An updated policy in /r/legaladvice causes a disturbance of the peace

Razputin7 · 7日前

Well, damn. I was just going to make a few Phoenix Wright jokes, but everyone's high-effort jokes about law are far better.

DannyLee90 · 7日前

How about assigning a bot to automatically link an /r/bestoflegaladvice thread in the corresponding update thread on /r/legaladvice? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That way you keep the fluff off /r/legaladvice but everyone still knows where to go.

MovkeyB · 6日前

/r/la is a lost cause at this point for any actual advice, thanks to all the laymen posting in there and zapopa imitators.

Mods should either clean up the sub and make it actual advice only, or just give up entirely, but halfway solutions that don't address the real issue only make things worse.

nobadabing · 6日前

Dumb rule which doesn't solve the sub's actual problem which is armchair lawyers mucking up threads with "my emotions say this is wrong so it has to be against the law" sort of logic.

wheezes · 6日前

I personally don't give a damn what most of the community thinks. Most of this community contributes nothing of value and a large portion of the community hinders the mandate of this sub.

By that criteria, they should shut down all of Reddit.

I_work_in_HIED · 6日前

The author of the post which kicked it off weighs in and eats the downvotes.

Chris200 · 6日前

Light a candle for automod eating 1.6k negative karma.

[*]

LadyParnassus · 7日前

A major part of the problem with this was timing and being very bad at communicating the policy to users. A user made an update post and got locked by the auto-mod, which doesn't reference BoLA at all. Then a couple of hours later the mods sticky an explanation in both subs, but can't seem to agree with themselves about the 12-hour rule being lifted for updates. And they keep referencing discussions between themselves and some of the users, which just makes people feel even more confused and left out of the loop.

To the casual reader and even some people who follow both subs, it looked like update posts were just going to be autolocked unilaterally with no place to discuss them or discuss the change in policy at all.

And just generally, most of the users of LA aren't aware of the existence of BoLA or know that it's the off-topic sub for LA. It's only obliquely referenced on the sidebar, rarely comes up in the comments organically, and by the time something winds up on BoLA and totesmessengerbot comments about the cross post, it sits at the bottom of the comments and gets ignored.

Edit: now that I'm thinking about it, how many times a week does someone post a question that amounts to "I just got screwed/fired/fined because the other party changed the rules/altered the contract/made a new policy and didn't tell anyone until after the fact?"

All the more hilarious that they didn't see this coming.

Double edit: refining my words.

SnapshillBot · 7日前

#BotsLivesMatter

Snapshots:

This Post - 1, 2, 3
/r/legaladvice - 1, 2, 3
/r/legaladvice - 1, 2, Error
/r/legaladvice - 1, 2, Error
/r/LEGALADVICE - 1, 2, 3
/r/LEGALADVICE - 1, 2, Error
Docket NO. 16-CVL-0206 - 1, 2, 3
UNJUST CENSORSHIP OF THE FIRST DEGR... - 1, 2, 3
THE SUBSCIBERS ALLEGE THAT ON THE D... - 1, 2, 3
REDACTED - 1, 2, 3
MOTIONS: - 1, 2, 3
PLAINTIFF: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGE... - 1, 2, 3
PLAINTIFF: MOTION FOR A TRIAL BY JU... - 1, 2, 3

^{I am a bot.} ^(Info ^/ ^Contact)

ProfessorStein · 6日前

Legaladvice is probably my favorite board to see suffer/drama from because like entire mod list are just awful dickheads. The starred posters and actual mods are also not at all reliable for actual advice and I feel bad for anyone listening to them.

I am very lucky to sit in a discord that has a large amount of actual bar passing lawyers in it, and whenever I link threads they get to laugh their asses off because

A. None of them post there because it's not about giving actual legal advice, it's about sucking dick until you get a star and then saying whatever the fuck you want. See: zapopa, jcar, etc. Funny, some of the only consistently good advice ice seen is from citicop, and his are sprinkled with a little bit of life advice. I assume it's because he's a cop and sees a wide variety of real situations daily.

B. The advice given is often wrong or only half right with missing information. A great example of this is that I once just straight up linked zapopa's user page and there was a good hour trying to find a topic where his advice was actually correct

rabiiiii · 6日前

This is pretty irritating. Updates are going to disappear (no one likes posting if they feel like they're talking to the void). And this does nothing to quell off-topic posting since it happens on any popular thread, not just update threads.

And as usual, the problem of the tone (Sorry Oxus I stole your word) set by starred users who are often unnecessarily rude and condescending remains unaddressed.

itsmyotherface · 6日前

I'll vent another gripe with that sub:

The granting of stars to users is utterly arbitrary. There are non-attorneys who have stars, and (self-proclaimed) attorneys who don't. The starred users are given somewhat preferential treatment by mods, as evidenced by the "the mods and starred users talked about this issue". The stars are really a crock of crap.

Their moderation has really gotten out of hand over the last few months. Say something that isn't legal advice, but still on-topic? Removed. Start a discussion in a child comment? Removed.

At this point, the sub should just be what I have to tell most of the people who call my workplace seeking legal advice: Here are things (citations, resource) you might find helpful. I cannot help you any further, you need to talk to an attorney. Here is the number to legal aid.

boomshrub · 6日前

Seems unnecessary

Soulfuljazz · 6日前

I feel like the mods and starred users are trying to grub out by forcing users to use a secondary sub

Put it like this, your watching a TV show that then tells you to ANOTHER channel to keep watching and see the end, but the kicker is they don't tell you an exact channel just that you have to go to an affiliate channel and find it

RocheCoach · 6日前

There's been a running topic of conversation that most of the starred users just dick around, and be jerks to people all day long, and never contribute anything to the community.

The mods and starred users have discussed this extensively

Fuck off.

wraith313 · 6日前

who is regularly hanging out on that sub and not reading comments? That's the whole point is to see which outcome worked.

DirkFroyd · 6日前

I wish the mods and starred users weren't automatically downvoted by everyone in the thread, they were actually trying to defend themselves and making valid points. I didn't agree with many of them, but it doesn't look like a baseless policy.

Unfortunately, some of the starred users who were complaining about off topic and inflammatory comments were making the very comments they are complaining about. The starred users and mods also did have a general condescending tone in many of the posts, which I'm sure gained them no favor. Ultimately the mods and starred users didn't think this through, even if they think they did, and did not have solutions to the problem they created.

HeartyBeast · 6日前

Thought I was in karmacourt for a second.

igrekov · 6日前

Fellow dramians I implore you not to comment in the linked thread. go, damn it!

Getting some mixed signals here, OP

ChuckVader · 6日前

I reject this kangaroo court by virtue of the gold fringe on the Reddit banner.

--Danger-- · 6日前

isn't /r/karmacourt the appropriate venue for this kind of litigation? obviously the mods of /r/legaladvice should recuse themselves. (i also heard that they're Mexican, so you know what that means.)

PM-Me-Beer · 7日前

ANSWER ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, /R/LEGALADVICE

Docket NO. 16-CVL-0206

The defense requests that the case number be adjusted to the proper form for this jurisdiction.

UNJUST CENSORSHIP OF THE FIRST DEGREE

The plaintiff failed to provide any evidence or support for their claim against the subreddit moderators w/r/t this allegation. The evidence clearly shows that demyst is not a moderator of /r/legaladvice.

THE SUBSCIBERS ALLEGE THAT ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 6TH IN THE 2016TH YEAR OF OUR LORD, THE MODERATORS OF /R/LEGADADVICE DID WILLFULLY AND RECKLESSLY DISREGARD THE 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS AND THAT BY DOING SO DEPRIVED THEM OF THE RIGHT OF DISCUSSION AND OF UPDATES

The defense is unsure as to what party is being named in this allegation. Among other procedural errors, the plaintiff clearly lacks a respect for the court in not taking time to proofread his filings. Further, the defense was forced to assume that /r/KarmaCourt would serve as the substantive body of law in this case. As such, the first amendment:

As long as the redditor cites the source accordingly, posting content from another Internet source to Reddit is legal and not allowed to be used as a charge.

Is irrelevant to the case at hand. The defense has made every effort to mitigate damages by allowing users to crosspost immediately to /r/bestoflegaladvice and is operating under the good faith assumption that their sources will be cited.

REDACTED

The plaintiff fails to make a claim or an assertion of fact.

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.

The defendant has already allowed discussion on /r/bestoflegaladvice. This point is moot.

PLAINTIFF: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - DENIED

The defense does not recognize any jurisdiction in which ExpiresAfterUse has judicial authority.

PLAINTIFF: MOTION FOR A TRIAL BY JURY - DENIED

The defendant has failed to substantiate this assertion in any clear way. Moreover, the defendant representing himself and the party of /r/legaladvice as a whole does not recall denying any properly filed motion on this matter.

DEFENDANT: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - DENIED DEFENDANT: MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING - DENIED

On both of these assertions, the defense contends that the plaintiff is not the judge and does not have jurisdiction to deny a motion. Further, the plaintiff failed to properly reference the substance of their points.

THE TRIAL WILL COMMENCE ON 6/8/2016 AND 8 AM AT THE COURTHOUSE OF THE DISTRICT OF /R/LEGALADVICE IN THE GREAT STATE OF REDDIT.

The defense will be filing a motion to dismiss due to improper venue, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure of the plaintiff to state a claim. It would be impossible to conduct a fair trial in this environment. Similarly, the court of /r/legaladvice has repeatedly denied jurisdiction over these matters. Additionally, the defense is unaware as to what time zone is being used. Please see the attached motion.

MOTION TO DISMISS

1) Lack of subject matter jurisdiction: /r/SubredditDrama does not have jurisdiction over cases involving inter- or intra- subreddit disputes.

2) Improper Venue: The district /r/legaladvice does not hear cases involving subreddit moderation disputes

3) Failure to State a Claim: The foundation of the plaintiff's argument is inherently flawed. They failed to cite any relevant legal standing for their claim and frankly, their filing was frivolous.

Signed:

PM-Me-Beer on behalf of /r/legaladvice moderators

Amended to include additional information and format in a more appropriate manner

Amended upon the request of the court

the_dayman · 6日前

I knew I would see this here as soon as I saw an update thread with no comments and 300 downvotes on the automod.

BlueSkyWhiteSun · 5日前

Just chiming in to commend you on your formatting of your post, OP. Takes some of the monotony of writing motions away from me today.

tigerears · 7日前

Lots of ~~very smart~~ not dumb people discussed it at length.

Wow. I'm going to assume this means that anyone who isn't a mod or a "star user" are the dumb ones?

Well, that's not what he meant, or is implied, but, well, with this reply of yours...

molly9945 · 6日前

The rule that you have to have a legal question has been around forever and most updates don't have that so they are basically enforcing this rule in a good way by allowing the post but locking it. Not really a big deal

JohnRoby · 7日前

https://np.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/4mwpaw/update_post_policy/d3yyyxy

This makes it infinitely more palatable.

Ps np. is dumb

7日前

[removed]

SubredditDrama

Click here for Live IRC chat on #subredditdrama!

Rules/Guidelines:

Remember - all judgment is left at moderator discretion.

When in doubt about a rule, please read the rules wiki, or message us for clarification.

Linking

Surplus Popcorn

Useful links

調停者

BotsLivesMatter