We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
When did raising a genuine concern, or highlighting a concerning pattern become 'trollish'?
In any case, if the facts are accepted as is, and the observations made therefrom are reasonable, then what part of the comment remained 'unnecessary' anyway?! And even if you personally disagree with the characterisation, how did that in itself become reason for deeming it 'trollish'?!
By this logic, a majority of comments on LI should be marked trollish!
Respectfully, this moderation appears preposterous.
- R
I would genuinely want to know how anyone reached that conclusion!
The instance I described speaks to the general trend of questionable decisions of the admin whose new decision is the issue raised by OP here, and is thus, clearly relevant enough to not be deemed 'trollish' here.
Further, every word written in the comment is true to the extent that it can be verified by a simple Google search - with LI's investigative posts of the past itself serving as substantiation! In fact, the mismanagement under NUALS administration was such that an entire panel was created by the SC under Justice Hariharan Nair to look into the matter - with the panel finding several faults & defects in the conduct of the exam! [ https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/nation/news-detail-603154/ ]
As for NUALS' decision of going for a cheaper technology provider and its changed interface instead of the standard service provider, they went for Sify instead of TCS, and even this information is available - for example on Bar & Bench [ https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/technical-glitches-mar-conduct-clat-2018-across-country/ ].
As for the VC's comments effectively dismissing concerns, her comments were in fact given in an interview with LI [ https://www.legallyindia.com/pre-law-student/clat-2018-90-smooth-says-nuals-kochi-remaining-10-of-the-59300-candidates-devastated-20180514-9342/ ] and an analysis of her insensitive & "shameful" responses can be found on Lawctopus [ https://www.lawctopus.com/why-nuals-vc-prof-rose-vargheses-response-on-clat-2018-is-false-and-shameful/ ].
Apart from NUALS administration's lack of foresight & insensitivity, the only other claim was with respect to how their decision to reopen amidst demonstrated rising COVID cases 'toys with life'. I'm sure that this needs no further substantiation in any case, unless this was moderated with an anti-vaxx motive.
In this light, given that my comment is substantiated from LI posts itself, the only way in which one could reasonably moderate my comment as trollish is if LI's own posts in the past were trollish. I'm sure the same wasn't the intended perspective, in which case, R, I would request you to remove the trollish moderation from the earlier comment.
R is a Kerala Lefty Communist and LI as a platform doesn't like any comment against puppet masters.
Im talking abt 2025 and 2026 batch
God save NUALS
Mathrubhumi reporting that there would be 25,000 cases per day in Kerala if the spread isn't contained. It's decisions like the ones taken by the NUALS admin which will increase numbers and harm innocent civilian lives around the campus as well. Completely avoidable situation.
GNLU has opened up on a voluntary basis with a detailed SOP in place, along with floor isolation, dedicated isolation wards, RTPCR testing facilities and various other checks and balances in place for the safety of the students.
The attendance has not been made mandatory and it is solely upto the discretion of the student to do as they deem right.
Tujhe nahi aana toh mat aa na, ghar pe baith aur yaha pe aise hi hate kar dusro ko.
R, please do a preliminary check before allowing such comments.
The username of the person involves the name of a batchmate of mine alongwith derogatory terms used beside it.
Please prevent this vile moron from posting any of his venom here.
Those who are okay with the risk, may come. Their parents should also agree as admin wants a consent form from their parents as well.
Those, who don't want that risk, may opt not to come to campus. College is not even asking for Mess and Hostel fees from them. Classes are anyways going to be online.
If you don't want to go, don't. But stop complaining about every single thing. Although, I am not a big supporter of GNLU admin but they have done nothing wrong here. When admin is right, we should support it and not put irrelevant and stupid comments here on legally India.
I took CLAT the year NUALS organised it - I remember what an absolute disaster the organisation was, how they chose to go with a cheaper technology service provider while charging the same money, and how the resultant time & technical glitches ruined the exam of thousands of people. But among other things, what I remember most strongly - in spite of the fact that I ultimately made to a T1 - was the fact that the VC gave a statement effectively dismissing any concerns with a 'we did a great job' attitude.
Back then, they only ruined exams. Now, they're toying with lives with such a reckless compulsory reopening. Things REALLY need to change there.
We opened up in optional hybrid mode in November last week. Covid outbreak in Dec. Then the entire hostel went into quarantine mode and it ended with 5 people getting infected from each other. They all recovered just one or two weeks back.
This really looks like a gamble again as they're opening again compulsorily now. They can keep it optional and allow whoever wants to attend no. No objections to that. I haven't even got both my doses.
Also, my advice is twofold. Firstly, don't freak out before your parents, this makes them nervous and worsens the situation. Secondly, if you are genuinely hellishly freaked out even now, then mail the admin and ask for an exception, citing some family member's medical condition which needs care (mandating your presence at home).