|
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.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
In Korea betting is illegal, here is relevant threads: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=130217 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=125601
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
|
United Kingdom3249 Posts
On November 16 2011 20:49 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +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 20:56 Porcelina wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 20:49 Gnial wrote: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. Hahaha THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Hi Brett,
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.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
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.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 16 2011 21:02 blah_blah wrote:Show nested quote +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. Isn't ANU top 50?
|
70th according to the 2011 rankings.
|
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.
|
United Kingdom3249 Posts
On November 16 2011 18:18 Porcelina wrote: I have high hopes for this...blog.
It is always nice to not be disappointed.
|
On November 16 2011 21:38 Porcelina wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 18:18 Porcelina wrote: I have high hopes for this...blog.
It is always nice to not be disappointed.
=D
|
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 21:38 Porcelina wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
BlahBlah,
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.
|
|
|
|