Best posts made by Ganymede

@Derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Ganymede, on the other hand, is a lawbot and will be checking your margins down to the last pixel.

Lawyerbot cat. Me:

And:

@derp said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:

Step 1) Get licensed to practice in Indiana.

Step 2) I will tell JLAP I suspect you of having a substance abuse problem due to personal stresses.

You get a free therapist, the Supreme Court never has to know. Everyone wins!

You do understand, of course, that I prosecute attorneys in Ohio for ethical lapses on a semi-consistent basis, yes?

I am well-aware of where to get free therapy, sir, but it does help to accompany it with allegations of alcohol abuse.

@Rinel said in The Work Thread:

Rinel you are a lawyer stop listening to other people and read the law first

Me to Associate: Remember to stop listening to your client and look at the evidence presented first.

@mietze said in The Balance:

It so depends on the game.

This.

When you feel you want to do something, you want to make sure it is worthwhile. The game you choose to play on will make you feel more comfortable about putting it down and coming back when you can.

Not like fucking AC: Odyssey: I love you, baby, but after I put you down I really don't feel like playing with you again unless I've had a few, goddamn, it's like you're the last-ditch booty call on my list of things I'd do, which includes rubbing one out before bedtime.

Gawd, people, random funny read the topic.

@killer-klown said in Mage for Multi-Sphere WoDv2 Games:

On the one hand, M+'s are weaker by design - because they're basically just mortals with a few bells and whistles; and people know what they're getting into when they opt to play one. On the other hand, cutting parts out of a sphere because someone deems them too powerful is, at best, arbitrary - and stands to upset the overall balance of the game.

The term "arbitrary" connotes a lack of reason. I disagree. The Arcana become exponentially more powerful in progression. Comparing them to the progression of Discipline powers or the myriad of Gifts is like comparing apples to rocket launchers.

@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:

Jury System. Just why would anyone ever want to be tried by a court of their peers when the majority of our peers aren't all that smart - why not rely on a professional with experience? (Like a Judge!) Does this happen anywhere other than America? What do yall lawyers think about this?

This is an archaic remnant of British law, frankly, coming right out of that wholly-useless document known as Magna Carta. At the time, the "jury of peers" was to protect landholders against actions by the crown, which generally occurred before crown-appointees. By "peers," the landholders meant "other landholders." While that usually meant that the landowners got away with a lot of shit, landholders could also get really sick and tired of Lord Angus McSheepFucker and his night-time antics one day and let him get strung up for his 134th charge of "anger-banging Lady Smith's blessed flock of sheep."

As a matter of practice, I do not ask for a jury demand. Juries are stupid. A lawyer asking for a jury, in my opinion, is one who needs to take advantage of stupid people in order to win their cases.

The Gavel. Talk to me about this. ORDER ORDER! BLAM BLAM! Is it just to punctuate that you mean business? What do yall lawyers think about this?

The gavel is used to create a loud noise calculated to cut through arguing between parties and/or counsel. It is similar to flicking the light switch on or off. These days, counsel usually don't get into open verbal wars because they usually get warned prior and judges are usually not shy to spending people into a holding cell for contempt of court. At least, 'round here.

Why did you choose the section of law (family, criminal, etc) that you chose? Or did it choose you?

You don't often get to choose; fate often chooses you. If you start at a firm or public institution, you do as you're told. If you start on your own, you just take what you can get and figure out what you like; then you play the trading game with other lawyers until you can build up a practice in the area you like.

Bond and bail, what's the difference?

Context varies, but bail is usually applied to the amount paid to get out of jail whereas bonds are used in the civil context for a variety of different purposes..

Why on earth did you choose to practice law to begin with? Was it the money or..?

I began it as an adventure and ended with a challenging professional career. I like both.

What is the most hilarious case you've worked on?

It's not really funny, but I have some funny client names. For example, I once represented a fellow with the last name "Batman," which made motion/brief writing more amusing. I also worked on a case for a client with the last name "Short" who had sued someone with the last name "Long."

What is the saddest case you've worked on?

I do not get emotionally invested in my cases. That's a quick way to burn out.

Would you ever represent someone that is guilty but they wanted you to get them off the hook? Would you lie for them? What's the furthest you'd go?

Yes. Even if guilty an accused should be defended where the government has committed a violation of their civil rights. All lawyers swear an oath to defend the Constitution in the United States. I take my oaths very seriously.

To that end, no. I would never lie to or for a client. Lying is an art form that requires a great deal of care and delicacy. I have neither the time nor the inclination to prance about the truth. You win on the truth or you don't win at all. I have fired more than one client for asking if I would lie or alter evidence.

Do you like arguing? How can you manage to keep your shit together when impassioned?

I don't mind arguing, but it depends when and where. Generally, I do not argue unless I am being paid or I am to get something out of it personally.

In a case, I refrain from arguing with another lawyer or my client. In the first case, it is purposeless: I don't need to convince another lawyer that I am right; I need to convince a judge or jury. In the second case, I don't have the time: if a client does not think I am telling them how the law works or forecasting the outcome well, then they can find another lawyer that feels inclined to get a pack of smokes, a short length of hose, and blow smoke up their ass.

A wise lawyer does not argue against someone. A wise lawyer demonstrates why her interpretation of the law or set of facts should prevail. As an art it is closer to teaching than it is to debating; debates are for arguments that have no right answer, whereas teaching is showing someone else what the right answer is.

@tinuviel

@WildBaboons said in Good TV:

By comparison I've watched Episode 1 of the Witcher and haven't really had the urge to go back just yet compared to other options (Letterkenny, mostly)

Letterkenny Season 8 was fantastic, like, all the way through. The ending was just perfect.

@moth said in MU Things I Love:

When gifs lead into a pretty damn good scene!

Try this one:

@Admiral said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

If the only way you can think of to do your job is to lie to people, even though it's not technically required by the company? You are liar. You are a shitty fucking liar. Period.

Well, there goes my line of work.

@surreality said:

Also, if there is a real problem here -- I don't know if there is and I'm not going to guess -- and there was evidence that was ignored for whatever reason, that is really not something that is OK. No amount of sticking your head in the sand will fix it, and I say that as someone who is pretty impressively avoidant and isn't super comfortable raising issues I think will be difficult, especially with friends or people I rely on for some reason. Avoiding it only lets those problems grow larger and mutate until they demand a resolution of some kind, after all.

Shutting the place down sounds like a solution, if only for the game operator.

I have twins.

My kids love my partner, but she's a total sap to them. When I get home, she's exhausted, and complains about how they ran her ragged. However, neither my mother nor I seem to have any problems with their behavior -- from feeding to incessant whining.

I have struggled to come up with a theory for this. Were it just me, I could chalk it up to my kids treating me like a hovering police officer, which is essentially how I treat them most of the time. My mother, however, showers them with more attention than any reasonable human should ever bear (which means she doesn't give a shit about me, which is awesome). The only conclusion is that my partner refuses to set hard boundaries -- but I only can surmise this from my observation of her.

The problem may be that my partner wants the kids to love, adore, and worship her. And I'm beginning to think that this is a bad thing.

I don't need to be loved, adored, or worshipped, least of all from my children. My role is to raise them. It is, perhaps, the teacher in me (and, yes, I am a certified teacher in addition to whatever the shit I do during the day) that keeps that distance. I'm not sure. But I believe strongly in my defined role, and see little wrong with being no more than that.

If I must be the bad person, I will. If I have to be the stern face of reasonable expectations, so be it. Someone has to be. And, so, I have no problem looking kids in the eyes -- not their parents -- and telling them that their shit is unacceptable.

If their parents have a problem with that, they can remove their chattel from my sight and hearing. Striking "the fear of God" means allowing them to stare into what I imagine to be God's eyes: namely, my hard, cold, unerring gaze.

@faraday said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

I think that's a fair policy to have on your game. In absence of such a policy though, I would feel it a breach of trust if someone came to me in confidence and I violated that. It also makes it harder to actually get the person to cooperate in giving you details/logs/etc. if they feel they can't trust you.

What you described, though, is similar to a Vincent Vega request. And Mia Wallace responded perfectly:

No, no, no. You can't promise something like that. I have no idea what you're gonna ask me. So you can go ahead and ask me what you're going to ask me, and my natural response could be to get offended! Then, through no fault of my own, I would have broken my promise.

If a player makes a complaint and then asks that it would be confidential, that is a patently unfair request that I have no obligation to follow. Suppose, for example, that the complainant describes to you a method by which a staffer or player is cheating or gaming the system. You have a duty to the game to fix that problem, and that duty supersedes the complainant's request. I would say the same about any complaint about someone running other players off the game through a whisper campaign.

There is always an element of discretion -- most complaints aren't so dire -- but I think that any complainant who wants some level of confidentiality or non-action would make that request before informing me of a dumpster fire.

In my experience, you are more likely to receive legitimate, honest complaints than illegitimate complaints calculated to harass privately.

@Auspice said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Like wtf is it with grown ass adults wanting their parents to save their ass from their own shit.

Wtf is it with adults wanting anyone to save their ass from their own shit?

My current peeve: middle class wypipo.

Specifically, there’s this MCW mentality apparently that parents should go with their kids to see things that have zero interest to adults.

Such bullshit.

Your kids learn from you. If you coddle and cater to them, they will never grow up. I would rather take my kids to a Motley Crue concert than a fucking Paw Patrol show, for fuck’s sake, because: (1) fuck Paw Patrol; (2) they are already familiar with the music; and (3) they would be the coolest kids in a school.

Conformity leads to dull thinkers.

@Tinuviel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

How can we encourage people to submit complaints when they don't always get to see the results of their complaints? That's a legitimate question.

I don't think there's a good answer.

It can be discouraging. I'm involved in a case where someone was engaged in widespread investor fraud. My client and others have reported that someone to law enforcement. We have a bench warrant for his failure to appear at a contempt hearing. Yet law enforcement is taking no effort to cooperate with us to get this guy picked up and hauled in for questioning, even though everything's been set up.

This is where staff investment comes in. This is not to say that Faraday's more hands-off approach besmirches her level of investment, by the way; rather, I had faith, and still have faith, that Faraday handles complaints with the same diligence that I would expect out of myself. People with less experience or less faith may feel differently, but the only thing that can be reasonably expected from Faraday is that she handles the matter reasonably. Not as I want; not as others want; but reasonably and within the confines of what she's comfortable doing.

I'm more hands-on, confrontational, and, in some ways, vindictive. Some people like that; some people don't, and think I'm a judgmental, harsh bitch. But my time is valuable ($250-$300 an hour, actually), so I prefer to spend it on the players that will work with me and others well, and, frankly, I don't lose a lot of sleep over removing problem players from my spheres or games, even if they may have friends that would attest otherwise. I have come to learn, in my old age, that I cannot, and will not, please everyone.

Every staffer is different and will engage differently. Some may prefer Faraday's approach, some may prefer mine -- some may even prefer the staff on Haven. As long as staff make a policy and follow it, I think that's all one can, and should, reasonably expect.

Everything else, I think, is personal.

@silverfox

It is all right. I am lawyercathockeyfanbot.

@Arkandel said in How To Treat Your Players Right:

This might be an issue solveable through code without sacrificing privacy.

What privacy?

My e-mail chains with opposing counsel are not private. If I have a drag-out fight with them, that's going to be published. I know that; opposing counsel knows that. That's why we remain civil and cordial, and why we don't swap nude photos via e-mail.

I think one of the reasons why harassment-by-page persists is because pages aren't kept in a fashion that is easy for someone to publish without accusations of doctoring. If you implement code that memorializes all page conversations and publishes them directly to, let's say, a mail file that may be forwarded or is automatically forwarded to a staff-read-only depository, that would pretty much eliminate such claims by the accused.

I'm not sure how easy it would do, but +repose code or Faraday's auto-scene-log-uploading code in Ares might form a functional design to build from.

When it comes to adult industry, the hodge-lodge of state laws regulating it is humorously diverse.

Frankly, as long as everyone is safe and consenting, who gives a flying fuck? That seems to be the sentiment of the people I jive with.

@Kanye-Qwest said in Sexuality: IC and OOC:

some women absolutely do. Some people can't read a room. Some people really like fashion.

This is a fair conclusion.

I am biased.

I hate everyone.