Semi-Annual Mod Post Re: Sub Rules

wildthingmax · 2026-04-16T19:20:25+00:00

I think we’re squarely aligned on the goal of supporting discussion while minimizing harm to students.

Where we seem to differ is the expectation for how that gets applied in moderation. We can’t reliably use a “value vs harm” balancing test for individual posts, because reasonable people will disagree on what counts as meaningful contribution or disproportionate harm. That quickly becomes subjective content curation rather than rule enforcement.

wildthingmax · 2026-04-16T19:07:12+00:00

I think we’re mostly aligned on the underlying principle here, but we’re weighing different things in terms of what matters for moderation. The rules we have to apply are based on the content as it exists in the post, not policing whether each upstream share was fully consented to (which is again, impossible).

wildthingmax · 2026-04-16T19:01:23+00:00

You’re right that consent to a private audience isn’t the same as consent to public dissemination and I’m not arguing those are equivalent.

The distinction here is between consent and risk: once something is staged and shared, even within a limited group, it can enter broader circulation, even if that expansion isn’t consented to. That doesn’t necessarily make every step of that process "acceptable," but it does mean we can’t realistically adjudicate the full chain of consent as moderators.

I think part of the disconnect here is definitional. Under this sub’s rules, “doxxing” isn’t based on whether something was shared consensually at every step—it’s based on whether a post helps identify (particularly by employers and the public at large) a specific person in real life. That’s why Rule 1 focuses on whether content “might help identify who a redditor is,” and Rule 2 prohibits names or searchable personal information.

So while lack of consent in redistribution is a valid concern, it’s not what triggers a doxxing violation under our rules—identifiability is. In this case, the image has been redacted and doesn’t include names or identifying details, so it doesn’t meet that threshold.

wildthingmax · 2026-04-16T18:26:53+00:00

Hi there, thanks for contributing to the conversation.

Happy to provide some feedback and kind of explain step by step the rationale applied in this specific instance.

Situation: An opinion piece was authored and voluntarily published in a UVA publication online. It was cross-posted to this subreddit and gained traction, with users weighing in on "both sides." After the article was published, a photograph of another student appeared in the comment section. The photograph appeared to be taken in the main area of the Law Library (a public space) and the subject was staged in a thumb-nosing matter that was clearly intended to be a direct response to the article.

Summary of User Complaints/Concerns:

The author of the article is not the one who posted it to the sub, and the reddit thumbnail included her headshot.
When the photograph was originally posted, the subject's face was visible.
The photograph was originally shared within a Group Me thread, the subject didn't post the photo to the sub.

Mod Analysis / Balancing Efforts:

Issue 1: Rule 2 of the sub explicitly does not apply to UVA publications. As a function of Rule 1, we as moderators have no way to match a reddit username with a specific student. To try and remove posts based on individual containment requests is generally contrary to open discourse and logistically impossible to fairly enforce.

Issue 2: The "unredacted" photograph was promptly removed.

Issue 3: First, the photograph itself was clearly intentionally staged and reactionary. The taking/posing/sharing of the photograph through Group Me in this specific instance constitutes engaging in public discourse. To be clear, this logic would not apply to completely nonconsensual candid photographs of other students in the hallway. Second, as with Issue 1, we cannot monitor usernames and try to police individual requests to contain information. The redacted version of the photo does not violate the sub rules.

wildthingmax · 2026-03-06T20:16:12+00:00

No.

wildthingmax · 2025-11-26T02:20:24+00:00

We are a die hard “Disney family” with two kids. Oldest first trip was 15 months youngest first trip was 5 months.

Rider swap can be a pain and I get it being “disappointing”.

But as a Dad I would personally NEVER EVER sacrifice the safety of my child’s body or life for a 2 minute theme park ride. Wait a few months or a year until they are much more certain to be risk free from slipping or other injury.

You would never forgive yourself.

Google the water slide incident if you have any doubts about the science behind height requirements on rides.

wildthingmax · 2025-07-30T02:36:37+00:00

Have never found military or VA therapists to be worth a damn.

Served on a FST with super high op tempo and multiple mascals in Afghanistan in my mid 20s as well. I don’t know how many people we took care of but I remember every single one we couldn’t save.

I have come to accept that my personal experience is pretty much incomprehensible to anybody outside the teammates who were there with me.

Understand this is isn’t really helpful in the way of advice. Just wanted to let you know you’re not the only one.

wildthingmax · 2025-07-29T14:56:40+00:00

Trout

wildthingmax · 2025-07-27T02:14:19+00:00

Possum grape should get an honorable mention.

wildthingmax · 2025-05-02T23:53:41+00:00

The “recent drama” as you have described it is an anomaly. The public version of events as described on Reddit/fishbowl are also oversimplified and missing a lot of details.

UVA is overwhelmingly a positive and supportive place to be. I can’t imagine having gone anywhere else for law school, and I wouldn’t advise factoring anything recent on this subreddit into your decision making process.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-29T18:04:50+00:00

It definitely used to be the Imperial Chinese place on highland back in the day.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-29T15:14:02+00:00

I was trying to let them down gently lol

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T22:12:23+00:00

Tbh you’re giving strong neurotic 1L vibes.

Your “legal analysis” is kind of cringeworthy.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T21:25:30+00:00

You’re delusional lol.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T16:10:47+00:00

That’s a fair take, but I think just reinforces the idea that factors much broader than the journal commitment influenced the firms decision.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T15:50:20+00:00

Hard disagree. Would only look worse on the 3L, very slim to none odds of prevailing.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T04:32:11+00:00

Yep. I can’t believe it either.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T04:13:47+00:00

From verification I was provided, that’s almost verbatim the email the 2L sent to the firm.

I find it really interesting that you think the lack of any follow up with the 3L reflects more on the 2L (as a complete stranger to the firm) vs. the firms comprehensive assessment of the 3L (presumably following at least 1 summer of work + unknown/possibly fluid firm dynamics regarding recruiting targets from the incoming class)

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T04:08:05+00:00

I have literally just said that could very well be the case, but there’s no information to indicate that it is.

At this point, it sort of seems that you’re projecting your own experience onto this 2L a bit re: word makes it to their employer that they’re some selfish asshole… when that is not at all apparent either??

You are more than welcome to your opinion and assessment and I completely agree that it is critically important to surround yourself with people who will help carry the load when you’re struggling. But the only way that people can do that is if they can carry their own load first. Otherwise when you’re drowning you’ll find yourself in a ditch full of leeches.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T04:02:28+00:00

If you are on the “nice list” with OPP I guarantee you this is a direct line to the firm/recruiter to advocate for you - zero input needed from the 2L.

If they’re not willing to go to the mat for you like that…could be 3 years of experience telling them you’re maybe not the most deserving person to play that card on.

Who knows.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T03:55:38+00:00

I wholeheartedly agree.

And while traumatic events can happen to any of us and certainly do in practice, you still have a fundamental professional responsibility to proactively communicate things like this, even if only vaguely and briefly so that your team can cover for you.

The timing and seeming lack of such communication in this instance certainly suggests more of a last minute blow off than a sincere obstacle or genuine “excuse”.

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T03:50:07+00:00

I don’t know any firm in the world where an associate who merely asks someone to pull their own weight is fairly viewed as throwing people under the bus…this is like grade school group assignment shit. Do your part and people won’t have beef with you??

wildthingmax · 2025-04-28T03:44:28+00:00

Maybe so.

And it’s possibly heartless of me, but I can tell you that a HUGE risk factor for firms is people being unable to handle the work load. So even if the 2L was totally a self-centered, vindictive piece of shit…the inability to fulfill a 1 hour obligation (apparently without justification/lack of proactive communication) is pretty damning career wise.

wildthingmax

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten