When Ellen Pao lost her $16 million sexual discrimination case against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, I had to admire her exit.

She stood at a lectern and declared that her case was worth pursuing if it helped level the playing field in venture capital for others.

Those noble sentiments seem suspect this week with Pao filing a motion that she may appeal the jury’s verdict.

Here’s hoping she doesn’t.

Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, fascinating though it was, should not have an extended season.

If Pao appeals in the next 40 days, the former Kleiner junior partner risks losing the credibility she earned from taking on the venture capital giant and diluting the impact she made by calling attention to the dearth of women and sometimes sexist treatment of women in that field.

Of course, Pao, like anyone else, is entitled to exhaust legal avenues. And chances are that her filing this week is a negotiating tactic, not a second crack at the same set of facts.

At issue is nearly $1 million in legal fees. Kleiner Perkins has said that if Pao did not appeal, she would not have to pay. Her team has argued that she should not be liable for these fees, and this week, Kleiner is expected to go to court to explain why she is.

“She is definitely indicating that she wants to keep the option of the appeal available,” said Steven Tindall, a partner at Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall. Once she files, “we’ll know the basis for it and have a better sense what chances she has on winning.”

There are a few reasons why I would argue against an appeal.

First, Pao deserves credit for making public her gender discrimination complaint, which is almost always resolved behind closed doors. She shed light on the male-centric field and revealed how some of its practices make it harder for women, or anyone who doesn’t fit a certain mold.

But Pao lost her case in front of a thoughtful jury, which decided she wasn’t discriminated against based on her gender. It was a bracing moment, most likely hard for her to accept. But Pao needs to show she can move on, rather than be the person still trying to burn down Kleiner’s house.

Second, so much of Pao’s case was about the specifics of her situation — a soured romance with a colleague, personality clashes and a high-pressure world where few succeed. It was hard for me, and much of the jury, to see a pattern of discrimination based on gender.

Pao would be mistaken to interpret the outpouring of support she received as something tangible, something that could translate to a favorable verdict with a different set of 12 jurors.

“She certainly surfaced the problem and got the debate going,” said Deborah Rhode, a Stanford law professor. “There’s a little diversity fatigue associated with further litigation.”

Third, since the suit was filed, Pao has emerged as a different kind of Silicon Valley leader. At Reddit, where she is interim CEO, she has updated the online discussion site’s harassment policy and has said the firm would experiment in banning job candidates from negotiating their salaries as a way to even out compensation and avoid favortism.

In a few short months, she has shown she is so much more than a spurned junior partner at Kleiner. A new lawsuit distracts from what she is accomplishing elsewhere, where she is putting her beliefs into practice every day.

Finally, if Pao is to be believed, she took the case all the way to trial, not for the money, but to tell her story. And she has already delivered that message, with a big assist from a largely sympathetic media and public.

The battle was worth it, she said, “if I helped to level the playing field for women and minorities in venture capital.”

Her story was told, and it may have done some good. Reviving the show will not.

Contact Michelle Quinn at 510-394-4196 and mquinn@mercurynews.com. Follow her at Twitter.com/michellequinn.