3 ms·

I don't see binding arbitration as a bad thing as long as both parties are allowed to agree on an arbiter (I may have missed something, but I imagine that's alw

by chjj 12y ago

I don't see binding arbitration as a bad thing as long as both parties are allowed to agree on an arbiter (I may have missed something, but I imagine that's always the case, and also the case here(?). ...Hell, maybe you could end up on Judge Judy). I hate to say it, but HipChat is really flawed (IRC, please). Slack is far superior technically. I'd still pick Slack. People may be blowing this out of proportion.

SEMW 12y ago
If both sides can agree on an arbitrator, you don't need to have anything be binding, they can just agree to arbitration. Binding arbitration clauses that just say both sides have to agree on an arbitrator aren't really a thing. That would be an 'agreement to agree' which in some jurisdictions is even void, because it's impossible to sue anyone over a breach of it. (Whose breach is it when two parties couldn't agree an arbitrator? Well, both, and neither). So binding arbitration clauses either specify an arbitrator in the contract or allow one of the parties (guess which) to choose at runtime. The slack one is the former, it specifies one called 'JAMS ADR'.
mark212 12y ago
you have to do it with JAMS according to the TOS and the list of arbitrators with JAMS is finite. You can go off-list if both parties agree, but that doesn't happen absent significant experience between counsel for both sides. The JAMS folks in SF Bay Area is not at all pro-consumer, btw.
timv 12y ago
People may be blowing this out of proportion. No they're not. While I don't care about this change (I'm not based in the US, so we were never going to be in a position to take slack to court), changing TOS to suit the drafter and offering no options, no ability to get to your data and no time for your customers to properly review the changes is a bullsh*t move and they deserve to be called on it.

3 ms·

I don't see binding arbitration as a bad thing as long as both parties are allowed to agree on an arbiter (I may have missed something, but I imagine that's alw

by chjj 12y ago

SEMW 12y ago
If both sides can agree on an arbitrator, you don't need to have anything be binding, they can just agree to arbitration. Binding arbitration clauses that just say both sides have to agree on an arbitrator aren't really a thing. That would be an 'agreement to agree' which in some jurisdictions is even void, because it's impossible to sue anyone over a breach of it. (Whose breach is it when two parties couldn't agree an arbitrator? Well, both, and neither). So binding arbitration clauses either specify an arbitrator in the contract or allow one of the parties (guess which) to choose at runtime. The slack one is the former, it specifies one called 'JAMS ADR'.
mark212 12y ago
you have to do it with JAMS according to the TOS and the list of arbitrators with JAMS is finite. You can go off-list if both parties agree, but that doesn't happen absent significant experience between counsel for both sides. The JAMS folks in SF Bay Area is not at all pro-consumer, btw.
timv 12y ago
People may be blowing this out of proportion. No they're not. While I don't care about this change (I'm not based in the US, so we were never going to be in a position to take slack to court), changing TOS to suit the drafter and offering no options, no ability to get to your data and no time for your customers to properly review the changes is a bullsh*t move and they deserve to be called on it.