"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity.
As by way of introduction. I am also a high achiever within the cohort of other intelligent students within our law school. I have secured clerkships two years into my degree with the top four law firms in the country. I have worked with partners and senior associates which work on mining and energy, workplace relations, arbitration and litigation work within these firms. The transactional value of the work these lawyers 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.
A problem with lawyers is that they often write too much. A look at any basic court judgement will confirm this. However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. This will be my job. My career path will be such that I am the one who will adjudicate disputes. Please do not feel insulted if your views have been completely disregarded by me as being incorrect. I am not trying to be pretentious. However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
Match Fixing/Dumping
The reason why I decided to post today is because I'm disgusted by how uninformed most people or young adults are to think independently or rationally of a situation.
The notion that most people are sheep seems to be correct when you look at general comments in Gosugamers and Teamliquid. I want to educate people on this site why this matchfixing scandal is ridiculous. I will try and summarise them in simple sentences to avoid people criticising me of using overconvoluted sentences to express simple things.
First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
In many professional sports, the clubs which sponsor players have a clause which prohibits a player from conducting certain unethical behaviour. For example, in the legal professional conduct rules, there are rules to the effect that a lawyer must not act dishonestly, or further their means through unlawful conduct. Similarly, I'm sure in many soccer clubs, there are rules that prohibit match fixing EXPRESSLY. As soccer is one of the primary sports where matchfixing is a real problem.
However, it does not seem to me on the face of the evidence and common sense that a newly formed club, which likely did not use lawyers to setup a constitution would have an anti-match fixing clause unless it was identified as a potential problem since Starcraft 1 which carried through to the Starcraft 2 constitution. However, at this stage, I'm unsure that even Starcraft 1 had such a clause. It's likely that most clubs have a catch all provision in the constitution that says that the team has 'discretion to terminate the player for inappropriate conduct'. Where inappropriate is not defined in the constitution, this is a matter that may be brought to court by the players themselves.
The evidentiary issue
The other problem with e-sports is the issue of evidence with regard to dumping a game or match fixing. I've taken note that there hasn't been a clear distinction made between match fixing and dumping in the forums. Although they are similar, the context which the words are used seem to be different. The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
For the purposes of this article, matchfixing is where there is a predetermined outcome organized prior to a match regarding the performance of a player in one or more games. I mention 'or more games' because I've read people saying Nestea could not have been matchfixing in the GSL ro16 because he couldn't know whether Huk would advance. I want to inform readers that it does not matter what happens to Huk. Online sports betting sites bet on a number of things including the number of matches played, who advances to the next round and who does not. Thus how Huk performed is not relevant. Had Nestea gotten a friend to bet on him losing for very good odds, he could have shared the profit with Nestea. Depending on how much was bet, this could be more than the GSL prize.
In Starcraft 1, the reason why the match fixing scandal escalated was because the scheme that was devised was large and there were many parties involved, which made gathering evidence a fairly easy exercise. There were witnesses and a large number of defendants who could all testify against each other.
Insofar as Starcraft 2 is concerned, prima facie, it would be HIGHLY unlikely that match fixing could be proved. Unless it was to a scale in which Starcraft 1 matchfixing was - which to my LIMITED knowledge is unlikely. It would be extremely difficult to prove any form of match fixing where all you have is a hunch of one person betting on behalf of another. Further, unless there are rules in the constitution that prohibit "DUMPING" games - which is described later, there would be no compensation to those who lost the bets due to the match fixing.
Match dumping is where a person deliberately loses a match against another person. Clearly this is what happened in the match between Coco and Byun. Again it comes down to whether the catchall provision exists and whether prematurely leaving a game is inappropriate. I would suggest that the word 'inappropriate' might not be able to be too broadly read or it may fall under an unfair contract term - which is a term that can be interpreted so widely that it essentially covers everything and usurps power from every other term in the contract. Workplace relations law may also not allow unfair dismissal for an arbitrary reason. In my view, the word word inappropriate would be considered from the view of a reasonable man, in which case I believe a breach would have occurred. However further, its questionable whether the clause is a warranty or condition and whether a minor breach is enough to allow for termination. This is another matter altogether.
The main problem however is not identifying the cause of action but gathering enough evidence to prove it. Which leads to my next heading which will describe why I believe this matter has been way too oversimplified in the eyes of the public.
Only stupid people get caught
Read the heading and then read it again if you still don't get it. Run in your mind the scenarios that Coco and Byun could have done to escape the evidentiary burden? Maybe try a list of the things below:
1. Not type for the other person to leave? 2. Deliberately overexpanding and droning up without building a large army 3. Make it a convincing loss? 4. Alternatively what about accidentally leaving the game? Saying pp and pretending to leave the game and pressing surrender by mistake. Or what about telling the person to say gg first, and then you tap out pretending that you thought the other person left first. This would almost 100% be construed as being an accident. No-one would even guess it was matchfixing and even if they did, it couldn't be proved.
In such a situation, it would be difficult to prove that a player dumped the game. Let me make an analogy in a real life situation, if a minister makes a decision without giving reasons, even if its obvious the outcome of the decision is unfair, unless you can prove the minister acted arbitrarily or capriciously without any merit to the facts or the law, you can't challenge the decision. Similarly, how can you prove that either players had a guilty mind if they don't make it obvious. Even if it is obvious a game was dumped, it would be hard to prove intent. Procedurally, taking it to the court would be too costly for the team wanting to persecute the player and would take too long. The only real consequence would be to not renew the players contract later on and of course hte fact that that player would also not likely be picked up from another team after the incident.
Boxer/Slayers/Resignation
People need to stop taking things at face value and understand:
1. Boxer apologised and Slayers asked their player to leave to save the reputation of their team and not for any other reason.
2. The players involved are now in damage control mode and would do anything to preserve their future image, potential sponsorships and livelihood. Nobody is truly sorry.
It hurts e-sports
Matchfixing does make games less entertaining to watch. But making a moral argument doesn't mean that much in reality. People will matchfix where the reward from matchfixing> reward from playing where risk is minimal. Sometimes the reward from matchfixing includes the risk of being caught.
If not for a potential catch all provision, then players should be able to decide themselves whether they want the other player to win or not. After all, if they aren't allowed, they will just find more elaborate ways to pretend to lose. How about deliberately failing a 6 pool and telling the other player to prepare? What about conveniently forgetting to research stim? What about forgetting gas?
If matchfixing isn't allowed, people are just going to be smarter about doing it. It's not that hard. Why would you make a system where the person with the most elaborate matchfixing tactic should win? Or why would you take away from a person their right to win or lose since they are paying the consequence as a result "losing their place in the competition". For better spectatorship? The only reason I can see, that is a valid reason is matchfixing screws with the team that sponsors them as it messes with their reputation and revenue but if a person is teamless, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to matchfix. Morals mean very little when you can make a fortune, invest and escape the life which many progamers enter into to feed themselves and their family.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote:only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
The reason why I decided to post today is because I'm disgusted by how uninformed most people or young adults are to think independently or rationally of a situation.
You're a good writer, but you should know that you don't start an essay by insulting your audience.
It looks like you are still expanding this topic, so I'll wait until you finish writing. Right now, the topic doesn't really go anywhere.
Ok I'm going to edit this further with my views on the second page of what you've written, but so far all I've gotten is a straight out brag post about your academic achievements. Where's the rating system for this blog? 1/5
They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. This will be my job. My career path will be such that I am the one who will adjudicate disputes. Please do not feel insulted if your views have been completely disregarded by me as being incorrect. I am not trying to be pretentious. However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
Lmao. Jesus, slow down. You've lost me. I was with you up until "I'm a lot smarter than all of you so listen closely kids".
Edit. I really don't see why you had to write that giant wall of text to just give your opinion. I know you think it's worth more because you managed to get into Law but seriously dude... you could have left your opinion in the thread itself. Also you seem to have mistakenly put this in Starcraft 2 instead of blogs.
While it's important for e-sports to get regulation, lawyers and team constitutions in (a la Brood War) as it grows, posting in response to the CoCa/Byun incident is just absurd.
It was just two kids who weren't thinking and didn't realize they had a bigger responsibility as pro-gamers. There was nothing malicious or deliberate about it.
Also the scene in Korea already which had a dark time with the match-fixing scandal is a very effective deterrent to match-fix attempts. If the Savior incident never happened, I guarantee you CoCa would be playing in 2 or so hours.
First of all, this is not a legal issue as no laws were broken and no contracts were violated. Coca has a right to lose on purpose and Slayers has a right to kick him out of their house for whatever reason.
Second, the statement "Matchfixing does make games less entertaining to watch" isn't true. We watch because we want to see players try to win. If it's known that there's matchfixing going on, or might be going on, it damages the integrity of competition.
You seem a bright young solicisator in the making, however your overall point seems to be that match fixing isnt a breach of a players contract? And that only silly people get caught and you wouldnt know if people are match fixing if they do it properly on a small scale?
But whats the solution to the problem? -_- i like conclsions with answers not with more questions!
I retract my comment that it was a "nice article". After reading it a few times I found it very hard to extract a distinct argument, and it seems to go in many directions.
For:
- First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
Can you elaborate? What do you mean by "no reason" and "disallowed".
Am I the only one who is amused that he writes something like this: I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
yet gets something essential as the players name wrong?
Anyways, sports have a high moral aspect and match fixing is mostly about that. Nobody claims that what Coca/Byun did was legally wrong, but I think all of them do it on a moral level.
I'm sorry, but the bottom line of your well structered/written post seems to be that it's not worth to introduce clauses that prohibit match-fixing because people will find clever ways to work around. While that might be true (or not) the same holds true for many, many contractual clauses and even criminal Law. I mean, that's the reason why there are so many lawsuits in business Law in general....because people try to work around the rules while others desperately try to have them abide by them.
It's incomplete from what I can see. I hope the author will finish his thought process soon.
From what I can see, the only point worthwhile is seperating the concept of "match-fixing" and "game dumping." While valid, the argument is largely tautological. How does the act being "gaming dumping" instead change its consequences? I think we're aware that Coca (not Coco) /Byun situation is not as severe as Savior's, much less so, but it doesn't change that it's an act that damages the integrity of the game. More importantly, doing it so blatantly is really an insult to the audience, and they received extralegal punishment as a result.
On November 16 2011 18:04 JustPassingBy wrote: Am I the only one who is amused that he writes something like this: I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
yet gets something essential as the players name wrong?
Anyways, sports have a high moral aspect and match fixing is mostly about that. Nobody claims that what Coca/Byun did was legally wrong, but I think all of them do it on a moral level.
I'm amused by all of it. I don't actually think this is really an "article" on Coca or Byun so much as a way of letting us know how massive his e-peen is. He doesn't want to come off as pretentious? Failed there.
first off, I would leave the lawyer off the island 100% of the time, cause its a deserted island and we can make up our own laws, as i'm sure the engineer, scientist, and doctor i select would be reasonable people.
Secondly if your going to write a wall of text you might not want to start off with 2 paragraphs about how cool you are and how great lawyers are and how prestigious the university you go to is.
Lastly, Matchfixing is bad. No one is encouraging people to be more sneaky about it, would you have us not shun byun/coca because they were stupid about it? No one wants matchfixing its bad for eSports, if people could just as you say lose to a 6pool cause they want their friend to advance than what is the whole point of all of this...What is the point of tl.net LR threads, and gomtv and OGN and on and on, Hell what is the point of any major sporting league if what you say is true. I would rather see an entertaining game where say IMNestea plans on losing to IMMVP either way but they atleast play the game out and nestea makes a stupid decision at the end on purpose and just be ignorant to it from a fans perspective than seeing a bunch of people 6pooling each other on gsl every-night that is for sure. Match-fixers should be punished, and all parties involved, including team members that have knowledge of match fxing going on that don't report it to an appropriate authority. After reading this I really don't understand what you are trying to say tho, you argue both sides and never really come to an opinion. But I guess that just makes me a sheep to you Mr.High and Mighty.
also
"First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se. "
This is why people hate lawyers, using something written on a piece of paper instead of common sense to run an argument/business/country/league. The big problem with what you propose, basically the kespa system, is that when everything is written down it can be misinterpreted and used incorrectly in certain situations where it should not apply. And things like this incident where coca byun matchfix in a small qualifier could be given the same punishment as say savior got in BW. People should be able to trust the Teams, managers, Gomtv, blizzard etc, that they wouldn't let anything get out of hand. There is something to be said for personal pride and honesty, and even self conscience, even if most lawyers would tell you everyone is a liar and a cheat. For lack of a better word, There needs to be "wiggle room" in this system for common sense and majority rule to keep the system honest, rather than a dictator with a sheet of paper with some rules on it handing out punishment.
I'm not really sure I get where you are going with this. What exactly are you trying to say? That match dumping/fixing is ok as long as you don't hurt your team?
Morals mean very little when you can make a fortune, invest and escape the life which many progamers enter into to feed themselves and their family.
Well, this is a pretty amusing statement, since it goes back to the introduction. Even though you want to challenge the view of lawyers being evil, you end up concluding with it after all. Apparently, only accepting the 1%-2% best high school student is no guarantee for morals, which you've just demonstrated fairly well. That a law student can actually defend match fixing is pretty scary.
Anyway, one of the most basic foundation of any competitive activity, is the spirit of the game. If cheating or match fixing or dumping or anything is allowed, people will stop caring about it. And this ruins it for everyone. Of course we can't accept this. Just like we don't accept map hacking or any other form of cheating.
And who's to say throwing a match doesn't hurt anyone? What if whoever was to meet the winner of Coca/Byun has a great XvZ, but a horrible XvT? It messes up the integrity of the whole tournament. Now we can discuss if the punishment was too strict or not, but defending the activity outright is not very productive.
On November 16 2011 18:09 TheGiftedApe wrote: Wait what??
first off, I would leave the lawyer off the island 100% of the time, cause its a deserted island and we can make up our own laws, as i'm sure the engineer, scientist, and doctor i select would be reasonable people.
Secondly if your going to write a wall of text you might not want to start off with 2 paragraphs about how cool you are and how great lawyers are and how prestigious the university you go to is.
Lastly, Matchfixing is bad. No one is encouraging people to be more sneaky about it, would you have us not shun byun/coca because they were stupid about it? No one wants matchfixing its bad for eSports, if people could just as you say lose to a 6pool cause they want their friend to advance than what is the whole point of all of this...What is the point of tl.net LR threads, and gomtv and OGN and on and on, Hell what is the point of any major sporting league if what you say is true. I would rather see an entertaining game where say IMNestea plans on losing to IMMVP either way but they atleast play the game out and nestea makes a stupid decision at the end on purpose and just be ignorant to it from a fans perspective than seeing a bunch of people 6pooling each other on gsl every-night that is for sure. Match-fixers should be punished, and all parties involved, including team members that have knowledge of match fxing going on that don't report it to an appropriate authority. After reading this I really don't understand what you are trying to say tho, you argue both sides and never really come to an opinion. But I geuss that just makes me a sheep to you Mr.High and Mighty.
also "First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se. " This is why people hate lawyers, using something written on a piece of paper instead of common sense to run an argument/business/country/league.
Look, I didn't understand if he had a point in that mess of text either. But then I realised it's because I will never understand critical thinking as well as him. I accepted my inferiority as should you. Take his word on this. Afterall, he has gone to one of the most prestigious universities in Australia and he's worked in 4 top law firms. He also will be adjudicating disputes in rl as a job, so just saying. He also does really well in his class, usually around the top. You know, not to brag or anything. Just saying.
First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
There was.
Nice that you got to apply the stuff you learned in law school in a TL post though.
Couldn't you have just made this blog "We don't know what their contract says, and ethics of match-fixing don't matter" and left it at that? I know you say your words are all important, but I see this blog as proof to the contrary.
Never mind that you rag on "most people or young adults" for being idiots for assuming that there are legal implications to the match-fixing, when you yourself are assuming that there are no legal implications. I know you try to explain your position with some assumptions and reasoning, but overall it is really poor. (Although I see your point, an SC2 team with no former SC1 players on it may not have adopted SC1 contractual provisions...oh, wait...Boxer...the leader of the team...thats right...shucks...)
I think perhaps we have highlighted a reason why in North America you have to get your undergrad before law school - you've got some more learning to do before you put on that ego.
Note to self: do not tell everyone how smart I am and then call them sheep before writing an argument. Wisdom is knowing how to channel your intelligence to accomplish your ends.
Interesting read nonetheless. Teams should definitely draft specific constitutions for themselves.
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.
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.
The real problem with matchfixing is that people gamble on sports and rely on the players to fulfill obligations that may or may not exist (depending on what is in the contract of employment) for the players to not play inappropriately.
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.
Probably not the best idea to post a 1/2 finished article...
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?
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.
On November 16 2011 19:19 RetFan wrote: 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. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Relexa
I 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.
Most tournaments have a clause against match fixing. Heres the one from MLG, which was the easiest one to find for me:
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?
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.
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.
I'm sorry to do this mate, but the fact is you're a second year law student. Your perspective is constricted because of your lack of experience.
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
If you had ever attended a real debate you'd know that half the work is prep and have the work is being able to present an argument. I stand by my claim that lawyers aren't special - it's still just prepping/forming an argument or strategy which is the same in engineering (research on whatever the project is, devise solution), debating (research topic, devise strategy for argument) or even women studies (research topic, write well informed essay arguing for or against something). I can pretty much copy paste your argument for why lawyers are awesome and replace words with things applicable to an engineer, watch!
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.
Sleeping dog: I too would take the engineer but in a very basic society with very little capital, I might choose the doctor first, followed by a farmer, followed by a builder But my point is that if you look at how the legal system developed in the early history of England, you'll appreciate how much lawyers have changed society for the better. Unless you want your tongue cut off for talking back to royalty.
Plexa: I just read the second part of your commented which you just edited. I will respond to your comment now and I will respond to any further comments tomorrow. I have two exams next week which I should get to.
1. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the natural progress for a lawyer is to be a partner or a judge. Most of that is determined by whether one likes litigation or not.
The role of a lawyer is complicated. It is also different in terms of whether you are in a jurisdiction which has an adversarial or inquisitive court system. Unlike what is portrayed on tv, a lawyer's job is to either initiate a cause of action or defend a cause of action. It's quite a logical process where process and the quality of what is put forward is more important than interpretation. Interpretation is the very first step of course in understand a problem and to initiate the process.
I'd like to think a good lawyer would aspire to be a judge. If not, that person should at least advocate reforms which would benefit society. A lot of that are worked on by those who choose not work in the private sector but in government with the system here consisting of a legislative branch, executive branch and the judiciary.
The second part of your edited comment is what I'm currently confused about. I don't understand why the last match fixing scandal would result in criminal charges being pressed. In common law countries like Canada, UK and Australia, this would have been purely a civil matter. Unless someone can tell me what part of the criminal code would be breached here.
I understand that the last match fixing scandal was a major hit to the esports industry. What confuses me is why the impact was so resounding. Now this is what i warned about earlier, for people not to get offended but here goes : although sure people would have been disappointed with Savior, what substantial damage was caused overall? Yes the fans were retrospectively disappointed but by the time they found out, it was already more than a year after it happened. Fans make the game (I know) but those players paid the price by losing their fans. The only real people who lost were the ones who lost thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars from matchfixing and the teams who lost sponsors.
I hate matchfixing. But I take two views:
1. You either allow it and apply it to all players 2. Or you disallow it but make it explicit through rules in the team constitution and specify damages
Otherwise, arbitrarily punishing players without any real cause of action is a little upsetting and unfair.
The substantial damage was sponsor withdrawl and the overall setback of esports. It was a very very big deal. Sponsors alone dictate whether or not the sport survives or not. Why would a sponsor want to be associate with a dirty game like SC?
EDIT: I don't think you understand my posts. You argue as if lawyers are somehow gifted in some regard, whereas I argue otherwise and that anyone skilled in their particular sector displays the attributes attributed to a good lawyer.
This was also not match fixing. That is a serious accusation reserved for premeditated arrangements.
This was simply Byun, in the heat of the moment, saying to CoCa, fuck, can we try one more time? And CoCa, as Byun's friend, said "ok lets go to a third game". He didn't outright surrender the match, but gave Byun the chance. Still the wrong thing to do, but a far far cry from match fixing.
I'm not arguing the punishment wasn't appropriate, because its important for the teams to smack down this sort of behaviour very early, but I don't really overly blame CoCa or Byun for this.
Since the OP is so arrogant am I allowed to criticize the post?
Your English grammar is very poor. If your writing reflects that of the "best and brightest" of Australian high schools then your country does not have a particularly rigorous education system (not to suggest that the USA does, but that's irrelevant, isn't it).
Do you see how I said "that of" instead of just "reflects the" in the sentence above? That's because the latter is an example of a dangling modifier. You had dozens of them in your post. Your writing is extremely stilted and pedantic and has no cadence; it reads like a poorly translated foreign computer manual. It is also riddled with fragments:
The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
Clarity and coherence in writing are probably two of the most important skills for anyone in any type of legal profession. Obviously, analytical and logical thinking are also of great value in that field (see how I used "are" instead of "is?" That's proper subject-verb agreement, another rule you ignored multiple times). While the continuing over-jargonization of legalese is unfortunate, and many court documents and briefs are comically incomprehensible and elaborate, they still do not display your writing's disregard for the basics of English grammar. Certainly there is a case to be made regarding comprehension vs rule-following, but when someone is trying to prove to us how intelligent they are I think I'm allowed to point out such elementary mistakes.
As far as I'm concerned, one of the big reasons people dislike lawyers is because quite a few lawyers consider themselves superior to other people because of said high entry requirements in most law schools, and automatically assume that their opinions and judgements are better than those of everyone else - which is simply not true. Academic requirements / achievements have very little to do in terms of actual 'common sense'. Your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, by the way.
On November 16 2011 20:48 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote: As far as I'm concerned, one of the big reasons people dislike lawyers is because quite a few lawyers consider themselves superior to other people because of said high entry requirements in most law schools, and automatically assume that their opinions and judgements are better than those of everyone else - which is simply not true. Academic requirements / achievements have very little to do in terms of actual 'common sense'. Your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, by the way.
Although, to be fair, the main reason people dislike lawyers is because someone else told them to dislike lawyers.
PLEXA THROWIN DOWN. Also, don't particularly dislike lawyers, however i do dislike intellectual assholes. I mean the people that think their argument is inherently better WITHOUT needing to back it up because they think they are smarter than you. I am not saying that you are this, but that lawyers tend to be.
Also, i kind of agree with the match fixing not hurting. I dont think match fixing hurts the game, HOWEVER i do think that getting caught does (ignorance is bliss), although that point might be void really it might be the same thing. It also brings up an interesting point, if not done for illegal things (betting), is the player allowed the CHOICE to lose. Does a player that is contracted lose the choice to lose? Its an interesting point
On November 16 2011 20:48 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote: As far as I'm concerned, one of the big reasons people dislike lawyers is because quite a few lawyers consider themselves superior to other people because of said high entry requirements in most law schools, and automatically assume that their opinions and judgements are better than those of everyone else - which is simply not true. Academic requirements / achievements have very little to do in terms of actual 'common sense'. Your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, by the way.
Although, to be fair, the main reason people dislike lawyers is because someone else told them to dislike lawyers.
To be doubly fair, a lot of the people telling people to dislike lawyers would be lawyers.
Seeing the kind of people who actually attend law school was, at least for me personally, a rather cold revelation. Not that there are not a lot of very nice lawyers and law students, but that particular subject attracts a lot of people that the legal profession could easily do without.
On November 16 2011 20:48 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote: As far as I'm concerned, one of the big reasons people dislike lawyers is because quite a few lawyers consider themselves superior to other people because of said high entry requirements in most law schools, and automatically assume that their opinions and judgements are better than those of everyone else - which is simply not true. Academic requirements / achievements have very little to do in terms of actual 'common sense'. Your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, by the way.
Although, to be fair, the main reason people dislike lawyers is because someone else told them to dislike lawyers.
To be doubly fair, a lot of the people telling people to dislike lawyers would be lawyers.
Seeing the kind of people who actually attend law school was, at least for me personally, a rather cold revelation. Not that there are not a lot of very nice lawyers and law students, but that particular subject attracts a lot of people that the legal profession could easily do without.
thanks for your input, I appreciate it. Congratulations on your decision to embark as a barrister. Having worked in quite a few top tier firms so far, I know that I'm not special. Most but not all of the people I've worked with are probably as intelligent or more intelligent than I am.
A lot of judges have their biases and I'm well aware of it, take the great dissenter the former Kirby J The point I'm making is basically on a strict sense that there needs to be a protection for programers from being arbitrarily punished at the whim of their team managers.
Plexa, did I manage to address the issues in the second response I made to you? If not, please list them and I will address them later.
Some commentators have mentioned that the substance of what I wrote can be summarised and that is in fact true. I could interpret and summarise what you are saying in a few ways:
a.) Lawyers aren't any better than engineers or doctors insofar as logical reasoning is concerned b.) Good public speakers make good lawyers c.) Good public speakers have all the skills of lawyers d.) You don't need to be a lawyer to know how to be fair
None of those statements from a-d are strictly retracting from the statement that lawyers are better equipped to dealing with disputes. They do of course, try to undermine the work that lawyers do by essentially and impliedly stating that lawyers are essentially good at playing with words.
However none of the statements from a-d are necessarily completely correct. For the sake of consistency, if you got the same person and gave them legal training through University and practice in the legal field, that person would have improved and better logical reasoning skills by means of being subject to exercises that require this everyday.
A good public speaker can be a GREAT lawyer (barrister). But public speaking is not a pre-requisite at all. However the subsets of skills that are required in law are also required to some extent or form in public speaking. However, it would be a fallacy to say that good public speakers are good lawyers as a good public speaker may be a terrible lawyer.
Point c.) I made is incorrect and point d.) is correct but is too general as a statement. Put simply, surviving a course in law requires you to understand why things are applied in a certain way. To adopt a form of thinking which allows you to approach things logically and which is not always based on common sense. The best illustration would to throw a lay person who is a good debater into a civil procedure class and watch them fail miserably.
Plexa, just as a quick crash course in how the legal system works a few lines. [i[ generally [/i] You need a cause of action, causation and damages to have a case. The crown will be the party if the case is criminal in nature. Criminal cases are generally in statute for non-civil law countries.
There is no cause of action called 'match fixing' in the criminal code in any state in WA, it would need to be named something else. Likely, a party needs to have standing to sue a party on the basis of that cause of action. Despite the lengthy article, nowhere on the link you posted lists a cause of action. From what you said about betting being illegal in South Korea, then it seems to me (without further information or time to search) that the cause of action would have been illegal match betting which may be an offence under the South Korean criminal code.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote:However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
What credentials? You go to law school in a country that doesn't have any of the top 50 schools in the world according to the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings; there are graduate programs that are several orders of magnitude more competitive than yours, and the nature of admissions to law school is such that just about any sufficiently smart university graduate can get into an excellent law program. It's certainly not competitive in the way that elite Ph.D or professional programs are, and the idea that your 1L and 2L coursework and clerkships are an intellectual accomplishment on the same level as peer-reviewed publications in e.g. math, physics, or philosophy are is just laughable. What's your LSAT score?
Your argument is actually fairly solid but it's just completely overshadowed by the unbelievable douchiness of your first several paragraphs.
And so, assuming a&b on what grounds would you choose the lawyer? If I can get an engineer, which by training can reason as well as a lawyer, then why get a lawyer? Their only expertise is in their own field of law, which changes from country to country (as you, yourself illustrate through your ignorance of korean law) and so how is that expertise in any way relevant to an island society consisting of 4 people?
if you got the same person and gave them legal training through University and practice in the legal field, that person would have improved and better logical reasoning skills by means of being subject to exercises that require this everyday.
I'm going to assume that 'better logical reasoning' involves interpretation of the law, as I doubt you could transplant your skills directly to say.. philosophy or math. And hence the experience in problem solving (in the legal field) isn't actually useful in the situation at hand.
I'm familiar with how the legal system works, I could drop my credentials in the thread but what good would that do? I'm unfamiliar with Korean law, however there surely is a clause somewhere under the gambling legislation which encompasses match fixing.
The biggest points you have ignored are those which challenge the premise of your argument. Essentially you argue that the whole situation is confined to two people, where I argue that this isn't the case at all.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote:However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
What credentials? You go to law school in a country that doesn't have any of the top 50 schools in the world according to the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings; there are graduate programs that are several orders of magnitude more competitive than yours, and the nature of admissions to law school is such that just about any sufficiently smart university graduate can get into an excellent law program. It's certainly not competitive in the way that elite Ph.D or professional programs are, and the idea that your 1L and 2L coursework and clerkships are an intellectual accomplishment on the same level as peer-reviewed publications in e.g. math, physics, or philosophy are is just laughable. What's your LSAT score?
Your argument is actually fairly solid but it's just completely overshadowed by the unbelievable douchiness of your first several paragraphs.
I admit there are a lot of grammatical mistakes in my initial post. In fact, I concur that the quality of what I wrote declines gradually as you read through the article.
However, I'm slightly bewildered why you feel so inclined to comment on it. I would like to think that someone as intelligent as yourself would understand that this blog is:
1. placed online in TL.net and not a formal legal document or anything that is required to be submitted to be assessed 2. it's much easier to write longer sentences than one which is concise, clear and succinct
Point 2, is not an excuse for poor writing and I am aware of that. However, I would bring to your attention that I have two exams next week and I didn't find it necessary to really edit the post for the purposes of making it more coherent. I find that the opening post is sufficiently clear for everyone to understand.
Back to your comment, I would suggest that you're not really picking on my actual English skills as you are trying to pedantically find a reason to criticise me. Either that, or you are trying to have a contest to see who has a bigger ****.
I could easily reciprocate your condescending tone and make a number of pedantic observations. What about the word rigorous being unsuitable as the modifier to the word eduction. As you probably know, a rigorous education system does not always reflect a good educational system. Take for example the Chinese educational system which focuses on rote learning, which although more rigorous is perhaps less successful when you consider the performance of Qinghua, or Peking University graduates with their peers in Yale or Harvard.
Could I also ask you to read Richard Wydeck's book on Plain English for Lawyers, it might help you with your use of nominalisations. For example, using the sentence with the word 'over-jargonisation' together with legalese could be stated 'you should only use legalese when it is required'. See, I can be pedantic like your as well Or perhaps you can just drop the high horse and realise this is blog which I wrote relatively quickly.
And although it might feel good for you to feed your ego by criticising others, it certainly doesn't address the crux of the blog at all. You should also try and loosen your syntax in your writing to sound more colloquial. The best way to do that is to read what you say out aloud. I would polish up what I wrote if I had the time, unfortunately I don't care enough to do so. What I've written is more than comprehensible for the average person to read.
On November 16 2011 21:02 blah_blah wrote: Your argument is actually fairly solid but it's just completely overshadowed by the unbelievable douchiness of your first several paragraphs.
Yeah what he said. Adding credentials (with extensive justification of its importance) to your arguments is not adding any value apart from making OP sound like a brag post. You didn't intend for everyone to focus on that part of your long post, but having it in the beginning didn't help. It's the internet. The TL;DR people would've stopped there. This isn't a job interview, it's an internet discussion forum. Very few readers would be impressed by your first few paragraphs. I think a simple "My background is in law" or similar would've sufficed. If your argument is solid, let it speak for itself.
On November 16 2011 18:18 Porcelina wrote: I have high hopes for this...blog.
It is always nice to not be disappointed.
If you try to discuss if Lawyers or Engineers are the more valuable human beings AND if matchfixing is ok or not in the same thread, then the result can only be epic.
its unfortunate that a blog directed predominantly to address match fixing becomes a critique of my credentials.
I'm CERTAIN you are aware that rankings are determined mostly by success in the field of research and academia. Which is not that relevant when it comes to law schools. Similarly I'm sure you realise that Jiao Tong University isn't the only institution that publishes university rankings. Have a look at Times Higher Education World University Rankings which shows a number of Australian Universities in the top 50, and as high as top 30 a few years ago. But whats your point in bringing this up? To try and insult me? LOL
I'm going to refrain from discussing with you the merits of the field of law against modern science. It's practically not something I have time nor do I have the interest in discussing. If you want to troll, do it elsewhere with someone else.
On November 16 2011 18:18 Porcelina wrote: I have high hopes for this...blog.
It is always nice to not be disappointed.
If you try to discuss if Lawyers or Engineers are the more valuable human beings AND if matchfixing is ok or not in the same thread, then the result can only be epic.
Now we just need someone to post pictures of hot girls, beef stroganoff recipes, and rekrul to "LOL". Then the transformation would be complete.
Each profession has its own set of individuals that greatly excel in their respective fields. For whatever skillset or backstory that led to it, I do not think it should have really any bearing when you consider the MORAL implications of the issue at hand which is match fixing/dumping.
Starting with the doctor, scientist, engineer and lawyer issue. I would simply put it this way in terms of heirarchy, 1) Doctor, 2) Engineer 3) Scientist 4) Lawyer. The reason I do so is health is the most important issue here. In a deserted island you would need someone with enough background to address health concerns because if no one can recover and become healthy again, then that spells death. Also, Doctors take up a bit of biology and they have some idea with plants and animals. The second is the engineer. The engineer will assist in building protection from weather and later on development. I think that's simple enough. If he got injured/sick, he'd need a doctor to help which is why the doctor is at the top of the list. The scientist comes in at third. Whatever innovation he/she may have in mind, would need to be designed first, the engineer is the best person to come up with a technical solution for this and he can collaborate with the scientist to further this. The lawyer, in essense, doesn't really make sense to me in terms of relevance. Would he determine sharing of food based on amount of work for the survivability of the group? Does that justify his importance in an abandoned island scenario?
The essense of sports is you play the game by a set of rules (not necessarily laws) and act in a sportsman like fashion. I think that would be pretty straight forward.
See, when you speak of this, you must keep something in mind, MORAL and LEGAL are two separate things. An example of which is permissible use of weed in Amsterdam is LEGAL but frowned upon by others as IMMORAL.
The legal argument for me just provides for a piece of paper to fall back on to justify actions. Do you need a law that tells you not to hurt a person (anyone) so that you wouldn't do it? Or would your morals make it natural that you don't do it?
The problem with Coca and Byun is, if it were just them in a closed environment/world, it is up to them who won or loss. But you put them now in a tournament scenario where there are rules and you add into that your respective teams and sponsor and you clearly see that it does not solely affect just 1 or 2 individuals but a lot. So their actions reflected badly on their respective ends and such needed to be addressed.
Now for whatever reason, the severity of the punishment may or may not be deemed extreme by people, but it does not mean that a punishment was not called for nonetheless.
You also have an organizing/monitoring/governing body, a REFEREE (which I think is not pointed out and I'll go back to this in a sec), and team managers/owners. So you have an organization or heirarchy as who calls the shots in these cases. Does it need a lawyer? I don't really think so. Why?
Well you have a REFEREE don't you? In sports like basketball, if the REFEREE makes a bad call, do you call in a lawyer to settle a dispute or travelling or double dribbling or what not? No you don't the REFEREE may discuss it with his peers in the game (meaning fellow referees) or simply opt not to and the REFEREE's call is immediately final. They end up as the judge.
And going by boxing as a sport, you not only have referee's, but you also have judges. If no one is knocked out when all the rounds are over, then the judges need to add up the points, BASED ON WHAT THEY DEEM AS A POINT AGAINST THE OPPONENT, and decide from the majority as to who one.
Point is you don't need a lawyer for a sport in terms of the events within a game but it should be outside a game when it is to protect your "client" from a violation of contract between you and the team, or if you need to sue an event organizer for failure to adhere to the agreement (funds, airfare, accomodation and the like.)
its unfortunate that a blog directed predominantly to address match fixing becomes a critique of my credentials.
Sorry but that's your own fault. If you want to leave your credentials leave them at the END of your post and in a spoiler. The way you elaborate and where you placed them make them a normal topic for discussion.
And since you're a lawyer you must know that one way of argueing is to discredit the other person's credentials
I am currently studying law in the university of london year 2 , However I failed to see any correlation between you introducing your law background and the issue at hand which is coca and byun , It's simple matter ,Clubs or teams have overreaching jurisdiction to their participants , you join in there are clauses and standards that each member has to live up to . Failing to meet standards only meets with punishment and Coca was deem to have fail the standard of what required to be a progamer hence he either volunteered to pull out of Code s by him self or was forced to do so.
There is a whole lot of things happening behind the scene and we can only speculate , these issue that is happening here is not as bad as Savior match fixing scandal which involve a lot of money and third party who are not really keen in promoting the good will of the sport they are promoting . Although I do agree with the lawyer argument that lawyers should step in when legal suite's are being thrown across the board .
I believe utopia is unachievable but us not working to strive towards that utopia is a much greater crime .....
its unfortunate that a blog directed predominantly to address match fixing becomes a critique of my credentials.
I'm CERTAIN you are aware that rankings are determined mostly by success in the field of research and academia. Which is not that relevant when it comes to law schools. Similarly I'm sure you realise that Jiao Tong University isn't the only institution that publishes university rankings. Have a look at Times Higher Education World University Rankings which shows a number of Australian Universities in the top 50, and as high as top 30 a few years ago. But whats your point in bringing this up? To try and insult me? LOL
I'm going to refrain from discussing with you the merits of the field of law against modern science. It's practically not something I have time nor do I have the interest in discussing. If you want to troll, do it elsewhere with someone else.
Yeah you could have avoided this by simply stating in one sentence that you're law student (if mentioned it at all). Instead you had almost a page of text detailing your "achievements" in the name of context.
Your rant lacks substance and for the record you sound just as ill-informed as the rest. Several tournaments have their own rules with regards to cheating.
The teams already have their own association in Korea, but do they have the right people streamlining the operation? Doesn't look like it, especially considering the punishment imposed on Coca was self-inflicted by his team. Yes, we need rules and regulations right across the map and when it comes to lawyers. You need the right one. You aren't going to hire an electrician to do a carpenter's job. The amount of specialty lawyers out there is quite absurd and this is something you should know already.
Anyway, you come off really bad in your rant. You consider yourself smart? Good for you. Hopefully one day you'll become more humbled and realize that we're all stupid in some capacity. You might consider yourself smart in some areas, but I can already see huge flaws in your character based off your posting alone.
First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
This is why no one wants to bring the lawyer to the island. "Well you didn't SAY or put IN WRITING that we weren't allowed to steal each other's food or murder each other! This is an island! We need laws for these things!"
A huge preamble about how smart you are leading up to a really weak initial point... Yeah whatever. You wanna know what the reason is that you don't do that? First: It makes your team look really bad. Second: It makes fans less eager to watch your games since they know you might be throwing them. Those are the very logical, very financial reasons that anyone with two braincells to rub together could figure out. Lawyers are smart people, you're right. They're studious. You, as a specific individual, are very unwise.
I think I'd rather take a philosopher than a lawyer.
edit: Let's respond to your opening rant too. Lawyers are the smartest people in the world? Law school is hard to get thru, but let's remember that a PhD in most sciences takes more time and is harder, and the work is more humanitarian. And yet by some strange justice they are paid less. Oh right, justice is decided by lawyers.
its unfortunate that a blog directed predominantly to address match fixing becomes a critique of my credentials.
I'm CERTAIN you are aware that rankings are determined mostly by success in the field of research and academia. Which is not that relevant when it comes to law schools. Similarly I'm sure you realise that Jiao Tong University isn't the only institution that publishes university rankings. Have a look at Times Higher Education World University Rankings which shows a number of Australian Universities in the top 50, and as high as top 30 a few years ago. But whats your point in bringing this up? To try and insult me? LOL
I'm going to refrain from discussing with you the merits of the field of law against modern science. It's practically not something I have time nor do I have the interest in discussing. If you want to troll, do it elsewhere with someone else.
You made this about your credentials, or lack thereof, by devoting about 20% of your original post to discussing them. The distinction between rankings of professional programs and overall university quality is fairly irrelevant; the general correlation between the two is high, and unless you have strong evidence proving that the quality of law programs at Australian universities is conspicuously higher than the general quality of their postsecondary institutions as a whole the distinction is fairly irrelevant. The Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings are simply better than the Times rankings, and I say this as a Ph.D student at a school which scores a fair bit higher on the Times rankings (needless to say, my institution is higher on either list than yours, and I have turned down admission offers from top 10 schools on those lists).
Additionally, I have nothing against law as a field of study. It's fairly intellectually rigorous, requires good critical thinking skills, and also several other skills that are often ignored or overlooked in academia. It also pays well, which is nice. However, it's simply low-hanging fruit for sufficiently smart individuals; literally anyone with the requisite intelligence and virtually no specialized knowledge can get into and excel in law school. This is simply not possible in more rigorous programs, many of which have much more restrictive de facto requirements on intelligence/talent in addition to requiring mastery or familiarity with a very substantial body of work.
Retfan as intelligent as you may be, you're an idiot for posting at TL. People aren't going to listen to you in a fair manner. These people hate being looked down upon even if you make it a point to show people that you're aren't bragging or showing off. They simply don't give a shit once someone with higher credentials comes on to the scene, they feel like their know-it-all selves are threatened because they themselves don't have any high value legitimate credentials. But I'm sure you'll realize that by the time you're done running through the comments.
Fortunately I'm able to separate ego from legitimately earned credentials through hard work and a spice of talent. However, I don't know how school works over in Australia but if what you claim is correct and you're already working for great people then people here really are just mad that you are more successful than them =P.
What makes people feel really insulted is the fact that you made your OP in a way that people would feel threatened because its well-written for a simple issue. That's simply how law is, simple issues get turned into overly complicated cases. It is correct but the general public hates that, that's why my wonderful country of the US of A is quite dumb when they try to act smart and assume the position of a justified crusader of morals over the legitimacy of legality.
In the end really its a question of whether or not there was a clause that held the players legally responsible for match fixing and whatnot. Whether or not there was something that specifically said "No, you cannot do that". That's what I'm getting from your post.
People will continue to hate on you for stupid reasons because they can't quite grasp the fact that there really are intelligent people in this world who can show off their credentials if they want to, or perhaps they can understand but just refuse to accept it =P
You should have fun arguing them however, the TL community members can be wonderful balls of spiteful hate that you can toss around.
Snuggles... No. Making an argument is a skill and if you do something stupid like talk about how smart you are for the first few paragraphs then you can't really justify it. Those paragraphs were completely unnecessary to his argument. He could have drawn on what he's learned in his education without mentioning 'you should believe me because lawyers are the smartest people in the world.' That's a very basic fallacy.
People would have paid more attention to his argument if he'd let that be the whole post, but instead he distracts his readers from his argument. And you're calling this smart? I'm sorry, it's a mistake. He did the wrong thing. He walked a bunch of marines into hold lurkers and got owned. It was his fault. You can't blame the audience for not liking your act. If there is something wrong with it then that's all there is to it. It'd be like naming your thread "Ding Dong Farts" and then writing a very serious argument. Then calling your audience stupid when they talk about your moronic title.
It doesn't help that his first argument was so weak I just groaned and realised I'd wasted a lot of time reading his credentials for nothing.
So let me say it one more time in case you don't get it: It's not TL's fault that they didn't like the OP. It's the OPs fault for making a bad OP. Take some responsibility for your mistakes..
On November 17 2011 00:47 Snuggles wrote: Retfan as intelligent as you may be, you're an idiot for posting at TL. People aren't going to listen to you in a fair manner. These people hate being looked down upon even if you make it a point to show people that you're aren't bragging or showing off. They simply don't give a shit once someone with higher credentials comes on to the scene, they feel like their know-it-all selves are threatened because they themselves don't have any high value legitimate credentials. But I'm sure you'll realize that by the time you're done running through the comments.
Fortunately I'm able to separate ego from legitimately earned credentials through hard work and a spice of talent. However, I don't know how school works over in Australia but if what you claim is correct and you're already working for great people then people here really are just mad that you are more successful than them =P.
What makes people feel really insulted is the fact that you made your OP in a way that people would feel threatened because its well-written for a simple issue. That's simply how law is, simple issues get turned into overly complicated cases. It is correct but the general public hates that, that's why my wonderful country of the US of A is quite dumb when they try to act smart and assume the position of a justified crusader of morals over the legitimacy of legality.
In the end really its a question of whether or not there was a clause that held the players legally responsible for match fixing and whatnot. Whether or not there was something that specifically said "No, you cannot do that". That's what I'm getting from your post.
People will continue to hate on you for stupid reasons because they can't quite grasp the fact that there really are intelligent people in this world who can show off their credentials if they want to, or perhaps they can understand but just refuse to accept it =P
You should have fun arguing them however, the TL community members can be wonderful balls of spiteful hate that you can toss around.
There're also people who can make a persuasive argument without relying on credentials, even when their credentials are superior. It's easy to forget that TL is not filled by a narrow spectrum of basement dwelling nerds, instead from a wide range of academics and fields, some of which more prestigious and successful than the OP presented.
No one has to wave their credentials around here. If you are going to make a smart thought-provoking argument then please do so; RetFlam's on the other hand wasn't. Lawyers are supposed to have good public speaking skills and make good arguments. Like I said earlier, the OP's opener was downright awful and as he even mentioned himself-- contrary to your belief, it was very poorly written.
What he said is no different from what many people have been preaching in the cluster fuck of pages known as the Team Liquid forums. It's called common sense when you look at the current policy on match-fixing and will to compete.
*
So, if someone says they are a graduate from Harvard, Yale, insert-any-other Ivy League school with a PhD in whatever you believe worthy you will hold their word above the rest on a public forum? Throw out the over-exaggerations and lies people tell to gain authority.
Undergrads say the goofiest things sometimes. You guys aren't helping this stereotype the working world has of the fresh meat. Just when you think your done with all your studies and schooling. The real training starts.
You got to earn your spot anywhere including here.
One of these days you'll eventually realize how little we truly know. This realization could take anywhere from fifty to sixty years. You could be a late bloomer! Anyway, it's a long road ahead.
Just as a clarification to those who misunderstood my OP, I have it recited here:
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony..."
This does not mean only three people on the island but rather out of the people you bring to setup the colony, you could acquire the skills of only three professionals.
Starstruck and Chef seem like two individuals that either don't understand the substance of what was written or have decided it was fun to jump on the bandwagon to put in a few cents of nonsense. Unfortunately, the OP covers everything that they seem to have written. No need to expand.
Blah Blah, university rankings are based primarily on research and academia including publishing journals, or being cited on important articles to list a few. If anything the ranking system is more reflective of the quality of the postgraduate course in sciences, making it irrelevant in your argument that my University sucks because yours is higher. Further in Australia, the traditional system of law was in form of an llb. If you are a PHD student, you would also understand the need to backup the statement of why the Jiao Tong rankings are MORE accurate. You would also have to refine your argument to suit your insult of why my law school is inferior to those ranked above it based on ranking scores.
I know you are trying to provoke me into an argument where you get to rant why science is SUPERIOR to law. But I'm not stupid enough to waste my time on such a meaningless discussion. As I've said once before, if you need someone to massage your ego, do it elsewhere.
Snuggles, despite the fact I knew that some people might take it the wrong way, part of the reason I posted here is the hope that some people could get to know the issue in more depth without having to go through fifty pages of comments where everyone is either:
1. Giving a different opinion; 2. Talking out of their ass; 3. Mixing up moral and legal arguments; 4. Not understanding the issue at all.
What people don't understand is that a judge is a basically a barrister who has been promoted, most barristers were once solicitors and solicitors all studied law before getting admitted. They also forget that law oversees all other professions and lawyers are chosen from the smartest people in the country by measure of academic results. If my plan in the field of law goes as planned, in thirty years, I will likely be a judge overseeing important matters. Trying to help people differentiate simple matters relating to matchfixing for a video game is kids play.
Regarding everyone's smite of lawyers, it should be put that while many people can study law, not many people can excel in the field. If you get a scientist or an engineer to do a lawyer's job, society will be fucked in a week. Million dollar deals, rules governing banks and other financial institutions, product liability - do people really think you can get an engineer to do a lawyer's job? The GFC and most of the other financial crisis were caused by insufficient regulation which is why things like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act has now been put in place.
People complain that I brag about my credentials but they don't realise what I've had to sacrifice to attain them. It does feel good to be able to list what I've accomplished and be proud. To be reassured by people who are more successful than me that I am part of the top few thousand legal minds in the country.
I want people on Team Liquid to view be able to read and TRUST my view on things so they can disregard 90% of the trash comments that are based on a biased opinion or written by adolescent kids between ages of 14-21 who have no life experience.
Another thing, if someone told me they were a graduate from an Ivy League school like Yale or Harvard, and their posts reflected intelligence, I would have respect for them.
There are very few people who are desperate enough to lie about their credentials online. Most people who do are either losers or children who can hardly substantiate a valid argument let alone be able to make a succinct argument. It would be sad to imagine a guy sitting at a computer who goes to a fourth tier university claiming to go to Yale. Who cares if he even pulls it off online, if in reality he is unable to ever attain what he wants.
It's the same reason people don't lie about people in their family dying. If they do, you should believe them because if they are lying then that's beyond low. It's simply disgusting.
I also find it quite sad that people from Ivy League schools are expected by society to be modest. I mean come on, these guys are likely to be the top students going to some of the best universities in the world. They have a right to be proud; they've had to sacrifice so much get in. Are these people not allowed to brag about their achievements?
On November 17 2011 01:39 RetFan wrote: People complain that I brag about my credentials but they don't realise what I've had to sacrifice to attain them. It does feel good to be able to list what I've accomplished and be proud. To be reassured by people who are more successful than me that I am part of the top few thousand legal minds in the country.
I want people on Team Liquid to view be able to read and TRUST my view on things so they can disregard 90% of the trash comments that are based on a biased opinion or written by adolescent kids between ages of 14-21 who have no life experience.
You are right, the people here who are going to medical school, or engineering school or hell, any kind of higher education really, and who have also had to make sacrifices to get to where they are clearly don't comprehend how unique you are. Why do you come here to be "reassured that you are part of the top few thousand legal minds in the country."? Wouldn't it be better to actually go and prove this, you know by doing whatever it is lawyers do to prove it, rather than posting about it in some obscure forum in a corner of the internet?
Way to insult the population of teamliquid by the way. The many of which are college students who are also making immense sacrifices to be where which are, I guess we can't grasp your wonderful "life experience based" arguments actually not based on any experience, this is a cheap attempt at discrediting your detractors. Also, why would we "TRUST" what you say just because you have these "credentials"? Believe it or not its incredibly easy to lie on the internet, watch "I have won three noble prizes and have a diploma from Harvard saying to trust me!" Prefacing your arguments with how awesome you are not only serves to turn of your entire audience, but your obvious contempt for us only serves to mask any merits your actual arguments may have. So tell me, mr. lawyer, in these classes about brilliant argument, did they forget to mention that to sway an audience you must first appeal to them? Make them care? If you can't properly present an argument on the internet (and you have amply proven that despite grasping the precepts of logic, you hardly understand the basics of persuasion) then you can hardly be expected to properly represent a client.
Next time, instead of buffing your arguments with a wall about how awesome you are, please try letting your argument stand on its own merits, rather than trying to prop it up on your "achievements"
On November 17 2011 01:50 RetFan wrote: Another thing, if someone told me they were a graduate from an Ivy League school like Yale or Harvard, and their posts reflected intelligence, I would have respect for them.
There are very few people who are desperate enough to lie about their credentials online. Most people who do are either losers or children who can hardly substantiate a valid argument let alone be able to make a succinct argument. It would be sad to imagine a guy sitting at a computer who goes to a fourth tier university claiming to go to Yale. Who cares if he even pulls it off online, if in reality he is unable to ever attain what he wants.
It's the same reason people don't lie about people in their family dying. If they do, you should believe them because if they are lying then that's beyond low. It's simply disgusting.
I also find it quite sad that people from Ivy League schools are expected by society to be modest. I mean come on, these guys are likely to be the top students going to some of the best universities in the world. They have a right to be proud; they've had to sacrifice so much get in. Are these people not allowed to brag about their achievements?
No, the internet is *not* your personal brag forum. Modesty is a virtue, because it allows your arguments to stand on their own merits. I was accepted into an ivy league, but did not attend, does that make me a better person? More respectable? NO. It makes no difference as to the strength of my arguments its not relevant. There is no reason to shove your credentials in the face of people, because they really don't serve to strengthen your arguments, they only make you look pretentious. If you want to get an ego boost go do something of worth, posting about how awesome you are on the internet is a waste of your time, and it won't get people to accept faulty arguments with any more ease.
Oh I read everything you had to say unlike the many who don't and my point still stands. You could have skipped all the fluff and got right to it. It's a terrible opening no matter how you slice it.
In the end you brought nothing new to the dinner table. It's the same old shit people have been saying.
The OP says something unremarkable about the Coca situation that could have been easily said in a short paragraph in a huge essay (I don't doubt he's a humanities student of some sort based on that), while throwing in a brag about how smart he is, and now we're talking about school rankings and engineering.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: Introduction
Let me start off by asking everyone a question:
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
many posters such as Starstruck and Chef may not care about my credentials. They may see it as an exercise of bragging.
But there are people who would love to not go through the bullshit of having to read 140 different comments with differing opinions on interpreting a simple issue. They would love someone who knows how to analyse issues logically and without bias. Not just some scrub with an opinion but someone who actually is trained in understanding legal issues.
I wrote my OP because I thought I could use my professional knowledge and contribute to Team Liquid and give a logical judgment on all the issues involving match fixing. As a point of reference, we can note that months ago, the original topic about Savior's match fixing didn't even mention the cause of action. That was how sensationalist some of the articles were becoming in TL.
I am doing well with my law degree, I'm at a highly recognised educational institution and I have done clerkships at large national and international firms. I love Starcraft 2. I want to contribute my knowledge of those people who would like to listen to what I have to say. Is this really such a big issue for dissenters to make a fuss about?
If people don't like what I have to say, then they don't need to keep reading. If people don't want to believe me, then that's fine too. Believe it or not, what I say on this forum is not about impressing people. It's not about persuading people, its about presenting my view and giving the public the view of a matter from a relatively intelligent point of view. I gain nothing here by impressing people who I will never get to meet in real life.
Generally "my opinion on a controversial topic is more important so I'm going to make a separate thread about it" threads are immediately closed on TL to prevent clutter. You should be glad yours was simply moved to blogs.
On November 17 2011 00:58 Chef wrote: Snuggles... No. Making an argument is a skill and if you do something stupid like talk about how smart you are for the first few paragraphs then you can't really justify it. Those paragraphs were completely unnecessary to his argument. He could have drawn on what he's learned in his education without mentioning 'you should believe me because lawyers are the smartest people in the world.' That's a very basic fallacy.
People would have paid more attention to his argument if he'd let that be the whole post, but instead he distracts his readers from his argument. And you're calling this smart? I'm sorry, it's a mistake. He did the wrong thing. He walked a bunch of marines into hold lurkers and got owned. It was his fault. You can't blame the audience for not liking your act. If there is something wrong with it then that's all there is to it. It'd be like naming your thread "Ding Dong Farts" and then writing a very serious argument. Then calling your audience stupid when they talk about your moronic title.
It doesn't help that his first argument was so weak I just groaned and realised I'd wasted a lot of time reading his credentials for nothing.
So let me say it one more time in case you don't get it: It's not TL's fault that they didn't like the OP. It's the OPs fault for making a bad OP. Take some responsibility for your mistakes..
I see what you're trying to say but what if I'm on the other side of the fence and asking why the hell I should take the time to seriously read through an OP that represents its argument in a serious manner, even if the argument itself is silly. I'm positive that a lot of our community consists of know-it-alls with no actual credentials to show for it, and I believe that the world operates on having proof that you can be intelligent before making a serious overbearing statement as a standard for all to use. That's why I'm taking the time to go against what you guys are doing to the OP and appreciating the credentials he has put up.
I see the OP as as person stating his credentials without ill intent, I feel like the community is seeing it as plain bragging and a showcase of academic achievements and using the matching fixing nonsense as an excuse to do so.
I agree, (I'm a reasonable person) that his argument was pretty pointless because it doesn't really do anything to help anybody. Rather than putting out solutions, he just relabeled the already existing questions concerning the scandal. Stupid right? Yes I can see that, but his credentials still stand so I hope he can bring more to the table. Maybe he has done a good job of eliminating any stupid statements or claims in the future by setting more of a standard for us to argue around.
My first post was nasty because I feel like I have to do that sometimes to get a response out of people, that's just from my experience here. The only issue I have with people attacking the OP is the fact that they focus on the fact that yeah he did write a lot just to have us read about his credentials and then move onto his weak argument. We should be berating him for the argument, rather attacking him because he's a good student. In fact I find some of you guys just as bad as the OP for not focusing on the right thing. Shame on you.
I understand that people from Ivy League schools can make statements or decisions that may be inferior to people with lesser credentials. But there needs to be a certain level of respect for these people because they ARE NOT handed acceptance letters and degrees without a lot of legitimate hard work.
My beef with you guys is the fact that you are all failing to separate EGO from hardwork. I hate egotistical people more than you guys I bet, but I respect people who have "earned" the right to flaunt the results of their hardwork even if they are douchebags about it. That's just simply how I see the world, if you can change my views I don't mind. Because in the end if I were choose between this guy and you as a lawyer, I'd probably go with Retfan.
There are many people who are capable of doing just what you described without trying to take an authoritarian stance. You on the other hand, come across as a pompous ass on something trivial. Shit and potatoes. You can add whatever spices you want to it. It's still shit and potatoes. You are serving the same crap over and over.
*
Two internships. Great. You are just getting your feet wet; you haven't actually started your practice yet.
To me you come across as one of those know-it-all undergrads. Not a good impression to leave.
Snuggles,
I hope you don't present yourself in the same manner as the OP. It's one thing to be cocky; it's another thing to come across as a conceded egotistical fart. How you present yourself to others is important in every setting and word travels around fast.
Personality is just as important as whatever brain-smarts you might and might not have in all relationships.
In case you really did not give me the benefit of the doubt, I know how to present myself in reality. How do you think I got through the interviews for my clerkships?
It's one thing to know how to act in front of peers, employers or even friends but the internet is something else. I don't have anyone to impress or persuade.
On November 17 2011 02:21 StarStruck wrote: To me you come across as one of those know-it-all undergrads. Not a good impression to leave.
Snuggles,
I hope you don't present yourself in the same manner as the OP. It's one thing to be cocky; it's another thing to come across as conceded egotistical fart. There's a thin line between the two. How you present yourself to others is important in every setting and word travels around fast.
Personality is just as important as whatever brain-smarts you might and might not have.
Listen, DO NOT fucking label me as an egotistical fart. I'm as humble and as reasonable as I can possibly make myself. I hate egotistical people just as much as you do or maybe more. If I am viewed as that in any way please point it out so I can discipline myself.
I simply just don't see Retfan as that type of person. My god I see those know-it-all undergrads ALL THE TIME (the ones with no job and come to class with a suit LOL). I hate them almost as much as I hate people who smell bad. I even made a blog about people who stink. I said that TL members can be big balls of rolling hate, hey you know what I'm one of those people as well!
Maybe I'm missing something in his OP? Who knows I can be mistaken, god forbid =_=. But from my standpoint I just simply don't see anything wrong with him showing his credentials. If he's claiming that he really works alongside with people who are successful, and its actually true- can you really continue calling a person like that a pretentious fool? Do you know the definition of pretentious?
Tell that to those who lost jobs through social networking. The Internet is a powerful tool. I wouldn't take such things for granted. Like I said, you still have a lot to learn. As do I. -.^
Snuggles,
That's why I said I hope. Those are two separate ideas.
I would bring a Dr. a scientist and a hot model with child bearing hips. Idk why anyone would bring an engineer or lawyer to an island they don't really have anything to offer. Was all the stuff about how smart you are supposed to attract us to wanting a lawyer with us on the island? Who wants to hangout with someone like that?
On November 17 2011 02:43 WritersBlock wrote: I would bring a Dr. a scientist and a hot model with child bearing hips. Idk why anyone would bring an engineer or lawyer to an island they don't really have anything to offer. Was all the stuff about how smart you are supposed to attract us to wanting a lawyer with us on the island? Who wants to hangout with someone like that?
An engineer definitely would, how else would you make a coconut radio?
On November 17 2011 02:39 StarStruck wrote: Tell that to those who lost jobs through social networking. The Internet is a powerful tool. I wouldn't take such things for granted. Like I said, you still have a lot to learn. As do I. -.^
Snuggles,
That's why I said I hope. Those are two separate ideas.
Well then I am oh so sorry for jumping the gun good sir =P
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: Introduction
Let me start off by asking everyone a question:
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity.
As by way of introduction. I am also a high achiever within the cohort of other intelligent students within our law school. I have secured clerkships two years into my degree with the top four law firms in the country. I have worked with partners and senior associates which work on mining and energy, workplace relations, arbitration and litigation work within these firms. The transactional value of the work these lawyers 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.
A problem with lawyers is that they often write too much. A look at any basic court judgement will confirm this. However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. This will be my job. My career path will be such that I am the one who will adjudicate disputes. Please do not feel insulted if your views have been completely disregarded by me as being incorrect. I am not trying to be pretentious. However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
Match Fixing/Dumping
The reason why I decided to post today is because I'm disgusted by how uninformed most people or young adults are to think independently or rationally of a situation.
The notion that most people are sheep seems to be correct when you look at general comments in Gosugamers and Teamliquid. I want to educate people on this site why this matchfixing scandal is ridiculous. I will try and summarise them in simple sentences to avoid people criticising me of using overconvoluted sentences to express simple things.
First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
In many professional sports, the clubs which sponsor players have a clause which prohibits a player from conducting certain unethical behaviour. For example, in the legal professional conduct rules, there are rules to the effect that a lawyer must not act dishonestly, or further their means through unlawful conduct. Similarly, I'm sure in many soccer clubs, there are rules that prohibit match fixing EXPRESSLY. As soccer is one of the primary sports where matchfixing is a real problem.
However, it does not seem to me on the face of the evidence and common sense that a newly formed club, which likely did not use lawyers to setup a constitution would have an anti-match fixing clause unless it was identified as a potential problem since Starcraft 1 which carried through to the Starcraft 2 constitution. However, at this stage, I'm unsure that even Starcraft 1 had such a clause. It's likely that most clubs have a catch all provision in the constitution that says that the team has 'discretion to terminate the player for inappropriate conduct'. Where inappropriate is not defined in the constitution, this is a matter that may be brought to court by the players themselves.
The evidentiary issue
The other problem with e-sports is the issue of evidence with regard to dumping a game or match fixing. I've taken note that there hasn't been a clear distinction made between match fixing and dumping in the forums. Although they are similar, the context which the words are used seem to be different. The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
For the purposes of this article, matchfixing is where there is a predetermined outcome organized prior to a match regarding the performance of a player in one or more games. I mention 'or more games' because I've read people saying Nestea could not have been matchfixing in the GSL ro16 because he couldn't know whether Huk would advance. I want to inform readers that it does not matter what happens to Huk. Online sports betting sites bet on a number of things including the number of matches played, who advances to the next round and who does not. Thus how Huk performed is not relevant. Had Nestea gotten a friend to bet on him losing for very good odds, he could have shared the profit with Nestea. Depending on how much was bet, this could be more than the GSL prize.
In Starcraft 1, the reason why the match fixing scandal escalated was because the scheme that was devised was large and there were many parties involved, which made gathering evidence a fairly easy exercise. There were witnesses and a large number of defendants who could all testify against each other.
Insofar as Starcraft 2 is concerned, prima facie, it would be HIGHLY unlikely that match fixing could be proved. Unless it was to a scale in which Starcraft 1 matchfixing was - which to my LIMITED knowledge is unlikely. It would be extremely difficult to prove any form of match fixing where all you have is a hunch of one person betting on behalf of another. Further, unless there are rules in the constitution that prohibit "DUMPING" games - which is described later, there would be no compensation to those who lost the bets due to the match fixing.
Match dumping is where a person deliberately loses a match against another person. Clearly this is what happened in the match between Coco and Byun. Again it comes down to whether the catchall provision exists and whether prematurely leaving a game is inappropriate. I would suggest that the word 'inappropriate' might not be able to be too broadly read or it may fall under an unfair contract term - which is a term that can be interpreted so widely that it essentially covers everything and usurps power from every other term in the contract. Workplace relations law may also not allow unfair dismissal for an arbitrary reason. In my view, the word word inappropriate would be considered from the view of a reasonable man, in which case I believe a breach would have occurred. However further, its questionable whether the clause is a warranty or condition and whether a minor breach is enough to allow for termination. This is another matter altogether.
The main problem however is not identifying the cause of action but gathering enough evidence to prove it. Which leads to my next heading which will describe why I believe this matter has been way too oversimplified in the eyes of the public.
Only stupid people get caught
Read the heading and then read it again if you still don't get it. Run in your mind the scenarios that Coco and Byun could have done to escape the evidentiary burden? Maybe try a list of the things below:
1. Not type for the other person to leave? 2. Deliberately overexpanding and droning up without building a large army 3. Make it a convincing loss? 4. Alternatively what about accidentally leaving the game? Saying pp and pretending to leave the game and pressing surrender by mistake. Or what about telling the person to say gg first, and then you tap out pretending that you thought the other person left first. This would almost 100% be construed as being an accident. No-one would even guess it was matchfixing and even if they did, it couldn't be proved.
In such a situation, it would be difficult to prove that a player dumped the game. Let me make an analogy in a real life situation, if a minister makes a decision without giving reasons, even if its obvious the outcome of the decision is unfair, unless you can prove the minister acted arbitrarily or capriciously without any merit to the facts or the law, you can't challenge the decision. Similarly, how can you prove that either players had a guilty mind if they don't make it obvious. Even if it is obvious a game was dumped, it would be hard to prove intent. Procedurally, taking it to the court would be too costly for the team wanting to persecute the player and would take too long. The only real consequence would be to not renew the players contract later on and of course hte fact that that player would also not likely be picked up from another team after the incident.
Boxer/Slayers/Resignation
People need to stop taking things at face value and understand:
1. Boxer apologised and Slayers asked their player to leave to save the reputation of their team and not for any other reason.
2. The players involved are now in damage control mode and would do anything to preserve their future image, potential sponsorships and livelihood. Nobody is truly sorry.
It hurts e-sports
Matchfixing does make games less entertaining to watch. But making a moral argument doesn't mean that much in reality. People will matchfix where the reward from matchfixing> reward from playing where risk is minimal. Sometimes the reward from matchfixing includes the risk of being caught.
If not for a potential catch all provision, then players should be able to decide themselves whether they want the other player to win or not. After all, if they aren't allowed, they will just find more elaborate ways to pretend to lose. How about deliberately failing a 6 pool and telling the other player to prepare? What about conveniently forgetting to research stim? What about forgetting gas?
If matchfixing isn't allowed, people are just going to be smarter about doing it. It's not that hard. Why would you make a system where the person with the most elaborate matchfixing tactic should win? Or why would you take away from a person their right to win or lose since they are paying the consequence as a result "losing their place in the competition". For better spectatorship? The only reason I can see, that is a valid reason is matchfixing screws with the team that sponsors them as it messes with their reputation and revenue but if a person is teamless, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to matchfix. Morals mean very little when you can make a fortune, invest and escape the life which many progamers enter into to feed themselves and their family.
I'm just going to deal with your introductory premises. By way of introduction myself I'm a graduate student in history at a top ten American program in my specialization (the early Industrial Revolution in England and the Revivalist movement), and I have undergraduate degrees in both history and philosophy.
I take issue with this statement,
"The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity."
There is no reason to think that academics, especially a profession concerned with interpreting "sacred text" like the Law, understand what "fairness" or "justice" is any more than an average human being. I hate to burst your notions about your field, but the law itself is just a bourgeois instrument that centralizes violence into the state to be exercised for the benefit of powerful groups within the domestic population. If you find that to be Marxist, it could be, but that is how Max Weber and other foundational sociologists saw it as well. Law is basically secular theology, with all the negative connotations that the word implies. Having a fair justice system is not a technocratic problem of proficiency, of not making mistakes - as no doubt it has been presented to you. Challenging the foundations of the so-called law is not a part of your elite education, for obvious reasons. Before the legacy of the Enlightenment was hijacked by capital, the notion of democracy became popular in part due to the recognition that elites are not necessarily more qualified to choose the values that the whole of the human race will embrace - because no individual or subset of the whole is uniquely qualified to do so.
Your post, while the rest of it that I didn't read might have been fine, began with a fallacious premise and a (more or less) extraneous amount of text related to praising yourself. Whether other people find it pretentious I don't know, but to me it came across as one of the first, halting steps in a silly elitism that, unless you're careful, will harden and mature in place of genuine confidence in yourself and your abilities. In short, it was puerile. Say something smart and people will appreciate it, leave it at that.
I liked reading your presentation regarding the matchfixing issue. It is true that the majority of forum users tend to actpost emotionally rather than rationally, and in many cases "thinking twice before posting" would really improve the quality of discussion.
Regarding what you posted on topic, I'm not a student of law so I just absorbed what you wrote with an open mind. Of course it would be stupid of me to accept them as anything more than a seemingly informed opinion, but that sure beats some random rage post by a generic forum user. As of my opinion, I agree with you that Coca/Byun could have done a lot better in the same situation if they really wanted to fix the match in the first place. The reactions and steps taken by Slayers and Coca are only natural because the evidence was made available and the most logical thing to do would be damage control.
Now, along the lines of what I said above, where did I need to prove my credentials in detail? I don't think I said anything other than "not a student of law" to get my message across. Your introduction regarding your credentials was largely unnecessary. A simple "student of law @ Austrailia with minimal experience" would have sufficed.
So this argument cheats enormously. This is how it works:
(1) You define the domain of evaluation to be that which is legal. By doing so, you exclude all ethical arguments, which may well be relevant to an evaluation of something generally considered to be dishonest behaviour.
(2) You assume that there is no rule in writing from (a) the tournament or (b) the team that prohibits purposely losing a match, and further deploy an argument that there shouldn't be one even if there is because it's hard to enforce, and apparently we shouldn't have rules that are hard to enforce.
(3) You triumphantly conclude that obviously they shouldn't be punished.
You're right. If we grant (a) that the only relevant domain is the legal one and (b.1) that there is no written regulation against such behaviour or (b.2) if there isn't a written regulation there shouldn't be, your argument follows. However, you don't really bother to argue for (a), the person who runs the tournament has suggested (b.1) is empirically false, and (b.2) is dubious. But yeah, if we grant your premises...
welcome to my blog. I feel that your argument pivots on semantics. Ceterus paribus, if we have two students of equal ability to think independently and rationally and we place one in the course of law, and other in engineering, the law student would have a better understanding of fairness or justice for two reasons:
1. Because the word justice is interpreted according to society's perspective which is essentially based on the actual legal system which people 'perceive' to be the law and thus fair.
2. That the law course they teach in Australian Law schools teach us to evaluate the adequacy of the current regime of the law and challenge it. Many of the advanced units or research papers asks us to consider possible reforms which the lecturers use in their academic articles. It is not about simply memorising a 'sacred tome of legislation'.
Of course you can argue the doctrine of what fairness actually is but that is a philosophical one which I am not educated enough to present a worthy discussion with you about.
You are correct about the fact that the law is a tool that can be utilized more effectively by the rich. Again, history may suggest it is (similarly to religion) a tool to control masses for the benefit of powerful groups.
Your argument turns on semantics of what is fairness. It's also based on the fact that the current Australian curriculum does not ask us to challenge the 'foundations' of the law. While we are told to accept the separation of powers and the rule of law, there is nothing that is inherently wrong with this in general. What you mention applies more to public international law which I personally consider to be a load of bs - a unit I withdrew from due to contempt for how the course was taught.
Certainly the law is based upon a foundation whereby the source of power is in the crown and the state. But the Common law is based on precedent. The Australian legal system is arguably one of the most efficient systems in the world. Given your background, its not a surprise that you challenge the underlying notions of justice and fairness. Except given society's conceived perception of justice and taking it as is, a law student will always be most well equipped to deal with issues of equity and justice.
Similarly, despite the questionable foundations of the Australian Common Law, the development of recent law is prima facie (conspiracy theories aside) made to ensure fairness. Where perfection and complete uniformity in opinion is impossible, the current legal system is the second best thing. Pondering at what could be or could of been is seen to be a waste of time considering the effectiveness of the current system and the history and reform that has led to a stable society.
Let me try to put this in a way that you can understand.
Imagine you're in a courtroom in front of a jury and your opening statement goes a little something like this:
"Dear members of the jury, you are all here to determine whether or not my client is guilty but before I get to that let me spend 10 minutes of my 30 minute opening speech telling you all why I am much smarter and better than all of you and therefore you have to do what I tell you to do."
The best advice my English teacher gave me about writing is you have to know your audience. And writing a post on a forum like TL that prides itself on the intelligence of its community means that your audience will not be pleased by you spending 2 very long paragraphs telling us why you're so much smarter and better then us.
Take this beauty of a sentence for instance:
...they are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match
I'm going to ignore the irony of the fact that the paragraph that defends the verbosity of anything written in legalese is one of the longest paragraphs in your post and is filled with unnecessary boasting and other extra unneeded information. That sentence itself shows that you have 0 interest in actually having a discussion but all you want to do is TELL us why we have to think exactly like you do. If you expect the members of TL to accept your opinion simply because you think you're smarter than us then you clearly don't know your audience.
''Hey im a lawyer (actually you are a law student sir), you should listen to me for I am better. TLDR''
Seriously, how could you possibly think that anyone would discuss the real matter at hand (matchfixing), when the obvious reason for you making that blog is to show off.
On November 17 2011 06:43 TurpinOS wrote: What I got from this topic.
''Hey im a lawyer (actually you are a law student sir), you should listen to me for I am better. TLDR''
Seriously, how could you possibly think that anyone would discuss the real matter at hand (matchfixing), when the obvious reason for you making that blog is to show off.
Also, I am a law student too, so listen to me!
Stop trying to make the OP seem less important! However I would ditch the lawyer on an island... If I need legal advice when there are only 3 other people on an island with me we have a totally different batch of problems in need of fixing.
Speaking of fixing things... I didn't realize Conan O'Brien played starcraft at such a high level! lol that man is a true genius.
On November 17 2011 06:43 TurpinOS wrote: What I got from this topic.
''Hey im a lawyer (actually you are a law student sir), you should listen to me for I am better. TLDR''
Seriously, how could you possibly think that anyone would discuss the real matter at hand (matchfixing), when the obvious reason for you making that blog is to show off.
Also, I am a law student too, so listen to me!
The funny part is he's not even a lawyer. He's just some 2nd year at a random Uni who think he's tough shit because he was top 2% of his high school (LOL).
All I read was an empty boast from an inflated ego of why lawyers are more important than scientists and doctors and that most adults are idiots, from a person who's not even a lawyer.
This blog more gives fuel to the argument that lawyers are worth less than doctors, scientists, and engineers.
Let me a point out that you're not even a lawyer and you write as if you are one. It doesn't help you to say you were a top high school student either. Love to see how your perception changes once you get out school and face reality.
The purpose of this article is to inform people not to hastily judge the players for dumping/matchfixing.
The fact that you even had to write this speaks much to your concise, clear, and ~top 1% of my high school~ writing. Its not good when you're making the underpants gnomes look like reasonable fellows.
Unsupported assertions, irrelevant tangents, badly executed appeals to authority, false premises -- your post has it all! I will recommend Elements of Style to fix this. Since a relative neanderthal like me (alas, I was not in the top 1% of my high school) could get through it, I am sure you will grasp the concepts within immediately.
I have worked with partners and senior associates which work on mining and energy, workplace relations, arbitration and litigation work within these firms. The transactional value of the work these lawyers 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.
Yeah, well I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night -- I shall also claim my rightful title as an ESPORTS authority
It doesn't make a major difference (because the thrust of the relevant posts still remain with this change), but Daozzt and 419 should probably go back and read his post again because he's clearly not saying top 1-2% of his own school.
Criticise all you like, but don't be silly enough to give ammunition to fire back with.
I think what really bothers me is that he is trying to say he knows everything and wants to tell other people how to think without providing any reasoning why we should think that way other than, there's nothing you can do about it.
That is a very dangerous way of thinking in life. Your basically saying, Don't care about match fixing because there is no way to control the players. This argument can be applied to anything in life though. Maybe I shouldn't drive down the street, The other drivers could lose control at any time and smash into me potentially killing me. Or I shouldn't care about baseball because the pitcher could just throw the game by throwing a poor pitch. Maybe I shouldn't Hire a lawyer because the prosecutor could be paying off my lawyer to mess up my trial and he cant be trusted. Maybe I shouldn't eat food that I didn't grow myself because someone could be poisoning it. 99% of life is not under our own control, however how I perceive it is, I choose to be atleast somewhat optimistic. So shall I just sit in my basement and never leave my home to stay safe? Your logic is frightening, disturbing and close-minded, and the fact that you are trying to force your opinion on people and claim you are more intelligent than the rest of us makes you a douche bag. As I said before There is something to be said for personal pride, and Self conscience even in 2011. Although you as a law student are around people with no human moral's doesn't mean I can't have any and the SC2 players wont. And you trying to force your opinion on me because you believe you are Smarter than me makes you an ass hole seriously go fuck yourself, I don't come into your Class Room and call you all douche bags so don't come into my hobby and call us all stupid sheep. I may be stupid in your eyes, but I remember what my grandmother taught me, If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. You could have easily made your point without calling everyone stupid in the process, in fact if you really cared about the topic and not just bragging about how great you are and how stupid the rest of us are in comparison you might have wanted to actually spell the players names right in the original post.
Your other point seems to be that everything involving money makes people evil. Well I have to pay money to buy food, does mcdonalds, or any food service place actually care if I enjoy the food? no probably not, they are just providing a service to make a profit, But nonetheless I am still hungry. So is the olive garden evil? all they really want is my money. Are GMC and Toyota evil? sure they implement some safety precautions, seat belts air bags etc, but if they could get away without safety precautions and make more profits they probably would. Just because the people you fill your life with are evil and will do anything for a buck doesn't mean everyone is like that.
But since most of your post is about how great you are I will sum it up with this. This is not your college thesis, this is not a board meeting at a Law Firm, This is not a scientific discussion between phd candidates. This is teamliquid.net a website about starcraft. Here we let everyone express their opinion,(as long as they can be civil) no matter what school they go/went to, or how well they did at that school. The money you might make, or your inflated sense of self worth means nothing to most people here. I am not going to respect someone just because they go to a certain institution or did well in high school. You are what you make of yourself, If all you are as a human being is a collection of achievements from school and you only feel secure to express yourself behind this veil of "I'm kind of a big deal", than you are a pretty sad individual. There is more to life than just who's name is on the top of the diploma you hang on the wall. 99.9% of people here are going to judge what you write based on what you actually write, not because of who is writing it. Next time leave out the whole I am the greatest and you are all sheep compared to me if you want to actually make a serous point, cause otherwise you are just being an ass hole. At least you started to wise up and call us "TL Readers" and not sheep, maybe think twice before hitting "Post" next time. Also I don't give a fuck about the grammatical errors I made cause i'm just trying to get a point across and not prove how big of a deal I am in japan.
I am also a high achiever within the cohort of other intelligent students within our law school.
But hey, maybe I'm just one of the uninformed young adults incapable of thinking rationally about situations.
Well, it came off as if you were criticising him for making an assertion that he is so intelligent because he placed in the top 1-2% of his own high school (Which I can understand if that was what he actually said, because so placing is not necessarily even difficult... It depends on the calibre of the school).
However, it seems rather obvious to me, knowing the Aussie school system and grades required to gain entry to good law schools in this country that he actually meant he placed in the top 1-2% of all students in his state for that year. Which I'm sure you'd agree is not a joke by any means.
Regardless, he's still only a second year student with minimal experience and doesn't appear to recognise that there is 50-60 years worth of law graduates out in the workforce who scored just as highly in high school as he has and actually have real experience. Therefore his assertion, as a second year law student straight out of high school, that he is inside the group of top legal minds in the country is really quite hilarious. It's the sort of claim only a law student makes while they're still young and arrogant... I know because I used to think I was King Dick during law school too .
Anyway, that's just my take on things during my lunch break.
I don't want a doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer on a deserted island with me. I want Bear Grylls.
Additionally, you should take some writing classes. The entire section about why lawyers aren't evil basically just says how intelligent you are and how important lawyers are, which is different from stating the positive accomplishments of lawyers.
Anyone else feel like they were looking up at his feet whilst he was speaking to us peons from his lectern? Because that is about the only thing I got out of this post.
I would like to point out to you, oh great one, that (though I am no master of this myself) you have several grammar/semantic mistakes in your English that are unbecoming of such an astute individual as yourself. Also, your analytical skills and situational depth-o-meter need a good polishing and refit because they seem to be working just about as good as the rest of us peons here in this thread. You give intelligent people a bad name by being that idiot who goes around proclaiming his intelligence through credentials and abstracts while any truly intelligent person knows that true intelligence is independent of verbal prowess and achievement.
Regardless, the title of this post is "Why lawyers are important." and I fail to see how being a lawyer factors into any of this observation of the current match fixing incident. What exactly would lawyers have done? How exactly are they important when you yourself say that if laws were expressly written then match fixing would evolve into a more elaborate form? Why take up a whole page when a few paragraphs would have done? Why preface your opinion with irrelevant credentials? This is teamliquid.net, which is hosted on the internet, where you can be whoever you want.Hell, I am a 19 year old neural surgeon with a German super model wife and 3 houses in the Caribbean, and I'm still not qualified to comment on this situation. See how meaningless and pointless that is?
This post is full of bizarre conclusions - also, in a desert island to start a colony, I wouldn't be taking a lawyer.
Firstly, the legal profession, whilst they have served a good purpose in the past, are one of the scourges of society. One of the reasons why the USA is losing it's top dog status is because of the lawsuit (i.e. entitlement) mentality that it's citizens have.
Secondly, I don't know which law school you are going to, but match fixing is illegal in any sport.
Thirdly, whilst you separate legal and morality/ethics - this is a big mistake. Many things are not specified black and white in law but unethical people is a reason why society will crumble. It's a pity that govt needs to legislate things that should be common sense.
Lastly, esports needs to be seen as a clean sport - where all it's players play to win (and not stuff around like Coca/Byun). The punishment is appropriate - if Coca felt he didn't need a team, he could've pressed on but that would be the end of his career because I don't think he can improve or even function without a team.
All form, but no substance. You make points, e.g., people are sheep and don't think rationally, but don't explain the rationale behind them. How can you make a case without evidence?
many posters such as Starstruck and Chef may not care about my credentials. They may see it as an exercise of bragging.
But there are people who would love to not go through the bullshit of having to read 140 different comments with differing opinions on interpreting a simple issue. They would love someone who knows how to analyse issues logically and without bias. Not just some scrub with an opinion but someone who actually is trained in understanding legal issues.
If people don't like what I have to say, then they don't need to keep reading. If people don't want to believe me, then that's fine too. Believe it or not, what I say on this forum is not about impressing people. It's not about persuading people, its about presenting my view and giving the public the view of a matter from a relatively intelligent point of view. I gain nothing here by impressing people who I will never get to meet in real life.
People complain that I brag about my credentials but they don't realise what I've had to sacrifice to attain them. It does feel good to be able to list what I've accomplished and be proud. To be reassured by people who are more successful than me that I am part of the top few thousand legal minds in the country.
I want people on Team Liquid to view be able to read and TRUST my view on things so they can disregard 90% of the trash comments that are based on a biased opinion or written by adolescent kids between ages of 14-21 who have no life experience.
Dude, you're opinion is not worth more than anyone elses.
I don't think you have been told this enough in life. You are not special.
Retfan as intelligent as you may be, you're an idiot for posting at TL. People aren't going to listen to you in a fair manner. These people hate being looked down upon even if you make it a point to show people that you're aren't bragging or showing off. They simply don't give a shit once someone with higher credentials comes on to the scene, they feel like their know-it-all selves are threatened because they themselves don't have any high value legitimate credentials. But I'm sure you'll realize that by the time you're done running through the comments.
Fortunately I'm able to separate ego from legitimately earned credentials through hard work and a spice of talent. However, I don't know how school works over in Australia but if what you claim is correct and you're already working for great people then people here really are just mad that you are more successful than them =P.
What makes people feel really insulted is the fact that you made your OP in a way that people would feel threatened because its well-written for a simple issue. That's simply how law is, simple issues get turned into overly complicated cases. It is correct but the general public hates that, that's why my wonderful country of the US of A is quite dumb when they try to act smart and assume the position of a justified crusader of morals over the legitimacy of legality.
In the end really its a question of whether or not there was a clause that held the players legally responsible for match fixing and whatnot. Whether or not there was something that specifically said "No, you cannot do that". That's what I'm getting from your post.
People will continue to hate on you for stupid reasons because they can't quite grasp the fact that there really are intelligent people in this world who can show off their credentials if they want to, or perhaps they can understand but just refuse to accept it =P
You should have fun arguing them however, the TL community members can be wonderful balls of spiteful hate that you can toss around.
No one is jealous of his credentials. He comes off as amazingly pretentious and condescending and devotes a third of a post about sc2 progaming to himself and his special qualities.
It is not well-written. It is terrible writing.
Tl has plenty of people with qualifications too. As a rule, we don't go around prefacing our posts with a list of our achievements, how much money we make and a ruler next to our penis.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: Introduction
Let me start off by asking everyone a question:
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity.
As by way of introduction. I am also a high achiever within the cohort of other intelligent students within our law school. I have secured clerkships two years into my degree with the top four law firms in the country. I have worked with partners and senior associates which work on mining and energy, workplace relations, arbitration and litigation work within these firms. The transactional value of the work these lawyers 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.
Your post has strengthened my belief that indeed, the lawyer should be left out of the desert island.
There are probably 5-10 reasons why a lawyer would be useless on an island, a main one being that contracts can't be made on a island because there's no way to reinforce them. But that's been pretty beaten to death, and I'm pretty sure everyone would still choose to kick out the lawyer. And also to echo the sentiments of most posters here, if you're representative of Australia's top 1-2% and top 4 law firms, I'm not impressed. I don't care if you're Robert Sharpio or Chris Gardner, no one cares about your credentials or sob story. Why should I trust your views? You law background has no implication on the matter. Did you work cases on match fixing in Australia? Then I don't want to hear it.
I'm going to keep this short because I heard from someone who has a top legal mind says words shouldn't be wasted. I fully disagree with your statement that "making a moral argument doesn't mean much in reality". That is one of the driving forces of all sports, and especially true in starcraft2 (due to it's lack of structure and earnings). Integrity, self respect, reputation are some of if not the most important attributes of players. Players without the fans are nothing. True athletes and entertainers know the role of fans and spectators. We pay our money and time to watch. If a league had a 50% match fixing rule, no one would watch. Even if they were fixed in a way to be more entertaining, no one willingly watches a game that isn't "live" in the sense that the next moment is unpredictable. These sound like moral issues to me. And they mean a lot.
And for God's sake it's Coca, not Coco.
Edit: I didn't read all the pages before and my goodness someone has an ego. Look, you're going to post your cool story credentials and then half ass an article/blog without putting substance or thought into it, don't. Throw it out. Have you heard of drafts? Yours didn't make the cut. If you're trying to stir shit up with a poorly written argument and defend it with legal jargon, you're making yourself look like more of a douche. The least you could do is clean up your post instead of defending your already dead argument.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: Introduction
Let me start off by asking everyone a question:
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity.
As by way of introduction. I am also a high achiever within the cohort of other intelligent students within our law school. I have secured clerkships two years into my degree with the top four law firms in the country. I have worked with partners and senior associates which work on mining and energy, workplace relations, arbitration and litigation work within these firms. The transactional value of the work these lawyers 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.
A problem with lawyers is that they often write too much. A look at any basic court judgement will confirm this. However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. This will be my job. My career path will be such that I am the one who will adjudicate disputes. Please do not feel insulted if your views have been completely disregarded by me as being incorrect. I am not trying to be pretentious. However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
People would choose the the scientist, engineer, and doctor because those people could do the lawyers job as well as their own. Since grades are just arbitrary letters that don't reflect ones actual intelligence, it's meaningless to tell us that you were part of the 1-2%. I know several people, including a friend who had to teach his physics and AP chemistry class because the teacher wasn't smart enough to do so, who deserved to be in that 1-2% but weren't because they choose not to do their homework. So that 1-2% you speak of, aren't necessarily the brightest minds. Mistakes are made and will always be made regardless of how smart you are. Because you are trusted with doing research makes you smart and more deserved of being a lawyer? The problem with lawyers isn't that they write to much, it's that they are corrupt and fight for injustice by siding with criminals because they'll get a large salary for it. You mention you weren't trying to be pretentious, yet you were bragging about how "smart" you were and that you were attending one of the best law universities in Australia. NOW I'm going to a complete asshole. Someone as stupid as you doesn't deserve to be attending law school or defending the people of Australia legally.
I don't think this OP belongs in "blogs" either. Too bad there isn't a forum for "masturbation."
The argument that you present misses the problem of match fixing entirely. In a competition, each player is trying to prove he/she is the best, and a disingenuous match only cheapens the efforts of 1) Those who aren't match fixing (but instead legitimately trying) and 2) The player who ends up winning. This effectively invalidates the tournament/game/competition and then we just have a WWE for video games. And, statistically speaking, less than half of us want to watch half naked men play Starcraft.
You would bring a lawyer to a desert island so when you get fed up with his pretentious ass you can just cannibalize him. It would take longer to starve to death.
I rarely post, but I just couldn't pass up this one. I am a patent attorney in the United States. I graduated from a top 5 US law school in 2006 and am currently a senior associate at my firm. Before attending law school, I was an electrical engineer.
Your posts come across as arrogant and you spend so much time trying to talk down to your audience that you fail to get your point across. I find it extremely difficult to read your posts, and I write patents and contracts for a living. For such a brilliant legal mind, you have a very hard time conveying your arguments. You should work on your brevity.
I do not know the system down there in Australia, but I assure you that your arrogance would not get you far in the US. I have interviewed many law students and I can smell the punks like you the moment they enter reception. I expect that you will be humbled when you enter the real world. Those partners who are schmoozing you right now are going to be treating you very differently when you are a first-year associate.
And to everyone else, not all of us lawyers are dicks. Objectively speaking we are no better than any other occupation at forming and expressing opinions. Please don't judge us all by this clown.
Terrible thread, I'd take the doctor, engineer and scientist. I disagree with much of your OP but I'm not going to bother typing it out because it has been covered many times by more intelligent individuals than myself in this thread already.
You should try posting in existing threads for a while instead of creating new ones, the last thread you created was also bad.
On November 17 2011 13:31 phiinix wrote: There are probably 5-10 reasons why a lawyer would be useless on an island, a main one being that contracts can't be made on a island because there's no way to reinforce them. But that's been pretty beaten to death, and I'm pretty sure everyone would still choose to kick out the lawyer. And also to echo the sentiments of most posters here, if you're representative of Australia's top 1-2% and top 4 law firms, I'm not impressed. I don't care if you're Robert Sharpio or Chris Gardner, no one cares about your credentials or sob story. Why should I trust your views? You law background has no implication on the matter. Did you work cases on match fixing in Australia? Then I don't want to hear it.
I'm going to keep this short because I heard from someone who has a top legal mind says words shouldn't be wasted. I fully disagree with your statement that "making a moral argument doesn't mean much in reality". That is one of the driving forces of all sports, and especially true in starcraft2 (due to it's lack of structure and earnings). Integrity, self respect, reputation are some of if not the most important attributes of players. Players without the fans are nothing. True athletes and entertainers know the role of fans and spectators. We pay our money and time to watch. If a league had a 50% match fixing rule, no one would watch. Even if they were fixed in a way to be more entertaining, no one willingly watches a game that isn't "live" in the sense that the next moment is unpredictable. These sound like moral issues to me. And they mean a lot.
And for God's sake it's Coca, not Coco.
Edit: I didn't read all the pages before and my goodness someone has an ego. Look, you're going to post your cool story credentials and then half ass an article/blog without putting substance or thought into it, don't. Throw it out. Have you heard of drafts? Yours didn't make the cut. If you're trying to stir shit up with a poorly written argument and defend it with legal jargon, you're making yourself look like more of a douche. The least you could do is clean up your post instead of defending your already dead argument.
Everyone who watches pro wrestling would care to differ ^^.
Interestingly enough, neither player has been denied to perform their job for which they have signed a contract. The only thing that is happening, is that the profile of the job has changed.
You make it sound as if I, an Information Security Management (student), would be able to legally pursue my employer because he wants me to go left instead of right with methods. This is the exact same thing as you claiming that the actions taken by the teams aren't correct.
On November 16 2011 18:00 Pandemona wrote: Hmmmmmmmmmm.
You seem a bright young solicisator in the making, however your overall point seems to be that match fixing isnt a breach of a players contract? And that only silly people get caught and you wouldnt know if people are match fixing if they do it properly on a small scale?
Basicly I understand from his post that he just says :
"They were too stupid to hide it, so because of this drama I will share my ePeen with everyone. Maybe someone strokes it."
Not a good trait for a future lawyer. I know that I wouldn't hire him.
Modesty is something which I reserve for real life.
I think most people would agree that society expects people to be humble. Yet I doubt the majority of Harvard and Yale graduates would not believe themselves to be superior to their counterparts who went to lesser universities or have lesser jobs.
Society respects prestige, educational qualifications, and money. Yet it teaches us not to flaunt either aspect. Yes this is true for reality but not so online. For all the lawyers here - see firmspy.
People who think I'm here to show off are simply wrong. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm simply here to put in my two cents and to back it up with my credentials (which are not bad).
I have friends much much smarter than me but that's not the point. For example, I've done work for a barrister who did their BCL in Oxford through a Rhodes Scholarships, then to Harvard for their LLM. I know people who rejected Goldman Sachs to work in the law firm I plan to join. I have friends who are geniuses in Finance having graduated from Stockholm School of Economics. There are even posters here who are moving onto the bar or working as patent attorneys (god those guys get paid a lot).
I simply claim that I am a law student with good marks and firms seem to think I know what I'm doing. From that, I believe I could do a good job analysing the issue of matchfixing. I don't know why people expect me to be anything but honest here.
On November 17 2011 15:01 RetFan wrote: Modesty is something which I reserve in real life.
I think most people would agree that society expects people to be humble. Yet I doubt the majority of Harvard and Yale graduates would not believe themselves to be superior to their counterparts who went to lesser universities or have lesser jobs.
Society respects prestige, educational qualifications, and money. Yet it teaches us not to flaunt either aspect. Yes this is true for reality but not so online. For all the lawyers here - see firmspy.
People who think I'm here to show off are simply wrong. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm simply here to put in my two cents and to back it up with my credentials (which are not bad).
I have friends much much smarter than me but that's not the point. For example, I've done work for a barrister who did their BCL in Oxford through a Rhodes Scholarships, then to Harvard for their LLM. I know people who rejected Goldman Sachs to work in the law firm I plan to join. I have friends who are geniuses in Finance having graduated from Stockholm School of Economics. There are even posters here who are moving onto the bar or working as patent attorneys (god those guys get paid a lot).
I simply claim that I am a law student with good marks and firms seem to think I know what I'm doing. From that, I believe I could do a good job analysing the issue of matchfixing. I don't know why people expect me to be anything but honest here.
Lesser universities? Son, you are ignorant as hell, like seriously.
Please don't talk about statistics, rankings, etc, when you clearly have no clue how they work, what they mean, or how they are obtained. Like seriously, I thought the post I made would take some of the wind out of your sails, but I was wrong. There is no slowing down the self-righteous, exuberantly confident zealot.
You obviously don't understand the differences between modesty, pride, and braggartry. I did actually read your response to me, and it certainly doesn't "feed my ego" to "attack" you. That's like suggesting that it feeds my ego to correct a 3rd grader when I'm teaching him how to multiply numbers.
On November 16 2011 21:34 RetFan wrote: Ganfei,
I admit there are a lot of grammatical mistakes in my initial post. In fact, I concur that the quality of what I wrote declines gradually as you read through the article.
However, I'm slightly bewildered why you feel so inclined to comment on it. I would like to think that someone as intelligent as yourself would understand that this blog is:
1. placed online in TL.net and not a formal legal document or anything that is required to be submitted to be assessed 2. it's much easier to write longer sentences than one which is concise, clear and succinct
Point 2, is not an excuse for poor writing and I am aware of that. However, I would bring to your attention that I have two exams next week and I didn't find it necessary to really edit the post for the purposes of making it more coherent. I find that the opening post is sufficiently clear for everyone to understand.
Back to your comment, I would suggest that you're not really picking on my actual English skills as you are trying to pedantically find a reason to criticise me. Either that, or you are trying to have a contest to see who has a bigger ****.
I could easily reciprocate your condescending tone and make a number of pedantic observations. What about the word rigorous being unsuitable as the modifier to the word eduction. As you probably know, a rigorous education system does not always reflect a good educational system. Take for example the Chinese educational system which focuses on rote learning, which although more rigorous is perhaps less successful when you consider the performance of Qinghua, or Peking University graduates with their peers in Yale or Harvard.
Could I also ask you to read Richard Wydeck's book on Plain English for Lawyers, it might help you with your use of nominalisations. For example, using the sentence with the word 'over-jargonisation' together with legalese could be stated 'you should only use legalese when it is required'. See, I can be pedantic like your as well Or perhaps you can just drop the high horse and realise this is blog which I wrote relatively quickly.
And although it might feel good for you to feed your ego by criticising others, it certainly doesn't address the crux of the blog at all. You should also try and loosen your syntax in your writing to sound more colloquial. The best way to do that is to read what you say out aloud. I would polish up what I wrote if I had the time, unfortunately I don't care enough to do so. What I've written is more than comprehensible for the average person to read.
Dude this is so stupid I honestly don't know how to reply.
...
edit: Wait a second, is this snuggles guy legitimately serious? I thought he was a mod's alt making fun of the OP. HAHAHAHA
On November 17 2011 15:01 RetFan wrote: Modesty is something which I reserve in real life.
I think most people would agree that society expects people to be humble. Yet I doubt the majority of Harvard and Yale graduates would not believe themselves to be superior to their counterparts who went to lesser universities or have lesser jobs.
Society respects prestige, educational qualifications, and money. Yet it teaches us not to flaunt either aspect. Yes this is true for reality but not so online. For all the lawyers here - see firmspy.
People who think I'm here to show off are simply wrong. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm simply here to put in my two cents and to back it up with my credentials (which are not bad).
I have friends much much smarter than me but that's not the point. For example, I've done work for a barrister who did their BCL in Oxford through a Rhodes Scholarships, then to Harvard for their LLM. I know people who rejected Goldman Sachs to work in the law firm I plan to join. I have friends who are geniuses in Finance having graduated from Stockholm School of Economics. There are even posters here who are moving onto the bar or working as patent attorneys (god those guys get paid a lot).
I simply claim that I am a law student with good marks and firms seem to think I know what I'm doing. From that, I believe I could do a good job analysing the issue of matchfixing. I don't know why people expect me to be anything but honest here.
No you have it all wrong. No one really thinks you're here just to brag. It's a lot worse than that. That'd be annoying, but a fairly common failing. What's so sad is that you aren't trying to be a braggart, it just comes out completely naturally. Because that's who you are at your core. And you're unaware of it. So not only are you totally conceited, you also lack any self-awareness.
a lawyer would be the least useful person to rebuild a colony. what could they bring to help rebuild that would be more beneficial then what would be lost be excluding one of the others? nothing.
Isn't this guy like 19? 2nd year law student in Australia when law school is not post-undergrad? And he's talking about the "adolescent 14-21 year old garbage?"
Omfg this is the best thread I've seen on TL in years, this is like when monkeyspanker wanted encouragement to steal his grandman's prescriptions LOL
On November 17 2011 15:01 RetFan wrote: Modesty is something which I reserve in real life.
I think most people would agree that society expects people to be humble. Yet I doubt the majority of Harvard and Yale graduates would not believe themselves to be superior to their counterparts who went to lesser universities or have lesser jobs.
Society respects prestige, educational qualifications, and money. Yet it teaches us not to flaunt either aspect. Yes this is true for reality but not so online. For all the lawyers here - see firmspy.
People who think I'm here to show off are simply wrong. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm simply here to put in my two cents and to back it up with my credentials (which are not bad).
I have friends much much smarter than me but that's not the point. For example, I've done work for a barrister who did their BCL in Oxford through a Rhodes Scholarships, then to Harvard for their LLM. I know people who rejected Goldman Sachs to work in the law firm I plan to join. I have friends who are geniuses in Finance having graduated from Stockholm School of Economics. There are even posters here who are moving onto the bar or working as patent attorneys (god those guys get paid a lot).
I simply claim that I am a law student with good marks and firms seem to think I know what I'm doing. From that, I believe I could do a good job analysing the issue of matchfixing. I don't know why people expect me to be anything but honest here.
I've bolded the problem.
See, people would be making fun of you as much if you had done one of a two things: (a) not bothered with credentials, because bad news - a lot of us have more impressive credentials than two years of undergraduate education and don't like being talked down to, nor do we open our posts with them (b) bothered with credentials, but given a decent argument as well
I've shown above that you basically assumed your conclusion by restricting the domain of the debate to something incredibly tiny about which we have very little actual information and then expected people to be impressed. Not only that, but in restricting the domain you dropped out probably the more important part of the conversation: whether what Coca and Byun did was right, as opposed to legal.
Edit: FWIW, restricting the domain of the debate without justification in order to strengthen your points is not uncommon in undergraduate writing. I'm unsure that finding out that the problems with your style of argument are common, though, will comfort you.
On November 17 2011 13:45 talleyhooo wrote: Hi there Retfan,
I rarely post, but I just couldn't pass up this one. I am a patent attorney in the United States. I graduated from a top 5 US law school in 2006 and am currently a senior associate at my firm. Before attending law school, I was an electrical engineer.
Your posts come across as arrogant and you spend so much time trying to talk down to your audience that you fail to get your point across. I find it extremely difficult to read your posts, and I write patents and contracts for a living. For such a brilliant legal mind, you have a very hard time conveying your arguments. You should work on your brevity.
I do not know the system down there in Australia, but I assure you that your arrogance would not get you far in the US. I have interviewed many law students and I can smell the punks like you the moment they enter reception. I expect that you will be humbled when you enter the real world. Those partners who are schmoozing you right now are going to be treating you very differently when you are a first-year associate.
And to everyone else, not all of us lawyers are dicks. Objectively speaking we are no better than any other occupation at forming and expressing opinions. Please don't judge us all by this clown.
You stress your attention to details, yet your posts are riddled with errors. You berate a poster for using unnecessary legalese, yet you used the term "prima facie" in your original post (incorrectly I might add). You tout your credentials, yet you have none.
I bet that you got where you are in life not from hard work, but because everything has been handed to you. Your posts make that pretty clear. Some of your statements are so idiotic that I briefly considered the idea that you might be a troll. More likely you are just naive.
You spout off all this bullshit on here trying to take advantage of what you consider to be an uneducated audience. I think it has become pretty clear that it is you who has a lot to learn.
Also, I find it hilarious that you only have two years of college under your belt. I regularly use Australian counsel to file patent applications for my clients in Australia (Freehills if you have heard of them). I am going to make fun of you quite a bit next time I speak with my colleague there. He is really going to get a kick out of this.
Gee guys, I apologize. I originally was critical of the OP under the assumption that he was a second year student in a postgraduate law program. But apparently the Australian system is such that you can enter law school directly out of high school, and the OP is a second year undergraduate student who doesn't even have so much as an undergraduate degree?! Apparently my assertion that his credentials were laughable was actually a gigantic understatement.
Geez, I had friends in law school who complained they try to acculture you to be elitist (with all the accompanying condescension of others and inflated sense of self importance), but surely it can't be as bad as this post seems to suggest.... could it?
A lawyer on an island? cuz you're the most smart of all?
Lawyers require a large number of people in a society organized in a very particular way to even be relevant. Deserted island skills they are not.
As for the deserted island problem, it seems a little vague. What type of doctor/engineer/scientist are we talking about? Although to be honest, after reading this thread, even if the guy was a software engineer I would take him over the lawyer.
You are talking a lot about logic, and while you could very well be an expert in Australian law, you seem to have overlooked a few things in your post. I just listed some below that I noticed.
Appeal to misleading authority - you are a 2nd year undergrad in Australia commenting on contracts and law in a foreign country that you are not familiar with. Within this fallacy you also use an appeal to accomplishment by trying to set yourself apart from others who might try and rebuttal with similar credentials. Correlation does not equal causation - lawyers who go to top schools are smart (insert all the self praising in OP too long to list here) you went to one of said schools. Therefor you have qualities listed. Circular reasoning - assuming that people will "get better" at throwing matches is used as evidence to support your conclusion.
also most of your posts are full of mind projection fallacy. which goes back to your appeal to authority attempt at the start of the OP. I have no doubt in Australia you would do fine, but outside of Australia, you aren't an "expert" anymore. You seem to think that the way you look at the law and reasoning is how it is done/should be done everywhere, but that is simply not the case.
There could be a few formal ones as well but I didn't bother to really break down the long OP that much due to (insert # of midterms due soon that prevents me from defending myself further).
Just some of the things that made me chuckle when I heard you talking about logic and reasoning.
P.S. I am a philosophy major, and whether I go to Duke or a "tier 4" school doesn't change the facts at all. I probably don't know the Law as well as you, but Logic and Reasoning are my Forte. Notice how I don't comment on any of the law aspects of the issue at hand because I am not an expert. ^^
P.S.S. A couple more pages in this blog and TL might actually replace Reductio ad Hitlerum with Reductio ad Retfanum. lol
Oh and btw, don't think for a second to immediately place yourself above anyone here. While you may very well be smarter then some, you are not the smartest by any stretch of the imagination. As you so obviously pointed out in your defense of your poor grammar, it is an online forum which is not under review for any real purpose. So the laziness that you felt to show can be said for many people online. Why you think to apply that defense to yourself and not to others is a curious question.
Simply put, don't judge others for not being perfect on this forum when you yourself choose not to be.
Ganfei, I can tell you're mad. Try and calm down son - by the way, what is a Grandman? Why are you picking on my typos anyway?
Nevuk, I should be studying for exams. Refuting the idiots who are trying to criticise me is fairly entertaining and helps relieve stress
Blah_blah, you are completely obsessed with stalking me. If there was an option to block on TL.net, you would be the only one on the list. Would it help your fragile ego if I said "science is superior, requires brains and law does not'? Would that be enough to get you to go away? LOL.
Further, since you're unfamiliar with the Australian educational system (which means you probably shouldn't be posting), most undergraduates here do a combined degree. So no, I'm not second year, I'm in my 5th year.
Talleyhoo, I hope for your sake you aren't a basement nerd pretending to be a patent lawyer because that would truly be sad.
- Firstly, I've never said I've only had two years of college under my belt. - Secondly, Contrary to what you believe, prima facie was in fact used correctly and using the term meant I could save two words. - Thirdly, you misuse the word counsel - Freehills is a firm of solicitors and not barristers - Fourthly, why would someone be your colleague in Freehills if you are patent attorney in the United States? You misuse the word colleague. LOL - Lastly, the fact that you obviously pay no attention to detail, invent things up that I've never said, invent the fact that "I berate a poster for using unnecessary legalese" and impliedly misunderstand what nominalisation means, not understand what counsel means, shows that you are probably not a lawyer at all. In fact, that's why its so silly for people to pretend to be someone they're not online, once they're shit has been taken apart, its quite humiliating.
I'm not trying to make you mad. If you want to mature as a person, you need to sincerely understand what I am about to say.
If you go to wikipedia and search the word 'fallacy', you will come across a huge number of different types.
Essentially, you could use any of those fallacies to describe the technique used by any author in writing an argumentative essay effectively. Logic is based upon working with imperfect knowledge. Therefore there will always be some degree of the above fallacies you listed. Please read this paragraph with a cool head and you'll realise it's true.
I know I am not and I will never be capable of being more intelligent than a certain number of my peers. People are not born equal. But, statistics would show that based on my achievements I'm likely to be smarter than most of the people on this forum. This assumption would especially hold light because of the target audience of the site, which consists mostly of young adolescent gamers.
I do attribute my grammatical mistakes to laziness and it's not really an excuse if I want to make an impression on the audience. The truth is that I don't really want or need to make an impression. In real life, I would never brag about my accomplishments. The truth is this is TL.net, I am just being really really honest - which unfortunately society does not allow for because of the unspoken rules of modesty that apply and punish people for speaking whats on their mind.
But, statistics would show that based on my achievements
What achievements?
"Worked with elite people" "Accumulated student debt" "Can write long posts about nothing" "Mastery of BBCode" "Did good in high school" "Observed fantastic lawyering, is pretty sure he'd be good at that too"
Don't be modest -- I think we're way past that point.
What about getting selected to clerk at the top tier law firms in the country?
What about having an incredibly high chance of getting recruited by a large national/international law firm upon graduating?
Academic performance may not be the only indicator of intelligence but sure as hell is the only measure that is accepted by all developed and undeveloped countries.
I'm not trying to make you mad. If you want to mature as a person, you need to sincerely understand what I am about to say.
If you go to wikipedia and search the word 'fallacy', you will come across a huge number of different types.
Essentially, you could use any of those fallacies to describe the technique used by any author in writing an argumentative essay effectively. Logic is based upon working with imperfect knowledge. Therefore there will always be some degree of the above fallacies you listed. Please read this paragraph with a cool head and you'll realise it's true.
I know I am not and I will never be capable of being more intelligent than a certain number of my peers. People are not born equal. But, statistics would show that based on my achievements I'm likely to be smarter than most of the people on this forum. This assumption would especially hold light because of the target audience of the site, which consists mostly of young adolescent gamers.
I do attribute my grammatical mistakes to laziness and it's not really an excuse if I want to make an impression on the audience. The truth is that I don't really want or need to make an impression. In real life, I would never brag about my accomplishments. The truth is this is TL.net, I am just being really really honest - which unfortunately society does not allow for because of the unspoken rules of modesty that apply and punish people for speaking whats on their mind.
no you really don't understand how they honestly work if you are lecturing me about how they are intermittent in everything people say when arguing. That is a given when discussing anything outside of pure truth or logic in and of itself. However, I want you to mature as a person, and really understand what you are doing, when I say this. so try and read this with a level head (you see how i make a bunch of assumptions about you as a person and how you will react to this without knowing, oh wait that was you who did that. It is very interesting and amusing how you went from an expert on australian law, to an expert Esports and on korean law and contracts, to an expert on me. They must be teaching you all kinds of things down there in Australian Top law school...)
Yes they happen in arguments, but any argument is weakened by the presence of such blatant and poor logical errors. This is always the case in academia, and since that is where you are basing your argument and experience from I assumed you would understand that. You are not addressing any of the problems with your OP, and instead try to brush it off by saying "everyone does it." At the very least, you could have attempted to defend the appealing to a misleading authority fallacy. This is not one that "happens all the time." When you, or anyone else does this, it is flat out wrong. So can you defend your use of this? What makes your opinion, which you attempted to pass of as expertise, really that of an expert when dealing with an incident inside of Esports, in a different country with different laws and vastly different culture formalities then your own?
You are trying to have both sides of the argument. On one side you are lazy in how you present yourself. Egotistical and rude when presenting yourself and your "credentials" to others (which being in your second year of law school however it works in australia is not an accomplishment, its like saying you have run the first 2 miles of a marathon and expect us to think you are a marathon runner.) On the other hand you expect your word to be taken as that of an expert. You can't have it both ways online when the only way you are truly critiqued is through your writing.
Also, everything you say about real life and bragging is flat out suspect. People with as much Narcissism as you have shown constantly through all of your posts have no ability to restrain themselves elsewhere.
And making an impression, is exactly what you need to do in order for you to be taken seriously and for what you say to carry merit online (especially in the website full of "adolescent gamers". You act as if you don't care and attempt to pass yourself off very nonchalant, but everything you have written goes to the contrary.
You are clearly pretty young. So can I assume you are no older then 21 give or take a year?
On November 17 2011 19:05 RetFan wrote: How about doing well in University?
What about getting selected to clerk at the top tier law firms in the country?
What about having an incredibly high chance of getting recruited by a large national/international law firm upon graduating?
Academic performance may not be the only indicator of intelligence but sure as hell is the only measure that is accepted by all developed and undeveloped countries.
until you have actually achieved something, you can't list it as an accomplishment.
so all these law firms that you might get a job at are not achievements. They are your hopes and desires to get. performance half way through something shows a little bit, but doesn't mean shit in the end. Actually graduating in the top percentile does. You have a long way to go before then so why you keep talking about what might be instead of what actually is now baffles me.
On November 17 2011 18:02 RetFan wrote: Blah_blah, you are completely obsessed with stalking me. If there was an option to block on TL.net, you would be the only one on the list. Would it help your fragile ego if I said "science is superior, requires brains and law does not'? Would that be enough to get you to go away? LOL.
I feel like I'm just prematurely ending my fun but you can actually block people from your own blog.
The truth is that I don't really want or need to make an impression. In real life, I would never brag about my accomplishments. The truth is this is TL.net, I am just being really really honest - which unfortunately society does not allow for because of the unspoken rules of modesty that apply and punish people for speaking whats on their mind.
You just don't get it. You're not being honest, you're being conceited. There's no need to go into how well you do in your studies, nor work-experience, nor how good the university is. A normal person would have approached it by saying, as background I study law at university. That's it. Because you don't have any other specialisation to speak of. You're not being honest by going into exhaustive detail about how well you do or that you do better than most of the people in your classes. And by saying so, it doesn't make us unquestioningly accept your badly written arguments. Which is what you're after. To say, Oh well I'd never do this in real life, but this is the internet, isn't a defence either. Most people don't talk about how much money they make or how big their dick is because if they did so, everyone would think they were a jerk. Being online doesn't make you sound like less of a jerk when you do it.
Because you're doing a tough degree and doing well at it might make you smarter than most people here in aus, but doesn't necessarily make you all that smarter than the population of tl, which is made up of plenty of students and graduates as well as adolescents. The adolescents are also not likely stupid either.
I agree with subversive, and since I feel like OP will refuse to respond to the basic flaws in his reasoning, and well any of the issues everyone has brought up since, I think ill just end with this.
OP, congrats on being in Law school. finish and get a job before you call yourself a lawyer. You are clearly young and narcissistic, which is probably from your enthusiasm about school and getting an internship or clerkship or w.e you call it. That is ok, but it is in very poor taste. I truly hope for your sake that you outgrow this very bad character trait. Everyone is prideful about themselves to a degree, but you have it oozing from your pores like alcohol at an AA meeting. You will only encounter resistance and anger in life as you go through it with this attitude. Hopefully you learned that fact from this blog, where people hate you mostly for your pride in yourself, more then your issues with the ESV weekly scandal.
ps. Lawyers specialize for a reason. So don't try and pass on expertise in areas you don't understand fully like Korean Law and contracts. stick to what you will know, aussie law, and I am sure you could be a lawyer some day.
Man I never really had a negative opinion about lawyers until I read the first 2 pages of this blog. I still don't have a negative opinion of lawyers though.. I just think you're a douchebag.
Also out of curiousity who out of those other 3 people would you cut for the lawyer on your desert island? :p
On November 17 2011 18:02 RetFan wrote: Ganfei, I can tell you're mad. Try and calm down son - by the way, what is a Grandman? Why are you picking on my typos anyway?
Judging your high horse behaviour and sheer arrogance that you display when you mention your education, I can not help but be very disappointed that you're unable to correctly write in English, which as far as I remember is the national and primary language of Australia. I would ask your school for a refund, as you obviously don't earn acces to their facilities. (Note: I am not a native English speaker yet generally I try to avoid mistakes in my posts and have about a 85% successrate. I mean, we're bragging now anyways so that can fit in there aswell.)
On November 17 2011 18:02 RetFan wrote: Nevuk, I should be studying for exams. Refuting the idiots who are trying to criticise me is fairly entertaining and helps relieve stress
So you agree that you are offensive and rude, aswell as short-sighted and egocentric to use it as a method of relief for you to "deal" with the stress of a course, which obviously has never introduced you to the very basics. See above point.
On November 17 2011 18:02 RetFan wrote: Blah_blah, you are completely obsessed with stalking me. If there was an option to block on TL.net, you would be the only one on the list. Would it help your fragile ego if I said "science is superior, requires brains and law does not'? Would that be enough to get you to go away? LOL.
Further, since you're unfamiliar with the Australian educational system (which means you probably shouldn't be posting), most undergraduates here do a combined degree. So no, I'm not second year, I'm in my 5th year.
Talleyhoo, I hope for your sake you aren't a basement nerd pretending to be a patent lawyer because that would truly be sad.
Again it is obvious that you're nothing more than a pesky, annoying troll that loves to harrass people and offend them. I would suggest that you carefully read this rule, and think thoroughly about what you are doing now. The constant defamation and aggressive behaviour because of your own failure, is quite close to breaking the second rule on the TeamLiquid forum etiquette, namely "THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE". This explicitely states the following, but is not limited to :
Common sense, people, common sense. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (And if you happen to be into masochism, then you're at the wrong site, anyway.)
This doesn't mean you can't get verbally medieval on someone's ass every once in a while. We don't run the place like a monastery. But, flames are generally discouraged and we expect people to have a damn good reason for resorting to harsh language in the forums. This means gratuitous swearing is a no-no. Generic trolling will get you banned. If you must flame, be smart or creative about it, and make sure the flame was warranted to begin with. Generally, you'll never go wrong by being nice, polite and mature. All just common sense, people.
Please keep in mind that the bold parts are very close to the edge upon which you walk. Also, see the tenth commandment which reads:
10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go.
At the moment you've signed up for this website, in order to post and react to given content herein, you've agreed upon following the rules and regulations which are in effect on TeamLiquid.com and all the appropriate sub-branches that they may offer under the banner of this website. This means that at the moment that you are here, on these forums, you are just as much a guest as myself, or any other random Liquidian that you may stumble upon. If you do not agree with these rules, or choose not to obey them then legally the only viable method or approach you can take, is to request a removal of your account and personal information, and never return again. If you choose not to obey the rules, then time will tell when you've crossed them and will be disciplined if that may ever be needed.
- Fourthly, why would someone be your colleague in Freehills if you are patent attorney in the United States? You misuse the word colleague. LOL
The word is used correctly, as there is not one ambiguous definition for the word colleague. In fact, across the world there is a general trend (which of course differs per region) that fellow practitioners of the same professions are regarded to as colleagues. I've opened up Google for example, and took a few random examples to show that definitions aren't set in stone for the word itself. You will notice that all of the sources imply, or state the possibility of external people outside an organisation, being able to be labeled as a colleague. Primarily to quote Wikipedia:
"Collegiality is the relationship between colleagues. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. A colleague is an associate in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office. Thus, the word collegiality can connote respect for another's commitment to the common purpose and ability to work toward it. In a narrower sense, members of the faculty of a university or college are each other's colleagues; very often the word is taken to mean that. Sometimes colleague is taken to mean a fellow member of the same profession. The word college is sometimes used in a broad sense to mean a group of colleagues united in a common purpose, and used in proper names, such as Electoral College, College of Cardinals, College of Pontiffs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleague
someone who works in the same organization or department as you *Synonyms or related words for this sense of colleague* Colleagues: colleague, counterpart, associate, co-worker, someone’s opposite number, predecessor, successor, superior, subordinate... more a. someone in your organization who has the same status or level of responsibility as you *Synonyms or related words for this sense of colleague* Colleagues: colleague, counterpart, associate, co-worker, someone’s opposite number, predecessor, successor, superior, subordinate... more b. someone from a different organization or department who you work or deal with *Synonyms or related words for this sense of colleague* Colleagues: colleague, counterpart, associate, co-worker, someone’s opposite number, predecessor, successor, superior, subordinate... more c. someone who does the same job as you in a different organization, department, or place *Synonyms or related words for this sense of colleague* Colleagues: colleague, counterpart, associate, co-worker, someone’s opposite number, predecessor, successor, superior, subordinate... more
Noun: colleague kó-leeg An associate that one works with - co-worker, fellow worker, workfellow
A person who is member of one's class or profession "the surgeon consulted his colleagues"; - confrère, fellow Derived forms: colleagues Type of: associate Encyclopedia: Colleague
I'm not addressing the points you've raised because it would be a waste of my time.
With a level head, I can say that I feel like you are incapable or unwilling to understand anything I've written. The OP was long because it covered all of the points you are criticizing.
I've made conclusions based on certain assumptions; I've given the reason for why I made those assumptions and based my reasoning behind those assumptions. This form of argument is similar to what you will find in any economics course. the underlying reason being again, people including economists have to work with imperfect information. Certain simplifications are always made in economic modelling but they need to be explained. In my OP, it was long because the possible scenarios were explained.
It is very interesting and amusing how you went from an expert on australian law, to an expert Esports and on korean law and contracts, to an expert on me
I'm not an expert on you. I never claimed to be. The only thing I can do is base my responses to you on my perception of your intelligence. The only indicator of your intelligence that I have is through what you post.
I never claimed to be an expert on Esports, or Korean law, nor have I said I am an expert on you. Could this be a red herring argument? An fallacy of sweeping generalisation? A strawman argument? You see what I did there?
As I've said (which you've not cared to read), I'm not in the second year of law school. Nor does that even matter. While there are differences between legal systems, my analogy was never based on the Korean system and I made this clear. It was also the reason why I could not make a definite conclusion on the legal implications and I invited people to give me a clearer idea of what the legalities are in Korea.
In my opinion, you are not educated enough to really hold a decent conversation with and I will refrain from responding in the future unless I'm really bored. Your sentences are long and lack structure. Overall, it sounds like you're mad at me for listing my credentials. A lot of the answers you are looking for (or not looking for) are in what I wrote. You just need to pay attention to detail.
I have great respect towards Chinese people. I believe the top English students in China are able to easily surpass native English speakers in the UK, USA or Australia on tests on grammar. But unfortunately in regards to English , that's where it stops.
If we apply the rules of TL strictly, every poster who is coming here not to discuss the topic but to attack my credentials should be banned from TL
Secondly, with regard to the word colleague, you can interpret it strictly or colloquially. In China, I know students take great pride in being able to show off a wide vocabulary. However, having not been brought up in a native background, it is difficult to use words in the correct context. The word colleague would not colloquially be used to describe someone working in the same profession. Otherwise, every lawyer in the world or who I've worked with would be my colleague. This is clearly not true. Similarly, if we were to take a formal definition, we've been taught to rely on the OED.
I'd just like to take a moment to thank everyone for reading my first blog.
This thread isn't really going anywhere so I'm not going to post any further. Thanks for the responses - positive or negative. I understand that some people are upset that I decided to list my credentials. I will refrain from doing so in the future.
Once I get some time, I hope to contribute to TL.net by making a constructive article on my view of the Foreigner v Korean situation and the training regime. I found the article by Tree.hugger "October Revolution" to be extremely detailed but I would like to give an alternative insight.
I finish my final exam next Friday. Once done, I will try and find some time to draft a proper article - which may take days to write if I choose to comprehensively cover everything. I hope everyone who is still interested in reading what I write continue to do so. Everyone who takes offence at my credentials can feel free to no longer pay any attention.
For the sake of humanity, I want to believe the OP is just trolling. Can you honestly imagine someone like this ending up getting a serious job in the legal system and deciding the fate of someone's life?
Then again, I guess this would explain stuff like that guy getting a lifetime jail sentence for having child porn pics on his PC, or all the ridiculous 'anti-piracy' lawsuits we're seeing. Oh well, at least he's smarter than the rest of us peons here!
If we apply the rules of TL strictly, every poster who is coming here not to discuss the topic but to attack my credentials should be banned from TL
Lol you're lucky this piece of crap was allowed to remain open. Unfortunately you spent 30% of your OP on your 'credentials' so sadly, many saw it as part of the topic. You've almost had your account for a year though, so I guess your views on moderation should be heeded. And, afterall, you are a lawyer (law student).
Everyone who takes offence at my credentials can feel free to no longer pay any attention.
You had it right the first time, we're annoyed you bragged, not that you have the credentials.
I have great respect towards Chinese people. I believe the top English students in China are able to easily surpass native English speakers in the UK, USA or Australia on tests on grammar. But unfortunately in regards to English , that's where it stops.
If we apply the rules of TL strictly, every poster who is coming here not to discuss the topic but to attack my credentials should be banned from TL
Secondly, with regard to the word colleague, you can interpret it strictly or colloquially. In China, I know students take great pride in being able to show off a wide vocabulary. However, having not been brought up in a native background, it is difficult to use words in the correct context. The word colleague would not colloquially be used to describe someone working in the same profession. Otherwise, every lawyer in the world or who I've worked with would be my colleague. This is clearly not true. Similarly, if we were to take a formal definition, we've been taught to rely on the OED.
I am currently living in China, but I am originally from the Netherlands. However since I am in China for half a year, I changed my location. FYI.
I disagree with your point about "colleague" due to the fact that the definition made by one, is always subjective to interpretation. In the Netherlands it is quite common to refer to employees in the same field of work, but from another company, as colleagues. This is what I intended to say. You've got to look beyond the written definitions and also look into the situation, cultural aspects, circumstances and so forth. As a law student, you of all people should be aware of this. Law is never one rule, always a matter of interpretation. This is not only by definition, but also because the person carrying the verdict is a human being. Ergo he/she has a personal frame of reference which he/she will subconsciously apply to the final verdict.
The issue with my post however, is not specifically the content. I was attempting to show you how it feels when someone tries to look like they know better and degrade others. Of course, I could've made my point harsher but that would defeat the purpose of said point. You've been generally offensive towards others, and this is very frustrating. I can imagine that the reactions on your blogpost aren't as rosey as you'd like them to be, but if you're a smart guy you can read the original post and deduct why this is happening.
You've been talking people down by generalizing and comparing different educational systems. As an example, I may have taken the long route for my bachelor degree, on the other hand I possess three degrees soon because I took the long route. Does this in any way make me inferior to you? I would think not. You may have the advantage to have been accepted into the current program, but from what I understand you went there straight from highschool.
I have to admit, myself I used to be lazy so I had to take the longer, more consuming route to get where I am now. If I did not go this route, but instead put more effort into my studies when I was 12-16, I would've been studying for my Masters degree now. This is a decision I made out of pure selfishness in the past, and sometimes I regret it a slight bit for going the easy route. However that does not mean that I, or anyone in a similar position, is inferior to someone who has managed to get into a law school, in another educational system.
To summarize:
You've posted a piece of your mind which was missing various key pieces. In the attempt to make a decent post, you gave in to arrogance and this was picked up hard by the community. You then continue to offend the community and call them out in a rude way for the mistakes you made in the very beginning: Posting an incomplete, obnoxious piece of work.
Again this is perception (edit: and perspecitve) but for me, this would definatly fit into the ten commandments. Especially when it will go overboard. It hasn't yet. Do not let it happen. You will find no quarrel with me, because I do not dislike the person that you are. What I am pressuring you about is your attitude. Change it and your future as a lawyer will be better even more.
This guy was top 2% at his High School. His future self is a hot shot lawyer who has to beat away the most prestigious Australian law firms with a stick (or more accurately a cane as it's the only stick-like instrument a dignified man of the stature that he is certainly destined to one day be would be caught using)
For Chill to suggest he's skirting any such border into genius territory is a direct assault on his intellect. This guy's the greatest living Future Lawyer the world may ever know. To think the gates into Geniusdom would be anything but a distant blur in his rearview would be insulting, were our words met with anything but the quaint bemusement of a zoo keeper watching the apes fling their shit to and fro.
If the rest of you could stow your contempt for your intellectual superiors for a few moments, and accept that we dance like marionettes to the tune of his brilliance you'd realize that in doing so we too can become better future selves.
I'll say one thing for certain: you wouldn't be so quick to underhandedly refer to him as "borderline" anything if you saw the striking figure he cuts in front of the mirror while wearing his father's work clothes.
Hello, I am a student in Harvard Law School and I'm here to tell you that everything you have written is wrong, and that every conceivable reply to this statement is also wrong.
Talleyhoo, I hope for your sake you aren't a basement nerd pretending to be a patent lawyer because that would truly be sad.
- Firstly, I've never said I've only had two years of college under my belt. - Secondly, Contrary to what you believe, prima facie was in fact used correctly and using the term meant I could save two words. - Thirdly, you misuse the word counsel - Freehills is a firm of solicitors and not barristers - Fourthly, why would someone be your colleague in Freehills if you are patent attorney in the United States? You misuse the word colleague. LOL - Lastly, the fact that you obviously pay no attention to detail, invent things up that I've never said, invent the fact that "I berate a poster for using unnecessary legalese" and impliedly misunderstand what nominalisation means, not understand what counsel means, shows that you are probably not a lawyer at all. In fact, that's why its so silly for people to pretend to be someone they're not online, once they're shit has been taken apart, its quite humiliating.
Hi again friend!
Allow me to issue a rebuttal. We will have to agree to disagree regarding your usage of prima facie. Trust me, its out of place and reeks of you trying to shove big words down people's throats to make yourself seem smart.
With respect to my use of the term "counsel" - I stated in my original reply that I am a US attorney. We refer to all attorneys as counsel. We do not distinguish between solicitors and barristers. Your attack here would be akin to me attacking you for "misspelling" the terms "favourite", etc. This is just a difference between our respective countries' dialects.
Regarding my "misuse" of the term "colleague", I consider a patent attorney with whom I have worked for five years to be my colleague. The fact that he is in Australia does not change that we have worked closely together for such a long period of time. I would say my foreign counsel easily meets the dictionary definition of "A person with whom one works, esp. in a profession or business."
Regarding your accusation that I am some nerd sitting my basement pretending to be something I am not... I would encourage you to take a quick look at my post history. I made a post probably 6+ months ago in a law school thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=254937#8 I guess maybe this is a long con? Or, perhaps, I am who I say I am?
Quick question -- How is it that EVERYONE on here can be so wrong about you? I think the TL community is pretty united in concluding that you are a total douchebag. You have not accomplished shit in your life yet. It took me 7 years of school to get my law degree. I then had to pass two bar exams (state bar exam and patent bar exam). After that, I have worked as a patent attorney for 5.5 years. I make six figures. But hey, you don't see me on here being a dick and talking down to everyone (except, of course, you). I am no better than anyone else as a result of my choice of occupation. And I am very confident I would be completely useless on a desert island. Learn some humility; it will get you far in life.
See what I just did there? I took your shit apart. Are you humiliated yet?
P.S. You didn't answer whether you work at Freehills or not. I assume from all your shit talk you must in one of the Big 6.
Talleyhoo, I hope for your sake you aren't a basement nerd pretending to be a patent lawyer because that would truly be sad.
- Firstly, I've never said I've only had two years of college under my belt. - Secondly, Contrary to what you believe, prima facie was in fact used correctly and using the term meant I could save two words. - Thirdly, you misuse the word counsel - Freehills is a firm of solicitors and not barristers - Fourthly, why would someone be your colleague in Freehills if you are patent attorney in the United States? You misuse the word colleague. LOL - Lastly, the fact that you obviously pay no attention to detail, invent things up that I've never said, invent the fact that "I berate a poster for using unnecessary legalese" and impliedly misunderstand what nominalisation means, not understand what counsel means, shows that you are probably not a lawyer at all. In fact, that's why its so silly for people to pretend to be someone they're not online, once they're shit has been taken apart, its quite humiliating.
Hi again friend!
Allow me to issue a rebuttal. We will have to agree to disagree regarding your usage of prima facie. Trust me, its out of place and reeks of you trying to shove big words down people's throats to make yourself seem smart.
With respect to my use of the term "counsel" - I stated in my original reply that I am a US attorney. We refer to all attorneys as counsel. We do not distinguish between solicitors and barristers. Your attack here would be akin to me attacking you for "misspelling" the terms "favourite", etc. This is just a difference between our respective countries' dialects.
Regarding my "misuse" of the term "colleague", I consider a patent attorney with whom I have worked for five years to be my colleague. The fact that he is in Australia does not change that we have worked closely together for such a long period of time. I would say my foreign counsel easily meets the dictionary definition of "A person with whom one works, esp. in a profession or business."
Regarding your accusation that I am some nerd sitting my basement pretending to be something I am not... I would encourage you to take a quick look at my post history. I made a post probably 6+ months ago in a law school thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=254937#8 I guess maybe this is a long con? Or, perhaps, I am who I say I am?
Quick question -- How is it that EVERYONE on here can be so wrong about you? I think the TL community is pretty united in concluding that you are a total douchebag. You have not accomplished shit in your life yet. It took me 7 years of school to get my law degree. I then had to pass two bar exams (state bar exam and patent bar exam). After that, I have worked as a patent attorney for 5.5 years. I make six figures. But hey, you don't see me on here being a dick and talking down to everyone (except, of course, you). I am no better than anyone else as a result of my choice of occupation. And I am very confident I would be completely useless on a desert island. Learn some humility; it will get you far in life.
See what I just did there? I took your shit apart. Are you humiliated yet?
P.S. You didn't answer whether you work at Freehills or not. I assume from all your shit talk you must in one of the Big 6.
Talleyhoo, I hope for your sake you aren't a basement nerd pretending to be a patent lawyer because that would truly be sad.
- Firstly, I've never said I've only had two years of college under my belt. - Secondly, Contrary to what you believe, prima facie was in fact used correctly and using the term meant I could save two words. - Thirdly, you misuse the word counsel - Freehills is a firm of solicitors and not barristers - Fourthly, why would someone be your colleague in Freehills if you are patent attorney in the United States? You misuse the word colleague. LOL - Lastly, the fact that you obviously pay no attention to detail, invent things up that I've never said, invent the fact that "I berate a poster for using unnecessary legalese" and impliedly misunderstand what nominalisation means, not understand what counsel means, shows that you are probably not a lawyer at all. In fact, that's why its so silly for people to pretend to be someone they're not online, once they're shit has been taken apart, its quite humiliating.
Hi again friend!
Allow me to issue a rebuttal. We will have to agree to disagree regarding your usage of prima facie. Trust me, its out of place and reeks of you trying to shove big words down people's throats to make yourself seem smart.
With respect to my use of the term "counsel" - I stated in my original reply that I am a US attorney. We refer to all attorneys as counsel. We do not distinguish between solicitors and barristers. Your attack here would be akin to me attacking you for "misspelling" the terms "favourite", etc. This is just a difference between our respective countries' dialects.
Regarding my "misuse" of the term "colleague", I consider a patent attorney with whom I have worked for five years to be my colleague. The fact that he is in Australia does not change that we have worked closely together for such a long period of time. I would say my foreign counsel easily meets the dictionary definition of "A person with whom one works, esp. in a profession or business."
Regarding your accusation that I am some nerd sitting my basement pretending to be something I am not... I would encourage you to take a quick look at my post history. I made a post probably 6+ months ago in a law school thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=254937#8 I guess maybe this is a long con? Or, perhaps, I am who I say I am?
Quick question -- How is it that EVERYONE on here can be so wrong about you? I think the TL community is pretty united in concluding that you are a total douchebag. You have not accomplished shit in your life yet. It took me 7 years of school to get my law degree. I then had to pass two bar exams (state bar exam and patent bar exam). After that, I have worked as a patent attorney for 5.5 years. I make six figures. But hey, you don't see me on here being a dick and talking down to everyone (except, of course, you). I am no better than anyone else as a result of my choice of occupation. And I am very confident I would be completely useless on a desert island. Learn some humility; it will get you far in life.
See what I just did there? I took your shit apart. Are you humiliated yet?
P.S. You didn't answer whether you work at Freehills or not. I assume from all your shit talk you must in one of the Big 6.
EDIT: Added a link.
This must be the TL equivalent to marines stepping on baneling mines.
On November 16 2011 19:19 RetFan wrote: 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.
I was ok with your opening post. I had hopes you were going to expand on things and that this was actually going to be an informative read. Until I read that line (the next sentence didn't help much either, but that's an entirely different story - individual laws may be non-biased, but every single judicial system in the world that I know of has inherent biases).
Do you really believe that you have the best depth of understanding, and are trying to prove that based on your acceptance into a top school, exceptional grade scores, and experience working with top firms will force us to believe that it is a concrete, indisputable fact?
If that was the case, how the fuck can you simplify the role of engineers as someone who designs things and doctors who treat medical illnesses?
I really don't have time to finish writing a more in-depth reply to this (although I do believe that you deserve one), but every single one of those skills apply to all 3 professions, along with many others. Your profession is far from the only profession which requires extensive use of these skills in order to graduate, never mind being successful.
If engineers who design the entire infrastructure we use on a daily basis didn't have skill sets "which focuses upon decision making, analysing and applying logical facts and drawing conclusions with as much neutrality as possible", I'd have lost all hope for humanity. And I wouldn't go to a doctor for treatment of medical illnesses who lacks any of those skills as well. If anything, I'd rather that engineers and doctors had stronger skills than lawyers, since people's safety and well-being is directly affected by said skills.
What you have are skills that are desired in a lot of top professions. These skills aren't really something that can be taught, but they can be harnessed with the right education and further training. You've spent a few years honing these skills with legal studies, others go towards engineering, or science, or medicine, etc. Some don't hone these skills, and find their own path; I know that there used to be a chess grandmaster who was a hotdog vendor in NYC. I'd love to see your "depth of understanding" go up vs his in a game of chess, but I already have a good idea of what the outcome would be already.
Basically, you need to take a step back and realize that the attitude you have is exactly the attitude that most people hate about lawyers. Yes, you may have a top 1% IQ, and incredible drive to be successful, but that does not make you any better than everyone else by default, and that sure as hell does not make your view a concrete fact.
On November 18 2011 00:23 Dalguno wrote: I'm coming to find more and more that when someone says they're not trying to be pretentious, that's exactly what they're doing.
I hope my e-peen gets this big someday.
I'll have to re-work the way I think. I said before that I'm pretty self-conscious and listen to what others say.
I made a previous post some time ago to the guy who wrote a blog about some stupid stereotypes of Koreans, that when the entire community is against you then there's a pretty good chance that you're very wrong about something.
*sigh* So these are one of the few times I have taken a stance against the community, not trying to take the pedestal and be some saint among mongrels (no doubt some of you may think that), but because I could not understand the reasoning behind people attacking the OP.
I haven't made anyone change their views, so something in my logic is flawed. I also said that I have an explicit hatred for people who are egotistical, so if the OP did seem that way to me I would immediately hop onto the bandwagon and join you guys berate the fool.
Seeing the blog renamed (lol) and a series of wonderful posts in the past few pages I'm pretty sure I'm wrong now but I don't understand why. Like ok, I'm not getting to anyone, but I don't want to be an ignorant retard with flawed values or logic or w/e.
I mean ffs am I an idiot for taking a stand on something I believe but in fact could be wrong? I just don't know anymore =P. Because I interpreted the OP as just some guy stating what he has accomplished so far as an undergrad. You guys could be giggling behind your screen at how unaware I am at my stupidity, but I'm seriously trying to agree with you guys because if there's this much opposition to the OP then fuck me I'm missing something aren't I?
I give up, someone who is of superior intellect please enlighten me. =(
On November 18 2011 00:23 Dalguno wrote: I'm coming to find more and more that when someone says they're not trying to be pretentious, that's exactly what they're doing.
I hope my e-peen gets this big someday.
I'll have to re-work the way I think. I said before that I'm pretty self-conscious and listen to what others say.
I made a previous post some time ago to the guy who wrote a blog about some stupid stereotypes of Koreans, that when the entire community is against you then there's a pretty good chance that you're very wrong about something.
*sigh* So these are one of the few times I have taken a stance against the community, not trying to take the pedestal and be some saint among mongrels (no doubt some of you may think that), but because I could not understand the reasoning behind people attacking the OP.
I haven't made anyone change their views, so something in my logic is flawed. I also said that I have an explicit hatred for people who are egotistical, so if the OP did seem that way to me I would immediately hop onto the bandwagon and join you guys berate the fool.
Seeing the blog renamed (lol) and a series of wonderful posts in the past few pages I'm pretty sure I'm wrong now but I don't understand why. Like ok, I'm not getting to anyone, but I don't want to be an ignorant retard with flawed values or logic or w/e.
I mean ffs am I an idiot for taking a stand on something I believe but in fact could be wrong? I just don't know anymore =P. Because I interpreted the OP as just some guy stating what he has accomplished so far as an undergrad. You guys could be giggling behind your screen at how unaware I am at my stupidity, but I'm seriously trying to agree with you guys because if there's this much opposition to the OP then fuck me I'm missing something aren't I?
I give up, someone who is of superior intellect please enlighten me. =(
It's all about anonymity. Any time you say you're something great on the internet, you're going to come across as a jerk. I could write something about how great I am, and while being completely untrue, could be really convincing, having a combination of time and anonymity.
The OP isn't my problem, however. It's all of his replies.
What attracts me about this thread was not the bandwagoning. You get those threads for a dime a dozen, where people sense weakness and hound after it. The entertainment came from RetFan's follow up posts. Rather than taking some of the more reasonable criticism and adjust his arguments, he progressively digs himself further and further into a hole, making it even easier and more entertaining to heckle him.
Yes, it's rather morbid.
A reasonable progression of debate, when it was derailed early like this one, was to concede a minor point then reorientate the argument towards the direction you intended. Instead, RetFan became even more insistent about his academic and intelligence. That's just very bad strategy. Sufficiently bad that I can't imagine anyone with education at that level would ever make. Leading me to conclude that he's almost certainly fabricating these "credentials."
I will never understand why people pretend to be someone else online. If you are, why not pretend to be a girl instead of a lawyer? People like girls better. They even give you stuff if you are flirty enough.
On November 18 2011 00:23 Dalguno wrote: I'm coming to find more and more that when someone says they're not trying to be pretentious, that's exactly what they're doing.
I hope my e-peen gets this big someday.
I'll have to re-work the way I think. I said before that I'm pretty self-conscious and listen to what others say.
I made a previous post some time ago to the guy who wrote a blog about some stupid stereotypes of Koreans, that when the entire community is against you then there's a pretty good chance that you're very wrong about something.
*sigh* So these are one of the few times I have taken a stance against the community, not trying to take the pedestal and be some saint among mongrels (no doubt some of you may think that), but because I could not understand the reasoning behind people attacking the OP.
I haven't made anyone change their views, so something in my logic is flawed. I also said that I have an explicit hatred for people who are egotistical, so if the OP did seem that way to me I would immediately hop onto the bandwagon and join you guys berate the fool.
Seeing the blog renamed (lol) and a series of wonderful posts in the past few pages I'm pretty sure I'm wrong now but I don't understand why. Like ok, I'm not getting to anyone, but I don't want to be an ignorant retard with flawed values or logic or w/e.
I mean ffs am I an idiot for taking a stand on something I believe but in fact could be wrong? I just don't know anymore =P. Because I interpreted the OP as just some guy stating what he has accomplished so far as an undergrad. You guys could be giggling behind your screen at how unaware I am at my stupidity, but I'm seriously trying to agree with you guys because if there's this much opposition to the OP then fuck me I'm missing something aren't I?
I give up, someone who is of superior intellect please enlighten me. =(
It's all about anonymity. Any time you say you're something great on the internet, you're going to come across as a jerk. I could write something about how great I am, and while being completely untrue, could be really convincing, having a combination of time and anonymity.
So basically the standard is to simply to never identify yourself with anything at all on the internet if you're going to make a statement like Retfan did? If that's just how it is then alright... I get that.. because I guess its just something that is going to happen (get virtual rocks thrown at you) regardless of how true or full of good will it may be, because its just as easy to bullshit whatever you claim.
In real life this standard wouldn't work because you would immediately see whether or not this guy is actually a nice, true to his word guy or really a cocky egotistical bastard who has no job and goes to class with a suit and suspenders, correct?
Dunno, I understand what he was trying to accomplish here. A lot of times, people put a lot of thought into their posts, then receive an inundation of unthought or lol replies. I guess his initial introduction was an attempt to preempt this kind of behavior by making people think twice about their own arguments.
But I don't think the strategy worked too well. Like another post earlier on, there is nothing gained from insulting your audience from the get-go. This guy is probably training to become a transactional attorney, doesn't appear he's dealt with a jury before.
Anyhow, his strategy seems to have backfired. Lesson learned I guess.
This is exactly why the lawyers never get invited to the deserted islands...
Premise: The audience feels like the person should win the match. What happened: The best person was winning and then forfeited, thus not wining the match. Why it's bad: The best person didn't win and the audience was disappointed.
Here's a deserted island analogy for you. There is a box of food. The scientist steals all the food. Engineer: Bad scientist, you are banned. Doctor: Agreed. Lawyer: Now wait a minute. There was no specific written law that states that he was not allowed to take all the food. Futhermore, does not every human being have the right to blablablaforthenext4pages.
Sometimes logical thinking will get you were you need to be. You're overthinking it. I guess that happens with everything being a borderline genius lawyer.
PS: I apologize for having the scientist to steal all the food. For the sake of the analogy, the lawyer couldn't do it. It didn't seem likely that the doctor would steal it, Hippocratic oath and all. And I'm an engineer myself. So vilify the scientist it is!
This is not the work of a brilliant legal mind. This is not up to par with a Marshall or a Warren or even a Roberts opinion. The blog is interesting; it is well-written, mildly-intelligent, and explores a different side of an issue, but don't flatter yourself. You are not a border-line legal genius.
I have great respect towards Chinese people. I believe the top English students in China are able to easily surpass native English speakers in the UK, USA or Australia on tests on grammar. But unfortunately in regards to English , that's where it stops.
If we apply the rules of TL strictly, every poster who is coming here not to discuss the topic but to attack my credentials should be banned from TL
Secondly, with regard to the word colleague, you can interpret it strictly or colloquially. In China, I know students take great pride in being able to show off a wide vocabulary. However, having not been brought up in a native background, it is difficult to use words in the correct context. The word colleague would not colloquially be used to describe someone working in the same profession. Otherwise, every lawyer in the world or who I've worked with would be my colleague. This is clearly not true. Similarly, if we were to take a formal definition, we've been taught to rely on the OED.
ROFL the bolded part made me lol. Which rule good sir, forbids users from challenging the credentials of a poster?
Lets have a lookieloo shall we
1. THIS IS OUR HOUSE nope - irrelevant here 2. THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE nope - they aren't being unruly 3. THOU SHALL THINK BEFORE POSTING Sure, seeing that your credentials are stupid doens't take MUCH thinking, so i guess you could challenge here simply because its such an obvious conclusion to draw 4. THOU SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE SITE nope - people contribute by ensuring authenticity of the OP 5. THOU SHALL NOT SPAM nope - haven't seen people spamming stuff 6. THOU SHALL RESPECT FORUM VETERANS registered late 2010 and have 32 posts? yep doesn't apply 7. ENGLISH IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE seems all good here 8. THOU SHALL RESPECT YOUR ID Hard to verify, but i dont think you're worth making an alt to insult you on 9. READ THE COMMANDMENTS Seems like everyone but you did this 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN I'm having fun.
ps: as someone else who was in the top 2% of their high school class in australia, i can tell you for sure that the reason law has such a stringent OP requirement is popularity. I started in science, which was an OP 8 to get in(i got an OP 1) when i graduated in 2004, now i hear is like a 16 or something ridiculous, simply because people dont want to do it. So yeah, your law degree isn't special or harder, its just popular.
pps: I get it, you're doing law, you think you're god of arguing, but just wait till you try to argue with a real lawyer, they'll beat u down sooooooooooooooo hard. Trust me, i know, my cousin in a prosecutor and my dad is one of the best criminal lawyers in australia.
ppps: seems like a real lawyer beat u down already. hope you didn't cry too much. have fun memorising 60 bazillion rulings to get your fancy pants law degree. i'll be doing useful things with my software engineering.
On November 18 2011 01:17 mbr2321 wrote: This is not the work of a brilliant legal mind. This is not up to par with a Marshall or a Warren or even a Roberts opinion. The blog is interesting; it is well-written, mildly-intelligent, and explores a different side of an issue, but don't flatter yourself. You are not a border-line legal genius.
For the sake of posterity: Thechnically he did not refer to himself as borderline genius (he only infers that he is a full-fledged genius many many times throughout his posts). The title was changed by Chill to reflect better the direction that this thread ended up taking
So basically the standard is to simply to never identify yourself with anything at all on the internet if you're going to make a statement like Retfan did? If that's just how it is then alright... I get that.. because I guess its just something that is going to happen (get virtual rocks thrown at you) regardless of how true or full of good will it may be, because its just as easy to bullshit whatever you claim.
Thing is, he could have left it at "I'm a lawyer so here are my views." Or, "I study law". No one would have said dick to him then. What he added didn't impress anyone or give any more weight to his opinion. In fact it just diverted attention from the rest of his posts.
I hate any type of brag, real life or internet, true or false. I think every so often even if you are someone who hates egomaniacs, a comment just doesn't annoy you for whatever reason.
Dude, you're forgetting his interships. He worked for little to nothing or nothing and the people there said he was one of the top few thousand legal minds in the country.
Actually that reminds me of that progamer who disappeared, LegalMind. Hopefully the OP follows suit. He was vaguely threatening to write an opinion piece on training regimes in Korea vs the West as a response to the one by tree.hugger. I can just imagine how good it's going to be...
Edit: First 2 pages will be a more detailed description of his time in academia so that, once and for all, TL can learn to treat him with the respect his opinions deserve. Then I envisage 5-6 pages of stilted, boring prose where he says nothing new or insightful and just generally clunks along. Finally, a few paragraphs explaining why he won't be considering any other opinions or divergent views be cause he <reiterate unique skills, superior intelligence>.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I would pmsl if any of my friends ever came out with such pretentious crap. And pretty much all of my friends are doctors or are studying for PhD, I'm a lecturer.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
This has already been pointed out to be clear rubbish. It's to do with popularity not the demands of intelligence. Not like highschool grades are strongly reflective of intelligence or ability anyway. I would recommend you take yourself a bit less seriously.
On November 17 2011 22:19 Chill wrote: Thread renamed.
LOL. I wondered about that... I logged in this morning and thought 'geez, I dont ever remember it being called that... it SHOULD have been called that....
So basically the standard is to simply to never identify yourself with anything at all on the internet if you're going to make a statement like Retfan did? If that's just how it is then alright... I get that.. because I guess its just something that is going to happen (get virtual rocks thrown at you) regardless of how true or full of good will it may be, because its just as easy to bullshit whatever you claim.
Thing is, he could have left it at "I'm a lawyer so here are my views." Or, "I study law". No one would have said dick to him then. What he added didn't impress anyone or give any more weight to his opinion. In fact it just diverted attention from the rest of his posts.
I hate any type of brag, real life or internet, true or false. I think every so often even if you are someone who hates egomaniacs, a comment just doesn't annoy you for whatever reason.
Yeah but I honor the value of people who actually achieve and do good things for themselves. If they can prove it and they want to brag about it then that is fine by me.
That's why I was so conflicted by what you guys were doing to the OP because just on the first impression of Retfan from his OP I couldn't bring myself to go to town on the guy.
I like to think of Huk when it comes to this. In the beta days he wanted to become the next boxer of sc2, his claim of top 3 control. Everyone thought he was arrogant as hell at first, I did too. Now he's doing well.
If Huk wins GSL and beats the best players in the world repeatedly would you then berate Huk the same way you did to the OP. I'm not making a direct relation to Huk and Retfan btw, thats stupid =_=, just saying would attack him the same way. So would you poke fun at him or be like "alright this guy is legit, he can trash talk all he wants as long as he keeps winning". You can dislike him just as you could dislike IdrA, but you cannot deny him his credentials.
On November 17 2011 22:19 Chill wrote: Thread renamed.
LOL. I wondered about that... I logged in this morning and thought 'geez, I dont ever remember it being called that... it SHOULD have been called that....
I don't think anyone is mocking or insulting the OP because he posted that he is a very successful student of law - most people probably just dislike comments like 'my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match.', and the generally condescending attitude of a guy who is obviously not an expert in the field he wants to discuss by any stretch of imagination.
If you think you are smarter and better than others, let your arguments do the talking. No amount of 'credentials' actually proves that. I mean, there's been presidents who were borderline retarded in the history of our planet, nevermind lawyers or doctors or what have you.
On November 17 2011 22:19 Chill wrote: Thread renamed.
LOL. I wondered about that... I logged in this morning and thought 'geez, I dont ever remember it being called that... it SHOULD have been called that....
What was the original thread name?
"Coco/Byun: Why Lawyers are Important" I think it was.
The only reason I remember is because he misspelled Coca. As a man with a legal assistant for a fiancee, I can attest that the legal profession from lawyers on down are absolutely anal about proofreading and spell-checking.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: Introduction "If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
Erm. Okay. You haven't told me what I should bring a lawyer over any of the others though :/
On November 18 2011 02:07 talleyhooo wrote: We aren't all like that (a lot are though)
He's not even a lawyer yet though. Reading through this thread and projecting it back to what I observed when I was studying he's probably dickwaving to make himself feel more confident ahead of his tests which he may or may not be able to complete. I saw many of this type in my chemitry undergrad and they didn't graduate in the end. We normally lose 30 - 50% after the first year. So at least OP did get to 2nd year so well done.
Anyway, I hope this overego is beaten out of those guys before they make it into real jobs. It certainly is in my field, where 95% of what you do fails (if you are lucky).
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
after reading your blog, i still think the lawyer should be left out. not that the question had a whole lot to do with it
On November 18 2011 01:18 talleyhooo wrote: Love how you clumped Marshall and Warren with Roberts lol.
I keep them together because I don't want to seem as if only liberal or activist supreme court chief justices have brilliant legal minds. Roberts is incredibly intelligent, even if he is a crazy, Constitution-shrinking reactionary.
Anyway, the point is that OP doesn't have half the experience or intelligence of these actual brilliant legal-minds.
I have great respect towards Chinese people. I believe the top English students in China are able to easily surpass native English speakers in the UK, USA or Australia on tests on grammar. But unfortunately in regards to English , that's where it stops.
If we apply the rules of TL strictly, every poster who is coming here not to discuss the topic but to attack my credentials should be banned from TL
Secondly, with regard to the word colleague, you can interpret it strictly or colloquially. In China, I know students take great pride in being able to show off a wide vocabulary. However, having not been brought up in a native background, it is difficult to use words in the correct context. The word colleague would not colloquially be used to describe someone working in the same profession. Otherwise, every lawyer in the world or who I've worked with would be my colleague. This is clearly not true. Similarly, if we were to take a formal definition, we've been taught to rely on the OED.
ROFL the bolded part made me lol. Which rule good sir, forbids users from challenging the credentials of a poster?
Lets have a lookieloo shall we
1. THIS IS OUR HOUSE nope - irrelevant here 2. THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE nope - they aren't being unruly 3. THOU SHALL THINK BEFORE POSTING Sure, seeing that your credentials are stupid doens't take MUCH thinking, so i guess you could challenge here simply because its such an obvious conclusion to draw 4. THOU SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE SITE nope - people contribute by ensuring authenticity of the OP 5. THOU SHALL NOT SPAM nope - haven't seen people spamming stuff 6. THOU SHALL RESPECT FORUM VETERANS registered late 2010 and have 32 posts? yep doesn't apply 7. ENGLISH IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE seems all good here 8. THOU SHALL RESPECT YOUR ID Hard to verify, but i dont think you're worth making an alt to insult you on 9. READ THE COMMANDMENTS Seems like everyone but you did this 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN I'm having fun.
ps: as someone else who was in the top 2% of their high school class in australia, i can tell you for sure that the reason law has such a stringent OP requirement is popularity. I started in science, which was an OP 8 to get in(i got an OP 1) when i graduated in 2004, now i hear is like a 16 or something ridiculous, simply because people dont want to do it. So yeah, your law degree isn't special or harder, its just popular.
pps: I get it, you're doing law, you think you're god of arguing, but just wait till you try to argue with a real lawyer, they'll beat u down sooooooooooooooo hard. Trust me, i know, my cousin in a prosecutor and my dad is one of the best criminal lawyers in australia.
ppps: seems like a real lawyer beat u down already. hope you didn't cry too much. have fun memorising 60 bazillion rulings to get your fancy pants law degree. i'll be doing useful things with my software engineering.
So basically the standard is to simply to never identify yourself with anything at all on the internet if you're going to make a statement like Retfan did? If that's just how it is then alright... I get that.. because I guess its just something that is going to happen (get virtual rocks thrown at you) regardless of how true or full of good will it may be, because its just as easy to bullshit whatever you claim.
Thing is, he could have left it at "I'm a lawyer so here are my views." Or, "I study law". No one would have said dick to him then. What he added didn't impress anyone or give any more weight to his opinion. In fact it just diverted attention from the rest of his posts.
I hate any type of brag, real life or internet, true or false. I think every so often even if you are someone who hates egomaniacs, a comment just doesn't annoy you for whatever reason.
Yeah but I honor the value of people who actually achieve and do good things for themselves. If they can prove it and they want to brag about it then that is fine by me.
That's why I was so conflicted by what you guys were doing to the OP because just on the first impression of Retfan from his OP I couldn't bring myself to go to town on the guy.
I like to think of Huk when it comes to this. In the beta days he wanted to become the next boxer of sc2, his claim of top 3 control. Everyone thought he was arrogant as hell at first, I did too. Now he's doing well.
If Huk wins GSL and beats the best players in the world repeatedly would you then berate Huk the same way you did to the OP. I'm not making a direct relation to Huk and Retfan btw, thats stupid =_=, just saying would attack him the same way. So would you poke fun at him or be like "alright this guy is legit, he can trash talk all he wants as long as he keeps winning". You can dislike him just as you could dislike IdrA, but you cannot deny him his credentials.
If he was really conceited and a prick, yeah I'd hate him. If he said he was the best progamer, I'd probably like his cockiness, must as people do when bw progamers exhibit a lot of confidence. If he said he was more important to history than Nelson Mandela or something I'd probably think he was a fuckwit. On that point, yeah Huk is arrogant and yes, I don't like that about him. But it's nothing overboard so it's fine. Well arrogant isn't even the right word, just a little more confidant at times than is pleasant.
What the OP doesn't realize is that he is just a dime in a dozen in the TL community, because we of the TL community are all elitist, we all think we are smarter than the next guy posting below us.
OP demonstrated his lack of reasoning and logic by not able to anticipate this situation in teamliquid before he made his starting post in this thread. If he is as smart as he say he is, he would have not brag about his grades. The only thing needed was a sound argument in which every single premise is facts, then people can't possibly rebut your conclusion. The fact that you put your credential in the front before your argument is a clear sign of lack of confidence.
Let me summarize your performance in this thread for you, you lack the ability to deduce the reaction of your audiences, and you lack confidence in your own logic and reasoning. You need a lot of work young padawan.
I am posting this after only having read up to page 8. This thread is amazing fun and I figured I would join in.
I am utterly convinced that RetFan is about as intelligent as my Jack Russell Terrier that is sitting beside me. Here are a few quotes that are of particular hilarity:
Further, since you're unfamiliar with the Australian educational system (which means you probably shouldn't be posting), most undergraduates here do a combined degree. So no, I'm not second year, I'm in my 5th year.
RetFan is obviously unfamiliar with many things he has been espousing, thus, by his own reasoning, he shouldn't be posting.
Refuting the idiots who are trying to criticise me is fairly entertaining and helps relieve stress
I've got two years of undergraduate psych under my belt, so obviously I am qualified to comment on this (see what I did there?). Sounds to me like refuting idiots is a projection of your need to justify yourself spawning from a deep seated insecurity. This insecurity is probably fostered through your environment where you worry that everyone around you is possibly (and probably) more capable than you.
Blah_blah, you are completely obsessed with stalking me. If there was an option to block on TL.net, you would be the only one on the list. Would it help your fragile ego if I said "science is superior, requires brains and law does not'? Would that be enough to get you to go away? LOL.
Again, taxing my two years of undergrad psych here, but you are leaking insecurity all over the floor. Why are you so important to stalk on an anonymous message board? You aren't. Though, you have an inflated self image and thus see yourself as greater than the rest of us to compensate for the reality of your situation.
SCPlato, I'm not trying to make you mad. If you want to mature as a person, you need to sincerely understand what I am about to say.
Again, he didn't sound at all like he needed to mature as a person. That sounds like a construct from your own mind and the condescension in your tone is palpable. I am pretty sure that he understood you quite well.
In real life, I would never brag about my accomplishments. The truth is this is TL.net, I am just being really really honest
You wouldn't brag because they aren't brag worthy. This is TL.net and just because it is digitized doesn't make it any less of a reality. You posted your credentials because in your mind you feel that they make you special and superior. However, you would never voice this in person (in real life is just so limited) because those around you are probably more capable than yourself.
But, statistics would show that based on my achievements I'm likely to be smarter than most of the people on this forum.
You do know that quoting a statistic is a basic flaw in any argument right? I'm 99% certain of that. (statistics!)
If you were truly intelligent you would realize your self-worthlessness in regards to the people on this forum. I think you should refer to yourself as educated because you do not possess raw intelligence of that I am sure. You seem to be stuck in a sort of identity foreclosure and are pawning off other peoples opinions as your own.
In my opinion, you are not educated enough to really hold a decent conversation with and I will refrain from responding in the future unless I'm really bored. Your sentences are long and lack structure. Overall, it sounds like you're mad at me for listing my credentials. A lot of the answers you are looking for (or not looking for) are in what I wrote. You just need to pay attention to detail.
He just said he was a philosophy major a few post up and in a very unpretentious way, might I add. His post was what you tried to accomplish in your preface. A declaration of legitimacy in regards to his opinion. Choose a side man, do you value education or intelligence? "I have never let schooling get in the way of my education." Do you know who said that? If you were truly intelligent, then you would have no problems holding a conversation with someone who wasn't educated because you would be able to recognize intelligence in another. Obviously, that's asking a bit much.
Dang it, I just read you are not responding anymore. That is a shame since I know you are still reading everything said in this thread. I hope you change your mind by page 11 because this systematic breakdown of your idiocy is great fun. - reading through to page 11-
Well, you haven't responded to this thread any more. That is just a shame, we were all having such a good time with you. I felt an obligation to post that spawned from your desecration of the image of an intelligent person. Want my credentials? I am a 19 year old college student that is currently majoring in General Studies (that just looks so shiny next to your Law major). I live in a small town in South East Georgia, where the school systems are by no means elaborate nor is the curriculum hard. I made a relatively high score on the SAT (higher than the base average of 1500). Hell, I even got into an honors program at a 4 year university. All these "achievements" still don't make me qualified to espouse anything which you have espoused and at the end of the day, I am just a kid who really likes StarCraft (hell yeah!). Both you and I are far too inexperienced in life to think we know it all. However, your mistake lies in the fact that you think yourself better than the average person and it is apparent from the first word in your post to the last. I can't stand idiots like you who think they are intelligent and worthy of some special treatment or that their achievements are worth anything. You are meaningless in this sea of faces. All that matters is what matters to you. Your pretention is horrifying and I do hope you do not hold peoples lives in the balance in court because you are just stupid enough to think that your opinion is the best, most well rounded, most well thought opinion on the matter... I mean you do have greater than average observational skills and can see a situation on a level that the average reader can't, isn't that right? I am under no illusions, I know you will disregard this post with the same ease which you disregarded the post of the fine gentleman (and possible gentlewomen) that posted before me. However, that doesn't stop the reality of the situation from existing and it sure as hell doesn't stop you from being meaningless.
On November 17 2011 22:19 Chill wrote: Thread renamed.
LOL. I wondered about that... I logged in this morning and thought 'geez, I dont ever remember it being called that... it SHOULD have been called that....
What was the original thread name?
something about coca, it was weird, kind of a bait and switch imo. OP probably intended a reception something like "I came here to talk about the Coca situation, but I stayed here to marvel at his intelligence and suave meticulous image. The world needs him." It was also a forum post, not a blog.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity.
I think I would be bored to no end. Not being able to fail implicates that you won't ever try anything you don't know the outcome. If you would be really intelligent, you would not degrade yourself to this outlook. But I guess the power of the green paper is dictating here as you already emphasized in your post how you handle clients that shuffle around much of that stuff.
Deep down in me, I am disgusted to the bone by your view. And THAT is the reason why most people would leave the lawyer on the island. Not because he is not useful, but because he could be much more useful if he wasn't so uptight. Just hope that you will always have the sheltering cushions of society around you to shield you from that sentiment.
On November 18 2011 02:32 ketomai wrote: Haha this was pretty entertaining. Always the threads with OP's gone wrong that turn that way (hi rpf facebook thread).
On November 18 2011 03:41 MCDayC wrote: Can someone explain wtf is going on in this? I'm lost...
Someone made a brag blog about how smart they were under the pretense of how Lawyers are really important because of the recent issue of Coca throwing a game to another player (Byun).
TL takes offense at how condescending the poster was, not to mention that a lot of what was written didn't make proper sense either.
On November 17 2011 18:02 RetFan wrote: Ganfei, I can tell you're mad. Try and calm down son - by the way, what is a Grandman? Why are you picking on my typos anyway?
Nevuk, I should be studying for exams. Refuting the idiots who are trying to criticise me is fairly entertaining and helps relieve stress
Blah_blah, you are completely obsessed with stalking me. If there was an option to block on TL.net, you would be the only one on the list. Would it help your fragile ego if I said "science is superior, requires brains and law does not'? Would that be enough to get you to go away? LOL.
Further, since you're unfamiliar with the Australian educational system (which means you probably shouldn't be posting), most undergraduates here do a combined degree. So no, I'm not second year, I'm in my 5th year.
Talleyhoo, I hope for your sake you aren't a basement nerd pretending to be a patent lawyer because that would truly be sad.
- Firstly, I've never said I've only had two years of college under my belt. - Secondly, Contrary to what you believe, prima facie was in fact used correctly and using the term meant I could save two words. - Thirdly, you misuse the word counsel - Freehills is a firm of solicitors and not barristers - Fourthly, why would someone be your colleague in Freehills if you are patent attorney in the United States? You misuse the word colleague. LOL - Lastly, the fact that you obviously pay no attention to detail, invent things up that I've never said, invent the fact that "I berate a poster for using unnecessary legalese" and impliedly misunderstand what nominalisation means, not understand what counsel means, shows that you are probably not a lawyer at all. In fact, that's why its so silly for people to pretend to be someone they're not online, once they're shit has been taken apart, its quite humiliating.
yo dawg a typo isn't the same as repeated egregious assaults against basic English grammar
yo dawg wat is a grandman? a grandman is a grandma with an extra n attached
"I enjoy being made fun of and "refuting" the insults by making even more of an ass of myself" is a tried and true excuse, keep it up.
So now that I've given my kneejerk response, I'm going to actually reply:
colleague: col·league/ˈkälēg/ Noun: A person with whom one works, esp. in a profession or business.
Counsel: 3. Law . ( used with a singular or plural verb ) the advocate or advocates engaged in the direction of a cause in court; a legal adviser or counselor: Is counsel for the defense present?
Can we stop with this "nominalisation" crap? We know what it is, fool. Here, I'll use my trusty google skills again: In linguistics, nominalization or nominalisation is the use of a verb, an adjective, or an adverb as the head of a noun phrase, with or without morphological transformation. The term can also refer specifically to the process of producing a noun from another part of speech via the addition of derivational affixes (e.g., legalize versus legalization).[1]
Nobody is pretending to be anything they aren't online, except maybe you (I'm an amazing lawyer!!). I myself never said a single thing, I just corrected your glaring and frankly pathetic English mistakes. I tried to stay away from actual ad hominem or personal insults but honestly, the mistakes you make create an impression of immense stupidity. On an online forum the way you write is the only way you can craft an image of yourself or come across to other people and you sound unbelievably arrogant, narcissistic, and oblivious to your own shortcomings.
Your statement that you don't "need to make an impression" on us is obviously false, because you've spent over 10 pages "refuting" (i.e. making even more of an ass of yourself) people in this thread. My academic "accomplishments" are significantly more "impressive" than yours but I don't need to preface everything I say with them nor let my audience know that "statistically" I'm "more likely to be better at everything/smarter/sexier/benchpress more" than them. Hell, the mere fact that I'm not even capable of purposefully writing as horrendously as you, even when trying my hardest to sound like a cretin, should make it patently clear that you're already not exactly the CREME DE LA CREME (holy shit, was that a foreign expression? I'm a fucking genius).
You sound like a Surfer4Life who graduated high school. You won't get that reference, but some others might.
On November 18 2011 03:41 MCDayC wrote: Can someone explain wtf is going on in this? I'm lost...
Someone made a brag blog about how smart they were under the pretense of how Lawyers are really important because of the recent issue of Coca throwing a game to another player (Byun).
TL takes offense at how condescending the poster was, not to mention that a lot of what was written didn't make proper sense either.
Mods have a laugh and change the blog name.
Just another typical day on TL.
Pretty much except TL takes offense not simply because it ws a brag blog but because he specifically stated that he was smarter than all of us with things like this:
However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match.
On November 18 2011 03:41 MCDayC wrote: Can someone explain wtf is going on in this? I'm lost...
Someone made a brag blog about how smart they were under the pretense of how Lawyers are really important because of the recent issue of Coca throwing a game to another player (Byun).
TL takes offense at how condescending the poster was, not to mention that a lot of what was written didn't make proper sense either.
Mods have a laugh and change the blog name.
Just another typical day on TL.
Pretty much except TL takes offense not simply because it ws a brag blog but because he specifically stated that he was smarter than all of us with things like this:
However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match.
his analytical skills failed him in analyzing how TL is ganna react to him bragging. And the depth in which he can view this situation is so shallow that, in fact most other TL users will have no problem seeing this shit fest coming a mile away.
I want to be a lawyer but pretentious dicks like this guy keep giving my family and I bad names...
Not all lawyers are assholes. My mom used to work for a law firm and, although she had to defend some pretty disgusting people because they paid enough money to hire her firm, she also did a large amount of pro-bono (free) work for families without the means to hire a lawyer who were threatened by foreclosure or were in a battle with insurance companies over compensation for an injury.
So please don't let RetFan make you think all lawyers are douches
On November 18 2011 03:41 MCDayC wrote: Can someone explain wtf is going on in this? I'm lost...
Someone made a brag blog about how smart they were under the pretense of how Lawyers are really important because of the recent issue of Coca throwing a game to another player (Byun).
TL takes offense at how condescending the poster was, not to mention that a lot of what was written didn't make proper sense either.
Mods have a laugh and change the blog name.
Just another typical day on TL.
Pretty much except TL takes offense not simply because it ws a brag blog but because he specifically stated that he was smarter than all of us with things like this:
However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match.
(emphasis are the Author's own)
Thanks for separating that out for me, I didn't read most of what the OP wrote. That right there is grammatically horrendous and doesn't even actually make sense. Sure I can piece together what this clown was trying to say but only because I too am a genius.
They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match.
Let me "peer" edit this for you (get it, I'm a peer because I too am a genius).
They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills, and the depth with which I can view a situation (reconsider use of the word "can," try using something more like "I am able to," can is simplistic and much too pleb for someone of your stature; "view" is not really a great choice of verb for this so-called "deep analysis") are (it's that pesky subject-verb agreement again, man, fuck that shit) such (you cannot say "are such" when the items in the list are not categorized similarly[ that MOST other readers will not be able to match their ______ [try something like depth, rigor, insight, etc.] (that goddamn DANGLING MODIFIER SHIT AGAIN WHAT THE FUCK).
So here's the final product:
They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills, and the depth with which I am able to scrutinize a situation are all so advanced that other readers will not be able to match their insight/rigor, perhaps even WISDOM or SAGENESS/SAGACITY -- after all, we are being blessed and bathed in your 2nd year law school wisdom.
Oh, by the way, I'm pretty sure that "analytical skills" and "the depth which I can view a situation" are the same thing, so that's pretty damn redundant.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that this shit is not complicated or advanced grammar. I don't know jack shit about English grammar. This is the crap that the SAT tests high school students with; like 50% of the reading section in the SAT involves misuse of dangling modifiers and subject-verb agreement. Your writing is just so childish that I am able to pick problems out without knowing anything but the barest modicum of English grammar.
Nobody gives a shit if you list your credentials. You didn't list your credentials, you trumpeted them to the forums in horribly stilted English and then threw out random gems like this crap
I have friends much much smarter than me but that's not the point. For example, I've done work for a barrister who did their BCL in Oxford through a Rhodes Scholarships, then to Harvard for their LLM. I know people who rejected Goldman Sachs to work in the law firm I plan to join. I have friends who are geniuses in Finance having graduated from Stockholm School of Economics. There are even posters here who are moving onto the bar or working as patent attorneys (god those guys get paid a lot).
I simply claim that I am a law student with good marks and firms seem to think I know what I'm doing. From that, I believe I could do a good job analysing the issue of matchfixing. I don't know why people expect me to be anything but honest here.
That's completely fucking irrelevant and you try to weasel this crap into everything you've posted. This is like someone saying "hello" to someone else and the other person launching into a list of everything they've done that they consider prestigious. I guarantee you that you'd be laughed out of the room at any job interview if this was how you acted.
On November 16 2011 19:19 RetFan wrote: 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.
I was ok with your opening post. I had hopes you were going to expand on things and that this was actually going to be an informative read. Until I read that line (the next sentence didn't help much either, but that's an entirely different story - individual laws may be non-biased, but every single judicial system in the world that I know of has inherent biases).
Do you really believe that you have the best depth of understanding, and are trying to prove that based on your acceptance into a top school, exceptional grade scores, and experience working with top firms will force us to believe that it is a concrete, indisputable fact?
If that was the case, how the fuck can you simplify the role of engineers as someone who designs things and doctors who treat medical illnesses?
I really don't have time to finish writing a more in-depth reply to this (although I do believe that you deserve one), but every single one of those skills apply to all 3 professions, along with many others. Your profession is far from the only profession which requires extensive use of these skills in order to graduate, never mind being successful.
If engineers who design the entire infrastructure we use on a daily basis didn't have skill sets "which focuses upon decision making, analysing and applying logical facts and drawing conclusions with as much neutrality as possible", I'd have lost all hope for humanity. And I wouldn't go to a doctor for treatment of medical illnesses who lacks any of those skills as well. If anything, I'd rather that engineers and doctors had stronger skills than lawyers, since people's safety and well-being is directly affected by said skills.
What you have are skills that are desired in a lot of top professions. These skills aren't really something that can be taught, but they can be harnessed with the right education and further training. You've spent a few years honing these skills with legal studies, others go towards engineering, or science, or medicine, etc. Some don't hone these skills, and find their own path; I know that there used to be a chess grandmaster who was a hotdog vendor in NYC. I'd love to see your "depth of understanding" go up vs his in a game of chess, but I already have a good idea of what the outcome would be already.
Basically, you need to take a step back and realize that the attitude you have is exactly the attitude that most people hate about lawyers. Yes, you may have a top 1% IQ, and incredible drive to be successful, but that does not make you any better than everyone else by default, and that sure as hell does not make your view a concrete fact.
Lol, that bolded statement will teach me for not reading the entire thread before posting.
On November 17 2011 01:50 RetFan wrote: I also find it quite sad that people from Ivy League schools are expected by society to be modest. I mean come on, these guys are likely to be the top students going to some of the best universities in the world. They have a right to be proud; they've had to sacrifice so much get in. Are these people not allowed to brag about their achievements?
lol. I'm currently a PhD candidate in biology and graduated from an ivy league. I don't go around prefacing all my proposals and shit with that though, if my ideas have merit they will be judged on that. I would hope that most of them do because I put a lot of effort into them and I have trained for a long fucking time to get here but in the end the only thing that matters is the message. The smartest scientists I knew at my undergrad school were incidentally the most modest. I see that in the medical students as well, the biggest egotistical assholes are generally in medicine just for the rep/money and aren't actually that great at what they do. The modest ones understand that we still don't know a ton about medicine and they try their best but understand the limits of their practice and work with it.
It seems to me that TL is great at completely degrading someone's value as a human being just because of their opinion. What? Don't give me "Guy A gives opinion and statement and Guy B - Z all disagree" its not that simple in this case. Whether anyone in here is right or wrong, that doesn't matter, you guys aren't even entirely focused on that. Things have gotten a little out of hand here and some of you guys went into "internet bully" mode and we laugh and throw rotten fish at the village idiot. Kind of sad.
This isn't Camilla Marchall here, even Camilla walked away with fewer burns than retfan imo. Even if the situations are kind of stark in difference, its still basically the TL community bearing down really hard on one individual. I got the image of us in a mob tossing rocks at a guy, its not like retfan raped your sister or anything.
I'm just saying a little disappointed at some of these posts. I'm not even going to bother to offer my own opinion of thread anymore.
I have great respect towards Chinese people. I believe the top English students in China are able to easily surpass native English speakers in the UK, USA or Australia on tests on grammar. But unfortunately in regards to English , that's where it stops.
If we apply the rules of TL strictly, every poster who is coming here not to discuss the topic but to attack my credentials should be banned from TL
Secondly, with regard to the word colleague, you can interpret it strictly or colloquially. In China, I know students take great pride in being able to show off a wide vocabulary. However, having not been brought up in a native background, it is difficult to use words in the correct context. The word colleague would not colloquially be used to describe someone working in the same profession. Otherwise, every lawyer in the world or who I've worked with would be my colleague. This is clearly not true. Similarly, if we were to take a formal definition, we've been taught to rely on the OED.
ROFL the bolded part made me lol. Which rule good sir, forbids users from challenging the credentials of a poster?
Lets have a lookieloo shall we
1. THIS IS OUR HOUSE nope - irrelevant here 2. THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE nope - they aren't being unruly 3. THOU SHALL THINK BEFORE POSTING Sure, seeing that your credentials are stupid doens't take MUCH thinking, so i guess you could challenge here simply because its such an obvious conclusion to draw 4. THOU SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE SITE nope - people contribute by ensuring authenticity of the OP 5. THOU SHALL NOT SPAM nope - haven't seen people spamming stuff 6. THOU SHALL RESPECT FORUM VETERANS registered late 2010 and have 32 posts? yep doesn't apply 7. ENGLISH IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE seems all good here 8. THOU SHALL RESPECT YOUR ID Hard to verify, but i dont think you're worth making an alt to insult you on 9. READ THE COMMANDMENTS Seems like everyone but you did this 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN I'm having fun.
ps: as someone else who was in the top 2% of their high school class in australia, i can tell you for sure that the reason law has such a stringent OP requirement is popularity. I started in science, which was an OP 8 to get in(i got an OP 1) when i graduated in 2004, now i hear is like a 16 or something ridiculous, simply because people dont want to do it. So yeah, your law degree isn't special or harder, its just popular.
pps: I get it, you're doing law, you think you're god of arguing, but just wait till you try to argue with a real lawyer, they'll beat u down sooooooooooooooo hard. Trust me, i know, my cousin in a prosecutor and my dad is one of the best criminal lawyers in australia.
ppps: seems like a real lawyer beat u down already. hope you didn't cry too much. have fun memorising 60 bazillion rulings to get your fancy pants law degree. i'll be doing useful things with my software engineering.
Who is your dad, out of curiosity?
I'm a criminal lawyer as well, just wondering if I know him. PM me if you don't mind?
On November 18 2011 05:30 Snuggles wrote: It seems to me that TL is great at completely degrading someone's value as a human being just because of their opinion. What? Don't give me "Guy A gives opinion and statement and Guy B - Z all disagree" its not that simple in this case. Whether anyone in here is right or wrong, that doesn't matter, you guys aren't even entirely focused on that. Things have gotten a little out of hand here and some of you guys went into "internet bully" mode and we laugh and throw rotten fish at the village idiot. Kind of sad.
This isn't Camilla Marchall here, even Camilla walked away with fewer burns than retfan imo. Even if the situations are kind of stark in difference, its still basically the TL community bearing down really hard on one individual. I got the image of us in a mob tossing rocks at a guy, its not like retfan raped your sister or anything.
I'm just saying a little disappointed at some of these posts. I'm not even going to bother to offer my own opinion of thread anymore.
At least Camilla pretended to show concern for other people and displayed a recognition of the fact that maintaining some sort of public image has relevance, regardless of whether she actually did have any concern for others or not. Difference is she did something that will have far reaching consequences for her interaction with the community (maybe?), but we'll all forget about this thread in a couple days and retfan will be free to build whatever online persona he wants afterwards with little consequence.
Really, the thread is just cause and effect. OP started off as self-aggrandizing/elitist and when confronted with flaming about it, just got more so. The burns are his fault. Its like you see a red-hot burner, you reach out and touch it, and when it burns the fuck out of your hand, you get all stubborn, and think that you're better than the burner, and you keep fucking touching it because it should realize that you're too smart for it, and it shouldn't be burning you. Not indicative of borderline genius, at least to me, but what do I know, I'm not in law school.
Of course, he might like being flamed for being elitist, but I think that is fucked up, and besides, if he did, he wouldn't write a post about how he isn't posting here anymore.
On November 18 2011 05:30 Snuggles wrote: It seems to me that TL is great at completely degrading someone's value as a human being just because of their opinion. What? Don't give me "Guy A gives opinion and statement and Guy B - Z all disagree" its not that simple in this case. Whether anyone in here is right or wrong, that doesn't matter, you guys aren't even entirely focused on that. Things have gotten a little out of hand here and some of you guys went into "internet bully" mode and we laugh and throw rotten fish at the village idiot. Kind of sad.
This isn't Camilla Marchall here, even Camilla walked away with fewer burns than retfan imo. Even if the situations are kind of stark in difference, its still basically the TL community bearing down really hard on one individual. I got the image of us in a mob tossing rocks at a guy, its not like retfan raped your sister or anything.
I'm just saying a little disappointed at some of these posts. I'm not even going to bother to offer my own opinion of thread anymore.
RetFan basically states that his opinion is more important then everybody else's and then when he's confronted with that statement instead of apologizing or at least clarifying what he meant goes on to basically tell us all that he is a better human being then the rest of us plebes.
This is a direct quote from RetFan:
I also find it quite sad that people from Ivy League schools are expected by society to be modest
What he is saying is that going to an Ivy League school somehow exempts you from being a decent person and it's ok to be a d-bag because, after all, you did go to Brown University.
EDIT: Notice he did not just say "I find it sad that people are expected by society to be modest" As in he understands why societal norms look down on braggarts but that going to a school where you have to pay 10 times as much as if you went to a state school gives you the right to be an arrogant a-hole.
If you still don't understand why people are mad at him then perhaps the internet is not the proper place for you.
In defense of the OP, he has stated that Australian law schools accept children out of high school so if he's still in law school then he's probably not that mature yet. Maybe cut him a little slack guys
On November 17 2011 18:02 RetFan wrote: Blah_blah, you are completely obsessed with stalking me. If there was an option to block on TL.net, you would be the only one on the list. Would it help your fragile ego if I said "science is superior, requires brains and law does not'? Would that be enough to get you to go away? LOL.
Further, since you're unfamiliar with the Australian educational system (which means you probably shouldn't be posting), most undergraduates here do a combined degree. So no, I'm not second year, I'm in my 5th year.
The idea that I'm 'stalking you' when I've made two posts directed at you is pretty funny. Perhaps you just have very thin skin and are upset by my assertion that your partially completed law degree at an Australian university does not exactly qualify you as being a world-class intellectual! You must also be selectively filtering out the parts where I say that people getting into good law schools are smart people!
Whether I'm familiar with the Australian educational system or not is fairly irrelevant. I don't need to be an expert on the educational system of Madagascar to reasonably assert that getting into law school at the University of Madagascar is not really an incredible achievement worthy of writing a few hundred words about on the teamliquid.net forums. Obviously the Australian educational system is better than Madagascar but it's really not like you're at HLS or YLS or anything like that.
On November 18 2011 06:12 Ganfei2 wrote: The issue is that he does not understand the difference between "modesty" and "pride."
Yes people with accomplishments have every right to be proud. Being proud is not synonymous with being a loudmouth.
I think you meant the difference between pride and arrogance ^_^
You should read his previous posts. I love to write a ton of stuff as much as the next guy, but he makes Gretorp from the start of NASL S1 look like a scrub in terms of over or nonsensically using big words.
you can tell how little the mods care about this guy getting insulted that there have been 2 blatant meme quotes, and neither were warned or banned, odd for tl, but amusing none the less
thanks for the entertainment all, especially chill as i only got in the thread after the name change, props to toodly or whatever his name was, you're awesome
Oh and i thought this was the guy who posted all that motivation advice in the idra fanclub, i dont remember if this was deleted or if i'm thinking of someone else as I can't seem to find it
Funny ass thread you got here, genius lawyer boy. I really am more interested in discussing the deserted island problem than match fixing, or even your credentials. The first replies really should have stepped up in that regard.
On November 16 2011 20:38 Ganfei2 wrote: Since the OP is so arrogant am I allowed to criticize the post?
Your English grammar is very poor. If your writing reflects that of the "best and brightest" of Australian high schools then your country does not have a particularly rigorous education system (not to suggest that the USA does, but that's irrelevant, isn't it).
Do you see how I said "that of" instead of just "reflects the" in the sentence above? That's because the latter is an example of a dangling modifier. You had dozens of them in your post. Your writing is extremely stilted and pedantic and has no cadence; it reads like a poorly translated foreign computer manual. It is also riddled with fragments:
The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
Clarity and coherence in writing are probably two of the most important skills for anyone in any type of legal profession. Obviously, analytical and logical thinking are also of great value in that field (see how I used "are" instead of "is?" That's proper subject-verb agreement, another rule you ignored multiple times). While the continuing over-jargonization of legalese is unfortunate, and many court documents and briefs are comically incomprehensible and elaborate, they still do not display your writing's disregard for the basics of English grammar. Certainly there is a case to be made regarding comprehension vs rule-following, but when someone is trying to prove to us how intelligent they are I think I'm allowed to point out such elementary mistakes.
lol. I mean granted the op is subtly bragging and trying to sound more intelligent, but isn't this exactly what you are doing as well?
On November 18 2011 10:19 -_- wrote: Lawyers are so lol. Only profession were you can make $ by being good at nothing, having no skills, and drinking every night lol.
Oh, come on. I have several lawyers in my family. They work so hard it's completely ridiculous. I think they've earned every penny.
BTW, I am an economics graduate from a top university and I'm modest enough to realise that you wouldn't take an economist to a deserted island over a doctor, engineer, and a hot girl. Also, what kind of scientist do you mean by "scientist"? I thought lawyers pride themselves on precision.
"Hey, I can help you draw supply and demand curves and help you, um, divide your work better? Or start a bank and issue you money and make more money appear out of a balance sheet?" Is not much help.
Much like the legal profession, which, while essential in a big society like that we live in today, is pretty f**king useless on a deserted island. How egotistical do you have to be to believe what you said?
Intelligence doesn't really factor here. There are plenty of chemistry/physics/bio/med/humanities/business students who are in the top 1% of their high schools, and there are plenty of law students at lesser institutions who are not good students at HS. Finally, intelligence takes a back seat to appropriate skills if you are deciding on who to take to said island.
Furthermore, you sound like a douche. I don't want to live on an island with you.
PS Chill's rename of this thread is pure gold PPS Talleyhooo, <3
On November 16 2011 20:38 Ganfei2 wrote: Since the OP is so arrogant am I allowed to criticize the post?
Your English grammar is very poor. If your writing reflects that of the "best and brightest" of Australian high schools then your country does not have a particularly rigorous education system (not to suggest that the USA does, but that's irrelevant, isn't it).
Do you see how I said "that of" instead of just "reflects the" in the sentence above? That's because the latter is an example of a dangling modifier. You had dozens of them in your post. Your writing is extremely stilted and pedantic and has no cadence; it reads like a poorly translated foreign computer manual. It is also riddled with fragments:
The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
Clarity and coherence in writing are probably two of the most important skills for anyone in any type of legal profession. Obviously, analytical and logical thinking are also of great value in that field (see how I used "are" instead of "is?" That's proper subject-verb agreement, another rule you ignored multiple times). While the continuing over-jargonization of legalese is unfortunate, and many court documents and briefs are comically incomprehensible and elaborate, they still do not display your writing's disregard for the basics of English grammar. Certainly there is a case to be made regarding comprehension vs rule-following, but when someone is trying to prove to us how intelligent they are I think I'm allowed to point out such elementary mistakes.
lol. I mean granted the op is subtly bragging and trying to sound more intelligent, but isn't this exactly what you are doing as well?
charliemurphy I think it's probably a good idea for you not to try to talk to me, because it hurts my head trying to wrap my brain around how to respond to someone like you. As I explicated later, I don't know anything about English grammar. These are the most basic rules imaginable, and the fact that I can point out the errors is indicative of problems with the statement "I am the top 1-2% of Australian students."
Also, I don't think you know what "subtle" means. As is generally the case when someone writes at anything above a 5th grade level, someone (you) crawls out of the woodwork to suggest that they are "bragging" by being able to do so. I'm trying really hard not to call you stupid, but as you can see I've failed in this last sentence.
On November 16 2011 20:38 Ganfei2 wrote: Since the OP is so arrogant am I allowed to criticize the post?
Your English grammar is very poor. If your writing reflects that of the "best and brightest" of Australian high schools then your country does not have a particularly rigorous education system (not to suggest that the USA does, but that's irrelevant, isn't it).
Do you see how I said "that of" instead of just "reflects the" in the sentence above? That's because the latter is an example of a dangling modifier. You had dozens of them in your post. Your writing is extremely stilted and pedantic and has no cadence; it reads like a poorly translated foreign computer manual. It is also riddled with fragments:
The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
Clarity and coherence in writing are probably two of the most important skills for anyone in any type of legal profession. Obviously, analytical and logical thinking are also of great value in that field (see how I used "are" instead of "is?" That's proper subject-verb agreement, another rule you ignored multiple times). While the continuing over-jargonization of legalese is unfortunate, and many court documents and briefs are comically incomprehensible and elaborate, they still do not display your writing's disregard for the basics of English grammar. Certainly there is a case to be made regarding comprehension vs rule-following, but when someone is trying to prove to us how intelligent they are I think I'm allowed to point out such elementary mistakes.
lol. I mean granted the op is subtly bragging and trying to sound more intelligent, but isn't this exactly what you are doing as well?
charliemurphy I think it's probably a good idea for you not to try to talk to me, because it hurts my head trying to wrap my brain around how to respond to someone like you. As I explicated later, I don't know anything about English grammar. These are the most basic rules imaginable, and the fact that I can point out the errors is indicative of problems with the statement "I am the top 1-2% of Australian students."
Also, I don't think you know what "subtle" means. As is generally the case when someone writes at anything above a 5th grade level, someone (you) crawls out of the woodwork to suggest that they are "bragging" by being able to do so. I'm trying really hard not to call you stupid, but as you can see I've failed in this last sentence.
Speaking of sounding stilted...
Anyway, this blog has been at best a misguided attempt to apply what you've learned in your field to a specific problem, of which you really know few details, and at worst a pretentious argument from authority whose underlying message is "I'm way above average and have an itch to share this with people in the most abrasive way possible, so listen to me."
if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote: if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote: if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
ur have some valid point however the big problem was 2 paragraph into the post, ur still talking about your achievement which sounds like a brag rather than ur trying to establish a point. However, i have to say i agree with most of plexa's point as some of yours come out way too arrogance.
I think some of you are being a bit ridiculous... I don't see why we're being so mean! I skimmed through this thread on my phone at the airport earlier (so I didn't exactly read every post) and I really think everyone is overreacting.
I kind of feel bad for this guy, I don't think he meant to come off as being an arrogant d-bag. : /
This one is still going and the guy abandoned ship a long time ago. You shouldn't be skimming. This entire thread is full of gold. Welcome to the internet!
*
Sammy,
You've done interviews before; I find it hard to believe that you would buy into this load of crap.
Would you actually consider a relationship with an undergrad as pretentious as him? The lad has no tact.
He's like one of those dweebs who tries to grab a girl on the dance floor by grinding up to them, "I'm sort of a big deal." Girl laughs and walks away.
No mystery whatsoever; doesn't quite fit the funny cocky type.
Instead he's a condescending insecure prick with an inflated ego. As Talleyhooo pointed out I'm led to believe he didn't really have to work hard at all and whatever he got was given to him by his relatives or other connections. Then again, the chap hasn't even started working yet. If he truly acts this way online and given his stance on what he thinks about internet forums, which totally contradicts the e-peen he's tried to flaunt before us might I add, then he's obviously full of rubbish.
Don't be so naive and when you get the chance have an actual read through. It might tickle your fancy. =)
On November 18 2011 14:04 Porcelain wrote: I think some of you are being a bit ridiculous... I don't see why we're being so mean! I skimmed through this thread on my phone at the airport earlier (so I didn't exactly read every post) and I really think everyone is overreacting.
I kind of feel bad for this guy, I don't think he meant to come off as being an arrogant d-bag. : /
Yeah he probably didn't mean to, but he did anyway because he is one. And really, anyone who routinely insults their audience while talking themselves up deserves everything they get.
On November 18 2011 05:49 Fuhrmaaj wrote: In defense of the OP, he has stated that Australian law schools accept children out of high school so if he's still in law school then he's probably not that mature yet. Maybe cut him a little slack guys
Yeah people keep saying this (and getting confused thinking he's 2nd year) but he said he's in his fifth year which means he is 22-23. So, not that young at all.
On November 18 2011 15:05 StarStruck wrote: 22-23 is still very, very young especially in law school Sub. There are some guys who don't go into law school until much later.
I'm pretty sure this guy isn't even close to his 30s. He painted a pretty big target on his head.
No, I know. I'm just not wanting people to give him the 'well he's not that old' card because they think he's 18/19.
On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote: if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title.
On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote: if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title.
w/e brohan
Chill changed the title on page 8. It was originally Coca/Byun Matchfixing - Why Lawyers are Needed.
On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote: if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title.
w/e brohan
Chill changed the title on page 8. It was originally Coca/Byun Matchfixing - Why Lawyers are Needed.
herp.
;oooooooooo;
i admit defeat
tho to be fair those particular 8 pages includes a gimassinormous amount of text
On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote: if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title.
w/e brohan
Chill changed the title on page 8. It was originally Coca/Byun Matchfixing - Why Lawyers are Needed.
herp.
;oooooooooo;
i admit defeat
tho to be fair those particular 8 pages includes a gimassinormous amount of text
Because it was about to become Lawyer World War, Australia vs Rest of the World.
On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote: if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title.
w/e brohan
Chill changed the title on page 8. It was originally Coca/Byun Matchfixing - Why Lawyers are Needed.
herp.
;oooooooooo;
i admit defeat
tho to be fair those particular 8 pages includes a gimassinormous amount of text
Because it was about to become Lawyer World War, Australia vs Rest of the World.
Once again, Chill comes to the rescue.
RetFan* vs Rest of the World
No one in Australia wants that guy representing us, I can assure you.
On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote: if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title.
w/e brohan
Chill changed the title on page 8. It was originally Coca/Byun Matchfixing - Why Lawyers are Needed.
herp.
;oooooooooo;
i admit defeat
tho to be fair those particular 8 pages includes a gimassinormous amount of text
Because it was about to become Lawyer World War, Australia vs Rest of the World.
Once again, Chill comes to the rescue.
RetFan* vs Rest of the World
No one in Australia wants that guy representing us, I can assure you.
Speak for yourself man. I was completely sold by his persuasive powers when he called me a sheep and said I should listen to him.
what a great thread, nothing like ferocious intellect battles from all academic fields (psychology perspectives, lawyers, engineers, philosophy, science, ETC haha) my 2 cents: retfan, you are a disgrace australia, I am genuinely upset that people from all over the world associate your personality (not your intelligence - it is clear you are an intelligent person) with our country. i kindly request you hide australia from other TL members. secondly: i kindly request you see a psychologist to work on your self esteem. while obviously not recognizable to you, it is strikingly evident that you have a need to assert yourself as someone who has excelled in -most if not all- areas of life. the problem lies not in the fact that you have excelled, rather your desire to assert it. i feel sorry for you.
ganfei: thankyou - there is nothing more refreshing watching someone as intelligent as you passionately(important word) out-wit the man-with-the-most-wit. reminds me of that scene in good will hunting (with matt damon) shutting down the guy who recites quotes from textbooks.
i recognize that i am not nearly as clever as a several members here, hence not embarrassing myself trying to sound smarter than i really am. it would only result in terrible..... <insert everything about the english language here>
Holy shit, fuck Curb Your Enthusiasm and Larry David, this is the shit right here. just when I was waiting for another China or Religion thread to blow into 20 pages of 500 word posts, this comes along.
I love TL and this is why. OP I really really hope this was all a huge "baby's first troll" and we were all taken for a ride, cuz damn if assholes like you really exist.
I know people have covered this, but how can you be smart enough to be in the top 1-2% of academic achievers or whatever, yet stupid enough to start a post by explaining how brilliant you are and how people should listen to you because you're smarter than them? I didn't even have to read your entire post (I did though) to know that you were gonna get completely shot down and any argument you present virtually ignored, because other aspects of your post are more offensive.
it's nice to have good credentials, but it's really stupid to bring them up before your credentials are challenged. And if you present a coherent and convincing argument, you normally won't even have to.
Ugh. This kind of thing makes Australian Law schools look bad. It's funny that you qualify yourself in the way you do. I think it shapes your arguments exactly in that context. One of the key problems with the Australian tertiary education system is that there are people, like yourself, who can go directly into vocational degrees like Law, without any prior work experience, or for that matter life experience.
I think it's obvious, at least in my eyes that you fall into this category. But good luck. I'm sure you'll make lots of money.
On November 18 2011 20:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: I know people have covered this, but how can you be smart enough to be in the top 1-2% of academic achievers or whatever, yet stupid enough to start a post by explaining how brilliant you are and how people should listen to you because you're smarter than them? I didn't even have to read your entire post (I did though) to know that you were gonna get completely shot down and any argument you present virtually ignored, because other aspects of your post are more offensive.
it's nice to have good credentials, but it's really stupid to bring them up before your credentials are challenged. And if you present a coherent and convincing argument, you normally won't even have to.
He has 18 intelligence but only 3 wisdom and charisma.
On November 18 2011 20:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: I know people have covered this, but how can you be smart enough to be in the top 1-2% of academic achievers or whatever, yet stupid enough to start a post by explaining how brilliant you are and how people should listen to you because you're smarter than them? I didn't even have to read your entire post (I did though) to know that you were gonna get completely shot down and any argument you present virtually ignored, because other aspects of your post are more offensive.
it's nice to have good credentials, but it's really stupid to bring them up before your credentials are challenged. And if you present a coherent and convincing argument, you normally won't even have to.
He has 18 intelligence but only 3 wisdom and charisma.
So basically his description fits that of a hermit? =)
On November 18 2011 14:04 Porcelain wrote: I think some of you are being a bit ridiculous... I don't see why we're being so mean! I skimmed through this thread on my phone at the airport earlier (so I didn't exactly read every post) and I really think everyone is overreacting.
I kind of feel bad for this guy, I don't think he meant to come off as being an arrogant d-bag. : /
If he didn't then it's worse, he actually is the way he seems from the OP. For a borderline genius lawyer his argumentation failed pretty badly, and the responses in this thread are proof of it. From my own experience the top 1-2% are the normal people, rest are idiots or just don't give a fuck. The only exceptional people I've met are either somewhere around top 0.1% or simply excel at 1-2 subjects and don't give a rat's ass about the rest.
" In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country. "
I'm sorry, I read that and almost died choking on a piece of toast. Your post is so hilariously elitist that I can't even tell if you're serious.
PLUS, understanding this situation with the barest minimum of hearsay reports and barely any understanding of Koran culture is kind of... humorous.
I fail to see how on EARTH this proves that your reasoning and analytic skills are superior to anyone's... or how that makes lawyers any less evil
On November 18 2011 20:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: I know people have covered this, but how can you be smart enough to be in the top 1-2% of academic achievers or whatever, yet stupid enough to start a post by explaining how brilliant you are and how people should listen to you because you're smarter than them? I didn't even have to read your entire post (I did though) to know that you were gonna get completely shot down and any argument you present virtually ignored, because other aspects of your post are more offensive.
it's nice to have good credentials, but it's really stupid to bring them up before your credentials are challenged. And if you present a coherent and convincing argument, you normally won't even have to.
How can Steve Jobs be smart enough to do what he did but think that a vegan diet and acupuncture were a good alternative to surgery for treating pancreatic cancer? I ask myself these questions everyday and it boggles my mind every time
On November 18 2011 20:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: I know people have covered this, but how can you be smart enough to be in the top 1-2% of academic achievers or whatever, yet stupid enough to start a post by explaining how brilliant you are and how people should listen to you because you're smarter than them? I didn't even have to read your entire post (I did though) to know that you were gonna get completely shot down and any argument you present virtually ignored, because other aspects of your post are more offensive.
it's nice to have good credentials, but it's really stupid to bring them up before your credentials are challenged. And if you present a coherent and convincing argument, you normally won't even have to.
How can Steve Jobs be smart enough to do what he did but think that a vegan diet and acupuncture were a good alternative to surgery for treating pancreatic cancer? I ask myself these questions everyday and it boggles my mind every time
maybe he just had very capable and bright people working in the company he happened to own
They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match.
Anyone who manages to come off as a tosser through text format isn't as bright as they think.
On November 18 2011 20:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: I know people have covered this, but how can you be smart enough to be in the top 1-2% of academic achievers or whatever, yet stupid enough to start a post by explaining how brilliant you are and how people should listen to you because you're smarter than them? I didn't even have to read your entire post (I did though) to know that you were gonna get completely shot down and any argument you present virtually ignored, because other aspects of your post are more offensive.
it's nice to have good credentials, but it's really stupid to bring them up before your credentials are challenged. And if you present a coherent and convincing argument, you normally won't even have to.
He has 18 intelligence but only 3 wisdom and charisma.
So basically his description fits that of a hermit? =)
Hermits are freaking wise dood. Only rivaled by High Wizards (Which often become hermits), they have maxed out wisdom and intelligence and in return have relatively poor strength, endurance, agility and bearings.
On November 18 2011 20:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: I know people have covered this, but how can you be smart enough to be in the top 1-2% of academic achievers or whatever, yet stupid enough to start a post by explaining how brilliant you are and how people should listen to you because you're smarter than them? I didn't even have to read your entire post (I did though) to know that you were gonna get completely shot down and any argument you present virtually ignored, because other aspects of your post are more offensive.
it's nice to have good credentials, but it's really stupid to bring them up before your credentials are challenged. And if you present a coherent and convincing argument, you normally won't even have to.
He has 18 intelligence but only 3 wisdom and charisma.
So basically his description fits that of a hermit? =)
Hermits are freaking wise dood. Only rivaled by High Wizards (Which often become hermits), they have maxed out wisdom and intelligence and in return have relatively poor strength, endurance, agility and bearings.
Depends on the kind really, some can take out their intestins and wash them or something disgusting like that and they don't die.
So i guess they maxed endurance too. They just can't wield two handed axes.
I've read that "IAmA straight male pornstar - AMA" on reddit. Quite the interesting read. Is this similiar?
I have to admit, though, when I see such a long post which starts by saying how genius he is that I first read the reactions to it. After reading them, I didn't even bother reading the whole thing.
So basically, I have nothing to contribute, but I wanted to be a part of this super blog. If nothing else - cheers to Australia!
On November 18 2011 20:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: I know people have covered this, but how can you be smart enough to be in the top 1-2% of academic achievers or whatever, yet stupid enough to start a post by explaining how brilliant you are and how people should listen to you because you're smarter than them? I didn't even have to read your entire post (I did though) to know that you were gonna get completely shot down and any argument you present virtually ignored, because other aspects of your post are more offensive.
it's nice to have good credentials, but it's really stupid to bring them up before your credentials are challenged. And if you present a coherent and convincing argument, you normally won't even have to.
He has 18 intelligence but only 3 wisdom and charisma.
On November 19 2011 03:36 SiguR wrote: With all the stupid things in this thread put aside, i'd just like to take a moment to laugh at the thread title "I'm a borderline genius lawyer" followed up by "i'm not actually a lawyer, i'm still in school and am still years away from taking my BAR exam."
So i suppose the thread should be called "i'm a borderline genius student, AMA"
But then you realize that his claim to be a 'borderline genius' is his own opinion and based upon his own definition of genius. I don't know many geniuses that go around starting threads that open with "i'm a borderline genius" as if it is in any way relevant or adds any credibility to what they are about to say.
So i suppose the thread should be called "i'm an immature overachiever who hasn't experienced the real world enough to know I sound like a jackass, AMA"
Then again, for a post so stupid that is claiming to be written by a genius, I'm having a hard time believing this isn't an elaborate troll attempt. In the event that you aren't a troll, you should know: scholastic success does not make you a genius. It makes you someone who's put a high value on achieving scholastic success that lives in an environment that does not stop you from reaching scholastic success. If you put most of the people in the world in the right environment and motivate them correctly, they will all be in the 'top 1-2%'. You are not inherently more capable than everyone around you.
Chill changed the thread title, that's not what it was originally titled. Fits so well though, doesn't it?
What was the original title of the thread? I enjoyed this, but have nothing to contribute thus far, my mind is 100% vomiting rainbows in anticipation of MLG
On November 19 2011 03:44 A_Bandersnatch wrote: What was the original title of the thread? I enjoyed this, but have nothing to contribute thus far, my mind is 100% vomiting rainbows in anticipation of MLG
Coco/Byun: Why Lawyers are Important or something.
On November 19 2011 03:44 A_Bandersnatch wrote: What was the original title of the thread? I enjoyed this, but have nothing to contribute thus far, my mind is 100% vomiting rainbows in anticipation of MLG
Coco/Byun: Why Lawyers are Important or something.
Ohhhhhhhh! I saw that blog title, I actually thought it was a separate blog by the same person. Hah, genius Chill!
On November 17 2011 01:50 RetFan wrote: I also find it quite sad that people from Ivy League schools are expected by society to be modest. I mean come on, these guys are likely to be the top students going to some of the best universities in the world. They have a right to be proud; they've had to sacrifice so much get in. Are these people not allowed to brag about their achievements?
Really? I'm doing a graduate degree at a world class school and I still think you're a cock.
If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. [...]
I challenge that view.
"I am the 1% - a doctor, dentist, lawyer, engineer and scientist all at once; therefor only I would be needed at such a deserted island, alone. My objectivity, geniality and flossing skills, as such, are prima facie. Anyone on the island would testify to my achievements and credentials - - I do have a stunning smile. Could use a knife on the island though.
I would be in good company with my colleagues, which I've named after myself, namely: Arthur, Blake, Stephen and Jaques because they, after all, are me.
I might need a counselor degree - no, I meant psychiatrist - wait, what? I won't be needing that knife after all."
On November 19 2011 07:53 diggurd wrote: most of the people behind die Endlösung der Judenfrage were lawyers - they are modern priests, kneeling down in front of the laws.
and if ivory league is so great, why do america suck?
Your intro, saying a lawyer would be useful to start a desert colony, over a doctor, lawyer and engineer, almost made me quit reading. That is borderline retarded, practically. Finishing the rest of your post pretty much confirms it. You're probably very good at what you do, but you would be a farking horrific person to choose to start a desert colony. You would be dead in a week, from a mysterious accident where you somehow ended up hung, drawn, and quartered, and stabbed 77 times by garden gnomes.
Starting off a post by expounding your brilliance = fail.
It is with regret that we have to inform you that our quality assurance process has failed. A thorough and independent investigation is under way into how this douche managed to evade deportation.
Our sincerest apologies
Every sane Australian.
Seriously, no matter your qualifications, there is no excuse for being a stuckup prick. If you were any sort of lawyer you would know that your argument is what is important not where you studied.
The thread is considerably better when you read all of it. Thanks for bumping it back up Mr. Wiggles, I'd started to forget about it. ^_^
Haven't really got anything else to say that hasn't been said already. I agree that this would be a freaking brilliant troll, but...I don't think it is.
I feel I got tricked by the title of this thread/blog. Here I was thinking about it being an Lawyer doing AMA. Instead it's a rant on SC2 Match fixing. Which to my experience has already been covered loads before.
Take out the AMA part of this title thanks. Replace the title with: A lawyers view on match fixing(Focus on SC2).
Doesn't need to state genius or intelligence. If the writing and explanation is there. It will be sufficient.
Edit: So title has been renamed. What was it before? (Coco/Byun: Why Lawyers are Important <- OLD TITLE) Chill did an alright job changing it then. Appropriately conveying a level of arrogance in the title that can then be found in the post.
Update: Ok, actually read the whole thing.He's a condescending prick of a writer who continues the popular idea of lawyers being jackasses, who deserve a good clip around the ears.
To sum up: RetFan has mastered assflappery of the highest order.
I just spent ~45 minutes at work reading through this thread, and I have to say I think it's the funniest I've ever read on TL.
Thank you OP and everyone else for entertaining me. I laughed, I cried, I had a good time. Special thanks to talleyho for his spectacular posts (especially the second one) - someone give this guy a medal!
No doubt I'm not the only one greatly looking forward to OP's next post(s), purported to be about foreigners versus koreans. Ladies and gentlemen, will both groups' skill levels ever be on par with each other? Should they adopt the training regimen of their korean counterparts? Are recent favorable results (by the likes of Idra, Stephano, and Huk) flukes, or indicative of greater things to come? Only RETFAN, using the incredible power of his cunning legal mind, can tell us what to think!
O wise Retfan, mighty educator of 14 to 21 y.o. adolescents, enlighten us with your mighty intellect! Your flock yearns for the direction that only a virtual demi-god such as yourself can provide!
No, Korean players should all join foreign teams, make lots of money and then adopt foreign training habits and become sedentary. Then foreign naniwa can win GSL.
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity.
As by way of introduction. I am also a high achiever within the cohort of other intelligent students within our law school. I have secured clerkships two years into my degree with the top four law firms in the country. I have worked with partners and senior associates which work on mining and energy, workplace relations, arbitration and litigation work within these firms. The transactional value of the work these lawyers 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.
A problem with lawyers is that they often write too much. A look at any basic court judgement will confirm this. However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. This will be my job. My career path will be such that I am the one who will adjudicate disputes. Please do not feel insulted if your views have been completely disregarded by me as being incorrect. I am not trying to be pretentious. However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
This whole section is the reason why no one chooses the lawyer. You come off very arrogant and you don't really prove why lawyers are useful. Also the last paragraph... lol.
The rest of the blog is too long, and the perspective you take on it is not appropriate for the situation. Again its sort of unclear as to what the purpose is, other than insulting everyone but yourself of course. Have you ever heard the saying 'If I had more time I would write you a shorter letter'?
Also the way you view people and education is very immature and hilarious.
Reading this blog was like playing a JRPG where you can't avoid random battles.
Where you can't avoid random battles and they happen every 3 seconds.
Where you can't avoid random battles and they happen every 3 seconds and you've reached the 50th floor of a basement labyrinth maze only to find an empty treasure chest and a locked door because you forgot to advance the plot 12 hours ago.
I read this entire post and at the end realized I was crying. At first I thought I was crying at how funny this troll was (getting all legalistic about Coco LOL), but then I realized I was crying because deep down I knew it was for real. Consequently, I had lost all hope in humanity.
I was in dential at first, so I had to make sure. I checked to see if his other posts were as ego filled and absurd as this one. He probably isn't so bad, right?
The other posts were even worse.
In this post he attempts to pass down "Commandments" to his chosen people. Narcissistic is an understatement. He is the epitome of what it is to have a god complex. This guy actually believes he is not only a perfect lawyer, but a perfect law giver as well. + Show Spoiler +
In response to some of the unfavorable comments left on Kyandid's controversial post. I decided to make a new one with some modifications with a glint of satire.
1. Thou Shall Not Post Thy Rank With Strategic Advice
Nobody knows how accurate advice is without knowing the qualification of the poster. Most people are comforted knowing that they are being given information by 'better' players.
It would certainly be anti-climatic to receive length advice, to try it, to find out it doesn't work and later realize that it was in fact provided by a someone from Bronze league.
State your rank first, your ladder position should reflect somewhat on people's reception to your advice and your relative skill level.
Conversely, thine advice shalt be the judge of thine advice's quality.
2. Thou Shall be entitled to post Replays Where You Win And Ask For Help
Not every game that is won is done so on your merit. A good player who wants to improve will criticize games that he has won, considering alternatives where things could have gone wrong. This is particularly important where you are trying a new build and considering whether it could be countered by another strategy. Of course, don't post replays where it is a simple two gate proxy rush or straight forward dt rush. We are talking about games like Jinro v OGS Top, where it extends to late game macro and where a number of pathways could have been taken differently to the one chosen and have led to a different result. A good player never gets too smug on winning.
3. Thou Shall Not Worry About Thy Rating
You put in the hard practice time, the gaming hours and the time on the forums reading. You've now sowed the produce of your hardwork. Why not show it off to your friends? After all, you've put in the miles and if the ladder ranking is some reflection of your accomplishments, than don't forget to mention it for credibility's sake. After all, would anyone read Kyandid post if it wasn't for his 3000+ master league ranking and his semi-professional wc3 career?
4. Thou Shall Cry 'Imbalance'
Tired of losing the last few consecutive games on battlenet? Sick of getting two rax rushed by Terran on close distances? Join the club, post on TL.net. Where nerds get together to vent their frustrations. We've all felt it before, and there needs to be a place where you can cool down from tilt and share it with your friends. After all, we all know that Starcraft 2 isn't balanced.
5. The Grass can be Greener
Some races are easier to play than others, *cough *cough Terran. But if you are a better player, you can overcome the imbalance. The quicker you accept it, the better you'll become. Or as Idra says, you can also give up your self respect and play Terran.
6. Thou Shalt Not Argue With Pros
This is self explanatory. Just as commandment one said, stating your rank gives you credibility. If masters league gives you some authority, than being a pro player gives you GREAT authority :D. This is not to say that pro-gamers can't be wrong, it just means its highly unlikely and most lower ranked players should refrain from commenting unless they are absolutely sure they are correct. But if they were absolutely sure, they wouldn't be so lowly ranked right? :D
7. Thou Shall Think Of SC2 Exclusively In Terms Of Unit Composition
Each element of SC2 needs to be thought of separately, and while mechanics are important, they are hard to teach on a forum. Here on TL, we teach you to think correctly. And unit composition, ceterus paribus is the crux of the game.
8. Thou Shalt Not Think Of SC2 Exclusively In Terms Of Counters
To be continued.... need to go out now Hope you guys enjoy!
In this post he attempts to tell IdrA how to win more effectively. He gives him a pep talk and imparts more of his genius lawyer wisdom upon the poor little Gracken. He basically tells IdrA to train more. + Show Spoiler +
On January 14 2011 21:51 RetFan wrote: Hi Idra,
now that you've got into the ro8, I think you should throw away your life and train your a ss off until the GSL is over.
Don't be proud of your achievements yet, the key to winning is to peak at the right time. This is true for many sports including weight lifting, badminton, etc. I think in terms of SC2, it should be no different.
This is what your fans have been waiting for all this time. Not necessarily to watch your stream (which is second best) but to watch you win the GSL. I really hope that you win and make all your fans including me, proud.
Work hand and achieve results! You haven't won anything until you've won the championship. There may be a lot of people out there praising you now but if you celebrate too quickly, you definitely will not win the tournament.
Have the mindset that nothing is for certain and that winning the next round is the only goal in this stage of your life and the past means nothing without absolute victory.
EPT
lexa
The point I'm making is basically on a strict sense that there needs to be a protection for programers from being arbitrarily punished at the whim of their team managers. 
thread for the ages.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3zUpl.jpg)
- I do have a stunning smile. Could use a knife on the island though.
