[Discussion] /r/legaladvice Vetting questions/Advice Do's and Don'ts/Repercussions ..

Ramady · 48分前

Of all the Meta posts we've had lately, this is the most asinine.

the person posing the question is not subject to any subreddit minimum questioning or verification process to validate their legal question

How exactly do you suppose we should do that? Ask for a copy of the police report? Ask for confidential information? That gets pretty close to an attorney client relationship. We don't do that here.

Of fucking course most of the stories here are one sided. When we see something that sounds fishy, we call it out. Fuck, I do that several times per day sometimes. But it's not like we have the power to deposition witnesses and work out the truth. That's insane, we offer generic legal advice to point people in the right direction.

i mean this sub is supposed to be filled with legal minds and yet not a single verification process as simple as having a reddit account for more than 3 months exists.

We aren't going to discourage throwaways. People post incriminating information here, and identifying information elsewhere.

Edit to your edit: I absolutely see flaws in the sub. There are several. You, however, point out a problem that isn't there and a solution that makes no sense, and don't have the balls to say you're wrong when called on it. And you want to lecture us on intellectual dishonesty? Kindly kiss my ass, buddy.

thrombolytic · 39分前

Why am I not surprised to see this poster is a contributor to /r/spacedicks?

placebo_addicted · 18分前

Most of the regulars spend a great deal of energy sniffing out bullshit. Please go back to your example and count the number of contributors with stars next to their names. The answer is one. One contributor asking a question and apparently deciding the post was bullshit.

UsuallySunny · 11分前

I'm sorry, but who the hell are you? I've never seen you post before today. Do you usually bust into someone else's house and tell them they're doing it wrong? Why should people who've been here months or years and have been upvoted thousands of times listen to your opinion about anything?

GoufingAround · 7分前

Man, you're a fucking idiot.

thrombolytic · 47分前

IANAL.

I think we assume truth for a few reasons- it cuts down on witch hunting and OPs get their questions answered for the situation they posted. It's no one's problem but their own if they lied about their situation. Also, people don't have tons of time to verify posts before providing advice.

Additionally, at least to my non-legal mind, verifying OPs adds another level of potential confusion or grays the water more in terms of creating a perceived or actual attorney-client relationship. At least without verification, people have some level of plausible deniability that they aren't even sure this person/situation exists.

Regarding the Thai woman. It's not an issue that the account is 6 hours old. It's suggested that people make throwaways to post here, so that point got you nowhere.

And how, exactly, do you propose that PMs become regulated? Whose free time are you volunteering to do all of this policing?

This is ridiculous.

Aurelius89 · 30分前

You are correct in your point about revealing personal information in PM. That said, revealing your personal information on Reddit, or anywhere else on the internet for that matter, is a risk you take. If some one chooses to take that risk, they have to live with the consequences of their own actions. You can't protect people from making their own bad choices

To your first point about no one questioning poster's stories. I don't really think that is the point here. Some one post a question, and that question is answered. Often, OPs catch a lot of flak, rightfully, for saying dumb things, or taking really stupid positions. I don't think this place is intended to debate the hypothetical possibilities of a posters' situation. It there to provide quick answer to general legal questions

DangerAndAdrenaline · 42分前

This is ancillary to the "[meta] Should we require verification of attys and give them flair." threads that pop up every other week.

You expose an enormous number of issues with the no-verification system.

And other people (rightly) will counter with a number of issues with a verification system.

My personal point of view is this:

Verification has problems. But without it, what's the fucking point of the subreddit? Is it for law students to pretend to be lawyers or non-attorneys to offer completely BS opinions? Or for out-of-work attorneys to offer really shitty advice in a field they don't work in?

What's the justification for non-verification?

Liability.

I challenge anyone to show any merit to the argument that somehow a pseudo-anonymous message board is going to amount to an attorney-client relationship.

Non-verification creates vastly more problems than any verification system.

The OP highlights a few.

But think about how many people answer questions because they think they know the answer and no one knows they're not a lawyer. Think of how much bad advice is taken because the questioner wants it to be true. Think about how much half-assed advice is given by some law student that just learned the mailbox rule.

grasshoppa1 · 52分前

OP's question is always gospel truth.

Um, you must not be reading the same posts I am.

i shudder to think of all the private messages that OP had with members of this subreddit, and the potential of each of them revealing their information to the Damsel in distress.

Anyone who has been here more than an hour knows we don't do PM's. Why would anyone send their info to this person? It makes no sense.

this sub is supposed to be filled with legal minds and yet not a single verification process as simple as having a reddit account for more than 3 months exists.

This sub is for general legal guidance. We encourage people to use throwaway accounts to keep themselves safe and unidentifiable. Your suggestions, quite frankly, are stupid.

yasth · 52分前

You do realize that many/most accounts are throwaways right? The sidebar even suggests creating a throwaway.

Most of the advice here isn't so valuable that scams would be needed. Nor are PMs probably flying as much as you think.

down42roads · 51分前

I'm not going to address most of your points, but this one:

No One checked to see that OP's account was less than 6 Hours old[4]

A very large portion of the posts here are via fresh new throwaway, so it's not a big deal.

GaryLLLL · 49分前

This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. Has there really been a rash of well-meaning responders giving out their personal information to anonymous questioners, who then use that information for nefarious purposes?

I often respond to questioners on here. I assume they're only giving me their side of the story, which is very likely not completely accurate. They may even be making up the story completely, but I doubt that happens very often. Either way, if I think I can give them some useful information, I do.

I also don't care how old the account is. Many people create throwaways for questions here because they want to ensure confidentiality. Some people might just be new to Reddit. I don't see the point of mandating that you've had an account of a certain age. There's no button to press here.

LocationBot · 54分前

I am a bot whose sole purpose is to improve the timeliness and accuracy of responses in this subreddit.

It appears you forgot to include your location in the title or body of your post.

Please update the original post to include this information.

Report Inaccuracies Here | Author

Original Post:

[Discussion] /r/legaladvice Vetting questions/Advice Do's and Don'ts/Repercussions ..

Now, the current process within /r/legaladvice is to offer advice for people that need soft legal advice from subscribers who generally direct them to resolving their legal issues.

Now there is a big problem with this model. There is no way to verify or validate the accuracy of the questions being posted here or the people involved. This poses two very distinct resultant problems. :

the person posing the question is not subject to any subreddit minimum questioning or verification process to validate their legal question

and

the subreddit /r/legaladvice has no control over private messages that result from a post or communication thereafter between OP and anyone else.

Now you may ask yourself why does this matter?

Firstly, OP always posts a one sided argument I dunno how many time i have sat in this subreddit and NO ONE asks a counter argument. OP's question is always gospel truth.

Secondly, the opportunity for scammers in this sub is very high. because the private messaging is unregulated and main sub promotes to frontpage an unverified and bogus claim, most users are very susceptible to releasing their information as it seems the post has passed some sort of pseudo verification.

Example: our top frontpage question right now is about a thai girl that claims a german guy is blackmailing her

Now

No One verified this with even a single question to verify its validity...

No One checked to see that OP's account was less than 6 Hours old

No one asked the right questions..

Everyone answered..

i shudder to think of all the private messages that OP had with members of this subreddit, and the potential of each of them revealing their information to the Damsel in distress.

BE CAREFUL:

scammers start as victims. they get your info slowly.

I wonder how many of you have done this..[private message]

" hey, dont worry about that german guy... he is an asshole. you can report him here[x] and here[x]. The fact that you gave him your nude pics does not mean he owns them.

Contact me back with any questions.. my real email is whiteknight@abc.edf . my name is xyz. i will be happy to help.

i wonder sometimes how the mods of this sub operate. i mean this sub is supposed to be filled with legal minds and yet not a single verification process as simple as having a reddit account for more than 3 months exists.

smh..

legaladvice

調停者