[Legal Discussion] Request to review an infraction decision of FreudianSlippers

Cody Pomeray

I am a reasonably regular user on the legal discussion site, and as you might see from my post history, have made plenty of contributions there and have never received any warning nor any infraction from a legal discussion moderator until today.

The Infraction

My infraction was given in this thread on the basis that I purportedly gave legal advice to a user in this post. The infraction was a red card.

It is important to note that the person requesting the information was not infracted at the same time. I will expand on this later.

Comparison: was the charter applied evenly?

I would firstly maintain that the information I gave to user simonb101 was comparable to information which mods and users regularly give on the forum, without punishment; it was a relevant synopsis of the general legal situation regarding what is called 'acknowledgement'.

For comparison, almost the exact same conversation was had recently in this thread, which involved a moderator giving this information here, and here.

Seeing as a moderator had so recently addressed these exact issues, you can see why I felt this came within the charter.

Nevertheless, erring on the side of caution, I warned the OP that my information was not legal advice.

I relayed the substance of the above argument to moderator FreudianSlippers.

FreudianSlippers first responded to my complaint that I was unfairly treated by infracting the OP. This happened some hours after he infracted me. At one point, he claimed that "multiple users" have reported my post and appeared to indicate that he did not see the OP's posts. This is incredible. My post is meaningless without having reference to the OP's posts, we were the only two posters in the thread and you cannot find that my post was legal advice without first finding that the post preceding it sought legal advice.

FreudianSlipper also replied with the following post:

FreudianSlippers wrote:

...You gave your opinion on a direct question which relates to a legal issue. You gave an opinion with no reference to the law which states same.

Using the above as a reference, I then reported a series of posts in the Legal Discussion forum which I feel come under the same heading. One of the posts included this thread, where the OP actually asks for legal advice. the OP was not infracted. Another post is this one. The OP was not infracted. This post gave legal advice, was reported and was not infracted. In this thread, a moderator gave legal advice on a procedural matter in response to a request for same.

I personally find it difficult to understand why my pretty innocuous post was deemed legal advice, and given the highest red card, and yet FreudianSlippers says that the reported posts were "frivolous".

A New Dimension

FreudianSlippers has added a new dimension to his decision to award me a red card by saying that it was based on:

FreudianSlippers wrote:

1) It is clear that you know what disguised legal advice looks like (which would have been a yellow);
2) You have implied in your feedback thread that there was not enough or enough consistent moderation.

I therefore decided that I would take your advice and issue more cards. Due to the fact that I believed you were attempting to troll the mods, I escalated to a red.

He now says that I was awarded a red card because i was trolling.

Let me tell you, while the headline in my feedback thread was designed to be funny (I may have failed here), the thread is clearly not a troll. I have been respectful to everyone in that thread, the points I made were backed up by other posters too. I also have no history of trolling.

BUT most importantly - it is not FreudianSlipper's jurisdiction to punish me for what he believes is trolling in feedback. If he think I am trolling in feedback, he ought to report the post.

There can be no serious question that this informed and constructive post, like all of my legal discussion posts, could be considered trolling. I always treat legal discussion posts with seriousness, or at least where the thread is a serious thread, and i always offer information honestly and with sincerity.

Conclusion

I would ask that you might review this infraction on the following bases.

1. Firstly, that the posts I made were not legal advice, and I expressly stated as much.

2. Secondly, that if there is a new clampdown on legal advice, then it should be fairly applied, including to those who seek advice, and those who offer it on other threads. FreudianSlipper initially sought to punish me without punishing the OP, and he also maintained that the posts I reported (including where legal advice was clearly sought and clearly given) were frivolous.

3. Thirdly, that the moderator FreudianSlippers was acting outside his remit for giving me a red card for "trolling", when he referred to the feedback thread. Further, that there is zero reason for him to believe this post was anything but an honest and casually imparted piece of knowledge, which I promoptly forgot about. It was not a troll, and no reasonable person could believe it was.

Thank you.

Scofflaw

Hi Cody,

I'll have a look at this for you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

thanks.

Any chance on getting an update on this?

The red infraction expires on the 6th, and since I am asking for it to be deleted altogether, I'm not sure if its shelf life is important or not.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

thanks.

Any chance on getting an update on this?

The red infraction expires on the 6th, and since I am asking for it to be deleted altogether, I'm not sure if its shelf life is important or not.

Shelf life isn't really important for infractions, but apologies for the delay. I've asked the mod in question about the infraction, and the reasons given seem reasonably consistent to me, so I don't see an issue there that needs to be addressed.

Given the rules of the Legal Discussion forum, and your contributions to the thread, I would certainly expect a yellow card here, and the mod has indicated that that's OK, so what I can offer here is a downgrade of the red card to a yellow. I don't think there's a case for no penalty, and given the mod's offer of a downgrade, I won't address the question of whether there was a deliberate testing of the limits of moderation here.

So, your choice - CMod offer of a downgrade to a yellow card, or you can appeal it further to the Admins.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Thanks for your time on this.

In light of the similarities of the previous thread on statute barred debts, which involved a legal discussion moderator passing almost the same comments, I think I was justified in thinking my comments were responsible. I believe a warning would have been the appropriate response.

I reckon I'll go for broke and ask an admin and see what happens.

Do I just pick an admin or how does it work?

which ones are most sympathetic?

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Thanks for your time on this.

In light of the similarities of the previous thread on statute barred debts, which involved a legal discussion moderator passing almost the same comments, I think I was justified in thinking my comments were responsible. I believe a warning would have been the appropriate response.

I reckon I'll go for broke and ask an admin and see what happens.

Do I just pick an admin or how does it work?

which ones are most sympathetic?

Heh. No, just leave it here and an Admin will look at it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Ok in that case I will offer a quick and updated distillation of my argument


My offending post is almost identical to advice legitimately provided by Tom Dunne which led me to believe that I was posting responsibly.

And next something that hasn't been said. I believe this is a clincher!

Every person with an inkling of the law knows what "acknowledgement" means. No construction of the law could have proved me wrong. FreudianSlippers implies I should have given a link to back up my description of "acknowledgement". I suggest if anyone needs a link to prove my description, they need to go back to the books. No law moderator reading my post could have disagreed with me. It's like trying to argue with the most basic of terms, like the elements of the contract.

That's the distilled version. The OP is bedside reading.

I am a reasonable man. I will accept a warning and make peace with FreudianSlippers.

Cody Pomeray

I just discovered that a warning is also referred to as a yellow card.

So to clarify, I say that I would accept a verbal warning as appropriate, i.e. an instruction along the lines of "just so you know, X would be a breach of the charter when condition Y is satisfied."