Daniel Ward87 said:We've already been through this before the speech. I think slafko asked something pretty much identical back then. I actually spent four days digging through that Law PDF just to figure out what the hell was going on—how it was designed and how the moderators even track what's happening over there.
So, basically, the Law PDF looks more like a service manual. What is that even supposed to mean? Look, most people just want a straight answer to their question. That’s how communication works, right? Law is pretty straightforward—it dictates what you can and can't do. Honestly, Brian Edwards6 nailed it: discussions about KK Chicago are basically just pure philosophy at this point.
Finally! Glad we cleared that up. It’s just a sad reality about this sub-forum. A forum is meant for discussion, not some customer service desk. I mean, sure, we could easily turn the entire site into a glorified help center—look at how small-scale sites like Yelp or even niche boards for Agriculture, Ford, or Estée Lauder operate. They all run on those basic Q&A loops. But seriously? Does anyone actually find that useful?
Maybe we should just hire some lawyers from a big firm like Skadden to answer all the questions? Then you might actually get a service PDF out of it. Sure, they say choosing a moderator depends on knowing the ins and outs of the PDF issues, but does it really have to be that deep? A basic understanding is enough. You can pick up the rest as you go.
The whole point of this Forum is going down the drain. You really think all that nonsense above is okay?
I had a similar thought when this came up last time. I even suggested that we should talk to the moderators about opening up specific threads—or maybe even a PDF—where we could actually debate things on a philosophical level. You know, deep dives. Basically, find a solution together with the mods. Did you ever send a PM to the Law moderators with a proposal for something like this?
Aunt Strile, let me clear something up here. This whole mess between me and the Law goes way back. Seriously, believe me when I say the last people on Earth I’d reach out to are the moderators of the Law. Especially when those same mods actually think they're doing a good job. ( Take that one thread where Brian Edwards6 was breathing down everyone's neck about editing every single post—until Nica finally showed up and shut him down. He just kept digging his heels in like he was the only one who was right. Typical. ).
How am I supposed to pitch something like that to someone with those kinds of views? Seriously?
To really lean into the caricature—it’s like walking up to an 85-year-old bassoonist in a symphony orchestra and suggesting he go play at a backyard wedding instead. Like, how would Americans put it? Not gonna happen.
"Policy change" is just a tired cliché at this point. What does that even mean? What's the current policy, what should it look like, what guidelines are we actually supposed to follow? crimsonsailor7 and Brian Edwards6 are doing a solid job following the way the Law was originally intended. If people actually want to change things, they should start by sending a Bill to them first. If that doesn't work, then move on. On Politics, most stuff gets settled via PM with the moderators anyway.
Changing the Politics isn't just some empty buzzword. It’s pretty obvious what the state of things is right now—you even admitted it yourself at the start of your post. This whole sub-forum? It basically functions as a service.
There's no way we’re reopening some "Mad House" style PDF on Politics. That file was nothing but a playground for endless arguing and spamming. We gave countless warnings to just chill out, but eventually, we had to kill it because one person would spend their entire day stuck there cleaning up someone else's garbage from the day before. It felt like running a dive bar where people think they can do whatever they want without anyone watching. So, the answer is NO.
Maybe I picked the wrong example. All I meant was that moderators should basically stay out of things in this subforum. I highly doubt discussions over in Law get this heated compared to what happens in Politics.
Let me repeat myself: have you even bothered talking to the moderators about opening up those PDFs so we can actually discuss the Bills from something other than a strictly legalistic standpoint? You showed up here demanding change, but it doesn't look like you've had a single real conversation with the people actually in charge of making it happen. crimsonsailor7 and Brian Edwards6 moderate this place exactly how the Law PDF was intended to be run. It clearly works for the vast majority. But just because it works for them doesn't mean there isn't room to evolve. Suggesting things like "power to the people" is pretty revolutionary, don't you think?
It’s not exactly groundbreaking if people have been pointing out the same issue for years. I didn't just wake up one morning and decide, "Hey, let's fire the mods because I'm in a bad mood." This hasn't been a sudden thing. It's been an ongoing problem for ages, and if you ask me, things have only gone downhill since Brian Edwards6 showed up.
I haven't been an admin for years—just one year so far. My advice? Flesh out that "philosophical" PDF proposal first. Explain exactly what we’re looking at and what kind of debates would actually happen. You know, just to get things moving.
I laid out the concept in that last post, and it seems pretty straightforward to me. We should tackle legal issues through actual debate rather than just sticking to this mindless Q&A format. Like hollowtrucker77 mentioned regarding traffic signs—there's an endless amount of ground to cover there. Honestly, the sky's the limit. We could dissect specific parts of a Bill, argue about whether they're even constitutional, or dive into those weird "what if" scenarios that don't happen every day but definitely could. Like my example from before—which, by the way, still hasn't been answered. So, yeah. That's the idea.
Take it out. Why not?
Alright, let's kick things off. Here’s a thread I started three years ago:
Look, I’m laying out a suggestion for the mods to fix this mess. Some people don't care about the endless debates; they just show up, ask a question, and want a straight answer or a clear explanation. What you're asking for isn't impossible. There might be a way to make it work, but that requires sitting down with the moderators and making a deal. It’s like how we open a specific sub-thread on the Religion board dedicated to certain types of discussions. Simple as that.
And then people show up with an actual, specific issue—like opening a new thread—only to have it locked immediately because "it already exists somewhere else." Oh, go find it then. A thread spanning 239 pages. Yeah, sure. Go hunt it down. 🤦
Look, let’s be clear: I run two pretty large forums, and I never allow this kind of nonsense. It’s just pointless.
It’s way better to have 20 separate threads on a topic than one massive 200-page monster. This is getting more specific. Couldn't this have been directed to the moderators first?
I already explained why not.
Daniel Ward87 said:We aren't on the same page. I'm talking about how Law has functioned for years. I followed that PDF specifically because it mirrored a previous complaint, and I stated what I would do. That's it. Now look, here's rustywalker42 dealing with the exact same thing.
If we actually want to change things, shouldn't the logical first step be asking the moderators if it makes sense to start a dedicated thread or PDF? Somewhere where the discussion isn't just dry legal jargon, but can be more free-flowing 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 moderators are the ones running that space; it’s only right to ask for their input and recommendations. Once the mods and the Forum members reach an agreement, handling the administrative side is easy.
If you agree—as an admin—then great. But I wouldn't let the current moderators into that sub-forum. Given how they've handled moderation so far, I don't see them fitting in. Assign someone else to moderate it.
Again, I don't see the point in debating with them when they clearly have a different vision for that sub-forum and refuse to budge.
Why aren't law firms allowed to comment? Why is it okay to trash a mechanic on the Ford forum for a bad repair, but you can't even mention a lawyer in the Law section? Why?
Daniel Ward87 said:You're right, the Forum is meant for discussion. But Law is unique because of the nature of the subject itself. You know what the law says; there isn't much room for debate there. However, I don't see any reason why certain things can't be discussed—just in a designated area so we don't clutter up the sections for people who aren't interested in that kind of talk. Think service info, right? If the solution to a problem is creating a separate place for comments, why not discuss specific proposals like a thread or a PDF? We won't be bypassing the moderators at all.
The bottom line is: solve the problem, don't try to overhaul Policy and swap out moderators. You were an admin; you know how slow this moves, but it can be done. Religion is proof that things move fast enough.
No, it isn't "specific." It’s only specific because you let them talk you into believing it is.
Law should be simple. It should be accessible to everyone. Laws ought to be written so any regular person can actually understand them. Just like Politics, Law is woven so deeply into the fabric of daily life that pointing out its "complexity" is honestly laughable.
Claiming the law is somehow overly specialized is just pandering to the Bar Association and that old-school, gatekeeping way of thinking.
Quantum mechanics is specific. Law? Not even close.
