posting ettiquete discussion.

[sammy01]

Ok, so for my part I'll make an apology. I'll accept some stuff I've written is bad form.
Done.
But.... I'm politely asking that I don't be accused of stalking. Simply responding to a thread does not amount to stalking.
I am politely asking to not be critiised for the way I choose to post.... (ellipsis was deliberate) Might not be a bad idea to let people articulate their opinions in a way that they choose. That bloke you had a go at someone recently - something about them appointing themselves as the sensor. Rightly so.... But then you're attacking me - and others about how they choose to write.... (again deliberate)
Having a go at folks because of the amount of posts they make? Again what is achieved.
Rail roading threads - as is the case where a conversation about whether or not a bloke can take a car that he half owns, should not become an argument about the changes to the IVO legislation. He didn't ask, he didn't ask about toilet paper. OR my opinion on IVO's or anything else. He asked about what to do about this car. The point I'm trying to make is that I reckon some good folk come here, sometimes in desperate need of help. One such post was at 4am. That alone tells me that bloke is struggling. Let's offer our what ever we might have to these folk without it becoming a mud slinging competition. After all, there are good folk here who have some insights that might help. Some of the posts are reason for them to choose to look elsewhere. Which is unfortunate because I'm sure some folk post here out of desperation... Rant nearly over.

BUT - if you wanna disagree and throw mud at some of the regulars, go for it... But can I politely ask you throw your mud on this thread, so the poor soles who come here and are in distress, don't have to read our dribble.

 

[MartyK]

Family Law is rife with false allegations and false denials - if a poster is going to accuse someone - through personal character attacks - as opposed to respectful disagreement with a members viewpoint - or questioning that viewpoint - question mark - as in Family Law (this is a Family Law forum?) - IMO it is fitting they provide supporting evidence to back up said claim - members have a right to defend themselves against unsubstantiated personal character attacks. I would be more than happy to be shown where I have called thatbloke urine or any other such petty names - I have not. If a person does not understand a post - disagrees with an answer - is uncertain - is it not better to ask a question? This includes where regular members insult OP’s for their spelling mistakes - how do we know the OP’s background? - this is an ignorant approach from anyone involved in Family Law in my view

 

[sammy01]

Hey there is a report button. If twits want to be twits.... hit the report button.
Go on dare ya

 

[Tim W]

Contributing here can be... demanding, can't it?

People come here for reasonably well thought-out legal advice.
It isn't always is hardly ever actually possible.
And certainly not to the extent people might like,
or indeed, might need.

Even the lawyers here don't answer every question that is posted.
For one thing, we are (as a matter of mandatory Professional Conduct)
not meant to make too much noise about areas of law that we don't personally know much about.
That's why for example, I say very little about Family Law,
but could bang on about tax all day if ever asked.

Reality is, the lawyers here are generally confined to generalities about the type of case,
and usually have extensive disclaimers attached to their remarks
to reflect that (as do I).
By contrast, the layman users here get to say whatever bollocks they like,
about anything they like. Without a duty of reliabilty, and without fear of consequence.
That's dangerous for the everyday reader.

In questions posted here, there are often (even usually) undisclosed facts, interests,
or other matters that would, if disclosed, likely prompt the lawyers here
to make quite different replies/remarks.
That's why the overt lawyers here (who are very much the numerical minority)
tend to be careful about what they say, and even with which posts they engage at all.

Sometimes, lay people here are genuinely helpful.
At other times, even reasonably eloquent layman users can be really quite dangerous.
Especially those who have become.. emboldened... by a bit of their own mere good luck,
and who have mistaken that good luck for a product of their personal skill.
In such cases, their eloquence can be dangerously out of proportion to the reliability of what they post.
This is as equally true of complex Family Law as it is of court-elected minor traffic offences.

Unlike lawyers, layman users of this board get to say things that range from being merely factually incorrect,
to downright sociopathic.
I am in equal parts continually astonished and impressed by the patience shown by the @lawanswers Admins
towards some of the...characters... on here.
Apart from the merely volatile, there are users here, eloquent, and seemingly reasonable,
whose contributions are actually quite without value, but who largely go un-dealt-with,
because the rest of us have to see real life clients and make a living.

 

[lawanswers]

Locking thread. @Tim W and fellow contributors - I do my best to warn those users who breach the Community Guidelines (Community Guidelines | LawAnswers.com.au) when reported for moderation.
In recent months, a couple of users have also been banned for repeat breaches, specifically for being obscene, abusive, insulting or inflammatory.
As always, please let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions in the Pool Room so that the forum can continue to be a place where Australians can help fellow Australians to better understand the law.
Thank you for your continued help and support.