3 ms·

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

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