Jump to content

Cry E-lawyer.


Alterego
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is a problem on Bob today. This problem infects every facet of our society and is a constant source of annoyance for the different peoples on Bob. This problem is not E-lawyering.

We live in a time where peoples word is no longer important, a world where people commit to something in as vague a manner as possible or they just tear up what was once promised. These are dark times indeed; the abyss of anarchy looms close. This anarchy has its champions and the weapon of these champions is to cry E-lawyering.

When an alliance wheels out a shiny new treaty the peoples of Bob read the treaty to understand the mechanisms behind its words. How is it activated? when are these new allies in breach of their agreed rules? What does it mean to the other allies of the two nations and the world in general? Similar analysis is done on declarations of war and all other important documents and posts released by alliances.

When it becomes inconvenient to an alliance or when they break their own word by their actions and people point this out then the propaganda tool of calling people E-lawyers and ignoring the issue they pointed out is put into action. Its the "witch" or "communist" label of planet Bob. eg: dont listen to him, hes an E-lawyer lol

That’s not a PIAT. Response: You are an E-lawyer

You attacked on their behalf with no treaty. Response: You are an E-lawyer

You are supposed to give 48 hours notice to drop a treaty. Response: You are an E-lawyer

Its time the E-lawyer tag was consigned to history and the people who use it as a propaganda tool are seen for what they are, people caught with their pants down and looking to deflect the spotlight on to the person who caught them. We already live in a world where people go to war because of a “friendship” that wasn’t important enough to tell the world about before a war. In such circumstances or others like it should the cry of E-lawyer suddenly make the issue disappear? The next time you hear someone cry E-lawyer think about the question posed and not the label used against the person.

E-lawyer: A person who reads and analyses the content of other people’s or alliances posts.

E-lawyering: The act of analysing the information people or alliances post in order to better understand their position.

The definitions of E-laywer and E-lawyering are based on my understanding of the terms. If you don’t agree with them I will call you an E-lawyer. ;)

Discuss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is a problem on Bob today. This problem infects every facet of our society and is a constant source of annoyance for the different peoples on Bob. This problem is not E-lawyering.

Yes it is E-lawyering. People who split hairs like that suck all the life and fun out of the game.

This is a terrible thread and I am not coming back, good day sir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are an E-lawyer

but seriously is this in response to legion & polars treaty| i meant to say posts in that thread in response to the treaty :P

Its definitely nothing to do with that treaty. Its more to do with the overuse of people calling others E-lawyers and ignoring issues that have been raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you're a terrible poster.

Did you learn your morality on the playgrounds of your youth and never grew up.Attack the content of the post with reason or learn that like most bullies your wit will get you high fives from the goons of the playground but there are those who are aware that replies like yours are logically null.

Edited by Yggdrazil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CN is in fact showing that treaties are not as meaningful as they pose to be and what goes is what is more comfortable for the given alliance. There is only a handful of people who's word is worth the "e-paper" it was written on and their signature actually means anything. Call them out on that and you are e-lawyering.

Nobody likes to be called out on a promise being broken as it hurts their ego and their sense of self-righteousness. As such it ruins the game for the people who should've never been trusted in the first place.

Then again their are those who tend to take a vague treaty and troll others by trying to enforce their interpretation as the one and only right understanding of the written word, even if parties involved both have different opinion. Then i would agree that e-lawyering shows its harmful face.

E-lawyering isn't bad, but can be used badly. Still what is even worse is using the e-lawyering tag to legitimise the fact you just broke your word. And you are worth as much as your word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't get it? Why is this a bad post?

I don't care if he's a bad poster or if it's seen as bad to be agreeing with him, but what's wrong with this post?

Yeah, I'd have to agree with Johnny here. This isn't a bad post. I have seen the word pop up from time to time but I have not read enough to see if it is is a problem or not. However, that does not mean that this is a bad post.

Edited by kulomascovia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an e-lawyer... because I failed the real life barr exam. :(

One could argue that perhaps it is time for the age of CN where you needed a treaty to enter a war to come to a close. Perhaps people should only sign treaties with their closest friends but then be free to support causes they feel are just.

Playing the way you promote just leads to everyone having a treaty with everyone they've ever spoken to and not hated and this game becomes really boring. I don't think it is hypocritical that an alliance would declare in defense of another alliance they are not treatied with especially if that alliance faces overwhelming odds.

People should stop forcing alliances to sign massive treaty webs with alliances they're not even that close to simply because it has become 'good form' in cybernations to do so.

Anyway, just a sort of counter point to your e-lawyer hate-mongering.

EDIT: I also highly doubt that a lot of people remember that someone was once called an e-lawyer and thus disregard all their subsequent criticisms because... you know, that's guy's an e-lawyer... or so I've heard.

Edited by Drostan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a problem on Bob today. This problem infects every facet of our society and is a constant source of annoyance for the different peoples on Bob. This problem is not E-lawyering.

We live in a time where peoples word is no longer important, a world where people commit to something in as vague a manner as possible or they just tear up what was once promised. These are dark times indeed; the abyss of anarchy looms close. This anarchy has its champions and the weapon of these champions is to cry E-lawyering.

When an alliance wheels out a shiny new treaty the peoples of Bob read the treaty to understand the mechanisms behind its words. How is it activated? when are these new allies in breach of their agreed rules? What does it mean to the other allies of the two nations and the world in general? Similar analysis is done on declarations of war and all other important documents and posts released by alliances.

When it becomes inconvenient to an alliance or when they break their own word by their actions and people point this out then the propaganda tool of calling people E-lawyers and ignoring the issue they pointed out is put into action. Its the "witch" or "communist" label of planet Bob. eg: dont listen to him, hes an E-lawyer lol

That’s not a PIAT. Response: You are an E-lawyer

You attacked on their behalf with no treaty. Response: You are an E-lawyer

You are supposed to give 48 hours notice to drop a treaty. Response: You are an E-lawyer

Its time the E-lawyer tag was consigned to history and the people who use it as a propaganda tool are seen for what they are, people caught with their pants down and looking to deflect the spotlight on to the person who caught them. We already live in a world where people go to war because of a “friendship” that wasn’t important enough to tell the world about before a war. In such circumstances or others like it should the cry of E-lawyer suddenly make the issue disappear? The next time you hear someone cry E-lawyer think about the question posed and not the label used against the person.

E-lawyer: A person who reads and analyses the content of other people’s or alliances posts.

E-lawyering: The act of analysing the information people or alliances post in order to better understand their position.

The definitions of E-laywer and E-lawyering are based on my understanding of the terms. If you don’t agree with them I will call you an E-lawyer. ;)

Discuss

2 out of 3 of your examples are e-lawyering. If I want to call a treaty a PIAT then it is a PIAT regardless fo the wording. It may function like something else but I get to name it not you and it isn't as if the text is hidden so arguing over the treaty title is pointless.

You shouldn't need a treaty to attack on anyone's behalf, if you feel going to war to defend or assist someone is the right thing to do then you should be able to do it regardless of obligation. You re trying to apply a concept of law to the way alliances can handle their affairs by dictating that they can only join a war if they are obligated to do so and that is e-lawyering.

the 48 hour thing isn't e-lawyering if the treaty says 48 hours you should wait 48 hours because that is what you are obligated to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't like the way CyberNations functions, do something about it. Posting a heinous wall-o-text doesn't constitute 'doing something', by the way.

I should get an E-Lawyer and sue in Internet court you for the hour of my life you wasted in the five minutes I spent reading this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't like the way CyberNations functions, do something about it. Posting a heinous wall-o-text doesn't constitute 'doing something', by the way.

Yeah!

No one cares about bigass walls of texts that do nothing but explain your grievance and threaten impotently.

Clearly doing so is just attention whoring.

/irony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 out of 3 of your examples are e-lawyering. If I want to call a treaty a PIAT then it is a PIAT regardless fo the wording. It may function like something else but I get to name it not you and it isn't as if the text is hidden so arguing over the treaty title is pointless.

You shouldn't need a treaty to attack on anyone's behalf, if you feel going to war to defend or assist someone is the right thing to do then you should be able to do it regardless of obligation. You re trying to apply a concept of law to the way alliances can handle their affairs by dictating that they can only join a war if they are obligated to do so and that is e-lawyering.

the 48 hour thing isn't e-lawyering if the treaty says 48 hours you should wait 48 hours because that is what you are obligated to do.

Treaties of course help declare it a bit openly. It says (theoretically) that 'We like alliance X. Don't mess with them or you mess with us.' Granted, they only last so long ('Alliance X, why aren't you returning my phone calls? And we really need our lawnmower back..').

The general thrust of the original post it seems is that 'e-lawyer' is becoming a slur word, used to disparage the person instead of the argument. Somewhat like 'bad poster'. Either way, I do dislike the trend towards ad hominem attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a problem on Bob today. This problem infects every facet of our society and is a constant source of annoyance for the different peoples on Bob. This problem is not E-lawyering.

We live in a time where peoples word is no longer important, a world where people commit to something in as vague a manner as possible or they just tear up what was once promised. These are dark times indeed; the abyss of anarchy looms close. This anarchy has its champions and the weapon of these champions is to cry E-lawyering.

When an alliance wheels out a shiny new treaty the peoples of Bob read the treaty to understand the mechanisms behind its words. How is it activated? when are these new allies in breach of their agreed rules? What does it mean to the other allies of the two nations and the world in general? Similar analysis is done on declarations of war and all other important documents and posts released by alliances.

When it becomes inconvenient to an alliance or when they break their own word by their actions and people point this out then the propaganda tool of calling people E-lawyers and ignoring the issue they pointed out is put into action. Its the "witch" or "communist" label of planet Bob. eg: dont listen to him, hes an E-lawyer lol

That's not a PIAT. Response: You are an E-lawyer

You attacked on their behalf with no treaty. Response: You are an E-lawyer

You are supposed to give 48 hours notice to drop a treaty. Response: You are an E-lawyer

Its time the E-lawyer tag was consigned to history and the people who use it as a propaganda tool are seen for what they are, people caught with their pants down and looking to deflect the spotlight on to the person who caught them. We already live in a world where people go to war because of a "friendship" that wasn't important enough to tell the world about before a war. In such circumstances or others like it should the cry of E-lawyer suddenly make the issue disappear? The next time you hear someone cry E-lawyer think about the question posed and not the label used against the person.

E-lawyer: A person who reads and analyses the content of other people's or alliances posts.

E-lawyering: The act of analysing the information people or alliances post in order to better understand their position.

The definitions of E-laywer and E-lawyering are based on my understanding of the terms. If you don't agree with them I will call you an E-lawyer. ;)

Discuss

cool story bro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take being called a e-lawyer as a point of pride. It usually means people are unable to come up with a good rebuttal or are tired of arguing an issue and just want it to go away.

If you don't want me to point out the logical inconsistencies in your actions, don't make it obvious. Otherwise, it's a great time killer and entertaining to see how people like to squirm when they get called out on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't like the way CyberNations functions, do something about it. Posting a heinous wall-o-text doesn't constitute 'doing something', by the way.

I should get an E-Lawyer and sue in Internet court you for the hour of my life you wasted in the five minutes I spent reading this thread.

I take exception. I do not post wall-o-texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. I'm glad that you don't, or I probably wouldn't admire you from afar as often <_<

I am glad you enjoy but if he does not change such soon he is going to hear from my e-lawyer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...