Perhaps I'm missing something. Could you explain how the way he framed his questions was disagreeable to you? From my reading they were perfectly reasonable.
The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful".
The over all tone of the writing is offensive rather than defensive. In other words, the email is not written like he wants questions answered, but rather that he'd like to jump to conclusions.
The responses to his inquiries leave much to be desired as well.
I completely understand why he objected and I would have objected as well, but I would have done so in a more appropriate way.
It's also why when people address me or my employer the way he did, I just don't engage at all.
(2) Again, as I said before, I don't agree with those terms. That doesn't mean I'd be an ass hole about it. To my benefit, I'd politely negotiate and have a much higher likelihood of negotiating the contract to my liking.
(3) If someone posed the same concerns to me in a polite and professional manner, I would go out of my way to correct the contract (hey boss person, this contract might be bad for developers!). On the other hand, if someone is an ass hole, they're going to an "ass hole" response.
Try it. Try being polite in a situation where you'd like to be an ass hole. You're going to be surprised at the end result.
Edit: wording
That's a completely bullshit attack and putting words into his mouth. Gigster has the potentional to possibly to do something awful in the future due to being a company made of different people, with there being no guarantee that the people you're talking to one day are still there the next. And trust is only possible between mutual human beings, not between one human and an amorphous ever-changing conglomerate of humans.
He made things into a me vs you situation when. Had he formed his objections, those two individuals responding to his inquiries probably would have made an actual effort to resolve the issues.
This is not a simple fact. It is a truth.
> He made things into a me vs you situation
No. They did. By not including the mirror of that clause indemnifying him against them, the contract was the first to state "you could do awful things", so they have no standing whatsoever to complain about anything.
Also note: If the company opens with an attack, and when called upon it doesn't apologize and fix, then that points to maaaaaaany other problems in the company and getting it fixed is a minor priority. It is in fact only a proxy towards figuring out if the company as it is, is deserving of any kind of trust.
e: I'd also like to point you towards this: http://stimmyabby.tumblr.com/post/115216522824/sometimes-peo...
""
Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”
and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”
and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.
""
My response to you: "You're being overly aggressive with your attacks. That's not nice. You could have asked a question if you had one, but you're not even asking me a question, this is just an aggressive rethorical question. It's clear that you don't even want clarification. That's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to negotiate a contract"
Would that make any sense to you?
In what other context does it make sense to talk about the right to sue someone other than "doing something awful"? These are not the rules for the office's Secret Santa, this is a legal contract which details what would happen precisely if either party "does something awful"
People don't sue each other because they think they are doing wonderful things, they sue them when they think they've done "something awful".