Cry E-lawyer.

[Qaianna]

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

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.

In all seriousness, there are some who attack the word of a discussion mainly because those are the means of conveying the point. If I wrote a treaty that said 'We will think about defending Ally X', then people would likely take 'think about' to mean 'only when convenient'. And unless that treaty's an ODP, that isn't really the best way to convey what's intended.

That being said, I would say that there is a place for proofreading, even if it's on-the-fly proofreading. But there's a fine line between that and just being an annoying jerk.

Edit: There's also the issue of using 'e-lawyer' as a slur to quiet down the helpful comments, or the disagreeing ones, in order to tarnish the poster as 'nothing more than some sleazeball'. Again, that is the point of the original post: not being one, but using it as a slur against the good posters.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Qaianna

[raincoat2]

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.

The problem is you only read the first few lines of the post instead of the entire thing.

[Heft]

Edit: There's also the issue of using 'e-lawyer' as a slur to quiet down the helpful comments, or the disagreeing ones, in order to tarnish the poster as 'nothing more than some sleazeball'. Again, that is the point of the original post: not being one, but using it as a slur against the good posters.

That may be true, but that happens with most anything. Most people don't even bother to go that far, and instead just dismiss someone's comments because they're part of an alliance they don't like (i.e, pretty much anything posted by a Pacific member, no matter who they are or what it is - other examples too, but that's the most blatant and current one).

Chances are if people are constantly calling you an e-lawyer, then the problem might actually lie with you.

[Requia]

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.

Wait, so if somebody breaks a treaty, and I point out the treaty they signed said they need 48 hours notice. That's misrepresenting what they meant?

If they didn't intend to follow the letter of the treaty, why didn't they have it changed before signing? Am I missing something about communication here, what the treaty says and what the treaty meant were entirely different things? Can somebody please provide me with details on how to translate what people actually mean if what they say has nothing to do with it?

[Heft]

Wait, so if somebody breaks a treaty, and I point out the treaty they signed said they need 48 hours notice. That's misrepresenting what they meant?

If they didn't intend to follow the letter of the treaty, why didn't they have it changed before signing? Am I missing something about communication here, what the treaty says and what the treaty meant were entirely different things? Can somebody please provide me with details on how to translate what people actually mean if what they say has nothing to do with it?

This guy explained it better than I did:

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

[VIdiot the Great]

I find it interesting that a thread about e-lawyering has developed into an e-lawyering argument about what e-lawyering actually is.

[King Srqt]

I find it interesting that a thread about e-lawyering has developed into an e-lawyering argument about what e-lawyering actually is.

stop being such an e-lawyer.

[Näktergal]

I find it interesting that a thread about e-lawyering has developed into an e-lawyering argument about what e-lawyering actually is.

Honestly, the thread started out that way, considering he felt it necessarily to define what he considered to be E-lawyering and what he considered NOT to be E-lawyering in the very first post.

[Qaianna]

That may be true, but that happens with most anything. Most people don't even bother to go that far, and instead just dismiss someone's comments because they're part of an alliance they don't like (i.e, pretty much anything posted by a Pacific member, no matter who they are or what it is - other examples too, but that's the most blatant and current one).

Chances are if people are constantly calling you an e-lawyer, then the problem might actually lie with you.

That I think depends on the people doing it. It can be easy to get caught up in the crowd chanting, no matter what it is. And sometimes mockery can get out of hand, especially if it's an accepted target, as you've mentioned. (Trust me on that one.)

I guess it's more of a mindset--if you're looking for every possible way to slur your opponent, then you may want to reconsider your hobbies. And sometimes the written word isn't the right one the parties intended (time for hurried renegotiation here).

I'd say that arguing that the semantics don't match the spirit is OK to a certain extent, since semantics is how we actually, you know, communicate the spirit. But there's a point when you're just nitpicking, and that's not good. And be careful with the label, too.

Also:

stop being such an e-lawyer.

Maybe you should call the e-bar association. Still, it depends on the laws regarding e-clients in your jurisdiction. Plus, not all e-lawyers argue in e-courts; some are e-research lawyers, while others make their e-arguments in the e-court itself. Just as long as you don't fall asleep while the e-judge is talking. Who wants e-contempt of court?

..wait, gotta go. I've just been sued by a lawyer representing 'e'.

[Requia]

While its certainley possible for an attack on semantic grounds to be a twisting of words and violation of the spirit, you're ignoring my question.

Why aren't these agreements being written up with words that match the intent in the first place?

[Qaianna]

While its certainley possible for an attack on semantic grounds to be a twisting of words and violation of the spirit, you're ignoring my question.

Why aren't these agreements being written up with words that match the intent in the first place?

After looking at a surrender thread a little while ago, I think some folks may or may not be familiar with the definitions of terms. The writer used 'unconditional surrender' to refer to 'a surrender without terms'; what we'd actually generally used 'white peace' for, typically phrased as 'Alliance X grants white peace to Alliance Y'. And I remember some vigorous discussions over the terms 'white peace' and even 'spying', especially when the latter can refer to either using military spies (who somehow can tell an army at war to go to, and stay at, DefCon 4), or trying to break into an alliance's information system to possibly attack the structure of a community.

You know, maybe I should put together a 'Political Glossary' for people.