Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here  (Read 43489 times)

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #150 on: June 19, 2009, 11:32:27 PM »
Extremely well said and reasonable.  Miss P has said a lot to me and about me and itís more than possible that I misinterpreted at least some of it.  For that, Iím sorry.  I do trust your judgment and you certainly know her better than I do. 

However, I would like to point out that Iíve been quite willing to agree to disagree with her for some time.  Please see posts below.  Please feel free to look them up in context.  If you do, you will find that these posts are not followed by reciprocation.  Instead, what follows are pages and pages of insults, accusations of one kind or another and occasional threats.  Even if some of them did, many of these things did not come directly from Miss P.  Iíll take your word for it that this is not her usual style. 

I would like to explain why I assumed they came from her indirectly.  Thatís because during the course of this conversation, she complained about my being ďan idiotĒ an ďdimĒ to her cohort in another thread. Shortly thereafter, the cohort materialized in the Drake thread and started a constant stream of insults that continued until this week.  That could have all been coincidence, but that doesnít seem like the most reasonable explanation.

"Fair enough.  If you ever try to explain how I'm off base, I'll be happy to reconsider my positions or admit fault where appropriate."

I don't have standing for this, lol.   

Frankly, I think we've reached an impasse.  Why don't we both simply acknowledge what it is we're disagreeing about and move on? 

I think that the error made in the Drake student's case was one that could have affected students performance. I think on that basis alone, some action should be taken to correct the exam.  As far as I understand, you disagree with the idea that the administrative error could have affected performance.  Then, you think no action should be taken because, in your view, any action would be worse than the effect of the original mistake.

Why don't we just leave it there and agree to disagree? 

(as I, incidentally, tried to do about 4 pages ago)







"I honestly find it hard to believe that this would be confusing for any culturally literate person, particularly one with a year or more of law school under his belt."

That's kind of an obnoxious thing to say.  Anyway, I'm leaving this where it is.  You can have it.  You can also feel free to call me "culturally illiterate," ignorant or whatever. 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/standing

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #151 on: June 20, 2009, 10:11:52 AM »
Extremely well said and reasonable.  Miss P has said a lot to me and about me and itís more than possible that I misinterpreted at least some of it.  For that, Iím sorry.  I do trust your judgment and you certainly know her better than I do. 

However, I would like to point out that Iíve been quite willing to agree to disagree with her for some time.  Please see posts below.  Please feel free to look them up in context.  If you do, you will find that these posts are not followed by reciprocation.  Instead, what follows are pages and pages of insults, accusations of one kind or another and occasional threats.  Even if some of them did, many of these things did not come directly from Miss P.  Iíll take your word for it that this is not her usual style. 

I would like to explain why I assumed they came from her indirectly.  Thatís because during the course of this conversation, she complained about my being ďan idiotĒ an ďdimĒ to her cohort in another thread. Shortly thereafter, the cohort materialized in the Drake thread and started a constant stream of insults that continued until this week.  That could have all been coincidence, but that doesnít seem like the most reasonable explanation.
"Fair enough.  If you ever try to explain how I'm off base, I'll be happy to reconsider my positions or admit fault where appropriate."

I don't have standing for this, lol.   

Frankly, I think we've reached an impasse.  Why don't we both simply acknowledge what it is we're disagreeing about and move on? 

I think that the error made in the Drake student's case was one that could have affected students performance. I think on that basis alone, some action should be taken to correct the exam.  As far as I understand, you disagree with the idea that the administrative error could have affected performance.  Then, you think no action should be taken because, in your view, any action would be worse than the effect of the original mistake.

Why don't we just leave it there and agree to disagree? 

(as I, incidentally, tried to do about 4 pages ago)







"I honestly find it hard to believe that this would be confusing for any culturally literate person, particularly one with a year or more of law school under his belt."

That's kind of an obnoxious thing to say.  Anyway, I'm leaving this where it is.  You can have it.  You can also feel free to call me "culturally illiterate," ignorant or whatever. 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/standing


Ok, I can totally see how you would interpret the post on the other thread as calling in the attack dogs. If I was in your position I might rightfully see it that way as well. But having been a regular in Exile and SFLSD I can tell you thatís not really what those kind of posts are meant to do. I have made them myself on several occasions. Those two threads, and MAS, are more social networking threads than anything else. There are people who post in there but almost never venture out in to the rest of the board so they have no clue to the outside world unless someone posts a link in there alerting them to another thread.

When someone like me posts a link in Exile to another thread itís not because I want back up, itís usually because Iím saying basically ďhave you seen this? ď or WTF?Ē Several times Iíve done it and asked ďam I being out of line here or misinterpreting this?Ē I do that because the people in those threads know me very well, and I would expect them to say to me YES you are being a male private part there, or no, the way I see it your right on this subject. Itís never done, at least in my view, to call in the attack dogs. BUT, it human nature if your friends through their own volition think you are being attacked and want to defend you, then they can do that.

 But that is not the same thing as asking them to do so. I know it seems like a fine line here difference, but think back to what we learned in law school, intent is often at issue, something bad can happen but if the intent was not there for that bad act to actually be done, then guilt canít follow.
 
BTW, Exile is not a closed club, anyone and everyone is welcome to post. Stop in there and maybe you will see how things actually work, and how they appear to work is not always one in the same. Again, if Miss P had actually asked for the attack dogs to be loosed, it would have been the Calvary coming not one individual taking it upon themselves to stick up for their friends. Its is good your still considering this and talking about it, because like I said before, we donít need to lose new posters.

And its message board nature that posters will clash and have disagreements, but its best kept civil. Its also the nature of the beast that traditions by already established veterans may seem to outsiders to be forcing their views on the newbs, but often its really not the case. Its just how things operate that can seem nefarious to an outsider but completely begin to an insider used to how the board functions. It often comes down to two parties seeing things from very different perspectives and both reading into it more than either really indented. Hence communication is key to make this whole thing workable.
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #152 on: June 20, 2009, 03:18:01 PM »
I hear you, even though I'm not 100% sold on the whole offline conversation/rallying the troops bit. 

I agree that civility is pretty important.  Maybe I'm unlike other posters, but for me debate and the clash of ideas is part of the fun of internet chat boards.  I don't get personally offended when someone disagrees with my perspective.  In fact, I actually like it when people disagree with me, especially if they do it in a way that gets me to consider points I otherwise wouldn't have considered. That's why I visit these sites, in addition to seeking advice and information.  I can't believe that I'm particularly unique.

I understand that these sites are multifunctional and that many prefer the social aspects.  I have no problem with that, even if it's not my bag.  The thing I don't like is when the two functions overlap.  I think this stifles true intellectual debate and discourse.  I also think it tends to make things far more personal than they otherwise would and should be.


UnbiasedObserver

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2014
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #153 on: June 20, 2009, 03:31:16 PM »
I agree that civility is pretty important.  Maybe I'm unlike other posters, but for me debate and the clash of ideas is part of the fun of internet chat boards.  I like it when people disagree with me, especially if they do it in a way that gets me to consider points I otherwise wouldn't have considered. That's why I visit these sites, in addition to seeking advice and information.  I can't believe that I'm particularly unique.

I also agree with this.  I've defended quite a few people on this forum (and others) with whom I don't necessarily agree, but who have opinions that should be heard.

So, no, you're not unique! (at least not in that respect)  :D

I understand that these sites are multifunctional and that many prefer the social aspects.  I have no problem with that, even if it's not my bag.  The thing I don't like is when the two functions overlap.  I think this stifles true intellectual debate and discourse.  I also think it tends to make things far more personal than they otherwise would and should be.

I agree with this 100%. Groupthink for the sake of maintaining personal connections is VERY dangerous, and I've had it happen to me here.  It's something we should always guard against, although it's human nature IRL as well as here....

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #154 on: June 20, 2009, 03:32:30 PM »
On another note, I challenge everyone in this post mod or not, and all the veterans reading this to do a better job of welcoming new posters. We all have a tendency to skip posts that donít apply to us (like about schools we donít go to, or LSATs scores we did not get) but that does not mean you canít pop into a thread and just say ďwelcomeĒ or point a newb to a regular poster who could help them. Just because you donít personally have anything to add does not mean you canít be welcoming anyway.

Its also does not mean you canít say, as just a poster, cut it out, when some newbi is getting trashed because the only school he caught into was Cooley or something. There is a fine line between offer advice and just trashing, and the just trashing seems to take precedence here or is ignored by the regulars becuas it "does not apply to them" and the newbis leave LSD because they donít feel welcome. It applies to all of us becuase the more new posetrs we run off the fewer new ideas and prospctives we get. More people might stick around if more people just took a few seconds to pop in a newbi thread and say welcome or hereís a link to a thread that might help you. We, myself included, donít need to be an insular as we are on this board. New blood is good for everyone.

This definitely requires a culture change, specifically in how we interact with new people and with each other. It certainly doesn't leave room to allow "everything short of something illegal or broadly accepted as inapropriate, like sexual harassment." This requires us to define exactly what kind of environment we want to build, including what is appropriate, what is not, and what should be done. It's also going to require more than one or two more mods to get it going. But I think it's a fantastic vision.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of Matthies' post, I disagree with some of the specifics.  Posting in threads where you don't have anything relevant to say has the potential to impedes the functionality of the board.  If we're talking about best practices for regular posters (and not merely moderation), I of course agree that we should all strive to be friendly and welcoming.  I just don't think that means people have an obligation to read and respond to threads in which they have no personal stake or related advice to offer, or even that they should.  If I were a newcomer, I would be pretty frustrated to have a bunch of people who didn't have any personal knowledge post in a thread where I asked specific questions about my school, for instance.  (I felt this way when I was a newcomer with a specific question and I got a bunch of b.s. from the Miss Ps of yore.)

The Off-Topic Board may be different.  We can and should reach out to newcomers who post in social threads or try to start up general discussions more.  (I do this sometimes but I'm sure I sometimes come up short.)

I also agree with IrrX that strong moderation, if done right, has the potential to make the site much more attractive.  There's definitely room for disagreement about this, but that's where I come down.

***

I agree with you. I should have worded it differently, rather than as some great argument. My claim was an attempt to express my thoughts after reading the thread.

It's like I'm trying to root for the underdog. To me, the underdog in this case is the idea that everything short of something illegal or broadly accepted as inapropriate, like sexual harassment, should be allowed. Everything except those narrow conditions. I think my push for this kind of relaxed constraint on the board is unfounded, and is proving to not be the vision that some of you have for this community.

The ONLY reason I posted in this thread was because I felt that someone was unfairly banned.

I think this is a totally legitimate perspective, and I'm glad someone is making this argument.  (Perhaps ironically, I think the only other person who has explicitly advocated such a laissez-faire approach is Sands: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,4019763.160.html#msg5338874.)  I happen to disagree somewhat.  I think that we should moderate spam, certain vulgarities, personal information (such as real name), and some patently offensive posts or patterns of behavior, and I think we should also allow moderators to move and combine threads to keep the board orderly.  Some posters (maybe Sheltron, IrrX) seem to think maybe we should go a little further than that.  It's good that we're having this discussion so that we can come to some common understanding about how the moderator powers should be used.

We could have avoided some needless argument if you had just said this instead of impugning the motives of other members of the board who shared their opinions on this issue (and on ISUCKATTHIS' behavior).

My vision of LSD was incorrect. Some of the posters on here are seriously concerned about any micommunications that may happen on the board, and any negative repercussions that may occur as a result - i.e., their advice not being taken seriously. I now understand that there are some users that have very important reputations to protect, and that is not something to be taken lightly.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but I would like to clarify.  I did not argue that posters should be banned or suspended (or anything else) for being rude and vicious to each other.  A few posters have suggested that behavior like this should be moderated, but I wasn't one of them.  It would be nice if people were, well, nice, but I don't think it is reasonable to put the moderators in the position of judging what's fair and what's foul except in the most egregious cases.  

When I said that ISUCKATTHIS was harassing and attacking me, I was merely expressing my personal opinion about how I've been treated these last several weeks and attempting to justify my lengthy responses and occasional hostility towards him.  I also argued that it was perfectly fair for other posters to share their opinions about it, and that doing so was hardly an attempt to silence a legitimate perspective.  (Incidentally, I assume if you want laissez-faire moderation of the board, you also think that people should fight words with words -- not complaints -- which is exactly what I and some of the other posters here have done.) As I said earlier, I have not reported ISUCKATTHIS or Jake_MONDATTA to the moderators, and I only wrote an informal complaint to Sands about PILOFOLO in the context of criticizing Sands' warning to Comotellamas in the "Is the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board cliquish?" thread, suggesting that if anyone deserved a warning it was PILOFOLO.  I shared the content of that complaint earlier in this thread.

***

I'm not going to argue with ISUCKATTHIS any further except to say that I believe he is mischaracterizing our interactions.  Anyone who is interested in analyzing our discussions can read these threads and judge for him or herself:

Drake Law Faculty Bumbles Writing Exams (print page version)

Is the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board cliquish? (print page version)

The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here (print page version)

ISUCKATTHIS, if you are being sincere, I'm sorry that you have been so misunderstood and that you believe that you have been attacked at my beckoning.  I did not ask anyone to insult or threaten you (or even to participate in our arguments), and I don't believe I have insulted or threatened you myself, with the exception of calling you prickly and hostile a few times.  In particular, as I said before, I don't recall calling you dim, but if I did, I will reinstate my apology; that was beneath me.  Like you, I believe in the importance of civility and I enjoy a good substantive debate, and that's why I should never have said that you were "dim" if I did and somehow forgot.  (FWIW, if you had chosen some other word, I would not believe you, but I do use the term "dim" more than most, so it seems somewhat plausible.)
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #155 on: June 20, 2009, 03:42:31 PM »
Out of curiosity, though, how do you interpret Miss P's telling me that I don't have "standing" to disagree with her because I'm not a regular?  What about how she dismissed another poster's opinion as illegitimate because of his "anemic post count?"

If your sole claim to the high ground in an argument is that you are willing to let go when the other person isn't, you really have to let go at some point, don't you?  I know you're curious about Matthies' perspective, but I believe he has already said a number of times that he didn't follow our discussions closely enough to form an opinion.  (If any crazy person is curious about my response to these accusations, it's summed up in these two posts, here [standing] and here ["anemic post count"]).
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Turkish Kebab Guy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #156 on: June 20, 2009, 03:49:21 PM »
hey blue  ;)

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #157 on: June 20, 2009, 04:12:12 PM »
Out of curiosity, though, how do you interpret Miss P's telling me that I don't have "standing" to disagree with her because I'm not a regular?  What about how she dismissed another poster's opinion as illegitimate because of his "anemic post count?"

If your sole claim to the high ground in an argument is that you are willing to let go when the other person isn't, you really have to let go at some point, don't you?  I know you're curious about Matthies' perspective, but I believe he has already said a number of times that he didn't follow our discussions closely enough to form an opinion.  (If any crazy person is curious about my response to these accusations, it's summed up in these two posts, here [standing] and here ["anemic post count"]).

Yea, I have no comment about that becuase I did not see it, and don't really feel like going back and looking it up. i'm basing my opinions on what I've read in this thread.
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #158 on: June 20, 2009, 04:19:54 PM »
Out of curiosity, though, how do you interpret Miss P's telling me that I don't have "standing" to disagree with her because I'm not a regular?  What about how she dismissed another poster's opinion as illegitimate because of his "anemic post count?"

If your sole claim to the high ground in an argument is that you are willing to let go when the other person isn't, you really have to let go at some point, don't you?  I know you're curious about Matthies' perspective, but I believe he has already said a number of times that he didn't follow our discussions closely enough to form an opinion.  (If any crazy person is curious about my response to these accusations, it's summed up in these two posts, here [standing] and here ["anemic post count"]).

Yeah, upon reflection let's just let it die.  No need for any one to comment.

In fact, I propose to you Miss P that we simply not address each other directly any more, nor post about each other.  Please post whatever and wherever you like, but leave me out of it.  I will do the same for you. Since we clearly don't have much appreciation for each other, why don't we just avoid each other?

Anything is preferable to this ridiculous time sink.  I'm sure the rest of the board would appreciate its end as much as I would.

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #159 on: June 20, 2009, 04:30:05 PM »

I agree that civility is pretty important.  Maybe I'm unlike other posters, but for me debate and the clash of ideas is part of the fun of internet chat boards.  I don't get personally offended when someone disagrees with my perspective.  In fact, I actually like it when people disagree with me, especially if they do it in a way that gets me to consider points I otherwise wouldn't have considered. That's why I visit these sites, in addition to seeking advice and information.  I can't believe that I'm particularly unique.

I like a lively debate as much as the next guy. Iím also glad we have this thread, and glad both you and Miss P are continuing to post here and exchange views on whatís going on. I however, do not like the way too many threads go when the discussions get heated. They move from debating different ideas and views too quickly and too often to attacking the posters personally who is advancing one idea or another. I also donít like the fact that many of the people coming here for advice on lower ranked schools donít get any real advice, they just get bashed and their schools get bashed, almost universally from people who have no personal knowledge of what they speak other than the conventional wisdom of other people who have no knowledge of what they speak. Both of those things bug me very much and it bugs me that other posts feel the same way (at least then tell me so in IMS) but donít do anything to step in and stop it. I feel we lose too many new posters because too few care about creating a fostering environment beyond the core they already know.

Now again, Iím no saint, nor am I super human, I have lost my temper a few times on here and really lashed into an individual poster or two with the personal attacks. Itís not something Iím proud of, but Iíve done it. But is does bug me that it is so tolerated and the default argument stance on so many threads and how quickly people resort to that tactic. Thatís the interwebs I guess. Personally I stand by what I say on the web, and there is nothing I have said here that I would not say to someone in person. The good and the bad.  I said it and Iíll take ownership for it every time.

But I tend to come down on the more moderation side of the fence, and that is why I took my name out of the moderator race. The personal attacks in threads I would not stand for. Iíd be Gestapo like in my modding of them. The place seems to accept those kind of devolving personal attacks, so who am I to force my will upon the masses. That does not change the fact I donít like it, or that I try my best to practice what I preach, but it does mean I would not be a good moderator because my views are more extreme than most. Some people like the internet arguments and interwebs tough guy act, but not me.

*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.