I once had an authorship dispute with senior collaborators. As I started drafting up the results, naturally I asked for clarity on an initial authorship byline. In response, I was told to finish the analysis, while the authorship byline would be revisited later. I pushed back because I wasn’t comfortable doing more work while leaving the question unresolved. In my career, I have rarely begun writing a draft until there is some clarity on an initial byline and the reasons for it. As such, I found the possibility of floating inclusions of other authors in the future based on vaguely articulated contributions strange. Moreover, I found being noncommittal about an initial byline while simultaneously asking me to continue the analysis as I began drafting inappropriate and, frankly, a bit weird. I paused the work and communicated I wasn't comfortable moving forward until a clarification on the current byline was issued. After my pause, instead of clarifying the authorship byline, I received a request to meet in person to discuss my "plans" for my time with the senior collaborators. In context, I understood that as a way to pressure me and threaten me with consequences. Instead of engaging and dignifying this meeting about my "plans," I walked away and put the dispute on paper. Shortly afterward, the senior collaborators confirmed in writing the current author list that was completely in line with my expectations before the dispute began. Something that should have been a straight question with a straight answer initially got a vague deferral, what I understood as a veiled employment threat, and an eventual confirmation only after I had decided to walk out. Asking questions about fair credit should never become grounds for employment pressure. Neither should academic seniority or status be used to attempt to pressure people into accepting uncertainty about credit for their own work. It is unethical and inappropriate.