8 ms·

I don't agree in the slightest. If anything, developers who ask questions are the ones you want most. One of the worst traits in a developer is the tendency to

I don't agree in the slightest. If anything, developers who ask questions are the ones you want most. One of the worst traits in a developer is the tendency to say yes to everything.

dajohnson89 10y ago
Yeah, but there are thousands of devs who say yes to gigster. That's enough to make money.
- theli0nheart 10y ago
  How do you know? Gigster has raised $10MM+. For a business that actually drives revenue (as opposed to Random Social iOS App), they have quite a long runway even if they lose a few thousand dollars per project.
dqv 10y ago
>If anything, developers who ask questions are the ones you want most. One of the worst traits in a developer is the tendency to say yes to everything. I didn't say that. I said that I disagree with the way he framed his questions.
- theli0nheart 10y ago
  Perhaps I'm missing something. Could you explain how the way he framed his questions was disagreeable to you? From my reading they were perfectly reasonable.
  - dqv 10y ago
    >So gigster can do something really awful and I can't seek damages? The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". The over all tone of the writing is offensive rather than defensive. In other words, the email is not written like he wants questions answered, but rather that he'd like to jump to conclusions. The responses to his inquiries leave much to be desired as well.
    - theli0nheart 10y ago
      What he wrote was a statement of fact, not of opinion. Gigster can in fact do something really awful and there is no recourse. In any contract negotiation, sometimes you need to be clear what the problem is. If you, as a party to a contract, indeed feel like there is zero chance that other party will do anything to injure you, will keep to their promises, and has your best interests at heart, what is the point of the contract in the first place?
      - dqv 10y ago
        There is an appropriate way to be clear on what the problem is and an inappropriate way to be clear on what the problem is. My initial point is that he did not raise his objections in an appropriate way. I completely understand why he objected and I would have objected as well, but I would have done so in a more appropriate way.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        Why is there any onus on him to conduct himself in any kind of appropiate manner if the contract sent to him was in turn wildly appropiate (and not even accompanied by a polite set of words)?
        dqv 10y ago
        There isn't. He didn't have to respond at all. However, he expressed, through his language, an unwillingness to negotiate the contract. That's why he ended up not negotiating the contract. It's also why when people address me or my employer the way he did, I just don't engage at all.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        Oh, so not only would you be impolite enough to send such a contract, when questioned on it you would also be so embarrassingly impolite to not even answer that you stand by your previous insult. Gotcha.
logfromblammo 10y ago
Besides that, you're endangering the contractness of your contract if the other party cannot negotiate any of its terms, and indicates any confusion over just what it is he or she may be agreeing to--especially if they express their confusion in a document that can later be produced in court. If I were to sign that "contract", I would certainly send the other party a written "signing statement" that interprets all possibly ambiguous clauses in my favor, and mentions that I received no valuable consideration for signing it. If you can't tell me what the contract means, I'll tell you what I thought it meant, and that will be what you can enforce. If you won't pay a lawyer to answer my questions before the fact, you can certainly pay one to determine the implications of my letter for you after the fact. If I were a judge (and I'm not even a lawyer, but I can still role-play), refusing to even answer questions about the contract demonstrates a lack of equity, and I'd take that as potential grounds to dismiss any claims against the person who asked them, that may have been based upon the document they signed, which they were completely unable to negotiate, and likely received no valuable consideration for. If someone asks, "does this mean you can claim ownership over X?", you don't answer definitively, and then you later claim in court that you own X, that's bullshit, pure and simple. If the other party did not understand that to be the case at the time they signed, it is unenforceable. If I were the defendant, I think I would also try to paint that refusal as an unwillingness to pay for some professional legal counsel at an appropriate time, rather than asking a judge to clean up their mess long after the fact. Everyone hates it when they get snubbed by someone, and then that person later comes asking for a favor. Referring legal questions to legal counsel is simply a cost of doing business. If you can't pay that cost, and try to shift it to the public legal system, how do you justify the rest of your business?
- danielweber 10y ago
  > mentions that I received no valuable consideration for signing it Them hiring you counts as consideration.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Did I get a retainer or a signing bonus? I have been an "at will" employee for too long to believe that acquiring that status with anyone is worth anything at all. I was once "hired" by TekSystems in Madison, Wisconsin, to work at American Family Insurance. I filled out all the paperwork, got the coffee mug and pen, and was ready to go. Then, the Sunday evening before going to work, I got a call.... Don't bother showing up tomorrow. So the next day, instead of starting a new job, I called up my American Family Insurance agent and cancelled my policies. That wasn't even the first time that I was "hired" by a company and then never actually got any work assignments or pay from them. "Hiring" doesn't mean jack squat. It just means that the company has decided that it may, in the future, offer you a work assignment without requiring additional contract negotiations, pay you for it, and then report your tax info on a W-2 instead of a 1099. The essential relationship is the exchange of labor for pay. Anything I can do as an employee, I can also do as an independent contractor, and any "employment benefit" can be exchanged for an adjustment in the contract rate. So what is the "hiring" part worth? $0. It is the height of arrogance to think that being able to say "I am an employee at Company X" is worth more than one square of low-grade single-ply toilet paper. And it is the height of stupidity to claim that you have to be an employee to exchange labor for cash.

I don't agree in the slightest. If anything, developers who ask questions are the ones you want most. One of the worst traits in a developer is the tendency to say yes to everything.

dajohnson89 10y ago

Yeah, but there are thousands of devs who say yes to gigster. That's enough to make money.

theli0nheart 10y ago
How do you know? Gigster has raised $10MM+. For a business that actually drives revenue (as opposed to Random Social iOS App), they have quite a long runway even if they lose a few thousand dollars per project.

dqv 10y ago

>If anything, developers who ask questions are the ones you want most. One of the worst traits in a developer is the tendency to say yes to everything. I didn't say that. I said that I disagree with the way he framed his questions.

theli0nheart 10y ago
Perhaps I'm missing something. Could you explain how the way he framed his questions was disagreeable to you? From my reading they were perfectly reasonable.
- dqv 10y ago
  >So gigster can do something really awful and I can't seek damages? The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". The over all tone of the writing is offensive rather than defensive. In other words, the email is not written like he wants questions answered, but rather that he'd like to jump to conclusions. The responses to his inquiries leave much to be desired as well.
  - theli0nheart 10y ago
    What he wrote was a statement of fact, not of opinion. Gigster can in fact do something really awful and there is no recourse. In any contract negotiation, sometimes you need to be clear what the problem is. If you, as a party to a contract, indeed feel like there is zero chance that other party will do anything to injure you, will keep to their promises, and has your best interests at heart, what is the point of the contract in the first place?
    - dqv 10y ago
      There is an appropriate way to be clear on what the problem is and an inappropriate way to be clear on what the problem is. My initial point is that he did not raise his objections in an appropriate way. I completely understand why he objected and I would have objected as well, but I would have done so in a more appropriate way.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        Why is there any onus on him to conduct himself in any kind of appropiate manner if the contract sent to him was in turn wildly appropiate (and not even accompanied by a polite set of words)?
        dqv 10y ago
        There isn't. He didn't have to respond at all. However, he expressed, through his language, an unwillingness to negotiate the contract. That's why he ended up not negotiating the contract. It's also why when people address me or my employer the way he did, I just don't engage at all.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        Oh, so not only would you be impolite enough to send such a contract, when questioned on it you would also be so embarrassingly impolite to not even answer that you stand by your previous insult. Gotcha.

logfromblammo 10y ago

Besides that, you're endangering the contractness of your contract if the other party cannot negotiate any of its terms, and indicates any confusion over just what it is he or she may be agreeing to--especially if they express their confusion in a document that can later be produced in court. If I were to sign that "contract", I would certainly send the other party a written "signing statement" that interprets all possibly ambiguous clauses in my favor, and mentions that I received no valuable consideration for signing it. If you can't tell me what the contract means, I'll tell you what I thought it meant, and that will be what you can enforce. If you won't pay a lawyer to answer my questions before the fact, you can certainly pay one to determine the implications of my letter for you after the fact. If I were a judge (and I'm not even a lawyer, but I can still role-play), refusing to even answer questions about the contract demonstrates a lack of equity, and I'd take that as potential grounds to dismiss any claims against the person who asked them, that may have been based upon the document they signed, which they were completely unable to negotiate, and likely received no valuable consideration for. If someone asks, "does this mean you can claim ownership over X?", you don't answer definitively, and then you later claim in court that you own X, that's bullshit, pure and simple. If the other party did not understand that to be the case at the time they signed, it is unenforceable. If I were the defendant, I think I would also try to paint that refusal as an unwillingness to pay for some professional legal counsel at an appropriate time, rather than asking a judge to clean up their mess long after the fact. Everyone hates it when they get snubbed by someone, and then that person later comes asking for a favor. Referring legal questions to legal counsel is simply a cost of doing business. If you can't pay that cost, and try to shift it to the public legal system, how do you justify the rest of your business?

danielweber 10y ago
> mentions that I received no valuable consideration for signing it Them hiring you counts as consideration.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Did I get a retainer or a signing bonus? I have been an "at will" employee for too long to believe that acquiring that status with anyone is worth anything at all. I was once "hired" by TekSystems in Madison, Wisconsin, to work at American Family Insurance. I filled out all the paperwork, got the coffee mug and pen, and was ready to go. Then, the Sunday evening before going to work, I got a call.... Don't bother showing up tomorrow. So the next day, instead of starting a new job, I called up my American Family Insurance agent and cancelled my policies. That wasn't even the first time that I was "hired" by a company and then never actually got any work assignments or pay from them. "Hiring" doesn't mean jack squat. It just means that the company has decided that it may, in the future, offer you a work assignment without requiring additional contract negotiations, pay you for it, and then report your tax info on a W-2 instead of a 1099. The essential relationship is the exchange of labor for pay. Anything I can do as an employee, I can also do as an independent contractor, and any "employment benefit" can be exchanged for an adjustment in the contract rate. So what is the "hiring" part worth? $0. It is the height of arrogance to think that being able to say "I am an employee at Company X" is worth more than one square of low-grade single-ply toilet paper. And it is the height of stupidity to claim that you have to be an employee to exchange labor for cash.