Not funny, kid. Not only is your moderation snail-slow and biased, you've also taken it upon yourself to be the voice of the wokerati on this site (you're not) and have opinions on every topic that isn't remotely related to the legal field.
Thanks to your pathetic moderation skills, this half-defunct website has descended further into discussing irrelevant topics that are trollish and essentially, self-promoting by name (look at the cheap thread on Indian intellectuals who compare with their Western counterparts). I can't believe we'd rather have R back.
Actually, quite funny. When moderator asks questions that trolls have no answers to / try to rein in untruths, trolls get into ad hominem. Don't shoot the messenger, write more intelligent messages. 🙏
Buddy, you're the one that first publishes threads on meaningless topics that are political in nature and are not meant to reach any informed agreement between two opposing sides. And a majority of those have no relevance to legal news or law schools. We always see some shitty threads on things like Gen Z behaviour, some crap on GNLU's 2024 batch that no one outside GNLU cares for, constant PR nonsense by some JGLS trolls and now, Bollywood and Hollywood movies and music preferences. Honestly, law school rankings had more relevance than all this.
If you're such a good troll-detector, then don't publish such pointless threads and then use them for the self-promotion of your personal ideologies. I don't get why I have to tell you this, but when you're moderating, you might want to avoid expressing all of your personal views on an issue and then also being the arbiter deciding which arguments are trollish. Use another ID or reveal your real identity like Kian did. That'll make people stop engaging in ad hominem arguments against you.
[1] I feel that the platform should have a space for people who are genuinely in a spirit of discussion rather than being agenda driven (a thin line to point out). Obviously as a moderator you would've a bias while considering the comments to be trollish or not but what we can expect is a neutral tone that is intended to spark a healthy exchange of thoughts. [2] I agree with 'Alias' 100%. As of now you're representing LI as platform not your anonymous self, there is a difference. I don't think you would have to sacrifice your anonymity to express your views, you can simply make another account (with an Alias) if that's possible or comment like everyone else with as much opinion as you want.
If you ask me, my best guess would be that it's Kian himself. I can also back my claim to a certain extent, as: 1. R previously mentioned that Kian sporadically moderates the comments while handling the administrative part of LI. (Thread attached above) 2. I suspect that the reason R signed off every comment he made was to differentiate himself from Kian, as Kian didn't. And just after R went inactive the new mod didn't adopt the signing off method which was an already established one. 3. The mod seems to be well-versed with western politics and has been quite active in sharing his insight whenever these topics pop-up, which would happen only if the moderator is comfortable with audience he is interacting with. (Not a strong point but one to consider) 4. If you check Kian's profile, it's not like he has been inactive, he has logged in on October itself. 5. The moderator previously stated that he is not a law student, meaning that he has graduated. To hire someone who has already graduated would require a good monetary backing but Legally India as of now has no revenue streams apart from selling a few cookies. It seems highly implausible that he would hire someone to do the job which requires barely half an hour. And no one who is getting paid would be this lazy to moderate. 6. The usual moderation timing in India is around 5:00 AM (GMT +5). From the lifestyle of an Indian corporate lawyer it seems the least possible time to moderate. While in UK the time would be around 12:00 PM (GMT +0) which is quite a perfect time to moderate after doing your daily job.
At this point, we don't feel there is a strong argument to be made for moderators not to have or share their opinions: after all, wouldn't you rather know why your post might be moderated as trollish rather than moderators operating in the shadows and secretly?
Second, some topics simply get no responses or engagement. LI is supposed to be a platform for the open exchange and discussion of ideas. When no one responds, just like in a political panel debate, it should be the moderator's job to play devil's advocate or provide a counterpoint. If the counterparty fails to engage, the moderator should terminate the discussion or at least not invite them back to the table in future.
Some pathetic, biased woke guy is now the moderator. He has no sense of ethics or responsibility. He censors and allows comments based on his ideology. Kian was a much better and balanced moderator.
I feel something is seriously wrong with LI moderation. Some of my posts on my ex-firm have not been published and many of the comments get moderated out. But anything which is posted in favour of that firm is always allowed, not matter how blatantly false or trollish it may be.
E.g. I posted about some seditious activities of ▮▮▮ of that firm, it was not even published.
This is not a matter for laughs given that there are not too many forums for us to expose what goes in the law firms.
Sharpen your skills and work hard to build a great life 4 yourself instead of wasting ur time on foolish quests like "expose what goes on in law firms".
Mod: Mixed feelings - Thanks for publishing my comment, but why did you redact the phrase between the two 'of'? I named neither the person nor the firm. I merely mentioned the postion in the unnamed firm and the relationship to the unnamed person of that unnamed firm. Can you please explain the reason for redacting as I am at a loss as to why?
Thanks for your response but your post - between the name of the firm in your username and the redacted details in the post - were clearly intended to make an accusation of sedition against an identifiable individual.
Dear Mod - my user name does not identify any firm. How can 'X of Y of firm' identify any individual (X being relationship and Y being title)? There are hundreds of such X of Y of firm. If you look at my post that you declined to publish there was no accusation of sedition but a link that provided evidence of such conduct. It is your right to allow/disallow posts. However, it is excessive to redact comments when for a general reader they don't identify anyone and it is only you who is aware of the identity because you know the truth.
I can also point out to serveral comments that LI has allowed in the past without any verification or redaction that clearly identified certain individual against whom this same firm was making slanderous accusations.
If your post was not about identifying anyone and, as you say, there was no risk that anyone could have identified anyone from your post, then that's still the same case after redactions, right?
Question is not what I lost due to redaction, but what did you gain? Basically, I am unable to understand what purpose did that redaction serve? I might even argue that redaction is making my comment open for crazy interpretation - the missing phrase can be imagined to be anything!
I also see that you have carefully avoided responding to:
Quote:
I can also point out to serveral comments that LI has allowed in the past without any verification or redaction that clearly identified certain individual against whom this same firm was making slanderous accusations.
This is not the first time posts on the same purported 'sedition' issue were made, with or without naming names. The post was already trollish the first time, and this was an attempt to continue with apparent intent to somehow eventually reveal the identity of the person, as there would have been no other reason to make that post otherwise (with or without redaction).
Regarding your second point, we probably can't really discuss this in an open forum without it resulting in revealing exactly the information which you accepted does not need to be published.
Dear Mod - you are a politician for sure. As only a politician can avoid the main issues as you do. But you are the powers to be and there is only so much I can argue with you given the power asymmetry.
Having said that, I find your justification for redacting the innocuous part of my comment on this thread that I had posted a discussion thread on a sedition issue without any substance. When you did not allow that discussion thread to be published in the first place, then where is the question of LI readers to relate my comment with that post, and how can my comment be seen as revealing the identity?
Of course you have clearly stated that you will not answer my second point :)
The LI moderator is biased af. I posted an article on the political backlash to Mamata's attendance at the NUJS convo. I uploaded news footage from major media houses like ABP, Zee and Republic, which interviewed senior Members of Parliament across party lines (Congress, Left, BJP) who attacked Mamata's speech. The Left MP (who is also a Senior Advocate) accused Mamata of misusing the platform of a public university and trying to influence Justice Lalit and the Cal HC CJ.
The moderator has blacked out my post, just because it does not suit his agenda of showing only the RW in bad light, no other party. LOL. What a complete 💩 and 🤡.
But thanks for your comment, which has highlighted that we should moderate this kind of content more strictly, since it's progenitors are clearly trollish who indulge in ad hominem.
Dear LI mod who is not R or Kian, kindly release this.
For the past few days, this new mod has been indulging in excessive moderation and biased politics as is quite apparent from the comment section, and the weird topics climbing to the top of the conversations list. This website is already degraded and has become a troll website where anyone could anonymously write any crap, and the mod is doing absolutely nothing about it other than taking strong positions and dirty politics which could only be considered as a Misuse of Power. Hence I think we should petition to change this mod
You want more moderation and censorship of political trolls so they don't even appear in the conversation list to climb, or you want less censorship but without snarky responses?
Thanks to your pathetic moderation skills, this half-defunct website has descended further into discussing irrelevant topics that are trollish and essentially, self-promoting by name (look at the cheap thread on Indian intellectuals who compare with their Western counterparts). I can't believe we'd rather have R back.
Actually, quite funny. When moderator asks questions that trolls have no answers to / try to rein in untruths, trolls get into ad hominem. Don't shoot the messenger, write more intelligent messages. 🙏
If you're such a good troll-detector, then don't publish such pointless threads and then use them for the self-promotion of your personal ideologies. I don't get why I have to tell you this, but when you're moderating, you might want to avoid expressing all of your personal views on an issue and then also being the arbiter deciding which arguments are trollish. Use another ID or reveal your real identity like Kian did. That'll make people stop engaging in ad hominem arguments against you.
Second: if everyone else can comment anonymously on LI, why can't LI moderator?
[2] I agree with 'Alias' 100%. As of now you're representing LI as platform not your anonymous self, there is a difference. I don't think you would have to sacrifice your anonymity to express your views, you can simply make another account (with an Alias) if that's possible or comment like everyone else with as much opinion as you want.
That's quite an interesting question OP. You guys could use try guessing it like when we used to guess R's identify.
Relevant Threads:
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/190826-who-is-r
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/188774-who-is-r
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/200888-way-to-figure-out-who-r-is [This is one of my favourite threads. Here R actively participated in the thread by marking the incorrect comments as 'contested', fun right?]
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/211730-the-r-mystery
If you ask me, my best guess would be that it's Kian himself. I can also back my claim to a certain extent, as:
1. R previously mentioned that Kian sporadically moderates the comments while handling the administrative part of LI. (Thread attached above)
2. I suspect that the reason R signed off every comment he made was to differentiate himself from Kian, as Kian didn't. And just after R went inactive the new mod didn't adopt the signing off method which was an already established one.
3. The mod seems to be well-versed with western politics and has been quite active in sharing his insight whenever these topics pop-up, which would happen only if the moderator is comfortable with audience he is interacting with. (Not a strong point but one to consider)
4. If you check Kian's profile, it's not like he has been inactive, he has logged in on October itself.
5. The moderator previously stated that he is not a law student, meaning that he has graduated. To hire someone who has already graduated would require a good monetary backing but Legally India as of now has no revenue streams apart from selling a few cookies. It seems highly implausible that he would hire someone to do the job which requires barely half an hour. And no one who is getting paid would be this lazy to moderate.
6. The usual moderation timing in India is around 5:00 AM (GMT +5). From the lifestyle of an Indian corporate lawyer it seems the least possible time to moderate. While in UK the time would be around 12:00 PM (GMT +0) which is quite a perfect time to moderate after doing your daily job.
You might be interested in the following discussion on moderation going on at the moment: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/242082#comment-242180
At this point, we don't feel there is a strong argument to be made for moderators not to have or share their opinions: after all, wouldn't you rather know why your post might be moderated as trollish rather than moderators operating in the shadows and secretly?
Second, some topics simply get no responses or engagement. LI is supposed to be a platform for the open exchange and discussion of ideas. When no one responds, just like in a political panel debate, it should be the moderator's job to play devil's advocate or provide a counterpoint. If the counterparty fails to engage, the moderator should terminate the discussion or at least not invite them back to the table in future.
E.g. I posted about some seditious activities of ▮▮▮ of that firm, it was not even published.
This is not a matter for laughs given that there are not too many forums for us to expose what goes in the law firms.
I can also point out to serveral comments that LI has allowed in the past without any verification or redaction that clearly identified certain individual against whom this same firm was making slanderous accusations.
I also see that you have carefully avoided responding to:
Quote:
Regarding your second point, we probably can't really discuss this in an open forum without it resulting in revealing exactly the information which you accepted does not need to be published.
Having said that, I find your justification for redacting the innocuous part of my comment on this thread that I had posted a discussion thread on a sedition issue without any substance. When you did not allow that discussion thread to be published in the first place, then where is the question of LI readers to relate my comment with that post, and how can my comment be seen as revealing the identity?
Of course you have clearly stated that you will not answer my second point :)
The moderator has blacked out my post, just because it does not suit his agenda of showing only the RW in bad light, no other party. LOL. What a complete 💩 and 🤡.
But thanks for your comment, which has highlighted that we should moderate this kind of content more strictly, since it's progenitors are clearly trollish who indulge in ad hominem.
For the past few days, this new mod has been indulging in excessive moderation and biased politics as is quite apparent from the comment section, and the weird topics climbing to the top of the conversations list.
This website is already degraded and has become a troll website where anyone could anonymously write any crap, and the mod is doing absolutely nothing about it other than taking strong positions and dirty politics which could only be considered as a Misuse of Power.
Hence I think we should petition to change this mod