On the one hand Fee Fighters is fighting the "noble" fight, but they lose points for being so ideological.
BBB is a business and their terms are well known. Fee Fighters knew them and was required to abide by them and chose not to.
I do like that Fee Fighters is bringing this issue to bear. I'm personally not a fan of BBB. Pay to play doesn't seem like the incentives are aligned correctly. That and I can't afford their accreditation process for my business.
It's in the letter, which is in the post. You may not agree that those terms are good, but Fee Fighters agreed to them, and BBB is stating that they weren't followed. I doubt FF cares about fighting back in courts, so it will never really be settled whether they did or not.
Nobody here cares about "codes of conduct" that require members of organizations not to say mean things about those organizations, so this whole argument is a dead end and I strongly recommend we all not try to hash it out.
Nobody cares about the BBB code of conduct.
Quick guess: more than 3/4 of HN would agree that "codes of conduct" are harmful --- not just "not binding" but "harmful and evil --- that require members not rat out organizations as scams.
I actually quite agree that the BBB code of conduct is harmful. I'm not trying to argue for the code of conduct.
What bothers me about the article is that Fee Fighters is arguing from the point of a victim. Yes BBB has a harmful code of conduct, but Fee Fighters had a chance to review it and signed up for that.
> Nobody cares about the BBB code of conduct.
I don't understand this comment? This article is about how Fee Fighters lost their accreditation due to the BBB code of conduct? I think Fee Fighters cares about the BBB code of conduct. Many people who have upvoted this post and downvoted my original comment care one way or another I believe.
FeeFighters isn't arguing that they're a victim. They're arguing that they're the good guys, as evidenced by how obviously BBB is acting like the bad guys.
You're missing the fact that FeeFighters thinks BBB accreditation is laughable. They didn't write this post because a cosmic injustice was done to them. They already felt like the BBB was a cosmic injustice, even when they were accredited. They're gleeful that BBB is so willing to play the villain, and absolutely are willing to twist the knife into BBB's self inflicted PR wound.
If you're getting downvoted (I didn't), it's probably because you're missing the subtext. The BBB is worthy of mockery; this post mocks it; you seem surprised... why would anyone mock the BBB? Click click downvote.
>What bothers me about the article is that Fee Fighters is arguing from the point of a victim. Yes BBB has a harmful code of conduct, but Fee Fighters had a chance to review it and signed up for that.
The thing is, every agreement written by a lawyer has some overly broad "I can screw you" clauses. Heck, this one doesn't even read that badly. I mean, it sounds like they are reserving the right to stop people from associating the BBB with broadly offensive causes. I mean, if you are supplying the KKK with robes, I'd rather you not have my logo on your website. That seems pretty reasonable. If you turn around and then use that clause against someone who is legitimately criticizing you, you are a scumbag and should be called out on it.
BBB is a business and their terms are well known. Fee Fighters knew them and was required to abide by them and chose not to.
I do like that Fee Fighters is bringing this issue to bear. I'm personally not a fan of BBB. Pay to play doesn't seem like the incentives are aligned correctly. That and I can't afford their accreditation process for my business.