4 ms·

> For example, I wouldn't say I'm "financially affiliated" with GitHub/Microsoft it says "financially or otherwise". I'd say the wise thing to do is to delete

> For example, I wouldn't say I'm "financially affiliated" with GitHub/Microsoft it says "financially or otherwise". I'd say the wise thing to do is to delete your account if you have one (I just deleted mine). The only people who are going to benefit from this farce are the lawyers, users are irrelevant right now. Edit: when I say "users are irrelevant" I mean specifically the .org ones. At least some of the .com ones are paying customers so I think that's a different situation.

diggan 2y ago
> it says "financially or otherwise". So to be 100% clear, it says this (verbatim): > I am not affiliated with WP Engine in any way, financially or otherwise. So "affiliated" is used for "any way", "financially" and "otherwise". Not "financially affiliated, or otherwise". It seems pretty clear to me that it's for people that have an actual two-way relationship somehow to WP Engine, not customers, as you don't say you're "affiliated" with someone just because you're a user/customer.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  "I am not affiliated in any way, financially or otherwise" expands to "I am not affiliated in any way financially or affiliated in any way otherwise [than financially]. Such an general affiliation could include having a friend who works at WPEngine, being a customer of WPEngine, and many other possibilities. Several wordpress community members have asked for clarity here, and been banned for asking. Matt refuses to provide clarity, apparently because he prefers people to be afraid of having any connection at all to WPEngine. That is why the article mentions a lawyer: Matt's response to questions is that the questioners should hire a lawyer to figure out what Matt's own wording means. That sounds like a bad faith response to me. > you don't say you're "affiliated" with someone just because you're a user/customer A customer affiliation is included in "affiliated in any way", and constitutes a financial affiliation, too. If Matt didn't want people to interpret the checkbox in this way, he should have picked more specific wording and/or answered questions with something better than 'hire a lawyer'.
  - morpheuskafka 2y ago
    > Matt's response to questions is that the questioners should hire a lawyer to figure out what Matt's own wording means. Isn't the general rule that uncertainty in a contract is construed against the drafter? If you're deliberately refusing to clarify your own contract that seems like it could jeopardize the ability to enforce it at all.

diggan 2y ago

> it says "financially or otherwise". So to be 100% clear, it says this (verbatim): > I am not affiliated with WP Engine in any way, financially or otherwise. So "affiliated" is used for "any way", "financially" and "otherwise". Not "financially affiliated, or otherwise". It seems pretty clear to me that it's for people that have an actual two-way relationship somehow to WP Engine, not customers, as you don't say you're "affiliated" with someone just because you're a user/customer.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
"I am not affiliated in any way, financially or otherwise" expands to "I am not affiliated in any way financially or affiliated in any way otherwise [than financially]. Such an general affiliation could include having a friend who works at WPEngine, being a customer of WPEngine, and many other possibilities. Several wordpress community members have asked for clarity here, and been banned for asking. Matt refuses to provide clarity, apparently because he prefers people to be afraid of having any connection at all to WPEngine. That is why the article mentions a lawyer: Matt's response to questions is that the questioners should hire a lawyer to figure out what Matt's own wording means. That sounds like a bad faith response to me. > you don't say you're "affiliated" with someone just because you're a user/customer A customer affiliation is included in "affiliated in any way", and constitutes a financial affiliation, too. If Matt didn't want people to interpret the checkbox in this way, he should have picked more specific wording and/or answered questions with something better than 'hire a lawyer'.
- morpheuskafka 2y ago
  > Matt's response to questions is that the questioners should hire a lawyer to figure out what Matt's own wording means. Isn't the general rule that uncertainty in a contract is construed against the drafter? If you're deliberately refusing to clarify your own contract that seems like it could jeopardize the ability to enforce it at all.