Forum Charter ... clarification?

Pines

I wonder if the mods or anyone else can clear up what is and is not allowed by the charter with regard to seeking opinions/advice or giving same.

The charter starts off with a highlighted disclaimer, which is where the topic of "legal advice" is dealt with. This is followed by specific rules, none of which touch on this topic.

First, the disclaimer:

********************************IMPORTANT*******************************
Disclaimer: This is not a legal advice forum. Any opinion offered, in any guise, is to be taken as opinion, and nothing else. That means that if somebody offers a particular course of action, this is not to be thought of as legal advice.

So far, so good: don't come crying, and don't assume that a member with the handle 'chiefjustice' is going to be a legal whizz.

In the event that a poster says he is qualified to give legal advice, neither Boards.ie Ltd., nor any of its affiliates, accept any liability for any loss or damage arising therefrom. In other words, members can assume that nobody who posts in this forum is qualified to give legal advice. BY POSTING IN OR READING FROM THIS FORUM, YOU AGREE TO THIS DISCLAIMER.

Fair enough: more of the same, plus Boards.ie have washed their hands of the matter (and who'd blame them).

Now for the confusing bit:

Any legal advice sought or given will result in an immediate week long ban. Second offences result in an indefinite ban.
***************************************************************
(this ends the disclaimer, and the charter continues with specific rules about libel, contempt, drug advocacy, etc.)

So what does the last part permit and prohibit? Most threads here take one of two basic forms:

1) Pure hypotheticals such as "If a condition of a bequest was to eat the corpse of the testator, would the will be valid?"

2) Thinly veiled cries for help such as "Me and the lads were caught by a Garda, and Micko had a box of matches and I was clutching a cat with a trio of halloween rockets strapped on its back. What are we looking at, jailwise? Eh, 'hypothetically' I mean "

I can see why category 1 is fine and dandy, and I personally have no problem with category 2 either (the post, I mean ... the cat thing is just wrong), provided that the OP takes on board the Charter's warnings, i.e. he'd be a fool to take any opinion offered here as sound legal advice if he gets a summons.

However, the final part of the Charter's disclaimer quoted above suggests that post no. 2 ought to be prohibited. Which would mean an immediate ban for all of the highly entertaining (if mildly delinquent) OPs. :eek:

Or have I missed the point? Are the powers-that-be simply looking for the right form of words no matter how tongue in cheek? Is a bad post saved by a nod, a wink, and a closing line such as "BTW this is all hypothetical of course and I'm not looking for 'legal advice', but I'd really like to see how far a tabby could be projected, hypothetically, if it's not going to result in 3 years hard, hypothetically".

And then does every reply in the thread benefit from the prophylactic effect of the OP's nod and wink (even the most erudite breakdown of which statutes have been offended against, and what approach the courts might take if the OP has certain defences available)? Would this post have been spared the mod's rap on the knuckles if it had a suitable form of words at the end to formally say that "legal advice" was not being sought?

BTW I should of course point out that I'm only trying to get this straight in my own head, and I'm not looking for formal legal advice on what the Charter means. ::cough:: All unqualified replies welcomed.

Maximilian

My understanding is that this forum is for "legal discussion" which is what it says on the tin, so to speak. If you want to discuss the meaning of "subject to contract" or constitutional issues for example, this is the place for it.

Its not a place to come for specific legal advice as for that you should go to your solicitor.

The reason is if somebody acts on advice given here and it turns out to be wrong, it could expose boards.ie to a potential law suit.

hullaballoo

Well, obviously the OP has a point in that it's a bit arbitrary to have to just add in a waiver, especially where it's tongue in cheek as it often is.

For that reason, the forum is undergoing a structural change that will save people the trouble of having to stick this waiver in every thread.

Basically, the forum is going to become read-only for everyone in the world, with a defined list of people being able to post in it. These people will have to ask for access (like with soccer), and in doing so will need to agree to X, Y and Z.

Thanks for asking though.

Pines

Maximilian wrote:

Its not a place to come for specific legal advice as for that you should go to your solicitor.

Sure, I understand that and I understand that Boards.ie don't want to expose themselves to liability.

But my point is that a large proportion of the posts here are clearly presented as real-life problems on which people are seeking and are clearly obtaining legal advice, but with a fig-leaf of a disclaimer that it's only hypothetical. I'm trying to identify if that fig leaf is enough to turn an objectionable post into one which is allowable.

I can't detect what sets off the alarms with the mods. One person asks about a piler (whatever that might be) outside his door, and that's not allowed. Another asks about the criminal implications of his mates throwing eggs from a moving car and the thread trundles merrily along for weeks with legal analysis from all sides.

I've no issue with either post by the way, and I think the forum serves a very useful function, and I have no beef with the mods. I'm just confused about the policy and how they enforce it.

FWIW I think the charter's disclaimer should simply omit the sentences "Any legal advice sought or given will result in an immediate week long ban. Second offences result in an indefinite ban." ... because its merrily ignored by almost everyone as far as I can see, except for the odd arbitrary warning.

hullaballoo

Did you read my post, no?

Pines

hullaballoo wrote:

Did you read my post, no?

Sorry, your post wasn't up when I hit reply. Got distracted for 5 mins, hence the cross post.

That clarifies things a lot though, thanks.

hullaballoo

No problem. I'm hoping the forum will be tidied up a great deal by the new initiative.

Thirdfox

Where does one sign up to be allowed to post on this forum?

hullaballoo

My understanding is that there will be a sub-forum, as with soccer, wherein you will post that you agree to X, Y and Z.

It hasn't been implemented because I think it takes some fiddling about with, and DeV's not too active these days, but when he gets around to it, that will be the format to the best of my knowledge.

Does anyone have any feedback (positive or negative) on this?

Maximilian

I actually suggested that sign-up thing to someone when this forum started, so although its a pain, I think its a safer way to do it.

Pines, I may have not read your post properly. You're right though, some people get advice and others are told not to post etc. In my case, I sometimes offer advice if I'm confident its safe to do so and other times I won't but then, not everyone here does this for a living like I do. I agree it has the appearance of being arbitrary.