Ninth law of worker entropy: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}{{a|negotiation|}}Once known as the [[anal paradox]] Otto Büchstein’s theory of {{tag|negotiation}} has since become recognised as the [[JC]]’s [[ninth law of worker entropy]] — a numerical challenge since it well predates the first eight, and indeed forms the basis for one or two of them. {{ninth law of worker entropy}}
{{g}}{{a|negotiation|}}Once known as the [[anal paradox]] Otto Büchstein’s theory of {{tag|negotiation}} has since become recognised as the [[JC]]’s [[ninth law of worker entropy]] — a numerical challenge since it well predates the first eight, and indeed forms the basis for one or two of them. {{ninth law of worker entropy}}
The [[ninth law of worker entropy]] posits that ,as the number of people involved in negotiating a {{tag|contract}} goes up, the contract’s brevity, comprehensibility and utility ''goes down''. Therefore longer a negotiation continues, the more compendious and ''[[tedious]]'' will the fruit of that negotiation — the [[verbiage]], in the vernacular— become, even though its meaningful content will stay constant or, more likely, decline.
Briefly stated, however anal it may be to “[[Adding value|add value]]” through qualifications, clarifications, [[for the avoidance of doubt]]s, [[without limitation]]s and other forensic {{f|celery}}, once these “correctives” have been made it is even ''more'' anal to try to remove them again, seeing as, [[Q.E.D.]], they make no difference to the legal or economic [[substance]] of the agreement either way. So, inevitably, one won’t [[I’m not going to die in a ditch about it|die in a ditch about it]], however appealing by comparison that experience might, to a [[prose stylist]], seem, and the agreement will silt up to the point where its original intent is hard or impossible to make out.


Hiring a dredger is expensive, and since the operating assumption of all [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyers]] is that {{maxim|no-one ever got sued for writing an unintelligible agreement}}<ref>“[[What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with|What the eye don’t understand, the chef gets away with]]”.</ref>, you leave it (perhaps tossing in a [[disclaimer]] for good measure) until one day your {{tag|contract}} nears the [[event horizon]] of intelligibility, beyond which it risks collapsing in on itself, taking you with it, and precipitating the [[boredom heat death]] of the universe.
Hiring a dredger is expensive, and since the operating assumption of all [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyers]] is that {{maxim|no-one ever got sued for writing an unintelligible agreement}}<ref>“[[What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with|What the eye don’t understand, the chef gets away with]]”.</ref>, you leave it (perhaps tossing in a [[disclaimer]] for good measure) until one day your {{tag|contract}} nears the [[event horizon]] of intelligibility, beyond which it risks collapsing in on itself, taking you with it, and precipitating the [[boredom heat death]] of the universe.

Revision as of 16:55, 15 September 2020

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™


Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Negotiation Anatomy™


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Once known as the anal paradox Otto Büchstein’s theory of negotiation has since become recognised as the JC’s ninth law of worker entropy — a numerical challenge since it well predates the first eight, and indeed forms the basis for one or two of them. The JC’s ninth law of worker entropy: As the number of people involved in negotiating a contract goes up, its brevity, comprehensibility and utility goes down. The longer a negotiation continues, the more compendious, and tedious, will be its“fruits” — the verbiage, in the vernacular — even as its meaningful commercial content stay constants (or, more likely, declines to vanishing point).

Hiring a dredger is expensive, and since the operating assumption of all lawyers is that no-one ever got sued for writing an unintelligible agreement[1], you leave it (perhaps tossing in a disclaimer for good measure) until one day your contract nears the event horizon of intelligibility, beyond which it risks collapsing in on itself, taking you with it, and precipitating the boredom heat death of the universe.

It almost happened in 2008, so don’t joke about it.

See also

Plain English Anatomy Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings

References