6 ms·

When Matt was asked to clarify what he means by "affiliation", he said: "ask your lawyer" and "I can't answer that for you"

OtomotO 2y ago
If he can't answer such a question, he shouldn't get to ask.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Agreed, and I think this isn't really about whether he personally knows legal jargon, but about whether he had a clear idea WTF he wanted before making brash demands and threats. (Or, much less charitably, the intentional use of vague language in bad faith.)
  - Roscius 2y ago
    contra proferentem - a rule in contract law that states any ambiguity in a contract should be interpreted against the party that drafted it
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If he can't answer such a question, he shouldn't get to ask No? If my employer asks me to clarify my employment agreement, I don't have an obligation to be their armchair counsel.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    That analogy is backwards: You'd be the one asking your employer to clarify the terms they chose and wrote themselves which they are trying to press upon you. It's totally reasonable to ask the party introducing "shall not associate with" into a contract exactly WTF "associating" is supposed to cover.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > You'd be the one asking your employer to clarify the terms they chose and wrote themselves which they are trying to press upon you I’ve made edits to employment agreements. It would be totally inappropriate for the other side to demand legal advice from me. It would be polite for me to clarify. But I’m under no obligation to.
      - Terr_ 2y ago
        It sounds like there's some confusion here between "hard legal obligation to give non-binding external advice" versus "moral and practical obligation to fix the binding wording if they are actually interested in mutual agreement and understanding." I suspect most people asking Mr. Mullenweg "what do you mean by X" are doing so with a subtext or next-step of "now go fix the text to correctly capture what you really meant."
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        I’m reading “he shouldn't get to ask” [1] as distinct from he shouldn’t ask in a hard legal sense. > with a subtext or next-step of "now go fix the text to correctly capture what you really meant" That’s unreasonable. An e-mailed clarification is a reasonable ask. (Adding a clarification is nice. But not a reasonable expectation. Especially from a proven nutjob.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41975496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41975496
      - account42 2y ago
        If you add vague additions in you ammendments and then refuse to clarify when asked about your intentions, potential employers might just decide it's not worth the risk. Same here.
  - eli 2y ago
    If they can't explain the basic intent of the agreement in the first place, I'd be awfully hesitant to sign. Matt was just asked if the spirit of the checkbox was to keep out customers and wouldn't answer. That's not really the same as asking him for legal advice.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If they can't explain the basic intent of the agreement in the first place, I'd be awfully hesitant to sign This is fair.
- bravetraveler 2y ago
  Velcro shoes for everyone
luskira 2y ago
he is legit having a mental breakdown
dwattttt 2y ago
Your lawyer can tell you what, legally, it is allowed to mean. He cannot tell you what Matt means by it. The question stands.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  Right. And these words can have bizarre meaning in legal terms. For instance, in Illinois law the word "shall" does not mean something is mandatory. Most of the time it should be read as simply "may". https://www.isba.org/committees/governmentlawyers/newsletter/2015/06/whentermshalldirectoryillinoissup https://www.isba.org/committees/governmentlawyers/newsletter...
giobox 2y ago
I saw this exchange too and was shocked - it is Matt who has chosen to add this checkbox and chose the wording of the question - if he cannot explain who should or should not check it, or what he means by his own words, how can anyone? His responses to perfectly sensible questions about this ridiculous box has been awful.

OtomotO 2y ago

If he can't answer such a question, he shouldn't get to ask.

Terr_ 2y ago
Agreed, and I think this isn't really about whether he personally knows legal jargon, but about whether he had a clear idea WTF he wanted before making brash demands and threats. (Or, much less charitably, the intentional use of vague language in bad faith.)
- Roscius 2y ago
  contra proferentem - a rule in contract law that states any ambiguity in a contract should be interpreted against the party that drafted it
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If he can't answer such a question, he shouldn't get to ask No? If my employer asks me to clarify my employment agreement, I don't have an obligation to be their armchair counsel.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  That analogy is backwards: You'd be the one asking your employer to clarify the terms they chose and wrote themselves which they are trying to press upon you. It's totally reasonable to ask the party introducing "shall not associate with" into a contract exactly WTF "associating" is supposed to cover.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > You'd be the one asking your employer to clarify the terms they chose and wrote themselves which they are trying to press upon you I’ve made edits to employment agreements. It would be totally inappropriate for the other side to demand legal advice from me. It would be polite for me to clarify. But I’m under no obligation to.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      It sounds like there's some confusion here between "hard legal obligation to give non-binding external advice" versus "moral and practical obligation to fix the binding wording if they are actually interested in mutual agreement and understanding." I suspect most people asking Mr. Mullenweg "what do you mean by X" are doing so with a subtext or next-step of "now go fix the text to correctly capture what you really meant."
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        I’m reading “he shouldn't get to ask” [1] as distinct from he shouldn’t ask in a hard legal sense. > with a subtext or next-step of "now go fix the text to correctly capture what you really meant" That’s unreasonable. An e-mailed clarification is a reasonable ask. (Adding a clarification is nice. But not a reasonable expectation. Especially from a proven nutjob.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41975496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41975496
    - account42 2y ago
      If you add vague additions in you ammendments and then refuse to clarify when asked about your intentions, potential employers might just decide it's not worth the risk. Same here.
- eli 2y ago
  If they can't explain the basic intent of the agreement in the first place, I'd be awfully hesitant to sign. Matt was just asked if the spirit of the checkbox was to keep out customers and wouldn't answer. That's not really the same as asking him for legal advice.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If they can't explain the basic intent of the agreement in the first place, I'd be awfully hesitant to sign This is fair.
bravetraveler 2y ago
Velcro shoes for everyone

luskira 2y ago

he is legit having a mental breakdown

dwattttt 2y ago

Your lawyer can tell you what, legally, it is allowed to mean. He cannot tell you what Matt means by it. The question stands.

qingcharles 2y ago
Right. And these words can have bizarre meaning in legal terms. For instance, in Illinois law the word "shall" does not mean something is mandatory. Most of the time it should be read as simply "may". https://www.isba.org/committees/governmentlawyers/newsletter/2015/06/whentermshalldirectoryillinoissup https://www.isba.org/committees/governmentlawyers/newsletter...

giobox 2y ago

I saw this exchange too and was shocked - it is Matt who has chosen to add this checkbox and chose the wording of the question - if he cannot explain who should or should not check it, or what he means by his own words, how can anyone? His responses to perfectly sensible questions about this ridiculous box has been awful.