EPTAnd I would ditch the lawyer. I am one myself. And I am pretty damn sure I would be the most useless of the four of us on that island.
I'm a borderline genius lawyer - AMA - Page 2
| Blogs > RetFan |
Porcelina
United Kingdom3249 Posts
And I would ditch the lawyer. I am one myself. And I am pretty damn sure I would be the most useless of the four of us on that island. | ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
Interesting read nonetheless. Teams should definitely draft specific constitutions for themselves. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
Gnial
Canada907 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:21 Plexa wrote: Oh I'm interested as to why you wouldn't ditch the lawyer, you didn't really finish that point up. Lol. I think it was a trick question. You see, he wouldn't ditch the lawyer because he would be the lawyer. As for the rest of us, a quick search of his other posts quickly confirms why he would be the first one ditched. | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
Lol Gnial agreed. I'm going to be doing law next year but after this post I'm instantly picking the other three if it ever comes to it. | ||
|
Mr.SoloDolo
American Samoa90 Posts
On November 16 2011 17:53 Svetz wrote: A scientist isn't much use on a desert island either. Can I take a doctor, an engineer and a farmer? Idk man scientists can help a lot, especially if they're a biologist in this circumstance. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:21 Plexa wrote: Oh I'm interested as to why you wouldn't ditch the lawyer, you didn't really finish that point up. It's simple, because lawyers are a superior class people that represent the smartest portion of the population. Did you really read his post? You are clearly not a lawyer. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3822 Posts
Thinly veiled brag blog detected! | ||
|
RetFan
32 Posts
You are correct in that what I've written is only semi-completed. Not as a defence but primarily as a point of information, I wrote the entire article without having the chance to double check or edit the contents. It is largely uncompleted and I will update when I have the time. To reflect on some of the posts that have been made by fellow Team Liquid members, I will make a few comments: 1. I did know that there would be people who would think that I was coming off pretentiously. That's why I tried to preemptively address the problem beforehand. If this was a medical article and I started with 'I go to Yale Medical School' would that also be considered bragging or putting things into context? I think it could be seen either way but I am sincerely telling readers that I am not here to gloat. The point I was trying to get across is that lawyers learn a skill set which focuses upon decision making, analysing and applying logical facts and drawing conclusions with as much neutrality as possible. This is the job that lawyers are trained to do, much like engineers are trained to design things and doctors to treat medical illnesses. If lawyers did not exist, then there would not be a non-biased or uniform approach to solving disputes. 2. I understand that this blog does lack a final conclusion. This is truly because by the end of the hour that I spent writing it, I was running out of motivation to churn out a final conclusion which would've taken me another half an hour. 3. People do have a negative view of lawyers but this matchfixing incident and the magnitude of replies does signify the need a uniform view. Let's assume everything was based on a common-sense appraisal, whose common sense would prevail? Yours? The next Person? A progamer? A doctor? Each will have a side and bias. The job of a lawyer is to make the best decision. The best decision may not be fair from one perspective but it is the closest thing to equity that you'll get where a win/lose situation is inevitable. Summary of the article The purpose of this article is to inform people not to hastily judge the players for dumping/matchfixing. It's my opinion from reading the comments on Gosugamers and Teamliquid that people are very quick to judge players and feel that certain 'penalties' should apply despite not understanding how the justice system should or would work in the situation. My own view is that matchfixing is not an offence per se unless it is strictly forbidden in the team constitution. That absent of these rules, a player should not be punished for matchfixing. To do so would be unfair. A player has a choice whether to win or lose or if not they should be given that choice. There are direct consequences of match fixing without a punitive sentence. They would include being naturally unable to find future sponsers which is punishment in itself. All the people jumping on the bandwagon about how Coca and Byun should be punished further is quite ludicrous and I wanted to speak against that. Sure matchfixing ruins the fun in watching the games, but strictly speaking, players should be able to choose what they do. If not, it's just going to be lead more strategic ways to matchfix. Players pay the price for matchfixing by losing their match and the opportunity to progress and losing sponsors. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
| ||
|
RetFan
32 Posts
This raises legal issues in terms of whether third parties can sue the player for breaching either a condition in the contract or what i forgot to mention in the post a breach of fiduciary duty to the team which is a proscriptive duty but even then there is a question of quantum of damages. The last issue is standing. Obviously the South Korean Legal System may be different but most of the principles should apply. I find it hard to identify what cause of action a third party who lost a bet due to the 'match fixing'. At least under the common law in Australia, a third party can't sue for the perpetrator's breach of fiduciary duty if it wasn't owed directly to them. | ||
|
Gnial
Canada907 Posts
You say that your several paragraphs at the beginning were meant to illustrate how your opinion is probably more neutral than most by nature of your legal training... well, you should probably neutrally examine how most of the people criticizing your posts (myself included) are lawyers or law students as well, who have worked for firms of various sizes. When you make a title like yours, it drags us in like a magnet. And our "unbiased, uniformed approach" to analyzing your article lead us all to the conclusion that your article was extremely flawed, that you gloated way more than was necessary, etc. Your more recent post (ninja'd - second most recent post) is an improvement. See how you fit your whole previous article in just a few paragraphs without actually omitting anything of real substance? | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
Sure matchfixing ruins the fun in watching the games, but strictly speaking, players should be able to choose what they do. If not, it's just going to be lead more strategic ways to matchfix. Players pay the price for matchfixing by losing their match and the opportunity to progress and losing sponsors. If the players can choose to win or lose, then the teams they are on can choose to boot them if they see them doing something retarded. It's pretty clear you didn't learn anything from law school, because this blog is shit and uninformed. | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 16 2011 19:19 RetFan wrote: Lawyers aren't the only people to learn this... Any person who does debate learns these skills very early on. Any person who has ever written an argumentative essay can more or less imitate this. Hell, even in engineering you have to do this through the design process. What sets lawyers apart from the other groups that learn this skill is that they understand the law. Don't try to make it seem like lawyers are something special, in fact half the lawyers I've met can't argue half as well as I can. They're trained to understand the law and those that are gifted at arguing go on to become the most successful lawyers. 1. I did know that there would be people who would think that I was coming off pretentiously. That's why I tried to preemptively address the problem beforehand. If this was a medical article and I started with 'I go to Yale Medical School' would that also be considered bragging or putting things into context? I think it could be seen either way but I am sincerely telling readers that I am not here to gloat. The point I was trying to get across is that lawyers learn a skill set which focuses upon decision making, analysing and applying logical facts and drawing conclusions with as much neutrality as possible. This is the job that lawyers are trained to do, much like engineers are trained to design things and doctors to treat medical illnesses. If lawyers did not exist, then there would not be a non-biased or uniform approach to solving disputes. . 3. People do have a negative view of lawyers but this matchfixing incident and the magnitude of replies does signify the need a uniform view. Let's assume everything was based on a common-sense appraisal, whose common sense would prevail? Yours? The next Person? A progamer? A doctor? Each will have a side and bias. The job of a lawyer is to make the best decision. The best decision may not be fair from one perspective but it is the closest thing to equity that you'll get where a win/lose situation is inevitable. Sounds like the role of a judge, no? A lawyer is meant to interpret the facts in a way to best represent their client's position. Further, you completely ignore the context of the situation - which as an awesome lawyer - you really should have looked into. Does the match fixing scandal resulting in criminal charges being pressed and the near destruction of the progaming scene in korea have no relevance at all? What about the implications in terms of sponsorship when the integrity of competition is jeopardised in this fashion? This and an issue which extends far beyond two progamers - it affects the league involved, the GSL, the sponsors of the tournament, the sponsors of the teams (who wants to be associated with a team that accepts matchfixing post-savior?), the team environment and the general esports scene in korea. Moreover, an informed person would have drawn the comparison between reactions to match fixing presavior (via IEF hwasin/calm) and postsavior (coca/byun). You post addresses the surface issues, but doesn't touch the core issues that need to be appreciated. It's okay though, it's a rookie mistake to make. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:18 Porcelina wrote: I have high hopes for this...blog. And I would ditch the lawyer. I am one myself. And I am pretty damn sure I would be the most useless of the four of us on that island. To get back to this: I'd also ditch the lawyer - legal rules, lawyers, etc. become exponentially more important in bigger societies because of division of labour, highly specialized jobs and so on. The only thing I could think of what I could do on the island would be to give the engineer a hand while he builds stuff....I was quite into LEGO when I was young. | ||
|
RetFan
32 Posts
you are right that my initial post could be summarised but as I mentioned, the length was necessary to add context where needed. That's why if you are a law student/lawyer you would know that 300 page judgments can often be summarized into 2 pages on Lawlex, Lexis Nexis, Lawbook. But reading a summary is not sufficient when you are trying to understand the issue in whole. Re  lexaI agree with your statement to an extent . I think I know what you are trying to say. A lot of lawyers I know would not be very good at debating. Some lack social skills and its not at all like what you see on tv. But if you've ever attended a real trial, you'll know that half of the battle is won not on public speaking skills but on the quality of the statement of claim, affidavit, strength of evidence, pleadings, particulars, and other procedural matters. It's no doubt that people with good English skills can go on and develop the skills for law better than others. This is why a lot of non-native speakers often do not go into law. It's just that by the time you finish law school, you've hopefully read numerous cases or at least read summaries of numerous cases where you get to see why a certain landmark judgment was made. For example, right now I'm reading about the reform from the classic model of company taxation to prevent double taxation, neutrality in terms of not choosing as structure for tax benefits, and the ability of the new taxation system of dividend imputation to prevent double taxation. There has been so much legislative implementation to prevent people from bypassing the system. This goes for partnerships and trusts as well where the ITAA has basically tried to prevent tax avoidance as much as possible. Yet, if you can still avoid tax by other measures, then so be it. This is why the richest person in Australia pays almost no tax, from what I've heard. It's morally wrong but its allowed in order to preserve equity on the application of law to everyone. It's those kinds of principles which you read about and which you then apply. Which is why in our university we are forced to learn constitutional law and administrative law even though only 5% of the class will ever go on to work in government. If you look at Law as a career path, you either want to be a barrister and then branch of to be a judge; or you work as a solicitor, moving to senior associate and then either special counsel or in partnership. To be a judge, you need to grasp how to be neutral. It requires training and an understanding on statutory interpretation and prevention of too much judicial intervention. Often you need to know when to take a literal approach or purposive approach and knowledge of the separation of powers insofar that even if a law was drafted properly, not to improperly interfere with it and make your own judgment and ignore the mistake. To allow certain organs in a legal system to self administer reform and to uphold the rule of law. No matter how good someone is in debating, these things are not intuitive and must be learned. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
1. No intentional Forfeiting or conspiring to manipulate Rankings or Brackets. You seem to believe there is no such rule in that competition. I find that unlikely, considering the issues Korea had with match fixing in the past. Did you even try to find out if that is the case or not? | ||
|
Porcelina
United Kingdom3249 Posts
On November 16 2011 20:02 sleepingdog wrote: To get back to this: I'd also ditch the lawyer - legal rules, lawyers, etc. become exponentially more important in bigger societies because of division of labour, highly specialized jobs and so on. The only thing I could think of what I could do on the island would be to give the engineer a hand while he builds stuff....I was quite into LEGO when I was young. Oh my god Lego! Amazing stuff, my parents bought me tons of Lego and I think I spent most of my childhood with Lego as my toy of choice. Perhaps this, partnered with my talents of persuasion I hopefully have picked up in law school, will convince the three useful members of our island republic that I am in fact not dead weight. Also, I am pretty sure that I would develop a healthy interest in hard, physical labour and would endeavour to attain any skills not covered by the non-lawyers. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3822 Posts
You THINK you're bright, intelligent, ahead of the curve, and better equipped to separate yourself from your own bias... But the fact is that's nonsense. You'll realise this when you get out of the shell that is school. Solicitors, Barristers, Magistrates, Judges.... From the recently admitted to the President of the Court of Appeal, there are people who are known to hold particular biases, to lean a certain way, to rail against particular perspectives. Most of the time it's a matter of them being intelligent enough to sufficiently protect a position they take (i.e. their views) with argument... Because, hey, that's actually our job! Just a little perspective from a fifth year lawyer heading to the bar next year. Edit: forgot how long it's been since I was actually admitted zzz | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: As of background, I am a, engineering student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top engineering schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have engineers which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country. The high entry requirements of the top engineering schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top engineering schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a more efficient society and less errors in products, possibly causing fatality. As by way of introduction. I am also a high achiever within the cohort of other intelligent students within our engineering school. I have secured internships two years into my degree with the top four engineering firms in the country. I have worked with engineers and project managers which work on mining and energy, workplace relations, project management and practical problem solving within these firms. The transactional value of the work these engineers deal with are of hundreds of millions of dollars. They trust me with understanding these matters to a basic basic level and allow me to do research for them. I will be working for one of these firms next year. All of a sudden engineers seem as awesome as lawyers. Oh and you dodged the challenges raised to your article. | ||
| ||
