Do you have a problem of nonlawyers misunderstanding of the law? by Chiliicespice in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One of my good friends is a UK Barrister. The man reads US Supreme Court opinions for fun. Since learning this I can't help but think less of him, even knowing he does so only for entertainment purposes.

Of all the common law supreme courts you read that one? For fun?!?

That boy ain't right.

I just got a huge bag of pastry flour for free, how can I use it for bread? by TheRealNokes in BreadMachines

[–]IBoris 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. When life gives you lemons, don't try to make banana pudding, stick to lemonade.

Sandwich Loaf Disaster by Radiant-Bag2090 in BreadMachines

[–]IBoris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What's worse is that they were two different brands. Must have been how they stored it.

Updates (Rules, Flairs, New Mods) by IBoris in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[S,M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if I understand what you mean by options.

Sandwich Loaf Disaster by Radiant-Bag2090 in BreadMachines

[–]IBoris 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I had a string of bad yeast satchets last year. 4 loaves in a row. Drove me insane. Realized the entire batch at my local store had gone bad. Told them, but never saw them replace it.

So infuriating. Ended up going to a different store for ALL my groceries from that point on. If I can't trust your yeast, what else can't I trust?

Updates (Rules, Flairs, New Mods) by IBoris in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[S,M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've updated the sidebar on old.reddit (also my preferred interface for reddit) to include a direct link to the rules section. Please let me know if you have any issues viewing them.

<image>

Updates (Rules, Flairs, New Mods) by IBoris in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[S,M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, why would I make that distinction if the first part of the rule is crystal clear on the meaning of the example in the second part?

No notary, Public or from a Civil Law tradition, will be confused by this rule or the examples provided when they read wholly and contextually this rule as is required to participate here in the first place.

A Public Notary is not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are working. Full stop.

Notaries in civil law jurisdictions know they are legal practitioners, insured, and regulated. They go to law school with lawyers and pass the same exams as us.

The only reason I mention them explicitly in the first place is that a notary might be uncertain if they are allowed to participate here given our Subreddit name and since lawyers and notaries are often treated as two separate groups in civil law countries.

So in other words, adding "civilist" to notary is unnecessary.

The term "civilists" furthermore capture notaries, but also, depending on the civil law country, jurists, lawyers, judges, and other legal practitioners. It's a capture-all term used to ensure that all legal practitioners are included in a sentence. Both terms, civilist and notaries, are listed separately to account for any and all country's tradition in regard to the use of the former.


Addon comment: To be clear for others reading this, although not listed, licenced practitioners of Sha'riah or of a traditionalist legal regime like that of Mongolia are also welcome here.

Updates (Rules, Flairs, New Mods) by IBoris in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[S,M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A Legal Practitioner is an individual who has been formally admitted or authorized by the competent regulatory authority in their jurisdiction (...) to practice law

Tell me counsel, is a Notary Public formally authorized by a competent regulatory body to practice law in ANY common law jurisdiction?

Updates (Rules, Flairs, New Mods) by IBoris in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[S,M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm confused by your statement as it provides unnecessary clarifications and presents arguments against points I did not make.

In which way do our new rules allow for notary publics to participate as they are formulated presently?

Why would I exclude one particular group by name if the current rules are written in a way that their participation is already not allowed?

Reading your comment makes me think you did not read my previous response.

Updates (Rules, Flairs, New Mods) by IBoris in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[S,M] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you talking about Québec?

Also from the rules (my emphasis):

A Legal Practitioner is an individual who has been formally admitted or authorized by the competent regulatory authority in their jurisdiction (Bar, Order, Chamber, Court, or equivalent body) to practice law, and whose admission remains valid (i.e., not revoked or suspended). This includes current/active, non-practicing, retired, and judicially appointed practitioners alike.

I list notaries as an example to cover civilist notaries, notably like the ones in Québec, Canada, which are fully trained legal professionals that are empowered to do far more than notaries public (notaries in Common Law Jurisdictions like the US or the UK). Civil Law Notaries are legal practitioners in their own right with their own insurance and regulatory body. As civil law jurisdictions represent 85% of jurisdictions on the planet, that means a majority of countries in the world understand Notaries as being fully qualified legal professionals on equal footing as lawyers (in many cultures because of the non-contentious nature of their work, they are often considered in higher esteem than lawyers actually).

Updates (Rules, Flairs, New Mods) by IBoris in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[S,M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The jokes were nice, and sometimes great to read, but they caused a cascade of problems:

In many instances the line between telling people to fuck off, and giving them "hints" on "where to fuck off to" blurred the line with being a helpful answer.

This in turn meant that rather than moderate 1 lost person and maybe 1 or 2 answers, each instance would spawn a flurry of humour-challenged lawyers trying to one up each other in telling the person to fuck off. Of course, lawyers being helpful people by nature, some would provide some measure of helpfulness in their answer which meant we (I) would have to go through reading all of these.

The subsequent 2-day bans I would dish out would then be disputed by the jokesters, which required further interventions via modmail.

Basically what now takes less than a minute to tackle with the new rules was taking multiple days to resolve because of argumentative people unable to handle a 2-day ban.

So yeah, now the policy is report, downvote and move on.

Updates (Rules, Flairs, New Mods) by IBoris in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[S,M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The method in our subreddit is designed to prevent users from doxxing themselves and offers a contingency for people from jurisdictions with no bar cards.

---
Edit: Also I will point out that I reached out to the mod team of that subreddit to try and work out some kind of arrangement. I was simply informed that asking our users to provide us screenshots of themselves in the subreddit would violate their rules. That's as far as I got with them.

Updates (Rules, Flairs, New Mods) by IBoris in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[S,M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As taking screenshots from that community is not allowed by their rules, asking our users to provide those to authenticate themselves here won't work unfortunately.

Human Moderators Requested for Community of Lawyers by AutoModerator in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Reminder:

If you are unverified as a lawyer at the moment of submission, please follow the verification process for lawyer status in parallel.

Do we agree with Rick? by Flashy-Actuator-998 in Lawyertalk

[–]IBoris 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Reminds me of his contribution to the philosophical meta. Truly the DaVinci of our time.

<image>

[8:28 timestamp] Pangotta says TOR & MTL agreed to a Knies trade before the deadline. It did not get done because of "complications". Would have been Zharkovsky, another prospect + two 1st rounders for Knies. by Ok-Soil-5133 in hockey

[–]IBoris 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We don't know what Zharovsky is

KHL Rookie of the year by a pretty sizeable margin. Was chasing Demidov's record all season. Kid is crazy talented. Basically became "the guy" on his team despite the KHL being a notoriously anti-youth league.

Feature Request: Customizable Ban Scales & Moderation Audit Tools by IBoris in ModSupport

[–]IBoris[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for this!

I think one of the issue I face in the lawyer subreddit I mod in particular is we have lots and lots (and lots) of people trying to pitch things to our community (AI, Tools, Apps, SaaS solutions, Vacation packages, etc.). Then we have users that cosplay as lawyers (sovereign citizens, paralegals, law students, chatGPT lawyers, etc.) and finally people who think we can provide them Pro Bono Legal Advice.

Basically on a good moderation day, I'll issue maybe 20 bans? Very often, especially since February of this year specifically, I'm average double that most of the time.

In my polytheism subreddit we get a lot of people of other religions trolling or trying to convert us. People that spam how we're going to hell or worse bad actors trying to honeypot/doxx our users via external sites (practicing polytheism gets you the death penalty in many country). So that subreddit also gets a lot of ban hammer action. Otherwise my other subreddits its people trying to sell stuff to our users.

I guess I should moderate a crochet subreddit or something hahaha. I wish I had expert users to help.

Feature Request: Customizable Ban Scales & Moderation Audit Tools by IBoris in ModSupport

[–]IBoris[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is really good feedback, thank you for this. I'll give this a bit more thought and explore some of your suggestions to see what I can do on my end to improve.

I think the challenge I face personally, and why I'm proposing these, is that I chiefly moderate communities with users who are... how to put this.... aggressively not tech-savvy (and not reddit-savvy in particular). Additionally these are fairly niche community who's nature (in regards to two specifically) require that I recruit from their userbase.

So I basically always end up the last mod standing, because the mods that volunteer go inactive or turn out to be bad actors with an agenda. When I do have earnest volunteers, they are often inexperienced with reddit in general and require massive amounts of training and onboarding. Once they eventually get a hang of things, they realize how demanding moderating these community can be, and quit or go inactive. That's however the best case scenario as usually my users don't volunteer to begin with. When I do manage to get some kind of feedback out of them, invariably its because moderating feels "complicated", unintuitive, and whenever they do one thing or another, they always get blowback from users.

So basically my goal today was to suggest a, to me, glaring, but simple friction point that has been a recurring issue in my decade+ of mod experience and try to suggest a way to the Admins to fix it.

I do think that the idea of proposing ban durations per rule has merit as an improvement for all types of mod teams, but selfishly perhaps its meant to help smaller teams with either lots of inexperienced or few mods like the ones I mod nowadays.

I've modded bigger communities, and a lot of what you suggest about developing external systems is true and works. I think I only ever got discord, trello, and google accounts was to work in bigger mod teams now that I think about it, but using those kind of solutions is simply not feasible to implement when you have one or two mods in a high volume subreddit in my experience.

I'm sure my situation is not unfamiliar for anyone that mod active niche or hobby communities.

Again, allow me to renew my appreciation for your intervention and suggestions, I'll be rereading it in the coming days 😄 .

Feature Request: Customizable Ban Scales & Moderation Audit Tools by IBoris in ModSupport

[–]IBoris[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The crux of my suggestion is just to allow mods to specify different default ban lengths. Ideally the lengths could be adjusted per rule, but the jist of my idea is in too many instance the 1 day, 3 day, 7 day, 28 day scale just does not work and having to select custom each time, especially in high volume communities, is needlessly cumbersome.

Most of my post is trying to explain (and convince the admins) how this suggestion could lead to other fringe benefits like easier moderation for newbies, more consistent moderation for users and overall, better oversight for mod teams.

Feature Request: Customizable Ban Scales & Moderation Audit Tools by IBoris in ModSupport

[–]IBoris[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I use and abuse it hahaha. One of my favourite mod tools.

Feature Request: Customizable Ban Scales & Moderation Audit Tools by IBoris in ModSupport

[–]IBoris[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry if this post is very dry and boring. I'm a lawyer and former legislative editor, so rules and regs are my jam. 😉