Forum Feedback.

evercloserunion

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

I know it's off topic but I had to ask, does anyone else see the Eircom ad which is currently on my screen (just below the last post on the page) inviting you to "Download your favourite movies faster" by switching to Eircom broadband?

You have to laugh.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

The board is called legal discussion and will not be renamed legal advice as far as I am aware. Regrettably, I would say 75% threads on here are repetitive gossip / spin / veiled insults and cyber oneupmanship and the rest have some form of legal discussion. This balance cannot change without the rules being loosened to accommodate discussion of real world legal problems. People are lazy. Legal scholars, practitioners, enthusiasts etc. generally have better things to be doing than dreaming up weird and wonderful legal scenarios to post on boards to ensure some legal discussion takes place. Real world problems, on the other hand, interest people and so they go and find out the applicable principles etc. and post them.

As I said already, retarded people everywhere take up internet chatter relating to problems that sound like their own and mistake it for being gospel. These people have only themselves to blame for when it all goes wrong, not boards or ill-informed posters spouting crap on boards. The existence of idiotic people out there shouldn't stifle the possibility for stimulating, enriching legal discussion taking place, but the rules are such here that the imbeciles win out.

In summary -
* If the rules are to remain I think the room would be better renamed Legal Gossip for it to better describe the allowable content.

* If the rules are relaxed the room may become more legal discussion oriented. Disclaimers to repel any possibility of IMO unsustainable 'negligent misstatement for internet speech' arguments to protect boards and the stupid people, as ever will continue doing stupid things.

Beruthiel

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

danash wrote: »

Your level of disdain and condescension to the readers of this forum beggars belief - as a self proclaimed expert in negligent mistatement ( allegedly - because I dont know you from Adam ) - can you outline a precedent in Irish or applicable law for the 'stupid' people that you seem to think will quote you in court? Are you circulating in such a supreme position that everyone that doesn't believe what you say must be 'stupid' ?

I'm sure that statement will be seen as a breach of your charter but is my opinion in any case. IANAL

If you feel that there is no problem in giving legal advice over the internet, feel free to set up your own site and fire away.
As has been stated already, we do our best on this site to walk a very fine line. We are not going to willingly put ourselves in harms way and risk bringing more trouble on our heads.

danash

The rules are unfair.

Beruthiel wrote: »

If you feel that there is no problem in giving legal advice over the internet, feel free to set up your own site and fire away.
As has been stated already, we do our best on this site to walk a very fine line. We are not going to willingly put ourselves in harms way and risk bringing more trouble on our heads.

If you had read my posts on this thread on and on the other thread I started questioning the title of the forum you will see that I make several references to the fact that it is your site and you make the rules. I seem to have upset a number of people by daring to question the effectiveness of those rules and if they are so easily upset it doesn't concern me. They choose rather to flame me than deal with the ineffectiveness of the site as evidenced by some of the poll results above. If they are in fact lawyers I would not like to have them as my advocate if they react so easily to a contrary view.

I asked the same question over on AAM and got some very pertinent information that assisted me with my strategy in dealing with my marital separation. How bizarre is it that Brendan is prepared to 'walk the fine line' you are afraid of.

Doctors differ etc.......


Boards.ie does not save lives - it provides a forum for intelligent debate that is quite often stifled at birth.


As I said it's your football and you can take it home anytime you want......

Maximilian

Leaving aside the potential liability for Boards if someone relied on incorrect advice, I think the rules exist to protect the very people who would come here looking for that advice, whether they appreciate it or not (and they generally don't).

The chances of someone harming themselves from advice recieved here is probably low but it just takes one person, one instance in maybe a thousand and then the kaka hits the revolving air-conditioning device.

I always use the same analogy but if people are sick, they should go to a doctor, not seek medical advice from the internet. Same thing here.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

If that is the case, the entire thing should be wound up for fear of some poor deficient person coming to the wrong conclusion about something they read on the internet and inadvertently harming themselves.

I wonder why this thread was started - it's now obvious there was no possibility of the rules being changed at all, rendering discussion on the point a useless daydream. Seemingly the protection of stupid people must be upheld at any cost and framed in fears about the untested online negligent misstatement doctrine such self-injured stupid people may one day find themselves pioneering in a courthouse somewhere. I don't buy it anyway.

Question - have the ISP's not negligently hosting e.g. 'successful' suicide pacts causing people to take their own lives been held liable in the US, i.e. the most litigious and frivolity-accepting legal system in the world? If not, what is the basis for believing this liability will crop up here??

In summary, merge legal discussion with After Hours, just to be safe

Maximilian

Mostly leaving your faecetious reply aside, Boards is not an ISP nor is a US decision (source?) binding here.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

I am well aware of both points, however I posit that ISP's, hosting servers and other related technologies are analogous in terms of information dissemination, 'public' ownership / accessibility and management and thus would have the rules of liability applied in similar ways in the legal sense should it come to it.

My point about the American jurisdiction was to highlight the fact that this 'internet negligent misstatement' predicament that we have got so worked up about on this forum has not emerged there, notwithstanding the more enthusiastic approach to litigation and judicial tolerance. The fear that it will suddenly pop up in Ireland and shut down boards.ie is wholly inflated IMO.

I apologize for sounding facetious but I was trying to get across how futile I feel the concepts of fearing a hypothetical legal innovation of internet negligent misstatement and the need to mollycoddle stupid people at the cost of staying silent lest they damage themselves from internet reading are.

drkpower

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

I am well aware of both points, however I posit that ISP's, hosting servers and other related technologies are analogous in terms of information dissemination, 'public' ownership / accessibility and management and thus would have the rules of liability applied in similar ways in the legal sense should it come to it.

My point about the American jurisdiction was to highlight the fact that this 'internet negligent misstatement' predicament that we have got so worked up about on this forum has not emerged there, notwithstanding the more enthusiastic approach to litigation and judicial tolerance. The fear that it will suddenly pop up in Ireland and shut down boards.ie is wholly inflated IMO.

I apologize for sounding facetious but I was trying to get across how futile I feel the concepts of fearing a hypothetical legal innovation of internet negligent misstatement and the need to mollycoddle stupid people at the cost of staying silent lest they damage themselves from internet reading are.

Its not a hypothetical legal innovation - the "default" position is that a forum is a publication like any other and the general principles apply - it would require an "innovation" to carve out internets forum from the law.

The reason this tort has not emerged in the US is because they have already legislated to ensure that liability will only exist where the forum acted irresponsibly/recklessly - they have essentially carved out forums from the general operation of the law. A similar approach by the Irish legislature would make a lot of sense.

DeVore

The rules are fair.

if any lawyer is willing to put their professional name to a statement that says we are perfectly within the law to offer legal advice... please post below with their professional details and a phone number I can verify it on. I'm quite serious, if you are willing to put your name to that I'd like to hear.

I need you to state that:

a) you are an expert with qualifications

b) it is the correct interpretation of law

c) which we can rely on

d) and that you take liability for it if it turns out to be wrong.



DeV.

Maximilian

DeVore wrote: »

if any lawyer is willing to put their professional name to a statement that says we are perfectly within the law to offer legal advice... please post below with their professional details and a phone number I can verify it on. I'm quite serious, if you are willing to put your name to that I'd like to hear.

I need you to state that:

a) you are an expert with qualifications

b) it is the correct interpretation of law

c) which we can rely on

d) and that you take liability for it if it turns out to be wrong.



DeV.

and (e) have Professional Indemnity Insurance.

What you're describing Dev is of course a solicitor.

What a number of people don't understand is that this is a legal discussion forum, not a solicitors practice. Not a free legal aid centre. I doubt Boards could lawfully offer legal advice even if it was willing to do so.

It is a criminal offense for an unqualified person to act as a solicitor (S.55 SA 1954) or to pretend to be one. There are reasons we have laws regulating the giving of legal advice that seemingly eludes a lot of people. There are limitations to what you can get (for free) on the internet.

DeVore

The rules are fair.

+ What Max said.

DeV.

DeVore

The rules are fair.

When Hulla and I started this forum we discussed what it would be about. My desire was to solve the following problem:


From my involvement with Boards and other bits and pieces in my life, I had discovered that what I "assumed" to be the law (because it seemeed reasonable), often wasn't the case.

When I pushed this further I discovered that many people were similarly ignorant of the ACTUAL laws of the society they live in and how that whole system works. They live in a delusional bubble of "presumption" and since 9/10 people probably will never have to interact with the law on a serious basis, that works fine for them.

I'm fascinated by how large groups of people agree the boundaries and rules of their society both from a philosophical point of view and also a pramatic point of view. Even more so now that people turn around to me on this site and say "hey, we need a ruling or a mediation on an argument over here". So I can see the complexity of the whole thing from the other side.


What I wanted was a space where real people could query bits of the law and how its formed and how its implemented and find out how they are governed by the legal system. I wanted a place where Joe Public could come and say "can someone explain to me what a tort is?" "What are squatters rights?"

Additionally I wanted a place where people accross the legal system could come and discuss issues pertaining to their "community".

What I'm not interested in is "My brother just got done for an ounce of weed, what should he do?". There are people and organisations for those sorts of specific issues.

This thread was started to see if people were happy with the moderatorship in terms of achieving those ends, and it seems they are. It can be improve but in part thats up to the general public and their willingness to engage with the way they are governed.

I have a feeling its going to become a hotter topic soon too

DeV.

Gangu

My issue with the forum is somewhat different to most of the posters. I like the forum also be a place for lawyers to share and exchange views on the legal market, various firms etc but I think that the moderators approach is heavy handed in that regard. I had a thread removed recently without any reference to a specific rule by way of explanation, which one would expect as a matter of course. One instance does not give me cause for concern, it could just be an aberration, however this seems to be a general approach taken by the mods here on various threads.

As an IT solicitor that has to advise clients running fora all the time I think that the rules on boards.ie are prudent regarding legal advice. Some of the hypothetical scenarios threads are pulled rather quickly instead of an appropriate edit being made though.

My 2c.

Maximilian

Gangu wrote: »

My issue with the forum is somewhat different to most of the posters. I like the forum also be a place for lawyers to share and exchange views on the legal market, various firms etc but I think that the moderators approach is heavy handed in that regard. I had a thread removed recently without any reference to a specific rule by way of explanation, which one would expect as a matter of course. One instance does not give me cause for concern, it could just be an aberration, however this seems to be a general approach taken by the mods here on various threads.

As an IT solicitor that has to advise clients running fora all the time I think that the rules on boards.ie are prudent regarding legal advice. Some of the hypothetical scenarios threads are pulled rather quickly instead of an appropriate edit being made though.

My 2c.

That's a fair point I think. It's a fine line sometimes. There have been threads which skirt along the charter. For my part, I close some and leave others to see how they pan out, particularly if its a fairly harmless issue. It's a judgement call by the mods and I'm sure we don't always get it right.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

DeVore wrote: »

if any lawyer is willing to put their professional name to a statement that says we are perfectly within the law to offer legal advice... please post below with their professional details and a phone number I can verify it on. I'm quite serious, if you are willing to put your name to that I'd like to hear.

I need you to state that:

a) you are an expert with qualifications

b) it is the correct interpretation of law

c) which we can rely on

d) and that you take liability for it if it turns out to be wrong.



DeV.

But legal advice is NOT allowed

DeVore

The rules are fair.

The silence is really the most eloquent answer to the question isnt it.

If no one is willing to come forward and say "yeah you are on firm ground and I'll put my ass on the line and stand over that advice"... then I think its disingenuous to chide us for not taking that risk either.

I would welcome more interaction between lawyers especially in these times, regarding your business but more then any other forum, I'll be guided by the moderators here on that count

DeV.

Victor

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

I think "asking for advice" threads could be turned into discussion threads more often.

Maximilian

Victor wrote: »

I think "asking for advice" threads could be turned into discussion threads more often.

It's kind of hard to do one thing without the other I think.

Also, if I hear one more person says that they're looking for opinions not advice I will burst into flames.

johnnyskeleton

Maximilian wrote: »

It's kind of hard to do one thing without the other I think.

Also, if I hear one more person says that they're looking for opinions not advice I will burst into flames.

I really am looking for opinions, not advice....





...waits patiently....

Maximilian

lol

Quaver

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

Hi,

I'm a long time reader of this forum, and I agree that legal advice should not be allowed, it's just too risky, and there are an awful lot of idiots out there who might rely on it!

However, I think that sometimes some of the mods can be a bit quick to judge that someone is asking for legal advice and lock the thread, and then in some other instances the OP is clearly looking for legal advice and discussion is allowed.

I can understand the difficulty in resolving these issues though.