brunch and at least one party, all with colleagues, and for many people, that was the only social life due to language barriers. So excommunicating someone would be incredibly awkward for everyone and would drastically limit that person’s activities. If there’s one expat bar in town and everyone in the workplace goes there for happy hour, the one person who doesn’t go is going to be asked why, and since they’re unable to give an accurate answer, that’s almost certainly going to cause speculation as well as ostracizing the OP. I’m not terribly sympathetic, but I do see how this would be an untenable situation.

      1. a1*

        Exactly. He’s still a dick, so I don’t really care about him, but it’s not really as simple as some are thinking.

        1. CMDRBNA*

          I’m been an expat and yes, those social circles are really tight, but I read it as no socializing with him and Sylvia outside work, not him and everyone else. Especially with Sylvia being the boss and having a husband from that country, and apparently family in that country as well, I really don’t think she’s going to be at every happy hour or social gathering because she likely has her own social/family circle already. I think it would have been more onerous if Sylvia had just been a coworker, not the boss.

          1. Umvue*

            Think about the logistics of that, though — how is he going to know whether she’s coming to happy hour without (1) asking her (which I don’t think he can do) or (2) stalking her? I think in the end he’d wind up treating this like a restraining order, because he wouldn’t have much choice.

            And I think that’s okay! It’s a limitation, yeah, but better than the school exposing itself to a lawsuit of some kind.

            1. Working Hypothesis*

              Still seems pretty simple to me:

              -Don’t show up at events which are likely to be small enough that it’s impossible to be simultaneously at it without interacting significantly.

              -Don’t interact with her significantly if you happen to show up to the same large event.

              -If you’re not sure whether something is an okay event to attend or not, err on the side of skipping it… there will always be another.

              I’ve been in the position of the person being blamed for horribly wrecking somebody else’s social life by going about my own business while there was a no-contact order preventing them from being around me. A similarly close-knit, small community in which everyone showed up at all the events, and nobody had much in the way of friends outside the community. And that was a legal, formal order with criminal consequences involved, due to physical abuse… but it was still considered my fault for being so terrible a person as to show up to the events I’d planned to go to, because that prevented her from attending them.

              But you know what? She managed just fine. She called up individual friends and invited them out with her, one or two at a time, so there was no likelihood of running into me the way there might be at a group event. She showed up at group events she thought I was less likely to have an interest in, still understanding that, if I appeared, she would have to leave. It worked out… without making it impossible for her to keep any of her friends.

              If she could handle it, despite kicking and screaming, I have a difficult time believing the LW couldn’t have done *something* more effective in the way of maintaining a social life within these strictures than to drop it all, dump his partner, and run away with zero warning. If he *didn’t* do better, it’s because he didn’t want to — for any of several possible reasons. But that’s hardly either Sylvia’s fault or that of his former boss.

              1. Umvue*

                Yeah, it’s possible I’m wrong here. I’m certainly persuaded by the critical mass of comments here that even if the OP is right that the situation is untenable in the long run, the wiser decision in the short run would probably have been to finish out the year. I’d been interpreting the rules pretty strictly (i.e. that it would not be enough to do as your abuser did and plan to leave an event if you showed up), in which case I still think it would be wisest for him to quit before that happened. But most people don’t seem to think that’s right, and on reflection it’s not clear that setting him up to fail in that way would serve the institution — now that he’s gone, his absence will need explanation, he’s going to be hard to keep in line, and they may run some risk of exposure.

                (And I’m sorry about your experience, and glad there was a structure in place to protect you. Abuse sucks.)

          2. Kathlynn*

            But he can’t even ask if she’s going to be at an event, given he cannot talk about management at all (he didn’t say not bad mouth, he said not talk about them at all). I mean, maybe they didn’t mean it to be taken that far, but they could go by the letter rather then the spirit to punish or fire him.

            1. CMDRBNA*

              I mean, we’re taking OP at his word, and it’s not like he’s the most reliable narrator. Yes, those restrictions suck, but it is what it is. He made the determination that he couldn’t/wouldn’t abide by them and chose to quit.

              1. ss*

                Agreed. He should have given it a try to see whether it was prohibitive in reality or if he was blowing it up in his imagination to unreasonable proportions. To just rage quit without a job for something that MIGHT occur is very odd, especially when the rage quit puts him in a far worse position than the restrictions.

            2. Jessie the First (or second)*

              He can’t ask if she is going, but it wouldn’t be hard to figure out just by listening – he is allowed to be in a room with her, as long as others are there, so he could pretty easily hear if she were invited and whether she was planning to go. And if he goes and she shows up, he can leave.

              Not fun for him, certainly. But not an impossible situation. He didn’t want to try it out, but that doesn’t mean it was in fact unworkable. Given his partner’s situation and his lack of a job, I’d have thought it would have made sense to try to make it work *while beginning an urgent job search* rather than just quitting on the spot.

              1. Danger: Gumption Ahead*

                It is doable even in a small ex-pat community. I had a bad breakup while working overseas and managed to avoid my ex (who was also working to avoid me) and we managed not to cross paths in a community of less than 100. The LW has an advantage that I didn’t have: a local partner. He could have easily moved into the English speaking local social circle and continued working under the restrictions laid out by his employer.

                1. Tuxedo Cat*

                  Something like this happened to a friend of mine. He and this one person had a really bad falling out. My friend didn’t speak the local language, either, and was working a close-knit place. It wasn’t easy but he still managed to have a social life.

            3. pakeha*

              He could pretty easily have just… asked them to clarify that point though. It would show he was willing to work with them and understood the situation.

          3. McWhadden*

            The restrictions say he can’t be alone with her or try to socialize with her. They don’t say he can’t be at a party where she happens to be. As long as he doesn’t speak with her it should be fine.

          4. That Would Be a Good Band Name*

            Having never been an expat, I have a serious question. If she has already moved to the area, wouldn’t he have already started to see her at social functions? I get that it’s a school, but do they all only socialize during the school year? It just seems like she would have already been introduced to other expats and started appearing at common social gatherings if that were going to happen. I’m not implying that she wouldn’t attend any events ever, but it also just says to “limit” their interactions. So if she only attends events here and there (especially since her husband has family in the area she will probably have other obligations), it seems like he would be able to attend as normal and still be within the guidelines.

            1. zora*

              My mom is a teacher and she doesn’t have any social events outside of the school year. It just doesn’t make sense, people are traveling or busy, it’s much easier to coordinate starting the first week of school.

              And since this is not the US (and I have lived outside of the US), everyone likely does a lot more vacation time /traveling. When we lived overseas, everyone took 6-8 weeks of vacation traveling over the summer, and we all came back right before the new school year began every year. Long summer holidays are much more of a thing outside the US.

            2. Numenaster*

              They are now at different social levels due to her much more important position, her marriage into a prominent family, and quite possibly his lack of a marriage. In a conservative society where reputation is important, she will be invited to plenty of events he will not, leaving time for him to organize his own entertainment. And she will be expected not to attend very many events that are primarily for the younger transient expats, because going to bars every evening is inappropriate for someone in her position.

              The OP has blown off another partner because of a threat to his social life with third parties. There isn’t much I can say about that without extreme unkindness.

      3. Emma*

        Yea. And they may have realized it when they told him that this was a restriction. It may be a “you don’t have to leave, but if you stay it’s really going to suck for you, so just go ahead and leave” situation.

      4. MuseumChick*

        But would a mother, while more than one child, a full-time job, and a partner with a busy work schedule really be spending that much time socializing? Certainly they would not be going to every single one of these events so it’s pretty melodramatic for the OP to say that he would have no social life. It would be an inconvenience for him to have to determine if she was going to at an event and/or to excuse himself up arriving and finding out she was in attendance but it is not unreasonable.

        1. CMDRBNA*

          Also, the OP said that Sylvia’s husband is from that country and she has family connections there, so I really don’t think she’s going to be spending a ton of time at social events with her coworkers.

        2. Jesmlet*

          I don’t think this matters. He would have to interact with her in order to find out which ones she was going to and that’s virtually prohibited too. Assuming you’re a mother, do you not have a social life? It seems like you’re implying that she’d go to work then go home to be with her family and that’s it. In an expat situation, the people you work with are often the only ones you can socialize with and become your de facto friends. If he’s not willing to be a nag or a pariah, I get why he resigned.

          1. CMDRBNA*

            That’s not what I’m implying. I have been an expat before; I know that your social circle is often limited to your coworkers, especially if you’re not fluent in your country of residence’s language. What I’m SAYING is that of all the people the OP works with, it seems like Sylvia is the least likely to spend a ton of time socializing with her coworkers, given that she’s 1. their boss 2. has family in that country. I think it would be harder for the OP to avoid socializing with a coworker than it would be for him to avoid socializing with Sylvia.

            But all that aside, the OP decided he couldn’t live with those restrictions and chose to quit, so the question is moot. Maybe it would have been fine, maybe it would have been untenable. We don’t know and neither will he.

          2. BedMadeLie*

            Right, because experiencing any loneliness, or having to find new friends, or making an excuse and heading out if she shows up at happy hour is far, far worse than the consequences of his decision to quit, like having to leave the country, leaving another partner adrift in the process, etc.

            1. Jesmlet*

              He evaluated his priorities and made a decision. Hopefully he at least has the self-awareness to know what he would or wouldn’t be able to tolerate. There are plenty of people who value their social connections above most else. I’m not going to fault him for making that decision when there’s plenty of other things to fault him for.

              1. Online social*

                Eh, I think quitting on the spot means he didn’t do much of an evaluation. Maybe he would have come to the same conclusion, but he didn’t even give it a day of thought.

                1. CMDRBNA*

                  Also, the OP is quitting really close to the start of the new school year and with him already scheduled into the school’s classes, so he’s leaving the school in a bind too, which I can’t imagine will help his prospects in the future either.

              2. CMDRBNA*

                Honestly, if I were in a similar situation I might have decided to quit too, rather than feel like I’m being ostracized at work. I’m not faulting him for quitting, I’m faulting him for presenting it as though he had no other option/was being forced to quit, when by all indications it seemed like Sylvia and his managers were trying to find a solution. He’s not owning the decision to quit, just presenting it as a fait accompli, and, also, putting himself in the position of the victim. Again.

                1. Jesmlet*

                  Right, he’s clearly playing the victim here and probably concluded that he was being pushed out because it fits his narrative, definitely not disagreeing with you there.

                2. Kathlynn*

                  A lot of other commenters are faulting him for quitting, and feel that he was required to stick it out. It’s interesting when you compare the reactions to untenable work situations. Whether this guy was a dick or not, the restrictions and the fact that they wanted him gone were as strong as they were in the letter where the LW had an affair and the ex-wife was now her boss.

                3. BedMadeLie*

                  Kathlynn (ran out of nesting), he’s not being faulted for quitting, he’s being faulted for acting like he was “forced to” quit, and oh shucks, isn’t it juse awful that the viral nature of this letter (not his own choice to quit) is the reason that he now has to leave the country and abandon his current partner and their household.

                  I can feel compassion for his partner, who he did not consult, and felt was not worth rearranging his socializing habits for. Again, his right and his choice, but not a lot to sympathize with.

              3. Denise*

                Well he said he resigned on the spot, so he didn’t really put much time into evaluating anything. But, also this means that his partner wasn’t in his priorities, so I’m not really sure why he even mentioned her.

          3. fposte*

            Yeah, it does sound like this is functionally close to telling any of us not living abroad that we can’t hang out with our friend circle if we want to keep our job. That being said, I also agree with the people who think that’s something you can suck up for a year to figure out an orderly transition that will work better for everybody than a swift departure (even for the OP, since it’s such an unfortunate echo).

      5. former expat*

        I really question this recurring idea that being an expat means the restrictions are genuinely all that prohibitive. I’ve been an expat, too, and our community was probably *slightly* bigger than yours/the OP’s, but far from huge. There were people I had issues with, and while there were times it was genuinely difficult to avoid them, I also had plenty of social experiences without them. I went out with other friends in small groups and didn’t go to some events I knew they’d be at. I even made other friends from the community, i.e. locals rather than other expats.

        Would the new rules be limiting for OP? Probably. Would they totally eliminate his social life? Not unless he’s the sort of person who would prefer to destroy his entire life, move, and start over somewhere else rather than make some initially tough but actually relatively minor/far from impossible adjustments– oh, wait.

    7. Elsajeni*

      While I think most of the conditions are not that onerous, “no discussion about her and the management with my colleagues” is a pretty serious restriction. I see some people reading it as “no shit-talking Sylvia” or “no personal gossip about Sylvia,” but taking the OP at his word, it’s a lot more restrictive than that and I can see it being very difficult to comply with; I don’t know if I would have resigned, but I’d seriously reconsider a job offer that came with that restriction, for sure.

      1. JB (not in Houston)*

        That’s a good point. I read it the way other commenters did at first, but if he’s not allowed to talk about any management at all, that’s different. And if, as some have said, the expat community is small, and his coworkers are his main social group, then if he’s not allowed to socialize with them (and it’s not clear to me whether he is or isn’t), then that’s a big deal.

        1. CB212*

          As for the socializing, I took “limiting his interactions with her” to mean more, don’t pursue this with her. Don’t contact her husband. Don’t try to corner her to ‘work it out between yourselves’. Not, you have to walk out of a parents’ night if she is there, you can’t attend the faculty lunch, you can’t both be members of the local expat club, etc.

      2. EddieSherbert*

        I’d be really concerned that I’d unintentionally break that rule (or another one), and then have worse consequences (PIP? fired? more rules?). Not sure I’d resign immediately, but I’d probably be job-hunting again, at least.

        1. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

          And honestly, immediate job-hunting would be a totally reasonable reaction to this! But quitting on the spot, knowing it would mean leaving the country and his partner, was not so reasonable.

        2. Observer*

          And, I’m betting that the Director was expecting him to do that. It is, in fact, a very reasonable response to a difficult situation.

      3. Rusty Shackelford*

        Okay, let’s say that’s the case. Let’s say it’s going to be a lonely and quiet time for him until he finds another job. So… he puts up with it for a year, because that year allows him to keep his job and stay with his partner while he looks for something else. But that was just too much for him? I’m just having a hard time not considering this a beautiful example of karma. He yanked the chair out from under Sylvia, and now the chair is being yanked out from under him – except he has some choice in the matter, and he’s being told about it upfront, instead of wondering and worrying.

        1. Jesmlet*

          I think you’re overestimating how easy it may be for him to just find another teaching job in a foreign country. Obviously what he did was super shitty, but reveling in his current misery like some of these commenters are doing is just a bit icky IMO.

        2. Marillenbaum*

          Seriously! People–even in international ed–change jobs, and countries. So you have kind of a crap year socially while leaning on your partner and applying like mad to new positions. Maybe you still ultimately don’t find something in time and leave at the end of the school year. That’s still a year with your partner, a year earning money, a year where you’re still employed and therefore more employable.

      4. McWhadden*

        But he was painting Sylvia as a psycho for… contacting his friends and family after her boyfriend of two years, whom she lived with, disappeared without a trace.

        He said this letter circulated offline. They had to have known he was painting her in an unfair light. Telling him not to discuss her at all is totally reasonable with that context.

      5. Gadfly*

        Given his letters, no shit-talking about Sylvia might require defining it as no talking about Sylvia as he does not appear to understand when he is shit-talking about her in order to make himself look better.

      6. Observer*

        Sure, I think anyone with sense would think twice before taking a job with such restrictions. But, resigning – especially right before the school year, and leaving your partner high and dry is different.

        There seems to be something missing from the OP’s description of what happened – jumping from “limit your interactions outside of school” to end your entire social life seems rather extreme. So, either the OP is leaving something out or he has really bad judgement.

    8. Amy*

      Agreed–they seem like pretty straightforward ‘don’t cause a potential scandal’ requirements. Don’t gossip about your ex/boss, don’t try to engage or rebuild a relationship, don’t do anything that would make others think you’re trying to do those things. Done. It sounds like he actually got off really easy compared to what I was expecting, and chose to take a harder way out anyways.

    9. K*

      I understand what people are saying in terms of coworkers being central to the social lives of expats working at international schools, but I also feel like a more reasonable path for him to take would’ve been to stick around for a while and see how much of an effect that restriction really had on his life. Quitting on the spot seems extreme to me.

      1. Online social*

        I wonder if it was necessary to save his ego? If he stayed in the job, his social group would have noticed things eventually. Now he can make up a story (or just a lie, either way he seems to play down things, like calling his initial actions “ghosting”) and save face.

    10. chi type*

      I think people are kind of missing the point of what OP was foreseeing. Expat groups do a lot of group activities together including, like, a big Thanksgiving dinner in a place that doesn’t celebrate Thanksgiving. OP has always gone to these events but now he has to start turning them all down and his friends are going to be wondering why. Well, per the restrictions, he can’t tell them why and they’re going to get very curious/suspicious of such a drastic change in behavior being explained away as “I have to wash my hair that night…and all the others.”
      This does seem decidedly “untenable”.

  6. Partially Bigoted Zealots*

    This person is alarmingly not self-aware of what his actions do to other people, and while it sucks to be without a job I’m having trouble garnering up some sympathy.

    3. Commentorfour*

      Seriously, I find him even less sympathetic in this letter than in his original message.

      It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Sylvia looped in her chair, since she has nothing to hide and wants to be completely transparent about her previous relationship with a direct report. He could’ve at least tried to make their proposed measures work. And exactly how much outside-of-work socializing does he feel entitled to do with his boss, who has children and a spouse of her own?

      I just hope he tells his current partner that he is leaving rather than vanishing in the night.

      1. LSP*

        What really struck me was the response to Allison’s follow up on how Sylvia seemed.

        “Fine.” Really?

        That’s incredibly non-descriptive. As a former teacher of English overseas, I would have regular lessons where students would get buzzed when they used words like “very”, “good”, “nice” and “fine” because they don’t tell you any useful information.

        There’s a real lack of situational and emotional awareness here that is quite telling.

        2. Emi.*

          Ehh, I think it conveys “She seemed okay but I don’t know any details.” It’s vague because he isn’t privy to specifics.

    5. SignalLost*

      Well, it’s important to not take any comments or suggestions at all to heart, to be surprised that something so outrageous might have a capacity to go viral, and to discuss absolutely everything in a tone that externalizes feelings and responsibility onto other people to be more reasonable. I guess we’re all just toxic people for not being sympathetic when sympathy isn’t deserved.

      1. Not Tom, just Petty*

        This. So much this. Surprised it was published? Surprised it was discussed outside of this site (not necessarily viral, but it had legs)? How obtuse are you? It had sex, it had drama, it had well, the LW’s perception of events. That is internet GOLD!

        1. Annabelle*

          10000% this. All the letters I’ve seen go viral (or like, “viral”) from here have featured a really socially tone-deaf/oblivious LW. After trying to minimize literally abandoning a long-term partner, idk how he was shocked at all the attention.

      2. Parenthetically*

        “to discuss absolutely everything in a tone that externalizes feelings and responsibility onto other people”

        Ye gods, this exactly.

    6. AndersonDarling*

      I can drum up a little bitty, bit of sympathy, but I’m really hoping that someday I will be a director and some jerk who wronged me will uproot their life to get a job at my organization and I can be all “Nope! Nope-ity-nope-nope!”

      1. CS Rep By Day, Writer By Night*

        Not a director, but someone who screwed me over at a previous job then tried get a job at my new employer when the place we’d worked at together went out of business. My boss at the time asked me for a recommendation and I was quite happy to tell her that I would never willingly work with that person again. I was a very high performer and my boss tossed this person’s resume in the trashcan right in front of my eyes. It was immensely satisfying.

        Don’t screw people on the way up, because sometimes you’ll meet them on the way down too.

      2. Not So NewReader*

        I so relate to nopity-nope.

        But the few times I have had a chance to repay some misery, I ended up just thinking about how I have been fortunate in so many ways. And then I think “take the high road”.

        What happens next is interesting. I take the high road and the other person ends up unraveling themselves WITHOUT my help.
        Some people just know how to pick the option that causes unraveling.

    7. Lucky*

      “I found out later that her husband comes from a prominent family here, everyone knows them. Nepotism is prevalent in this culture and family status really matters. The chair knows them.”

      Is he saying that she only got her job because of her husband’s connections? Shocking lack of self-awareness.

      1. Spooky*

        I laughed out loud at that part. Hilarious lack of self-awareness, perfect externalization and blame-shifting, plus tons of karma. A+.

      2. JB (not in Houston)*

        I took that to mean he thinks that the chair would, without a doubt, take Sylvia’s side on this and any potential issues that might come up in the future.

        1. Jesmlet*

          This is how I read it too. I think he can be an arrogant douche and for this statement to also have some truth to it…

      3. Annabelle*

        That’s how I read it. Given the overall tone of the update, it makes sense that the LW would try to shift blame and diminish her accomplishments.

      4. JessaB*

        No, I think he’s saying he got the short end of the discussion vis a vis restrictions because she’s higher placed than he is due to her husband. That they’re bending over backwards to “pander” to Sylvia because of her connections. Not so much that she got hired because of it. But that it’s put him one down and he “had to” quit because of it.

        1. Hey Karma, Over here.*

          I think that is exactly what LW believes. He feels she circled the wagons and left him no choice but to leave. Whether that is a correct assessment is not something we can tell from him.

        3. Denise*

          It seems that some people here, and LW as well, are assuming she wasn’t or wouldn’t have also been given restrictions and guidelines by her superior. We have no clue what discussions took place between her and HR or her boss. I highly doubt they gave her the greenlight to gossip about him or to insert or personal life and feelings into the workplace.

      5. Observer*

        You know what? Even if that’s why she GOT the job, it’s not why they prioritized her. They prioritized her because, as he says, it’s WHOLE HUGE LOT easier to find another language teacher than another director.

    8. Detective Amy Santiago*

      Yeah, there is nothing in the original letter or the update that indicates the OP has any sort of understanding or empathy for the level of cruelty of his past actions.

    9. Mina*

      It does suck, and at the same time, I wasn’t exactly expecting any self-awareness, especially with the first letter. Still disappointing, though.

        1. Frozen Ginger*

          I have to wonder, did his girlfriend see the post? He said it went “viral” offline. I wonder what she thinks about all this.

    10. laurelz*

      I love that he petulantly resigned on the spot over not being allowed to socialize, leaving her and their employer in the lurch, thereby recapitulating his earlier offense.

      He’s a piece of work.

      1. SignalLost*

        And in a context where they did not immediately go to preemptively terminating him, no less! He had his job till he resigned, and that’s more than most of us thought he was going to have!

          1. JessaB*

            This so very very very much. If he’s the support in the household, what is his partner supposed to do now?

        3. a1*

          How do you know he hasn’t talked to them? I’ve seen this posted over and over. There is nothing in this letter that indicates he will be ghosting this person. He hasn’t even moved yet. Yes, the guy’s a dick, but no need to make stuff up.

          1. Rusty Shackelford*

            In his own words, he says that during his talk with the chair, he “resigned on the spot.” Now, I’m not saying he didn’t talk to his partner afterward. I’m not suggesting he’s going to flee the country without notifying his partner again. But I *am* saying that it looks very much like he quit his job without discussing it with his partner. Unless he was texting during his conversation with the chair. (Yes, we could give him a generous benefit of the doubt and suggest he discussed this possibility with his partner before his meeting with Sylvia and the chair. But neither of his posts have shown much evidence of that kind of forethought, so…)

            1. a1*

              OK. So you would have the same disdain for everyone that has quit a job, on the spot, if they were in a relationship? Sometimes you just know you can’t do what they are asking, or know it won’t work for you, or whatever. I’m not going to condemn people that quite on the spot.

              2. JessaB*

                Depends on if they were the support in the partnership and how awful they were treated, obviously if they were screamed at and treated completely outrageously, but yes I’d be hugely ticked if the only support in my household quit without any way of picking up the pieces but leaving me.

                We have no idea if the partner works, but either way I bet OP is part of the “pay part of the rent/expenses, etc.” in the household and has just quit high and dry without making sure that missing money can be afforded or that it won’t cost them an eviction.

                If you’re in a partnership with someone you don’t take unilateral financial decisions that screw with the partnership without talking about it.

              3. Working Hypothesis*

                I sure would have that kind of disdain for anyone who quit a job on the spot, knowing visa considerations would mean they might have to leave the country, and didn’t discuss that with their partner first and make a joint decision on whether this was the way they mutually wanted to do things.

                It’s not ideal, even without the visa issue, to quit a job without first discussing it with your partner, if you share expenses with that partner and you don’t have another job lined up. You’re effectively dumping onto them the full responsibility of supporting you, without asking if they’re okay with that first. It’s marginally possible that there might be circumstances in which you cannot possibly take longer to make a decision; and you cannot possibly stay there for one more minute after what you’ve just found out. It’s Real Darn Rare, but it does occasionally happen. But even that wasn’t what this LW was dealing with… nothing except his own pride prevented him from agreeing to the rules for at least long enough to get back to his partner and decide together what to do.

              4. mimsie*

                I wouldn’t have the same disdain as I do for this guy who has a history of being a douchenozzle.
                And I wonder how he’s going to explain this whole situation to his partner when he returns home.

              5. Rusty Shackelford*

                I’ll just quote what Working Hypothesis says down below:

                I sure would have that kind of disdain for anyone who quit a job on the spot, knowing visa considerations would mean they might have to leave the country, and didn’t discuss that with their partner first and make a joint decision on whether this was the way they mutually wanted to do things.

                He unilaterally put his partner in a bad spot. Best case scenario is that they’re not living together, their finances are separate, partner is completely self-supporting, and all they’re losing is a romantic partner. Worst case scenario is a lot more f-ed up.

            2. Snorks*

              I would be pretty sure he had discussed all possible outcomes with his partner over the last month. He knew leaving the job, either being fired or voluntarily, was on the cards.

              2. Denise*

                Given that this guy once packed up and moved to another country without telling his partner, I don’t think one can say they’re “pretty sure” he discussed all options with his current partner before he quit on the spot.

                But even if he had previously discussed them as possible options, he didn’t discuss before making a decision that would majorly affect her and their relationship.

  7. Mes*

    “In a summary, as many of those self-righteous people on the Internet hoped, I came out of this with no job, no severance and no prospect for another job in this city.”

    Karma sucks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    1. Potato*

      Yup, pretty much my default reaction. I can’t summon any sympathy for someone who is a victim of entirely his own (shitty) actions.

    3. ThatGirl*

      Seriously! Commenters were self-righteous for hoping he got what was coming to him? Shows a real lack of self-awareness to say that.

      1. Juli G.*

        Yes! And really, they didn’t fire him but they weren’t willing to change their restrictions to keep him so…

        You ask questions to get insights based off others’ experiences. Sorry he didn’t like them.

      2. Amy*

        Yeah, I wasn’t particularly *wishing* for any specific outcome, but I did expect him to be outright fired. What he got actually seems quite light, considering.

    6. many bells down*

      And maybe I stopped reading the thread too early on – after 1000 comments it gets a little unwieldy – but I don’t remember people actually HOPING for that. Mostly it was presented as the most likely logical consequence of his actions. Saying “this is probably how it’s gonna pan out for you” isn’t the same thing as hoping for it.

      1. SignalLost*

        My read also. I feel like I maybe saw a couple comments where someone edged close to hoping for it, but in general everything I saw was “this is not going to work out for you because you are more expendable, so plan for that now.”

      2. MeowThai*

        I don’t know about here–I probably stopped reading too early on as well, but people on the Buzzfeed article (and every internet piece about this letter since BF) were really really vitriolic and hoping for this kind of outcome. It got really ugly once it went viral because other sites don’t have Allison’s well-established and mostly well-respected rules about being helpful not hurtful.

        2. Jeanne*

          There is an awful lot on this thread that is hurtful and in no way helpful. Calling him a dick and an asshole doesn’t in any way help. Being gleeful he lost his job is not helpful. There’s very little real advice here. Lots of gloating. I’m disturbed.

          1. Anion*

            Me too, Jeanne. It’s really rather horrifying. I mentioned the dress-code interns in another comment; that one caused a big stir and a lot of people thought they deserved to be fired, but there was nowhere near this level of name-calling and vitriol; no one was smirking about how karma got them; no one was hoping they’d never find another job; no one was implying they probably stole from their workplace, too, since they’re such bad people; no one was calling them liars; no one was saying they had no right to feel hurt or upset; no one was deciding they were sociopaths or serial abusers. Heck, I don’t think people were even this nasty to the guy who emailed his girlfriend’s boss for “interfering in [our] relationship” by taking the girlfriend out for drinks, or to the guy who shoved his co-worker in front of a moving vehicle because he was terrified of birds.

            I’m starting to get quite upset reading all this, honestly. It’s bordering on–if not crossing the border into–cruel, some of the comments and the delight people are taking in this man losing his job and his home for the crime of breaking up with someone badly years ago, and the derisive laughter at the pain he’s obviously feeling.

            1. Working Hypothesis*

              I don’t think, to the extent that people are feeling glad that he lost his job, that it comes from vindictiveness “for the crime of breaking up with someone badly years ago.” In most cases, what I’m seeing is people who say what amounts to this:

              “You’ve not only done something really horrible years back, but you’ve attempted to justify that action to us; then you brought down the attention of HR on yourself by telling them something with major scandal potential; and then you decided to blame the resulting predictable effects on your victim from years ago, even though she doesn’t appear to have had anything to do with it. When your boss cautions you that you’re on thin ice and then lays down the requirements you’ll need to meet in order to be able to avoid causing them more trouble than you’re worth, you threw a hissy fit and stormed out in a melodramatic resignation… one which, despite the fact that you had reason to know it would mean you’d need to leave the country, you did as a unilateral action without first consulting your *current* partner about it. And then you sought to blame everyone except yourself for the results of your own actions: your victim, the school which you quit in a tantrum; strangers on the internet. None of that looks like the actions of a person who has learned from any of their former mistakes; nor someone who is unlikely to cause more trouble with similar gross errors in judgment if allowed to continue employment in this delicate situation. I’m glad you won’t be working around Sylvia… neither she nor the school deserve to have to deal with that kind of immature and self-centered behavior.”

              Note that this is, while blunt and unsympathetic, a very different thing from “I’m glad you’re suffering.” It’s rather, “I’m glad you are not getting the opportunity to do more damage to this situation, because I have no reason to believe you wouldn’t do it.” You can argue whether or not you think it’s *true* that it is better the LW not have the chance to further mess up this situation in new ways… but even if you don’t think it’s true (and are right), it may help to recognize that the people who are saying it *do* believe it’s true, and are reacting on that basis.

              And yes, I do know that some of us have said he’s acted like a jerk, and things of that nature. I’ve been one of them. Doesn’t mean I want him to suffer just *because* he’s a jerk. His jerkdom makes me less likely to care whether he suffers either pro or con, but it won’t cause me to seek it actively. It will, however, spare me any real grief if he gets himself into a situation which most bosses are likely to see as a whole red picnic basket full of red mice twirling red flags, and make the sensible decision not to bend themselves out of shape to retain him.

              1. XtinaS*

                What an intriguing set of priorities! “Abandoning his live-in long-term partner with no note or hint of what was going on or anything… yeah, sucks. These comments: THE LITERAL WORST. I may be sick.”

              2. Oh, Please.*

                Denise, your obsessive following of Anion’s comments to literally sneer and attack her for every single thing she says reveals a LOT about you. Your total inability to understand nuance of human behavior (that you can feel badly for BOTH PARTIES, you don’t have to pick one, and having sympathy for some wrongdoers doesn’t make you an evil asshole lacking in empathy for victims) as well as twist every word out of her mouth to fit your narrative and accuse her of thinking or believing things that are not at all true (that she has no sympathy for Sylvia, because if she feels even a LITTLE bad for the LW, clearly she can’t feel bad at all for her? That saying he doesn’t deserve to be skewered means that she’s “defending” his behavior or finds it “A-OK”? Please. Try again) is very transparently defensive.

                Why is it so damn important to you to try and discredit her (very valid) points? And why are you doing it so nastily and angrily? Why are you obsessively following her to tell her how WRONG SHE IS AND SHE’S SO WRONG AND SHE’S AN UNSYMPATHETIC JERK?

                This is clearly touching a personal nerve for you, and that’s all well and good, but you don’t get to pass off your feelings as objective fact, NOR do you get to pretend that Anion is alone in her opinions – she has PLENTY of people who agree with her, myself included. And you CERTAINLY don’t get to label us all as having “messed up mentalities” just because we don’t share your opinion.

                One day, I hope someone finds out about a time you treated someone less than perfectly, and I hope the whole world blows it up and attacks you for it. Then maybe you’ll learn a little of the empathy you’re so self-righteously and smugly preaching. You don’t get to decide who doesn’t deserve empathy, and you don’t get to dictate to others when and how they get to show it, and to whom. You don’t get to use your own views as the barometer that everyone else has to follow.

                Whatever happened to you that makes you so angry and defensive about Anion’s comments, it sounds like it sucked, and I’m sorry for that. Maybe you were the victim of something similar, I don’t know. But clearly, the idea that wrongdoers aren’t necessarily bad people, and that piling on a wrongdoer maybe isn’t okay, infuriates you to the point where you feel the need to be condescending, snide, and haughty to anyone who disagrees with you. Ask yourself why that is, and why you so desperately NEED EVERYONE TO BE ON YOUR SIDE about this.

                THIS ISN’T ABOUT YOU. Your insistence on trying to make it so is really off-putting and gross.

                But I already know what you’ll say to this. You’ll roll your eyes and totally miss the point and insist that because I refuse to dehumanize LW and “pick a side” that I’m excusing and defending his behavior. Because you can only empathize with one person ever in a conflict. Any attempt to understand a wrongdoer or not cast him as the most evil thing in the world means you’re an “apologist with messed up priorities.”

                If you really can’t see how messed up (and quite frankly arrogant) that mentality is, then I feel bad for you.

    11. JessaB*

      Completely by his own choice. He quit. He didn’t quite ghost them because he said he quit TO them. But he had a job. Was it a pleasant one? Probably not, but he had one. He got no severance and no reference because he quit of his own free will.

    12. Not So NewReader*

      I don’t get the logic here.
      OP writes in to an advice site about his new job. And the commenters on the site want him to fail? HUH? What would the point of an advice column be if everyone rooted for failures?

      OP, cause and effect. My husband used to say, “when you yank a chain on a toilet, you cannot blame it for flushing.” This is a very simple example of cause and effect relationships. We cause the toilet to flush when we pull the handle.

      All of life goes like this, poor eating habits lead to health problems, poor work habits lead to work problems, poor relationship habits come back to haunt us, too. Until we learn to stand in place and work through hard situations we will continue to have to run from anything that seems or is difficult. No pain, no gain. Leaving means we do not learn what it takes to rise above bad circumstances.

      Now how do we know that X leads to Y? Probably because we have done a similar thing or watched a good friend or loved one do something similar. We don’t say things from a ivory tower, we say things from a place of BTDT, it sucked. It’s too late for me/mine but maybe we can keep you out of this pit.

      There is no default success in life, OP. If one of us fails it in NOT an automatic win for the rest of us.

      1. Working Hypothesis*

        Very few commenters on this site have expressed a desire to have him fail. Many, however, have expressed a belief that it’s the most likely outcome given the circumstances, and that that isn’t an entirely unearned result. You can’t really blame them for that, as you just said something pretty similar, NotSoNewReader. ;-)

        I’m given to understand that, when the original post here got linked to from Buzzfeed, the Buzzfeed commenters in particular *did* include many who actively expressed a desire for the LW to fail. That’s not terribly surprising for Buzfeed, but not what I’ve seen here.

        1. Mina*

          I’m not really seeing a majority of the comments here delighting in OP’s failure. I’m seeing *some*, but overall, the general tone seems to be disappointment, although not without surprise.

    1. Eli*

      Seriously, did he learn anything? “I just do not understand why she had to get him involved. We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately.” He’s still blaming the situation on her!

      1. Regina Phalange*

        Right? Like, he’s basically the worst. It’s incredible how he could possibly see himself as a victim in anyway.

      2. Mary*

        Especially since it’s not even clear that it was her choiec to get him involved?

        I also dropped a short message to the HR, without providing full details. Next morning (Sunday!) I got a call from the chair of our board of overseers, asking me to meet him as soon as possible.

        It is very, “Sylvia, I am giving you this information so you can decide what you want to do next … HEY, NOT LIKE THAT.”

        1. SignalLost*

          I cannot be the only one wondering what their relationship was like. I’m not speculating, I’m pretty sure he’s a huge jerk. His tendency to rules-lawyer makes me think I would involve the chair if I were Sylvia, because OP sounds exhausting. (I do think it was his contact with HR that triggered that meeting though.)

        3. boop the first*

          JUST LIKE how he blamed Alison for publishing his letter. It must have been really difficult not to address that part!

          1. Amy*

            I like how he basically blamed Alison for his letter going viral, instead of his own decision to write in apparently without even bothering to find out how this blog works or whether it has much of an audience.

            1. BedMadeLie*

              He thought it was just an email address for a nice lady who will do the emotional and logistical labor of telling you how to avoid consequences for your poor choices.

              1. Online social*

                +1000, and then her sort of criticized Alison by saying, “I didn’t think it would get big on *your* blog.” Good on her for taking it in stride, but ugh he did the same thing to Sylvia, downplaying her accomplishments. This guy is the worst.

            2. Annie Moose*

              Did he not even skim the front page or google her email address first? It’s pretty clear she publishes the text of letters!

              (and OK, yes, he thought she’d answer it privately, which I assume Alison might do sometimes, but surely in that case he would’ve specified “hey please don’t actually post this letter on your blog where you post letters”?)

              1. Amy*

                Didn’t you know? Nice ladies who give advice are supposed to just automatically know what you want from them, and give it to you without you having to articulate it. Clearly a person who runs a blog wherein they post letters and then give advice about them would have just automatically KNOWN he didn’t want it posted, and therefore this was an intentional attempt to ruin his life.

      3. MakesThings*

        Yeah, it’s like any kind of opportunity for insight, empathy, or deep thought for this guy is like water off a a duck’s back. There’s just… nothing beneath the surface- no depth, no layers, just self-interest, not even disguised as anything. He sounds like some kind of bot.

          2. Sylvan*

            Yep. There’s no “there” there. :/

            That said, if I were this guy, I wouldn’t really open myself up here.

      4. Robbie*

        His resolution to relationship trouble was literally leave the country without telling his *live-in* partner. He does not have the higher moral ground in how to talk with your ex.

      5. Curiosity Killed The Cat*

        Especially because, in a way, he went right to ‘the top’ of the extreme with their relationship. He could have talked to her about their future, tried to work something out, but he cut and run. So rather than working something out with him, Syliva cut and run to her management. It makes perfect sense to me, I’m totally on her side.

        1. JessaB*

          He could have even left a note saying “I’m done.” But you up and leave without any notice, anything saying you’re not in trouble, you haven’t been kidnapped, you’re not suicidal, you’re not being chased by someone dangerous, anything at all, and you get peeved because she calls around trying to find out if you’re alive and okay?

          I have a feeling that “drama” he mentioned with his family was probably something like “OMG is he okay? Is he dead? he hasn’t called, left a note, anything and he’s gone.” Coupled with a serving of “OMG how am I going to pay the rent, electric, whatever, and maybe he didn’t pay some stuff already and owes her money.” I don’t consider that drama.

          This is not a relationship that lasted a week and he ghosted. This is a LIVE IN relationship. She didn’t even have time to put aside money to cover his end of the bills or to try and find a new place she could afford. He basically upturned her life and didn’t even care to leave an “I’m okay, bye. I left of my own free will.”

          And I will say for the record, that as someone with an anxiety disorder with panic attacks, ghosting should be a crime (not in the actual legal sense, but you get me.) I would be losing my mind trying to find out if the person was alive and okay. I’d look like a rabid stalker until I found out from someone I trusted that the person was alive, okay, not in hospital, hadn’t been hit by a truck, etc.

          Paraphrase Paycheck and leave a “take this relationship and shove it,” message, but leave one.

          1. Creag an Tuire*

            Hell, my mother and some of her friends are on Facebook right now asking after Wakeen, an Internet Friend most of them haven’t met IRL, who abruptly went dark on social media and usual haunts without notice — because she cares about Wakeen and wants to make sure he isn’t in a trauma ward somewhere.

            Such an emotional, hysterical person she is. ◔_◔

          2. Toxic Person On The Internet*

            Yeah, “more integrity than Burger on Sex and the City with his break-up Post-It note” shouldn’t be a difficult moral bar to clear.

          3. LN*

            Yeah, I was ghosted by a friend after only knowing them a few months, although we’d grown pretty close in that time – and when he got in touch with me again, he was 1000% more thoughtful and apologetic about it than this guy seems to be…over a years-long cohabiting romantic relationship!

            Yikes.

      6. tl*

        I also love how, in suggesting that she should have worked it out with him one-on-one, he is STILL ten years later expecting to receive the benefits of a private, intimate relationship with this woman.

        2. Detective Amy Santiago*

          Yes, she should have worked it with him the same way he worked out their relationship problems all those years ago.

          Oh wait…

      7. Amy*

        Right??? Like, of course she got the appropriate people involved. What else was she supposed to do? They have a clear stake in the outcome of this, it would be negligent of her to NOT include them.

        He’s talking like she somehow owed him the chance to ‘work it out’ without any professional repercussions, and that’s just incredibly naive and entitled. She doesn’t owe him anything, and even if she did, this wouldn’t be a reasonable demand.

    2. Mina*

      He had 10 years to reflect on how his actions would have been considered more than just immature; I honestly doubt that he would have gotten more insight in the couple of months that passed between the letter and this update.

      But yeah, it still sucks.

    3. Lynn*

      Oblivious on more than one level. One of the interesting aspects is that 10 years after the (cowardly, malicious) “ghosting,” he is still teaching math with apparently too few connections to land another job in country, but she’s the new director. He completely fails to recognize what this dynamic suggests, instead implying she married her way to the top.

  9. The Crusher*

    Thank you, OP, for your update on this story! I appreciate your willingness to let us know how it turned out and to answer Alison’s questions.

        1. Prost!*

          Lord, can you imagine *THAT* conversation. “Sweetie, I have to leave the country because I quit my job because a woman I used to live with for two years and disappeared on started working at my school needed to get the director involved in something we could have handled ourselves.”

          0_O

  11. irritable vowel*

    No offense, OP, but you are placing the blame on losing your job on pretty much everyone and everything other than yourself, up to and including the entire culture of your country. You should think about that. Your company did right by your ex because you were in the wrong.

      1. Marillenbaum*

        Yes, but I don’t think that’s better. He’s still acting like it had more to do with nepotism and her husband’s prominence than the fact that she’s good at her job and it’s harder to replace a director than a lower-level employee.

        1. INTP*

          And apparently she shouldn’t have told her husband…what? It would be a Big Deal in a marriage to conceal the fact that your new coworker is an ex that you once lived with, even if it hadn’t ended in such a dramatic way. So she was supposed to risk damage to the trust in her marriage to hide this information to protect him from the natural consequences of his actions?

          I think it sounds like Sylvia could have easily said “Nope, I’m not working with him” and she tried to be fair without actually sacrificing her own interests. He’s the one that decided not to keep the job with the stipulations that would make it a tenable situation for her.

          1. Annie Moose*

            Honestly!

            Even aside from it being a terrible relationship decision to conceal all of this from her husband, is it really unexpected for Sylvia to talk to the closest person in her life about this massive, potentially life-changing thing happening to them? Of course when an ex who fled the country rather than break up with you reappears as your new employee after literally years of silence, you’re gonna confide about it to your spouse! That’s a pretty normal thing for a person to do.

  12. Fake old Converse shoes*

    Wow. I hope OP has learned something from this, but reading the letter I don’t think it’s possible.

    1. SignalLost*

      He’s learned that we all hate him and absolutely no one offered a sympathetic or compassionate option for how to handle the situation. And he’s learned that the internet at large and the readers of AAM are toxic, toxic people.

  13. Tempest*

    I can’t believe it made the Daily Mail. Wow, I read the original and thought whoa what a strange way to end a 2 year relationship but I never thought to search the story in google. He’s right, it totally went viral.

      1. General Ginger*

        Oh, wow. I hope all of the exposure wasn’t rough on Sylvia. I’m imagining friends contacting her going, oh, wow, this thing I read on Buzzfeed sure sounds a lot like that jerk who split on you.

    3. Torrance*

      Yeah, though there have always been the occasional viral letters (Operation Smile, for instance), the more recent ones have been less ‘look at how crazy this company is’ and more ‘light your torch, mount your horse’ (that poor intern who wrote in… :/). I think it might give some people pause about writing in but, then again, people aren’t always as self-aware as they should be.

      1. EddieSherbert*

        Oh my gosh that intern dress code petition one… yeah, the internet really went nuts there!

        I didn’t realize this one went viral too. I’ll have to Google it!

      2. Umvue*

        Hm; over time this could lead to some adverse selection that might affect this community (as reasonable letter writers become less willing to submit, the pool becomes less reasonable + as the site becomes more popular, pile-ons become more regular). If I were Allison I think I might be tempted to start closing comments earlier.

  14. (Mr.) Cajun2core*

    OP, I am sorry this happened to you. Yes, what you did wasn’t right but it was ten years ago. We all make mistakes and I wish you the best of luck in the future.

    1. ahch*

      I too am perhaps one of the few who does feel very sorry for the OP. I don’t condone his actions but I still have compassion for someone who hits rock bottom. It sometimes is a long and terrible road to get back up.

      2. LawBee*

        I don’t know. He chose to quit the job in much the same way he quit the relationship. Right then, on the spot, boom. I don’t see him has hitting rock bottom as much as going there deliberately. ::shrug:: He’ll pick himself up again. But as long as he keeps telling himself that nothing is his fault and everything negative that happens to him is because of other people, he’s got a rocky road ahead.

        1. ss*

          And his action hurts more than just him… he hurt his current partner without bothering to discuss it with her. Very self-centered.

        2. Amy*

          Agreed. Even if the stipulations weren’t tenable for him long-term, he had the option to stay until he could find a job elsewhere and work out visa stuff. That’s honestly more than I thought he’d get–I thought the most likely outcome was getting fired. So I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the consequences of him choosing to walk away rather than take what they were offering until he could find something better.

        3. Mina*

          Yeah, he didn’t even take the time to think it over and/or speak to his partner about it. I’m not having a lot of sympathy for him there, especially since he didn’t even consider how his partner would feel. He needs to start holding himself accountable and think of others’ feelings for his own sake, or this is going to keep happening.

      3. CMDRBNA*

        I don’t think the OP should have to atone endlessly for the (stupid, totally avoidable) thing he chose to do ten years ago, but I also don’t think he’s hit rock bottom (and doesn’t rock bottom usually imply that you are taking responsibility for your actions?). He wasn’t fired, he chose to quit, knowing that that would mean he’d have to leave his current partner and move out of the country (sounds familiar!).

        I would feel worse for him if he actually WAS fired, but he wasn’t. He basically decided that he couldn’t abide by the conditions his employer put on him and chose to quit.

        1. Juli G.*

          Yep, this. I didn’t think that this was a fire able offense and would have been upset if he had been.

          But he didn’t even try the conditions and then decide they were too difficult to continue to abide by. He just peaced out.

        2. JulieBulie*

          I agree that he shouldn’t have to atone endlessly… but as far as I can tell, this is the first time he’s had to atone at all.

          I do feel sorry for OP, not for what’s “happening” to him but because he doesn’t seem to understand why it is happening.

          1. racketsports*

            This. I do think that if someone has done something morally wrong but has atoned and made amends, then obviously they should not be eternally punished. However, the LW did something so stupidly bad that making amends was basically impossible–what was he going to do, pop back up into her life three years later with a self-serving apology?

            From the tone of the letter, he sounds like he almost regrets how silly and embarrassingly young he was, but he certainly doesn’t sound cognizant of what it was that he did to Sylvia. What have his amends been, at all? It’s unfortunate that it took so long for this to catch up to him, because in a sense the action is so disconnected from the consequence that the LW isn’t going to understand why, not really.

            If this karma had found him when he was young, say in the year or two after the ghosting, then maybe he would have been more receptive to learning, but he’s grown to adulthood without learning from a truly shitty youthful mistake.

            1. whingedrinking*

              In the original post, he says, “She was part of the forgotten past.”
              My reaction? “I 100% guarantee she hasn’t forgotten *you*, buddy boy!”
              At no point, anywhere, does he express concern for Sylvia. No “She must have been alarmed and upset”, no “I know she had to pay the rent by herself”, NOTHING. He never once says anything that indicates that he thought about her feelings at all.
              This is a man who, based on the math, must now be at least in his mid-thirties, and doesn’t for a single second indicate that maybe he caused another person pain. Various people keep calling him a “young man”, but he seems to be en route to middle age without a glimmer of self awareness.

      4. President Porpoise*

        Me too. I understand the bitterness and hostility coming off this letter. People evisorated this guy they first time around.

        1. EddieSherbert*

          I think OP could be (more?) apologetic, but I also think that even if he was over-the-top apologetic… it would have turned out about the same anyways. And the comment section would still contain unkind stuff.

          Hopefully things get better!

          1. LN*

            SOME unkind stuff, sure. But the tone of the comments here is vastly different when someone shows insight and remorse for mistakes they’ve made, and he hasn’t done that at all.

      5. Philly Redhead*

        If he had shown even a modicum of the ability to take responsibility for his actions and realize that what happened is his own fault, I might have a tiny bit of sympathy for him. But he blames everybody except himself.

      6. Alli525*

        My issue with this is, who’s to say this is his rock-bottom? Usually people who hit rock-bottom eventually look around and go “oh crap, I have to change ME to make this better.” Maybe he’s there and hasn’t had his epiphany yet, but his deficiency of emotional intelligence indicates to me that he might have lower to sink. I hope not! But maybe.

    3. LSP*

      What happened to him does suck, and the mistake he made was ten years ago. My trouble with finding sympathy for him comes from the way he seems to be walking the line between owning his mistake, and qualifying his role in his punishment by pointing at how Sylvia could have handled it better, and the culture of the country is deeply entrenched in nepotism, and the restrictions were too tough, etc.

      If he just said “I was wrong. I accept this as a consequence of what I did a decade ago,” my heart would really go out to this guy. The fact that he keeps back-stepping from any real responsibility (and that he couldn’t muster up a better description of his jilted ex than “fine” in those emotionally heightened circumstances) makes it really hard for me to feel bad for him. And my natural tendency it to be sympathetic.

      1. Gadfly*

        One mistake was 10 years ago, but a lot of new mistakes are now. It is like a chronic condition and not an old injury.

      2. Annie Moose*

        Yeah, I mean, of course I think this is a pretty bad situation for OP. It’s not like he had any intention of showing back up in Sylvia’s life; it was quite shocking for him to be confronted with something that he thought was long in the past. I do feel bad for him, I think it’s regrettable his story has been smeared all over the internet, and I hope he’s able to find a way to rebuild his life.

        But I’d feel more sympathy if there was a little more “y’know I acted really badly and thought I could escape the consequences, but I guess I gotta take my lumps now” and a little less “totally not my fault”. My sympathy is tempered with a whole lotta ಠ_ಠ.

      3. AnonAnalyst*

        This is where I am. I felt a little sympathy for him when I started reading the original letter. I know I made some stupid mistakes when I was young and didn’t think through the consequences. I definitely have had some “oh god, I can’t believe I did that!” major cringeworthy moments as I’ve gotten older. It would suck if one of those mistakes came back to have a negative impact on my career. So I can sympathize with the OP for finding himself in that situation.

        But as the letter went on, OP seemed to have a lot of blame for everyone else, including painting Sylvia as a psycho ex for trying to figure out what happened to him. And he’s continued playing the victim here. It’s hard for me to have a ton of sympathy when he seems to think that everyone else is the problem and his impact on the situation he’s in is minimal.

      4. zora*

        Ok sure, some people aren’t exactly Mother Theresa, but I still don’t feel like what they did is bad enough to be super mad at them and wish the worst for them. I do feel bad for him, I kind of feel bad BECAUSE he doesn’t seem very self-aware and has to deal with repercussions from past mistakes.

      5. Observer*

        Actually, the “fine” bit didn’t bother me – even someone with a lot of sensitivity would have a problem knowing what’s going on under the surface. And he did describe her behavior – and “seemed fine” seems about right from the outside.

      6. MCMonkeyBean*

        Yeah, that “nepotism” claim came out of no where and seems completely irrelevant to anything even if it were in any way true. He’s still desperately trying to somehow paint Sylvia as the villain in this story and it is not a good look.

    4. zora*

      I also feel sorry for the OP and think that commenters are being harsh. I save my righteous anger for people who do truly awful things (Presidents starting illegal wars, etc) and not for people who make mistakes, even if they aren’t very self aware about it. I wouldn’t wish his situation on anyone.

      1. Managing to get by*

        Except this guy is missing the little thing that most people have that allows us to look at things from someone else’s point of view. That evidently hasn’t changed since he was younger, evidenced by him quitting on the spot with no regard for his current girlfriend.

  15. Editrix*

    Everything Sylvia did and all of the measures requested sound completely appropriate and utterly reasonable. I don’t understand why they would lead to resignation, unless there’s something else left unsaid, or unless LW was just absolutely *counting* on his god-given right to gossip about Sylvia around the water cooler.

    1. Risha*

      I know, right?

      “You won’t work directly together much, but we’re going to say that there will always need to be a third party there if you do, and don’t gossip with the other staff about her.”

      “This is an OUTRAGE!!11!!” *throws chair*

    2. Koko*

      Yeah, it seemed like it basically just amounted to, “Maintain a professional and polite distance from the director.”

      My suspicion is that he didn’t want to be embarrassed by having to explain to his colleagues what he did to her, and he was worried that at some point one of these little rules, like needing a third-party present for a conversation, would require him to ‘fess up and ruin what they think of him.

      1. Malibu Stacey*

        This is my guess, based on the fact that he was trying to minimize his actions to Alison from Minute 1.

    3. Jaybeetee*

      I was an ESL teacher years ago. I’m guessing the rub was that he couldn’t associate with her outside of work hours. In a lot of Asian countries, going out for drinks, etc, after work with colleagues is a huge part of networking and making a good impression, and your professional life can suffer without it. My guess here is that if he can’t speak to her outside of work, and she starts going to these after-work gatherings, he wouldn’t be able to go, which would cut him off at the knees professionally and socially. (Mind, having a spurned ex as your boss is also pretty career-limiting, so hard to judge how much not being able to go out after work would really hurt him in this case).

      1. Amy*

        Sure, not being able to network outside of the office and having a boss that has good reason to dislike and/or distrust you are indeed terrible for your career. But it’s not like his only options were ‘Sign on to stay forever’ or ‘Walk away this instant’. He could have stayed for another year while job-hunting and working out a visa for his current SO, for example. It’s hard for me to read this as anything but “I didn’t get exactly what I wanted so I’m leaving, nyah nyah!”

        1. MeowThai*

          Yeah, to me it shows a continuing pattern of impulsiveness and rash decision making. How hard would it have been to accept the terms, stay on for a year and job hunt in order to keep his teaching visa and current relationship intact?

      2. MeowThai*

        Except for there’s information here to suggest that he wouldn’t be isolated. Sylvia has family connections in the area, and he has a partner who’s local. Sylvia also seems much less likely, as both a director and a parent, to participate in any after-work social stuff. It’s all moot though since he *chose* to resign on the spot. It might have gone okay, or at least been tolerable while he searched for a new position. Ultimately, he’ll never know and it’s just more testament to his impulsiveness. We know the consequences of being so rash: jobless, prospectless, and now partnerless since it looks like he’s leaving her behind now that his teaching visa has been revoked.

    4. SKA*

      It sounded like the “no associating with each other outside of work” may have been a key factor – since he had previously mentioned the small and tight-knit expat community. If Sylvia is going to be attending events and gatherings with his colleagues, it sounds like he may have ended up with no local friends and no social life.

      Now, I don’t know why he’d WANT to attend gatherings with Sylvia in attendance, and I think it’s a fair boundary for Sylvia to set. But I could see this aspect of the situation being a big part of the decision to leave. I don’t feel sorry for him, but wanting to leave a town/job where you’re now going to be somewhat of a social outcast doesn’t seem like an unreasonable decision.

      1. Redundant Department of Redundancy*

        Agreed. This is what I can’t get my head round. The other restrictions seem reasonable, but I can see how the no socialising thing would be difficult. Yet that implies he would have been happy to go socialise knowing Sylvia would be there!

        I imagine it’d be shit, but couldn’t he have toughed it out for a year and then moved on? Not leave his wife and kids because he didn’t want to keep quiet for a year? I get the feeling he knew by leaving they’d be in the lurch so wanted to cause them a problem (or was hoping they’d convincie him to stay after all – but they called his bluff)

        2. SKA*

          That’s fair. I guess I was just thinking that it makes sense for him to choose to move on. But you’re right. Just leaving on the spot instead of sticking around while job-hunting does seem a bit extreme. (It’d be another thing if he had a lot of savings, I guess. But even then, this is also screwing over his current partner. And presumably the school who has to scramble now to fill a position.)

      2. Jessie the First (or second)*

        It’s a reasonable boundary for the school to set, and it is reasonable if he didn’t want to have to deal with it.

        Except. He quit on the spot, with no job lined up and visa issues that would prohibit his partner’s coming with him when he returns home. That seems more like quitting out of anger and indignation, rather than quitting after a careful consideration of the workability of the situation. Especially as it *may* have been workable – he was not told to constantly avoid her, he was told to “limit” his out-of-work interaction. Maybe it would not have worked in the end, but there is some wiggle room there that he could have explored if it mattered to him.

        1. Observer*

          This is pretty much where I’m coming down. Quitting on the spot was not the most terrible move ever, but not something I can muster much sympathy for.

      3. Falling Diphthong*

        Still, to me the logical thing is to finish out the term and see how it goes in practice. Possibly while applying elsewhere with the plan to try and move at the winter break, certainly next year. If I had a romantic partner I didn’t want to lose, I’d be even more inclined to test how tenable the situation was in practice.

        1. JessaB*

          heck he could even have decided to talk to the grand boss and make an arrangement. “I’ll do the best job ever until break, until a year, you help me find another place so I’m not in Sylvia’s way, and then you can have that time to replace me without putting a hole in your scheduling and we can all walk away with reasonable results, and you can tell Sylvia that I won’t be here long so she can breathe easy.”

          1. racketsports*

            this seems like the best thing and most decent thing to do overall. And the kindest, provided he could avoid gossip about Sylvia around the water cooler.

      4. V*

        But even in that situation, why not live with those limitations for a year and take the time to plan your next move, rather than just quitting on the spot? Especially if keeping the job was the only way to stay in the country and with your current partner? Resigning on the spot comes off to me like a tantrum, whereas the mature thing would be to live with the restrictions, unpleasant as they might be, for as long as it took to make a plan with your current partner as to how to move on.

      5. chi type*

        I think it was a combination of not being able to attend the (presumably, many) outside events as he had in the past and NOT BEING ABLE TO TELL ANYONE WHY he was suddenly not available for any group gathering.

      6. Traffic_Spiral*

        Bosses don’t socialize with underlings outside of work events. If your boss is at the after work event with you and your colleagues, it counts as enough of a work event that he wouldn’t be banned from it. If the gathering is a more casual ‘hang with your pals and let off steam’ thing, the boss won’t be there – so he can go to that as well. He’s really not banned from much.

    5. Candy*

      Well yeah but this is coming from someone who thought his girlfriend was “rather emotional” and “obsessed” when she tried to find out from family what happened to her boyfriend of three years who just up and left without so much as a note. He doesn’t seem to have much understanding of what’s appropriate and reasonable behaviour

  16. wow.*

    Amazing that throughout all this, it’s always something else at fault: holidays are why the email was so poorly written/callous. She got her job because of nepotism. I resigned because the organisation sided with her ~totally unreasonable~ demands. There’s not an ounce of accountability to be found here.

        1. Annie Moose*

          And his friend’s fault for giving him Alison’s email address without, I dunno, giving him a 500-page manual on how the site works.

  17. Rusty Shackelford*

    I found out later that her husband comes from a prominent family here, everyone knows them. Nepotism is prevalent in this culture and family status really matters. The chair knows them. I just do not understand why she had to get him involved.

    You don’t understand why she “had to get” the chair involved? What did you expect to happen after you dropped HR a note?

    We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately.

    Yeah, don’t you just hate it when people refuse to sort things out with you, and instead they do something completely unnecessary and over the top? :-\

    3. Tuxedo Cat*

      I’m unclear whether Sylvia got the chair involved or whether it was HR. Regardless, I don’t think it was a bad idea for the chair to be involved.

    7. Mina*

      Like how he tried to “sort things out” with Sylvia before straight-up abandoning her, I guess.

      …oh, wait, sorting things out never happened.

    8. Trillian*

      It shows a lack of insight as to what living as a woman is like, for sure. I don’t think he’s necessarily wrong in noting the deployment of power and patriarchy–that’s what it seemed like to me. Sylvia either drew on all her protections, or they drew in around her. So, for a young woman of Sylvia’s class, culture and religion, what did cohabitation mean? Was his flight actually equivalent to a breach of promise? How much social humiliation did she have to endure, returning unmarried, to add to heartache? What does it mean to have an ex-lover around, to her, to her husband, to her family? She may be doing fine but that does not mean she hasn’t got a lot to lose, even now.

      1. Elizabeth H.*

        “How much social humiliation did she have to endure, returning unmarried, to add to heartache?” I’m sorry, are we living in a Jane Austen novel?

  18. Creag an Tuire*

    I just do not understand why she had to get him involved. We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately.

    Mate, she didn’t trust you. You ditched out of a major commitment with no notice, so now she’s working with you the same way I would work with someone who has demonstrated Extreme Flakiness in the past — agreements in writing and with third-party verification only.

    That’s not be being gleeful, that’s just the logical consequences of your actions. May you learn from this and conduct the rest of your life with honor.

    2. Velvet Goldberg*

      This x10. Unfortunately Ghostman doesn’t quite appreciate that regardless of why she was hired, the measures were put into place to protect both of them. The fact that he doesn’t understand why Sylvia would have no desire to discuss this with him first, is pretty telling. The fact that he’s sent an update while also whinging about how the story circulated previously is also telling. Methinks we are either dealing with a troll, an attention seeker, or a combination of both. Either way, the ignorance or lack of empathy is impressive.

    3. Code Monkey, the SQL*

      Seriously, Sylvia has been the height of professionalism here. I had a difficult Surprise! I’m brEakinG up with yoU! experience that was not even close to what she’s gone through. But she still kept everything above-board and unemotional (although I bet she went home after seeing OP and had a good pillow-punching session).

      Restrictions on the two of them interacting without a third-party presence and telling him to keep a lid on his commentary about her seem like a sensible course of action, not a vindictive imposition. I’m surprised things went as smoothly as they did, really.

      1. Mina*

        This. This this this. It makes OP’s description of her reaction to his abandonment as “emotional and obsessed” even more galling.

  19. fposte*

    Thanks for writing in OP. I have one note. You write: “I just do not understand why she had to get him involved. We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately.”

    Do you genuinely not understand, or do you just wish that’s how it had happened? Because it seems pretty clear to me that there’s no advantage to her in meeting only with you and possible disadvantage, so it was sensible of her to choose the way that was best for her, even if it wasn’t best for you.

    1. Solidus Pilcrow*

      OP, if you try to look at this objectively and put aside all the drama, you’ll see that the chair’s involvement was inevitable. Any conflict of interest or issue of impropriety should be dealt with at least one level (maybe two levels) above the people involved. Since Sylvia is coming on as a director, the chair of the board is probably the only one who *could* mediate this.

    3. SarahKay*

      And of course it may not have been Sylvia that got the chair involved – OP himself told HR at least some of the situation. HR may have reacted and called in the chair.

    4. Not So NewReader*

      She had the right to handle it any way she chose that would be within professional norms.

      OP, why would she choose to meet alone with you? Why would that make sense?

  20. Aeryn Sun*

    I find it kind of hilarious you’re calling the commenters toxic when you moved away from your girlfriend of 3 years without a word. But seriously, it would be one thing if you’d clearly learned what you’ve done is wrong, but from both of your emails you seem to be blaming everyone else besides yourself.

    1. Goya*

      +1,000

      Or that she “came away from this just fine” because she’s married and has kids. You don’t think this affected her at all!? That she maybe has UNDERSTANDABLE trust issues now? That she maybe has UNDERSTANDABLE abandonment issues now? Just because she’s moved on with her life, doesn’t mean she isn’t still affected by his asshole actions. Oiy! Some people’s kids!

  21. The Snark Knight*

    Forget any judgments, I’d say from the tone of his letter, his potential employer dodged a bullet.

    His need to state that he didn’t ruin Sylvia’s life because she’s doing well now ignores the fact that he did harm the person. The fact that she was able to move on is no reflection on her, not proof that what he did wasn’t that bad.

    Then he goes on to whine about how the chairman didn’t need to get involved.

    This person has learned nothing, is not owning his bad choices and has not matured. They were wise to accept his resignation.

    I wish this person no ill will, but he needs to grow up.

    1. many bells down*

      As a different example: my ex ruined my credit by signing up for things in my name and then never paying them. Since we were married, it was nearly impossible for me to prove those weren’t my accounts. So I spent the next 10 years with my credit ruined.

      5 years after I divorced my ex, I remarried and was able to rebuild my credit with my new spouse’s help. This doesn’t erase the fact that I spent TEN YEARS unable to get a loan or a credit card in my own name. I had to get a co-signer just to buy a $7k used car. Am I now better off than my ex, who still has no credit? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean no harm was done to me? No.

      2. Anon for this thread*

        Similar thing happened to me. It has been nearly 30 years since I divorced my first husband but the effects of his deceit and ruinous behavior followed me for a decade. My second husband’s company had to threaten to move their payroll from the bank that did not want him putting my name on his checking accounts or issuing me a debit card. That bank has since been bought out a couple of times. My credit union at work made it possible for me to deposit my checks, get a car loan, etc. until I could finally get a credit card on my own. And we have more money on deposit with them than we do the big name bank. A pox on these wastrel starter spouses!

    2. Mina*

      “His need to state that he didn’t ruin Sylvia’s life because she’s doing well now ignores the fact that he did harm the person. The fact that she was able to move on is no reflection on her, not proof that what he did wasn’t that bad.”

      THIS.

  22. k8*

    thanks for validating all the assumptions i made about you, op! i might be a member of the toxic commentariat, but you area grade-a narcissist. enjoy unemployment!

  23. Doug Judy*

    So OP still is totally blameless. Cool.

    For the record, I am happily married, kids, all of that. That doesn’t mean I would ever work with my emotionally manipulative ex. Ever.

    1. Rusty Shackelford*

      Exactly. You can completely move on with your life and still not to have anything to do with this kind of person. They’re not mutually exclusive.

    2. Mary*

      There’s some super interesting black-and-white thinking in “Those who blamed me for ruining Sylvia’s life for good were wrong. She has done very well for herself”. Anything Sylvia has achieved is a vindication that what OP did wasn’t that bad. If he didn’t completely ruin her life for good, it wasn’t that bad. There’s no recognition that something can be GENUINELY THAT BAD, and that someone can still cope, get over it and get on with life.

        1. Not So NewReader*

          In a parallel universe, Sylvia was going to find the cure for cancer. However that question became secondary when her ex walked out one day.

          If we are not lifting people up then chances are pretty good that we are pulling them down. We don’t know what lesser choices Sylvia made while she worked through her devastation. Just because she is doing fine now does not mean she is filling her potential.

      3. Detective Amy Santiago*

        The fact that Sylvia is happily married with children and enjoying a good career instead of rocking back and forth in the corner of some asylum because of what LW did doesn’t mean LW didn’t ruin her life in the short time when he bounced.

        It means Sylvia is a strong person who probably had an excellent support system and overcame something devastating.

      4. Mina*

        Yup. Sure, Sylvia has done well for herself. It doesn’t mean that abandoning her without a word wasn’t at all terrible. (Also, I don’t remember anyone saying OP had ruined her life for good, just that the consequences could have been long term, such as trust issues or having to pay off shared debts by herself?)

      5. MCMonkeyBean*

        I’m thinking now of the scene in Community when Jeff talks to his father who abandoned him, and now has a son who he views as weak. He basically tells Jeff, hey you turned out all right and this kid I raised is garbage so really it’s a *good* thing I abandoned you. You’re welcome.

        1. Mina*

          Oh, yeah, and Jeff’s monologue to him afterward about how he was still hurting from that, even as an adult. That scene choked me up, it was so angry and heartfelt.

    3. automaticdoor*

      I’ve been broken up with a guy like this–narcissistic, abusive, and completely unable to accept blame–for over seven years, had multiple relationships in the meantime, am now happily married, and I would NEVER, EVER consider working with him–I hope to never speak to him or see him again. I would sooner find a new job myself.

        1. automaticdoor*

          I still have flashes of panic when I think I see this guy on the street downtown and I’m pretty sure he’s in a different state a few hours away now. (I have him blocked on all social media and I don’t know how to check LinkedIn without him seeing that I viewed his profile–if I’m logged out it doesn’t show me anything about him.) Terrifying. Even with therapy, some things you just never get over on an animal instinct level.

          2. Detective Amy Santiago*

            I’m pretty sure there is a setting on LinkedIn that lets you view profiles anonymously. It means that you conversely don’t see who has viewed yours, but you could change that setting long enough to block your ex at least.

      3. Mina*

        I’m so glad that I’m in a different field from mine, because nope! NOPE NOPE NOPE! Not after the horrible garbage I had to deal with.

  24. Amtelope*

    Wow. This guy still does not seem sorry for what he did, at all. OP — do you get it that this happened to you because you did something awful to someone, hoped to avoid ever having to deal with her again, but were then forced to face her and accept the consequences of your actions? Because it doesn’t seem like you get it.

  25. Kate*

    Oof. I was with you until the “self righteous” part. You’re not the victim, OP. You’re experiencing the consequences of your actions. But I’m grateful for the update.

  26. collect dust*

    he sent an email to HR, after sending his email twice to her – once to her work address (which she has obviously never given him) and he blames her for getting the chair involved?? dude, you are the one who involved other people and were inappropriate and made this weird. they reacted like that was true because it was! i am so glad she only had to sit through that one meeting with him and hope he never passes in front of her again.

    1. Kathlynn*

      Often the work emails at schools are posted on the school’s website (at least where I live) or you (as an employee) could be given a directory/list of emails. I personally see no problem with him sending two emails, with time between, when she might not be using the original email address. I can even see why he might give HR a heads up. Like, think about the other letter, with the company merger, and a vengeful boss.

      1. collect dust*

        even if the second email was appropriate (i can argue for it, but not in his case because of all his bad behavior and inability to honestly see his own actions and others reactions), why does he assume she got the chair involved? he’s the one who contacted the school about a decade old former relationship with a director at their school. how did he think that was going to go? he made it an issue. even if she went to the chair they were probably all like ‘yeah, we got this weirdo letter…’ i am glad for her that he sunk himself so quickly though. it could’ve taken months if he hadn’t mailed hr.

        1. racketsports*

          Maybe I am wrong, but also what did he mean by ‘original email’? When I read that in the second letter, my heart dropped. PLEASE say it wasn’t the one she used 10 years ago. Can you imagine how horrible it would be to get an email from your problematic ex of a decade ago?

          1. MCMonkeyBean*

            True, but wouldn’t it be more horrible to not get an email and show up to find he is now your employee and you had no warning?

    2. SignalLost*

      I very much agree with your larger point, but it isn’t typically that hard to figure out a company email address since they’re so often some version of FirstNameLastName@company.com, so even if it wasn’t posted he’d know the pattern from his own address.

      1. collect dust*

        it’s not that it’s hard to figure out, it’s that he doesn’t understand how he comes off. for someone who wants to figure out if their ex is going to be a problem, contacting her at the school to settle this would have been a big red flag. if he emailed to say ‘hey, we’re going to be working together, care to chat first?’ and NOT EMAILED HR MY GOD, then it probably would have gone differently. however, we’ve seen 3 emails he’s written, i’m betting his to her wasn’t calm and measured.

        to me it seems like part of his larger pattern of insisting that she communicates with him exactly as he wants her to – no more, no less.

        1. SignalLost*

          Oh, I misread – I’m sorry! I thought you meant she hadn’t given him the email so it’s creepy to use it, you meant it’s creepy to use it as he has. Which, yes, totally agree.

  27. rathermarvelous*

    The fact that AAM had to follow up with him AGAIN just to ask how Sylvia reacted really says it all.

    2. Spooky*

      Exactly. He will never even give the slightest consideration of how someone else feels, even at extreme moments like this.

    3. Corvid*

      I agree… I was reading the letter with an internal monologue like, “ok??? how did Sylvia react??? Come one, tell me if she’s ok!!!” I was waiting for him to mention how she feels about the ordeal. So glad Allison asked.

    4. boop the first*

      Maybe this is unfair to say, but OP just comes off as someone who isn’t able to see how a person is feeling, as they’ve demonstrated that they think other people just don’t HAVE feelings. Honestly, I thought it was a dead-end question to ask of him.

  28. Jan in the Pan*

    Amazing. He is completely un-self-aware and is blaming literally every other person in this scenario, from Internet commenters to Sylvia to his potential new co-workers. I think it’s kind of impressive that the administration even agreed to let him stay on provisionally, and then he quit in a tantrum because he considered it “punitive.”

    I guess I feel a little sorry for his partner with the visa issues, but if this means they end up no longer together, that person may have dodged a bullet. Sylvia sure as heck did.

  29. NPOQueen*

    OP, she brought it to the supervisors because she probably didn’t feel she could remain objective, and wanted outside measures in place for your benefit as well as hers. I don’t know where you are, but if nepotism really is big and if the country really is conservative, Sylvia would have wanted to manage the possible fallout as well. She wouldn’t know what you might have said to others, or if you would try to undermine her authority at all by bringing this up. Going to your boss, and speaking candidly, when you are unsure of how to proceed is exactly what AAM says to do; in a sticky situation like this, I could see how she might want some outside council.

    Take it as a lesson learned and move forward as best you can.

  30. LCL*

    I don’t think we should be too gleeful that letter writer suffered modern day career damage for something cruel and stupid he did in his private life when he was younger. By this standard, all of us are one bad breakup away from having career opportunities denied or rescinded. The scarlet letter of shame doesn’t look any better on men.

    1. MakesThings*

      Lol, he didn’t have “a breakup” with her, he demonstrated extreme narcissistic behavior by skipping town without saying a word to his girlfriend of 3 years. Does that seem like the actions of a nice, normal person to you? I’d hesitate to employ someone like that, to be sure. What if he messes up at work, and decides to skip town?

      1. Lilith*

        I don’t think he suffered any career damage beyond what he inflicted on himself–he was given the opportunity to stay, with some reasonable restrictions, but chose to leave because he couldn’t deal with “not socializing.” Clearly his own self-righteousness takes priority over his current partner too.

        1. Petty Editor*

          You are so on the money here! He fed into the drama of the moment instead of gritting his teeth and working while job hunting, to the detriment of himself and his blameless partner.

    2. katherine*

      For women, the reality is that all of us already are one bad breakup away from having career opportunities denied or rescinded.

        1. LCL*

          You should read her book, I just bought and read it. Her ex harmed many people associated with her, including her father and some men in the industry that tried to help her. The splashback from that whole incident was appalling.

    3. Mary*

      I think it depends whether you think “ghosting” on someone you’ve lived with for three years falls under the heading of “bad break-up, could literally happen to anyone” or “excessively cruel and quite possibly abusive”. I fall into the latter category, and I have no problem with abusive people experiencing consequences in their professional lives as well as in their personal lives.

      However, it was OP’s decision that “don’t speak to Sylvia alone and don’t socialise with her outside of work” was an unreasonable imposition. The Chair was just making sensible decisions about how not to lose his newly appointed executive.

      1. MCMonkeyBean*

        Honestly those stipulations were probably for his benefit as much as hers! To protect him against retaliation, and to protect the school from even the potentially appearance of retaliation. If I were her I would know I couldn’t be objective about him so having a third party involved in any conversations they had to have would be to his benefit.

    4. fposte*

      In addition to agreeing with MakesThings on the extremeness of this particular behavior, I don’t think this is the kind of behavior that being under 30 gets you a pass on.

    5. Jessie the First (or second)*

      No, he is not suffering “career damage” for “something cruel and stupid he did in his private life when he was younger”

      He was not fired. He brought the issue up to HR, so the school had a meeting with him to work out how he and the ex could work together. The head of the school said he could keep his job, and they just needed to do a few things – not have private conversations (they needed to have a third person there) and not socialize together outside of work, that sort of thing. All seems pretty normal.

      OP got mad about it and quit. The “damage” he is suffering is damage he chose. He quit.

    6. MuseumChick*

      Eh, he brought the career damage on himself by resigning instead of just dealing with the minor inconvenience of some very reasonable rules. Added is total lake of self-awareness and blame shifting he has placed himself in a pretty ridiculous position.

    7. collect dust*

      he suffered career damage because of what he did now, not what he did 10 years ago. he brought the school into the bad breakup by contacting them before he even spoke to his ex and then he’s the one who left in a tantrum. these are damages of his own doing.

    8. J*

      And yet, when a recent letter writer complained that she had bullied a classmate and it could be blocking her from career opportunities, the reaction wasn’t substantially different.

      Treating people poorly in one’s personal life does not preclude consequences from seeping into one’s professional life.

    9. JHo*

      I’m hardly gleeful at his current circumstances, if anything I’m just dismayed that he continues to refuse to be accountable for his past and current actions. He hardly shows genuine remorse, he blames everyone else involved for the consequences of his actions, and he decided himself that he needed to quit a job that his employers were more than willing to let him keep. No one is jumping up and down because he got fired, because he was the one that voluntarily quit rather than adhering to completely reasonable conditions, and made himself a martyr.

    10. feminazgul*

      it’s not his private life any longer, given that he was going to have to work with her! This is a totally obtuse comment. Scarlet letter, seriously? This dude hasn’t displayed a single ounce of self-awareness and HE was the one who resigned, remember? They were willing to let him stay on. Maybe give both letters a re-read.

      1. LCL*

        Obtuse? Yeah, I just checked the definition to be sure we were talking about the same thing. Just because you don’t like my interpretation and viewpoint doesn’t give you the right to call it obtuse. And suggesting re-reading both letters was a remark unnecessarily high in snark.

        1. MakesThings*

          No, your reading comprehension is pretty off-base here. You are obviously on the defensive now, so I don’t suppose my words will be taken positively, but maybe a second read will help you figure out why your comment doesn’t match up with reality.

          1. LCL*

            No, my reading comprehension is just fine. You are disagreeing with my interpretation of a messy situation involving human beings and feelings. You can disagree with me all you want, that’s what teh internetz is all about and why we love it. I’m amused that posting a differing opinion means some people think I don’t get reality because I don’t agree with them.

        2. feminazgul*

          “By this standard, all of us are one bad breakup away from having career opportunities denied or rescinded” Where did this happen, then? This is why I suggested you re-read, as it did not. Your interpretation was flat out wrong which actually isn’t an opinion.

          1. LCL*

            My interpretation was not flat out wrong. You don’t like it because it’s true. My interpretation was and is, if you are a jerk in your dating life, it makes people really mad at you. So mad, it can have career repercussions years later, and people will be glad to see you suffer for your bad actions.

            1. feminazgul*

              You didn’t answer my question, yet again, so I have to assume you’re here to argue in bad faith and am exiting this conversation.

              1. Katherine*

                LCL, since OP’s job was neither denied nor rescinded based on what happened, the sentence that feminazgul pulled from your comment is incorrect. That’s why she suggested you re-read it, because yes, suggesting that OP had a job opportunity “denied or rescinded” is, in fact, a flat-out wrong interpretation. And the situation isn’t comparable to the Scarlet Letter- the OP faced consequences because the person he harmed happened to wind up at his place of employment. They weren’t just shaming him for the sake of shaming him.

              2. LCL*

                I’m not required to answer your question. Or any question on this board. Not even Alison’s questions, though she has the ultimate power and can ban me if she wants. I looked up the many definitions/synonyms of bad faith, and don’t think my arguments fit anywhere in there.

    12. Sketchee*

      I disagree with that idea. Our past actions continue to have consequences. We have one on one relationships.

      This makes me think of the 30 Rock episode where Liz goes to her high school reunion. We know Liz as a mostly good person. In high school she was a bully who was unaware of other’s feelings.

      Should her high school classmates befriend her or want to build relationships with her just because Liz grew up? They have painful memories of her. It might be nice if they did all find a way to get along.

      Yet with the number of people in the world you can be friends with – or work with – why bother.

      The same here, there don’t seem to be many advantages to work with an ex. No one involved has any obligation to give this LW this one opportunity. Everyone involved seemed to still give a reasonable chance to try and make it work.

      It’s not our role to shield people from consequences or accountability and the feelings involved with that. They’re not a serial killer or the worst person in the world, but – like everyone on the planet – they’ve done something wrong and have to live with it.

    13. Xay*

      OP wasn’t fired. He have stayed, followed the guidelines and demonstrated that he was an excellent employee. He could have even stayed through the first year of the contract and decided that it wasn’t working. He chose to quit on the spot.

    14. Annabelle*

      Well, I think it’s safe to say that most of us have never abandoned a partner of multiple years and moved to a different country. That’s beyond bad breakup territory.

    15. lisalee*

      It sounds like he suffered career damage for the way he handled the situation now. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Sylvia getting the chair involved (in fact, HR may have gotten him involved as soon as the OP looped them in–this is just a scenario where an unbiased third party is a good idea), and the restrictions placed on the OP were also really reasonable and didn’t seem to impact his actual job duties at all. He is the one who chose to resign. And honestly, in general, deeply screwing over a person who cared about you is athing that may have consequences later on. That’s just how life works.

    16. sunny-dee*

      Actually, the career damage ultimately came from the OP himself — he refused what seemed to be pretty reasonable restrictions that would preserve her reputation (and, presumably, his own). This isn’t unreasonable for the situation they were in. This was, at the time, compared to that other scenario when a baby mama was involved in a merger and her new boss would be her baby daddy’s ex. Putting those restrictions — no private meetings, document all meetings, absolutely no gossip or outside socializing — would have been a significant PROTECTION to the employee, as well as the ex. He basically looked at those things and said screw it and walked away. That’s on him, not her or anyone else, and he can’t even blame the past for it. He made that decision now.

      1. Mina*

        Aside from the outside socializing (as discussed upthread with respect to expat communities), I agree–those were reasonable restrictions. OP had a choice whether or not to agree to them. He chose not to.

      2. INTP*

        Exactly – the social restrictions might have been inconvenient, but the alternative was to risk damage to Sylvia’s or the school’s reputations (as well as his own). Maybe he’s not thinking it all the way through, but if he takes issue with that, it means on some level he thinks Sylvia should be willing to sacrifice her reputation for his social life. That is quite entitled.

        I thought the situation was handled pretty fairly and mercifully. If they requested anything that was purely punitive in nature, not to protect Sylvia or the school from gossip and scandal, he didn’t mention it.

    17. INTP*

      I don’t think people would be so gleeful if it really was just some stupidity that was left 10 years in the past. If the tone of the letter had been, “I did this horrible thing 10 years ago, and I totally don’t blame Sylvia for hating me, but is there a hail Mary pass that I can make to try to make this situation workable?” the responses would have been very different. Instead he continues to write about Sylvia in unflattering ways for doing things that were totally reasonable, like contact his relatives after his disappearance or work with the chair and HR for help handling a sticky situation, and throw blame in every direction despite a pretty merciful handling of the situation and his own choice to leave the job and go home. People are gleeful because of his current attitude, not just his past actions.

    18. Goya*

      Except for the fact that OP has clearly learned nothing. We all make mistakes, we grow as adults when we admit to those mistakes and learn from them. OP has placed blame for this whole situation on EVERYONE (including internet trolls) but himself. It might have been several years ago, but he has yet to grow up since then.

      1. Mina*

        Yeah, I’m not gleeful at all about this–just disappointed in OP for not learning from his mistakes. Sure, everyone’s made mistakes in the past ten years, but usually when we look back we think, “wow, we really need to do better going forward” and not this.

    19. Spinach*

      It wasn’t “one bad breakup,” it was a long chain of deeply inconsiderate actions. Let’s start at the point where he’d already broken up with her and skipped town. He could have let her know that he had broken up with her and that he was OK. Did he ever do that? No. At some point down the road, he could have apologized for the awful way that he’d treated her. Did he ever do that? No.

      We’re not defined by our worst day. But we sure are defined by how much effort we put in to mop up the mess *after* our worst day.

    20. Spinach*

      It wasn’t “one bad breakup,” it was a long chain of deeply inconsiderate actions. Let’s start at the point where he’d already broken up with her and skipped town. He could have let her know that he had broken up with her and that he was OK. Did he ever do that? No. At some point down the road, he could have apologized for the awful way that he’d treated her. Did he ever do that? No.

      We’re not defined by our worst day. But we sure are defined by the effort we put in to mop up the mess *after* our worst day.

    21. Traffic_Spiral*

      He didn’t lose his job because of what he did 10 years ago, though. He lost his job because he quit on the spot, rather than face a situation where he would have to pay any sort of price for his actions. Basically, he showed that he has learned nothing and still runs away (leaving another girlfriend, btw) rather than face life’s mild hardships.

  31. JHo*

    “limit our interactions beyond the school, meaning no socializing [sic] for me” – limiting your interactions with your supervisor =/= your social life ending. Seems like he decided to resign because of perfectly reasonable conditions that were only put in place because of past immature decisions for which he only has himself to blame. Those conditions were suggested to limit the possibility that future conflicts would evolve into an embarrassing and stressful work issue for all parties involved. OP seriously needs to take responsibility for his actions, even in this update he continues to shift all blame away from himself: blaming their “unreasonable” conditions, blaming nepotism, blaming his new boss for involving her superior in what is clearly an awkward and difficult work situation? OF COURSE she involved him, she was using the correct hierarchical system to deal with a work problem instead of making it a personal problem that could cause conflict in the workplace. OP is right to not expect pity, his actions alone have resulted in the consequences he now has to deal with.

    1. Aeryn Sun*

      Right, those conditions seem reasonable. I don’t know what their work culture is like, but socializing with supervisors isn’t really all that common, and could let you socialize with other coworkers.

    2. CMDRBNA*

      Right? The conditions are actually almost exactly the same as the conditions a former workplace of mine imposed on two coworkers who had had an affair with each other, and they were designed to minimize gossip and prevent anyone from accusing the other party of treating them unfairly or retaliating.

      They seem pretty reasonable to me. I think the OP did his workplace a favor by resigning, since it was obvious he viewed their requirements as some sort of horrible onerous punishment.

    3. Kathlynn*

      You need to consider this with the part where he is not allowed to discuss management in anyway. That would be *very* limiting to socializing depending on the event. Like if someone asks “oh, how is the new director doing” or “I heard there was a discussion about a possible raise this year, how do you think the higher ups are going to decide”.

      1. JHo*

        That is a very extreme example of limiting what he could discuss with his coworkers, but fine we can entertain the possibility. He could easily deflect and say, “I don’t know,” or “I don’t want to talk about work while socializing.” To quit over that minor condition is an extreme action, he effectively severed his career there by his own volition (he was not fired or forced out, no matter what he suspects). To me, if my career was that important to me in order to pay bills and continue to live in the same city as my current partner, I would put up with those minor conditions because I would prioritize those things. The priority for OP was apparently to become a martyr over this.

        1. Stop That Goat*

          In an expat community, this isn’t a minor condition though. Heck, even outside of that, imagine if you weren’t allowed to make any comments about management at all to anyone you work with. That’s not very tenable in the long term. Add in the removal of the social component which is pretty vital as a support structure for expats and I don’t see how anyone could keep that up for any length of time.

          1. KDat*

            Nah. You’re overblowing the expat thing.

            Signed,
            an expat of many years in many countries (including international schools)

            1. Meliza*

              No, I don’t think Stop That Goat is overblowing it. I’m also an expat, working in an international school and these would not be minor conditions for me. I think it really depends on the specific environment – I work in a medium-sized town where there are a few expats, but not a lot, so that support structure can be really crucial at times (especially for me – I can count the number of expats in my age range on both hands). In larger cities, it might be much easier to make this work, because there are other expat cliques around. That being said, I still don’t have a ton of sympathy for the OP considering the circumstances. You reap what you sow!

              1. KDat*

                Maybe some people aren’t cut out for living abroad. Certainly some have a tougher time assimilating, and I suppose the OP may be an example of that. However, it’s worth noting he did have a partner who he chose to ditch without even consulting her first. I would hope she has some supporting/social network…

          2. Danger: Gumption Ahead*

            It isn’t minor but it is totally doable. As I mentioned earlier, by ex and I had an ugly breakup of a LTR while we were working in a place with a very small, tight-knit ex-pat community. I pulled away from the ex-pat community and made friends with local English speakers (and as my language skills improved non-English speakers) to avoid him. He has an advantage I did not, in that he has a local partner who is an immediate entree into the local community. He could have gutted it out until the end of his contract or even longer. I managed it for 3 years.

          3. MeowThai*

            I don’t think anyone thinks that these conditions were tenable in the long term. They were tenable and tolerable in the short term while he searched for a new position (that would allow him to stay with his current partner). Instead, he rage quit on the spot and is forced to abandon yet another romantic partner. And he had no other prospects.

            1. Working Hypothesis*

              I beg to differ. I think they were tenable in the long term, for someone with a local partner and their family and friends to draw on as a separate social circle. They wouldn’t be *pleasant* for a while, until he got his feet under him… but they’d be entirely *tenable*. They’d have simply meant taking a different direction in his social life from the one he was used to, and that would be uncomfortable for a bit until he built up a good network and got used to it, and then it would be normal.

              There would also have been nothing wrong with choosing to tolerate it in the short term while searching for a new position which would allow him to stay with his current partner. I’m not saying that he had some kind of obligation to stick it out in the long run. But I’m saying it’s an option he could have realistically chosen, handled, and made a life out of, in addition to the option of choosing to stay for a while and look for other work. Instead, he did neither and rage-quit because they wanted him to do things he didn’t like and that was Not To Be Borne.

          4. Traffic_Spiral*

            Gonna disagree. Just keep your mouth shut and go ‘hm,’ or shrug and say ‘not sure’ whenever someone brings up Sylvia.

            – Another expat.

        2. Where's the Le-Toose?*

          JHo, I don’t see those conditions as being “minor.” In addition to the restrictions Kathlynn noted, if the OP couldn’t discuss management at all with his coworkers, this would include restrictions on the OP suggesting workplace improvements, talking to coworkers to lobby management for better benefits or pay, or even expressing frustration over an issue (e.g. “I asked for October 10th off and my boss said no”). Also, if the OP had to appeal a workplace issue to Sylvia, who gets to decide who the third person is in the room? Does the OP need to waive the confidentiality of his workplace issue because Bob from Teapot Accounting is the one picked to be present?

          The OP is not saint, and if I met the OP in real life, I’m confident that I wouldn’t be a fan of his. But the workplace restrictions are, in my mind, fairly onerous.

          1. Risha*

            This is ridiculously overblown speculation. There’s zero evidence that a rule put in place by what seems to be a reasonable manager, in response to a specific situation, would end up being applied to minor and unrelated workplace grouching.

    4. chi type*

      I think what the OP was foreseeing is that he would have to turn down all these events he’s always gone to and when his friends ask why, he’s not allowed to tell them. That does seem pretty untenable to me.

      1. Working Hypothesis*

        What’s wrong with saying, “Just kinda busy lately — but I’d love to see you; want to come do X with me on Sunday?”

        You don’t have to tell everyone everything just because they ask.

  32. Stop That Goat*

    Hope you get settled in a new place relatively quickly. It sounds like she was willing to work through it and was being pretty reasonable though (and moreso than quite a few people would have been in her position). I expect that you are going to get reamed in the comments again so I won’t pile on. Good luck on the job hunt.

  33. General Ginger*

    So, OP has learned nothing, and is still blaming other people for his own mistakes. At least Sylvia doesn’t have to deal with him going forward, that’s something.

      1. Zoe Karvounopsina*

        Personally, I was hoping the current partner let him know they weren’t coming by not turning up to the airport.

        1. Stop That Goat*

          I can’t get on board with wishing bad things on people. He’s losing his job, his partner and his home. If you’re hoping for karmic justice, I think you’ve already got it. He’s basically having to start over again.

            1. Stop That Goat*

              He quit over conditions that wouldn’t be tenable in the expat community. These restrictions could be interpreted as cutting off his social ties as well as his professional ones. You can argue that it was his choice but it doesn’t seem like he really had much of one. It’s not as simple as just avoiding the director.

              1. Morning Glory*

                He had a romantic partner in the city, who he chose to leave behind when he chose to resign. The school did not represent 100% of his social network.

                I get it would have made for an isolating, unhappy year, but I disagree that it would be so unbearable that he could not have stayed in the short-term, while searching for another job.

              2. Danger: Gumption Ahead*

                He has local social ties that he could have chosen to cultivate for the remainder of his contract. He is engaged to a local, after all

          2. KDat*

            He CHOSE to abandon his job/partner(without even discussing with her first- resigning on the spot)/home all because he can’t handle a very reasonable agreement. This is 100% on him.

            1. Stop That Goat*

              In the expat community, these restrictions are not that reasonable. Heck, the ‘no talking about management about anything’ isn’t reasonable for most folks.

              1. Code Monkey, the SQL*

                He could have kept his head down for two months/three months and worked his butt off to make it work while he found a new community.

                Just because it would have sucked as a choice doesn’t mean it wasn’t an option. Especially when the alternative is no job, no partner, moving and STILL having little to no social life because you’ve chosen to leave all those other things.

                1. Juli G.*

                  Or he could have done it for two-three months and said “I’m not sure I can do this long term but I’m hoping we can work something out. Could we make changes X, Y, and Z?”

                2. Tuxedo Cat*

                  Many people have had to stay in jobs that were pretty bad because quitting was worse for them- it would mean loss of income, homelessness. I could see working on an exit strategy if things were dire, but I don’t think quitting immediately just because it kills your social life was a wise move.

              2. Jules the 3rd*

                I just spent two months in an expat community – there are actually alternatives to the local foreign school teachers. Parents whose kids are no longer in school, for example.

                Either way, he could have taken a year to figure it out.

                But I think the reason most people are being dismissive of his concerns is because of his consistent deflection – it’s always someone else’s fault. Like, Sylvia’s fault the chair was pulled in, when *he* sent the note to HR.

              3. KDat*

                No. I have spent more life as an expat than not. On multiple continents. You are giving that too much weight. AND he has a partner there who probably (hopefully?!) has a social circle he could still be a part of.

              4. Sketchee*

                It would be hard, yet hard doesn’t make it unreasonable. He can decide not to do things because they’re difficult. Not having access to a support system isn’t trivial. Yet we have to be part of a support system.

                In general, I’d suggest most of us frame about issues rather than about management. In many positions, an issue can be framed as a work problem, a process and series of events

                If he had accepted the conditions, he could have continued to talk to his managers and HR about these problems “Because of condition X, I’m having problems with Y happening. How can I best handle this?” This one meeting probably wasn’t going to solve the original issue and instead it’s a continuing thing he’d have to manage. I can see why he wouldn’t want to do it. He clearly feels he has another option, so the resignation seems like a good move.

              5. Traffic_Spiral*

                These are entirely reasonable expat restrictions. Bosses generally don’t socialize with underlings, and there’s lots of people that discretely don’t socialize with each other because of breakups or heated disagreements over how to run the bake sale.

      2. MicroManagered*

        Is it? In the original, OP didn’t seem too remorseful. If I recall, he said “I just didn’t want the drama.”

  35. Katie the Fed*

    So, the guilty parties are:

    -Alison and her popular blog
    -The culture of the Philippines
    – Sylvia for get the chair involved
    – The chair
    – Self-righteous commentators

    Got it.

    1. MuseumChick*

      Don’t forget Sylvia was (according to the OP) completely in the wrong and irrational for being emotional when the guy she was dating for years and living with just up and vanished while she was out of town.

      I hope that one day the OP will be able to do some deep interpersonal work to see how this attitude is not serving him well in life.

          1. Jules the 3rd*

            Yeah, I kinda felt Tube Bike guy sorta understood that he was part of the problem by the end of his update.

      2. Mina*

        No kidding, some introspection is definitely in order. I don’t say that snarkily; if he keeps going on like this, he’s in for a world of hurt. Accountability is important.

    5. Where's the Le-Toose?*

      Katie, don’t forget Sylvia’s in-laws, because of they weren’t so prominent in the community, the chair might have been more willing to let OP stay on without restrictions!

    6. Marillenbaum*

      Let’s not forget that Alison’s blog is both popular and niche–so how was he to know people would talk about it?

    7. MashaKasha*

      All that, plus the OP seems to want partial credit for how well Sylvia’s life turned out. I mean, would she be married to that man and into that family if OP hadn’t run off on her way back when? Nope, because she’d still be with the OP!

      I’m honestly worried about the OP at this point. It’s not every day that you see someone’s past actions come to bite them in the rear with a vengeance, and the person learning nothing from it, and just continuing to be their oblivious self; because it’s worked so well for them in the past. I’m not expecting the OP to suddenly develop high levels of empathy, but a little self-preservation would be nice?

  36. CMDRBNA*

    While I don’t think that behaving badly in a previous relationship should have an impact on one’s current employment, and I don’t *necessarily* think that Sylvia and the OP would be unable to work together, the OP’s response shows the same remarkable lack of self-awareness/entitlement that I’m assuming led to him abandoning this woman in the first place.

    The OP said that he didn’t understand why Sylvia involved the chair and they could have “sorted it out between them.” You mean “sorted it out between them” the way he ‘sorted it out’ with her in the first place? Sorry, not buying that the OP is really that good at sorting stuff out with people based on, you know, the way he handled the breakup with her.

    Also, the OP makes a point of bringing up nepotism and ‘family connections’ although it seems like those are totally irrelevant in this scenario. I’m pretty sure he’s trying to imply that he’s not getting a fair shake because Sylvia is well-connected or that she got this job through family connections. Given that he’s shown he’s a pretty unreliable narrator and has uh-mazing self-justification skills, I’m going to call bullshit on that.

    Also, the OP WASN’T fired. He CHOSE to resign. Obviously he’s not going to get a severance for choosing to resign, and I feel badly for his partner.

    What the OP did was pretty unconscionable, but I also wouldn’t want my employer going through the details of my past breakups, either. Ultimately I think this was handled pretty well by Sylvia and by the employer, and the OP chose to make the decision to resign.

    The conditions the employer put forward actually seemed pretty reasonable to me and designed to prevent gossip and to protect the OP and Sylvia. Having a third person present during their conversations seems reasonable. I wouldn’t want to be put in a position where a subordinate might accuse me of acting unfairly towards them because of something they did in the past, and the easiest way to avoid that is to have a witness. Asking him to limit his interaction with her outside of work also seems reasonable and not like it would prevent all his socializing ever. Also, I don’t understand why he has an issue with being told not to discuss her with his coworkers. He shouldn’t be doing that in any case, not even during ‘watercooler chat.’

    These guidelines are all pretty typical of workplaces where someone is in a relationship with a coworker or places where HR has to navigate coworkers having had an affair or whatever.

    It’s clear the OP feels like he’s being treated unfairly here, but ultimately I don’t think he is.

    1. Not So NewReader*

      She wanted to sort things out ten years ago. But sorting is not something OP does. She knew this and brought in mediators. Instead of asking questions about how the rules worked, OP left. Sorting is not OP’s thing.

  37. nnn*

    I do want to say thank-you to OP for updating. I do appreciate that it takes some guts to write back to an unsympathetic audience.

    1. Alli525*

      I do wonder if he knew she would post the update. I mean, presumably, right? But he had no knowledge of AAM before his friends suggested it, and he did little-to-no research on the site or its commentariat. (Which is… an interesting choice, but I suppose he didn’t/doesn’t realize how egregious his behavior was so he wasn’t expecting major blowback.)

      1. lulu*

        The weird thing is, in his original post, he said: I gathered from the comments that readers usually have a go on people like me for “bad behavior”.
        So he did know about the blog, he wasn’t going in blind.

          1. MCMonkeyBean*

            Yes, he definitely did not think he had actually done anything bad, he just knew some people on the internet might for some reason *perceive* it as bad.

  38. Tuxedo Cat*

    I don’t understand this sentence: “I just do not understand why she had to get him involved. We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately.” I think the “he” in this sentence is the chair, who should be involved. The letter writer escalated it to HR and the meeting was made immediately after the letter writer tried twice to get in contact with Sylvia, so to me, Sylvia didn’t get the chair involved. The letter writer indirectly did.

    YMMV, but the stipulations didn’t seem horribly unreasonable to me. Your job is to teach, you were told that you wouldn’t really interact much with Sylvia but here’s what to do when you would.

    I hope the letter writer really rethinks some of this and takes some onus that his current choices caused him to lose his job. It wasn’t Sylvia, it wasn’t nepotism, it wasn’t untenable and unreasonable stipulations.

    1. Manders*

      Yes, I’m confused about why the letter writer quit over those stipulations. “No socializing for me”–so he DOES want to keep hanging out with Sylvia?

      The letter writer could have kept his job for another year while he worked things out, but instead he dropped it and moved out of the country because he found the situation too uncomfortable. That’s not on the chair or Sylvia, that’s his choice.

      1. Kathlynn*

        That’s not what it means, it means due to the restrictions it would be almost impossible for him to socialize with anyone from work, whether at work or after work.

        1. Manders*

          I don’t think that’s what it means, though–the restrictions don’t prevent him from socializing with his colleagues at work or after work, they just place some limits on the topics he’s allowed to discuss. He’s even allowed to socialize after work with Sylvia, he was just asked to limit it and not be alone with her. That doesn’t sound like total social isolation to me.

        2. SignalLost*

          I don’t know, I feel like that could be really variable. Maybe Sylvia goes to every social event! In that case, OP does have an apparently-unreasonable limitation. (Based on other commenters more familiar with the expat community.) Maybe Sylvia goes to no social events! No problem for OP. Maybe Sylvia only stays ten minutes, and OP can follow the restriction by being late! Maybe everyone goes and the school considers the restriction met if Sylvia and OP have zero private contact at these events. What I’m getting at is that there are probably shades of nuance to each of the restrictions, some more onerous than others, and some that would not significantly limit OP’s life at all. As presented, we don’t know what the school expected met their conditions (the no private meetings is the most clear-cut).

          But we’ll never know, and nor will OP, because instead of asking clarifying questions or trying it out for a month to see what would actually happen, OP threw a hissy fit and resigned on the spot.

  39. NW Mossy*

    First Rule of Virality: The more outrageous the behavior, the more people want to share and discuss it.
    Second Rule of Virality: The more the person engaging in the behavior doesn’t recognize its outrageousness, the more people want to share and discuss it.

    2. Marillenbaum*

      And this is why I love r/relationships and r/legaladvice on Reddit (Nicole Cliffe retweets a lot of the really insane stuff with screenshots, and it’s the best part of my Twitter).

    3. Ask a Manager* Post author

      You know, that second rule actually explains every post I’ve had go viral (this one, the intern dress code one, and the person whose employee quit on the spot after being prohibited from going to her college graduation).

      1. Katie the Fed*

        Yeah, the posts where the OP is like “wow, I really effed up and I know I effed up” everyone is really nice about.

          2. MuseumChick*

            OMG. Had to stop myself from laughing out loud and disturbing my co-workers. Still trying to hold in giggles. That hit me just right.

            1. JessaB*

              I forgot my own number one rule about reading AAM, I didn’t think this post would bring “something so amusing I’d snork Pepsi up my nose and on my keyboard.” But it did.

              Okay new rule, no matter what the topic and how serious you think it is, never, ever, ever drink whilst reading AAM.

        2. FD*

          And even the follow-up! Compare this to the second post from an intern–admittedly from not the same LW. But the second one acknowledged that they’d made a dumb mistake, and were looking for how to move forward. (And really, the interns didn’t do anything morally wrong; just inappropriate in their work context.) The comments on that post were mostly sympathetic.

          If this LW had come back going “Wow, those comments were hard to read but they were a wake-up call to realize I’d really done something awful. I’m still disappointed that I lost the job, but I understand why,” I think people would have very different reactions.

          1. Liz T*

            I just read that Reddit thread where the young man who got called out for stalking updated to say everyone had been right and he was in a program to rehab his behavior, so part of me clicked on this link with some hope in my heart.

            Welp.

            1. FD*

              People do change sometimes. You can’t assume they will (especially if someone’s repeatedly shown that they aren’t interested in doing so), but you also can’t assume they won’t.

              I genuinely hope that when this person has calmed down a little and thought about this, that they’ll reconsider the way they approached this.

              For now, though, I think the situation was handled as well as could be expected by the management team at this job.

      2. Minorty voice*

        I wonder what Alison thinks of the proposed measuress. They do seem rather restricting and severe to me but not sure how they seem to HR professionals. On the other hand, the LW’s reaction does seem very impulsive and hysterical.

    4. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

      I agree.

      I’m a member of a hobby group with a fairly active anonymous online community (not 4chan or its ilk, though) which occasionally has drama blow up. Inevitably, one of the biggest drivers is whether the focus of the drama doubles down on their shenanigans or whether they go quiet and just let things roll off their back.

  40. Ramona Flowers*

    I think it’s a shame you didn’t feel able to try to go along with the measures they proposed, as if she was your boss I don’t imagine she would have socialised with all your peers that much. Obviously what’s done is done and I am truly sorry you and your partner are apart as a result.

    1. Augusta Sugarbean*

      I thought this part was a little…inconsistent. The OP says “At the end, there is not that much interaction between the director and employees on daily basis.” But he also says he thought “the proposed measures rather excessive. It would make my position [untenable], even in a short run. Therefore I resigned on the spot.”

      I get that this is an ex-pat community and there is a lot of interaction during and outside of work but surely unemployment and leaving your current partner is less appealing.

    2. Elizabeth H.*

      Agree – maybe it could have worked out better than he had hoped. It’s possible that the OP’s feelings about it would have calmed down, or he could have worked there longer enough to find out at the same time. I appreciate your compassion for the OP, especially after he acknowledged that what he regrets most is that others (e.g. his partner) are bearing consequence of his actions.

      1. Elizabeth H.*

        wow, not sure what I was trying to say, I meant “Worked there long enough to job search at the same time and find a new job” or something like that.

  41. Jessie the First (or second)*

    OP, some more introspection would serve you well in your life. A willingness to be fully accountable for your decisions would be great. I think you have more work to do here.

    You call it “a failed relationship” – which is not what the problem was. No one is holding a failed relationship against you.

    You blame your job loss on nepotism, you blame it on the prominence of the family and the culture of your city, you blame your ex.

    None of that blame is appropriate or warranted. Your job loss is not their fault. Your job loss is the result of an awful choice you made years ago and your current decision not to abide by the parameters the school wanted to put in place. That’s on you.

    This does not mean I think you don’t deserve a job, ever – it means you need to stop casting about for other people to blame. I doubt you can be successful until you learn to own your mistakes.

  42. MuseumChick*

    Wow. OP learned absolutely nothing from this. Everything is always someone else fault right? Most of the people on the internet are “Self-Righteous” and “Toxic”, Sylvia was, apparently, in the wrong for 1) Being deeply concerned when the man she lived with just up and vanished and then, upon learning they would be working together getting the Powers-That-Be involved, the school is, apparently, totally unreasonable for wanting to put measures in place to ensure that there will be no conflict between both parties….

    But the OP’s own mistakes are brushed off as minor/unimportant.

    Guy comes of very immature in my opinion.

    1. Augusta Sugarbean*

      Oh, I think self-righteous and toxic are pretty accurate when it comes to the internet. I’m not saying the OP behaved well but commenters here and at other sites were/are pretty harsh. Especially here when there is an expectation of polite & constructive commenting.

      1. Anonymous for this one*

        Yep, I’ve noticed that as a trend on this site over the past few years, that people have become pretty…enthusiastic…with their insults of LW’s, or in expressing delight in their misfortune (even when the misfortune is a predictable consequence of the LW’s actions). I don’t know if its because the commentariat seems to have a liberal bend to it (myself included), and we’re venting our collective frustration and anger on the LW’s who make poor ethical choices since we feel so helpless to /exhausted by the rise of right-wing extremism in many of our communities, but it makes me nervous every time I go to read the comments, that what used to feel like one of the better spots in the internet is becoming just like all the other comment sections.

        1. Gazebo Slayer*

          Oh wow. You absolutely nailed it.

          I have been viciously, gleefully mean the last year because I am enraged and terrified at the horrible people who have taken over my country and I channel that fury at anyone whom I object to morally. Some of the people I’ve treated nastily have deserved it. Some… haven’t really.

        2. Mina*

          I think that could be it–I’ve felt really powerless at times, in my personal life and with respect to my country, and there aren’t very many channels for dealing with the resulting emotions.

          OTOH, I’m not delighted at the outcome of OP here, just disappointed, as I’ve said before.

  43. CaliCali*

    Personally, I’m happy Sylvia ended up not only working her way up to being a director, but married to someone with clout, where she barely had to exert any effort at all to torpedo this dude’s chances?

    Living well is the best revenge, indeed

    1. Amy*

      I don’t even think she torpedoed his chances! I think she took the high road here, and offered to work together with a couple reasonable safeguards against drama/potential scandal. He’s the one who decided he couldn’t handle any restrictions on his life and quit on the spot. She got to be the ultimate calm, collected professional, while watching him torpedo his own life.

  44. Game of Scones*

    “The Internet craze just added an extra bizzare layer to it.”

    I think the OP is giving the internet too much credit here – his actions solidly planted this whole story in the realm of “bizarre” and it was never going back. This mess was never going to be an easy thing to dig his way out of, although I think he was coasting through life assuming he’d never have to account for what he’d done.

      1. CM*

        Yes, I totally get this part of the letter — I can imagine writing into AAM and thinking it would be pretty unlikely that people I know would both read the letter and know it was me. Having literally thousands of people commenting on my situation and on me as a person? The OP said he was “freaked out” by this and I would be too. Also, to give the OP some credit, he did acknowledge that some of the advice was helpful. But not TOO much credit, since I agree with those saying the OP is still failing to take any responsibility here. He chose to resign and leave his current partner rather than tough it out, so he should accept the consequences of his decision rather than somehow blaming the Internet, Sylvia, and the board for his current situation.

  45. blee*

    wowowowowowowowowow

    I feel bad for his current partner, but it seems like she will ultimately be far better off without him.

      2. Jeannie*

        It’s *because* of my humanity that I recognize OP’s current partner deserves better than someone who has zero accountability of their actions, past and present. Or do you think people deserve to be stuck in relationships with partners who could very well disappear on them at any moment with no remorse whatsoever?

        1. SignalLost*

          And, in fact, have actively chosen in two cases to do so? I mean, I don’t assume the terms of OP’s visa are a surprise to him, so resigning in a snit actively harms his current partner, who cannot go with him wherever he’s going. Even seeing how the requirements played out for a month would be less harmful to his current partner.

      4. Morning Glory*

        I would 100% stay in a crappy, miserable, isolating position in order to stay in the same country as my long-term partner, because I love him and want to be with him.

        The OP did not prioritize his partner. In fact, he chose to resign on the spot without even discussing it with his partner. Not even looking at his actions with Sylvia, his described actions toward his current partner are pretty terrible.

        Where is the OP’s humanity would be a better question.

  46. Bend & Snap*

    I got seriously giddy when I saw there was an update.

    However, the measures issued don’t seem crazy to me. Certainly nothing to quit over without anything lined up. The joblessness is your choice, OP.

    In other news, Sylvia is my new hero. It sounds like she handled all this gracefully and professionally.

    1. MicroManagered*

      I agree. I get a sense that he impulsively quit on the spot because his ego couldn’t handle some pretty reasonable ground rules…. I read nothing that would make his position “unattainable” in them. (Maybe he meant “untenable”?)

      1. Andy*

        I think he meant untenable as well. and his inability to use the correct word has me x10 annoyed at him above and beyond the wildly un-insightful update.

  47. Gretchen*

    “I only wish there were not other individuals bearing the blunt of my immaturity in the past. (My partner cannot join me due to visa issue and family situation.)”

    This is the karmic double ghost-back of the story. I almost feel bad, but not.

    1. Fronzel Neekburm*

      That he has no job, has to break up his current family, and he can’t work in the field that he wants to work with because he was a crappy boyfriend? Please treat the letter writer with a shred of humanity. Thank you.

      Was what he did good? Nope. Does his life deserve to be destroyed like this?

      What happened to your heart?

      1. FDCA In Canada*

        He resigned by his own choice. He has a job he is returning home to. Sometimes the consequences of our actions are that we don’t get to do things we want to do.

        “Crappy boyfriend” and “abandoned live-in relationship of three years by fleeing the country and then accusing partner of being overly emotional afterwards” are worlds apart.

      3. Rusty Shackelford*

        He didn’t “have” to break up anything. He was given a choice, and he decided it was better to leave his job than to keep it and follow some very reasonable restrictions.

      4. Leatherwings*

        He was the one who chose to resign, so I’m not so sure his life has been destroyed for him. And what about Sylvia in this situation? Is she just supposed to suck it up? The guy who upended her entire life years ago in an incredibly cruel way was sitting there and she was expected to act like there’s a wall between the personal and professional for his benefit?

        I’m not saying everyone should play triumphant music to the vision of OP leaving the country, but I’m not going to be mustering up a whole ton of sympathy for him either.

      6. Aeryn Sun*

        He made all those choices. He was given reasonable conditions, given his past behavior, and chose not to go with those conditions. All of these consequences are because of the choice he made to leave this job.

      7. feminazgul*

        It amazes me that no matter what some asshole does, there will always be someone on the internet misreading their intentions and actions completely and going to bat for them 100% unnecessarily. I suggest knitting as a healthier hobby.

        1. Marillenbaum*

          1) Fracking love your username. 2) I will always and forever stan for knitting. It is a delightful hobby.

        3. Elizabeth H.*

          What about knitting as a healthier hobby than gleefully shaming complete strangers whose actions don’t affect you?

          1. feminazgul*

            This person deserves to be shamed, one, and two, I don’t have any glee in any of my responses whatsoever, so I have no idea where you’re getting that. I’m not happy this dude fucked up yet again, I’m incredibly annoyed at his absolute tone-deaf lack of self-awareness about the very real bad choices he’s made.

          3. Anion*

            Yes. Jesus Christ, some of us go to bat for strangers because we’re genuinely disturbed at seeing them so viciously abused, and think very few people actually deserve that kind of vitriol. And now we’re somehow the bad people, because we think gleefully attacking perfect strangers who, however badly they behaved, did not murder or physically assault anyone, isn’t something fun that people should be proud and happy to do?

      8. Jessie the First (or second)*

        He has no job because he quit.

        He quit on the spot, and now is returning home to sub for a while until he can get something new sorted out for himself.

        What in that seems like “his life is destroyed” to you?

      10. BedMadeLie*

        He was literally told by the chair “You still have a job. Just keep it strictly business and keep your distance.” and _he_ decided that because he wasn’t being allowed to control the interaction he’d _quit_. The OP is the only one responsible for him having to leave the country and his current partner. He did that, himself, of his own volition. He doesn’t get sympathy points for making yet another crappy choice that throws his partner’s life into chaos.

      11. KDat*

        He resigned on the spot without even discussing with his current partner!

        Don’t time this guy more credit than he deserves. He is NOT the victim here.

      12. INTP*

        He wasn’t forced to do any of this, though. He was given the option to stay and work with a slightly restricted social life. He wouldn’t have been completely isolated, he would have his SO and the option to hang out in smaller groups when his boss is not there. He chose to go home as the preferable option. No one destroyed his life, he was faced with a slight inconvenience as a natural consequence of his actions.

      14. Danger: Gumption Ahead*

        He could have agreed to the work conditions and stayed at his job. Would have crimped his social life some, but you can rebuild a social life, even in a small ex-pat community. I did it when I had an ugly breakup with a long-term partner while working abroad. He chose the path he is on, so I can’t feel sorry for him.

      15. Risha*

        This is a ridiculous misreading of cause and effect. Any potential destruction of his life (which is not actually destroyed) was a voluntary action on his part. Even if the potential restrictions were onerous in a small ex-pat community (as some people are arguing), he still chose to throw a tantrum rather than to stick it out even just six months to job hunt, and potentially keep everything he’s throwing away.

            1. Mina*

              This. Coddling/excusing it with “but he didn’t murder/beat anyone” undermines the real damage done, in addition to OP not ever getting any motivation to better himself *for his own good*.

          2. Guy Incognito*

            Maybe if the OP had treated Sylvia like a human with feelings, he’d have garnered some sympathy. Instead, he treated her badly and then refused to take responsibility for his actions.

            1. Traffic_Spiral*

              Ooh, and treated his current partner like a human with feelings, instead of abandoning her rather than stick out a mildly unpleasant job situation for a few months.

      17. Jeannie*

        Hey Fronzel/OP, you quit the job on your own accord. You didn’t talk to your current partner about it, and you weren’t fired. You were given restrictions that would allow you to keep your current job. You made the choice (impulsively, with no input from your partner) to leave your current job. And now you have to live with that choice. Far, far away from us. Take care!

      18. Katherine*

        IT. WAS. HIS. CHOICE. TO. RESIGN.

        He decided quitting, moving out of the country, etc. was preferable to trying to make it work, even in the short-term, in the same school as Sylvia. He had two choices. You are seriously trying to say that he chose the choice that would “destroy his life”?

        He did not *have* to break up his current family. And yes, he *can* work in the field that he wants to. It wouldnt have been perfect. That happens. It was his choice.

      19. Working Hypothesis*

        Where, precisely, do you get that he “had to” break up his current family? He CHOSE to break up his current family… because he was affronted that his bosses would seek to interfere with his all-important social life, just because his own bad behavior had made a seriously sticky situation for them and they needed to do damage control.

        If I’d been that top boss, I’d have fired him outright… not because of what he did ten years ago, but because he was a liability in the position of having had a negative personal connection with the new director, and I’d need my new director free to do her work without either the reality or the appearance of scandal. That all they did instead was to say, “We expect you to abide by some basic restrictions which are necessary to avoid the appearance of scandal,” and he threw a hissy fit and rage-quit without notice was entirely and completely HIS choice.

        And just as completely HIS responsibility. Including all the consequences thereof to both himself *and* his partner. So yeah, I’d say he “deserves” for those consequences to happen… not in a moral sense, but in a logical-follower sense. He deserves it in that it only happened because he chose to make it happen.

    2. WakeRed*

      That sounds like it sucks, but it also sounds like OP is choosing not to rework his situation for the benefit of his current partner. I don’t remember where he is (or if we knew that specifically) but his reply certainly leaves the aroma of self-service around. Rethink the word partner, my friend.

    3. tl*

      His partner is not bearing the brunt of his immaturity in the past, she’s(?) bearing the brunt of his immaturity *right now*. Literally all he would have had to do to keep his job and stay in the country is agree to not talk shit about his boss or try to socialize with her outside of work – things that normal people easily do without having to be told. But this guy can’t be held to such a standard. It is a shame his current partner will suffer for that.

      1. Annabelle*

        Exactly. Those stipulations sound totally reasonable to me. Even if they’re not ideal, he still chose to resign and leave his current partner. No one forced his hand.

    4. Sadsack*

      The current partner slis not being impacted by OP’S past actions. She is impacted by his recent impulsive decision to quit and move away. I think no amount of advice here will help OP. He just refuses to admit that everything happening now are consequences of his actions, past and present. He could have tried out the employment terms for a year and had time to figure out how he and his partner would move forward. Instead he made a quick decision without consulting his partner and is leaving her behind, AGAIN. SMH.

  48. DeskBird*

    I’m guessing they put those restrictions in place because she was worried the LW was going to badmouth her – and given the tone of the two letters that feels justified. If the email he sent her came across even a little like he was putting some of the blame on her or acting like he expected her to retaliate at work it could easily make her worry this was going to become a he said she said situation (The new director stalked me once! For almost no reason! She only got the job due to Nepotism!) that she wanted to avoid. I feel like the best way to prove that you are no longer immature would have been to accept the restrictions with grace and finish out the year so you could line up a new job. But her life will probably be easier without you.

  49. That Would Be a Good Band Name*

    I’m very confused by his stating that the director and the employees don’t really interact and then going on to state that not interacting with her or being allowed to talk about her would complete prevent him from socializing. Was his plan to socialize by regaling everyone with the tale of their break-up? And if that was the case, how does he not yet realize how badly he comes across in this?

    1. Kathlynn*

      Well, management seems to come up with my coworkers, and he’s not allowed to discuss management at all. He’s not allowed to talk about his ex, so he can’t find out if she’s at events, and thus cannot attend them as he is supposed to keep interactions between himself and her sparse. Possibly even any interactions between himself and other staff members. It is not worded in a way that says he only has to avoid her outside of work. I read it as anyone from work.

      2. DArcy*

        Whoa. “Limit interactions” does not in any reasonable reading translate to, “You must proactively avoid all social interactions because she MIGHT be there!”

      3. BedMadeLie*

        Of course management may come up with coworkers…so you treat it like any other situation where you aren’t looking to gossip. You keep most conversations work-related, stick to neutral topics for small talk, and when gossip/sylvia/ management come up, you either don’t participate in that part of the conversation or change the subject.

        I’m not sure why this seems so insurmountable.

        1. fposte*

          Yeah, I could see this being hard in a way that you wouldn’t want to stay on long for, but I didn’t see how it made life impossible from the get-go.

    2. K.*

      And also, if sacrificing my social life meant that I stayed employed, stayed in the country that I wanted to live in, and got to be with my partner, I’d sacrifice my social life. One can make new friends.

    3. chi type*

      I think it’s more that he was not allowed to tell anyone why he suddenly stopped going to all the group events.

  50. Kristobel*

    Wow. Well, while I’m sorry he lost his job, it seemed like the only real outcome. I certainly didn’t wish him ill…just recognition of the severity of what he did. “We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately” just shows me that he still doesn’t quite get it. It’s pretty terrible that his partner is being left behind…but at least she knows where he’s going. (Sorry).

    1. collect dust*

      i’m sorry for anyone who is unemployed – it’s an awful thing to go through – but he didn’t lose his job, he gave it up quite willingly.

    3. Mina*

      I feel really bad for his current partner. Given that he resigned without going over this with them, it doesn’t look like he’s improved his communication skills since Sylvia.

        2. Alex the Alchemist*

          Or if he handled leaving this situation the way he did last time. I certainly hope he at least talked to his partner before leaving this time.

  51. Reinhardt*

    I didn’t expect an update on this one!

    I have to say though, the restrictions that the letter writer described as “excessive” and would make his position untenable (guessing he meant that instead of “unattainable”) all seem pretty reasonable to me given the situation.

  52. Huh*

    Wait, so he’s going to leave his current partner because that relationship is now inconvenient? Does she know that yet?

    1. Fronzel Neekburm*

      Because she can’t get a visa. They can’t stay together,they’re being forced apart. Please act with some humanity towards the letter writer.

        1. CMDRBNA*

          And also, isn’t that even more revealing? That knowing what the stakes were – that he’d have to move home, that his current partner couldn’t go with him – he STILL chose to resign? Was being able to talk about Sylvia at the watercooler that important to him?

          1. Kathlynn*

            It wasn’t just his ex it was anything/one related to management whether it’s negative or positive. And given he could get into trouble for trying to follow their rules by asking if she was attending an event (in order to decide to attend or not), I can see why he would feel they went too far.

            1. sunny-dee*

              It never says that he can’t have any contact with her – it says meetings must have a third party and be documented. If there was a school function, presumably he could ask her if he could attend. And he could very much still talk with his coworkers, just not about her. “Management” could mean absolutely anything, or it could (also reasonably) apply only to her and the board, but he could still talk normal shop – the principal, potential bonuses or raises, what to do with vacation time, whatever. It doesn’t say that he tried to clarify any of that, just that he quit on the spot.

              He’s also looking at it like it was punishment for him, but it’s very possible that a lot of it was intended as PROTECTION for him, so Sylvia couldn’t retaliate.

              1. Kathlynn*

                It also says he has to limit any interactions with her. He also said he wasn’t allowed to have even normal water cooler discussion. Which I would understand if it was just her, or just nothing negative or pertaining to their past relationship, but when you say (and we are supposed to take the LW at his/her word) that you aren’t allowed to talk about management at all, that’s completely unfair.

                1. sunny-dee*

                  But it doesn’t say whether he asked for clarification, which is important. The normal watercooler discussion related to chit-chat about Sylvia, and it is insane to me that he would think it would be okay to do that even without a formal restriction.

                2. Jessie the First (or second)*

                  Kathlynn, I think you are reading *way* more into the restrictions than OP has written.

                  He stated that he has to “limit our interactions beyond the school.” He then said he thinks that means he can *never* socialize with *anyone* – but what he said the actual restrictions are do not match up with that interpretation of them.

                  Given what he said the actual conditions are, you seem to be taking the most extreme possible interpretation of them as fact. But there is not evidence it means what you’re assuming it means. “limit interactions” is not anywhere close to what you are pushing here. Why do you jump to that conclusion?

                3. Working Hypothesis*

                  We’re supposed to take the LW at their word as to the facts, and I’m doing so. The facts are, per his own description, that he is to “limit interaction” with Sylvia outside of work contexts, not have meetings with her at work without a third party present, and not discuss her, or management in general, with his colleagues.

                  Those facts do not lead to the interpretation he drew from them, which is that he’d never be allowed to attend ANY social event in case she might show up there. Limiting interaction just doesn’t mean that. In fact, even when my ex had a full-scale, legal no-contact order prohibiting her from being within two blocks of me, it didn’t mean she couldn’t go to any social events within our mutual circle in case I might show up there… it just meant that if I *did* show up there she had to leave, immediately and without interacting with me. So long as she left as soon as she knew I was there, no problem. And that was a *far* tougher form of restriction than simply “limiting interaction.”

                  So the LW appears to have drawn an incorrect inference from the facts they presented to us. That’s not an unreasonable thing to say — Alison and various commenters point out all the time when a LW draws incorrect inferences from the facts they present to us. For example, “They gave me their business card and told me to stay in touch. That means I’m going to get an offer, right?” :D

          3. Sled Dog Mama*

            From the letter it sounds to me that the resignation was a snap decision and LW may not have been completely aware of what the stakes were at that point

            1. SignalLost*

              I feel like if you’re living in another country on a visa you know what conditions trigger the end of the visa. I certainly did when I lived overseas.

            2. Desdemona*

              He laid out in the original letter that if he lost this job, there weren’t any other job prospects in that country, and he didn’t want to leave the area. When he rage quit, he knew exactly what he was throwing away.

        2. Government Worker*

          The resignation is what gets me. I mean, I get that living in a small expat community is really, really different than living in one’s home country. The rules could well have meant some serious isolation in a situation where a lot of people feel lonely and isolated already. But OP has a partner! Surely it would have been worth it to stick around for a little while and see how things went, before resigning and ending up far away from his partner with no job? Maybe it would be okay for them to go to the same large-group happy hours? Maybe OP could do things with smaller groups of colleagues, or host a few friends for dinner or movie night now and then, without Sylvia? Maybe Sylvia’s not very social with people from work but is more social with her husband’s family, who is apparently local?

          If after a while the situation truly was untenable, then he and his partner together could have made a plan for how OP could move/find new work. But quitting on the spot shows that he hasn’t really matured since he left Sylvia – it’s the same instinct to dramatically cut and run from an uncomfortable situation.

      2. collect dust*

        they aren’t being forced apart – he chose to leave by quitting in a huff. i have humanity for him, but part of that is recognizing that he’s responsible for the things going badly for him.

      3. Anononon*

        They’re not being “forced apart,” the letter writer chose to resign his current position rather than agree to some fairly reasonable stipulations about professional behavior when a previous romantic relationship is involved.

      5. Amy*

        But he had an option to remain at his old job and in her country until they could sort out an alternative? He didn’t have to quit on the spot. Even if it would’ve been very uncomfortable and difficult to stay, I think most people would choose a couple months or a year in a terrible work situation over completely ditching their family.

        1. SignalLost*

          I mean, if that’s an option to not stay in a job you hate solely because staying facilitates living where you want with who you want, my boss is going to be very surprised tomorrow. I guess my partner will just have to shoulder the financial and social load.

      6. pope suburban*

        When humans make choices, they come with consequences. The consequences of resigning his job on the spot are: not having that job, having to relocate for another one, leaving another partner in the lurch, and leaving the school short-staffed. The consequences of behaving in rude and selfish ways are: a damaged professional reputation, public censure, people not liking you. These are consequences some people could not bear, but that some people can live with. There’s no need to make it more complicated than that, or to suggest that people are somehow behaving monstrously when they point out exactly what did, factually, happen.

      7. JessaB*

        The current partner was not even consulted before he quit a job that would make him leave the country. They are not being FORCED apart, the OP decided that it would be better for him to quit with no prospects than go home and think about it and TALK to his partner. He just did the same thing to this partner that he did to Sylvia except that this one is going to see it coming.

        I could have stayed with some annoying conditions, but I quit so sorry our relationship has to split up because I quit without consulting you and well if I’m supporting us or you need me here too bad, I decided to quit anyway no matter how bad it would be for you.

        I have ZERO compassion for the OP, and plenty for the current partner, but 100% of this situation is directly because the OP decided to quit. They didn’t fire him. They didn’t demote him. Nobody forced him and his current partner apart. HE DID. BY HIMSELF.

        1. Jojo*

          Well, we don’t know that. This situation had been brewing for at least a little while, and it’s entirely probable that he had discussed possibilities with his partner. His partner certainly could have been blindsided by all this, of course, but we don’t know that acted the same way with his current partner that he did 10 years ago. Hopefully, he didn’t, and he and his partner had talked through various potential outcomes before this meeting!

          1. Elizabeth West*

            Yeah, he didn’t actually say—they might have talked about it and planned for Current Partner to join him when the visa stuff was worked out. Visa stuff can take a while, hence his frustration. But he didn’t say, so we don’t know for sure.

      8. Bonamsaopen*

        The visa issues can be resolved by marrying her. If he doesn’t want to do that, it’s his choice again.

        1. JessaB*

          Maybe. We don’t know what the restrictions are or even what countries are involved (I am not sure of the home country of the OP, only that he is currently in the Philippines.) If the restrictions are because of the national origin of the partner, a financial or criminal history that may be a bar to immigration to certain places. Lack of living there for the right amount of time, not properly documented status. There are dozens of reasons for “visa problems,” that have nothing to do with whether the OP wants to get married or the partner does.

          Also marriages to sort out visa problems are not so easy. Some engagement visas require returns to your home country for a certain amount of time, a lot of money as well. And if the partner has some kind of refugee status, they cannot return to their home country.

          It’s not so simple to just say get married, etc. Also, I don’t remember seeing anything that states the second partner is female. Might be, might not be, but I don’t remember a pronoun being used. I could be wrong and I could have just missed it.

      9. Traffic_Spiral*

        They aren’t being “forced apart,” she’s being abandoned because once again, LW would rather run away and blow up everything around him than face any unpleasant consequences. She deserves the sympathy, as does Sylvia and the other staff of the school that have to work around LW’s absence. But LW deserves no sympathy for once again dumping all his problems on the people around him and running away.

    3. Maya Elena*

      Where did you all get the idea he is breaking up with his current partner, rather than having to be temporarily separated until he can arrange a visa?

  53. Halster*

    Given that he himself emailed HR, disclosing at the very least a past relationship between him and his supervisor, how was he surprised that senior management got involved? That seems incredibly typical.

  54. Fronzel Neekburm*

    Hey, sorry you had to deal with so many toxic comments. I chalked it up to immaturity – it happens, but no, not a fireable offense. Good luck in the future, and I really do hope things pick up for you – you did not deserve this level of hatred. The commenters on this blog can be good, but I do feel at times they have a hard time separating the personal from the professional.

    2. LawBee*

      Well, he wasn’t fired. He quit. And I suspect the toxic comments were a result of the viral nature of the story – more people than just AAM readers were exposed and commented.

      As for hating him? I don’t hate him but he sucks as a person.

      1. JessaB*

        This, when comments here get or start to go toxic, Alison shuts it down pretty damned fast. There are a LOT of other places this went. I decided to Google it and EVERYONE picked it up – Buzzfeed, Huffpost, the works.

    3. Leatherwings*

      Sometimes the personal and professional should be separated. Like, don’t talk about details of your relationship at work. But in this case it’s naive at best to assume it’s even possible, which was pretty much Alison’s first answer.

      Sylvia is allowed to have emotions at work about what was assuredly a traumatic event coming back into her life, and I think commentators here found themselves sympathizing with that. That’s more human and empathetic than anything the OP demonstrated.

    4. Mary*

      they have a hard time separating the personal from the professional

      Actually, I thought that was the OP’s problem! The chair of the organisation gave him a set of restrictions to separate the personal from the professional, and the OP decided they were too onerous and quit.

      2. JessaB*

        I think the OP is lumping in comments from other sites where this went viral. Alison is great at stopping toxicity on this site, but a lot of sites do not have our commentariat NOR do they have the kind of moderation Alison provides here. I read some of the other sites and it got pretty bad.

    6. BedMadeLie*

      He wasn’t fired. He was told he still had his job, he just needed to behave professionally and avoid non-work-related interaction.

      OP made the choice to leave, and has (literally, in every way) no one but himself to blame.

  55. dppb*

    I wonder if he told his current partner before he left the country this time.

    Also, I really love how he tries to casually blame Alison for putting his email online – ‘I didn’t realize my WHOLE email’ – as if he were completely unfamiliar with the site, and then immediately references the two formats – ‘one of the short scenarios’ which shows that he absolutely did know. Anyway, I’m sure she didn’t, but I hope Alison feels exactly zero guilt for this dude’s choice to send his letter in.

    1. Marillenbaum*

      And dude? If you don’t understand how an advice column uses letters, maybe 1) do your research, or 2) don’t write in? (But I’m glad he did, because this has made my day).

      1. JessaB*

        I have never written to a columnist but if I did, I’d certainly read a week or two of their stuff and possibly random dates from a few months/years ago, to see how they reply to things and how they handle their comments. This is not a subscription blog, it costs nothing to read the archives. There’s a responsibility if you’re writing in to at least have a marginal clue.

        It’s like commenting on places where they have rules and you should read them. Or read a few comment threads to see what they consider appropriate.

        It’s a lot about do your research.

        1. Elizabeth H.*

          I think Alison has said that like 50% or more of her questions are from non-regular readers! This doesn’t seem weird to me. My guess is that the commentariat here is heavily heavily biased toward people who are fans of advice columns/blogs and that for us the idea of writing to a blog you don’t know or read would seem completely nuts. But in reality, there are tons of people who read advice blogs/columns without being engaged/even knowing or thinking about commenting or combining through the archives, and lots of people who are interested inwriting for and receiving advice but don’t read it for entertainment or content value.

          1. Observer*

            That’s all well and fine. But his amazement and shock that she actually published his whole letter is just tone deaf, at best. I mean he clearly read enough of the blog to know that the commenteriate can get get pretty hot and heavy when they see misbehavior. That should absolutely be enough to let him know that Alison regularly publishes entire letters. AND if he had taken out a couple of minutes, Alison does explain the ground rules and how / what she publishes, so if he had searched he would have seen that. But, even if he didn’t think to search the site for that, just the reading he had to have done gives him the basic information.

            Why on earth would he take it as a given that the whole letter would not be published?

            I do, however, get his astonishment at how viral this whole thing went. To the point that people who know him apparently recognized this, from what he says. I really can’t blame him for not seeing that coming.

  56. Big10Professor*

    Maybe he can go start a business with the guy who wouldn’t give up his seat to an elderly man on the train and then splashed mud on the woman who asked.

      1. CMDRBNA*

        I’m trying to find it but can’t – basically an intern got a job offer rescinded or didn’t get a job he thought he was a shoo-in for after he refused to give up his seat on the subway to an elderly man who was riding with a woman, and when the woman asked him to let the man have his seat he got mud on her coat (I think he had a bike with him?). Turns out the woman was the wife of someone high up in the company. His question was why his behavior should have resulted in him not getting the job and was it fair?

        1. Mary*

          He also complained because his university careers advisers had never told him that you had to be polite to *everyone*, not just people in power.

          1. K.*

            Yeah, that line made me so angry. “If I had known being polite to the little people would benefit ME, I would have done it! Why didn’t anybody tell me?” [eyeroll]

  57. Brainjacker*

    Wait, so you wanted to work this out between yourselves first but also sent an email to HR? And you aren’t sure how this got escalated? The passive tense throughout both letters indicates a disconnect between your perception of actions & consequences. It might serve you well to reflect on this – and for what it’s worth, HR would never just ignore this type of email.

    1. Brainjacker*

      Also: “I only wish there were not other individuals bearing the blunt of my immaturity in the past.”

      I can only imagine how your current immature choice to leave your job and partner to spare potential embarrassment and live your best social life will go down with your partner.

    2. MicroManagered*

      Wait, so you wanted to work this out between yourselves first but also sent an email to HR? And you aren’t sure how this got escalated?

      I think this is a case of someone saying “I don’t understand” when they mean “I don’t like.” I know it’s an assumption, but I would bet OP contacted HR himself thinking he’d get out in front of it. I think it’s pretty common knowledge that the party making a report or complaint often gets the benefit of the doubt–I think that’s what he expected he was doing. In this case, it did not work out that way.

      1. Amy*

        I mean, maybe it did get him some benefit of the doubt. It’s entirely possible that they considered firing him, then decided that his reaching out first showed some maturity and offered to allow him to stay with a few common-sense restrictions. I certainly expected them to hear this history and jump straight to “We can’t reasonably expect her to work with you, and she’s more valuable than you are, so we’re not renewing your contract.”

        1. MicroManagered*

          That is true too. It sounds like the employer tried to at least give a shot at making it work. He chose not to take that option.

    3. Alli525*

      Right? “Hey, I’m going to inform HR that I have an interpersonal conflict with a director that hasn’t even started work ye—hey wait why are you calling a meeting???”

  58. CatCat*

    Sometimes when you do terrible things in your past, the past comes back to haunt you in the form of natural consequences for your actions. I think that’s the thing OP seems to be failing to grasp here.

    It was totally appropriate for Sylvia to take this to her boss since this could definitely impact the school and working relationships. The organization offered you a path forward to stay at the organization for the school year, which you rejected. That was your choice.

    Where you are right now, OP, is a result of your own choices.

    1. Gadfly*

      A friend used to call it the karma train. You can choose to let it hit you immediately or let it go around the track a few times and build up momentum first. Usually ducking it just creates the potential for thing to be worse when it hits, or you end up continuing to duck to avoid it forever.

  59. K.*

    Oy vey. There’s a lack of self-awareness and childish refusal to take responsibility for your actions here that won’t serve you well. Dude, the situation you’re in sucks but it is your fault. You’d still be employed if you were willing to adhere to the reasonable-sounding restrictions placed on you as a result of YOUR BEHAVIOR; you decided that was unpalatable so you quit, of your own accord, which leaves your partner in the lurch as well (did you discuss it with her before you quit? I doubt it).

    (Is it really that hard not to socialize with one’s boss? I’ve had team/working meals with bosses, but I don’t consider that socializing.)

    1. Jennifer*

      To be fair, it kind of sounded like restraining-orderish levels of “must avoid her at all times.” So yeah, that would be hampering to his movements and/or social life. Possibly to the point where if he accidentally violated them he might get fired anyway.

      1. Jessie the First (or second)*

        I see a few people reading it that way, but why? He is simply supposed to “limit [his] interactions with her beyond work.”

        That is so very far from restraining order territory – it doesn’t say he can’t be where she is. Just “limit.” I know the OP claims that means he can never ever socialize with anyone at all in the whole history of ever and always, but that is not actually what the restrictions he listed in fact say.

      2. Emily*

        We’ll never know, though, will we? This totally reliable narrator tells us what the rules were, and quits on the spot.

        1. JessaB*

          Yes, and also there’s not one single bit of evidence in the letter that he even asked what does that mean in actual behavioural terms. I mean if I was told “can’t be around them” I’d ask “Does that mean I have to leave the room if they come in? If I’m at a bar and they come in as long as I don’t go near them or talk to them can I stay? What exactly do you mean by that restriction?”

          There’s no hint that he tried to clarify or even negotiate anything. If he thought it meant he had to leave if she came into a public place, “I’m sorry but having to leave a bunch of my friends at the pub because she walks in and sits on the other side, A: makes it impossible for me to go out and B: means that if she knows where I am she can mess with me simply by going where I am and that puts her in far more power over my outside life than is reasonable. What is her obligation in this to not seek me out either. It could look retaliatory.”

          According to a literal read of the letter and absent any further updates, there was no attempt at all to talk about how those restrictions were meant to work and what the actual limits of them are. I mean people have to see each other – parent conference days, student awards events, assemblies, pep gatherings. There are things ALL teachers and often directors and managers are supposed to do at the same time in the same place.

          The instructions as written were vague as heck. The “I quit” before even any discussion is very telling. I wonder what’s missing in the letter from the actual conversation. And don’t get me wrong it’s possible that instead of intending to work with the OP, they wanted him to quit. I have friends in the Philippines and a friend married to a Filipina, but I don’t know enough about business over there to know whether there’s important differences between quitting and being fired, and whether forcing the OP out by quitting benefits the school.

          So I have to take it on general faith that absent a genuine benefit to the school outweighed by having to replace a teacher at no notice, that they were acting in good faith to try and keep the OP employed at least til the end of the current existing contract.

          1. Not So NewReader*

            OP would benefit from learning how to talk things through. That seems to be a common thread in the few comments he has made here.

  60. KDat*

    The OP still has all the excuses and justifications for his own behavior. And still doesn’t seem to understand the implications of his actions or that he got what was coming. The accusations slung at those commenting? Wow.

    Good riddance.

  61. animaniactoo*

    I have a curiosity question. 2 actually.

    1) Did no socializing outside of work mean no being at school-sponsored social events or other general circle socializing where you might run across her, or did it mean no socializing one-on-one with each other

    2) If you don’t know the answer to 1, did you ask?

    FWIW, no. You could NOT have sorted this out between you. Given what you’ve further explained about the exclusivity of the school and the damage any hint of scandal would do, SHE could not professionally do her job if she tried to handle it on her own. She would be remiss in her job duties if she did that, as the director of the school. It is literally her job to make sure the school looks its best and attempting to keep this kind of conflict of interest private vs known and handled would be very unprofessional. I get that sucks for you, but that’s why she had to do it (if even was her – you’re the one who notified HR there was a potential issue).

  62. Mackenzie*

    This dude continues to disgust me with his side-stepping outlook on this. Tonally, this man’s entire approach to the situation is deeply selfish. The emotional gaps speak volumes and his oscillation between praising Sylvia and snarking at her is incredible. Like, the fact that she has a great life now is all the evidence he needs that what he did to her was not so bad? EFF YOU. Her strength doesn’t minimize your rotten behavior at all! Also, classic “nice guy” mental gymnastics referencing the nepotism of the culture to justify her position of power. Likewise, with his unwillingness to give these new rules a try instead of becoming forcibly separated from his own wife due to a visa issue. Sounds like he has outstanding skills for long term planning and compromise.

    So happy he lost his job. I imagine he is an erratic, tone-deaf person who probably butchered his own prospects in the meeting with his superiors. I’m not fooled one bit by his sanitized account of things.

    1. KDat*

      Agreed.

      It was really extra lovely how he dismissed any possibility of her success by her own hard work by throwing in the whole nepotism thing (which, frankly, doesn’t mean a damn thing given that it is based on a lot of assumptions).

      What a piece of work. It’s really disappointing that he is a teacher….

    2. Anna H*

      I’m not fooled one bit by his sanitized account of things.

      Agreed. It sounds like he unleashed a blitz of clueless narcissism throughout the HR tree and invisible warning bells started blaring for everyone else. He peeled back the rind, and the crazy showed through.

      1. MCMonkeyBean*

        Yeah, when you’re the one telling the story and you still come out looking this bad–I assume it was probably even worse than what we’ve been told.

  63. LawBee*

    My favorite part was how he “did not realize my message would be fully replicated on your blog.”

    Now it’s Alison’s fault, too. She made him internet infamous! Good grief. It must be terrible for one’s bad behavior to be all over the internet, but them’s the breaks, OP. Even when telling your story in the best light possible for you – your behavior was awful.

    Two takeaways for me:
    a. AAM still has the best commentariat on the internet. I don’t even want to know what the Daily Mail comments were. ::shudder::
    b. He hasn’t learned a damn thing.

    1. Manders*

      I think OP might not have fully understood how an advice column works–or for some reason he thought he was writing to a free workplace advisor and not an advice columnist when his friend gave him the email address?

      There are a lot of impulsive choices OP made here: dashing off the email in a moment of panic, emailing multiple people when he was anxious about the lack of response, and quitting on the spot in the meeting instead of taking time to talk it over with his current partner. It sounds like it would be a good idea for him to spend some time thinking about how he behaves under pressure and whether he can come up with some techniques for thinking through big decisions before acting.

      1. The Cosmic Avenger*

        Right, most concerning is the pattern of not accepting any responsibility for the consequences of those impulsive choices, and only being concerned about the consequences of those choices when they adversely affect him. That is probably why there is such a pile-on. The OP seems to want to blame everyone else for their problems, when most of us feel that he bears most or all of the responsibility for his choices. (I say this not to pile on, but in the hopes that it might trigger some self-examination, or at least on a practical level, that the OP might spend a little effort considering and anticipating other peoples’ responses to his actions.)

    2. OlympiasEpiriot*

      Yup. Blames everyone, even for things that don’t seem like anyone would want to blame on someone…like stuff that isn’t actually bad. (IE: publishing a letter you send in to an advice columnist.)

  64. Foreign Octopus*

    Oh my god, an update!

    I scared my cat with the sound that came out of my mouth when I saw it.

    However, it seems that this is the outcome that all of us expected. In the long run, this seems to be for the best and it’s frustrating and disheartening to have to move home but, unfortunately, this is the price you have to pay, delayed as it is. There is no time limit on consequences.

    Saying that, is it just me or in the second half (after Alison had wrote to him again) he still doesn’t seem to grasp the severity of what he did. There is an element of complaining that Sylvia went straight to the top rather than dealing with him. And of course she spoke to her husband about it. I would speak to my husband about it if a man who abandoned me 10 years ago suddenly came back into my life and contacted me. That is how relationships work.

    Best thing to do now is just to never, ever do something like this again.

    1. Jules the 3rd*

      You’re totally right about tone, it’s deflect deflect deflect.

      But a bunch of people seem to think ‘to the top’ was her husband, I read it as the school Chair, and her husband had a different job with some other entity. I also agree with the commenters who think OP’s email to HR triggered that meeting, not Sylvia.

    2. Aunt Helen*

      It’s too bad that he turned around and did the same thing to his current partner. Can you imagine their point of view? Boyfriend comes home from HR meeting. “How did it go honey?” “Well, they wanted me to have no contact with her alone, and I can’t talk about her to my coworkers – so I quit, I’m leaving the country, and you can’t follow me due to visa issues. Goodbye!!”

  65. Erin*

    Not surprised that OP sees himself as the victim again…
    Of course the chair got involved, of course Sylvia wouldn’t want this conversation without witnesses! After OP let them know there was history, what were they supposed to do? A bit naïve, to say the least. Completely understandable that they’d want to protect themselves from scandal, and it doesn’t sound like they were asking for unreasonable stuff.
    And the “she moved on with her life, so what I did was not that bad” tone… Really?

  66. Luke*

    My comment is in the form of a question for experienced managers;

    Is there a regulatory reason why the organization could not terminate the OP? As a supervisor ,the prospect of an ex like this interacting with a member of my team is enough of a morale disruption to represent a risk to the organization.
    An ex with a track record like the original poster also strikes me as a harassment lawsuit waiting to happen, to say nothing about the toxic social implications.What happens when Sylvia’s husband comes to a company social event also attended by the OP ?

    Is the mitigation strategy posed by the chair in terms of limiting contact between the OP/Sylvia just wishful thinking- or is it a viable risk management strategy?

    1. Katie the Fed*

      I don’t know what the laws are in the Philippines. But my guess is that they did want to keep OP onboard because it’s hard to hire someone new with this little notice.

    2. Amber Rose*

      It depends on whether they talked it out with Sylvia prior to the group meeting. If I had walked away from a conversation with her feeling confident in her ability to move on, felt I could trust the LW not to gossip, and was looking at enough difficulty in finding a new person to fill LW’s space, then yeah I would consider that a viable risk management strategy. Almost like a PIP.

      Alternatively, since we don’t know the entire list of restrictions, just a select few, this may have been their way of gently encouraging LW to quit. I consider that less likely for various reasons though.

      1. JessaB*

        From the beginning at least before the OP quit it appeared that he’d put his young and stupid past behind him, wanted to work with Sylvia like an adult and wanted to keep his job. Before the meeting as long as Sylvia (who was valued more to the organisation,) was okay with it, I wouldn’t have rescinded my offer to continue employment either. It was a bad thing that happened but it did happen 10 years ago and people DO change, and never giving them a chance to show that means they never get anywhere at all, and that’s a high price to pay for even what the OP did. Obviously with Sylvia on board. If she wasn’t that changes a lot of things.

        Now I don’t know Philippine law or work customs, or whether the fact the OP had a specific contract would impact what I was allowed to do (IE could I fire him outright or did I have to give him a chance in the first place, vs wanting to give him a chance because I thought he’d genuinely changed.) And I would have parsed what I did accordingly. If I was giving him an honest chance then I’d do that. If I was able to fire and didn’t want to, I wouldn’t. But yes if I did want him out, and couldn’t outright fire him, I could probably craft a set of expectations that he’d either fail or would cause him to quit.

        But from what OP said, and I am sure it’s skewed to get the reactions from us OP wants, so I can’t see that it was any worse than what was said, I have to take the OP’s version as the most accurate portrayal possible including the stringent limits on social interaction.

        There is nothing here that is so outrageous that management would presume he’d quit outright. So unless we’re missing something I have to presume management wanted him to stay.

    3. LCL*

      Here at big gov (TM) he wouldn’t be terminated for having this in his past. He could totally be terminated for any kind of harassment or bothering of his ex or anyone else while employed. He would certainly be watched with a closer eye than others.

  67. MakesThings*

    Wow- 234 comments in 35 minutes! I wonder if this is a record for AAM? Hey, at least Alison is getting a ton of foot traffic out of this situation.

    1. Mustache Cat*

      LOL based on comments she’s made before, I’d say more foot traffic is the last thing Alison actually needs.

    2. Alli525*

      She also gave us the heads-up on Twitter that she’d be publishing an update today… so I, a bunch of my friends, and I’m sure many others, were refreshing the page a couple (hundred) times this morning.

  68. collect dust*

    if there is any question why the chair made the stipulations he did, LW answered them with all the mudslinging he was eager do engage with in both his letters. imagine if he got a schedule he felt slighted by? he’d tell everyone in ear shot it’s because the director used to be sooooo in love with him and holds a grudge or whatever.

  69. Xay*

    As messy person who lives for drama, thank you for this update.

    As a sensible professional, I don’t know what the org chart looks like, but the involvement of the chair might have been necessary as you were in the reporting chain for Sylvia and you did send her two emails and contact HR. We don’t know how Sylvia felt, because we don’t know what was triggered by the HR email as opposed to contacting Sylvia or what was in those emails. It sounds like the organization took steps to remove the personal aspect from the workplace as much as possible – the requirements sounded restrictive but not unreasonable. Considering you describe th company culture as conservative, I’m not sure what you expected to happen.

  70. Oskiesque*

    After this update, it sounds like Sylvia dodged a bullet in the long run. This guy is a jerk and is incapable of understanding the kind of trauma and hurt he caused in the past. Karma is a wonderful force in this scenario.

  71. Violet Fox*

    Yikes. Speaking of viral, this, with bits of it republished, made the front page of Buzzfeed, complete with reaction gifs.

  72. Amber Rose*

    It’s not that I’m happy you don’t have a job, LW, I’m just not surprised. Although some of the commenters were way off base and inappropriate, most of us were just warning you straight up that the answer to the question “how do I keep my job” is “you probably can’t.” Telling you the truth is not the same as being toxic.

    Even then, you might have been able to keep your job, but you’re still refusing to take ownership of your actions. As far as I can tell from what you wrote here, the limitations were unacceptable just because they existed. Maybe you verbally recognize you did something wrong, but your refusal to accept consequences, even pretty minor ones, is way out of tune. To the point where you seem to have picked up a martyr complex over it. We didn’t lose you your job, LW. Neither did your company or your ex. You quit because you refused to face reasonable consequences for unreasonable actions.

    That’s also truth, not toxicity.

    4. Jules the 3rd*

      +1

      And that’s where Ghoster seems different from Bike Tube Man to me – Bike Tube Man seems to have realized there’s something to actually think about, something that he can control and change. He may not have the reasons that we expect, but sometimes, if someone’s working from a social deficit, the audience should appreciate changes in actions, no matter the reason.

  73. workerbee*

    While I appreciate the update, it only confirms my general impression that the LW still doesn’t have the maturity or empathy to understand just how bad his actions were. I hope he takes some time to reflect on the situation and doesn’t ever treat another person like this again.

  74. Sheworkshardforthemoney*

    She was not gleeful, very matter of fact, saying it was possible to work together and etc.
    The best revenge: professional indifference.

    2. NW Mossy*

      The current leading response in their poll is “THIS F***ING GUY!!!!” (39%), ahead of “Justice was definitely served!” (31%) and “Losing his job seems a little unfair” (30%).

      1. collect dust*

        omg he didn’t “lose” his job! he gave it up! i’m gonna yell this all day all over the internet. also “THIS F*CKING GUY” was what i said on twitter w/ the update before seeing this lol

  76. Velvet Goldberg*

    I’m confused about something. Why is OP upset about her involving the chairperson, when he was doing the same thing in protecting himself when he sent a note to HR?

    2. TK*

      Ding ding ding. He was only interested in not involving the authorities when he realized she had more power than he did.

  77. karma*

    Seems like he hasn’t learned much in the last decade. Still running away when faced with even a modicum of discomfort…

  78. Hiring Mgr*

    Certainly agree that OP has no one to blame but himself, but I also feel sympathy–doesn’t do anyone any good to gloat over others’ misfortune.

  79. Mustache Cat*

    I’m probably one of the few today who can say this and mean it, but I’m honestly not “gleeful” about you not having a job anymore. Dunno why, guess I don’t believe in karma, or I’m not emotionally invested in your weird troubles. But dude…you really messed up your own life. I’m not even talking about the initial breakup with Sylvia. You wrote to a pretty well-known and widely followed advice columnist and didn’t expect it to break the internet? (You didn’t even look into the site when your friend gave you the link? Even a relatively boring post here gets 100+ comments.) You emailed Sylvia (twice) and HR about your messy situation and didn’t expect it to go to the top to be resolved? And honestly…you’re the one who couldn’t make these very reasonable restrictions work for you. You literally don’t have to be without a job right now. How’d you even manage this?

    1. KR*

      Yeah, I’m not feeling all kinds of satisfaction about OP getting “what he deserves” either. I have to admit he kind of dug his own grave on this one.

    2. saddesklunch*

      “I’m not emotionally invested in your weird troubles” made me laugh out loud for some reason. See also “How’d you even manage this?” Comedy gold.

    3. Mina*

      I’m not gleeful, either. I’m just disappointed (but not surprised) that he didn’t learn a single thing from this. And I’m feeling real bad for his current partner, considering he resigned *on the spot* without taking a few days to talk to them and see how they felt!

      1. JessaB*

        And is obviously having to go somewhere the partner cannot (visa issues.) How is this not doing to partner 2, what he did to Sylvia 10 years ago?

        1. Mina*

          Yeah, the bulk of my sympathy lies with Partner 2 (and Sylvia), not OP. I’d like OP to look inside himself and really get to the bottom of why he makes those impulsive choices, and why he feels the need to blame others, because that *could* point to some deep-seated issues that need addressing. And frankly, if he deals with that head-on, life will probably be better for him too.

    6. Tealeaves*

      This. OP hasn’t realized that he is the source of his own problems. Everything is due to his own decisions. It’s just really painful to watch. Like a turtle that made the conscious decision to flip on its back and then is bewildered about how it got that state.

  80. OlympiasEpiriot*

    Your saying she took it to the top but you’re the one who contacted HR.

    And these conditions are not onerous. These are basic for such a situation. They are spelling out what discretion means.

  81. Zahra*

    Wow, such glee for someone else’s bad choices coming back to haunt them years later.

    Do we really need to go so far?

    – He did something very bad, which he doesn’t quite measure the gravity of.
    – He says the restrictions would be onerous (which, in the tradition of taking the LW at their word, we’ll believe to be true).
    – He resigned, so has no job, no severance, needs to move and is apart from his current partner.

    I think that’s bad enough for now. Maybe someday he’ll understand that, fine or not, Sylvia may still not hold warm feelings about him (or maybe she holds hot feelings of the hatred variety, who knows). In the meantime, being oblivious to other people’s feelings will be an impediment to his social, personal and professional life in both small and big ways. Let’s leave it at that and life will teach him the rest. Or not.

    At the end of the day, this is a stranger on the internet that a lot of people are attached to see punished when it has no bearing on their own lives. I understand the “someone is wrong on the internet” feeling, but we gotta let it go at some point.

    1. Amber Rose*

      In the 400 something comments, I’ve seen maybe a dozen comments that could be considered gleeful. The rest are just still trying to offer advice to the LW, or pointing out some of his errors.

      I understand some people have been a little unnecessarily harsh, but I don’t think it’s fair to talk as if all or most of the comments are that way.

      1. Zahra*

        I see about 40 comments that are unnecessarily harsh or gleeful. It takes about 10 good interactions to counter a negative one, so, if that’s the ratio of negative to positive we had in the original comments (not going through 1.8k+ comments to count), I can get the guy’s mention about the toxicity of the comments section. My feeling when I read it a month ago was that there was a lot of unnecessary harshness and that karma was mentioned a whole lot more than warranted. All in a general tone of “I hope you get fired, need to leave the country and get all sorts of long-term negative consequences.”

        1. fposte*

          I do think that it’s common for us to see posts here through our own personal lenses, so a post where somebody deeply hurt a partner was going to cause some pretty strong responses. Whether it should or not is kind of a moot point; it’s always going to.

        2. Amtelope*

          He did something really bad, which he’s not the tiniest bit sorry for. I think a lot of people’s sympathy ends short of that point.

        3. sunny-dee*

          It’s not “unnecessarily” harsh — people are frustrated and trying to break through to this guy because his behavior is just so obviously selfish, short-sighted, unsympathetic, and deflecting blame. He should get that, and I think people are verbally trying to shake him until he sees it.

          1. fposte*

            I actually agree that the harshness isn’t necessary and that it is, as comments anywhere can become, more about the pleasure of the commenters than about an attempt to educate. But that’s pretty common, hence the “don’t read the comments” dictum. I just like it better when we’re an exception to that.

      2. Annabelle*

        This is about the ratio I’m seeing too. I think most of the commenters, self included, are mostly just befuddled at the LW’s apparent lack of self-awareness.

        1. Mina*

          Me too. It’s not like OP was fired–in fact, the company’s intent was to keep him! It was his choice to quit that very second without thinking it over or even consulting people who would be strongly impacted by that decision, like his current partner.

          I’m just really disappointed that he hasn’t learned a damn thing from this and chooses to blame everyone else instead. It’s high time for him to grow up already.

    2. MicroManagered*

      – He says the restrictions would be onerous (which, in the tradition of taking the LW at their word, we’ll believe to be true).

      I disagree. OP went on to list the restrictions, and it is not outside the rules of this site to point out when a request from management is, in fact, reasonable. Personally, I don’t find having a third party present for all meetings, disallowing *any* discussion of Sylvia with coworkers, and not socializing with her outside of work to be “onerous” or make the position “unattainable” (not sure what that means, I think it’s a misspelling of “untenable.”)

      If OP was hoping for a way they could reasonably work together, I would think those types of ground rules would be about the only way to accomplish it.

      1. Creag an Tuire*

        I’d also add this: Look, I’ve gotten the PIP that seemed reasonable “on paper” but with subcontext was an unsubtle indication that We Are Done With You. A lot of us have. I’ll give OP enough credit to assume that something like this was the case here.

        But y’know, those may have been the most miserable months of my life but I had a partner and dependents so I stuck it out until I was able to leave on my own terms and with a reference that at the very least won’t sabotage me down the road. The fact that OP chose to abandon his partner and damage his career rather than do the same suggests he still has some adulting to do.

    3. McWhadden*

      He listed the restrictions. Unless he left out the one that is really onerous (which would be an odd choice to make) they weren’t unreasonable, at all.

      I am not gleeful. I think it’s a shame he didn’t take some time and reflect before he made the huge mistake of resigning.

    4. MCMonkeyBean*

      I think he lost the right for us to take him at his word when he proved in the first letter to be an extremely unreliable narrator–the way he tried to paint the situation as ghosting a new relationship and then it turned out they had been dating for three years and lived together! Even here he still is clearly doing everything he can to try to make everyone else look worse then him: What he did wasn’t that bad because Sylvia’s married to someone else now so really if you think about it he did her a favor! Plus she only got the job because of nepotism so she’s the real villain!

      Yeah, no. I’m not taking him at his word.

  82. Sevenrider*

    One wonders if his current partner knows of the situation or is he just going to up and leave again without saying a word.

    2. Alli525*

      The fact that he didn’t even check with her first before quitting his job (which as an expat, he had to know would mean he needed to leave the country immediately) speaks volumes. I got the sense from this post that he at least informed her that he was leaving and It Was Over because she can’t immediately drop everything and come with him… but you just don’t DO that to a live-in partner!

  83. Spooky*

    My god, just when I thought Sylvia couldn’t get any cooler. She not only worked her way the top job, but she handled this in a perfectly professional manner, AND she married into an extremely powerful family? All without ever sinking to his level or writing into all the myriad sites that were covering the story to sling more mud?

    Man, Sylvia’s my hero.

    1. collect dust*

      she must has a house filled with embroidered pillows, towels, wall art that says “living well is the best revenge”

  84. Bookworm*

    Well, thanks for the update. I remember I replied to the first letter and thought maybe you deserved a second chance, that time would have matured the both of you, etc.

    One thing that really stood out to me is that you said you panicked. That’s what happened the last time when you just upped and left. In combination with (as others point out) a lack of self-awareness and that AAM had to follow-up to find out about Sylvia tells me that maybe the former employer’s reaction wasn’t as harsh as it might seem on the face. If they felt the need to instill all of those guidelines and all, I wonder if you have a problem with impulsiveness plus a lack of self-awareness and they know something you’re either not aware of or you’re not telling us.

    Many people warned you this could be a possible outcome. I hope you take stock and take this time to re-evaluate some things in your life.

    1. SignalLost*

      I don’t think anyone saw the school keeping him and him quitting as the logical outcome, though! (The one where he has no job, yes, but man I thought the school would fire him.)

  85. Ace of Sevens*

    It sounds like everyone was amenable to dealing with this, but he resigned to avoid embarrassment and blamed everybody but himself.

  86. WendyLady*

    Ghosting on a relationship like that is a terrible thing and the present situation is a consequence of those actions for which he has to take responsibility, but I think the schadenfreude is uncalled for. We know only the tiniest amount of information about the OP: hardly enough to judge his full character.

    1. Jules the 3rd*

      I think we’re extrapolating what he has clearly shown (eg, lack of empathy and lack of accountability) to people we’ve known in the past. I totally see someone I know in these emails, though he at least told his gf (of 3 years) that he was moving 3K miles without her, two months after they’d started planning the move. That was bad enough, but ghosting? whew.

      And what he does tell is is pretty comprehensive, ie the whole ‘it’s always someone else’s fault’ lack of accountability – Sylvia got the Chair involved? No, your email to HR probably did that. Sylvia and the Chair made you quit with nothing lined up? No, you could have lived with those limits for a year while you did the work for a smooth transition.

  87. Jaybeetee*

    I have a bit more sympathy for this LW than others here, just because I can appreciate he’s in the middle of the storm right now – no job, forced to move, forced to separate from his family, for what he probably views as bad behaviour from a lifetime ago that has suddenly come back to bite him in a huge way – and that’s actually rarely a time for real introspection. I can also appreciate that where he lives, after-work socializing can be a BIG DEAL, and not being able to do that is akin to being told you can no longer use your office printer or something. And he’s probably not lying about his ex’s family connections playing into the Chair’s decisions.

    Later on, when he has a new job, is reunited with his family, when the dust settles, I hope he can reflect on this incident more objectively. He *is* behaving defensively right now and throwing blame around. His actions since finding out about his ex getting this job have also been mostly defensive, with damage control and CYA in mind as opposed to trying to genuinely make amends.

    1. Amber Rose*

      The problem I have with this is, he wasn’t told he couldn’t socialize after work. He was told to limit after work socializing, with her specifically. Limit, not eliminate.

      My interpretation of that kind of restriction is, if you end up at a house party with the woman, don’t corner her on the couch for a long conversation, just nod hello and then go talk to someone else. And I don’t think that’s terribly painful.

    2. collect dust*

      he wasn’t forced to move or to abandon his girlfriend (he’s moving in with his family, so they aren’t being separated). he quit. he views it as punishment for what he did back then, but he’s the one that created this situation now, not then. he had a number of options to do something, anything, differently than he did but he just kept going full steam ahead and wrecked his own life (and abandoned a partner again and left the school without a teacher). i hope he finds help for his panic/anxiety issues so he can make better life choices when he feels things are out of control.

    3. D.W.*

      These are all unfortunate, but you misrepresented a huge element. He wasn’t forced. He CHOSE to resign.
      In exercising his choice, he chose to move, he chose to be separated from his partner, he chose to be unemployed.

      In regard to socializing, he was told to limit his socializing *with Sylvia*, which is perfectly reasonable because 1) Sylvia is his boss, he is the subordinate 2)there is no reason they should be socializing 3)protection for both parties. He was fully able to have a social life outside of work and even socialize with coworkers outside of work.

      Also, whether or not Syvlia’s connections played into the Chair’s decision is irrelevant. The Chair and Sylvia both demonstrated that they were able and willing to work with OP. The parameters were more than reasonable, set out to protect all parties involved. OP just didn’t get that. Furthermore, as others have noted, once you involve HR, it really is out of your hands. And that’s on OP.

    4. MissDissplaced*

      I have some sympathy for OP too, if only because not many people lose their job/career over a long ago EX.
      Perhaps though OP had some over reaction to the terms? I’m not sure? This is definitely a weird situation go all. I hope OPs whole career isn’t ruined over this, because I don’t think they deserve that.

    5. J*

      Even if, as you say, he’s in the thick of it, and that’s not the time for introspection, what excuse does he have for his comments about Sylvia in the first post? Ten years after he picked up and left their shared home with no notice, he was still framing her for the break-up. He had a decade of distance to work through his trash behavior there and still found it appropriate to call her crazy and obsessed rather than admit that it was a crap thing to do. I’d be very surprised if he ever managed to acknowledge that this outcome is solely his own fault.

  88. Malibu Stacey*

    I guess I don’t understand why it matters that the Chair was involved (whether he involved himself, or HR involved him, or Sylvia involved him)? It sound like you weren’t willing to accept these conditions, period, so it shouldn’t matter who the messenger was. If Sylvia had told you in a private meeting these were the conditions going forward, take it or leave it, you still would have quit, right?

  89. Matilda Jefferies*

    I just want to send a shoutout and some love to Sylvia and to the OP’s current partner. Neither of them asked for, and probably didn’t consent to, and certainly don’t deserve to have their stories splashed all over the internet like this. I hope they both find some peace at the end of it all.

  91. Murphy*

    I actually think Sylvia did the right thing getting the chair involved, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety on her part. She could have been a real jerk to you if she wanted to, so I’m sure she wanted to make sure that everything was above board.

  93. sonia*

    in you commenters’ eyes, is there ANY way for this guy to redeem himself? sure, he could be a bit more introspective and shift the blame more onto himself, but he’s going through a LOT, and your comments could definitely drive someone into depression/suicidal thoughts (believe me, i have been there).

    and then how would you redeem yourselves if this person hurts himself? isn’t there some ~Karma~ to that?

    1. Amber Rose*

      Well, literally any recognition of his own fault would be a start, rather than blaming everyone else.

      And honestly, emotional blackmail doesn’t work on me. If someone hurts themselves because I told them a hard truth, that’s on them.

      1. sunny-dee*

        This. This guy’s whole problem is that he doesn’t own his own actions or feel empathy for others. If someone pointing out an error — hey, dude, you are being colossally self-absorbed and it would be better for you if you acted with more empathy and humility — is so upsetting to his worldview that he cannot live any more, that is on him, not me.

    2. Leatherwings*

      In my opinion, he could’ve shouldered literally an ounce of blame and shame, not talked about his ex like she got something she didn’t deserve (the nepotism thing), and owned up to what he did rather than place the blame on other people.

      He did none of that. Not even a teensy bit. There are plenty of ways for this guy to redeem himself, but he has to actually try.

      There are definitely a few supremely unkind comments above, but many of them are just pointing out that he seemed to displace blame and isn’t taking responsibility for himself. That’s not necessarily unkind, that’s just the truth. I don’t think people who behave this way need to be handled with kid gloves, though people should certainly refrain from swearing or name calling.

      1. Annabelle*

        I completely agree. Having to uproot your life and work solely as a sub sucks. I’ve had to do that before and I don’t take joy in another person going through that.

        But it’s really hard to feel bad for someone who won’t own up to their mistakes. If the LW wants to redeem himself – though it’s his prerogative if he doesn’t – I think he needs to reflect on how his impulsive actions affect others.

      2. Mina*

        Yeah, I’ve seen some people crow about schadenfreude, and I don’t think that’s right. But I’m not going to worry about any karmic backlash for expressing disappointment that OP hasn’t grown from this, and not only that, made a snap decision that is going to hurt his current partner.

        Also, speaking from experience, handling someone like this with kid gloves tends to hurt more than help, for both parties involved.

    3. Detective Amy Santiago*

      If he had shown one ounce of remorse in either his initial letter or his update, I think people would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt under the assumption that he’s learned from the experience.

      Unfortunately, he is not taking any responsibility for any of his direct actions and is choosing to blame a myriad of outside sources for his situation. So, yes, while it’s an unfortunate and unpleasant situation to be in, it is a situation of his own making.

      1. Desdemona*

        I suspect he didn’t even need to get to remorse, just ownership. If he could have said, “I did this thing 10 years ago, and she was hurt, and now she’s about to be my boss,” and answered people telling him how crappy it was with, “Yes, and I wouldn’t do it again now, but since I did do it and can’t undo it, is there a way to salvage the situation today?” that could have preempted a lot of the firestorm. What really ignited the ire was his trying to shift the blame for the ensuing drama onto her. It’s such a classic douche move, to do something awful, then complain about the person you’ve injured making things ugly.

        1. Mina*

          Yup. I came in here with a slim hope that OP would resolve things gracefully, and instead he made himself look *worse.*

    4. CMDRBNA*

      Honestly? If he’d accepted the conditions gracefully and made a good faith effort to make it work. I think that would show emotional maturity and an acceptance that sometimes our actions have consequences we didn’t foresee.

      Instead, the OP did what he did ten years ago – panicked, quit, and now – oopsie! – he’s got to leave the country and his partner. Again.

      1. Traffic_Spiral*

        Yeah. He could have just accepted the entirely reasonable consequences and been a stand-up guy for a few months. Instead, he did THE EXACT SAME THING he did 10 years ago – abandon a live-in girlfriend in a foreign country rather than face any uncomfortable consequences of his actions, and say that everyone else in the situation is unreasonable and crazy.

        1. CMDRBNA*

          Yup.

          The OP reminds me of my sibling, who has some very real and legit mental health issues (not saying the OP does, who knows) but also has a complete inability to connect his actions with consequences and ever take responsibility for anything. Literally everything that has happened to him is someone else’s fault, which means he never has to change, because why should he? It was someone else’s (boss, coworker, girlfriend, friend, parents) fault!

          Because this is how he views everything, he’s never been able to learn anything from his mistakes or connect any negative outcomes to choices he’s made, so he keeps repeating the same behaviors and getting the same outcome.

          I feel badly for him, just like I (kind of) feel badly for the OP. It’s a decade later and he’s STILL handling uncomfortable situations the same way he did ten years ago with the same sort of outcomes, because it’s everyone else’s fault but his, right?

    5. Risha*

      This is an entirely unnecessarily over the top comment. No one’s an emotional hostage here, this dude is far too self involved to hurt himself over some moderately negative internet comments, and it’s vastly inappropriate for you to attempt to make the situation into that.

    6. Jules the 3rd*

      Even just not talking down Sylvia (original letter: she crazily contacted his family! this letter: she’s got all this power because Nepotism, and she used it on me to put me in this bad place!) would have drawn a lot less ire. He could ‘redeem’ himself by saying,

      After I wrote the last one, I thought about it and realized that Sylvia contacting my family was reasonable – she was checking to see if I was alive. So I took the advice to treat her like a professional adult, contacted her and let our HR know. This meant the Chair got involved, and he set up some restrictions that were too much for me to handle, so I quit. Because that left me with no job, I moved back home to work as a substitute while I try to figure out what to do next. This whole experience was hard, painful and scary.

      OP’s problem is that he can’t just say what happened, it has to be not his fault.

    7. Mandy*

      There are many posts in the AAM archives where an update shows someone has recognized their wrongdoings/made amends as best they can and the comments are generally encouraging and recognize the difficulty involved in admitting you are wrong and learning from it. So yes, there is a way for him to redeem himself in the commentariat’s eyes but he hasn’t even tried.

      For example, this post:
      https://www.askamanager.org/2017/05/update-i-accidentally-insulted-my-bosss-daughter.html
      Many of the commenters still disagree with the belief’s the LW has but many even in spite of that are encouraging of the growth and maturity the LW showed in the reply.

      This one has a LW who was letting jealousy interfere with a relationship with a coworker and ultimately was fired for it. But instead of blaming the company or the coworker, they are taking full responsibility and in fact getting therapy to help themselves. The comments are almost all positive in encouraging the LW to follow through on the therapy and good luck in the future.
      https://www.askamanager.org/2017/05/update-im-jealous-of-my-employee-and-its-impacting-how-i-treat-her.html

      1. Mina*

        Oh, and there’s the one where OP eventually was fired because she and her team were excluding a co-worker–ultimately she said she was seeking therapy, too.

      2. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

        Hell, the guy who racked up twenty grand on his company card got regular rounds of applause from us! Because he owned up to his poor decisions, took the hard as hell step of owning what he did and offering restitution to his company, and stuck with his determination to make them whole.

        The commentariat here aren’t monsters, but by and large we have very little patience for people who can’t accept responsibility for their decisions.

        1. Not So NewReader*

          As an aside, I marvel at the number of people who offer really good, well thought out suggestions to OPs who make that big step away from problem-causing behavior. The outpouring of support with “try this” or “try that” is a wonderful thing to see.

    8. Doug Judy*

      There’s been many times where the OP reflects, comes back and says ” Yep, you were all right, I effed up. I’m working on x,y, and z to rectify.” People have applauded them for their ability to take responsibility for the situation and fix it. Like a grown up.

      This guy has done none of that. If anything his update was even more blame shifting than the first. Somehow a holiday, Allison posting his actual words, other sites picking this story up, commenters, the chair, Sylvia, Sylvia’s husband, all somehow are to blame for him resigning. It’s everyone else’s fault.

      He chose to up and leave 10 years ago. He chose to write in to Allison. He chose to quit on the spot, knowing he’d have to leave the country and his partner. His choices put him where he is.

    9. Temperance*

      Yes. I don’t know if it’s feasible, given the tone of his posts, but I think he could really benefit from some therapy to learn how to take responsibility for his actions, and that other people have feelings.

      This is also my probably unpopular opinion, but you can’t push someone into a depression or towards suicide. There are always other factors at play, and it’s never someone’s fault.

      1. Mina*

        This. And I don’t mean it in a dismissive or snarky manner–therapy really can be helpful. He’d need to want to change for himself, though, to make it stick, but if he doesn’t start getting some accountability and consideration soon, it’s not going to go well for him.

    10. Tuxedo Cat*

      Taking onus that he actually escalated this by writing to HR and that he quit the job on the spot and wasn’t forced out. Unless there are details missing, it doesn’t seem like his job situation was unmanageable, at least for a few months. It would probably suck, but he’s not the first person who has lost his entire social circle. It’s not even clear he would have.

      I’m trying to be somewhat sympathetic, but he’s going through a lot because he made his choices. That sounds cold, but his recent choices led to him being separated from his partner and losing his job. I’ve made bad choices in my life, too, and I’ve had to live with them and learned to do better. It sucks when people tell you messed up and why, but it’s important so that you can hopefully learn from it. I hope he can do the same.

      Unless I missed comments where people are telling him to harm himself or he’s been doxxed and is being harassed, I don’t think anyone would have to redeem themselves.

    11. bookartist*

      “I see how harsh my past actions were, and I’m committed to not making the same mistakes in the future.”
      I frankly don’t see how saying that is too far a step to take from what he presents in both his letters.

      And there is no such thing as karma, so there’s that.

    12. Lurks@Work*

      If the letter writer is trying to get people to think he is redeemed and awesome, he’s hunting the wrong rabbit.
      He asked for advice on how to deal with his lousy but self made situation. His focus should be on heeding that advice as best he can and making sure he doesn’t repeat this mistake. What the commenters are responding so strongly too is his stunning lack of self awareness here. He fixes that, he has a clear path to fixing his other problems, he becomes a better person and therefore “redeemed”
      Redemption is a consequence, not a goal.

    13. MCMonkeyBean*

      Shift the blame more onto himself? How about taking literally *any* of the blame–which is by the way 100% on him, not just “more” on him. There is not a single thing in this situation that is anybody’s fault but his own. HE abandoned his girlfriend ten years ago. Then HE emailed HR to tell them about the situation (which, don’t get me wrong, was probably the right thing to do but he is somehow then baffled about the involvement of the chair???). Then when pretty standard rules were set out which were presumably designed to protect *all* parties including him, HE decided to quit and once again abandon a partner without giving them any kind of heads up. There is not blame to go around here. It’s all on him.

  94. Noah*

    I think it was probably HR that escalated this, although maybe Silvia, too. I agree with OP that the tone of the responses was pretty harsh and I was pretty surprised Alison allowed it. She’s nixed a lot less.

  95. Detective Amy Santiago*

    Dear Sylvia:

    I am sorry your business got splashed all over the internet. It must have been very difficult for you to relive such a painful time in your life. I am impressed by how maturely you seem to have handled the situation.

    Please consider writing and letting us know how you are genuinely doing.

    2. Not So NewReader*

      I’ll third this one.
      I am thinking that probably Sylvia can’t answer or say anything. Perhaps, Sylvia, you can have a private conversation with Alison and Alison can give us a short version of how you are doing?
      I assume that she is looking at this since the location is disclosed. Probably someone who knows the situation has told her.

    3. Traffic_Spiral*

      I dunno. Having the whole world bash my ex while maintaining my privacy sounds like a pretty sweet outcome to me. All the validation, none of the privacy-violation.

      1. Working Hypothesis*

        I’ve got an ex who did worse than this to me… and the last thing I’d want would be to see all the details of my personal experience splattered all over the net, with everyone and their brother weighing in on how I must have felt and what might have motivated my actions. Even if the statements were sympathetic, and they mostly wished me well and thought I’d behaved understandably in the face of unprovoked mistreatment, it would still be mortifying to be the subject of that kind of dissection, and painful to have to relive all the details that way.

  96. arg*

    >>as many of those self-righteous people on the Internet hoped, I came out of this with no job

    Self-righteous? When I think about the comments in the original thread, I think about a lot of people who responded with heartful sympathy and *empathy*–just not for you. What’s “bizarre” to me is that this surprises you.

    It’s not too late to learn about empathy and to employ that very necessary human skill in your professional and private relationships. If you search Amazon for “empathy,” you will find books that can help you understand what you’ve missed in all these internet comments. Good luck.

    1. fposte*

      I don’t think “self-righteous” is necessarily an incorrect characterization, though; it’s just that the OP doesn’t seem to grasp the relationship between his behavior and that response.

  98. Leatherwings*

    That’s a really really really unsubstantiated assumption. That’s a real person you’re talking about, and this has already gone viral. Maybe don’t.

  100. Corvid*

    To be fair to the OP, the stipulations sound pretty difficult. I think he mentioned in his original letter that the expat community is very tight-knit and small, and all the teachers always hang out together. From that perspective total isolation is difficult to uphold.

    1. sunny-dee*

      Yeah, but it’s really not clear that they meant no socializing period — just no socializing with Sylvia, which I cannot imagine either of them would really desire.

      1. Kathlynn*

        Well, if you are in a small community, and you have to restrict how much you are at the same events with even one person, and you can’t discuss management at all (negatively or positively), that’s very very restrictive.

        1. Lynn*

          Let’s assume it was “very very restrictive” – though the letter doesn’t really support that. If your options are (1) keep your job, stay at home every night with your partner, and look for a better situation to work in next year, or (2) quit in a huff because you want to be able to socialize however you want, leave the country without your partner, why on earth would a mature adult pick option 2 out of the gate and expect sympathy? He created the situation, he created the consequences, and it all seems to be because he cannot think about anything other than his immediate need to have what he wants without thinking of others (based on fleeing a 3 year relationship to avoid the “drama” of a breakup and leaving his partner to avoid restrictions on socializing).

    2. MCMonkeyBean*

      They sound like pretty standard restrictions for a situation like this, which would protect him just as much if not more than Sylvia. They want to make sure he isn’t badmouthing her around the school (which given what he’s written about her here seems like a real concern) but they always want to make sure to avoid even the appearance of any sort of retaliation from her. If all their interactions are witnessed by a third party this protects everyone.

      The socialization thing sounds vague and I’m not confident it would have been as much of an issue as he seems to think. If they just said to “limit” interactions that doesn’t sound that restrictive to me. Could he literally not be in the same room as her outside of work, or can they be at the same parties as long as they don’t actually interact? Is that even really an issue if she is there boss–how much time would she spend socializing with people who are her subordinates? We don’t know any of this and it doesn’t sound like he asked for much clarification before deciding he’d rather just abandon everything again.

  101. Legaldoodle*

    I think Sylvia was quite reasonably covering her butt by bringing in HR. The letter writer disappeared on her and then labeled her psycho for reaching out to his friends and family to to figure out what had happened to him. Who knows how he would have mischaracterized and future interactions. Don’t mean to pile on but unfortunately actions have consequences.

    2. D.W.*

      Yes, the OP clearly states, “I also dropped a short message to the HR, without providing full details.”

      He initiated HR involvement, not Sylvia.

      1. Not So NewReader*

        If you think about it, he stepped around her to get HR. So it just make sense that HR when to the big boss and said. “There might be a problem here.”

  102. MissDissplaced*

    Ouch!
    I’m not saying OP’s actions or what he did was right, but if you were basing this on actual WORK performance and not personal life, this outcome really sucks. Generally people don’t lose their jobs over long-ago past lovers.

      1. President Porpoise*

        I remember not long ago we had a female OP who was involved with a married coworker. They both lost their jobs at the company where the wife worked when OP became pregnant. Two jobs later, OP finds out that the aggrieved ex-spouse was to be her boss. She quit, in her update. That OP made very poor decisions long ago, and immature/impulsive decisions years later.

        People were way kinder to her in the comments than they are to the current OP, mostly because the spouse was literally out to get her. In many ways, what that OP did was almost as bad as what this OP did, IMO (not al will agree, I’m sure), and was actually a reflection of her professionalism. But the commentariate is being disproportionally invested in the current OP getting his comeuppance. And I think maybe we don’t all need to crush this man to jelly over a decade old offense.

        2. sunny-dee*

          Actually, I really had issues with that other OP (and, honestly, a lot of doubts that the ex-wife was really stalking her, even with that one comment by the elevator). But in that case, if HR had done what HR recommended here, it would have been a significant protection to that OP both professionally and personally. That’s why the restrictions don’t seem bad at all to me. They protect the OP from any retaliation from Sylvia and preserve everyone’s professional and personal reputations. The only thing he seems not to see is that he can’t gossip about Sylvia and may have to minimally alter his social life. The restrictions only suck if he looks at them as what he can’t do to her, rather than what she can’t do to him.

          1. Candi*

            The LW on that one updated extensively in the comments of both posts. Under Rebecca, if I’m remembering correctly. (Some R name.) (ducks thrown pillows)

            The head guy of the company and the person both were good friends of ex-wife. The LW had reason to believe they helped pay for her side of the divorce.

            The ex-wife specifically told the LW she picked the job over one that was better in several ways so that she would be “over” the LW. This was a targeted transfer.

            No one in the company would allow the LW to transfer out of the department before the boss took over.

            The LW was told to ‘act like an adult’ when dealing with ex-wife -even after she spelled out the problems and the near-100% chance of retaliation for one night of bad judgement.

            One post indicated the husband was also being harassed by allies of the ex-wife.

            The entire set of actions speak of a incredible vindictiveness that is usually only found in fiction.

        3. Wannabe Disney Princess*

          I went back and re-read those (link to update in username for those who are curious). The main difference I see is that the LW in those cases fessed up and owned her decisions. In other words: she acted maturely.

        4. Temperance*

          I think the bigger issue in that case was that the other OP was being attacked and targeted by the ex, who purposely took a job managing that OP with the expressed purpose of punishing her. That OP was regretful of her mistakes and just trying to live her life. She didn’t once blame the ex for her own actions, which were arguably not as egregious as his.

          This dude tried to paint the woman he abandoned and fled a country from as unstable/the villain, and he sort of doubled down with this update. It’s more or less him not taking responsibility for his bad choices that led to these sad circumstances.

          1. MCMonkeyBean*

            Yes, 100%, the doubling down and refusing to even admit they did anything wrong is the reason for the different responses.

        5. Not So NewReader*

          It’s human nature to take many factors into account. This is why courts have inconsistent sentences because each case has different factors that need to be considered. (I’m not saying the degree of inconsistency is right. I am just commenting on how the inconsistency happens.)

        6. Working Hypothesis*

          To the extent that people are “crushing this man to jelly,” I don’t really think it’s because of the old offense, but the new offenses. Quitting in a fit of rage because he didn’t like the restrictions, abandoning another partner by so doing, and then writing a self-justifying pity party of an update that blames everyone and everything except himself for the situation he *chose* to get himself into, step by step — since not only the original offense, but notifying HR and quitting were *all* actions he took of his own volition — are the main offenses I see people pointing out. The original incident is pretty secondary to the fact that he appears not to have changed his modus operandi or learned to take any responsibility for his actions whatsoever in all the years since.

    2. McWhadden*

      They were all willing to keep him, though. And he quit because they put fairly reasonable restrictions on him.

    3. Shocked*

      If you base this on a completely professional perspective the restrictions were really just a way to ensure that no one could claim harassment. There was always to be a witness and no one was allowed to talk badly about each other. Socializing outside of work also makes sense as it is again a way to limit any claims of harassment or discrimination. He could have agreed to the terms, and asked if there was a way for him to go to some social events (but being okay even if they said no) while looking for a new job for next year.
      From a business point of view not having restrictions could have been a nightmare. It could easily devolve into a “he said-she said” situation. She could claim that he was harassing her, and he could claim that she was unfairly discriminating against him. He had a choice to keep his job, but he said no. I would be a bit more sympathetic if he had been fired, but he wasn’t. He made a mistake and is unwilling to accept the consequences which is his choice to make. Your personal and work life can never be completely separate because we are humans and are incapable of making pure logic decisions. It sucks for him, but his life is what he made it.

  103. McWhadden*

    Thanks for the update!

    It’s too late now. But I wish you had taken some time or maybe even asked for followup advice from ASM before resigning. I don’t think that was necessary.

    It may have felt it at the time but absolutely none of those restrictions are unreasonable. In your initial letter you did place some unfair and unnecessary blame on your ex for contacting friends and family after you abandoned her. And it’s completely reasonable that they want to prevent you from spreading that narrative about your boss to co-workers. And having a third person present protects you as much as her.

    Unless they had other restrictions you didn’t mention it doesn’t seem like they were being unreasonable.

    What is unreasonable is expecting her to just handle this between you two rather than get anyone else involved. That is completely unfair to her.

    I hope things work out for you. I hope with time you reflect back and realize the mistakes didn’t just happen years ago.

  104. SoCalHR*

    He definitely had another option than resigning on this spot – he maybe could have negotiated the terms -OR- accepted them in the moment, follow them to a T, and then in 3 months or so see if they could renegotiate the limitations based on how things are going (if presumably well). Resigning immediately further highlights his impulsive behavior, and it sounds like at the cost of his current partner’s happiness.

    All that aside, it sounds like we all appreciate he gave an update, despite opening himself up to more criticism. Thanks OP.

    1. Yorick*

      Totally agree.

      I was typing up a comment about how my partner is from another country and I would expect him to consider our relationship and put up with reasonable requests like these until he could find a new job. But actually, his immigration status doesn’t matter- I always judge people who quit on the spot over anything less than completely egregious treatment.

      1. LizC*

        This is just an overall comment, but it is hard for me to imagine a workplace scenario in which “quitting on the spot” is the best course of action. (Even if I was being required to do something illegal or immoral as part of the employment, I’d just try to get myself out of the immediate situation and seek legal advice before quitting.)

        The OW could/should have said “let me think about this.” They may have decided that the social interaction requirements were not tenable, and submitted a resignation letter the next day, but that would have given them time to talk to their partner and potentially negotiate a small severance package or letter.

        1. Yorick*

          I mean, I can’t imagine any reasonable scenario. If they beat you or something, sure – walk out.

          I worked in a daycare while in college and SO many coworkers just walked out one day. Some left in a huff but one went on her lunch break and never came back. I found her resignation letter in the middle of the papers on her clipboard some time later. I could never understand. How will you pay your bills?

  106. CQ*

    Since Alison appears to be unavailable to comment at the moment, I would just like to remind everyone that while what OP did was not cool at all, we’ve all done things that aren’t cool, and most of us have probably never had to deal with the consequences of those uncool things.

    Please let the poor guy come here for advice and be treated with respect and kindness, like everyone else. He knows what he did is wrong, and now he’s lost his job and has to move back home without his partner. He’s been punished enough, hasn’t he? He doesn’t need us to pile on the criticism.

    1. Risha*

      Why do people keep saying this? He didn’t lose his job. He quit. The rest of it could have been avoided if he hadn’t done that.

    3. Detective Amy Santiago*

      The LW hasn’t demonstrated respect or kindness for Sylvia. That is what the commentariat here is largely reacting to.

      And I’m curious why you think he knows what he did was wrong. I didn’t get that sense from either the initial letter or the update.

      1. Mina*

        He refers to it as “immature,” IIRC, but my sense agrees with yours–he didn’t seem to understand the severe impact it had on Sylvia in the original letter, and still doesn’t in the update.

    4. fposte*

      I’m no pileup fan and I dislike the just-world “karma” BS, but I also think that there are some negative actions that “not cool” is underselling, and this is one of them.

      1. Liz T*

        And he still seems to be blaming Sylvia. Just as in the first letter she was “emotional” and “obsessed,” here she’s being charged with exploiting nepotism and overescalating the situation–even when OP himself says that Sylvia acted pretty chill about the whole thing.

    5. Annabelle*

      It actually doesn’t seem like he knows what he did is wrong, and I think most of the commentariat is reacting to that.

      He also chose to quit his job and effectively created this situation himself. I don’t think it’s necessarily unkind to point out that he sort of dug his own grave.

    6. Observer*

      Well, it actually is not clear that he knows that what he did is wrong. He characterizes his original action as “immaturity” and his current behavior is apparently perfect, from the way he describes it.

    7. MCMonkeyBean*

      He doesn’t know what he did was wrong, and he voluntarily gave up his job while knowing that would mean he would have to move without his partner.

  107. Student*

    The OP contacted HR. It’s quite possible that HR was what triggered the chair getting involved, either directly or indirectly. Depending on how the HR info was phrased, it could easily have shot up red flags to get higher-ups involved or to impose strict contact restrictions without input from Sylvia.

  108. Casey*

    Am I the only one reading that he still doesn’t feel any empathy and/or remorse? But rather “poor me” for this getting out of his control?

  109. CMDRBNA*

    This is such a massive leap, I can’t even understand where you jumped off from. We don’t know if the OP is in the Philippines, we don’t know if his partner is an expat like him (she could very well be from a third country), we don’t know what the ‘visa issues’ are, and we don’t know what her job is or was.

    I think your assumption that she must be a former sex worker is…interesting, to put it diplomatically.

  110. Amtelope*

    I … what in the world. We don’t know that. We can’t know that. There is nothing that even suggests that in that letter. This dude has behaved badly, but let’s not make wild guesses that he might have engaged in other kinds of questionable behavior, or slander his current partner, who we know absolutely nothing about.

  111. Manders*

    It sounds like OP isn’t married to his partner and it’s unclear how in-demand her job skills are outside the Philippines, and a whole lot of countries don’t hand out visas to legally single people who don’t have a job offer already on the table. I wouldn’t jump to presuming she’s a sex worker.

    OP does seem to have some weird assumptions about women (like assuming that Sylvia is a valuable employee because of her husband’s connections and not because she earned her reputation on her own) but that has nothing to do with his current partner.

  113. Granny K*

    Many posts mention the OPs lack of self awareness and/or the way his actions affect others. I don’t know if this is true for the latter as much as he Just Doesn’t Care how his actions affect others.
    Also ” I just do not understand why she had to get him involved. We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately.” The time for sorting this out was before he left her. That time has passed.
    That he continues to take NO RESPONSIBILITY for his actions and expects ZERO CONSEQUENCES in his life hints at sociopathy, but sometimes I have a hair trigger with people like this (I have someone in my family like this) so perhaps I should park the amateur therapist sleuthing and go get a bagel.

  114. MuseumChick*

    I mean, I suppose your theory is possible. But we have zero evidence that even part of it is accurate.

    I do wonder what “visa issues” are at play here.

  116. Monnaa*

    Although on some level I feel for this guy, I think this is a perfect case of “what goes around comes around”. I don’t understand why women are expected–on any timeline or in any shape and form–have to somehow internalize and carry the burden of hurt others put on them. Even if it’s 10, 20 or 30 years Sylvia has every right to defend herself, ensure her safety and the safety of her position and guard herself with her resources. Also, guess what? She’s ENTITLED to feel hurt about how SHE was treated like shit. When someone (no matter romantic or just friendly) ghosts without a word, it is HURTFUL. This guy did not give her any closure so of course she’s going to feel a way when he comes waltzing in a million years later immediately demanding her attention, respect, flexibility and respect. She does not owe him anything.

    This is why no matter where you are or who you’re with, you treat people with respect and tie up your shit. Loose ends and unresolved conflict create situations like this. Seriously, this article reads “I don’t understand why I’m being mistreated for hurting someone, why couldn’t I get away with it like everyone else?”

    Own your shit and find a new job.

    1. Robynleigh*

      The man I was with ghosted me…while I was pregnant..and active duty…and away on temporary orders.and this was 11 years ago and I havent even seen him since. I m healed from it(somewhat)..but I will never be in a room with him ever again.

  117. AnnaBananaCanada*

    I still don’t think the OP full appreciates what he did. Everything that has happened has been just imo.

  118. Jules the 3rd*

    People are making a lot of comparisons between Ghoster and Tube Biker, but I think there’s some serious differences.

    In his update, Tube Biker clearly stated there were things he didn’t know and wished someone had told him. Yes, those are things that most of us get as children, but sometimes people miss things, and it’s ableist and classist to assume that everyone knows social rules that seem basic to you. Tube Biker’s response showed that he is willing to look at the possibility that he did something wrong, that he didn’t understand a social rule, and to change.

    Ghoster clearly is not willing to admit that he’s made any mistakes, or that he has any part to play. It’s Sylvia’s over reactions, her drama / stalking / escalating, that are to blame. The commentariat clearly sees Sylvia as being reasonable or even not involved (HR could have called in the Chair), as we did for the CEO’s wife re: Tube Biker, but Ghoster is not willing to think about that. He’s just going to count up how wrong everyone else is, and the wrong it’s done to his life.

    No need for schadenfreude or karma – he’s going to keep messing up his own life and never be able to see how he did it, or how to fix it. It makes me sad for him.

    1. Rusty Shackelford*

      but sometimes people miss things, and it’s ableist and classist to assume that everyone knows social rules that seem basic to you.

      Oh, the irony of saying it’s “ableist and classist” to assume everyone knows social rules like be nice to the receptionist, janitor, and security guard.

    2. Temperance*

      It’s absolutely neither “ableist” nor “classist” to assume that an adult human being in the working world would know very basic human politeness. I mean, FFS, I grew up lower class, and I can assure you, we were not raised to act like wild, entitled animals, destroying other people’s property and not giving a hoot. Wow.

    3. fposte*

      I think that ability, class, and culture could explain the mindset or lack of information for every single post at AAM, including this one. That doesn’t mitigate the damage of the action.

  120. Former Retail Manager*

    Just wanted to say that I appreciate the update from the OP. I’m not really surprised about how it played out and it sounds like he isn’t either. As for the involvement of the chair, I think it was right for Sylvia to loop him in, but I also think that she either knew of the restrictions proposed and had no issue with them or may have even suggested some of them herself, with the agreement that the chair would present it as him imposing the restrictions. It’s pure conjecture, but I think that Sylvia, although perhaps very happy in her own life, still hates/harbors bitterness for OP and saw this as an opportunity to eff with him in whatever way she could while still seeming professional, especially if she knew or assumed his personality was such that he would never agree to the stipulations and just quit, thereby getting her what she probably wanted to begin with…to not work with him. Not to say that if that did happen, I’d disagree with her.

    I think this is really as good of an outcome as the OP could hope for a pretty unusual and awful situation. Wishing them both the best going forward and I truly hope he is a different person than he used to be.

    1. CB212*

      I don’t know that anything in the story suggests Sylvia harbors ill-will toward him. If I’m the chairman of an exclusive secondary school in a conservative Christian country, and I find out my new director will be managing an ex-lover?! I’m going to go all-out to make sure no whisper of that ever gets out in the community, to the parents, to the faculty, to the director’s husband’s local family, etc. That kind of thing is a PR nightmare for a prep school.

  121. Stefanie*

    I am curious if Sylvia even had her work email setup. I work in education and it takes almost a week after your official start date to get your email working. I’m sure it was his email to HR that caused that to happen.

  122. Celestine*

    Hmm. I can’t help but notice he called it a “failed relationship,” which it certainly was; but calling it that insinuates there was more blame on both sides rather than him abandoning her. I know he’s taken responsibility for what he did before, but that just makes this particular phrasing all the more odd.

    Anyway, I agree with an above comment that said if Sylvia decided it was best to get the top brass involved then she’s not as okay about the situation as she might seem. I don’t know if I’d expect her to be, because I know I probably wouldn’t be okay with someone who wronged me just showing up after years without ever having had the chance to talk to them and gain closure. At this point in her life she probably never expected to have that closure and had gotten to a point where she didn’t need it anymore–until along comes a fateful email.

    I’m not “gleeful” that this man has to move back home and is unemployed. But I also can’t find it in myself to feel very much for him. Whether or not he’s a good person now and has changed, this is some delayed but well-earned karma for a wrong he did to someone who didn’t deserve it.

    1. MashaKasha*

      Right? A failed relationship is something like “I wanted to live in a city, she wanted to live in the country, we could not find a middle ground and so decided to part ways”. This was so much worse than a “failed relationship”.

      TBH, I think Sylvia may have decided to get the top brass involved because she already knew (from the viral letter, if not from anything else) that the OP cannot be trusted in a “his word against mine” situation. If he portrayed her in his letter as “obsessed with the relationship” and borderline stalkery, who knows what he could’ve said after coming out of a 1:1 work meeting with her. In her position, I’d bring a reliable third party in for this meeting too. (I know it was likely the OP that caused the chair to be present, but honestly, in Sylvia’s shoes, I’d get the chair involved too.)

  124. Shocked*

    I get two things from this update:
    1. Consequences can suck. However, what the op doesn’t seem to grasp is that they were no more extreme than his initial action that caused them. He could have continued to work there and simply chosen not to socialize while searching for a new job. If he had chosen to do this I would have said that he had matured a tiny bit.
    2. Sylvia has healed. Good for her for being able to move on with her life and being able to make sure that she was comfortable at work. I’m glad that she seems to be doing well and I hope that this story going viral hasn’t affected her in any way.

  125. Kimberley*

    He sent a summarized version of events to HR when he received no reply from Sylvia (who hadn’t even officially started and likely didn’t have her full work e-mail yet). I’m sure that anyone worth their job in that department would read a situation such as this and brought it to their superior. He seems content to blame the chair’s involvement on Sylvia, but doesn’t seem to realize his message to HR may have made it’s way there, which is precisely what could have happened when someone in HR reviewed the case, saw that someone in a higher position than director was needed to mitigate, and it was then forward to the chair.

    1. McWhadden*

      But, regardless, getting her superior involved when she realized one of her direct reports is an ex would be completely appropriate. Regardless of the circumstances of the breakup it would have been unprofessional for her to not do so.

  126. Julia*

    The OP gave up without trying. He could have stayed and followed the guidelines laid out. Yes, it would have been awkward, but probably after a year he and his ex would have been more comfortable and in another year or two they would have worked up to a decent working relationship.
    Instead he resigned and now has to leave without his partner, leaving another one.
    I’m not saying this to be mean, but rather to point out it wasn’t the end of the world and he might want to work on this tendency to quit.

  127. SheLooksFamiliar*

    Dear OP,

    Sometimes life gets uncomfortable. When you interact with people – family, friends, romantic partners, colleagues, neighbors, ANYONE – things are going to happen that make you squirm. I respectfully suggest you learn how to deal with your discomfort in ways that don’t include packing your things and leaving. You’ve shared two instances where that’s exactly what you’ve done, and it doesn’t reflect well on someone who wants people to believe he’s more well-adjusted than he may be.

    Also, sometimes things go awry because you screw up. Admit it, own it, and don’t tell yourself things like, ‘Her life turned out okay so what I did wasn’t that big a deal.’ People are a lot more forgiving of those who own their mistakes, not so much when they try to spin them as group failures. Please, for your own well-being and career stability, learn to manage your impulses.

  128. Detective Rosa Diaz*

    So, you wrote to HR but then you were surprised a third-party was involved in your meeting? DUDE you wrote to HR! Of course they alerted the chair. I doubt very much Sylvia brought him in on her own.

    1. FD*

      I wondered about that too. If I were HR, I would have done the same, since it’s a director involved in this situation. You’d need someone in authority over both parties to assess the situation.

    2. That Would Be a Good Band Name*

      I would just about be willing to place money that the chain of events was that he sent the HR email, HR sent it to the chair, Sylvia was asked about it, and then meeting was arranged. Even if he just sent a summary that said they used to be involved 10 years ago, HR would have still checked into it. He said that it was a conservative environment that didn’t want any scandal so of course they are going to check out whether something he thought was worthy of alerting HR about was something that actually needed to be addressed.

  130. Erin*

    Thanks for updating. I don’t think you’re a jerk.

    It sounds like some cultural issues were at play here (like that family status is super important) that makes it hard to comment on how this situation really went down but ultimately, you probably did the right thing. It sounds like working there would have ended up being stressful and difficult.

    I know you didn’t want to relocate, and the fact that your partner can’t join you yet probably makes that significantly worse, but, again, I think this is working out for the best. As I said in my original comment, you sound like you’ve traveled a lot, have lived in different cultures, and are otherwise fairly adaptable to different circumstances. You’re going to be okay.

  131. FD*

    Honestly, I feel really bad for Sylvia in this situation. If I’d had a painful time in my life, seeing it dragged all over the internet, even with people mostly taking my ‘side’, would really hurt.

    In this case, I do think that the LW leaving was for the best. I believe LW when they say that living with those restrictions could be difficult in a small community with limited socializing options, but I think this was always going to be an untenable situation.

    1. Not So NewReader*

      Sometimes large doses of validation make a situation hurt more not less.
      I am thinking of small towns where a thousand people show up for a funeral. To see such an outpouring can knock the knees right out from under a person.
      Hopefully, Sylvia is using her excellent skills in resiliency and she is taking it in stride.

  132. Mina*

    I’m glad Sylvia’s doing OK, although that doesn’t minimize/lessen the impact of OP’s actions. I hope the current partner will be all right, too.

  133. Doe*

    And then the comment about nepotism, with the not-so-subtle implication that it’s how she got the job in the first place? No. This guy is the WORST.

    1. MCMonkeyBean*

      Yeah, that part stuck out the most to me too. Even if it were true, it wouldn’t be in any way relevant to this chain of events.

  134. BePositive*

    My ex once applied to my workplace and for what ever reason, let me know. I told my work if you hire him, I will resign the second if he was hired. They threw the resume away

    If I didn’t know, I would have still left or moved to a different branch and looked elsewhere as branches still cover each other

  135. Kat*

    He messaged HR about the situation, of course they would bring up the board. I don’t think she called the board tbh, so the real lesson here is karma always bites back.

  136. Madame X*

    I am surprised that the LW wrote an update considering how incensed the commenters (and the whole Internet) got.
    Unless I am missing something, the conditions for his continued employment at the school did not seem overly restrictive. Certainly, not so restrictive to have to uproot his life and quit without anything lined up. I hope he lands on his feet when he finds a new job.

  138. caledonia*

    I do not like the comments section right now. The comments were getting a bit beyond in the original letter and now there are several hundred more added on.

    Apparently the OP doesn’t show sufficient remorse? Well, maybe he does but he didn’t or couldn’t articulate or want all the tiny little details splashed – again! – all over the internet.

    Apparently the OP didn’t have to quit because the rules imposed aren’t that bad? Well, maybe not but when you are in that situation, knowing and living these rules…do you think that would be easy to do?

    Snarky comments about how the OP’s current partner hopefully knows they’ve moved to try and find a job and/or Visa snark – not helpful at all. That is just mean.

    3. Elizabeth H.*

      As I said in last post and below, couldn’t agree more. I kind of wish the update hadn’t been posted. It seems messed up for people to derive so much delight from shaming someone. (Like in Jon Ronson’s book “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.”

      1. fposte*

        I was thinking about the Jon Ronson book, and how easy it is to think that what you’re doing is something different than when it’s done to you.

        I think there have been some really good comments that have reasonably assessed the OP’s judgment as questionable on this, and I think that’s fair; I don’t think they have to be approving or reassuring. But there’s been a disconcerting amount of lashing, too.

    4. Muriel Heslop*

      I totally agree with this. Everyone makes mistakes.

      I work in a school and my coworkers and I have talked this one over a lot. This is a bummer of a situation for you, OP and I hope you have learned some things from it.

      1. Traffic_Spiral*

        These aren’t mistakes, they’re choices. Big difference. He chose to abandon Sylvia rather than face an uncomfortable breakup and he chose to abandon his job and second girlfriend rather than face any uncomfortable repercussions from the Sylvia breakup. The fact that leaving the country is this guy’s go-to solution to any problem isn’t a mistake, it’s a lifestyle choice.

    5. McWhadden*

      The OP was very happy to suggest that his ex in an easily identifiable position at a very easily identifiable school only got the position because of nepotism. In addition to her being crazy for calling his family and friends when he left without a word after living together. In addition to her being responsible for involving the director.

      But he didn’t want his remorse splashed over the internet?

      Just had space for bashing his ex in the letter?

      1. fposte*

        Splitting hairs, but I didn’t see any suggestion that nepotism was why she *got* the job. In the context, it sounded to me like why they would be more afraid of pissing her off than pissing him off. (I suspect that’s underselling a bunch of other reasons why they’d rather piss him off than her.)

        1. Student*

          …so why do you think he mentioned her in the context of nepotism, exactly?

          It was a pretty clear implication that she got the job through nepotism rather than professionalism, even if he didn’t say it in exactly those words. There’s no other reason for the OP to bring that up other than to cast aspersions on her professional credentials, and thus for the OP to try to play the victim of an “unjust” nepotism-influenced system.

          1. fposte*

            And I disagree that it was “pretty clear,” because that’s not the read I got from it. It was in context with his idea that she went to the chair, not in context with her being hired.

            1. Anion*

              I read it the way you did, fposte. I’m not seeing the “She got her job because of nepotism” implication at all.

          2. MCMonkeyBean*

            Yes, absolutely, that “fact” adds nothing at all to the story other than to continue to try to paint her as somehow being the real villain in all of this.

    6. E*

      I agree. The OP is getting piled on, which probably will only drive home their belief that the internet hates them…and nothing will change. OP, hopefully you can take the time to step back from all of this and assess things from other points of view. You are having these problems in your life now as a result of your actions alone, not your ex, not the internet, and not this blog.

    7. Jaguar*

      The thing that gets me on AAM threads like this is how often the interpretation by a large number of people making comments boils down to a victim/villain perspective. Which is to say that some number of people are the victim in the story and some number of people are the villain. It’s not a way of tackling problems that I find easy to have respect for. It strikes me as intellectually immature. Baked in is the assumption that the person making the comment would never do such and such a thing. But people do awful things all the time. History – particularly 20th century history – is full of people doing monstrous things as the rule and the people who refused to do those things being the extremely rare exception. Everyone is probably more capable of cruelty to others than they’re willing to admit to themselves (and shaming a stranger on the Internet is a pretty nasty thing to engage in).

      I’m shocked by what OP did and could easily reach for the “how dare you?” outrage. But how useful is that? If my brother were to do what OP did, I would communicate what I thought of what he did and then try to help him past it. I hope many people here, if someone they cared about admitted to doing something like this, would do the same.

      It also flattens any reasonable discussion. There are some concerning things this update that imply (but are by no means conclusive) that the OP has a lousy perspective on some things, but it’s much more difficult to have that nuanced discussion in a sea of moralizing. Who would ask a morally difficult question here? All the responses would have to be filtered through the outrage.

      1. Jaguar*

        I should clarify that I bring up the point that I think people are far more capable of cruelty than they act like because, in my opinion, if you think you’re capable of cruelty equivalent to the OP’s and you’re an honest person, I think you could not, in good conscience, shame the OP the way people have in both posts.

        1. LCL*

          I think people who generally aren’t cruel bury their past cruel transgressions deep in their minds so they can stop thinking about them. So they can function in real life. If we had to review every terrible thing we did as though the emotion and act was still fresh we couldn’t live with ourselves.

          1. Jaguar*

            Yeah, I think that plays into it in some cases. But I think people for who that’s true still have an obligation to not lie to themselves. Absolutely move past the things you’ve done and don’t carry those burdens forever, but if you’ve forgotten them so completely that you’ve unlearned the lesson of them, you’ve erred on the other side.

        2. Emi.*

          “if you think you’re capable of cruelty equivalent to the OP’s and you’re an honest person, I think you could not, in good conscience, shame the OP the way people have in both posts”

          Hard disagree here–I know I’m capable of cruelty (maybe not of this kind, but I’ve never had the chance so I don’t actually know), and I’m ashamed of it. I can know something is wrong even if I’ve done it myself.

          1. Jaguar*

            Well, I’m trying to draw a distinction between shaming (the “how dare you do this?”) and, for lack of a better term, honest criticism (the “I think you did something pretty bad here”). The key difference, and the reason I bring up that I don’t think people would treat those they care about with shame, is that the latter doesn’t have built into it the subtext that you yourself would never do such a thing. Or, in other words, the first has the subtext that the person crossed a line that good people don’t (which is the essence of shame) and the other does not. So I don’t think acknowledging something as wrong (or cruel, or evil, or whatever) is out of bounds – quite the contrary: as I mentioned, there are some questions real questions I would like to ask the OP about on the subject of how much responsibility he thinks he has in the situation given this update, but I find it much more pointless to try to have that conversation in the context of this comment section as it stands and that the OP has already said he’s staying away from comments because of the last thread. What I think it’s dishonest to engage in is the moral indignation and shaming specifically.

            1. Jaguar*

              And let me preemptively say that, re-reading what I’m posting, I’m not communicating these ideas as clearly as I wish I could, so I apologize for being ambiguous or murky in what I’m trying to get across.

          2. Mina*

            I agree with your hard disagree. I’ve had some thoughts I’d never admit out loud, but at least 1) I’m working to change them, and 2) I would never ever act on them.

        3. Risha*

          I have a real problem with this perspective, which is a close cousin to the classic “I’m just saying what we’re all thinking” or “if you’re honest, that’s what we’d all do.” Those usually get whipped out in situations where no, I wasn’t thinking that and no, I wouldn’t do that. I agree that everyone’s capable of cruelty, but not everyone’s capable of equal cruelty.

          The natural progression of the “everyone” thought, of course (and the exact sentiment you just expressed in your comment), is that you can’t shame people for behaving badly, because you’re being a hypocrite for shaming someone for doing what you secretly would be doing if not for x reason. But sometimes people should have social consequences for egregiously bad behavior. How else are they supposed to know that their behavior has gone too far? That, no, really, honestly, most people wouldn’t do or think or say that thing they did because it’s a bad thing to do?

          These things also tend to have a whiff of the Geek Social Fallacy #1 about them (Ostracizers Are Evil).

          1. Mina*

            This, so much. I think the reason people are reacting the way they are is because they’re genuinely appalled by the actions that were set out, and nothing more. Thank you for this comment.

          2. Elbe*

            I agree with you.

            Because the OP wrote in asking for advice, I would tend to stick with what Jaguar is considering “honest criticism.” But I don’t blame other people for their reactions. A lot of us here have been treated poorly by partners and I suspect that a lot of the commenters here can imagine the type of pain that Sylvia went through. I think the criticism comes from an honest place in most of the comments. I also think that people would be less likely to shame him if he indicated that he already felt some type of shame over the incident.

            Seeing so many people upset over this actually restores my faith in humanity a little. I hard disagree with the sentiment that we all could knowingly do something equally as cruel. I just can’t imagine abandoning a live-in partner for no other reason than to avoid an awkward conversation. Having so many people echo similar sentiments gives me hope for people.

            1. Katherine*

              Late here, but AGREE and want to add this: OP’s original actions (10 years ago) involved finding a new job, making plans to leave the country, packing up his belongings, finding new housing, etc. He couldn’t make and implement those plans overnight. That had to occur over a long period of time. Like, a LONG period of time in which he could have changed his mind and decided to have the break-up conversation with Sylvia. A lot of people are capable of being cruel in the heat of the moment. Fewer people are capable of planning out such cruelty over a considerable length of time. THAT’S what I can’t get my head around. I honestly don’t think most people are capable of that.

        4. Anion*

          I agree there. I know I’ve said and done some cruel things in the past. I’ve also been the target of cruelty. I decided several years ago that I would never participate in that sort of thing again; I never forget that we can all mess up, we can all be mean, we can all be hurtful, and none of us is perfect or better than anyone else. All we can do is try.

          It means that of all the awful things that keep me awake at night, at least regret over that mean thing I said isn’t one of them, because I didn’t say it.

    8. Elbe*

      Honestly, most of the comments here seem reasonable to me. There are some that are snarky or hyperbolic, but I think most boil down to, “I feel bad for Sylvia and this guy doesn’t seem to grasp how wrong his actions (past and present) and attitude are.”

      I have a certain amount of sympathy for him because even a reasonable response can be jarring when it’s repeated a thousand times, all coming down against you. The internet can amplify things. And I know the comments on Buzzfeed, Twitter, etc. are likely not as measured as they are here.

      But doing something so bad that the internet unites against you would be a wake-up call for most people. Even if he didn’t understand the gravity of what he did then, you’d think he would now.

  139. Elizabeth West*

    OP, you knew this could happen, or you wouldn’t have written to Alison about the situation. I didn’t think there was any way to salvage the job, and I suspect the outcome would have been the same regardless of whether you posted anywhere or not.

    Were I you, I would take this time to really think about other professional options and also do some soul searching. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the impression you still don’t quite accept that losing your job is a direct, though delayed, result of your own actions. Sometimes karma, good or bad, takes a little while to show up. I’m sorry your partner can’t be with you right now; I hope everything works out for the best for you both.

    1. Working Hypothesis*

      Doesn’t even look to me like it’s mostly a *delayed* result of his own actions… it’s an *immediate* result of his own actions: the action of choosing to quit on the spot. If he had not made that choice, he’d still be employed right now.

  140. Zuppa da Clams*

    Sylvia, as others have said on here, needed the board for sure. Dude disappeared without a trace and then called her worried attempts to contact his family and come to terms with sudden abandonment “causing trouble.” Look what he did-he had to face some consequences of a long ago mistake and quits on the spot and then runs back to his viral internet letter to slyly insinuate that her powerful rich husband got involved. I really hope OP realizes that his perception and what really is are two different things and that his actions (leaving his partner of three years without a note, quitting a job on the spot without sticking it out while job seeking) are impulsive and lack maturity. Like isn’t quitting and leaving his partner now way worse than working a little under restrictions? He didn’t want to face minor consequences every day and instead blew up his life? Guy is a runner for sure.

    I would really like to know the guidelines for his position that made him quit.

  141. Laura*

    Karma! The chair wasn’t punitive at all – only trying to protect everyone involved. However, the measures were PERCEIVED as a punishment … so while he may not have been fully aware that he’d been a total schmuck for ghosting her … his unconscious kept track.

  142. Lauren R*

    The restrictions seem more than reasonable to me. Certainly not worthy of resigning on the spot when not having a job waiting means you have to leave the country on short notice AND you have a partner who gets to be collateral damage! He didn’t even talk to the woman he’s with to get her input before telling his boss he was quitting, signing on to leave the country, and apparently ending their relationship as a result? All because he would have needed to limit his interaction with his ex at work and not talk about her and the situation with his coworkers?

    I can understand being upset about the internet feedback so I think his embarassment there isn’t totally worthy of a pile on. But his reaction to the situation itself makes it pretty clear he hasn’t actually learned much from his younger days: he’s still putting himself and his wants above the reasonable needs of others. Years ago he didn’t want an uncomfortable break up so he ditched his live-in partner of 3 years without a word. This time, he didn’t want to change his work habits (as a result of that bad choice) so he quits despite having other options and then blames everyone but himself (and implies Sylvia used her husband’s influence to get rid of him when he wasn’t even fired and could have kept working there if he respected some basic guidelines). He let the possibility of not socializing as much with his coworkers cause him to abruptly quit and leave his current partner alone in a very sudden and I’m sure very painful, frustrating way for her.

    He’s bitter that he got his “payback” but it sounds like he had the choice to accept some minor inconveniences to his way of life and move on, and possibly have the restrictions lifted in time if he showed he could work respectfully with Sylvia. Instead he got angry and quit on the spot. No one else put him in this position – even his past actions didn’t get him in this position. He made this choice when there were much more reasonable options and if he’s upset about that he only has his present-day self to blame.

    1. Elbe*

      Agree. This guy really seems to view himself as the victim here, but I just don’t see it.

      I think that he doesn’t really see that what he did was truly horrible, so having even mild consequences seems like too much to him. He wanted this all to be swept under the rug and he’s mad it wasn’t.

  143. anon for now*

    Ugh, am I the only one who thinks it seems the advice to call and/or to preemptively contact Sylvia (and then HR?) made it worse?
    OP should’ve just started job searching and acted like everything was normal, then quit when he found a new job. The advice given to OP seems to stem from pity for Sylvia (who worked her way into a prominent family and now has children…what?!) and a severe bias toward’s the OP’s decisions decades ago.
    Maybe it’s easy to say all that in hindsight (knowing the outcome of course), but would’ve the comments have been this harsh towards the OP if the gender roles were reversed? Sad outcome overall, but I’m glad the OP gets a chance to start over.

    1. McWhadden*

      The outcome was that they worked out a reasonable accommodation for both parties and told him he was welcome to stay. Sylvia told him she wouldn’t have an issue working with him. The Director put in reasonable restrictions to prevent any claims of harassment from either party.

      Blindsiding her when she arrived would not have been a better strategy, at all.

      Calling ahead and alerting HR worked quite well. But the OP wasn’t satisfied and quit anyway.

      1. anon for now*

        Did it? The OP said the “measures” made the job unattainable, and then he quit. In the US, we call this ‘constructive discharge’. I personally think the measures sounded reasonable, but Alison asks that we give the OP’s benefit of the doubt (including presumably OPs with zero self-awareness), so I assume the measures must’ve been far worse than he describes and ruined the job for him. So essentially, reaching out to Sylvia and HR was the wrong move.
        I think the idea Sylvia would be “blindsided” by the ex is projecting a bit- Sylvia may not care or even have recognized him. She has her own family now, a new director job and presumably her net worth has increased significantly.
        I guess my point was the advice given to OP seems to have made his life worse, but fulfills some idea that “karma” has been served, even though Sylvia seems happy and well off now (and may not be in her current ideal living situation if the OP had not ghosted her over a decade ago). Whatever.

        1. McWhadden*

          Why would he leave out that actually difficult measures? He listed the terms and they were not particularly egregious. Why would he leave out the one big one?

          They lived together for two years of course she’d recognize him. And even if he hadn’t abandoned her she would have had to alert the director of their previous relationships under most structures.

          The advice was very good. It worked quite well with everyone getting the unpleasantness out of the way and placing reasonable restrictions. That wasn’t good enough.

          And that’s unfairly accusing Alison of having it out for him based on absolutely nothing.

        2. fposte*

          I don’t see anything in the post that would rise to the level of constructive discharge in the U.S., though. It made him not want the job; that’s not at all the same thing as making the job legally untenable (which is the word I think he was looking for).

          I don’t think it would have made it better not to reach out to Sylvia; he may have ended up fired instead of resigning. But I also think it was worth doing because it was the right and professional way to handle it.

        3. Jessie the First (or second)*

          “so I assume the measures must’ve been far worse than he describes ”
          Wait, what? Giving the LW benefit of the doubt does not mean we need to invent things that he literally did not say. The LW listed the restrictions. So, taking him at his word, those are the restrictions. Inventing new ones isn’t somehow required by commenting rules.

          “In the US, we call this ‘constructive discharge’”
          No, we don’t. Constructive discharge is generally far more significant changes to the job than what we have here. Quitting because you don’t like the changes isn’t constructive discharge. Quitting because the changes seem hard for you is not constructive discharge.

          And from your top comment, “but would’ve the comments have been this harsh towards the OP if the gender roles were reversed?”
          Why do you think there is a gender issue here? It really, really bugs me when people make this claim, because who knows how I’d prove you wrong, but here especially I cannot for the life of me figure out why you’d think this is evoking responses based on gender.

        4. Not So NewReader*

          I also thought that OP did not list off all the new rules. But someone upthread wisely pointed out that OP could have said okay and asked if they could revisit the rules in x time frame. I am a fan of looking at people’s actions. Sylvia and Big Boss were offering OP a way to make this work. The fact that they even tried to find a way to make it work, seems like an olive branch to me. It shows some willingness to try, maybe not the level of willingness OP wanted but it some willingness at any rate.

          It’s a standard practice for people to set a structure for a new thing that they are doing. Typically the rules are strict at the start, once the new thing is under way and everything seems to be going okay, usually the rules get relaxed to some degree. People don’t like carrying around rules that are not necessary. I assume this would have happened here if OP had agreed to try.

          Most certainly, if he came back to AAM and said “This is what I am doing now” he probably would have gotten many comments with supportive suggestions to help him through it. We all step in crap from time to time, so we know what it takes to make amends.

        5. Katherine*

          Alison asks us to take letter writers at their word. Assuming that this letter writer (a letter writer who pretty much does his best to blame other people and circumstances for the situation he’s describing) omitted crucial information that would actually make it appear that he was constructively discharged is, in fact, the exact opposite of taking a letter writer at his/her word.

          And are you honestly suggesting there’s a person alive who *would not recognize* a person who was their boyfriend for three years, lived with them for two, and then abandoned them? Sylvia could have made 1000,0000,000 gallons of lemonade out of those lemons and I guarantee she would still recognize OP. And yes, she probably would be blindsided- you don’t have to care about the person to be shocked.

          1. Katherine*

            Also, Sylvia’s apparent resilience doesn’t make what the OP did any less wrong. Our actions don’t depend on whether or not our victim managed to bounce back. Some kids are bullied and then commit suicide. Other kids are bullied and grow up to be happy. It doesn’t make the bullies in the latter case any less wrong for bullying in the first place. It’s wonderful that Sylvia moved on, but it DOES NOT exculpate the OP.

    2. Elizabeth H.*

      Agree. It seems like Sylvia believed it was possible to work together normally and that OP preemptively bringing it up exacerbated a difficult situation. I think this is too bad. I also think it is too bad that it created an internet viral frenzy. It brings out the worst in people.

    3. Murphy*

      I do think the comments would have been the same even if the genders were reversed (or same sex). In any case, you have one partner abandoning another in a pretty unacceptable way.

    4. FD*

      I don’t think that the genders matter. Abandoning your SO without warning and in a context where a reasonable person could think that you were dead is a cruel thing to do. This would be just as crappy if a woman did it to a man. The person didn’t even send a ‘we’re broken up, I’m leaving’ text or note. That’s…not OK. Even if Sylvia is 100% happy now, what the LW did is still wrong.

      The only context where this would be OK would be if the LW was the victim of abuse (which can happen to both men and women, of course). However, in that context, the letter would have been framed differently; the LW admitted that they just didn’t want to go through an uncomfortable emotional breakup.

      That said, suppose that the LW hadn’t said anything to Sylvia. Sylvia would still have a responsibility to bring the issue to HR’s attention, simply because there’s a potential conflict of interest. Even in an amicable separation, there are potential issues with one ex supervising another. So honestly, I don’t think it matters. If anything, it may have been better for the LW this way, because this apparently happened before term started. I would think it would have been more embarrassing for the LW to leave just after the term started.

      1. FD*

        Imagine a situation where someone hit a pedestrian and drove away. The pedestrian made a full recovery, and ended up meeting their future spouse in the hospital. So, in the end, the pedestrian was happy and had no long-term ill effects.

        That doesn’t make what the driver did OK. I’m not saying hit-and-run is exactly on the same level as what the LW did–but it does kind of clarify the logic here.

    5. e271828*

      The OP made it worse himself. He was absolutely correct to communicate with HR about the previous relationship between himself and his new manager. That disclosure was essential to protect him—the regrettable thing is that he was unable to see that the measures decided upon by upper management and HR were to protect him from any perception of bias or retaliation, in the eyes of not only himself but by other staff.

      Hiding the relationship would have caused a lot of trouble; it seems likely that word would have gotten out and then he would have looked shifty and culpable. Sylvia would likely have communicated with HR about the prior relationship too, so for him to say nothing wouldn’t look good. He did right by contacting them!

      But impulsively quitting was foolish; the avoidance and monitoring measures imposed on both of them weren’t onerous or excessive, and had he chosen to stay and behaved professionally and calmly, focusing on teaching his classes as well as possible, he could have come off looking really good. Instead, he blew up his career.

      The advice given to OP seems to stem from pity for Sylvia (who worked her way into a prominent family and now has children…what?!) and a severe bias toward’s the OP’s decisions decades ago.

      Showed your hoof there…

    6. Temperance*

      I do not think people would have excused this behavior if LW was female and Sylvia was a man.

      I also don’t think anyone is attacking him out of “pity” for Sylvia. She moved on with her life and has children and a decent husband. However, it’s really minimizing to suggest that just because she’s moved on, what he did was fine and she can’t be uncomfortable around him. To pick nits, this wasn’t “decades ago”, but one decade.

    7. Flossie Bobbsey*

      @ anon for now: OP made it clear in the original post that a new job would mean leaving the country, since he worked at the only international school. So your advice to quietly job search and switch jobs before things came to a head was not feasible in his situation.

  144. Say what, now?*

    It’s weird that he says that the Chair knowing them is the same as nepotism. Presumably, he knows her because she works with him. It’s a professional relationship that has been in place for at least a measure of time and it’s totally acceptable that he would value the working attributes of a known performer over those of an unknown who has already contacted HR about his boss before the school year even started. Nepotism probably isn’t what got her the job, a good work performance is likely what got her there. It’s just another sign of your immaturity that you won’t allow her the courtesy of professional recognition.

  145. Toxic Person On The Internet*

    Dude.

    This was not a “past failed relationship.” We all have those.

    You left the country without telling your live-in girlfriend of three years, and then called her crazy when she reacted by trying to determine if you were alive or dead.

    That’s on, shall we say, a slightly different level.

    And now you’ve decided that perfectly reasonable guidelines – mostly set up to try and protect YOU from retaliation by Sylvia, and to minimise drama and conflict among a work team (laudable goals) – are unworkable and stupid and mean, and you’ve quit in a huff, apparently without discussing it with your partner, who will now have to deal with massive ramifications as a result of your inability to display any personal OR professional ethics.

    NB: Sylvia was absolutely right to involve the chair. The process had to be above board, with buy-in from management, not some little gentleman’s agreement cooked up in a back room between you and your ex.

    Stop blaming other people for your cruel and thoughtless actions.

  146. Witchsistah*

    He should’ve kept it between himself and Sylvia. Once HE got HR involved, it became something official.

    1. McWhadden*

      It is extremely unlikely that someone just starting at a school would start off by making the extremely unprofessional decision to not alert her superior that she had a previous romantic relationship with one of her subordinates.

  147. Lily in NYC*

    You know how we often tell OPs they dodged a bullet? Well, OP, I think the school dodged a bullet with you and they will be better off without you. I don’t care if I’m piling on; you still don’t see what a dick you are being about this.

  148. Rachel*

    This guy is obviously a massive moron.
    If I was Sylvia, I wouldn’t have wasted my time on meetings with him. Being in a position of power I’d ignore him for absolutely everything. Treat him like he doesn’t exist.
    He’d learn.

    1. fposte*

      But that would mean you were doing your job badly in order to punish somebody. That’s both unprofessional and allowing this guy to control your behavior. That’s not a victory.

      1. Rachel*

        It’s about not wasting more time on this person.
        If we’re looking for a victory, doing her job well and spending time on those who matter would be a win (imo)

          1. fposte*

            Right, or your employer. You don’t have to spend extra time on him, but it’s not appropriate to stonewall a teacher you’re directing; that makes you and not him the problem.

  149. Solomon*

    so in the movie, the crisis is he runs again and loses it all. but then is given one last chance — she’s leaving, and he realizes he can’t live with out her. he reaches his character arc, when he not only stays, but convinces her to by breaking from all fears, and insecure and shy traits by openly declaring his love for her

    1. Rusty Shackelford*

      And his current partner, with tears in her not-quite-as-pretty-as-Sylvia’s eyes, says “Go to her; just go. I know she’s the one you’ve always loved. I knew it all along, I just didn’t want to believe it.”

  150. Admiral Naismith*

    Seems to me, given that she was going to be the one with power over him, those proposed restrictions were as much for HIS protection as hers. Also, the “limited interactions outside of school” were specifically about him and her, not “no socializing for me”.

    OP probably could have weathered this out had he adulted in the here and now, regardless of immaturity displayed years ago.

  151. RM*

    I find the OP’s narration of the situation to be symptomatic of what caused this mess in the first place: A sense that he should be able to do whatever he wants without consequences. Also of note? The restrictions regarding him also impacted her, but he seemed unaware of this. His entire situation update smelled of red-pill rhetoric as if he was being wronged for his maleness vs. a workplace doing its best to allow him to continue in his role despite being a potentially unsafe person to a colleague.

    Note: We have no idea what the OP said in his letters to her, and if it was inappropriate, threatening, cajoling, etc.

    Note: OP also complains at length of this site working the way it does, which he likely should have known when he submitted his query. Again, he’s complaining about being wronged by a process that is applied equally and in this case, that he should have been fully aware of when contacting this site.

    I don’t think people should take Sylvia’s involving upper management as indicative of anything regarding her emotional state. Had I been Sylvia in this situation I would have been aghast and terrified I — through no wrongdoing of my own — could lose my position because of a man I had chosen to have a relationship with a decade before. She was simply doing what a woman in the work place must do — protecting herself. OP has proved too erratic to strike a deal to keep this secret (which would only benefit him). She needed to dispassionately alert her office to the situation and they needed to deal with it per their policies, which is exactly what happened.

    While this situation will likely never plague the OP again, for a successful career going forward, he needs to consider his outlook, tone, reading comprehension, acceptance of women as human, and understanding that maleness should not privilege him over his other colleagues personally or professionally. All of that is currently obviously lacking.

  152. Gazebo Slayer*

    I ghosted a friend years ago because he was overly clingy, insisted on spending much more time with me than I wanted to with him, behaved inappropriately in front of my mother, and… because my social skills are not great. I wasn’t romantically involved with him and didn’t live with him, but it wasn’t the right way to handle it.

    So I can’t really condemn OP for ghosting. It was a shitty thing to do to his live-in girlfriend, but… some people really do have poor social skills, especially when they’re young and immature.

    Sylvia is absolutely right to be uncomfortable working with him – in fact, I’d be horrified if she were forced to, and if she were asking my advice, I’d tell her there’s absolutely no way hiring him could go well. And I feel terrible for her and her current partner having to deal with this and all the attendant viral internet drama.

    But “OP shouldn’t get this job” is not the same as “OP is an awful irreedemable person who should spend the rest of his life being punished and flagellating himself, or should maybe just kill himself.”

    The fact is: people have a right to leave relationships they don’t want to be in. Leaving your partner often leads to a lot of hurt and heartbreak for the partner, but that doesn’t mean it’s *wrong*. And the furious condemnation of the ghoster here makes me uncomfortable. For me at least, the implication is lurking that it’s morally wrong to leave your partner, and from there it’s not far to the idea that it’s morally wrong to refuse someone who loves/wants you – which is an insidious negation of the validity of consent.

    It’s usually women who are shamed for being “heartless” and “cold” and “not giving them a chance” when we leave or refuse relationships – but I don’t think it’s right to do that to men either. And I can’t help but feel like most of the people commenting are projecting their personal baggage from relationships where someone broke their heart. (Admittedly, I have my own baggage as a former ghoster. But I’ve certainly had someone I loved leave me, and I’ve certainly had plenty of rejection, romantic or otherwise, like almost everyone else.)

    1. Mina*

      For me, it’s not that OP left Sylvia. It’s that he did so in a manner that was cruel, and based on the update, it doesn’t seem like he’s really learned the impact of those actions and grown from them. I agree that people have a right to leave unsatisfying relationships; I think that outside of extenuating circumstances like abuse, they need to do so in a civil manner and OP failed to do so, to say nothing of unfairly characterizing Sylvia as “emotional and obsessed.”

    2. Madame X*

      You are really misreading the ire that most commenters have with the LW.
      I don’t think anyone has argued that it was wrong for the LW to leave Sylvia (she’s obviously much better off without him). What people were appalled by was the way he abandoned her. He even tried to paint her as a “crazy ex-girlfriend” for her totally normal response to his actions which made it very difficult to sympathize with him. If he felt the relationship was over, then of course he should have broken up with her. If he couldn’t muster the courage to do it in person, he could have called emailed, or even left a post-it note. It would have been heartbreaking but it would at least have had a modicum of decency.

      That said, I do hope that he has learned from this and is moving forward with his life and hopefully never does this again.

      1. MuseumChick*

        This. I think the fact that he tried to paint her as “crazy ex girlfriend” when objectively his actions were cruel, and her reaction was completely understandable, and then blaming everyone one else from the comment section of AAM to Sylvia’s husband’s family connections for his current state while in the same breath saying he chose to resign because he thinks his social life will be impacted is what is cause the reaction we are seeing in the comments. Not the fact the he simple left a relationship.

    3. Sketchee*

      Yes, it’s tre that we should be clear. The error original error he made here was that he left a long-time partner without communicating in anyway. No mention of even a note.

      It’s okay to be unhappy in a relationship and end it. To do so without communication is not okay – especially in this case where they had shared responsibilities.

      The other new problem here is how he handles in the present. He has made no mention of apologies, looking out for his former partner’s comfort, or empathy for putting her in this place.

      Certainly, I’ve done wrong many times in my life. And the skill to learn is to maturely address the issue. Many times in my life have I’ve made mistakes. It’s a tough thing to learn to say out loud “I made a mistake. I’m sorry.” and then take responsibility for those problems.

      It is okay to leave a partner.

    4. come on man*

      You’re projecting your own insecurity with having ghosted people into defending this guy and honestly, why? He didn’t leave an abusive situation. He didn’t have to vanish because his ex would make his life a nightmare. He decided that he didn’t want to do the emotional labour that would come with breaking up, so for his convenience alone, he abandoned her without any explanation while she was gone to visit her family, and stonewalled any of her attempts to figure out what had happened. He made an incredibly selfish choice.

      Nobody here is saying that her’s heartless or cold for refusing a relationship. They’re specifically saying he’s an asshole for moving out over Christmas break without so much as a ‘Dear John’ letter and then treating it like she was the unreasonable one for trying to figure out what she had done to deserve being abandoned without a single word.

      Criticism over ghosting someone in this specific cruel and selfish way is not criticism against you for your own separate specific situation. But the fact that you’re so defensive does suggest that maybe you should take a second look at your own choices and ask why, despite the amount of solid reasons you have for taking a step back from your friend, you still felt defensive and angry when seeing someone who has yet to provide any reason other than “I didn’t want to deal with break-up drama”.

      1. Gazebo Slayer*

        I’m not sure how you got “defensive and angry” out of my comment. I’m also not saying he was right to suddenly disappear on her; he wasn’t. I’m saying I’m disturbed by the extreme vitriol and vengefulness and by how personally people seem to take this.

        1. Traffic_Spiral*

          The responses have been pretty measured, considering what he did. Calling them “extreme vitriol and vengefulness” and assuming that the only reason people could think badly of this man is because they take it “personally” is a pretty clear indication that you are defensive and angry.

          1. Elizabeth H.*

            I don’t think they seem measured, I do think they seem extremely vitriolic and vengeful. (I’ve never ghosted anyone so I don’t think I am motivated by being defensive and projecting . . . !)

            1. Traffic_Spiral*

              “Why” you are so defensive of this guy and consider normal responses to be out of line is between you and possibly your shrink. Maybe it’s just you don’t like judgment towards people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions and abandon everything at the first hint of trouble? Regardless, considering the subject matter, this is pretty reasonable.

              1. Elizabeth H.*

                I think there is not enough evidence to say that he does or doesn’t refuse to take responsibility for their actions and abandon everything at the first hint of trouble. We know the equivalent of THREE PARAGRAPHS OF INFORMATION about this dude. That’s it.

                I don’t consider these responses normal or reasonable. You do, I don’t. Clearly, we see this discussion from very different viewpoints.

    5. McWhadden*

      Even if you are just roommates with someone and not in a romantic relationship, at all, it’s wrong to leave someone you lived with for two years without any notice at all. Never mind a girlfriend.

      Of course, he can leave her. But he took off without a note when they lived together. Leaving her with all the expenses as well as the emotional turmoil. And when she made efforts to contact him he made her sound crazy.

      That’s a little different than a breakup.

      And, no, of course he doesn’t deserve to suffer forever. I don’t think he would even deserve to lose his job (which he didn’t.)

      But as adults we do have to realize that actions have consequences. And to have empathy for those around us.

    6. Amber Rose*

      Your comment suggests you don’t understand the situation at all. First of all, he was ALREADY hired. She was hired after him, LW had already been working there I think a couple years. I’m not sure how you missed that, but it suggests to me you read the advice and comments but not the letters, and are missing some context.

      Second of all, to disappear on a live in, long term partner with no notice and no note and then get upset and call her crazy and obsessed when said partner tries to figure out if he died or not, is beyond the pale. Anyone has the right to leave a relationship. They do not have the right to gaslight their partner and abandon them with living expenses they may or may not be able to afford. That’s straight up abusive. Even young people who have made poor decisions or are socially awkward are rarely so cruel.

      Lastly, at no point has OP shown any remorse whatsoever for mistreating his ex. Instead he continues to call her unpleasant names and blame everyone around him for his bad fortune.

      You are doing a MASSIVE amount of projecting here, and it’s to the point where the post you’re responding to has little relation with the one that was actually written.

    7. Anion*

      Yes, thank you. His manner of leaving her was fairly crappy, but he didn’t owe her anything beyond a quick conversation or even a note. The idea that he ruined her life and left her traumatized is actually pretty stunning to me; was there any indication that that was/is the case? If it was, would all that trauma have been totally avoided by simply leaving her a note, or, as you said, is the implication that he was wrong to leave her full stop, and any manner of leaving her would have been wicked?

      People just move out on their live-ins and spouses every day, with no warning and, sometimes, no note. (Happened to a friend of mine when I was twelve, actually.) It’s not cool, but it’s hardly unheard of, and it’s definitely not a crime along the level of attempted murder or assault. I really don’t get why people are acting like he beat Sylvia daily for two years and then took off one day with all her money and credit cards.

      1. Mary*

        A note or a conversation at least means you’re not left wondering whether your partner is dead in a ditch somewhere, contacting their family to say, “what the hell happened? I came home from my holiday and … bzuhhh?”

        People just move out on their live-ins and spouses every day, with no warning and, sometimes, no note.

        People also beat their spouses every day! Like, “this happens regularly” isn’t actually an indication of whether it’s OK or not.

      2. Risha*

        I’m so baffled by this comment that I can’t think of anything to say other than “this is not a normal thing to think.” Not being as bad as attempted murder does not equal ‘perfectly normal and acceptable and not-incredibly cruel thing to do’.

      3. Elizabeth H.*

        + a million. Yes, it is a shitty thing to do, but it is pretty absurd to me that so many people are assuming her life is ruined, this is an irrecoverable humiliation, she must live with trauma for the rest of her life, etc. People are resilient. Lots of people have horrible breakups. “I really don’t get why people are acting like he beat Sylvia daily for two years and then took off one day with all her money and credit cards” – that’s a great way of putting it, I don’t get it either.

        1. Katherine*

          Generally , the bar for decent behavior isn’t “can I come up with a way his behavior could have been worse.”

      4. London Calling*

        People just move out on their live-ins and spouses every day, with no warning and, sometimes, no note.

        I’m going to assume you haven’t been on the receiving end of someone up and leaving without warning or discussion after a few years of living together. I have, and it’s immeasurably distressing, to say the least. The fact that you seem to think it’s no big deal and you simply think it’s *not cool* to inflict such pain and distress on anther human being disgusts me. It’s bringing other people and human relationships down to the level of drinks cans – drain, crush and discard without a thought.

    8. Katherine*

      There’s a pretty wide gulf between what people have a right to do and how most people want to be treated. Yes, he h the right to break up with her (and virtually no one in this section has argued otherwise.) And if you want to talk about *rights*, he also had the *right* to ghost her. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t unspeakably cruel. Next time someone hurts you, do you want to be reminded that it was their right, or do you want people to say “wow, that was cruel”?

  153. Katherine*

    This guy seriously could give a $h!t about his job/the school/the kids he taught- in the first letter it was all “I like my life here, I don’t want to leave” and here we have him quitting because the regulations are going to harm his social life? Mature. Definitely the kind of guy I want teaching my kids.

  154. Stellaaaaa*

    I’m confused as to why OP thinks that the conditions presented are so onerous. They amount to “Don’t talk crap about coworkers and management on school premises and try to find other people to hang out with.” I would have complied in a heartbeat if it meant keeping the job. You really can’t imagine a workday during which you’re not talking about other people?

    1. Elbe*

      I agree. It seems to me that he just balked at having conditions put on his behavior at all. The fact that he quit without even trying to make it work (or discussing it with his partner) says a lot, too.

        1. Annie*

          I don’t understand either why he wouldn’t try to find other work and/or find another way to stay in the country. But if I had to take a guess, I think it’s an easy way to leave the current partner and start a new life again. Except this time, he has an ‘excuse.’

  155. Elbe*

    I’m happy that Sylvia no longer has to work with him.

    I disagree that the conditions listed are quit-on-the-spot-worthy. Having an enjoyable social bond with your co-workers is not a job requirement. His decision to quit without even talking to his partner about it seem like yet another instance of him not considering others in his decisions. I don’t think immaturity is the reason why he does what he does.

    I also think that it’s unfair for him to blame Sylvia for getting upper management involved. It was likely something that HR did. And, even if it was her idea, she’s only reacting to the situation that he caused. He doesn’t get to be the victim here.

  156. Night of the Lepus*

    This person’s disconnect is really weird. There seems to be no real comprehension of the severity of his actions or their repercussions, a lot of self pity with almost no awareness of self or others. Such a lack of empathy could be disastrous in a teacher. I think he should consider a different career.

  157. OldJules*

    ” I just do not understand why she had to get him involved. We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately.”

    Just dropping some work perspective here. If there is a potential of conflict of interest, it makes sense to include HR/tptb from get go. As a female leader, given the conservative environment that you operate under, she needs to appear blemishless. If she met you one on one without a 3rd party to discuss this situation, it’s a situation of he said, she said. Did I mention that in conservative environment a women need to appear as perfect as possible as a human being? Not a single gossip, not a single wrong move.

  158. Lady Phoenix*

    Sorry Allison but… what CAN we say that could construed as “construcitve” and “helpful” when it is quite obvious that the OP:
    A) Learned nothing from past experience
    B) Learned nothing from The previous letter and how people reacted to him
    C) Will learn nothing now

    He decided to abandon his lifestyle JUST like he did before because things seemed to go in a direction that he didn’t like. Also, he it is obvious from his language he does not think highly of women and can easily diss them and throw them away at a drop of the hat.

    You can draw a horse to water, but you can’t make the horse drink it. If he wants to keep burning brdiges and being a jerk, he can do that — but he has to realize that now he can be jobless for it and that is his own damn fault.

    Op, accept that everything is YOUR fault, or else you’re gonna find all the bridges have burned.

    1. Mina*

      I’d say once the sting of these comments has worn off, *and* if OP is willing, he may want to consider therapy. It may be worth exploring why he doesn’t seem to recognize his agency and why he doesn’t consider others’ feelings, and to learn better methods. Otherwise, the only person he’ll be hurting in the long run is himself, through the natural consequences of his actions.

      1. LadyPhoenix*

        Oh definitely. This is probably the better advice to give, kinda like the Manager OP that let her team harass a new coworker until she left and wanted to retaliate against a person that reported the harassment

        1. Mina*

          Yeah, as I’ve said time and again on this thread, the turnaround in the update comments from her were impressive.

          I don’t fault OP for feeling really bruised from the comments on the previous post, but I still stand by the gist of mine: he needs to take responsibility for his actions and also consider the feelings of those who stand to be impacted by them. He can do this with a therapist, but more important, like your horse-to-water comment, he needs to want it for himself if it’s to have any hope of success.

  159. Candi*

    I was reading the “Fat Girls Can’t Jump” decal debacle letter form 2013 last night. Unfortunately, this gentleman reminds me of a somewhat older version of that LW.

    LW for this letter: You are a physical and mental adult, but you come across as incredibly emotionally immature. It’s going to keep biting you in the butt. Only you can change it.

    Bless your heart.

  160. chi type*

    I posted this a couple of times above but I’ll give it it’s own thread and then call it quits.
    I think people are misunderstanding why the restrictions are untenable for the OP. Expat communities are like your substitute extended family while you’re abroad. You get together to celebrate all your home country events and probably other big holidays too. Imagine you suddenly started turning down your family’s invitations to (say) Thanksgiving, the 4th of July, and the Superbowl Party when you have always happily participated in the past. People are going to start wondering why and they are going to ask you about it. Well, per the rules of the agreement OP is NOT ALLOWED TO TELL THEM WHY.
    Do you think they’ll all just drop it when he “has to wash his hair that night” for every big group get together? There’s going to be a lot of speculation and unconvincing excuse-making going on and that does seem untenable.
    (He still should have kept his trap shut and started madly job-searching but impulsivity does seem to be one of his big character flaws.)

    1. Annie*

      I totally get where you are coming from – but are the restrictions so bad that you would leave your partner and the country rather than put up with the restrictions? I can understand if you are single and in a foreign country with no permanent connections – you would take off, sure. But when you have a partner and a home together, I think most people would try to stay and make it work for a while.

      1. chi type*

        Yeah, dude does have an unfortunate tendency to run when the going gets tough but the situation really was untenable for even a year, IMO, basically requiring him to lie on a regular basis.

        1. Amy*

          I don’t see why he’d have to lie. He’ll probably pick up a hobby or something to fill the time–he could tell people something like “I’m really focused on ___ right now, and I’m trying to keep social time to a minimum. Maybe some other time!” It might be a little misleading (it has an implication that he’s avoiding socializing because of ___, when reality is that he’s doing ___ because he can’t socialize), but it’s not a lie, and people do tend to accept that kind of thing once they hear it two or three times.

          1. chi type*

            I guess it all depends on the people involved. There’s no way I could pull off missing all of my family/friendgroup events with flimsy half-truth excuses but it could be borne for a few months while job-searching.

            1. Working Hypothesis*

              What about, “I’d love to hang out with you just the two of us, but I’m not going to social events at the school much these days, and I just need you to trust me about that. I really don’t want to talk about why right now. I’ll tell you someday if I ever can, but until then, I need you to drop it.”

              That’s what I’d say. Accurate, meets the terms of the rule, no lying needed.

    2. Amy*

      I actually do get that–it could indeed be incredibly awkward socially for OP to navigate these requirements. But what this doesn’t take into account is that his options were pretty limited!

      He could:
      1) Stay on long term. Have to deal with the awkward social stuff, possibly forever. Who knows? Maybe Sylvia isn’t very social and the restrictions would have worked out more easily than he thought. He was already lucky to not get fired outright, in my opinion, so maybe his luck would hold.
      2) Stay on short-term. Have to deal with the awkward social stuff for a little while, but have some time to sort out his next move and figure out visa stuff for himself and his partner.
      3) Quit on the spot, ditch his partner who can’t get a visa, and go home with no long-term career plans whatsoever. Probably still have some awkwardness as ex-coworkers wonder why he’s leaving so abruptly (which means gossip, which means they probably find out what he did because gossip has a way of bringing scandalous things out, which is likely to be pretty darn awkward).

      None of those are fantastic options, but 3 seems like the worst of them. It’s not what I’d choose in his shoes, for sure.

      1. chi type*

        Yeah, option #2 would have been my advice but I’m not surprised Mr. Roadrunner didn’t go that route.

    3. Mad Baggins*

      I completely understand how tight-knit expat circles can be, being a current expat myself. And in my social circle last year a couple had a messy breakup. It is tough because now we have to hang out in two groups, and make sure our chat groups and events are separate, and not talk about certain topics to each other–pretty tough when your social circle is small. But! We make it work because you can also make friends among the locals and expats outside work, and yes it’s uncomfortable but everyone is understanding because sometimes these things don’t work out.

      My point is that nobody has had to leave the country, because nobody did anything as unspeakably cruel as abandoning their live-in partner of multiple years without a word. OP could have made it work under those terms if he was truly repentant and could garner support from friends/colleagues by demonstrating that. He isn’t and won’t because he doesn’t think he did anything really wrong, so these restrictions feel onerous.

      1. chi type*

        Yeah but you guys all know the situation and have agreed to make it work. The OP’s situation seems guaranteed to foster suspicion and swirling rumors to me. It’s the not being able to explain an abrupt change in behavior that makes it unworkable. You’d have to go all secret agent on the people you used to spend all your holidays/parties with and I don’t think many people could do that.

        1. chi type*

          FWIW I think the Powers That Be probably pretty much understood the implications of all this and were juuuust fine with him “firing himself”. I’m pretty much fine with it too (sadness for his partner aside) but felt compelled to point out that OP wasn’t wrong about it being untenable.

    4. Traffic_Spiral*

      As many other expats have said, I think it’s you that is misunderstanding. Even in expat circles, there’s a separation between bosses and underlings, so not hanging out one-on-one with Sylvia is not an unreasonable restriction on his after-work interactions with his coworkers. Also, he has a girlfriend, and probably another social circle with her, so it’s not like he’s got to stay home alone at night. Also, generally keeping his mouth shut about Sylvia shouldn’t be a problem as he can make conversation about literally anything else under the moon or sun.

      1. chi type*

        I haven’t read all the comments but quite a few expats are saying it IS a big deal and when I lived overseas that’s the way it was. Sure you can go off and spend plenty of time by yourself/with locals but people are going to talk if you suddenly bow out of every home-country holiday and party for no discernible reason.

        1. chi type*

          Also if you actually read the letter that’s exactly what the OP said:
          “I do not understand how this could work. It would be very much out of character for me and my colleagues and friends would get suspicious.”

          1. Working Hypothesis*

            So they’d get suspicious. So what? That is not LW’s problem to police. They can talk — he can’t. They can ask questions, and he can tell them outright that he would prefer not to answer those questions, and would like to talk about something else now. The fact that there will exist suspicion and curiosity does not mean that curiosity necessarily has to be satisfied… either with lies or with the truth. Just plain saying, “I’d rather not talk about that,” is all you need there.

            Boundaries. They rock.

  161. Ember*

    I’m curious about what the OP wanted to happen in this situation? Also, regardless of the severity of the stipulations as-described, what made quitting immediately preferable to abiding by them for any amount of time? For example, what aspects of the situation made it worse to stay there for even 1 more day than not? (The OP has said he doesn’t want to go into it so I don’t imagine we’ll get an update on that, but I’m really curious about the line of reasoning, since I’ve recently left a job I’d been *wanting* to leave for a year. So it seems interesting.) I’m also curious about the exact content of OP’s messages to Sylvia and HR.

    1. Annie*

      The only thing I can think of is that people move away from pain and move towards pleasure. He evaluated the situation : 1) He could abide by the social restrictions at work and try to make the best of it, stay with his current partner, and try to find a new job, or new way to support himself in the country, or 2) Start over with a clean slate, working back home while trying to figure out the next step, sans partner and her family. It appears option #2 was the better choice for him.

  162. Annie*

    The letter writer hasn’t acknowledged that he did a really terrible thing to Sylvia. The fact that she is doing well now and in a good place in her life does not mean that his actions weren’t horrible and that she wasn’t in a lot of pain and confusion at the time. You don’t leave your live-in partner and move out without so much as a breakup post-it. I really hope that OP reflects on his actions. I’m also concerned that it appears he made the decision to quit the job and move home without first talking to his current partner (perhaps ex-partner now??). That is a disconcerting pattern.

  163. a different Vicki*

    LW: Please, take this copy of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The next time you’re in a tricky situation and not sure what to do, pay attention to the cover. “DON’T PANIC” is good advice, whether or not you want the recipe for a pan-galactic gargleblaster.

  164. Rae*

    When I was young and fresh out of college, I picked a job, put every last penny on my rental deposit and moved 300 miles from home. For two weeks I had $8 to live on, and in the weeks following my finances weren’t much better. About 2 months in the boss, who’d hired and trained me, was caught stealing as well as 2 previous employees there.

    He’d taught me to process invoices in a certain way–one in which I had NO clue what I was doing being in error (think chargebacks on accounts I had no idea were fake). When he was fired, the district manager and another upper manager came to the store. They knew I had done nothing wrong. Yet, as a store we had some VERY strict policies put into place involving things that weren’t even related–inventory control, invoice processing and it was strictly forbidden for managers and subordinates to hang out outside of work until this was all sorted out, for fear that current employees were involved and would be threatened. We worked inside “Llama corp” and all managers (ie me, my new boss and another co-worker) were asked to not hang out with Llama corp employees until the investigation was over and an official statement could be made. (which we were told was from weeks to months)

    So here I was, alone, broke and being told that I couldn’t have any contact with the only people I knew….especally hard given that Llama corp was a major employer. Through no fault of my own, I was miles away from family and cut off from any social circles.

    Years later, the District manager said given the circumstances she was shocked I didn’t quit on the spot. She said given the huge restrictions that she had to quite unfairly place, she expected that or for me to ask for a transfer immediately. I didn’t because I’m a responsible adult who deals with things.

    I’m surprised no one else has mentioned it, but as soon as the OP said “they said it would be easier to replace me than her” I knew that he was going to quit. His pride could not handle that.

    1. Traffic_Spiral*

      I think you have it right on the end there. Being told that he was in the wrong and that he would have to put in some effort to make things right was too much for him, so he went back to his old standby and abandoned everything to start over somewhere new.

  165. Amanda S*

    I keep squinting at this to try and see the angle he wants us to see but it definitely reads as a ‘there are you satisfied’ defiant pity plea. Which, you know, of course, it’s a lousy situation, but one he absolutely is responsible for.

    My biggets point of confusion – he called HR. Why would the assumption be that Sylvia notified the Chair?

    1. Kate*

      My thought exactly! As he said himself, she is from a well-respected family, and it is much easier to find a new worker bee than a new director. He really has no sense of how his actions affect others.

      1. Amanda S*

        Yeah, like if that was the case, and she was like ‘we can make this work’, why not suck it up and…. try??? To make it work????

  166. KS*

    ” I just do not understand why she had to get him involved. We could have tried to sort this out between us first, no need to go to the top immediately.” But…you’re the one who involved HR? Can you get your story straight? And, really, it was excessive to not try to socialize or spend time with one specific coworker? Lord have mercy.

  167. Assistant Village Idiot*

    Many good comments here, and I just want to put my weight toward one side of this. There are possible scenarios in which OP could have 1. behaved very badly years ago, seen the error of his ways and learned to be a better person, and not made an effort to apologise in the interim out of a genuine desire not to intrude and cause more possible pain (not only out of cowardice or lack of insight) and then 2. found himself in a situation coming to him which did not have good solutions, but he wanted to make as good for his victim, and maybe even for himself, as possible. And 3. Sought advice in good faith on how to make a decent apology and reduce everyone’s discomfort. Alison answered him as if that might be the case, even though there were already signs in his original letter that his motives might still be self-centered. In that instance I would be disinclined to pile on and tell him how terrible he was then. I would retain suspicions that it was all self-serving, but wouldn’t feel confident asserting this was so.

    Let me add here that Sylvia and the director might not want to work with him not just because he had hurt her and wanted to see him punished, but because his actions suggested that he was seriously untrustworthy then, and might still be so now. So also the commenters who are defending him claiming that others just want to punish him. For some this is true, they just want him to feel the pain he inflicted. Fair, but not productive. Yet others saw the same thing. They would not want to work with him because he likely still has low character, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

    OP did not provide evidence to the contrary. He provided confirmation of what many expected. He wanted positive forward-looking advice not because he wanted to make this okay for Sylvia, but because he did not want to endure the natural consequences of being untrustworthy – that is, not being trusted. When offered difficult but fair boundaries to observe, he resigned rather than face reality – much as he did years ago. Nor could he resist some parting shots at what terrible people they all were as he left. I am reminded of some characters in CS Lewis’s “The Great Divorce.” Or perhaps even one from Tolkien.

    1. Mina*

      I was reeeeeeally hoping when Alison announced that the update was satisfying, and yet not satisfying, that the satisfying bit would be that OP had reflected on his actions and committed to making some positive changes for himself.

      I am not satisfied at all. You’re right–his update confirms what I suspected, and also digs a deeper hole. I sincerely hope he does take the time to reflect and get therapy if need be.

  168. Zip Zap*

    So, I’m one of those people who gave LW the benefit of the doubt. “Assume good faith on the part of the letter writer.” I really try not to judge people, especially strangers on the internet.

    But this follow up is full of evidence that this person does not take responsibility for his actions and that the relationship may have been more dysfunctional than was previously disclosed (the rules the school put in place indicate she might have had reasons to feel unsafe around him).

    It all causes me to wonder, should this person really be working with children? Does he have sound enough judgment? Is he trustworthy enough? Maybe the whole thing was really for the best.

  169. SBO*

    Wow. They played him most likely hoping that he would resign and make it easy financially (no severance) and in the work environment. The chair was the 3rd person in that meeting, and they had already begun implementing the steps. It’s surprising that he didn’t get it even after reflecting later. He should have negotiated severance as part of a voluntary resignation. What he needed was a lawyer. In their personal life he may have been the jerk, but professionally she was.

    1. Traffic_Spiral*

      Absolutely not. The restrictions were fair and reasonable – he was the one who left the country and abandoned his girlfriend (again!) rather than face any unpleasant consequences of his actions.

    2. Bess*

      By all reports she was not at all a jerk, professionally. Even the LW says she stated they could work together. With that kind of past relationship, and the likelihood of bias or bad feeling infecting the workplace, the 3rd party makes tons of sense and protects everyone. And of course, if a director were involved, someone even higher up had to become involved. The LW is certainly presenting himself as a victim (naming nepotism, etc.) but even in his description it seems like everyone else was acting pretty reasonably, and quitting on the spot may have been a reaction to his embarrassment rather than truly untenable working terms (even for a few months).

      I agree it’s possible they expected him to resign, but that close to the school year they would sure be in a bind, right? Without knowing more about the culture I’d say it’s even more likely that they’d want him to stay for at least a half year, or quit with some notice, at least.

  170. Observer*

    OP, if you were my child or grandchild and I were reading this, I would be very, very concerned. Despite being in the workforce for over 10 years, you don’t seem to have any understanding of how workplaces function. And your understanding of consequences, ability to gauge the severity of your actions, tendency to deflect blame and see yourself as a victim, and put others down as a last resort when things don’t go your way honestly seems to be in line with that of a very young child.

    For example you write that you can’t understand why Sylvia had to go to the top instead of trying to trying to work things out directly with you.
    * 10 years ago you made a decision to deceive Sylvia and abandoned her with no warning or information. In that moment you lost any reasonable expectation that she should EVER make even the slightest effort to accommodate you.
    * If she was the one to get the Chief involved, she had no choice but to go to the top – that’s who is essentially her supervisor.
    * It was plain good sense for her to let her supervisor know that she had a bad history with you, for both of your sake, actually. There is so much potential for trouble, that it’s sensible to get in front of it.
    * It probably would not have made a difference even if Sylvia had not gone to her supervisor. Any halfway competent HR is going to see an email that you have a history of a “failed relationship” with the new director and make an absolute beeline to the top of the organization. They don’t really have much of a choice.

    Your comment about nepotism is gratuitous and really doesn’t address anything. It seems to be a way to redirect the conversation to how Sylvia really doesn’t deserve the job anyway.

    You refer to your original act as “immaturity” and never acknowledge that it really was egregious.

    You gloss over the very real problem that the school faces with gossip. And you fail to understand that the restrictions make a lot of sense from the point of view of the school, insisting that they are “punitive” although the school has no reason to punish you.

    All of this, and all of the other pieces I didn’t get to paint a dismaying picture. And this stuff is likely to bite you again. Also, it’s likely to hurt others who you are involved with, which – to your credit – you recognize don’t deserve the fall out.

    For your sake and the sake of the people in your life, you should really consider some sort of counseling. I’m not sure exactly what you need, but you really need some help to deal with the work in a way that is, for lack of a better term, more emotionally mature. Because if you don’t you’re going to wind up doing something else that’s going to cause it’s own set of problems, and you’ll keep on hurting people and holding yourself back.

  171. racketsports*

    I’m late to the game, but I think that there is a lot going on here to respond to.

    The conditions laid out for the OP were, in my experience, fair. Even for an expat, especially since it’s really unlikely the rules would totally kill his social life (after all, he somehow met a local woman, his now partner. Surely he must occasionally leave the work-expat bubble.) In general, my feeling is that even if the OP isn’t lacking in empathy, he does have problems understanding how/why people do things. In this case, the conditions laid out seem like a test, designed so that he can either 1.) show he gets it and has changed as a person or 2.) demonstrate his lack of understanding and change. Many of the restrictions dictacted that the OP behave the way a reasonable human would in this situation–ie., bring a neutral party to meetings to minimize conflict, or possibly harmful interactions, don’t talk shit about your ex who’s also your boss, and finally, when you and your ex (who don’t have a great rapport) end up at the same event, try to minimize interaction. If you look at the above, most of it is what you’d want to do anyways. But the OP refused to see the rules that way, and demonstrated that he’s not really changed to Sylvia. He’s still clueless and impulsive. Also, he’s a teacher—he has the perfect middle way–he can always announce his attention to leave over the semester break. (Not to be snide, but wouldn’t he have probably done this when he left Sylvia during the Christmas holidays? Could he not wait a few months to allow the school to find a replacement? It’s not so uncommon for teachers to leave in the middle of the year.)

    On a deeper emotional level, there are hints in his letter that, to paraphrase Jane Austen, OP can’t entirely forgive the person he most wronged. For example, he seems to cast doubt on her sanity, and then on her qualifications for her job. This is not good. I don’t know what is happening here but this is why there is therapy. At worst, perhaps the OP feels a bit of scorn for someone he’s discarded-if he didn’t want her, where is her worth?

    Finally, one thing I noticed in the comments to the last letter, is the way in which certain commentators employed the personal/professional divide to justify disregarding the OP’s past behaviour. I think it’s important to reflect on how this divide has been used in the past to permit certain kinds of bad behaviour by powerful people. Is there such a clear-cut separation in this case? OP proved not by quitting so fast, sans severance or a backup plan, which as we’ve noted ad nauseam, is as impulsive as the choice that caused this situation.

  172. Telling it how it is.*

    OP, You are in major denial about who you are and what you do wrong. It is very apparent from both your letters that you have no real concept of your behavior and are deeming yourself as a victim.
    It seems that you have lived your whole life avoiding responsibilities, hence why you would RUN AWAY from a 3 year relationship and than attempt to paint your ex as “obsessed” with you and claim that she caused “scenes in front of your family and friends as a way to portray her as being in the wrong.
    The only thing you are concerned about is yourself and protecting yourself from ever having to take ownership of your mistakes.
    The reason she went to the chair about this is because you can’t be trusted. You commit mistakes and then blame others. She has NO CLUE what lie you might come up with in any event where you need to be pulled up about any mistakes you make, therefore it was deemed appropriate to have a third party there as a witness.
    Nothing that you were asked to adhere is was unreasonable or impossible to the point where you have had to quit, you quit because you’re a coward. You don’t like being made responsible for your actions.
    Grow up!

  173. Anion*

    OP:

    Please listen carefully to what I’m about to say. I’d intended to write a longer message, but it’s late and I need to go to bed, so I’ll keep it as brief as possible.

    Yes, you shouldn’t have taken off like that, etc. etc. Hopefully you know that now.

    But listen. I’ve been where you are right now. I’ve been the person whose blog post, intended for one audience, ended up being exposed to a completely different one without the context of knowing me, whose blog post which was intended to be read one way ended up being read a totally different way; I’ve been the one whose quickly written comment was misinterpreted as saying something completely not what I meant; I’ve been the one who took a stand over an injustice and found myself the main target of the injustice-doers, and they were vicious and wanted to destroy me. Maybe it was all of the above, or only one or two. My point is, I’ve been where you are: stunned at the vitriol aimed at me, at the strangers insisting they knew what I was thinking and none of it was good, at the strangers claiming I must be [horrible quality A] or [horrible quality B] or [personality disorder X] because they just knew, based on a dozen sentences I’d just quickly put out there without even dreaming they’d suddenly be the target of every-letter-level scrutiny, that all of that was true. I’ve seen people claiming C or D happened or didn’t happen based on my paraphrasing a situation. And all of those people–quite a few of them who were basically goaded into making these inferences by a group of trolls who presented those “interpretations” as fact–had horrible, horrible things to say about me.

    I’ve been the person sitting up at two in the morning, actually hysterical at the cruelty and viciousness aimed at me by total strangers who’d never met me, never seen me in person, never even heard my name before that night. people who, having decided I was an awful person, went out of their way to interpret everything I said in the worst possible light–like, to the point that I could have said, “I like puppies,” and they would have presented it as, “Anion wants you to think she’s a normal person who likes puppies, but watch out, she’s going to abuse it behind your back.” And then several hundred people would have gone, “OMG, I never knew she was a puppy-killer, but I guess I’m not surprised.”

    Only much worse, because the examples IRL weren’t ridiculous, and they were aimed at ruining my livelihood and career.

    So I know what you’re feeling right now and how much it hurts.

    Please…please…just step away from it. Close the laptop. Close the tab. Go somewhere else on the internet where you know this won’t be discussed; go read some ghost stories, or watch true crime TV episodes on YouTube, or play a video game. Something. Anything.

    Walk away. Walk away, and *do not come back.* Just don’t. It’ll be hard at first. You’ll want to, because we all want to know what’s being said even when we know it’s only going to hurt us.

    But trust me. The only way to make it stop hurting is to just walk away from it. Because IT DOESN’T MATTER. We’re all strangers. Those people on other sites are *strangers.* We don’t know you. We don’t know your name or anything about you (that’s something you have up on me–they all knew my name). You can just walk away from this, for good.

    It will pass. I promise it will. Right now it seems like you *have* to read it or worry about it and it will never end. But it will. In a few weeks–in a few days, even–it will have started to fade, and it will fade fast, and a few months from now you’ll barely think about it anymore. I promise.

    Just walk away. Don’t read hurtful comments that will upset you anymore, and give up on the idea that the people making them will ever feel bad. They won’t. It sucks, but they won’t (okay, maybe a few of them will, but most of them won’t). They will never feel bad. Just accept it and know that moving on is the best thing you can do, is all you can do.

    Good luck to you.

        1. Traffic_Spiral*

          *bows* Thanks. But seriously. This guy dealt with the fallout of abandoning a girlfriend and leaving the country by… abandoning a girlfriend and leaving the country! “Just walk away” and “don’t listen to anyone saying you’ve done something wrong,” are basically his “Hakuna Matata.”

    2. Night of the Lepus*

      ‘Yes, you shouldn’t have taken off like that, etc. etc. Hopefully you know that now.’

      About 15 words on the original situation, and those words kept as light and vague as possible, followed by this long piece on the evils of how others are treating him, or rather, how they treated you. For goodness’ sake. I am sorry that people were so unpleasant to you, but there is no parallel here. First of all, this person must have understood the likeliness of his letter being posted to a public audience – after all, how else would he have known about the blog? And there’s been very little over zealous scapegoating; he has been castigated for three things, the first being his abandonment of his partner (‘taken off’ is somewhat downplaying the pain he caused wouldn’t you say? ) the second his inability to demonstrate any real understanding of the issue beyond how much it is getting in his way, and the third, his repetition of behaviours that will influence his current partner’s well being without even discussing it with them. These are all relevant criticisms, it isn’t some hysterical pecking party. The last thing the OP needs to be told is not to listen to others, he seems perfectly capable of doing that already.

      Again I am very sorry for what you went through. But this is not the same issue.

    4. racketsports*

      I see what you are saying but what injustice? The LW hasn’t taken a stance against injustice. Don’t fuel his martyr complex.He did something wrong; he felt the consequences were injust; he quit. Fine, but the situation didn’t arise from his reaction to an initial injustice.

    6. Katherine*

      Yeah. The people in this situation who are doing something really cruel and then minimizing it, blaming other people for it, refusing to accept consequences for it, etc. are definitely the COMMENTERS. Makes sense.

  174. CFC12*

    The stipulations are totally reasonable and, frankly, I’d welcome them if I was the OP. Not gossiping about Sylvia with coworkers is a great way to just become the non-gossip, drama-free person in the office who doesn’t talk poorly about ANYONE in mgmt. You’ll be more respected and focused that way.

    And the third party present rule is also good because it protects you from potentially having an unwanted and seriously uncomfortable convo about your past betrayal. I mean, imagine if you two were alone and there was a lapse in the convo and alllll that weight of what happened creeps into that silence. There’s a high probability you’d bring it up and put Sylvia in a position where she has to forgive you for something that many would never really forgive.

    I think your woe-is-me defense to commenters is uncalled for. Years and other girlfriends doesn’t negate that fact that you did a really awful thing to someone and that you are still at risk of experiencing the consequences of that selfish behavior.

  175. CFC12*

    also OP, have you considered that there was a fallout from your actions that Sylvia had to deal with for years? Unless you left her with rent money, she had to find a new roommate or move apartments all while coming to terms with the fact that her serious, long-term boyfriend abandoned her. You put her in a situation that forced her to do desperate things, like contact your family and friends to make sure you were alive. I actually respect the hell out of her for not allowing your unexpected presence back in to her life aggravate those past emotions to the point where she’d do something to jeopardize her job. She took
    well-reasoned and professional steps to ensure that you’d both be treated professionally.

  176. The Internet*

    > My partner cannot join me due to visa issue and family situation.

    The only thing that could make this story more delicious is if his partner ghosts him while they’re in different countries. Fingers crossed for an update in another month!

      1. The Internet*

        Oh yes! Few people deserve that… but he certainly does. You do realize that his recent actions clearly show that he still does not even begin to understand the gravity of what he did to her?

    1. Traffic_Spiral*

      If it was a film, he would have a friend slap the shit out of him saying “stop fleeing the country rather than deal with your problems!” He’d then go back to the school. He’d spend the movie sucking it up at the school, taking a lot of shit, hanging out with a wacky cast of characters, and slowly earning everyone’s trust and respect through his hard work. Then, at the climax he would face down another big problem instead of running – thereby saving the school and showing he’d learned his lesson. It would end with his marrying his new partner and Sylvia giving him away at the altar.

      Unfortunately, he keeps running, thereby leaving no chance for character growth, and therefore no plot – unless you want a really depressing movie about a sack of shit.

  178. Traffic_Spiral*

    “I also dropped a short message to the HR, without providing full details. Next morning (Sunday!) I got a call from the chair of our board of overseers, asking me to meet him as soon as possible… I just do not understand why [Sylvia] had to get him involved.”

    Bro… YOU wrote HR. It’s most likely that you got him involved. Also, notifying her superiors of a potential conflict of this magnitude is the correct thing to do. Do you really mean “I just do not understand why I had to face any consequences for my actions?”

    “We could have tried to sort this out between us first.”

    AHAHAHAHA! Haha. Really? You, Mr. ‘Leave the Country Without Telling My Live-In Girlfriend’ are complaining that SHE wouldn’t take the extra effort to personally sort out an issue with you? Really? She owed you that?

    “[The School] considered it was necessary – as they framed it – to put some measures in place to avoid possible problems in the future. The measures included things like we are never to talk to each other without a third person present, all meetings documented, no discussion about her and the management with my colleagues, not even in watercooler chat, limit our interactions beyond the school, meaning no socialising for me.”

    Limiting your interactions with her hardly meant you couldn’t socialize – you just couldn’t socialize with her. You still had all your other friends, your partner, and all coworker interactions outside work that don’t involve your boss (most of them). These are very reasonable measures.

    “Although not presented at such, it felt very punitive.”
    I imagine any unpleasant consequences for you seems like horrible and unfair punishment. Also, even if it was punitive (which it wasn’t) so? You did a very bad thing. You want to make amends? Suck it up and take your punishment, you enormous diaper baby!

    “I was also told in no uncertain terms that although the schedule for the year was already set, it was far more difficult to replace the director than an employee (me).”

    Are you sure that’s not the crux of the problem? You couldn’t face being in a situation in which you weren’t the most important person in the universe?

    “I do not understand how this could work. I found the proposed measures rather excessive. It would make my position unattainable, even in a short run. It would be very much out of character for me.”

    It would be out of character for you to face up to your past misdeeds by toughing out a mildly unpleasant situation? I suppose you would know.

    “Therefore I resigned on the spot.”
    You ran instead of facing your problems. Now that, at least, is something not out of character for you, is it?

    “I came out of this with no job, no severance and no prospect for another job in this city.”
    You didn’t “come out of it” – you chose it. You chose to run rather than face unpleasantness. Again. Your personal life choices aren’t things that just happen to you – they are conscious decisions that you make. Repeatedly, in your case.

    “So I had my comeuppance.”
    You chose your comeuppance

    “I am most certainly not asking for pity.”
    Yes you are. With every self-justifying, “I hope you’re happy, jackals,” refusing-to-take-any-responsibility-for-past-or-present-actions word.

    “I only wish there were not other individuals bearing the blunt of my immaturity in the past. (My partner cannot join me due to visa issue and family situation.)”

    Your partner’s problems are entirely due to your immaturity in the present, specifically your refusal to stick it out at your current job because you’d rather run than face consequences. Oh, and your actions go waaaay past immaturity, fella.

    In short, you have learned nothing from your past, and still prefer to run and leave everyone around you to deal with catastrophic fallout rather than face any unpleasant aspect of your life choices. You abandoned Sylvia without warning and left her to deal with that (and your friends and family to deal with her) rather than have an honest breakup conversation, and now you’ve abandoned your job and current partner (again, without warning) rather than have to deal with a few restrictions at work.

    Stop believing that you should never have to suffer consequences or make amends for anything you do. Stop running every time life gets tough. Stop creating huge problems for everyone around you to avoid personally dealing with the slightest of your own problems. Stop acting like your current situation is something that ‘happened to you’ rather than something you deliberately chose. And for the love of god, stop acting like you are the wronged party in any of this – you aren’t.

      1. Traffic_Spiral*

        Gee, thanks. For his first letter, I was like “yeah, you were a shit, but if she’s willing to give you the chance, you can probably make it right,” but this one… he gets the chance, and instead taking it he does the exact same thing, again? Leaves the country and abandons a partner rather than face unpleasantness, again? Seriously, again? Then has the nerve to be like “OMG this is so sad why is it happening to meeee?” It’s just… mind-boggling.

          1. Mina*

            And that “it wasn’t that bad” because he didn’t beat or murder Sylvia. Are you kidding me? Just because he didn’t lay a hand on her doesn’t mean the impact of his actions is automatically smaller. It’s a cold, callous view.

        2. CMDRBNA*

          The thing is, I too have made bad choices at work that had negative consequences, and it sucked and in the short term it felt better to blame other people and change the narrative so that I wasn’t the bad guy, but in the long term that doesn’t help you – it just ensures you’ll make the same mistakes again. I’ve had to learn from them and it’s still a process but I can say I would not make those same mistakes again, and I’ve acknowledged that whatever role other people may or may not have played, ultimately those decisions were mine and I need to own them and change what I’m doing.

          I don’t see the OP figuring that out any time soon and that makes me really sad, because he’ll just keep repeating this pattern over and over.

          1. Desdemona*

            +1

            The OP reminds me of someone I knew a long time ago. He wasn’t sadistic, just clueless, and left a trail of destruction in his wake, but he also paid (and, as I learned from running into him not as long ago, is still paying) for his inability to look at himself. His life will likely always be a shambles – has trouble holding jobs, relationships come and go, cheated himself out of his education by getting mad at professors and dropping out or taking bad grades to prove, um, something. You can’t have a fulfilling life if everything is always someone else’s fault, because you trade your own ability to change the outcomes you experience for the right to see yourself as a victim.

  179. Kevin*

    The OP still seems unwilling to recognize the extent of his terrible behavior 10 years ago, describing commenters as “self-righteous people on the Internet” isn’t really going to help his cause either.

  181. jv*

    Wow, I am sad that you had to resign and you couldn’t adapt to those rules. The fact you had to leave your current partner behind is not nice at all.

    Good luck, OP. I think what happened to you is every ghosted person’s fantasy and that’s why it got such traction.

    1. Traffic_Spiral*

      No, he chose to resign and didn’t spend a single day trying to adapt to the rules. He also chose to leave his current partner rather than try to stick it out at his job. He didn’t HAVE to do any of that – it was a deliberate choice on his part.

      Also, no one cares that much about ghosting. Few people harbor big grudges against a past ghosting, and what LW did really isn’t in the same category as ghosting, so it wouldn’t matter if they did – that’s not what bothers people. What bugs people is his habit of blowing up the lives of everyone around him (Sylvia, the friends and family that had to deal with her after his abandonment, the school that hired him, his current partner) rather than just dealing with the basic unpleasantries of adult life (breaking up with someone, or working at a job where you have a conflict with another person) – all paired with a healthy dose of self-pity and blame for everyone other than himself for his decisions.

      If you want to go deeper with it, I think what many people also relate to is having a bad action in your past that you wish you could undo – most of us have one of those, and would very much like a chance to atone for it. Except in LW’s case he actually got the chance to atone, and dumped on that chance by doing the exact same thing over again. I mean, the guy literally dealt with the fallout of dumping his longterm partner and leaving the country by dumping his longterm partner and leaving the country.

  182. AKchic*

    I get the feeling that Updating OP did not learn much at all in his 10 years.

    He emailed her old email address and didn’t get a response (she probably still uses that email address, but chose to ignore the message). Then, when he didn’t get a response, he emailed her new work email AND HR. We know HR would have notified her. He fails to say what he said to her in his email, but I can assume a heart-felt apology was *not* really what he sent.

    So, he contacts HR and outs himself (without details, because obviously, we can’t do that), glosses over the whole thing and I’m assuming paints himself as a vague victim. HR obviously asks the new manager who then gives a better accounting, and then you have an unreliable subordinate. No wonder the guidelines were put into place, especially after taking into account that he emailed her twice and got HR involved.
    The rules seemed pretty straightforward. All he could do was deflect and blame nepotism, not her own merits for getting the position.
    LW continually deflects and shifts blame, You minimize any and all damage done to your former girlfriend and act like her current life based on how you view it through your rose-colored glasses makes your treatment of her acceptable.

    You need some serious introspection. Maybe even some therapy.

  183. Althea*

    I’m sad about this. Many of the comments urged OP to 1) feel remorse, and 2) publicly state and show his remorse.

    It’s possible he did, to Sylvia or his work, but if his writing here is any indication… he did not. I can’t see any evidence of publicly shown remorse; therefore can only conclude he does not feel it either.

    Maybe OP could take a lesson from some PR guys. There IS a reason that bad behavior, when caught, is usually responded to with a public apology.

  184. barelyprofessional*

    putting aside everyone’s moral issues with op, this really looks like a constructive dismissal case in the process of happening. the descriptions of the actions required do sound like they were designed to have op quit to save them trouble. again, this is a situation based on a subordinate’s past relationship with a superior not on any work related issues. i imagine it would be a very embarrassing position for sylvia and if i were her i would want op gone as soon as possible. if we take the convention of believing letter writers then i do think that there probably is some truth to her husband’s family making her the more important hire above and beyond her job position.
    (nepotism is a serious reality on the international job market and actually doesn’t necessarily mean a candidate is ill qualified so much as they get an extra boost:- not needing a visa, having local connections.)

    1. Annie*

      I think also because her position is senior to his, that is why they kept her. You can imagine if Sylvia were hired as the school secretary or a teacher’s aide, they could have dismissed her and kept LW.

      1. barelyprofessional*

        Yes, from a business standpoint prioritising a director with useful connections makes a lot more sense. If she was lower on the rung than him I imagine they would have rug swept it- can’t imagine them constraining his schedule if he had a history with a lunch lady. But then, constructive dismissal itself is about what is useful for employers- get rid of ‘troublesome’ employees with no responsibility- not justice. I’m just surprised that in the moral frenzy people have forgotten that this is a workplace ethical quandary where a subordinate is being edged out for a prior personal offence (nonviolent and not illegal) involving a superior. Regardless of how terrible a partner op was it should raise some alarm bells to us.

  185. AliCatLady*

    Ok, so, the LW is upset that Sylvia and he had to have a meeting with the chair? Wouldn’t Sylvia have gotten in trouble if she had just had kept it a one-on-one meeting and that gets found out? Especially if it is uncovered that she and the LW are exes? And this is a conservative place they both work at? God knows how the gossip will go!

    Like LW is so focused on the troubles he may face, he seems to forget that Sylvia has her own risks too.

  186. Megan*

    Does this guy really think he’s the victim? So sorry you can’t go to happy hour with your co-workers. Boohoo.

  187. LBK*

    I doubt anyone will bother reading this far down, but FWIW I think people aren’t giving fair weight to the fact that he did this 10 years ago when saying that he doesn’t seem to be taking responsibility or treating it seriously. 10 years is a long time – I really doubt most people here are still in contrition for mistakes they made a decade ago, least of all to an audience of internet strangers who spent quite a lot of time telling you what a terrible person you are. Hell, we even consider criminals to have “paid their debt to society” once they’ve served their time – when will he have had enough distance from this situation that it’s acceptable to describe it without excoriating himself? Some of the responses here really cross the line from being tough but true to delighting in the OP’s situation in a way that I think is beneath this site.

    1. Observer*

      Actually, plenty of people ARE in contrition over things they did 10 years ago. And, 10 years passing, with NOTHING WHATSOEVER DONE to mitigate the harm hardly counts as “paying the debt to society”.

      But that’s not even the issue. He doesn’t need to wear hair shirt. But, no matter how long ago it was, he needs to own what he did and NOT BLAME SYLVIA. And, he needs to understand how his CURRENT behavior is an issue in the outcome of the situation.

      Blaming Sylvia for the meeting?! That’s beyond absurd.

    2. Bea*

      Paying your debt to society also includes accepting you did wrong and then moving onward to do better.

      Instead 10 years later, he’s not taking his lumps and accepting responsibility for where he ended up. He could have easily just done what the directors were demanding but oh no, not being able to talk about Sylvia as someone who he knew 10 years ago, he couldn’t handle that!

      To get paroled, you have to show remorse for your actions, just saying.

    3. cee gee*

      yeah but here’s the thing. he didn’t “pay” his proverbial “time”.

      he has not thought about it once in ten years, until it suddenly affected him. he has never once thought to apologize, make amends, reciprocate her attempted contact for closure, explain, or anything else, until he became aware that he would be put in the *so uncomfortable position* of having to work with her. suddenly, after 10 years, he’s all about that off-the-hook apology.

      all while blaming her for being “psycho” (and then later, a nepotist).

      your whole “time served” argument might apply had he actually attempted to make right of the situation. but he didn’t. there was not a single moment of repentance on his part.

      someone above mentioned “borderline sociopathic”; i would say this entire situation screams of it.

  188. Mel*

    Once an employee contacted HR and said he was uncomfortable with an incoming supervisor, they’d no choice but to investigate. All it would have taken was a simple phone call to her to ask if she knew him; once she said yes and how, they had to take protective measures. HR contacted the President of the Board, not his ex; he’s got to know that.

    HE is the one that made the poor assumption that a professional would mistreat him at work due to past romantic history. HE is the one that contacted Human Resources. And, at the end, HE is the one that chose to resign rather than follow the restrictions placed upon him, FOR HIS PROTECTION, by his company.

    He pretty much did this to himself, for lack of a better term. Hopefully, with some distance, he will be able to see this and come to some peace with this.

  189. Lauri*

    You know, there is absolutely NOTHING the OP could have said in his follow-up that didn’t result in his being burned in effigy. Obviously what he said above resulted in a dogpile. If he had apologized and groveled, he would have been doubted and mocked and been told “you’re only just NOW apologizing? Go to hell!” If he had been angry, if he had been stoic, if he had been philosophic: there was no way for him to win.

    Everyone is guessing here. Everyone. You don’t know him or Sylvia. You don’t know his current partner. You can’t diagnose him, no matter how hard you try. We have only his side of the story, and we don’t know whether he’s telling it like it was or lying his head off. So going by what we do know (or most likely know):

    I wish he had could have given more detail about the “proposed measures.” He said he couldn’t go into detail, so I don’t think it was simply the water-cooler thing that drove him to resign. It sounds as though he may have panicked. I hope someday we get another update. Seriously, I would love to know what comes next, whether he regrets quitting, etc. etc. Just a fascinating story.

    1. Rae*

      I don’t think you’re right. Sure, some people will be jerks. That said, I was feeling for the OP. He got quite the internet tar and feathering. What gets me now is that he quit on the spot. As an employee put in tight spots (not my fault) and as a manager, this just feels….wrong.

      Had he even said he gave it a week, I would have a much better opinion. For me, that really changed my view of the situation and his choices. No, we don’t know if the directives were utterly ridiculous but his portrayal of the situation makes him sound like one of those hapless cartoon villains.

    2. palomar*

      People tend to be unreliable narrators when conveying a story about the time they did someone wrong, in the sense that they typically paint themselves in a better light. If this guy’s telling of his own story is the best light he could shine upon himself… that’s not good. Each time he’s emailed AAM, clarifications to his story have been required, and each clarification indicates that he’s not being fully honest about the scope of his actions. I do not trust his own version of his story, as he has a vested interest in not being honest with himself about how badly he has screwed himself.

    3. Traffic_Spiral*

      Yeah, no. Had he come out of the meeting with “it was awkward, but it’s pretty clear that everyone’s trying to make the best of this situation, so I’m going to do my best to make this right – gonna tough it out for this year and apply to other schools for next year. Yeah it might suck a bit, but sometimes you just gotta grit your teeth and face up to life’s problems. Plus, I’ve got a partner here so it’s worth taking a few lumps to stay with her” people would have cheered. In fact, any amount to taking responsibility and trying to do something to make amends would be approved of. This board has had multiple writers who did something bad, acknowledged it, and accepted that the needed to make amends (or at least accept the consequences). The readership has always been very supportive.

      This guy did the exact opposite – refused to take any responsibility and refused to learn anything. He literally dealt with the fallout of abandoning his longterm partner and leaving the country 10 years ago by abandoning his current longterm partner and leaving the country. He then blamed everyone else for his own actions and whined about how horribly he’d been treated by everyone – including fate/Karma and Alison for posting his letter (does he not understand how advice columns work?)!

      It would be darkly funny if it was just him taking the brunt of his decisions, but this guy blows things up for everyone around him (Sylvia and his friends/family the first time, his current partner and the school this time) causing other people serious problems, all to avoid facing any of his own problems. The complete inability to learn or take any responsibility, paired with self pity and no true regard for everyone else he hurts, is what people object to.

    4. Lauri*

      To be clear, I meant there was nothing he could have said and no course of action he could have taken that wouldn’t have resulted in getting excoriated *here,* on the Internet, by strangers. Different sets of people would have been outraged regardless. Which is fine: he opened the door. But most people here are more interested in calling him a psychopath/narcissist/etc. than in considering the employment issues.

      1. Traffic_Spiral*

        Read the board. There’s lots of cases of people messing up, acknowledging they messed up and have to make amends, and the commenters are by and large incredibly supportive. Just a few posts up, there’s a lady who was mean to the new hire because she was jealous of her, and everyone’s supportive, because in that case, LW didn’t try to blame everyone other than herself.

  191. sstabeler*

    I actually don’t think the company handled this very well, regardless of the exact situation- the restrictions proposed seem somewhat… excessive, seeming more appropriate to a situation where there is a risk of sexual harassment. OP treated their ex badly, but there was no suggestion of OP wanting to be anything but a subordinate. If the employer can’t trust them to behave professionally, they should have pulled the offer, not acted as if OP had to visibly prove they were acting squeaky clean.

    1. Night of the Lepus*

      What about this seems like the employer asking for proof? Proof of what? Boundaries needed to be set very clearly, and obviously you can’t have a professional situation where, given the personal history involved either person gets to talk about the other’s private life to colleagues, or indeed, interact with the other in any way that could constitute stalkerish behaviour, emotional manipulation, sexual or indeed any kind of harassment etc. The restrictions would have safeguarded both the original poster and his ex. it’s not about being squeaky clean, it’s about maintaining a feasible and pleasant workspace with the minimum complications. So what is the problem?

      1. sstabeler*

        a) the restriction was on talking about his boss or management to colleagues AT ALL- grumbling about management- which is a perfectly legitimate thing for an employee to do- would be covered.
        b) Why is ghosting someone a decade ago- which, remember, is just not contacting them anymore (while it was presumably painful for her, it’s more thoughtless than anything) considered justification for procedures more appropriate to a stalker? There’s- as far as I am aware- no suggestion that there is actually any risk of the OP doing any of the things the procedures are designed to prevent. PARTICULARLY when Sylvia apparently said she could work with him fine. In my opinion, the only restriction that is actually reasonable is “don’t try to socialise with her outside of work” and that’s mainly because it’s probably asking for trouble. everything else- particularly since I’m not sure how needing a chaperone would interact with needing to talk to Sylvia about something confidential- seems over-the-top.

        Also, their tone seemed to me to be essentially saying “you put one toe out of line, and you’re gone” which is unreasonable for what actually occurred. I actually find myself sympathising with the OP, since while OP definitely behaved badly, there are those who seem to believe that there can be no such thing as growing up. OP could simply have been immature when they ghosted on Sylvia, and have grown up in the decade since. If their ghosting burned a bridge, then the appropriate reaction would not be hiring OP in the first place, not force OP to obey restrictions suspiciously close to those necessary in cases of actual harassment if the two people can’t be split.

        1. Night of the Lepus*

          A) Well of course the restriction was on talking about his boss at all to colleagues. Last thing you want is people gossiping about he said/she said. Just stay away from the subject all together, this is not hard! If he wants to talk about management in a vague way, that’s his risk, but if he starts quietly taking potshots at Sylvia, it won’t be tolerated. He has a background in inappropriate behaviour, his follow up letter has been very ready to snipe at this ‘culture of nepotism’ that he claims surrounds his ex, As a manager, I would be very concerned to have this kind of talk around co-workers, and there is no guarantee he wouldn’t do it. All we have to go on is his past record, which is not good. The only thing that stops this whole mess before it starts is just to ban the subject of Sylvia altogether. Why is that so difficult?

          2) He didn’t just ‘ghost’ her, that is something you do after a couple of dates, when you realise you are not keen, it’s cowardly and unpleasant but as there’s no real commitment, whatever. No, this man deserted his live-in partner of three years. He abandoned her. No letter, no explanation, for all she knew he might have been killed, and he says nothing about how/whether he dealt with matters of where they lived, how the rent or mortgage was paid for, what happened about mutual debts, credit cards etc. So can we not minimalise the extent of the cruelty and the irresponsibility he showed? Yes, people grow up. But we don’t test their hoped-for maturity on their prior victims; We don’t put her through potential discomfort in her job, just so that he will be OK in his. He is not the most important person here.

          For the sake of the entire work place, I think it is OK to place some very sensible conditions on the interaction between the two. He didn’t need to give up his job straight away, no-one tried to fire him, he was given the chance to try to make it work. No-one forced him to resign on the spot. He could have accepted the conditions while making an effort to seek a new job less uncomfortable to him. He decided not to. Throughout this whole situation, he has had agency and used it.

        2. Katherine*

          It wasn’t just not contacting her anymore- their lives were intertwined. It wasn’t a person he’d been on a few dates with. They lived together. Characterizing it as ghosting is one thing that many readers have pointed to as evidence that he’s trying to minimize his actions. Because yeah, ghosting normally means something along the lines of how you define it.

          Also, in the first letter OP implied/hinted that Sylvia had some stalkerish tendencies surrounding his “ghosting.” It’s pretty easy to picture him blaming any action on her part at work on retaliation, obsession with him, etc. No, it doesn’t sound like he would sexually harass her, but the policies would also have protected her from any false claims of retaliation from him- and those are foreseeable at this point.

  192. KT*

    Since this is a professional blog, let me try to give some professional advice. If you are the wrong-doer (and you want to keep your job), DO NOT GO TO HR! From one perspective, it’s possible that she really was fine with everything, but the OP never got to see her reaction because he never gave her a chance to respond… in either situation. In fact the only details we know are that she followed up on him after he disappeared 10 years ago, when she was maybe heartbroken and definitely insulted. Other than that, the other thing that we know is that she is hard-working and professional enough to get this type of leadership role.

    The point is, people move on, and adults sometimes are actually capable of being adults. It seems to me that the OP dug his own grave by getting worked up about something he had no data on, but obviously had some unresolved guilt about. Of course, once he emailed HR, it was out of even her hands. I think it was a fine idea to send her a *short* email to notify her of the situation, say he was sorry for any pain he caused in the past, and that he hoped they could work together professionally. Then keep your mouth shut and do your job.

    It’s possible it wouldn’t have worked out anyway, but it seems the fatal problem here in both cases was his extreme disrespect, to the point of not caring about Sylvia’s perspective or other responsibilities. I don’t even know what response he expected from her old email, although it seems fitting that he got none given his past behavior. Of course, I’m sorry it cost him his job. But keeping your cool and attempting to treat people professionally and with respect (i.e. no drama, no gossip, no social acknowledgement that you ever knew her), would have been the best course of action to prove that you were capable of handling this situation you caused when you stopped listening years ago.

  193. cee gee*

    hmmm…the secretiveness of their shared field is really intriguing to me. just as an aside.

    as to what all went down…

    it seems that they, at the time of their relationship, were working towards / studying to be in the same highly specific field, which would eventually involve teaching. once finishing this education or getting a foothold in this tiny market, very few jobs would be available and everything would be completely insular. so basically as an added bonus, a very tiny pool of people who all know each other and will definitely interact at some point. to sum up: a highly specific teaching field which is incredibly niche and specialized, and difficult to find work in exactly because the field and needed positions are so niche and specialized (how circular!) while also being nearly-impossibly insular according to OP.

    pardon the repetition for mentally processing.

    so given all that, the thing i’m curious about is, knowing all along how interrelated, overlapping, insular, niche, and specialized this field is, why on earth the OP would have taken that risk to leave a 3 year relationship, domicile, and ENTIRE COUNTRY without word in the first place.

    i’m not trying to beat that same horse even more dead, because obviously OP can’t reverse time. but it still seems to me that given the secretive nature of the field he was knowingly getting into — with running into his ex at some point being a highly likely probability in this strange world of super-nice specialization teaching jobs — something in this narrative is still missing and highly bizarre. even making a stupid relationship decision in ones 20’s because [folly of youth , fear of commitment, whatever] doesn’t account for the decision he made, and especially doesn’t account for why he feels victimized by nepotism after all these years.

  194. beforewisdom*

    To the original letter writer,

    You asked for constructive advice, not condemnation. Okay, here it comes.

    1. Ask yourself what the right thing to do is. Do it even if it is uncomfortable and has consequences. What you will face in the future will not be as bad.

    2. Don’t call other people names like “self righteous” for being angry at what you did. Be honest with yourself about what you did. Accept that people will have justifiably have harsh things to say. Doing these things will make cleaning up after the experience easier on you in the long run.

    3. Don’t lie to yourself about it. If you lie to yourself about it, you will not learn, you will not grow. You may be tempted to do shitty things again. You lived with Slyvia for 2 years and disappeared. Don’t call it ghosting to yourself, call it what it is. Abandoning a partner. The fact that she is married now doesn’t make it alright, anymore than if someone back then broke your ribs but you are not an athlete. You caused her a tremendous amount of emotional pain. Don’t spin it to yourself. Let the truth hurt and energize you toward leading a more ethical life. Again, the rewards will be better situations for you.

  196. Emily*

    I️ remember reading this, I’m surprised he responded. To the OP – I️ empathize with the notion that going viral unexpectedly can be stressful. However, it seems like it’s just a consequence of writing into a popular advice columnist with a rather one-sided view of what was clearly a messy situation. Not to mention this response didn’t do much to clear things up. I’m happily married now, but I️ would never want to work with or be the boss of my narcissistic ex. I’d be horrified even though it was several years ago now. Anyways, good luck with whatever you end up finding job-wise, I️ hope it involves some personal and emotional growth.

  197. Maeya Torrelini-Liersch*

    The sad thing is, this guy is a teacher. He is supposed to teach kids, and even if he is a good teacher, I’m not sure the kind of character he shows through the letter is the type I’d want to teach mine. I mean, just giving up on a relationship simply because of some struggles, and then refusing to take the onus of his mistakes? It doesn’t reflect well on him.

Comments are closed.