ExpertVoice: A Heads Up

Kevin Mokracek wrote:

Between shipping and sales tax Expert Voice is hardly ever cheaper and sometimes more expensive.   

*Kevin is now banned from EV*

Chris C wrote:

*Kevin is now banned from EV*

It’s just a matter of time now

I don't have anything to hide by not using my full legal name here.
But this seems like a good reason to not have it fully on display?

Astrid Rey wrote:

I don't get it. What does ExpertVoice do?

They collect transaction fees.

SinRopa wrote:

Every single one I’ve signed says the opposite.  Essentially, “now that you’re in the circle, anything you knew prior is covered now too.”

Not saying your experiences aren’t the norm, but I’d actually assume the all encompassing approach is more common.  I mean, otherwise everyone could just claim prior knowledge whenever they wanted to disclose something.

OP’s case is about what they disclosed before they signed the terms, so that’s a little different than what we’re talking about though.

No, that's exactly what I'm talking about. There's always a bit about how disclosing things after they become public knowledge, or things that were public knowledge at the time of signing, or things that I can prove I knew before signing are not covered by the NDA.

The all encompassing approach is not the norm in tech because it's not enforceable. Eventually, your corporate counsel says "change the contract, because I'm sick of charging you so that I can tell you you can't sue for that".

Petsfed 00 wrote:

No, that's exactly what I'm talking about. There's always a bit about how disclosing things after they become public knowledge, or things that were public knowledge at the time of signing, or things that I can prove I knew before signing are not covered by the NDA.

The all encompassing approach is not the norm in tech because it's not enforceable. Eventually, your corporate counsel says "change the contract, because I'm sick of charging you so that I can tell you you can't sue for that".

Since when do lawyers get sick of charging their clients?

Sorry, couldn't pass up the chance to make a lawyer joke ;-)

Kevin you’re my hero

Jeff Luton wrote:

Kevin you’re my hero

Petsfed gets the credit for doing it first. 

Kevin Mokracek wrote:

Between shipping and sales tax Expert Voice is hardly ever cheaper and sometimes more expensive.   

I'll agree to a limited extent.  Highly dependent on how many different group(s) your household qualifies for on their platform, and which brands support those group(s).

SinRopa wrote:

I’m not in tech so I’ll take your word for it.  I’m just saying that’s not the norm across the board.  In some other sectors the all encompassing version is the norm.  For example, there’s tons of stuff that’s public knowledge because of the whole Wikileaks deal, but it’s all still covered by NDAs. 

Same for a lot of NDAs that cover civil settlements.  I personally know of an instance where someone sued a department store for an injury suffered by a staple in a pair of jeans they were trying on.  As part of a broader piece years later, a local reporter dug up some documents that named a settlement figure, and included that info in their story.  The injured party confirmed that figure in a different setting months after the article had been published, and ended up having to forfeit back a chunk of it.

I can sort of see the tortured logic on that second one: it was just hearsay until the person confirmed the amount, ergo their disclosure made it public knowledge. I don't like that precedent, but that's why I'm not a lawyer. I suppose the metric the company uses is "it's not public knowledge until we make a press release" which, again, I don't like.

But the issue at hand is, supposing our hypothetical company has some "proprietary" information that I have good reason to know ahead of time. I work in electronics, so I know a lot about them, let's say the proprietary info is that an electronic sensor uses a specific material to do it's sensing. If I speculate on a forum like this that that is the case before I ever communicate with them, then sign an NDA, then, provided I never revisit the original post, and never say "I was right", then the date stamp on the post and the date stamp on the NDA are my absolute defense.

Of course, Expert Voice probably has a "we can sever our contract for any reason including no reason" clause in their contract. If they do, it actually weakens their position to give a reason. I don't think expert voice issued their contract in bad faith here. I think they're just being dumb, petty, and sloppy.

The comment from years ago thing is total BS. That's like charging somebody for a crime based on something they did before the law was passed making it illegal.

The buying women's gear on a "man's" account has room for nuance. Like somebody else said, buying a men's large and a women's small harness would be pretty obviously not for the same person. But if some brands allow purchasing for friends and family as well, was that the policy of the company you bought a woman's harness from?

Does EV require you to identify as male or female when you sign up? Are there other options, like "choose not to say" or "none of the above"?

I don't own any women's climbing gear but all 3 pairs of my rain pants (bought from regular retail sites) are women's because I'm a small-waisted male centaur with thunder thighs and men's rain pants are apparently made for different diameters of straight sticks. So, I feel you, and I can imagine that if I ever bought a fixed-leg-loop climbing harness (never have, because none of the men's fit both my waist and thighs), I'd probably look at women's. 

I've "heard" of orders getting cancelled/called out when you combine men and womens items of the same category, e.g. mens shoe 11 and womens shoe 8, that's a little more obvious. Definitely questionable if you just had the lone womens harness in your order...

Just in case anyone is interested - my order was just some aid hooks, biners, an ATC Guide, the womens harness, and a pair of half finger gloves. The only other purchase on my account was a Beal rope. I'm not sure if I had to specify a gender/sex when I made my account, but maybe they saw a Large pair of unisex gloves and the Women's S harness and it triggered it? Not sure.

Honestly I got the harness as a cheap backup/training harness as my old one finally bit the dust. I don't necessarily think women's fits me better than men's, but the hip padding is a bit better when I'm hanging weight off of it when hangboarding and if I ever need an extra harness to lend when showing a newbie climbing, I've found the women's harnesses fit a wider range of people (still fit the dudes while also being small enough for the women).