Forum Feedback and Charter Discussion

hullaballoo

Hi,

Just about a year ago, the charter was re-built almost from scratch. This was as a result of a Feedback thread here. The new charter replaced a then 7-year-old charter that had pretty much had addendum after addendum put in place following the initial drafting of the charter on the forum's establishment in 2006.

Looking back through that thread, I think that the main concerns from the Feedback thread was addressed by the new charter - it is more succinct, easy to follow and there's only one thread needed.

However, some other concerns have not been directly addressed by the new charter. We want to know what the forum users think can or should be done to improve how the forum works. We're open to any suggestions at this stage. (We may have to shut down certain suggestions as non-runners because of overriding site-wide policies etc.)

Further, it might be an idea to have a sort of Q&A with the moderators in terms of how we apply the charter. For example, there are still certain threads that are immediately locked down for seeking legal advice, with others seemingly seeking legal advice left to run... why is that? I know some forum regulars might know the answer to that but not everyone will.

With luck, we will be able to harvest useful feedback/discussion/Q&A stuff to everyone's mutual benefit. There may even be the beginnings of a Legal Discussion FAQ by the end of this process.

Please be aware that this is not a free-for-all exercise where we are going to allow collateral attacks on previous warnings/infractions/bans. The charter still applies, albeit with the necessary adjustments to allow for this thread to work.

(Please note that we will be changing the personal abuse rule around freemen/pseudolawyers so that they cannot be so openly attacked and as such there is limited need to discuss that here.)

The floor is yours.

NoQuarter

More water.

Victor

hullaballoo wrote: »

Please note that we will be changing the personal abuse rule around freemen/pseudolawyers so that they cannot be so openly attacked and as such there is limited need to discuss that here.

There has been some low-level trolling / slagging off of freemen. However, some identifiable as freemen are also trolling.

MarkAnthony

I was actually thinking about this the other day. I still think there should be a Isaac Wunder sub forum a la Walter Mitty in the Military forum. Some of the freemen antics are quite amusing and deserve their own threads.

A FAQ is definitely a good idea but given the last outing, I wonder how much it get's used.

It was a real shame certain pillocks couldn't operate within the rules of the FE-1 threads but I think the advertising is probably best left to adverts.

I think the legal advice rule needs looking at somehow - I'm not 100% sure how this can be quantified. Perhaps just a caveat in the rules that while legal advice is not allowed some advice isn't really legal advice - I don't know that's not well thought out. An example is it's perfectly fine IMHO to have a discussion about returning a toaster to Argos but advising on a med neg claim is obviously a no-no.

I actually also think there should be a solicitors recommendation thread al a the Construction forum, requests only with PM replies only.

Just my two cents, more as I think of it.

Victor

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I actually also think there should be a solicitors recommendation thread al a the Construction forum, requests only with PM replies only.

Something similar could be an 'introduce yourself' thread.

But between those two ideas, you have to make sure the two never meet.

Pat Mustard

Just bumping this, to see if anyone else has any good ideas.

Manach

My suggestion: have a subform for the various pieces of legislation (Ireland, EU or interesting UK ones). Offhand this would, depending on the stage, have the name of the act/SI, a precise on what is about and what impact his would have - either on older cases, laws or society in general.

drkpower

Manach wrote: »

My suggestion: have a subform for the various pieces of legislation (Ireland, EU or interesting UK ones). Offhand this would, depending on the stage, have the name of the act/SI, a precise on what is about and what impact his would have - either on older cases, laws or society in general.

+1
And similarly, you might consider a sub forum (or stickies) addressing key topical events with a heavy legal angle. The current tragic case of the pregnant woman in a vegetative state is a case in point. Discussion of the core legal issues would be quite interesting, and would be far more worthwhile conversation than you typically get in AH (or sometimes A&A). Discussion in this forum might avoid the inevitable arrival of barstool lawyers who typically miss the (legal) point, and avoid the discussion becoming mired in wider political or social issues.

billy few mates

Too many interesting threads are closed too quickly for "seeking legal advice", there should be a way found to let the discussion run either by removing any "legal advice" or issuing a disclaimer that nothing on here should be taken as legal advice.

Carawaystick

I pm'ed with a mod (long ago) about some clarity on the sub judice rule, especially extraterritorially.
So some outline policy on the rule in Ireland, Englad&Wales, other common law, other EU/EEA, other first/second world countries, etc down to Somalia, Afghanistan and North Korea.
Where is there a line between just not caring about ongoing court cases and obeying the law here.

And related and mentioned upthread some policy re askig about topical issues raised in ongoing cases. I'd imagine general points relating to the law or procedure are ok, while specific points a no no?

Wheelnut

What is the definition of a freeman in the context of this forum?

Tom Young

See your autosig. 'Wheelnut' - works for me. Canadian case of Meads v Meads defines a freeman quite well.

Wheelnut

Thanks Tom. I just wondered if the term "freeman" was a little broader on this forum to include amateur/bar-stool lawyers etc. It arose from my reading of this sentence:

hullaballoo wrote: »

(Please note that we will be changing the personal abuse rule around freemen/pseudolawyers so that they cannot be so openly attacked and as such there is limited need to discuss that here.)

However I now see that the term "pseudolawyer" was used in that Canadian judgement and referred to freemen. It was not a separate group of amateurs. Sorry about the misreading and no offense to the OP.

Victor

Surely the point is pseudolaw, not pseudolawyers?

hullaballoo

Ok, another bump because even though there are only 13 replies here, a number of people appear to be harbouring bad sentiment in relation to the charter and forum moderation. This is the arena to discuss these issues, rather than in thread so please feel free to air any qualms here. As I said in the OP, there is a level of immunity from the charter to enable this discussion.

MarkAnthony

billy few mates wrote: »

Another interesting discussion bites the dust for accidentally containing an opinion which might be construed as legal....

As this has turned into more of a 'how to use the forum thread' this is a frequent complaint of yours; it's very easy to stay within the bounds of the charter. It starts with the OP reading the charter before they post an framing their OP accordingly. Perhaps it's worth directing the complaints to OPs rather than generally. Incidentally the thread is still open and there's not even a warning on it. There's loads of scope for a discussion that doesn't include legal advice, despite the poorly framed OP.

Lastly the latitude given in this forum is huge given the subject matter. The fact of the matter is people are stupid, lazy and want answers now. There is a huge danger of someone taking something written here as gospel and doing themselves huge damage. I'm sorry to be on a rant, especially one that can be seen as back seat moding but it's been bugging me for a while and I wanted to get it off my chest. If you look around the web there is no properly ran forum that allows randomers to dispense legal advice.

billy few mates

I just think there has to be a better way to achieve your goal without having to shut down or edit any thread that strays into the bounds of 'legal advice' or opinion, surely a big red disclaimer warning at the top of every thread warning that nothing on here should be taken as legal advice would be enough to deter the 'hard of thinking' and satisfy your obligations to protect them from themselves..?
Yesterday we had the farcical situation where some posts were moderated because some school kid might have accidentally dispensed legal advice...!
Why have a section of the forum called 'Legal Discussion' where you're not allowed to have a 'legal discussion'.
I just think this section of the forum is over moderated but that's just my (non legal) opinion...

FreudianSlippers

billy few mates wrote: »

I just think there has to be a better way to achieve your goal without having to shut down or edit any thread that strays into the bounds of 'legal advice' or opinion, surely a big red disclaimer warning at the top of every thread warning that nothing on here should be taken as legal advice would be enough to deter the 'hard of thinking' and satisfy your obligations to protect them from themselves..?
Yesterday we had the farcical situation where some posts were moderated because some school kid might have accidentally dispensed legal advice...!
Why have a section of the forum called 'Legal Discussion' where you're not allowed to have a 'legal discussion'.
I just think this section of the forum is over moderated but that's just my (non legal) opinion...

Firstly, it's not possible to have such a disclaimer on the top of every thread.

Secondly, I think you'll find there was no moderation in that thread you mentioned.

Thirdly, there is IMO of course scope to have a legal discussion where there can be discussions of potential issues and the law; but this cannot occur where posters are seeking legal information on which they intend to rely to bring/defend a case or where posters are saying "you would/wouldn't have a case in x".