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?
Taking "it's not a bug it's a feature" to an all new level.
You think immediate replies would make it like a WhatsApp chat -- have you ever been on ANY message board/forum on the internet, like, ever??
Any thoughts?
Comparatively, the site is shit now. Just get more mods if you're understaffed. Volunteers. It's free. At least the site won't stay unupdated for 30+ hours at a stretch ffs
If you try doing it on the older interface, it'll show 'not found'. I hope it help :)
But as of late, the platform can be seen publishing the most deranged posts...from the ego battles of various law schools, the oddest worries of batch of 2023 and the craziest one as of late was about someone armpit fetish...all of this brings into question the legitimacy of the role of the moderator.
Kindly do better and maintain the dignity of this forum.
Nuance is lost on you.
I am glad I could trigger the rw snowflake that you are though. Ta.
If the above comment which had no reason to be shat out onto the public sphere can be published, so should this.
Only thing worth censoring is woke-ism. Woke-ism is cancer.
The Gita says so.
They can obviously improve on certain aspects but that shouldn't make us ungrateful.
I do not accuse you of any such thing - I am merely trying to inform you of the poor perception this creates amongst those who find themselves at odds with your political bent or moderation style.
Now onto the main question - Do I have disagreements about the mods' ideological leanings or efficiency and speed? Perhaps. But AI? I like human mods better - they can be reasoned with, persuaded, understood at a human level, and held accountable. AI is no substitute. Only those who are unwitting and recent passengers on the hype train and do not grasp the technical as well as philosophical problems with AI 'overlords' would suggest such a thing. In fact, ideally there should be as little technology at play as possible (to maximise the human element). If it were practical, I would prefer a weekly face-to-face informal discussions to a website.
Please do share ideas for moderation rules the new Woke AI Overlord should follow. We are thinking of going with:
1. Be kind.
2. Be honest.
3. Be helpful.
Ps: As an update, we're also looking at