CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Law Subforum - Complete Restructuring

Law Subforum - Complete Restructuring

Started by rustywalker42 · · 👁 9 views · 70 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants rustywalker42crimsonsailor7Brian Edwards6Daniel Ward87hiddenmoose16hollowtrucker77feralrangerSam Green73feraljackal2goldengull3
rustywalker42 rustywalker42 Active MemberOP
244 messages
joined Oct 2012
#1 ·
Today was the breaking point with this subforum. I’m not the only one putting up with this moderation, either—we’ve been dealing with it for years.

My next post was actually offered up as an example here:

For that, I got a red card and 35 points for "trolling."

The very last post on that thread, right after a message from the moderator crimsonsailor7, read:

"Am I allowed to reply to Brian Edwards6 and the others, or am I going to get a red card?"

It was deleted instantly.

People have been complaining about the Law subforum forever. I don't know if this thread will actually change anything, but I'm opening it anyway.

Let's define this subforum just like all the others.

Since the Law subforum has turned into a glorified service like LegalZoom, should we apply that logic to everything else?

For instance, should we restrict Natural Science to only strict scientific entries? No debates allowed, no questioning established dogmas. Only experts in natural science should post—meaning moderators would have to be exclusively scientists—and they’d hand out red cards to anyone attempting a constructive discussion?

How about Cars? Should we bring in traffic science experts and penalize any post that deviates from Dr. Marusic’s answers at AAA?

Are we turning this whole site into one giant SERVICE where robots give automated replies to users and suffocate EVERY bit of creative discussion?

Let's get serious and define the situation.

Law should be the last place where you stifle debate, because the law itself is constantly evolving. There are no permanent dogmas; things stay "set in stone" only as long as a specific law exists. Once that law is overturned, the dogma ENDS.
But apparently, that doesn't stop the moderators in this section from crushing any meaningful conversation that drifts away from their personal norms.

The Law subforum might seem like a joke to some, or just a vent for my frustrations, but it's actually a mirror of our society and our entire justice system.

So, I'm proposing a restructuring of the Law subforum. Here are my two suggestions:

1. A complete overhaul of moderation policy, including a change in leadership.
2. Creating a new sub-section within Law—something similar to the old Mad House section in Politics, but without the current moderators.

Those are my only two options; I don't see any others. I've been hitting the same wall on this subforum for ages, and nothing moves.

Why won't the admins step in? What's the issue? Why has this problem in the Law subforum been ignored for years?

Clearly, I'm not the only one fed up with this style of moderation. Threads about this subforum pop up year after year, yet nothing changes. If anything, it's gotten worse.

I'm calling on the admins, the moderators (except for the ones in Law), and the rest of the users to weigh in.

I have no intention of arguing with the Law moderators. It's pointless; as far as they're concerned, the subforum is running perfectly.

Also, there's a poll open.
crimsonsailor7 crimsonsailor7 Active Member
214 messages
joined May 2010
#2 ·
rustywalker42 said:I have no idea why I just got hit with a red card and slapped with 35 points for trolling... honestly, I'm just sitting here wondering what I even did to trigger that...

It’s just a textbook example of trolling, you know that better than anyone...

rustywalker42 said:It was deleted by the prompt immediately...

Look, this isn't really the right place to be dragging this kind of stuff into the public thread, so you could've just sent me a private message instead... and honestly, I know you know that, since you've been hanging around here on LegalZoom long enough to know how things work...

rustywalker42 said:I honestly feel like law should be the absolute last place where we let creative discussions get stifled, because at its core, the law is basically the most fluid thing there is... it’s constantly shifting under our feet. There aren't really any permanent dogmas in this field; any "rule" someone tries to set in stone only lasts as long as the statute itself stays on the books. The second that law gets overturned or repealed, that whole supposed dogma just... vanishes...

Yeah, look, the law is always shifting, there's no argument there... but I honestly don't see how bringing up dogma or the expiration of old regulations even connects to what we're talking about here. Regarding that last question you threw out, nobody was actually pushing some kind of rigid dogma on you; people were just trying to explain why your question didn't quite track and how things would actually play out in practice. It’s not about following some unchangeable doctrine, it's just about how the current legal statutes are written right now...

rustywalker42 said:Nah, I mean, it clearly doesn't stop those subforum moderators from basically suffocating any actual, meaningful conversation that happens to drift even an inch away from their specific little set of rules...

Honestly, that last discussion... it just didn't make any sense at all...
Look, if we actually had any intention of shutting you down, your very first post would've been scrubbed from the board already...

rustywalker42 said:I'm just looking for some input from the admins, the mods—well, everyone except the Law mods—and honestly, just pretty much any other users around here too...

You can't exactly throw accusations around and then act all surprised when the moderators decide to step in and respond...

rustywalker42 said:I'm really not looking to get into any arguments with the moderators over in the LegalZoom subforum, because honestly, it just feels like a waste of breath...

That’s a pretty solid point right there. For us, though, it makes total sense to spend years trying to explain to you that all this trolling and constant bickering isn't actually going anywhere...

rustywalker42 said:since they think the subforum is working perfectly fine as it is.

When did we ever say it was perfect? There's always room to improve things a little bit... 😉
Brian Edwards6 Brian Edwards6 Active Member
112 messages
joined Nov 2015
#3 ·
rustywalker42 said:... For which I’ve been handed a red card and slapped with 35 troll points...

So, the pattern is simple: you ask a question, people rush in to answer, and then you turn around and mock both the answers and the people giving them. You were originally flagged for your overall contribution to the thread, but today, that penalty is specifically targeted at this one comment.👍

rustywalker42 said:I’ve been thinking about the curriculum at our College of Natural Sciences, and I can't help but feel we're drifting. Personally, I think we should strictly limit enrollment to those pursuing actual natural science degrees. It feels like the integrity of the department suffers when the requirements become too diluted.
Are we planning to roll this out on Car and Driver as well?

Every subforum here has a specific purpose and a general direction, and I’d appreciate it if we all respected that. If you decide to post in a thread like "Police Conduct," then actually engage with the subject matter. Either accept how officers handle a situation or offer some legitimate criticism or opinion. Don't just show up to mock everything. You asked quite nicely what you would personally change about a specific procedure, and honestly, you already know exactly how you answered that.👍

rustywalker42 As I was saying:
Law is arguably the last subforum where creative debate should be stifled, primarily because the law itself is the most fluid entity we deal with. There aren't really any permanent dogmas here; instead, what people call "dogma" is simply whatever remains in effect for as long as a specific statute stands. If and when that law is overturned or repealed, that supposed dogma ceases to exist entirely.

To clarify how this works: if you ask about the lifespan of a certain "dogma," my answer will align perfectly with whatever that current dogma happens to be. When the dogma shifts, so does the response. Given the inherent nature of a subforum like this, "unsolicited advice" threads rarely go well. If someone is looking for actual information, they’ll usually find it here, but following the "just trust me, bro" logic found in these debates could easily lead you down the wrong path—potentially resulting in some very real-world, very heavy consequences. If you're ever unsure about a specific legal procedure, try ignoring the officer during a traffic stop next time; you'll figure out exactly where you stand pretty quickly.👍

rustywalker42 said:… Therefore, I am proposing a restructuring of the Legal subforum. I have two specific suggestions in mind...

These proposals feel a bit too vague for my liking.👍

rustywalker42 said:… I don’t intend to get into a debate with the moderators of the Legal subforum. It seems pointless, given that they believe everything is functioning perfectly as it is...

As crimsonsailor7 pointed out, nothing is ever truly perfect, and there is always room for improvement. I would be more than happy to consider any suggestions that are actually concrete and useful.👍

P.S.: Since you seem to be waiting on a response from administration, I'll leave it at that. If any substantive or practical conclusions emerge, I will gladly assist in implementing them.👍
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#4 ·
rustywalker42 said:D
So, I'm suggesting we shake up the LegalZoom subforum. Here are my two ideas:

1. A total overhaul of the moderation policy, including bringing in new moderators.
2. Creating a new section within the LegalZoom forum—kind of like how the Mad House used to work over in Politics—but this time without the current mod team in charge.

Like Brian Edwards6 mentioned, these suggestions are a bit too vague to really dive into.

If you want to change the policy, what kind of rules are you actually thinking of?

As for the second idea, a "Mad House" style section under LegalZoom isn't going to happen for the same reasons that specific PDF was shut down in Politics. Plus, what would people even talk about there? What kind of topics?
rustywalker42 rustywalker42 Active MemberOP
244 messages
joined Oct 2012
#5 ·
crimsonsailor7 said:Classic textbook trolling. You know it too.

Maybe it’s just all inside the heads of you moderators over at LegalZoom. I gave that as a hypothetical scenario, but apparently, if anything requires actual knowledge, you guys just label it trolling. Is that how it works now?

Look, this isn't even the right thread for this. You could've just sent me a DM. And you know that, too—you’ve been hanging around LegalZoom long enough to know how things work here.

So, what you're saying is you WON'T let me respond to someone? You're just suffocating the whole debate because you can't handle someone disagreeing with you. Really?
Whatever. You won't be moderating here forever anyway, right? Honestly, I can't wait for you to finally pack it in. Maybe then this forum might actually see some life. Not that I need to list everyone who bailed on this sub because of you—or even more so because of that bot, Brian Edwards6.

Yeah, laws change. Nobody’s disputing that. But I don't see what dogmas or outdated regulations have to do with this. Regarding your last question—nobody was pushing some dogma on you. People were just pointing out why your question didn't make sense and how things actually work under current rules. It's not about dogma; it's about the regulations currently on the books.

Look, my question actually makes sense. They haven't backed up a single one of their arguments with actual law or any official regulation. Everything that user posted? Totally irrelevant to the specific case I'm talking about. What's the point?
So, they proved absolutely NOTHING.

That last discussion? Total waste of time. Pointless.
If we actually intended to shut you down, your first post would've been nuked already. Simple as that.

Why wasn't it sensible? Because it requires a bit more legal expertise, right? Is that just not your thing?

You can't throw accusations around and then act surprised when the moderators actually respond. What do you expect?

What's even the point in arguing with you people? I'd have better luck convincing a tree to stop growing.

Solid point. What’s even the point in trying to explain this to you year after year? You think all this trolling and back-and-forth is actually going anywhere? It isn't.

The problem is you guys treat every single question that requires actual legal knowledge as trolling. It’s just easier to hand out a ban and shut down the conversation, isn't it? God forbid you actually put in some effort to look up an answer for a specific situation.
A textbook example of government incompetence right here. Probably both of them, too—I’m betting Brian Edwards6 is definitely one of them.

When did we even say that? There’s always room for improvement.😉

Do I really have to dig these messages out of mothballs?

Brian Edwards6 said:So you ask a question, get an answer, and then just mock both the response and the person giving it? Really? Your strike wasn't for your overall contribution to the thread—it was specifically for that one comment today.

They didn't even bother getting back to me. Let’s say you put me in that situation above? I’d sue you so fast. You’d be paying out emotional distress settlements for the rest of your life.
Oh, sure. Why don't you go ahead and back up those imaginary rights of yours with some actual law and regulations? Since you clearly just made them up on the spot in that other thread. Go on then. ☕

Stick to the topic on every subforum. It’s not that hard. If you’re posting in a thread about "Police Conduct," then actually talk about how officers handle things—offer some criticism or share an opinion. Don't just show up to troll. You asked what I would change about a specific situation, and we both know you already have your answer.

What kind of absolute joke is this?! Are you actually out of your mind? You’re acting like some kind of authoritarian cop instead of an actual officer. First you start shooting, then you start playing interrogator with all that totalitarian bullshit. Seriously?
The fact is, you’re just getting defensive because you don't actually have an answer. What, you're gonna solve this with aggression? Really? 👍

Look, if I use this dictionary, any answer I give about how long some "dogma" lasts will be strictly tied to that specific "dogma." When the dogma shifts? The answers shift too. Simple as that. Because that’s just how these subforums work, the NBA debates around here always end up being a total mess.

Exactly. Let’s just lay all the cards on the table. Why wait? We need to know exactly who we’re dealing with and just how much they actually know.
Look, like I said before, the Law subforum is basically a mirror reflecting the entire American judicial system and how we train lawyers. It’s a joke. Nobody actually uses their brain. Instead, students just spend all their time memorizing massive textbooks hundreds of pages long. But then what happens? You take those same students—the ones who aced the exam with flying colors—and throw a real-world scenario at them? They completely fall apart. Total meltdown.👍

If someone’s looking for actual info, they’ll usually find it. Following some "my big brain believes" nonsense on a forum is just a fast track to making a massive mistake in real life—one that could cost you dearly. If you don't understand how a legal procedure works, try ignoring a cop next time you get pulled over. See how that goes for you.

Lead someone down the wrong path? Serious consequences? What exactly are we talking about here? 👍

Your suggestions are way too vague.

The suggestions are solid. First step? Get you and crimsonsailor7 kicked off the moderator list. 👍

Like crimsonsailor7 said, nothing’s perfect. There’s always room to improve. If you’ve got specific, actually useful suggestions? Bring 'em on. I'm all ears.👍

Look, here’s a real suggestion: just step down from the mod team. You and crimsonsailor7 both. 👍

P.S.: Since you're just sitting around waiting on a reply from admin, that's all I've got for now. If any actual, useful conclusions come out of this? I'm happy to help get them implemented.👍

No need. You wrote it yourself. 👍

Daniel Ward87 said:Like Brian Edwards6 said, your suggestions are way too vague to actually answer.

The suggestions are solid. How much do you actually know about moderating the Law subforum? Have you even looked at the posts from the old-timers—people like ZgSash, sasa80, or PowerLock? Not that I’m going to list them all.
These guys have basically checked out of this subforum. They're done. If you really need me to dig up their old posts and pull some quotes, just say the word. No big deal.

If we’re actually talking about changing policy, what kind of policy are you even proposing?

Free speech policy. Look, I didn't insult anyone in my post—read it again if you have to. Why on earth was it labeled as trolling? I explicitly stated I wasn't trolling; I’m actually interested in this. I want to look at this from a natural science perspective and see how actual legal precedents work. But apparently, on this subforum, any discussion that strays even an inch from the literal letter of the law is banned. You try to talk, and immediately it gets shut down and branded as trolling. What's the point?
Look, I’m not here to troll. I’m not some kid looking for attention, and I definitely don't have the energy to waste playing games on a forum. That was never the goal. And before anyone asks—no, I don't run clone accounts. You can easily check that yourself if you actually bother. So, why the sudden hostility? What's with the attitude?

Regarding that second suggestion? A "Mad House on Law" section isn't going to happen, and it's for the exact same reasons that specific PDF is locked over in Politics. Besides, what would we even talk about there? What topics?

I was exaggerating.

Let’s say a "Philosophy of Law" subforum opens up—just throwing out an example here. The whole point would be to allow debates on specific legal provisions or those weird gray areas where the law doesn't give a clear answer. To me, it's a fascinating area. I've tried to dive into stuff like that plenty of times, but the discussion always gets shut down.
There. Hopefully, that's more specific.
Brian Edwards6 Brian Edwards6 Active Member
112 messages
joined Nov 2015
#6 ·
rustywalker42 As I was saying:
Look, my question is perfectly valid. The issue is that they haven't backed up a single one of their arguments with actual law or official regulation... anywhere.
So, why wasn't it considered sensible? Is it because it requires a slightly deeper dive into legal expertise, and that’s just not quite your speed?
The problem here is that you lot seem to think trolling is the only appropriate response whenever someone asks a question that requires even a modicum of legal expertise.
The truth of the matter is that you’re just getting defensive because you don't actually have an answer to my question.
Look, like I mentioned before, the Law subforum is essentially a mirror reflecting the state of our judicial system and how we train lawyers here in America. It’s a process where critical thinking is completely sidelined in favor of rote memorization. Students spend their entire lives cramming hundreds of pages of textbooks word-for-word just to pass an exam. But the moment you take those same students—the ones who graduated with honors and top marks—and present them with a real-world practical scenario, they completely fall apart. They have no idea what to do when there isn't a textbook answer staring them in the face.
I honestly can't fathom why my comment was interpreted as trolling. I explicitly stated that I wasn't trying to be provocative; I am genuinely interested in understanding the situation.
So, please, feel free to go ahead and cite the specific statute or regulation that supposedly grants you the authority you’ve decided to claim in that thread. I'm all ears.

Rather than addressing every single point individually, I think a collective response will suffice here. Honestly, I don't mind repeating myself a hundred times over—you can scroll back through the threads and see that this is a recurring theme—but only if I believe the person actually wants an answer. I have zero interest in engaging if the goal isn't clarity, but rather just dragging things out for the sake of arguing (or "scientific debate," as you so eloquently put it). You pose a question, and then the moment I provide an answer, you dismiss it as merely my "opinion." Then, when I follow up by asking what you think should be done—which is how a functional discussion actually works—you turn around and question whether there's even any point in debating me at all. To me, that doesn't feel like an invitation to a dialogue; it feels like a provocation designed to trigger a petty back-and-forth. I have no intention of participating in that kind of sparring, nor am I going to sit by while you disrupt the flow of this thread with that sort of behavior.👍

rustywalker42 said:...and his response to the situation would be nothing short of pure aggression.

In a specific scenario, we aren't talking about aggression here—we're discussing the lawful and justifiable use of force.👍

rustywalker42 said:Let’s be clear: if you were to put me in that exact situation, I would sue you so relentlessly that you’d be paying out emotional distress damages for the rest of your natural life.

That’s exactly what I was getting at—you might end up leading someone down a dangerous path, and if they actually take your advice, you're the one who'll be left dealing with the fallout. If you’re so convinced that this is how things work, then by all means, feel free to test that theory yourself and see just how well it goes for you. Just don't expect anyone to bail you out when things go south. Believe me, nobody is going to cut you a check to fix your mess. I'm not just talking out of turn here; I'm speaking from both personal experience and my professional background. And look, if you’re genuinely interested in the legalities of it all, I wouldn't mind backing my position up with specific statutory language.👍

rustywalker42 said:… The suggestions are quite specific, starting with removing you and crimsonsailor7 as moderators…
Here is a very specific suggestion for you: step down from your moderator position. Both you and crimsonsailor7 should consider it...

If the administration feels my resignation is necessary, I have absolutely no issue with that.👍

Similarly, if the administration thinks we ought to launch a new sub-forum, I’m perfectly fine with that too.👍
hiddenmoose16 hiddenmoose16 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Aug 2012
#7 ·
A whole lot of nothing here...
I read your opening line:
"What violation? The driver can't hear a thing through the glass because he's listening to Brahms's sonata in F-minor on NPR. His eyes are closed."
If I'm following you correctly, we're talking about a police stop involving traffic enforcement and a driver who has his eyes shut, the radio cranked up, and won't roll down the window to actually listen to the officer. 🙂

And honestly, that was enough for me.
crimsonsailor7 crimsonsailor7 Active Member
214 messages
joined May 2010
#8 ·
rustywalker42, look, I’m really not trying to get into some petty back-and-forth or a shouting match with you, but honestly... with all those insults and the blatant lies you're throwing around, you've seriously crossed a line here.
rustywalker42 rustywalker42 Active MemberOP
244 messages
joined Oct 2012
#9 ·
Brian Edwards6 said:I’m not going to go through every single comment one by one—one collective answer should do it. Honestly, I don't mind repeating myself a hundred times if that's what it takes. You can just scroll back through the thread and see for yourself how often this comes up. But only if I actually think the person wants an answer, you know? Not just when they're trying to drag me into some pointless debate for the sake of arguing. (Or scientific debates, whatever you're calling them now). You pose a question, then immediately spin my answer into "my opinion." Then, when I actually try to engage—you know, call for a real discussion—you just ask if there’s even any point in talking to me at all? Really? Doesn't look like an invitation to a debate to me. Looks more like a challenge to start a flame war, and I'm not interested in playing that game.Look, don't think you can just come in here and derail the whole conversation with that kind of behavior. Seriously? Don't ruin the thread.👍

Alright, so give me one good reason why I’d bother trolling on a subforum where I already know exactly what the vibe is like and how much the mods suck? What, you think I'm some kind of masochist or something? 👍
Look, this was supposed to be a discussion. But instead of actually answering my question—you know, when I politely asked you to cite the specific law and regulation—you just went ahead and slapped me with a ban. What happens when you can't actually back up your own arguments?

We're talking about a specific situation here—not aggression, but the lawful and justified use of force.👍

If you’d actually bothered to cite the specific law or regulation, we might actually get somewhere. Seriously? 👍

That’s exactly what I meant—you might actually lead someone astray. Someone could listen to you, follow that advice, and end up in hot water because of it. If you’re so convinced you're right, go ahead. Create the mess yourself and see how it plays out. Just don't expect anyone to bail you out or pay your tabs when things hit the fan. Believe me, I'm not just talking out of my ass here; I've seen this play out plenty of times, both personally and professionally. And look, if you actually care about the facts, I wouldn't mind backing this up with specific legal statutes. You want proof? I can give you proof.👍

If I get written proof from the authorities showing I'm wrong, am I ready to step down as moderator? 👍

hiddenmoose16 said:A whole lot of nothing here...
I read your first sentence:
"What violation? The driver can't hear a thing through the glass because he's listening to a Brahms sonata in F-minor on NPR. His eyes are closed."
If I'm following you, we're talking about police procedure, traffic stops, and some guy with his eyes shut, blasting the radio, and refusing to roll down his window so he can't hear the officer? 🙂 Is that it?

Honestly, that was pretty much...

No, you totally missed the point. You ripped things out of context and dumped them into this thread. Go back to the cycling subforum. I have no clue why you're even weighing in on a discussion that has zero to do with your section.

crimsonsailor7 said:rustywalker42, I'm not looking for a fight, but honestly, the insults and the lies are going way too far.

Lies and insults? What lies or insults did I even throw out there? Not that I expected anything else once I laid out the facts.

I got the exact same reaction from a government official once—she claimed I was "harassing" her. You know who ended up being right? Me.
Brian Edwards6 Brian Edwards6 Active Member
112 messages
joined Nov 2015
#10 ·
rustywalker42 said:… That’s an invitation to debate…

Even with the best intentions, I fail to see how your comment constitutes an invitation to discuss anything, particularly when you follow it up by claiming a debate with me is pointless.🤷

rustywalker42 said:… yet you didn't actually answer my question…

I did answer. If you found the tone or the nature of my response unsatisfying, that is certainly an issue, but I have already explained why addressing it in that specific way would be futile.👍

rustywalker42 said:… If you had just cited the exact law and regulation, you'd never be finished…

I have already laid out the reasons why I chose not to respond in that manner.👍

rustywalker42 said:… If I were presented with written evidence from official authorities proving you are wrong, would you be willing to step down from your moderator position?...

If the administration decides I need to "step down," I am prepared to do so immediately. As for how the police handle such matters: if I were actually in the wrong, I wouldn't just lose my job; I’d be facing jail time and a lifetime of paying damages for emotional distress—much like several of my colleagues who found themselves in similar situations.👍

rustywalker42 said:… You know who ended up being right all along? Me.

That doesn't mean I'm suddenly infallible in every debate we have. In this particular instance, you're still nowhere near the mark.👍
rustywalker42 rustywalker42 Active MemberOP
244 messages
joined Oct 2012
#11 ·
Brian Edwards6 said:I don't see a single reason to call your comment an invitation to talk. Especially when you go out of your way to say talking to me is pointless.🤷

I didn't say arguing with you was pointless. I asked if it *was* pointless. There's a difference. That question was just part of a much bigger picture.
Honestly, I feel bad if you didn't get what I was actually saying.

I already answered. If you weren't happy with how or what I said, that sounds like a "you" problem. I already explained why it makes zero sense for me to fix it.👍

No, you didn't actually answer me.

I already told you why I didn't answer you like that.👍

Still dodging the question, huh? Makes it pretty obvious you don't have any legal ground to stand on. That’s exactly what I was trying to point out in that other thread, but hey, I got slapped with a ban for it.

I'm not the only one asking you this, either. That user rule_breaker_99 asked you the exact same thing, and from what I can see, you ignored him too.

If the administration thinks I need to "step down," fine. I’m ready to walk right now. But let’s talk about how the police actually handle these situations. If I were wrong? Please. I’d be fired, thrown in prison, and spending the rest of my life paying off damages for someone's emotional distress—just like several of my colleagues who dealt with the exact same thing.👍

I asked you a simple question. If I bring you proof from an official agency showing you’re wrong, are you actually ready to step down as moderator? If you’re one hundred percent sure about your claims, then there shouldn't be any reason to sweat it, right? 👍
Regarding the second half of that quote? Look, I’ve seen it myself. The police have gone rogue more than once, and plenty of those cases never even see a courtroom. Why? Because the people involved didn't want to sue the officers for various reasons. Not that it matters—I'm not getting into the weeds on that.

That doesn't mean you're suddenly right about everything. Not even close. In this case? You're way off.👍

So, you’re actually trying to tell me I’m wrong? Fine. I’ll tell you right now that I’m not. What’s next? You want to turn this into a "my dad can beat up your dad" contest? 👍
hiddenmoose16 hiddenmoose16 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Aug 2012
#12 ·
rustywalker42 said:...

No, you've got it wrong. You're taking things out of context and dragging them into this thread. Go back to the cycling subforum. I honestly don't see why you're even weighing in on a debate that has zero to do with your area of interest.

...

I didn't take anything out of context. Like I already said, that was your very first sentence in the post you linked...
Where am I supposed to "go back" to? Where I choose to participate and what I choose to talk about isn't your business—clearly, you don't get it, and frankly, it's not your concern anyway.

Cheers 😉
Brian Edwards6 Brian Edwards6 Active Member
112 messages
joined Nov 2015
#13 ·
rustywalker42 As specified by:
I didn't say that debating you was pointless; rather, I posed the question, "is there any point in debating you?" That inquiry was merely one small part of a much broader context...

So, you were just trolling me?😕

rustywalker42 As requested:
... No, you still haven't given me an answer...

I did. You asked what the police are actually permitted to do in a situation like that, and I gave you my answer. Then you followed up by asking if there was even any point in trying to argue with me, so I decided to stop attempting to clarify my position.👍

rustywalker42 As I have previously noted:
You’re still dodging the question, which pretty much leads us to the inevitable conclusion: you don't actually have any legal standing to back up those claims of yours.

I am certainly not avoiding the issue; my actions are entirely consistent with current regulations. I have already laid out my reasoning, and frankly, I have no intention of elaborating further.👍

rustywalker42 said:Look, if I manage to produce actual evidence from an official authority that proves you wrong, would you be willing to step down from your moderator position?

Provided we can actually reach an agreement on what constitutes valid evidence, then of course.👍

rustywalker42 said:So, you’re actually going to sit there and tell me I’m wrong? Fine. Let me make this very simple: I am right. If we’re really going to descend to this level of discourse, though, shall we just skip the pleasantries and move straight to seeing whose dad is tougher?

No, I don't think so. Since my position on this is pretty clear, there’s really no point in me cluttering up a thread where you clearly intend to debate the administrators. I suppose I'll just honor what I promised in my first comment—that's all from me.👍
rustywalker42 rustywalker42 Active MemberOP
244 messages
joined Oct 2012
#14 ·
hiddenmoose16 said:Look, I didn't take anything out. Like I already said, that’s literally the very first sentence of the post you linked to...
Where am I supposed to go back to? Where am I even meant to participate? And honestly, what does any of this have to do with you? Not that you understand—but even if you did, it’s definitely not your problem...

Cheers. 😉

You're taking things out of context. Read the whole thread. Honestly? You know what? It doesn't even matter. Your posts alone say everything anyone needs to know about your qualifications to be debating on the Legal subforum. 👋

Brian Edwards6 said:So, you were just trolling?😕

Is asking a rhetorical question considered trolling now? And you’re a moderator? Really? 🤦

Yeah, I did. You asked what the cops are actually allowed to do in a situation like that, and I gave you the answer. Then you followed up with, "Is there even any point in arguing with you?" So, fine. I stopped trying to explain myself.

Is the concept of a rhetorical question even within your grasp? Seriously. 👍

I’m not dodging anything. What I did is perfectly legal under current regulations. I already told you why, and frankly, I don't see the point in explaining it all over again. Why should I?

It's simple: you just don't have any arguments. Another user asked you the exact same thing, and I didn't see you bother answering them either. Basically, two different people have asked you this now. 👍

If we can actually agree on what counts as evidence, then sure. Naturally.👍

Whether we agree or not, if an official body rules that you messed up, are you stepping down from your moderator position? It’s a simple question. Can it get any more straightforward than that? 👍

No. We won't. My stance is clear, so why bother clogging up a thread where you just want to argue with the admins? I'm sticking to what I said in my first comment—that's all from me.👍

Great. 👍-

Back to the topic at hand.

I’d love to hear from the people who voted NO. Why do you think this subforum works so well? Especially since half of you never even show up in the Legal section.

To get more specific about the core issue, here’s the latest example:

spsplc said:Today, the Vukic family was evicted from their own home in San Diego. The reason? They didn't technically close their small business, so debt piled up, even though the shop has been physically closed for ages.
To me, this is exactly why we're in this mess. If someone's making zero income from a business—which is the case here—shouldn't there be some way to help them out? Meanwhile, big shots like an Elon Musk type, working without time off, skipping overtime pay, or dodging vendors, nobody touches them. An eviction would be fine if the IRS proved they were still running the business and dodging taxes, but this is just a total farce.

I want to know what the rest of you think.

And here comes the reply from crimsonsailor7:

crimsonsailor7 said:Farce or not, legally speaking, nothing is debatable. This belongs in Politics.

Seriously, just read the discussion. It's the same old story. Locked down. Surprised?

On that subforum, anything that isn't a direct question requiring a rigid answer gets deleted or locked.

Don't even get me started on how hard it is to navigate. You've got single threads stretching to 200 pages; good luck trying to find anything in that mess.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#15 ·
Don't think the admins aren't keeping an eye on this thread; we're definitely watching, but just bear with us for a bit while we dig into what's going on and touch base with the moderators.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#16 ·
rustywalker42 said:Since the Legal subforum has basically turned into a help desk like Legal, should we just apply that same logic to all the other boards?

People have been bringing this up before; I think slafko mentioned something similar. Back then, I spent four days lurking in the Legal section just to get a feel for how it works, what the vibe is, and how the mods handle things.

The reason Legal feels like a service desk is because most people—at least from what I can tell—just want a quick Q&A. It’s unique because laws dictate what you can and can't do, and Brian Edwards6 made a good point: discussions over at the KK Chicago board are practically pure philosophy.

rustywalker42 said:For example, on Natural Science, should we only allow strict scientific facts, banning any debate or heaven forbid, challenging established norms? And would the mods there need to be exclusively scientists to ban anyone attempting a constructive argument?

Should we do the same for Automobiles? Hire traffic experts and punish anyone whose posts stray from Dr. Marusic's answers at AAA?

Are we turning this whole site into one giant automated SERVICE where bots just answer questions and kill off EVERY creative discussion?

We could always hire lawyers from big firms to answer everything, and then you’d definitely have a "service" board. Sure, when picking moderators, you look for people who know their stuff, but it doesn't always have to be extreme. Having basic knowledge is enough; you pick up the rest as you go.

rustywalker42 said:Legal is the last place where you should be stifling creative debate, mainly because law itself is constantly shifting. There aren't really "dogmas"—rules only exist as long as the law stands. Once a law is overturned, that "dogma" is gone.
But clearly, that doesn't stop the mods there from shutting down any meaningful discussion that wanders away from their specific rules.

I had a similar thought the last time this came up. I actually suggested that we talk to the mods about opening up specific threads or maybe even a separate section where things could be discussed on a more... philosophical level, as you put it. Basically, finding a middle ground with the moderation team. Have you tried sending them a PM with a proposal like that?

rustywalker42 said:1. A total overhaul of moderation policy along with a change in staff.
2. Opening up sub-forums within the Legal section, something similar to how the old "Free Speech" area used to work on the Politics board, but without the current mods in charge.

"Policy change" is just a buzzword at this point. What does that actually mean? What’s the current policy, what should it look like, and what guidelines would we even follow? crimsonsailor7 and Brian Edwards6 are doing a solid job based on how the Legal section was originally designed. If you really want to shake things up, you should probably take a formal proposal to them first; if they can't make it work, then you take it higher. On the Politics board, for example, most big stuff gets hashed out via PMs with the moderators.

There is zero chance we're opening some "free-for-all" zone on the Politics board. That old section was basically just a playground for endless bickering and getting people banned. We shut it down after countless warnings because one person could spend all day there just cleaning up the mess from the day before. It felt like a dive bar where people thought they could do whatever they wanted without supervision. So, the answer is NO.

rustywalker42 said:I'm only offering two suggestions because I don't see any other way. I've been running into the same issue on this sub-forum for ages, and nothing ever changes.

Let me ask you this: have you actually sat down and talked to the mods about opening a space to discuss laws or general topics outside of pure legalities? You're coming in here demanding changes, but it seems like you haven't even had a conversation with the people who actually run the show. crimsonsailor7 and Brian Edwards6 are moderating exactly how the Legal section was meant to function. Most people seem perfectly fine with that. That doesn't mean things can't evolve, but jumping straight to "overthrow the establishment" is a bit much.

rustywalker42 said:I don't get why none of the admins want to step in and deal with the issues in this sub-forum. What's the hold-up? Why has this problem in the Legal section been ignored for years?

I haven't been an admin for years—it's only been one year for me. My advice? Flesh out a real proposal for this "philosophical" sub-forum. Define exactly what it would cover and what kind of discussions would happen there. Start there.

rustywalker42 said:Your suggestions are solid. How much do you actually know about how the Legal subforum is moderated? Have you checked out posts from the old-timers, guys like hollowtrucker77, sasa80, or PowerLock? I won't list them all.
Those users have basically given up on that section entirely. If you want, I can pull up their old quotes for you—no biggie.

Go ahead, why not?

rustywalker42 said:On that subforum, you aren't allowed to have ANY discussion that deviates from what the actual laws state, because any attempt to do so gets shut down immediately and labeled as trolling.

Like I said, this is my suggestion to the mods to fix the issue. There are plenty of people who don't care about debates; they just drop a question and want a straight answer or an interpretation. What you're looking for isn't impossible, there's probably a way to make it work, but it requires getting the moderators on board. It's kind of like when they open a specific new thread on the Religion board dedicated to certain types of discussions.

rustywalker42 said:Maybe open a "Legal Philosophy" subforum, just throwing out an idea here. The whole point would be to allow discussions regarding specific legal provisions or unique situations the law hasn't clearly defined. To me, it's a fascinating area, but every time I've tried to dive into it, the conversation gets smothered.
Hopefully, that's a bit more specific.

Now we're getting somewhere. Couldn't this have been sent to the moderators first?
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#17 ·
Daniel Ward87, this whole legal mess has been dragging on for years now
The constant shutting down of any real debate, combined with moderator laziness and pure arrogance, is just a persistent fixture here
It’s obviously easier to just set these incredibly narrow boundaries where they can simply delete posts and hand out bans
Besides, I don't see what the big deal is when someone tries to explain a law or argue the logic behind an action, right??
People aren't machines, and if there's a statute out there that doesn't make sense to them, you can't seriously expect them to view it as valid or respect it
The media blows everything out of proportion, lawyers just look to line their own pockets, and judges take the path of least resistance by ruling based on those interests...
If public discourse gets stifled on top of all that—the end result is nothing short of state terror, and we'll all have to live with whatever chaos follows
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#18 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Ward87, this legal mess has been dragging on for years.
The constant stifling of debate, combined with lazy and arrogant moderation, is just a recurring theme here.
It’s always easier to just set super tight boundaries and resort to deleting posts or handing out bans.
Besides, I don't see why there's an issue with explaining a law or debating a specific action.
People aren't robots; if there's a law they don't get, you can't just expect them to automatically think it's great or follow it blindly.
The media blows things out of proportion, lawyers protect their own interests, and judges just take the path of least resistance...
If we start choking out public discourse too, the end result is basically state terror and whatever chaos follows.

We're talking past each other. I'm talking about how the legal system has functioned for ages. I was looking at that PDF specifically because it mirrored a previous complaint, and I just shared what my move would have been. That's all. Now look, we've got rustywalker42 dealing with the exact same thing.

If we actually want to change things, wouldn't the most logical first step be asking the mods if it makes sense to start a dedicated thread or PDF? Somewhere where the talk isn't just dry legal jargon, but a bit more open and philosophical. That's what I suggested. Personally, I'm fine with it. But I'd still want the local mods to weigh in.

The mods are the ones running the show there, so it's only fair to ask for their input and recommendations. It's much easier to coordinate with the admins once the mods and the users have reached an agreement.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#19 ·
Daniel Ward87, I hear you, don't sweat it
I’m posting this as someone who’s been banned or suspended more times than I care to admit, just a guy who's fed up with seeing every single decent discussion get shut down before it can even breathe.
Look, it happens—Brian Edwards6 might drop some misinformation or just be completely clueless about a topic, but he acts like he's some high-ranking official defending the reputation of the police or the entire government establishment.

I couldn't care less about how the problem gets fixed; I'm just pointing out that it exists, and honestly, I'm far from the only one noticing it.
Since PDF is technically considered one of the more level-headed ones, it’s hard to believe the admins haven't caught onto this yet, which probably explains why things have spiraled into this incredibly dry, bureaucratic mess.
At the end of the day, a forum is meant for people to actually talk to one another first and foremost; a Q&A service is more of a secondary perk, if it even exists at all.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#20 ·
You've got a point—Reddit is meant for discussion. But Law is a different beast because of how specific it is. When the law says something, there isn't much room for debate. I don't see any reason to argue about everything, but I do think we should have dedicated spaces so people who aren't interested in legal deep-dives don't get bogged down by stuff they don't care about. It’s just like service announcements, right? If the fix is to open up a separate thread for comments, why not just stick to specific proposals like topics or PDFs? And don't worry, we aren't trying to bypass the moderators at all.

At the end of the day, it's about identifying a problem and finding its solution, not about changing policy or swapping out moderators. You used to be an admin, so you know how slow this process moves, but it can be done. Honestly, looking at how fast things move in religion, I bet we'll get there sooner than expected.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads