5 ms·
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.
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoThere 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 agoWhy 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 agoThere 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 agoOh, 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.
- dqv 10y ago(1) it's possible that they didn't know the language could be used to hurt someone in that way. You won't give them the benefit of the doubt and instead would rather give that benefit to the person who was actually impolite. (2) Again, as I said before, I don't agree with those terms. That doesn't mean I'd be an ass hole about it. To my benefit, I'd politely negotiate and have a much higher likelihood of negotiating the contract to my liking. (3) If someone posed the same concerns to me in a polite and professional manner, I would go out of my way to correct the contract (hey boss person, this contract might be bad for developers!). On the other hand, if someone is an ass hole, they're going to an "ass hole" response. Try it. Try being polite in a situation where you'd like to be an ass hole. You're going to be surprised at the end result. Edit: wording
- Cyberspy 10y agoSo, what wording would you have used?
- Mithaldu 10y ago> The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". That's a completely bullshit attack and putting words into his mouth. Gigster has the potentional to possibly to do something awful in the future due to being a company made of different people, with there being no guarantee that the people you're talking to one day are still there the next. And trust is only possible between mutual human beings, not between one human and an amorphous ever-changing conglomerate of humans.
- dqv 10y agoI'm not putting words in his mouth. He postured his question to be rhetorical. It's not even really a question at all. It doesn't seek clarification. It seeks a specific response: to get that person to admit to something they might not feel is true (that the company is awful or can do awful things). It's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to attempt to negotiate a contract. He made things into a me vs you situation when. Had he formed his objections, those two individuals responding to his inquiries probably would have made an actual effort to resolve the issues.
- Mithaldu 10y agoThe company can do awful things. This is not a simple fact. It is a truth. > He made things into a me vs you situation No. They did. By not including the mirror of that clause indemnifying him against them, the contract was the first to state "you could do awful things", so they have no standing whatsoever to complain about anything.
- ghurtado 10y ago> The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". In what other context does it make sense to talk about the right to sue someone other than "doing something awful"? These are not the rules for the office's Secret Santa, this is a legal contract which details what would happen precisely if either party "does something awful" People don't sue each other because they think they are doing wonderful things, they sue them when they think they've done "something awful".
- solidsnack9000 10y agoHow should he have asked that question?