Just something Ive noticed.

[Luckiecatt]

What is the name of your state? NJ

I have noticed that many times on the boards some of the responses are automatically accusatory or harsh. There's many, but one example is where the person erased the state question and got called a liar for it. (https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=408951) I understand that some of the responders want to be harsh in an attempt to toughen you up for a hard judge, or not "pussyfoot" around an issue but it seems in some cases they just assume the worst and lash out without even finding the reason behind something.

I know I appreciate and commend all the volunteers for their time and advise, but just wanted to put out that I think everyone should remember that everyone is suppose to be "innocent until proven guilty"...

 

[>Charlotte<]

I think everyone should remember that everyone is suppose to be "innocent until proven guilty"...

This isn't a jury, it's a message board.

If we think someone is guilty we can say so.* If we think someone is an idiot, we can say so. Personally, when I'm harsh it's not to "toughen" anybody up. It's generally because I think they deserve it. And as long as the moderator doesn't have a problem with it, I can do that too.

* For that matter, so can a jury.

 

[>Charlotte<]

And as far as the "innocent until proven guilty" thing is concerned, go count the number of posts that, basically, say "I did it, now how do I get away with it?"

 

[racer72]

I would hardly call the response in the link you gave as harsh. The problem is there are too many people that delete the part about the state. We have 2 options, ignore them or call them out. All of us that help others in these forums do it as a favor, no one gets paid. If you or they don't like it, they can take their problem elsewhere. This site is absolutely tame compared to the other site that offers free legal advice, visit that one if you want to see rude and nasty.

 

[Luckiecatt]

then I guess they have proven their guilt haven't they?

I never said no1 didn't have a right to be harsh, and I agree in some cases it is fitting. There have just been a few that I sit back and shake my head over in disbelief... Not trying to put people down, actually the opposite - reminding people to give the benefit of the doubt. (if there is no doubt - then that is different).

Maybe I'm thinking too much on my sociology and psychology courses from college. My masters is in business, not law or sociology so maybe I should keep my ponderings to myself.


"Do unto others..."

 

[>Charlotte<]

That whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing really bugs me, and now I have the opportunity to talk about it.

It's not that I have a problem with the presumption of innocence. It's how it's so often trotted out on this board by people who, apparently, don't know what it means. Someone who actually went to law school may correct me--and is welcome to do so--but:

A presumption of innocence is simply a fundamental right that we all enjoy when we are accused of a crime. It does not mean we are innocent. It means we cannot be found guilty unless guilt is proven by the prosecution. In other words, when we are prosecuted we do not have the burden of proving our innocence, the prosecution has the burden of proving our guilt. If they fail, game over.

There was a recent murder in Chapel Hill which has resulted in the arrests of two suspects. The night of the murder, they were photographed at an ATM machine driving the slain woman's car. Search warrants produced other evidence that resulted in both of them being charged with murder. They haven't been convicted yet, but I think they're guilty as hell. And there's not a single law that prevents me from thinking so or saying so.

As a private citizen, I don't have to presume someone is innocent. The restrictions we place on our government's power to govern is not synonymous with the rights we enjoy as a free society. As a private citizen I'm also allowed to restrict your rights to free speech, religion, assembly, and others--under certain circumstances.

Benefit of the doubt?? Maybe I should have raised my son that way. "Well, gee, I didn't actually see him get that cookie, and that chocolate could have gotten on his face when he accidentally fell onto a cookie that had been dropped on the floor..."

 

[Luckiecatt]

Benefit of the doubt?? Maybe I should have raised my son that way. "Well, gee, I didn't actually see him get that cookie, and that chocolate could have gotten on his face when he accidentally fell onto a cookie that had been dropped on the floor..."

Again with your son - the guilt has been established by the chocolate on the face. Dont think there IS doubt in that example. But in the case where the person states he didn't see the state question, he says it was a mistake and was called a liar. That is the type of posts I am talking about. I can see where there is room for doubt there... but that doesn't mean he is automatically a liar.

In the example you gave, Should I state that you are a bad parent for neglecting your son long enough to let him get into something he shouldn't have?

Not everyone likes to give people a chance, I know that. But in a court system you would ask questions to get to the truth of the matter or to find out what you need to know to proceed. I just think that if the roles were reversed then you would want to be asked questions from others instead of being accused (when not stating or proving guilt).

 

[>Charlotte<]

Again with your son - the guilt has been established by the chocolate on the face. Dont think there IS doubt in that example.

Of course there's room for doubt. It's entirely possible that that's exactly what happened. Likely? No. Possible? Yes. The evidence indicates he is, indeed, guilty.

where the person states he didn't see the state question, he says it was a mistake and was called a liar.

It's hard for anyone who can read to make that mistake. The state question must be deliberately deleted for it to not show up. It's entirely possible that it was a simple mistake. Likely? No. Possible? Yes. The evidence indicates he is, indeed, guilty.

That is the type of posts I am talking about. I can see where there is room for doubt there... but that doesn't mean he is automatically a liar.

And you think the "innocent until proven guilty" rule should be applied to the question of his innocence. I disagree.

In the example you gave, Should I state that you are a bad parent for neglecting your son long enough to let him get into something he shouldn't have?

That depends entirely on your definition of "bad parent." I don't know if you should state I'm a bad parent, but you certainly may.

But in a court system you would ask questions to get to the truth of the matter or to find out what you need to know to proceed. I just think that if the roles were reversed then you would want to be asked questions from others instead of being accused (when not stating or proving guilt).

In a court system, questions aren't asked to "get to the truth", they're asked to achieve a goal. The goals of both the prosecution and defense are to convince the jury of what they each assert to be the truth.

I just think that if the roles were reversed then you would want to be asked questions from others instead of being accused (when not stating or proving guilt).

If the roles were reversed I wouldn't even want to be noticed, let alone questioned. But I would expect to be accused. The accusation of guilt is the first step in the entire process.

 

[las365]

When I first found this forum I was a little taken aback at what I perceived as the harshness of many responses. The longer I was around, the more posts I read, and the more interaction I saw between OPs and responders, the more familiar I became with the personalities and communication styles of responders and gained a better understanding of why many responses are made in the manner they are.

Tone is notoriously difficult to discern in written communications, especially message board posts and emails. One can infer a negative quality that the responder did not intend, or fail to get that a remark was meant to be humorous.

Many OPs think responders are being mean when they are just being blunt and truthful. Many OPs take offense to being "judged," even after admitting that they have done things that are illegal or ethically unacceptable from responsible members of society and come here to try to find a way to avoid the consequences of their own choices and actions.

Anyone such as yourself is free to contribute as many kindhearted, supportive and gentle responses as you wish. Giving your perspective on an OPs situation is fine; however, chastising others for not responding the way you would is generally not productive.

 

[Luckiecatt]

Tone is notoriously difficult to discern in written communications, especially message board posts and emails. One can infer a negative quality that the responder did not intend, or fail to get that a remark was meant to be humorous. QUOTE]

I have to agree. I have noticed that even in text messaging people tone is often placed on wording when it wasnt written with that intention. A very good point.

If anyone feels I was chastising them, I apologize, as that was not my intent. Just stating something I had noticed and was wondering about.

 

[Luckiecatt]

What is the name of your state? NJ

I have noticed that many times on the boards some of the responses are automatically accusatory or harsh. There's many, but one example is where the person erased the state question and got called a liar for it. (https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=408951) I understand that some of the responders want to be harsh in an attempt to toughen you up for a hard judge, or not "pussyfoot" around an issue but it seems in some cases they just assume the worst and lash out without even finding the reason behind something.

I know I appreciate and commend all the volunteers for their time and advise, but just wanted to put out that I think everyone should remember that everyone is suppose to be "innocent until proven guilty"...

And this has not changed one bit over the years.

 

[Zigner]

And this has not changed one bit over the years.

Yet, here you are

 

[quincy]

And this has not changed one bit over the years.

There are many members of this forum who are not aware that the state name question does not always appear when posting from a mobile device or the state-name question is deleted with the rest of the content when a post is previewed.

I agree that members should be more pleasant to posters coming here for advice. I think rudeness begets rudeness.

I like the response you received from las365. Tone is especially hard to judge in writing. Actually, I like all of the responses you received in this thread.

 

[justalayman]

Since I’m the bad guy here I would like to add a statement from the op in the linked thread:

EDIT: And upon clicking the 'New Thread' option, I did see it, but didnt catch it at first, I mearly though it was filler text like "fill in you post here".

So he admits he did see it. He admits he deleted it (with explanation).

Of course that was after he stated this:

Nope, to be honest I didnt not see the option at all. Maybe I am missing something, and if so, I am sorry. I tried to go back and edit it but still did not see the option.

Was I overly harsh. Yep. Hopefully I’ve improved my decorum in the ten years since I posted that.

I would like to point out that even though the op did in fact delete the which state question, I did go on and provide information applicable to his situation as well as tossing in a bit of humor for good measure.

 

[quincy]

Since I’m the bad guy here I would like to add a statement from the op in the linked thread:



So he admits he did see it. He admits he deleted it (with explanation).

Of course that was after he stated this:



Was I overly harsh. Yep. Hopefully I’ve improved my decorum in the ten years since I posted that.

I would like to point out that even though the op did in fact delete the which state question, I did go on and provide information applicable to his situation as well as tossing in a bit of humor for good measure.

I should probably add to my earlier post that, in 2008, the preview post feature did not delete the state name question and posters did not access this site with cell phones.