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