Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Uriel

POSTS ARE FOREVER

Recommended Posts

All right, this is getting ridiculous. It's time something was said. It's like someone has been sending out flyers recently advertising a new 24-hour moderation-on-demand service.

 

In the last week, I've received six original PMs requesting that I either edit a post, delete a post, or remove an entire thread of discussion and every post therein --- from the authors of the posts themselves. I say six original PMs because I'm not counting the supplementary messages that tend to follow within 24 hours asking where I've been, and why I haven't done as commanded yet. The other moderators have seen the same spike in the last couple of months.

 

I don't know how word got out that our names are the new "Edit" button, but the word is wrong. Here's the new word:

 

The policy of this forum is that we don't remove posts at author's request. Period.

 

There are multiple reasons why we've taken on this policy. First, if everyone knows they can just bug a moderator to remove something that in retrospect was a bad idea, no one will conduct any form of self-censorship. The only person censoring you is you. If you're uncomfortable or embarrassed about your own actions, our sympathies are extremely limited. It bears mentioning that this is a forum for law students. Your very profession requires you to be careful in what you say because you will be required to stand behind your statements forever. Moreover, the average user here is a law school applicant with a completed undergraduate degree and an incredibly high aptitude for abstract thought. The position you seek will be granted to you on the assumption that you have met society's highest standards for the exercise of wise judgment. It's more than reasonable to expect everyone on this forum at the very least to conduct themselves like the adults they are.

 

Second, we just don't have the manpower or time to accede to every demand that we rectify your word choices. To put this in some perspective, in six weeks virtually all of the moderation staff will be practicing lawyers, half of whom will be putting in the volume of hours required at large national law firms. In response to a follow-up message I received yesterday, I did not alter that one sentence for you within 12 hours because I was second-chairing a summary judgment motion and my clients couldn't get hold of me. Try to keep some perspective.

 

Finally, there's an element of professional responsibility here. If you expose yourself in a highly unfortunate way --- be it abrasive, racist, arrogant, cruel, irresponsible, criminal or unprofessional --- and you further exercise the poor judgment to ignore our other advice about not exposing your personal information, we are in a very difficult position of being asked to cover up a public statement that might indicate your inaptitude for the practice of law. We won't. Your reputation is everything you have in this business, and you do begin to earn it even before your first exams. Good or bad, you can earn it here too.

 

We will of course consider requests made on a truly exceptional basis. That is, if the post puts someone at risk of harm or civil liability, or if somehow you were entirely innocent in the exchange sought to be removed. ("My little brother was logged in" is prima facie not a credible argument.) That isn't to say we'll grant the request, but we'll hear it.

 

Please do your very best not to write anything you wouldn't stand behind in real life. Don't say anything you wouldn't want attributed to you in a newspaper. You're not as anonymous as you think, and we are not a "delete" button.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add a couple other thoughts here.

 

If User1 asks a question, and User2 takes the time to post a thorough and well-reasoned response, it's quite rude to User2 if we delete the thread just because User1 has decided he has the information he needs and would like the post to go away now. There is no property in a forum thread.

 

If you go to the main forum index page and scroll to the bottom, you'll see how many people are currently reading the site. You'll also see how many of those are logged-in users. As I write this, 88% of people reading the site are entirely passive users. That's a lot of people benefiting from what's written here, without being the ones who ask the questions. If we delete a thread, anyone who might have come across the information in the future and found it useful would lose out. That's unfortunate.

 

As for being able to delete one's own posts - many users find a convenient workaround by simply editing the post down to nothing. You're welcome to do that within the editing time window. When I see someone's done that in a thread, I'll usually just kill the post.

Edited by whereverjustice
clearer wording
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Uriel. The number of requests has gotten ridiculous recently. The edit window, I believe, was extended when the new system was started, whenever that was. I'm fairly sure that it is longer than 10 or 15 minutes but Morgan can weigh in on that. I think an hour should be sufficient time to edit a post. Any editing after that becomes a problem with the flow of a discussion and it lends itself to someone being a jerk and then deleting what was said. I think it would be a mistake to allow for any editing beyond the ability to do so within a reasonable amount of time.

 

The key is for people to be mindful of what they're posting, and if they choose not to be, then the consequences are their problem. Stating again, because so many seem to disbelieve it, you are not as anonymous as you may think when you start posting information here. Behave yourself accordingly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight: the people who are arguing for a longer edit period are, essentially, saying that they'd like to shoot from the hip more often and then have a chance to reel it in later on? W.T.F.?

 

Seriously, what the hell are you going to say that's so awful that you need to do some serious editing 12 hours later? Maybe don't say it in the first place?

 

What the hell is wrong with just quoting your own post and admitting that you've changed your position to "the following: ... ".

 

THe great thing about intellectual debate is that nothing is every crystallized BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS CHANGE YOUR MIND!!! And when you do change your mind you make another post explaining your new position. That's how people did it in the old days with, you know, like printed articles and books and stuff. I don't see why the hell people should be given the opportunity to say whatever the hell they want with the knowledge that after they've "tried their argument out" they can go back and erase their original position - essentially pretending like they never held that view.

 

In my opinion one of the reasons this forum works so well and why we don't have as many flame wars as lots of forums is because our posts are essentially permanent. People have to actually put some thought into their posts.

 

I don't think intellectual debate is strengthened by the ability of its participants to change their minds behind closed doors. If you want to change your mind, at least do it out in the open.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one situation I am sympathetic to is when people post information about themselves without realizing how small the legal community really is and want to take down the revealing information.

 

I have been on sites with unlimited editing time and I do not believe it is an improvement. I am surprised people are really all that concerned about this based on the idea that they want to "try arguments out". A couple years ago there was a thread about a Harvard law student that sent an email that had racist overtones, that was attached to her name and made international news. The point is that being able to remove your opinion is not the norm, here it is mostly anonymous but you should be guarding your opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, what the hell are you going to say that's so awful that you need to do some serious editing 12 hours later? Maybe don't say it in the first place?

 

What the hell is wrong with just quoting your own post and admitting that you've changed your position to "the following: ... ".

 

THe great thing about intellectual debate is that nothing is every crystallized BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS CHANGE YOUR MIND!!! And when you do change your mind you make another post explaining your new position. That's how people did it in the old days with, you know, like printed articles and books and stuff. I don't see why the hell people should be given the opportunity to say whatever the hell they want with the knowledge that after they've "tried their argument out" they can go back and erase their original position - essentially pretending like they never held that view.

 

I agree with this post almost entirely because of the gratuitous use of the word "hell". Minor cuss words are too frequently overlooked in favour of their brasher, louder cousins. I applaud you, sir. This is how gentlemen curse.

 

Re: implementing a sobering up grace period: speaking for myself, about half of my wit and all of my charm would vanish from the board and you would be left with the dull meandering thoughts of a much less entertaining persona it would probably be a good idea, but not a very fun one.

 

(Edit: seriously, though, I thought the grace period was already one hour... am I wrong?)

(Edit #2: looks like it's possible after 20 minutes, at least...)

(Edit #3: half an hour!)

(Edit #4: forty minutes and I am going to bed. I'm calling it at an hour.)

Edited by Hegdis
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit time is one hour. Do not post personal information.

 

This is your pissy Monday morning reminder...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a reminder.

Stop posting your actual names, phone numbers, addresses, unique undergraduate experiences that immediately identify you, the prizes you have won, the year you placed in whatever competition, and your close personal relationship with Named Partner X. Unless you want these things associated to your account forever. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • How do you handle losing cases? Do you get better over time at trying to keep it in perspective, and learning for next time? Is there any way to shut off the spiral of self-doubt?  It’s one thing to acknowledge that every court application is a calculated risk, and that you weigh the pros and cons with the client in advance, and that you’ve decided to take your chances. At some level, though, you believed that the outcome would come out in your favour (especially as the Plaintiff), otherwise you would have accepted a settlement. The rumination on “maybe I should have said this” or “maybe I should have told the client that” or “maybe I should have accepted a settlement” or “maybe if I were a better/smarter/more experienced/more confident lawyer this would have gone differently” or “maybe I just fuck up the lives of people who trust me” keeps me up for weeks and the impact of any losses outweighs 100x the impact of any wins. 
    • This is strictly anecdotal but I know of at least 1 2L in the past year who was a BC transfer. 
    • On test day, I was under so much pressure that my brain went on auto-pilot and my ability to methodically break down each question went out the window, even though I'd spent hundreds of hours studying similar questions at home. If your goal is to start law school in 2020, I think it'd be well worth it for you to experience that pressure before the do-or-die January exam. 
    • Waitlisted today for the English common law program, I'll probably take myself off the waitlist since I firmly accepted at another school a long time ago.  cGPA: 3.57 L2: 3.61 LSAT: 162
    • I posted this question a few days back in a different part of this forum. Check out the answers:  
×
×
  • Create New...