> 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?
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?
> 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.
> 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.
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?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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?