|
Post by comfortablynumb on Apr 16, 2009 14:07:36 GMT -5
I am not a prolific poster but I am long-time reader. I did not see the offending post but I have seen numerous posts over the last few years that were worth censoring as a result of someone making things just a bit too harsh and personal. However, I must agree with Zero and his opinion regarding judicious use of the banning button as it seems to have brought on an unfortunate collateral action by GP. GP has provided many invaluable postings on this board and I believe the ALJ Discussion Board community will be the real loser if GP is no longer a member. I realize that our moderators or administrators are doing this pro bono and it is a tightrope between acceptable discourse and becoming TOB that they must traverse. I am just suggesting that you might talk the offending poster away from the edge and not hit the ban button quite so quickly next time.
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Apr 16, 2009 15:00:00 GMT -5
When he chastised me and jagghagg for being curt (and possibly rude) to a newbie regarding information already on the Board, I took it in stride. Notably, ALJDiscussion cleaned it all up by starting the FAQ threads. First, just a point of clarification and that is that the FAQs predated the newbie's plethora of questions, and ALJDiscussion agreed with you and Jagghagg. Why JH got the brunt of the accusation of incivility is beyond me. Further, and with a note of disclosure that I have known JH for a very long time, I don't think she, or you, or ALJDiscussion was "uncivil" in the admonition. As a result, I thought GP overreacted. I've watched my friend (JH) and PatriotsFan duel with Val and PM and while that gets snippy now and then, it's within reason, given the personalities that have emerged on the boards. But DD's baiting was beyond the pale. Her claim to know anything about Jagghagg and her motives is nonsense. The board will be better with her gone, and if anyone wants to know why JH does anything she does or says anything she says - ask her; she'll tell you. As for GP, I will say this - I was one that wanted to know about her own reference to nonselection interviews. It turned out that the only reason she didn't post her answer was that the question came from JH. You all may think s/he is a boon of experience and information to the boards, -- and s/he may be --- but I don't like seeing anyone made the focus of such hazing. So I do hope it is water under the bridge, and now I will go down the hall and slap my friend around for her own part.
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Apr 16, 2009 15:24:22 GMT -5
First, just a point of clarification and that is that the FAQs predated the newbie's plethora of questions, and ALJDiscussion agreed with you and Jagghagg. I have always been a big believer that people need to do their homework first before asking for help, so I saw nothing wrong with chastising newbies who just ask for answers without doing some preliminary research first. Heck, I think someone pointed out recently that I said the same thing to JH when she first came on the board years ago. When a new attorney comes to me at my office and ask me a dumb question and it's obvious that he/she didn't do the proper research before coming, I send the person back to do more research. That's the only way people will grow and mature. Considering folks on this board are not new attorneys fresh out of law school, I expect better. However, I also believed that we should make the research tool easily acceable to all, and that's why I and many others on this forum worked together to create the FAQ. I keep track of it, and I think both sides have vaild points and perspectives. I enjoy JH's humor and Val's wit, and I appreciate the fact that folks generally try to keep it civilized. When I start getting worried that we'll cross a line, I close the thread. Usually that hasn't happened very often. The issue with DD is different. If you look at my original post last night, I wasn't plan on doing anything other than a plain warning without naming her specifically. But once she posted a reply and pretty much said she did nothing wrong and feel free to ban her, it showed a lack of insight and gave me no assurance that she wasn't going to creating a bigger mess down the road. So I did some research by reading her old posts, and in a prior post, she said something very similar. At that point, I really have limited options. I chose the permanent ban because I want to draw a very clear line about what is not acceptable on this forum. And I'm a firm believer that by setting a clear precedent this time and just get it over with, we'll have a lot less problem down the road (I'm really not in the business of behavior coaching ). I hope this will make it clear to folks that we take the whole idea of civilized discourse seriously. I understand that people are stressed, but don't take it out on other people on the forum just because it's convenient to do so. I apologize for the forum drama these last two days, but there just wasn't a easy way out of this one.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Apr 16, 2009 18:41:07 GMT -5
There is something to the "gallows humor" of trial lawyers especially prosecutors- I miss the give and take when we tried to keep our wit sharp. But folks, "political correctness" is a requirement of this position. Youi will have to bite your tongue, grip your seat, smile when it hurts. You will see some incredibly poor practice in your hearing rooms. I wish we could invoke the rules of evidence and procedure when reps are attorneys but you have to be very careful, i.e. "Counsel I am really not interested in hearing what your client thinks the Dr. told him but what the Dr. recorded in his treatment notes and is now a matter of record. I am afraid that our informal proceedings have led to some real abuses; I once asked an attorney if he would like to submit a brief summarizing the 700 pages of VA records he brought to the hearing to insure I didn't miss something- his response- "You can't make me do that!" So start getting thickskinned now and best of luck to you all.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 16, 2009 19:14:54 GMT -5
Privateattorney, I am not accusing you or anyone else of being uncivil, but I can only buy into your point so far on the issue of "two cultures" being a cause for some of the recent discord on the board. I was in private practice for more than 10 years. When I was a new attorney I blew my cool once, and our senior partner did an even better job of chopping me down to size than the judge did. Since then I have learned, as I am sure you and others have learned, that one need not be "adversarial" with your adversaries. Zeal and a will to win should not ever become muddied snippiness and personal attacks. I'm sure that most, if not all, of us, have opposing counsel references who will speak well not only about our professional skill, but also our character and ethics, and that's the way it should be. Now that I am in the public sector, I see no reason to behave differently, even though it can be every bit as competitive as the private sector. As others have pointed out, the latest round of snippy messages may very be brought on by stress with the hiring process. But we all have been conditioned to deal with stress on a daily basis. Being anything less than civil and professional doesn't impress anyone, and certainly doesn't help those who are trying to share useful information from this board. I am not saying anything new, but I felt like it was worth repeating. Now please excuse me while I go chew out the guy who stocks our soda machine. I would never condone being snippy nor personal attacks. I don't know anyone who would. Some of us frequent posters fall down on the job from time to time. Most are appropriately forgiven. And a valuable point was made by globalpanda, we were "newbies" once. However, assuming we would behave on this Board in the same manner as we would at work at ODAR or any other Agency, is just that, an assumption. Might apply, might not.
|
|
|
Post by shp on Apr 16, 2009 20:06:36 GMT -5
Privateattorney, I would never condone being snippy nor personal attacks. I don't know anyone who would. Some of us frequent posters fall down on the job from time to time. Most are appropriately forgiven. And a valuable point was made by globalpanda, we were "newbies" once. However, assuming we would behave on this Board in the same manner as we would at work at ODAR or any other Agency, is just that, an assumption. Might apply, might not. Several years ago, when I was fresh out of college, I went to an interview for what turned out to be my first real job. The interview was held at lunch time at a local grill. My future boss was, I thought at the time, about 10 minutes late. The interview went well, and sometime after I was hired, I asked Fred, "why the interview at the lunch counter?" Well he replied, I always show up a little early and observe the person I am thinking of hiring. I can tell an awful lot about a person by how they treat people that are essentially anonymous, who they will probably never see again, or know in any real way. How they treat the waitress in the Diner when they think no one is watching. It tells me exactly how they will treat my customers. It is a lesson that has always stayed with me. To this day, I treat everyone with kindness and I tip big. Never know who might be watching.
|
|
|
Post by lawcat on Apr 16, 2009 20:23:00 GMT -5
Good point, shp. I think one of my interviewers was dealing with the same canceled flight as I was the day I flew into DC, and many people were being rude and aggressive at the gate. Luckily, I managed to keep my cool and stay in the background. What an unpleasant surprise that would have been if I has been an ass and she later recognized me! You never know who's watching.
|
|
|
Post by flannery on Apr 17, 2009 8:39:20 GMT -5
Pixie makes a good point about the unmasking. And yes, I've posted on the "civility" thing more than occasionally, as has ALJ, who I suspect, has more knowledge about this process in his little finger (as does Pixie) than we do in our whole bodies. A big general proposition that will always serve us well is that, no matter how strong our passions are, it is always better to temper them. The other big general proposition is if you are lucky enough to have a pixie around you, you should listen to everything she tells you and thank your lucky stars for her presence....
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Apr 17, 2009 13:03:56 GMT -5
shp and lawcat make very good points about civility, which is appreciated, and about rudeness which almost never goes unnoticed.
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Apr 18, 2009 8:52:54 GMT -5
IMJO and for what it is worth, the concept of "civility" is far more nuanced than what seems to be discussed herein. A polite demeanor combined with consideration when you are dealing with a waitress, ticket salesperson, etc. is one thing. Professional courtesy has some of the same aspects, but may be far more complex. When the threads on this board become more than "how many slots are there in Puerto Rico?" (not a bad question....) and are a forum for disparate viewpoints being subject to debate, civility takes yet another form. Perhaps it's ok for one member to refer to another as "Professor Moriarty" and then not ok to suggest that veiled insults makes the writer an "arse" of sorts. The bottom line is that we can either engage in spirited debate without denouncing our counterparts and calling their character into question or we can join the great dumbing down of America. Up to us. Let's not, in the future, let our dislike for the positions taken by a poster lead to an attack thereon.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 21, 2009 14:48:11 GMT -5
Since I seem to have been the one to have started the worst of squabbling about being civil and courteous, particularly in response to questions from newbies... And since the worst offenders just do not seem to get it (see thread "Outsider Questions!!!".) Particularly folks who benefited greatly as newbie outsiders. And since I do not really see a high likelihood that things will change in the coterie of folks posting unfortunate comments, I just do not see any further benefit in posting on this board. I will be deleting my profile later today. In the meantime I leave you these words to ponder: Zo lang en dank voor alle Vissen. This is really all a BIG SHAME. Globalpanda has been a very important Member of this Board. He has given us invaluable information. When he chastised me and jagghagg for being curt (and possibly rude) to a newbie regarding information already on the Board, I took it in stride. Notably, ALJDiscussion cleaned it all up by starting the FAQ threads. I think one of the problems regarding the issue of "civility" is that there are two distinct cultures here, the "non-adversarial" culture of SSA and the very adversarial culture of us trial lawyers. We in the latter group draft adversarial documents all day long and some of that must rub off on us. I think Pixie and ALJDiscussion understand this, even in its metaphysical context. GP, I don't think you have done anything "wrong" nor do I think Jagghagg has. If feelings have been hurt, that is deeply unfortunate. Maybe everybody can just pull together in these trying times? GP, please reconsider your decision. Being the newbie you referenced, I assure everyone that I harbor no ill feelings. It just goes with the territory, especially in online discussions. Disagreements are expected and welcome in my book. Misunderstandings can be resolved through professional and respectful conversation, as was the one you mentioned. I've been largely pleased with this board and once I found it I happly fled TOB. This is a fun community and I'm glad to be a part of it.
|
|