[Legal Discussion] Did judge Judy write the forum charter when she was on crack?

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I knew it would look like that. It isn't.

We genuinely do need consistency when it comes to understanding what constitutes legal advice. Does anyone, even the mods, disagree that this currently is not provided? It looks like the rules are random.

I think it is as consistent as it can humanly be.

Mods often don't take any action without a reported post out of respect to posters and also because as has already been said, it's not a full time job it's just a bit of fun. I know that even if I were qualified for same I would not like to moderate legal discussion as it requires much more careful moderation than other fora. Think of them as judges who need a complaint to act and do spend their free time looking for crimes.

Then there are what 7 of them? You're never going to find 7 people who don't know each other in real life having the exact same view on things. Again, can you really say that 7 judges will all approach the same kind of case in the same manner?

Then there is a judgment call. In some instances it will be found that there is no breach, in others the breach will be so minor that the mod will just let it go. So even the same judge will make slightly different decisions based on all the circumstances.

Finally, and this is very important, just because someone else has been treated leniently doesn't mean everyone has to be treated in the same way.

Ultimately it comes down to "someone probably seeking/giving legal advice in a real world scenario" = action taken. "Someone possibly seeking/giving legal advice in a real world scenario but probably not" = no action taken. 50:50 call = depends on the factors above.

Surely the concept of the discretion of a decision maker is known to most denizens of legal discussion?

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think it is as consistent as it can humanly be.

It was consistent up until the most recent charter changes, followed by even more confusing comments on here.

But yes , it's quite possible the rules are as consistent as they can be at present. But that doesn't say whether they are consistent in absolute terms, and whether they can be made more consistent AND more safe for the site by editing the legal advice rule substantially, based on a debate of the users'/ forum's duty of care where it exists, if at all.

I have the feeling the latter is causing some confusion, and so the temptation is not to examine it, and keep everything as vague and as strict (even if the rules are not applied) as possible, which is hardly going to be of much help if anyone does actually sue the site.

In short, it's sticking heads in the sand.

FreudianSlippers

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It was consistent up until the most recent charter changes, followed by even more confusing comments on here.

But yes , it's quite possible the rules are as consistent as they can be at present. But that doesn't say whether they are consistent in absolute terms, and whether they can be made more consistent AND more safe for the site by editing the legal advice rule substantially, based on a debate of the users'/ forum's duty of care where it exists, if at all.

I have the feeling the latter is causing some confusion, and so the temptation is not to examine it, and keep everything as vague and as strict (even if the rules are not applied) as possible, which is hardly going to be of much help if anyone does actually sue the site.

In short, it's sticking heads in the sand.

It's It's simply not as black and white as you are attempting to suggest. . I gave an example of one of many ways one might determine if it is legal advice and any suggestion to the otherwise is misleading.

If you want hard and fast rules about exactly what is and isn't legal advice, it ain't gonna happen - impossible.

drkpower

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you want hard and fast rules about exactly what is and isn't legal advice, it ain't gonna happen - impossible.

In fairness, I dont think anyone is asking for a hard and fast rule. I think what some are looking for is the line to be redrawn in a more sensible place and some consistency (across LD specifically, and Boards generally).

Can i ask just for the sake of discussion, what would be the problem with the following?:

Legal discussion is permitted. However, requests for legal advice or the provision of legal advice is not. A request for legal advice is defined as a specific request for legal advice, assistance or interpretation which is or is intended to be applicable to a specified real-life scenario. The provision of legal advice is defined as the giving of legal advice, assistance or interpretation which is or is intended to be applicable to a specified real-life scenario.

The discussion and exploration of hypothetical legal scenarios is permitted and encouraged. However, it is not permitted to invent a hypothetical scenario which mirrors an actual real-life scenario in order to request legal advice or in order to provide legal advice. Significant moderation discretion will be exercised in this regard.

Posters are permitted to post details of their job/careers/qualifications/training. However, when engaging in discussion and exploration of hypothetical legal scenarios, posters are not permitted to hold themselves out as having any particular qualifications and/or to post in their capacity as legal professionals.

Oryx

drkpower wrote: »

Legal discussion is permitted. However, requests for legal advice or the provision of legal advice is not. A request for legal advice is defined as a specific request for legal advice, assistance or interpretation which is or is intended to be applicable to a specified real-life scenario. The provision of legal advice is defined as the giving of legal advice, assistance or interpretation which is or is intended to be applicable to a specified real-life scenario.

The discussion and exploration of hypothetical legal scenarios is permitted and encouraged. However, it is not permitted to invent a hypothetical scenario which mirrors an actual real-life scenario in order to request legal advice or in order to provide legal advice. Significant moderation discretion will be exercised in this regard.

Posters are permitted to post details of their job/careers/qualifications/training. However, when engaging in discussion and exploration of hypothetical legal scenarios, posters are not permitted to hold themselves out as having any particular qualifications and/or to post in their capacity as legal professionals.

I come at this as a lay person who lurks in LD because its interesting. I read through the charter again when this thread brought up the issue, and to be honest, it made me smile. It was complex and unnecessarily convoluted, just like the legal profession itself. I don't think there is another forum on boards where the charter tries so hard to nail everything down, and I think that is the problem. The charter is too complicated, which only gives rules lawyers more scope to argue, ironically.

I have always known that no legal advice was permitted, but could never see that this was applied in any effective way. The proposal above is just as vague as the mess of a current charter is too, because real situations are constantly posted as *wink* hypothetical, and I presume will continue so by those savvy enough to know how to word it. How do you decide one is genuinely hypothetical, and another is a ruse? And you also get the straightforward threads that lay out a specific situation and DO get advice on it even though to my eyes it would be clear contravention of the charter, but somehow the advice is generic enough to not break the rules.

We have the same issue sitewide on the issue of medical advice, for all the same reasons. But somehow it is handled perfectly well in just one phrase: NO MEDICAL ADVICE. While I do not read the medical forums, somehow they manage just fine in this area too. It might be worth seeing how they handle things, for a heads up on how to keep it simple(r) in LD.

padd b1975

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think it is as consistent as it can humanly be.

Mods often don't take any action without a reported post out of respect to posters and also because as has already been said, it's not a full time job it's just a bit of fun. I know that even if I were qualified for same I would not like to moderate legal discussion as it requires much more careful moderation than other fora. Think of them as judges who need a complaint to act and do spend their free time looking for crimes.

Then there are what 7 of them? You're never going to find 7 people who don't know each other in real life having the exact same view on things. Again, can you really say that 7 judges will all approach the same kind of case in the same manner?

Then there is a judgment call. In some instances it will be found that there is no breach, in others the breach will be so minor that the mod will just let it go. So even the same judge will make slightly different decisions based on all the circumstances.

Finally, and this is very important, just because someone else has been treated leniently doesn't mean everyone has to be treated in the same way.

Ultimately it comes down to "someone probably seeking/giving legal advice in a real world scenario" = action taken. "Someone possibly seeking/giving legal advice in a real world scenario but probably not" = no action taken. 50:50 call = depends on the factors above.

Surely the concept of the discretion of a decision maker is known to most denizens of legal discussion?

Where is the balance?

Where is the fairness?

Where is the consistency?

drkpower

Oryx wrote: »

I come at this as a lay person who lurks in LD because its interesting. I read through the charter again when this thread brought up the issue, and to be honest, it made me smile. It was complex and unnecessarily convoluted, just like the legal profession itself. I don't think there is another forum on boards where the charter tries so hard to nail everything down, and I think that is the problem. The charter is too complicated, which only gives rules lawyers more scope to argue, ironically.

I have always known that no legal advice was permitted, but could never see that this was applied in any effective way. The proposal above is just as vague as the mess of a current charter is too, because real situations are constantly posted as *wink* hypothetical, and I presume will continue so by those savvy enough to know how to word it. How do you decide one is genuinely hypothetical, and another is a ruse? And you also get the straightforward threads that lay out a specific situation and DO get advice on it even though to my eyes it would be clear contravention of the charter, but somehow the advice is generic enough to not break the rules.

We have the same issue sitewide on the issue of medical advice, for all the same reasons. But somehow it is handled perfectly well in just one phrase: NO MEDICAL ADVICE. While I do not read the medical forums, somehow they manage just fine in this area too. It might be worth seeing how they handle things, for a heads up on how to keep it simple(r) in LD.

Thanks for that; couple of points though:

1. How do you decide one is genuinely hypothetical, and another is a ruse?: That is for the moderators to decide; I think it is actually a lot easier than you might think. But in any case, unless you impose such a blanket policy that will effectively close down the forum (see below), whatever policy you put in place will require a large degree of sensible moderation.

2. We have the same issue sitewide on the issue of medical advice, for all the same reasons. But somehow it is handled perfectly well in just one phrase: NO MEDICAL ADVICE: Yep, the Health Sciences forum certainly handles it effectively alright. There is no discussion of true medical issues there. The politics, or the economics, of medicine is often discussed. But the practice of medicine isnt. Now, that is fine if that is what the community want for LD. But it isnt. The majority of threads, and the most popular ones, are about legal issues, what laws applies to particular sets of facts (hypothetical or otherwise) and why. That is what interests the forum users.

If you want to effectively shut down LD as a place to discuss those issues, then fine, employ the Health Sciences approach. But if you want LD to be able to discuss these issues whilst taking appropriate steps to reduce its legal exposure, then make some suggestions that might achieve that.
Personally i think my suggestion draws the line in a more sensible place but im willing to listen to alternative suggestions.


[Also, its worth bearing in mind that 'medical advice' is administered freely in other 'medical' forums, which just illustrates the mixed up approach to the issue boards-wide]

johnnyskeleton

padd b1975 wrote: »

Where is the balance?

Where is the fairness?

Where is the consistency?

It's in moderator discretion.