[BinaryIdiot]

I mean, what would you like them to do? They're aware of it (and this thread obviously shined a brighter light on it) and are going to go over it with their lawyers. Isn't that reasonable? Contract changes don't exactly come quickly especially with expensive lawyers involved.

I'm just not sure what you would like them to do about it right now.

[adekok]

> I'm just not sure what you would like them to do about it right now.

The point is that when the contractor asked for changes, he got told to go stuff himself. It's only when there's larger publicity that they suggested the contract can change.

And, TBH, it's ridiculous to construe my argument as they have to change right now.

They were asked to change, and they refused. That's a problem. What part of that do you not understand?

[BinaryIdiot]

I fail to see how I did anything to your argument. The original poster showed the email, the founder responded saying they're going to review the contracts because what's in there is not their intent, figure it out and then add a FAQ. You replied to the founder with a simple regurgitation of the issue and nothing more. The issue the founder just said they will be addressing in the comment you replied to.

So I wasn't sure what you wanted your comment to accomplish. Sounded like it wasn't fast enough but if that's not the case what do you actually want from this conversation with the founder? Do you want him to apologize to you? Do you want them to issue a public apology? What was your goal to avoid me from construing your argument any further?

[hluska]

You seem to be so focused on making your point that you have stopped reading the comments you are replying to.

At no point did the parent say that Gigster had to change right now. Rather, the parent made some reasonable points:

A.) Smart developers would not sign shitty contracts.

B.) When a smart developer asked questions about the contract, his questions were flat out ignored.

C.) Now that there is an outcry, the founder claims he will 'review' the contract.

If the founder had gotten involved in the support case, the response would be reasonable. Now, it stinks of a founder doing damage control.

[BinaryIdiot]

> You seem to be so focused on making your point that you have stopped reading the comments you are replying to.

I disagree and felt I had already made my point and was attempting to clarify. But that's okay. Maybe I didn't convey it well enough?

I find emoting and conveying discussion points over a forum style doesn't always carry what my intent is and sometimes comes off wrong. Thanks for the feedback.

[adekok]

> At no point did the parent say that Gigster had to change right now

BinaryIdiot seems to be implying that I asked for Gigster to change right now.

And then there's this bizarre comment by him:

> > what do you actually want from this conversation with the founder?

I could similarly ask him what he wants from engaging with me.

> > Do you want him to apologize to you? Do you want them to issue a public apology

That's a telling level of projection. He's entirely unable to read English text as written.

Instead, he's like the 1950's fuddy-duddy who sees a picture of two people hugging, and immediately concludes that they're about to go fornicate as unmarried adults.

[snmartin]

I think his point was: this thread made it clear that Gigster was being sketchy. The founder realized this and promised he'd fix it. Other than "go back in time and change their past policy" it seems like they're reacting to this situation in a reasonable way. No one disagrees that the original interaction was bad, but is it productive to keep harping on that when the founder seems to be making a good-faith effort to make it right?

[BinaryIdiot]

This is exactly what I was attempting to convey. Re-reading the thread it still looks as if I accomplished that but based on the downvotes and confusion I'm guessing I didn't.

Oh well I guess.

[BinaryIdiot]

> BinaryIdiot seems to be implying that I asked for Gigster to change right now.

I covered this here:

> So I wasn't sure what you wanted your comment to accomplish. Sounded like it wasn't fast enough but if that's not the case what do you actually want from this conversation with the founder? Do you want him to apologize to you? Do you want them to issue a public apology? What was your goal to avoid me from construing your argument any further?

> I could similarly ask him what he wants from engaging with me.

I was seeking an understanding of your comment and what you wanted to accomplish. From my point of view it appeared that the founder responded to the issue in the best way they legally could and then you just repeated the issue at him. Seemed less useful, more "I just want to be angry at you". hence why I asked.

HN is a community in which many interact with one another to seek better understanding, discussion around a topic, etc.

[adekok]

> I was seeking an understanding of your comment and what you wanted to accomplish. From my point of view it appeared that the founder responded to the issue in the best way they legally could

If that was true, the contractor would have been able to get the contract updated when he originally requested. And the original article wouldn't have been written.

> and then you just repeated the issue at him

I didn't "just" repeat the issue at him. Again, your inability to read text as written is showing.

I added an illustrative story from my own experience to show why such negotiations (even if addressed later due to larger publicity) come across as being in bad faith. As I saw in my story, as we saw in this case.

And then you went off the deep end with various accusations and projections.

It just came across badly.

[x1798DE]

Honestly, it seems like they're doing the right thing now, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if the answer to this is, "They shouldn't have put it there in the first place."

Yes, it's probably some stock-standard boilerplate contract, but if companies can write contracts that contractors accept only on the assumption that they'll never be enforced, then when someone calls them out for it, they get to say, "Oh, people hate this? We'll change it (now).", what gives people the incentive to start with reasonble terms.

[BinaryIdiot]

> it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if the answer to this is, "They shouldn't have put it there in the first place."

Maybe? If you say a clause shouldn't be in there couldn't a lawyer immediately take you to court and get the document invalidated?

I wouldn't rush to saying anything about the contract IMO.

> Yes, it's probably some stock-standard boilerplate contract, but if companies can write contracts that contractors accept only on the assumption that they'll never be enforced, then when someone calls them out for it, they get to say, "Oh, people hate this? We'll change it (now).", what gives people the incentive to start with reasonble terms.

Gigster is a YC company so "move fast, break things" etc. They probably went with what was the fastest / cheapest at the time, no one had an issue with it and it was never brought up.

[x1798DE]

My point was that there's not always something to be done "now", and sometimes when you "break things" it, shockingly, has negative consequences that forward-looking changes can't necessarily undo.