« on: June 11, 2009, 07:07:22 PM »
It's right up there in print.
I don't know that you can really change it. It seems pretty institutionalized here. The cliques, I mean. I think it comes from the fact that many use this site as a social vehicle and that the mods tolerate cliquish behavior, but tend to be tougher on outsiders.
I guess I don't understand why you think the mods shouldn't "tolerate cliquish behavior," if by "cliquish behavior" you mean people using the site as a social vehicle. As long as people stay off-topic or contribute meaningfully to on-topic threads when they do venture out, it seems to me that mods should tolerate their behavior. For one thing, it's a huge part of the traffic on this site. Also, a lot of the old-timers who do have groups of friends here, myself included, are fairly reliable sources of information and advice because we have seen a lot of posters go through the same stuff every cycle.
I don't know if this is part of your beef, but since it has come up a few times earlier in this thread, I will add that when people who know each other from the off-topic board (or in real life) agree with one another in a substantive thread, it's not necessarily the product of some evil cliquish plot. A lot of the time, the reason we became friends in the first place is because we have similar interests and experiences or because we were arguing similar positions in a contested thread two or more years ago. The fact that we sometimes wade into the same threads or feel the same way about a given issue strikes me as entirely unremarkable.
I'm not trying to bull you, really. I don't.
Well then listen to me for a second please, ok?
Miss P acknowledged to me that she didn't realize that people feel the way that I (and I think you) do. (See the small post where she says this.)
It certainly seems that she's making a good faith effort to stop you, me, and others from feeling that this place is too "cliquish" in certain respects. Because of this, I think you should give her some slack.
Predictions of the "death of biglaw" are about as absurd as predictions of the "death of capitalism" being floated about.
If you look at the earnings numbers being put out by Amlaw- it's pretty clear that why the firms were definitely hit, there is no Armageddon going on. The fact of the matter is that there is legal work out there that simply requires a large firm. No matter how brilliant or hard-working they may be, a 5 attorney firm can't handle a multi-billion dollar deal.
This is an odd interpretation of Miss P's question. How did you reach this extension?