Cry E-lawyer.

[Neo Uruk]

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

I for one, would love to be called an e-lawyer, because, as Brandon Simonson said, it means you've beaten your opponent so bad with words that they can't comprehend what they've written anymore.

[Schattenmann]

Anyway I think all we've learned from this thread is that AlterEgo still retains his spot in the Hurr Chair. For whatever reason, AlterEgo, until someone else comes along, just expect people's replies to your threads/posts to amount to "hurrrrrr" until someone else to pick on comes along. You join an illustrious group; HeinousOne, James Dahl, myself, Slayer99, Walford etc etc. Soon enough someone else will get put into the Hurr Chair and you can go back to normal life.

[HeinousOne]

Anyway I think all we've learned from this thread is that AlterEgo still retains his spot in the Hurr Chair. For whatever reason, AlterEgo, until someone else comes along, just expect people's replies to your threads/posts to amount to "hurrrrrr" until someone else to pick on comes along. You join an illustrious group; HeinousOne, James Dahl, myself, Slayer99, Walford etc etc. Soon enough someone else will get put into the Hurr Chair and you can go back to normal life.

We really should vote on who is Chosen to take up that mantle.

[Ogaden]

Anyway I think all we've learned from this thread is that AlterEgo still retains his spot in the Hurr Chair. For whatever reason, AlterEgo, until someone else comes along, just expect people's replies to your threads/posts to amount to "hurrrrrr" until someone else to pick on comes along. You join an illustrious group; HeinousOne, James Dahl, myself, Slayer99, Walford etc etc. Soon enough someone else will get put into the Hurr Chair and you can go back to normal life.

I found my 'picking on' most amusing really, is heckling a boxer as he caves his opponent's head in 'picking' on him?

[HeinousOne]

I found my 'picking on' most amusing really, is heckling a boxer as he caves his opponent's head in 'picking' on him?

Sorry, you are not getting the chair back.

[Mirreille]

We really should vote on who is Chosen to take up that mantle.

So this "hurrrr" chair is like the siege perilous or something?

[Drostan]

Sorry, you are not getting the chair back.

With posts like that one, I wouldn't be too sure! There's always more room in the chair for James Dahl!

[Groucho Marx]

I like pie. E-Lawyer that if you can.

We really should vote on who is Chosen to take up that mantle.

Yeah. If only someone could like, make a poll to decide who got that mantle...but who on Planet Bob would do that?

Edited July 3, 2009 by Emperor Marx

[NoFish]

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.

Only e-laywers and bad posters dislike ad hominem attacks.

[Doitzel]

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.

It always worked for me. No wonder unemployment is so high these days. Damn labour laws.

[Näktergal]

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.

Yes, we absolutely are. And that time started at least three years ago.

Like it or not, to anyone who is paying attention, CN has always been like this. There have always been alliances who sign treaties and weasel out of them when convenient, just like there have always been alliances that will hold to their word even if it kills them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the number of people who seem willing to compromise their honor or principles for the sake of survival or power has always outnumbered those who felt that their word and their ideals were worth far more than their lives.

If it seems to you that the world has less honor today than it's had in the past, then I'm going to suggest that either your perspective is colored by your personal biases, your memories of the past and completely tainted by nostalgia, or you simply weren't paying attention.

These are dark times indeed; the abyss of anarchy looms close.

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned?

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.

And this tends to be one of the problems with CN politics, really. Most treaties are written, signed, interpreted, and enforced by people who have very little understanding of how real-world treaties or contract law actually works, and the obsession with following the letter of the law while folding, spindling, and mutilating the spirit of the agreement into oblivion basically turns global political interaction into little more than a farce.

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

The second one is absolutely E-lawyering, and represents one of the worst mentalities ever to enter the collective mind of CN politics - namely, the idea that the only way a war can be just or valid is if it's triggered by treaties. Never mind the fact that two alliances may be very friendly without ever actually signing a treaty, if someone attacks one and the other chooses to come to the aid of their friends, THEY are treated like scum. Even if the attacking alliance is doing so for spurious reasons, or for no reason at all. In CN, it's considered more honorable to let your friends die than it is to act without paper. And, quite franky, that's incredibly stupid.

Every alliance should feel free to take action if they feel action is justified. Whether that action is to defend a friend without a treaty, or to attack an alliance they feel is doing great evil even if they don't have a treaty with the victims, or even to stand against a growing power because they see a future threat against themselves developing. Alliances should be judged based on their actions, not whether or not they have a "permission slip" for those actions.

When it comes to the other two examples, the first one is more quibbling than anything (which means it sort of is E-lawyering), and the last one is really the only valid point. Though even that descends into E-lawyering when you get into squabbling over whether or not a treaty is technically being cancelled, or if the other party violated it first and broke the treaty.

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.

Personally, I'd rather that the CONCEPT of E-lawyering be consigned to history rather than simply the term. As long as people continue to exist who treat every single post, document, or statement as a puzzle to be unraveled and then used as a weapon against anyone they don't like, they should absolutely be called out for it.

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.

We don't, though I wish we did.

There is no reason why anyone should be required to produce documentation to justify who their friends are. During the course of my life, I've never been expected to write up contracts with every one of my friends, then post them publicly so the world can see the degree to which I'd be willing to help them during future crises. I don't have a MADP with my best friend and PIATs with work acquaintances.

A treaty is simply a contract formalizing the relationship that already exists between two alliances, or is purely a business deal between two alliances who feel they can benefit each other. That does not mean that two alliances cannot be extremely friendly without putting it to paper. Or that everyone should be barred from ever helping anyone without a binding contract compelling them to do so.

In a sense, what you're essentially arguing is akin to saying that no one should ever have sex before marriage. After all, their relationship isn't worth anything unless they have a contract to validate it.

And what makes it worse is that CN in general has accepted this model for ages. Everything not compulsory is forbidden!

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.

In a sense, in terms of contract law, the only people who have any right to care whether or not a treaty was broken, or what the terms are in the first place, are the people who signed it in the first place. When people who aren't in either alliance - and are at least two or three links in the treaty chain away from either - are fuming with righteous indignation, something has gone seriously wrong with the world.

About the only input outside parties should have at all is to see who broke the treaty, and why, so they can decide how trustworthy that alliance is to help decide whether or not they should sign a treaty with them in the future. Anything more than that - especially if you fly into a rage that makes it seem like the offending alliance came into your house and beat up your family - is absolutely E-lawyering.

The current obsession with E-lawyering probably never would have developed to the point it has if not for the tendency of alliances to sign almost any treaty offered to them, in the hopes that the more paper they have, the safer they'll be. Which is why the MDP web is such a mess, why even small sparks in the right place can trigger global wars, and why people are so willing to break treaties when they get drawn into wars essentially being forced to defend people they don't even care about (or actively dislike).

Anti-chaining clauses in treaties helped alleviate some of the pressure, but it's still a problem. And it will continue to be so, until people stop thinking that treaties should be the only justification for entering any war, or seeing them as a shortcut to power and political influence.

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.

I wouldn't take it as a point of pride. Mostly because it almost always tends to boil down to an obsessive focus on the literal interpretation of what is being said rather than the actual intended meaning. It's the letter of the law versus the spirit of it, and usually ceases to even be about the point in question, as much as it becomes an opportunity to score points off the other person. Most arguments about treaties or politics in CN is less about an objective interpretation of events, and more about a massive PR campaign to demonize anyone on the other side of the line from you.

Here's something I was told many years ago, and I absolutely agree with it. Winning a debate doesn't mean you're right, or that you've proved your point. It just means you're better at arguing than the other person.

I have absolutely seen examples - both in real life and on these boards - of people whose stance is correct, but who essentially lose the argument anyway because the person they were arguing against was far more eloquent, skilled at debate, and able to set verbal traps for the unwary. It's like asking someone "Yes or no answers only - have you stopped beating your wife yet?" No matter what they answer, you've won.

I should point you guys over to the FCC forums, where they're currently having an argument over whether or not logic is a valid means of deductive reasoning. So far, they've apparently demonstrated that every member of the alliance is a goat.

[Qaianna]

Only e-laywers and bad posters dislike ad hominem attacks.

Good thing for me I said I just dislike the trend, then. I'd hate to be an e-laywer. I'll have to concede 'bad poster', tho--I think that's where I got my avatar from. At least, it was the worst one I could find given the requirements.

(And yes, I also dislike true ad hominem attacks. I just wanted to e-lawyer first.)

[KingSuck]

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.

Pretty much this, you know you're on to something when the best your opponent can come up with is to call you an e-lawyer

[NoFish]

Pretty much this, you know you're on to something when the best your opponent can come up with is to call you an e-lawyer

Unfortunately that thing you're on to might just happen to be e-lawyering.

[Beauty]

Who said E-Lawyering was bad?

[NoFish]

Who said E-Lawyering was bad?

E-lawyering is a method of ignoring the spirit of an argument and attacking it on semantic grounds. See the problem yet?

[HeinousOne]

I like pie. E-Lawyer that if you can.

Yeah. If only someone could like, make a poll to decide who got that mantle...but who on Planet Bob would do that?

If it happened once it would probably happen too often.

[White Chocolate]

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.

Interesting read, but I'm not sure what point you're making. You start out saying "There is a problem on Bob today..." and then go on to say that it isn't "e-lawyering." Okay - what is the problem? Are you saying the problem is alliances not keeping their word?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing - just trying to figure out what you think IS the problem.

[Qaianna]

Interesting read, but I'm not sure what point you're making. You start out saying "There is a problem on Bob today..." and then go on to say that it isn't "e-lawyering." Okay - what is the problem? Are you saying the problem is alliances not keeping their word?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing - just trying to figure out what you think IS the problem.

Think his issue is the use of 'e-lawyer' as a retort when an argument starts turning against someone.

[Heft]

E-Lawyering is attempting to dodge issues or actions or arguments by finagling a convoluted excuse. Generally it involves misrepresenting what the meaning or intent of words actually are and twisting them to a new purpose. Yes, it is a bad thing.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I nominate Naktergal's post for "best post no one read because they don't have the equivalent of a high school education" award for this month.

Of course, she usually wins.

[Wilhelm the Demented]

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.

I think he was talking about the guy who posted before him in the thread >_>

ie:

You are an E-lawyer

I could be wrong.

[Bumpy]

I nominate Naktergal's post for "best post no one read because they don't have the equivalent of a high school education" award for this month.

Of course, she usually wins.

No surprises there. The lady is so far above the tl:dr crowd that she might as well be speaking a completely different language....See? she's using actual English!

[baha24]

Wern't you being an E-Lawyer in our Triumvir thread?

[Logan]

I nominate Naktergal's post for "best post no one read because they don't have the equivalent of a high school education" award for this month.

Of course, she usually wins.

Yeah she nailed pretty much every point I thought. Especially this:

Here's something I was told many years ago, and I absolutely agree with it. Winning a debate doesn't mean you're right, or that you've proved your point. It just means you're better at arguing than the other person.

The E-Lawyering trend that has been going on lately is highly annoying. You can usually identify them by how they attack the words said, not what they meant. Also I agree, anyone who even considers themselves an E-Lawyer is probably just a bad poster.