Online Negotiation 101

Here are some pro tips for getting something you want from someone that you only know in cyberspace.

1. Open the negotiation by greeting the other person: “Dear Stupid,”
2. Always show good faith by referring to the other person by enclosing their name in quotes (i.e., Hello, “Constant Reader.” May I call you “Constant?”)
3. Make claims as fact that can easily be refuted by your own words or actions.
4. Refer to your objective as a need rather than a want. Coming to the table and letting the other person know they have all the power is key to winning the negotiation.
5. Never let the other party know how the deal is a win-win; only make clear the negative consequences of not making a deal. Nothing is more attractive in a deal than telling the person who has a big piece of cake that you’re going to throw rocks at his dog until he shares the cake.
6. Always set deadlines! Letting the other person know that the axis of the world runs through the top of your head is a clear message that this is a negotiation between equals, an exchange of value for value.
7. When attempting to renegotiate a deal where you have previously failed to achieve your goal, always stake out the same position, giving away nothing, and offer no concessions. This is the artistry of compromise that always leads to a winning deal for both parties!
8. Finally, tweet stuff like this to show your pure heart and obvious good faith:



Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man's Zombie

36 thoughts on “Online Negotiation 101”

  1. don't think you have much to worry about Paul, Twinkie as usual, is full of shit.

      1. some how i got two different names posting here..feel free to delete the other one..

  2. he's so full of shit I'm surprised it doesn't float him out of his trailer daily...

  3. You make the fundamental mistake of thinking this is a "negotiation," "Paul." It's not. You either present proof that you sold the rights to the book, or you are an accessory to fraud. "Negotiating" implies that I am going to give you something. I'm not.

    It really IS that simple. Produce proof of selling the rights, or you have trouble with me (no big deal, really,) and Amazon... a much bigger deal. Monday morning. 9am ET.

    1. Cabin Boy, you keep making up noneexistant "law". That is why you are a clown and ridiculed.

      Your faux deadlines are the part that is the most ribsplitting.

      1. Well gee whiz there, "Paul". You make perpetrating a fraud against a major publishing house sound so clinical. I will just assume then, if it's OK with you, that absent any proof whatsoever that Hoge "purchased" the rights to your blog, that the whole thing is a lie and is meant to interfere with my rights to publish a book, transact business, and raise money for a worthwhile organization for no other reason than you and Hoge "want to." Such is your unjustified - and baffling - hatred for me, that you would risk being part of a blatant fraud.

        If there is no written agreement, there is no transfer of rights. If there is no transfer of rights, the Hoge lied to a major corporation that makes money off of the selling of books and other products.

        Remember. You lickspittles are the ones who believe in your souls that I "harassed" a dead baby for a year. I don't call it harassment. I call it "tenacity" and "the willingness to do anything to get to the bottom of a story."

        If you seriously believe I am going to just walk away from you taking money from the National Parkinson Foundation. you are horribly misinformed.

        Now quick, toad. Hop to your master and tell him what I said. Satan is waiting for his report.

        Enjoy your Sunday, liar.

      2. When you started making it up. Paul owes you nothing, blowhard. There is no law that "demands" he provide you with crapola. Your "countdown" clocks are an internet joke. And everybody knows your threats are as empty as your over-sized head.

        But please, continue to embarrass yourself.

    2. Bill you're an idiot. If you would learn & accept this, your life would be much easier.

    3. Okay. I see your point. Let me explain my position to you.

      John Hoge and I have something you want. We have an agreement to exchange value for value: my copyright of a blog post for a sum of money, and something else. You can't contact John, so I seem to be the only option you have.

      You seem to think that the way to get what YOU want is to threaten (sorry...PROMISE, I know you don't ever make threats) me something I don't want. You promise big trouble for me. "Accessory to fraud."

      In taking this position, you assume one thing - that I fear such an accusation - and you imply another - that a fraud has been perpetrated. I reject your assumption because I deny your implication.

      I don't believe any fraud has been committed. You keep saying so, but you offer no evidence. Even a small amount of credible evidence could provide quite an incentive to change my mind in this matter. I don't think you have any evidence for two reasons: first, you have a long and illustrious history of making such claims without being able to back them up, and second, I know what happened, and you don't.

      You believe you have this huge consequence you can hang over my head; I don't agree. That consequence does not scare me, and is far from likely to move me to provide you that which you seek.

      My understanding of Amazon's and Createspace's copyright conflict policies is that they don't get involved; they simply remove the disputed work to eliminate their liability, and leave the conflict to be resolved by the parties involved. Neither Amazon nor Createspace care what documents you can or cannot provide. They don't need anything. They care if you and the copyright owner work out the conflict. John Hoge owns the relevant rights. I know it because I sold them to him. Whether you believe that, or possess the proof of the transaction is 100% irrelevant.

      I'm in line for zero trouble from either Amazon or Createspace. The only possible trouble I can get into will come from you.

      In the comment I accidentally deleted from the previous post, I recall you mentioning subpoenas, and that it wasn't a good idea to cross you, and that I should ask anyone.

      Well, I did. I've checked with several people on Twitter today, and without exception, we all feel that the chance of a subpoena coming from you, particularly in light of recent events, to be something less than microscopic.

      So, to sum up: you should be prepared at 9 AM ET on Monday, to do the same thing you did at
      8 PM ET last Wednesday.

      Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zero.

      Because that's how much power you have to influence me, and that is also what I am going give you.

      That is how simple it is.

        1. You are making one enormous and incorrect assumption. And as usual, it's going to bite you right where you sit.

          Like the song says, it's 5 o'clock somewhere, so why don't you take your deadline, stick it back in the hole you pulled it out of, and do what you gotta do.

        2. I will do what I have to do. And, unless you have a signed document assigning rights to Hoge, do not contact me again. Responding to this comment will constitute "contact." Do not contact me again.

        3. You realize you are welcome here only as long as I tolerate you? You are a visitor in my space, and if you do not wish to be addressed with honesty and/or candor, you are free to leave and not return. If you feel unwelcome, go home.

          If you persist, the pwnage will only continue

          Your call.

        4. Honesty. More hypocrisy, young Anakin?

          Did you sell your rights to Hoge, what form did this take, was it just two fellas tweeting to each other or were papers signed? If papers were signed, I have the right as the party affected to inspect them for validity.

          The thing I'm having trouble making folks like you understand, "Paul", is that you have every right in the world to hate me. Hate me as much as you want. Write horrible, terrible things about me, short of actual libel (which your blog is guilty of, libeling my wife and myself by name).

          But your right to hate me ends at the border of fucking with my stuff. You, sir, have fucked with my stuff.

          So, I will ask you politely to provide me with the information that will prove you sold your rights to Mr. Hoge. It is not an unreasonable request.

          If you choose to disregard this very reasonable request, you bear partial responsibility for whatever happens next.

          Be well.

      1. So if I buy a car from Bob next door, I have to let you scrutinize the Bill of Sale because you also drive on the roads?

      2. Wow. We have no right to comment on his stuff, even though he, by his own admission, talks about us in it.

        He can come here and complain about what people say about him, but he would deny us that right.

        He really does believe that he has more rights than anyone else in the world. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

      3. " If papers were signed, I have the right as the party being affected to inspect them for validity."

        The only reason you are "affected" is because you stole the entire post. You have NO RIGHT to any information from that transaction. NONE.

        Where did you learn law? The same place you learned "journalism"?

      4. Oh, Bill.

        Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill.

        What AM I going to do with you?

        What happened to "do not contact me?"

        Now it's "please follow on Twitter so I can politely ask you an important question?"

        You've already proven your willingness to be impolite; it seems to be your default mode. You have also demonstrated that your politeness is that of a toddler, and at the first sign things won't go your way it vanishes.

        Let it be said by no one that I am unwilling to give someone a second, fifth, even a tenth chance at redemption. But even a reasonable man has limits.

        Anything polite and important you have to say, you can say right here.

      5. Thinking that a reply to a comment on your own blog is "contact" that he can prohibit is the most ridiculous thing I've seen Cabin Boy claim. (And then minutes later demanding you follow him so he can DM you on Twitter is the kind of utter incompetence that is Cabin Boy's signature).

        Actually, that's a lie. Its not the most ridiculous .... because Cabin Boy .... but its in a close tie with about a score of his hilariously stupid claims about the law.

    1. Notice: Responding to this comment constitutes nuclear fusion and will entail having you prosecuted for using weapons of mass destruction. Or whatever other crazy shit I dream up.

  4. He really doesn't seem to have any grasp of reality outside of his own little bubble, does he.

    I'd love to see him try to take that copyright issue to court. (Not that I'd wish the fuss on you.) It would stand up about 0.5 seconds before being laughed at, and then finding himself having to pay statutory damages and costs in the counter claim.

    Claiming that either CreateSpace or Amazon is a "major publishing house"? Puleeeaze. (Hint, Billy my boy, major publishers have booths at ALA. CreateSpace doesn't.) And that by removing the book we're costing them lots of money? It's not like any of his stuff seems to sell more than a few copies a year in a good year. The revenue in question is less than a rounding error for them.

    1. Furthermore they are not a printing house. They are willing to take your "books" and put them up for sale because they are no more than electrons in storage. They have no printing costs or inventory piled up in storerooms and bookstores gathering dust. They can afford to put your emmissions out there because there is no capitalization going in and they can take the risk of copyright or libel (slander? never can keep em straight) because they have loaded it on you through your signup declaration. If any problem at all surfaces they just pull the plug and wash their hands of it, like just happened.
      Congrats, you're adrift at sea.sailor.

  5. Here's links about his prior efforts to sucker people into violations:

    Links be forever bitch.

    1. Well, unless you're a serial idiot with a pathological need to stomp your own BBs and then erase the evidence. Glad I don't know anybody like that.

  6. So, reading between the lines, TLFKAD is asserting that because his "work" (Using the word in its broadest conceivable meaning) was taken down because of a DMCA notice, he has a cognizable right to see the documents that transferred title.

    He specializes in this type of superficially plausible nonsense. He doesn't deny that our host wrote what TLFKAD put in his "book." So he doesn't deny that a DCMA notice by SOMEBODY was unarguably proper. He is saying that Krendler rather than Hoge should have sent it. All he needs to do is make that assertion part of his defense: Hoge has no standing to sue because Hoge has no valid interest in the copyrighted material. He doesn't need anything to make that assertion. (Well, technically, "upon information and belief" is supposed to imply some information, but in my experience it usually means nothing more than "Because I'd like it to be so, I believe it super super sincerely, cross my heart.") In terms of his purported interest (publishing his book), what is relevant is whether or not he infringed on the copyright. In terms of his real interest (outing our host), his infringement is irrelevant: that is why he is screaming for the contract. Now anyone sane following this farce knows that there is a contract: Hoge would not subject himself to a charge of perjury when a simple contract will preclude such a charge.

    1. Uh oh. Once again I followed a link and thought I was commenting on a current thread.


Comments are closed.