•
•

Update Post Policy (self.legaladvice)

UsuallySunnyQuality Contributor[M] が 投稿 - stickied post

We've adopted a new policy that posts with updates will be automatically locked. This is for a variety of reasons, but primarily, we're getting more and more update posts, and they rarely generate valuable legal discussion.

Mods will be automatically notified when there is an update post. If the OP has additional questions or legal issues, we will unlock it and it will be treated as a regular post.

Updates on incredibly popular posts may be unlocked on a case-by-case basis.

The update can be discussed on /r/bestoflegaladvice immediately (no 12 hour rule).

We know some of you won't agree with this, but the mods and starred users discussed this at length. If you have questions about implementation, we're happy to answer them, but we're not reconsidering the policy at this time.

Thank you for your continued participation, your cheerful dispositions, and your support of your mod team and starred users :)

ETA: To clarify /r/bestoflegaladvice discussion can take place immediately.

Also, please note that the update posts are being locked for comments, not removed/deleted.

全 114 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]lordoftheshadows 14ポイント15ポイント  (15子コメント)

If you do this then you the time limit for posting updates to /r/bestoflegaladvice should be removed. It makes no sense to have 12 hours of nothing. The point of the wait is to allow discussion to finish up on the main post but if there isn't any then posting it isn't a problem.

[–]demystYinz -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're absolutely correct, and that is a rule change that was made. The post has been edited to reflect it.

BoLA is a great place for post discussion / meta post discussion. The chaos of updates distracted from the main goals of the subreddit.

Again, thanks for the great point about the BoLA rule, and your contributions.

[–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -3ポイント-2ポイント  (10子コメント)

We have discussed and decided you are correct. Posts will be allowed for updates on /r/BestofLegalAdvice immediately.

[–]lordoftheshadows 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

You're the third mod who has told me that :) Slow poke.

[–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

Just a starred user, but I'm glad we all were on telling you it was a good idea. We really do want community input to help round out rough edges on our major initiatives.

[–]lordoftheshadows 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

Oh. Well then you're an impersonator. I'm going to sue you for fraud.

[–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Haha, good luck getting proper service to me!

But seriously, the mods and starred users discuss almost every action, especially one like this, before a new policy is put into place. Thanks for helping us out.

[–]lordoftheshadows 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's interesting. I didn't know that. I like how this sub is run even though a lot of people seem to disagree.

[–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

When you look at it, there really are not that many of us starred users (every moderator is starred, obviously). At last count we had like 58 starred users on a sub of 100,000 people.

[–]lordoftheshadows 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's really not that many. I've had more moderators in my sub and we only have 500 subs. We may like trolling people a little bit too much.

[–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

People are always welcome to apply to be a starred user. We vote on each applicant. We, generally, suggest a few hundred posts in this sub, which are of quality, and 6+ months of activity.

[–]ziekktx 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That would have been the perfect time to say Sustained.

[–]Achievement-unlocker 13ポイント14ポイント  (7子コメント)

In many cases, the user who posts an update don't link back to the original. When that happens, a kind user usually goes back, finds the original, and posts it. Is that just not going to be happening anymore?

I'm just a measly lurker. I have zero experience with the law so I'm not important enough to be a mod or starred user. I use this subreddit to learn nifty tips like what to do and what not to do and the discussions on updates are a part of that.

[–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We have no problem with lurkers, or even laymen helping out. The issue comes when we have a bunch of people making cheap puns to get karma in updates or just bashing the party they think is in the wrong. Please contribute, that is not what we are trying to stop. We are simply trying to get the rampant issues in updates under control by quarantining the discussion to /r/BestofLegalAdvice

[–]UsuallySunnyQuality Contributor[S,M] -14ポイント-13ポイント  (5子コメント)

When that happens, a kind user usually goes back, finds the original, and posts it. Is that just not going to be happening anymore?

That can happen in the bestoflegaladvice thread.

[–]cye604 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

But then that means that someone who wants to read the original would have to track down the /r/bestoflegaladvice post about the page they are already on, just to be linked back to /r/legaladvice? This seems very redundant. Heck, this whole new systems seems very poorly received by the community. I understand your goal here; make the subreddit more objective-based, but I feel this is also now stifling conversation.

[–]PotRoastPotato 46ポイント47ポイント  (54子コメント)

I almost never post on here because I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

That said, I read posts for the comments discussing the post infinitely more than the post itself (this is true for any subreddit, not just this one). This rule basically is a PSA telling me not to bother to even click on an update because it probably will have no discussion.

tl;dr... an update is now an unverifiable personal story with no discussion on a social media web site. How uninteresting.

[–]ThomasTheTechEngine 28ポイント29ポイント  (32子コメント)

Agreed. What the hell is the point of posting on a web forum if you disallow discussion? Just ban them outright if you don't want them. Or make a new subreddit just for updates if you want to go that far.

[–]koncept61 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I've been watching what's going on in this sub, and it's getting disturbing.

Want to post a meta post? Nope you can't. The rules don't tell you that you can't, but you can't

Posts are locked all the time, and one post was recently locked because the mods feared it might get out of hand.

Now, update posts are auto locked

In a subreddit based off of Legal advice for largely democratic countries, it sure does seem very authoritarian in here.

[–]UsuallySunnyQuality Contributor[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

For every person who wants this sub to be a free-for-all with nothing removed or locked ever, there's a person who wants it to be the legal version of /r/askhistorians and to rigidly enforce "niceness."

There is literally no pleasing everyone. We do what we feel is best for the goals of the sub overall, and the primary goal of this sub is to answer the questions posted.

[–]koncept61 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

But locking threads isn't a solution either. Delete offensive and useless comments sure, but if certain topics are brought up, they may bring controversy and that will happen frequently. There are plenty of current legal issues that incite controversy in the real world too. Assisted suicide for one

By locking posts, you're basically shooing away people with a specific legal problem.

And by the flippant attitude I've seen from you guys..if you don't like handling tons of reported comments? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[–]UsuallySunnyQuality Contributor[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for your input.

[–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -16ポイント-15ポイント  (26子コメント)

All updates are welcome to post to /r/BestofLegalAdvice after 12 hours immediately.

[–]DirkFroyd 19ポイント20ポイント  (20子コメント)

I don't want to go to a different sub for the sole purpose of reading the outcome of information and events that originate on this sub. Why even post an update if it can't be discussed?

[–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -14ポイント-13ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't want to go to a different sub for the sole purpose of reading the outcome of information and events that originate on this sub.

The updates are not being deleted, just no discussion allowed. If you don't want to go somewhere else to discuss, that is on you. We can't force you to. We (the starred users and mods) have talked and decided we do not want this discussion in our community. No more different than /r/AskReddit banning the use of the textbox or /r/AskHistorians having their 20 year rule.

Why even post an update if it can't be discussed?

I couldn't care less if updates are posted or not.

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm glad we are posting ad hominem attacks for having a dissenting opinion.

    Regardless, this is a help subreddit. This is not here for entertainment. We have another subreddit for these discussions, called /r/bestoflegaladvice. Try that subreddit, as it seems to be closer to your tastes.

    [–]thepatmanQuality Contributor[M] -7ポイント-6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):

    Violation of Common Decency

    • Posts containing primarily negative comments, and lacking in advice, will be summarily removed without warning. Users who are consistent problems will be banned. Post to help, not to flame.

    If you feel this was in error, message the moderators.

    [–]h110hawk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Why not just let people talk about it directly on the update thread? Or only allow updates to be posted to the bestoflegaladvice reddit?

    [–]thepatmanQuality Contributor[M] -6ポイント-5ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Locked updates are eligible for post to /r/bestoflegaladvice immediately. That rule change was announced over there.

    [–]Ysenia 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What if the update isn't best-of quality?

    [–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Thanks pat, I thought we decided to keep the 12 hour rule!

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–]AutoModeratorJudge Dredd[M] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Your post has been removed becuase you posted a YouTube link. If this is a comment, you can click here to notify us to re-approve your comment. If your post is a submission, please delete this one and resubmit with the correct link.

      I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

      [–]King_PosnerQuality Contributor -22ポイント-21ポイント  (16子コメント)

      good, we arent here to entertain you.

      [–]PotRoastPotato 14ポイント15ポイント  (15子コメント)

      A message board is less valuable when it has fewer readers.

      [–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      We are not here to be a message board. We are here to give concise and helpful answers to legal questions.

      [–]demystYinz -8ポイント-7ポイント  (9子コメント)

      Lets see if the readers / sub count drops drastically because of this rule. Hint: It won't.

      Discussion will still take place. It is just being concentrated in a place where it doesn't clog up attempting to answer other legal questions.

      [–]DirkFroyd 11ポイント12ポイント  (8子コメント)

      Updates tend not to require further legal input. Some do, but many don't. The discussion on the outcomes of scenarios is sometimes the best content the sub produces.

      [–]demystYinz -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

      Updates tend not to require further legal input.

      You've made the point for me.

      Some do, but many don't.

      The ones that do can be approved. Though, not much of an update if they still have legal questions. If legal questions still need to be answered, why not a regular thread?

      The discussion on the outcomes of scenarios is sometimes the best content the sub produces.

      If you want, look at it as if we're sharing the love so our sister sub, BoLA get some "best."

      [–]DirkFroyd 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

      Over 100k people are subscribed to /r/legaladvice. I'd wager that most of them are not involved in law at all, but come here to read the posts and the discussions on them. I, personally, love to see when users use legal advice given to them and the outcomes of their problems. I think the best part of this sub is showing people different possibilities and different nuances of legal systems and problems, and having the community, which is not just the mods and starred users, be able to participate in meaningful conversation.

      [–]demystYinz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      The meaningful discussion still takes place!

      If OP has on-going legal questions, they can make a post about them! Hell, the locked update can be removed by messaging the mods and after their review for legal questions.

      Discussion about laws happens in the regular posts. I frequently explain and cite the answers I give when people ask me about them. Let me reemphasize. Discussion is still taking place.

      The point of this is to try and remove the most toxic creating part of our sub . . . which (for whatever reason!) is update threads. There is nothing inherently wrong with commenting on update threads. But whenever it happens . . . mods have to work overtime. For whatever reason, so many rule violations. So many reports. People just being shitty to each other. None of that is helpful to OP, or encouraging to new members who flock to our sub whenever an update is posted.

      In order to help encourage the meaningful assistance to OPs, and to maintain a good environment, why not redirect discussion to a more adequate place? Bestof was made for this type of stuff. Hell, it can be instantly crossposted!

      This policy is helpful for all, and will have an overall benefit to the community. This was not some fly-by-night decision. It was carefully thought about.

      [–]CrazyCanuck88Quality Contributor 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

      be able to participate in meaningful conversation.

      So you don't want to read update post comments?

      [–]DirkFroyd 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

      I usually see a far greater amount of actual conversation rather than shit-posting and arguing in update posts, but even if the opposite were true, I'd rather the posts be disallowed altogether than be allowed without discussion.

      [–]thepatmanQuality Contributor[M] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Updates tend not to require further legal input.

      Which is precisely why we chose to lock them. This subreddit is for answering legal questions. If a post doesn't require further legal answers, then it gets locked. That's true of all posts.

      [–]DirkFroyd 20ポイント21ポイント  (11子コメント)

      Why allow update posts on this sub if they can't be discussed? If you're going to lock them with the reasoning that they often do not generate legal discussions, then why would y'all shut down all discussions?

      I believe the best course of action would be to choose between allowing free discussion on update posts, or banning all update posts from this sub. There's very little sense in starting a topic in this sub only to require users to visit a different sub to discuss it.

      [–]_JonJon_ 15ポイント16ポイント  (8子コメント)

      And there's a lot of great discussion and lessons learned to be had. In addition, people who weren't around for the initial post might have experienced the situation and we'll be missing out on insightful posts.

      This is a terrible policy. At the very least, the community should have had a vote on it.

      [–]DirkFroyd 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

      The general vibe I've been getting from this post and policy is that the mods and starred users feel that they are the important voices of the sub, and that how they feel is how the community feels. I believe that the vast majority of the community is directly opposed to this.

      [–]grasshoppa1Quality Contributor 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

      This sub is the opposite of a democracy. Whatever you people want we do the opposite of.

      [–]VegaDark541 28ポイント29ポイント  (2子コメント)

      This is a terrible policy. I'm a lawyer who fairly regularly participates here, and thinking of unsubbing just because of the dumb rules that people think need to be created to make this sub worse.

      [–]BUBBLYSTRING 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Can something be added to the side bar directing updaters to post directly to r/bestoflegaladvice instead? I just really enjoy the commentary on posts in general and I think locking updates will confuse non-regular contributors. ...And then, I can never figure it out, but does that bot automatically link the original post to the bestoflegaladvice submission? Because the updater won't get that post if the comments are locked, they won't know the discussion is taking place elsewhere. Seriously, though, what happens with that bot? Sometimes there's a link mentioning that the post has been submitted to bestoflegaladvice, sometimes there isn't.

      [–]UsuallySunnyQuality Contributor[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Can something be added to the side bar directing updaters to post directly to r/bestoflegaladvice instead?

      People not subscribed to /bestof might want to read the updates too, so I wouldn't be a big fan of this idea.

      [–]PurePerfection_ 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      To your point about unlocking updates that contain additional questions or legal issues - maybe in the future it would be useful to try a separate designation for this type of post. "Continued" or "Part #N" or something along those lines. Accompanied, of course, by clear rules about what qualifies as a response-worthy update.

      I agree that "We did it, Reddit"-style update posts don't generate productive discussion in this sub, but I've also followed many situations here that require a series of posts as new information comes to light. I think there are enough of the latter to merit a new category.

      [–]DirkFroyd 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

      From all the replies I'm seeing, it seems as though the starred users that the mods talked to, and the mods, truly think that this is the best way to keep the sub focused. Maybe y'all are right, maybe y'all are stifling a rather large part of the sub's potential content, time will tell. I really wish that there had been a preliminary post asking the community for input before this policy was put in place. Just implementing it and then telling everyone about it seems like the wrong way to have gone about this.

      [–]yourenzyme 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

      What if there isn't a /r/bestoflegaladvice thread for a specific post? Not every update is "best of" material but still worth discussing. Who will link to the best of post if there is one? /r/bestoflegaladvice will no long be highlighting the best of /r/legaladvice and will now just be /r/legaladvice2updateboogaloo ? Is /r/bestoflegaladvice going to make all posts accurately reflect the title of the /r/legaladvice post, otherwise how am I supposed to find what I'm looking for.

      [–]ExpiresAfterUseQuality Contributor -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      We are currently discussing solutions to this. If you have one, please let us know.

      [–]yourenzyme 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You could always allow discussion on update posts and none of that would be an issue.

      But seriously, that all should have been figured out prior to the changes being made.

      [–]chunkosauruswrex 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You could have not broken what was already fixed

      [–]h110hawk 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Why make people jump through hoops just to say thank you? Or a good for you? Sending people to another place just to have some banter is obnoxious. This feels like it is intended to stop people from posting updates and fragment the community.

      [–]vr6apparatus 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Don't like the "useless" chatter in an update post? Don't click into it. Duh.

      [–]expatinpaQuality Contributor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I've noticed a fair number of dissenters seem to feel that the value of a sub is directly related to the number of subscribers. The more subscribers, the better the sub. In this sort of sub, that's not true. Because the more subscribers the more likelihood that people who have nothing but an opinion will drown out the actual advice. And that's what this sub is about: to provided advice to people, some of who are in dire straits. Not entertainment (although I'm sure we will all admit that sometimes the sub can be entertaining). But that's not its primary role. As the side bar says: A place to ask simple legal questions. That isn't just it's primary purpose, it's really its only purpose.

      [–]zuuzuu -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I think this is great. Updates here seem to fall into four categories:

      1. Everything is over. Closure is had. No further advice/discussion needed.

      2. OP has already done what posters advised and is waiting for results. No further advice/discussion needed, they just want us to know they did the thing. Which, by the way, they could have added as an edit to their original post, since it was probably just the day before.

      3. OP hasn't followed any suggestions and just wants us to know that The Bad Person is still doing The Bad Thing and they still haven't done anything about it. Advice/discussion will be limited to "If you're asking what you should do, we already told you that yesterday in your first post, our responses haven't changed".

      4. Op has taken steps (which may be what was suggested, or may be the opposite) and things have progressed in some way, and they now have a whole new set of questions. Advice/discussion needed.

      1 and 2 don't need any kind of advice, so discussion should take place elsewhere, not here.

      3 isn't likely to generate any new advice. Lock it.

      4 can be unlocked by the poster sending a message to the mods explaining they have new questions. Advice/discussion will occur.

      It would be great, though, if there was an automated comment thanking the poster for the update, stating why the post was locked, suggesting they crosspost to BOLA (and specifying that update posts are not subject to the 12 hour delay and can be posted there immediately), and advising the poster to contact mods if further advice is needed so the post can be unlocked and opened to discussion. It's a lot to put in one auto-post, but I think it's all necessary.