They started off talking about the line defined in the contract as though it applies in the relational context. The GP contends that the equivalence is inaccurate: many will view termination a day before vesting a sort of theft, i.e., the contract line is fundamentally separate from the appropriate-in-people’s-judgment line.
The response then operates from that premise, exploring the possibility of a distinct line to draw. In other words, while it is clear that there is no vagueness contractually, the response is focused on the distinct question of a line of appropriateness in the relational context.
In evaluating that possibility, it commits the line-drawing fallacy, rejecting the distinction on the fallacious grounds that there isn’t one clear answer as to where that relational line is.
> i.e., the contract line is fundamentally separate from the appropriate-in-people’s-judgment line.
You nailed it, and ultimately, I'm glad you shared this fallacy/concept.
Re-thinking my reaction, I don't think the line-drawing fallacy is constructive here and maybe in general.
Here's what happened,
1. The original comment said "Denying part of compensation after the fact is bad (sic) look."
2. Then the follow-up asked for a "standard" for what duration of time needs to pass for the decision to be regarded "bad" despite being contractually allowed.
3. Then you said "The claim [in #1] isn't wrong just because there's no universal precise line."
IMO, #2's a constructive question to ask because the answers add information about someone's position and furthers debate. The judicial system uses this all the time with "reasonable-ness" standards by specifying a fuzzy line or a "reasonable person would know it when they see it". And if #1 were to say "I don't know how many days make it good/bad," then it's not compelling reasoning and more opinion-based -- which is fine, but not very compelling because it's so vague.
It seems like a lower order fallacy to use in a debate.
I don't think a question like #2 has to be destructive, but it seems clear to me that it was here. The comment tossed out an extreme position—"You should just give it to them on day 1, right?"—and suggested that an executive couldn't even function if vesting was socially expected any time before the contract date. That's hyperbolic, and the "where is the line" question shouldn't be taken in good faith at that point.
Constructive engagement usually involves proposing answers, not just asking questions, or at least demonstrating an agreement on some underlying premises. The comment could have said "I can understand the expectation that vesting is right around the corner carries some weight. But surely there's a point where it's too far. It seems clear to me that six months in with six months to go shouldn't be a concern. If someone hasn't been there for a year, do you think two months would be socially problematic?"
Maybe it isn't compelling, due to vagueness, but what counts is the social reality—and that's often fuzzy.
The response then operates from that premise, exploring the possibility of a distinct line to draw. In other words, while it is clear that there is no vagueness contractually, the response is focused on the distinct question of a line of appropriateness in the relational context.
In evaluating that possibility, it commits the line-drawing fallacy, rejecting the distinction on the fallacious grounds that there isn’t one clear answer as to where that relational line is.