Value of Experts on this forum
Discussion
We seem to be losing the help of experts on this forum.
Most of the police are long gone, and the solicitors are following them. Loon comes and goes.
Some will say that they had an attitude so good riddance. But the attitude comes from being shouted down by people who know no better, and perhaps feeling that advice that their clients pay for is not valued.
There are some threads recently which became contentious, and I do not want to start that argument again. This problem has been growing for much longer.
So do we want experts on our forum?
Most of the police are long gone, and the solicitors are following them. Loon comes and goes.
Some will say that they had an attitude so good riddance. But the attitude comes from being shouted down by people who know no better, and perhaps feeling that advice that their clients pay for is not valued.
There are some threads recently which became contentious, and I do not want to start that argument again. This problem has been growing for much longer.
So do we want experts on our forum?
I've contributed consistently in a number of forums on PH for ten years. Every forum has their experts.
This forum is somehow different though in that *recently* the culture is the law of the playground rather than likeminded people having a chat in the pub. None of the experts in the other forums end up in rows with posters. On those forums, discussion is a chat with the common goal to help the OP with their problem that they've shared.
Again, this forum is different.
Fix the angry, holier than thou culture, make this a productive and open place where people can share their views (right, wrong or grey area) and let experts explain if people have misconceptions in a respectful way.
This forum is somehow different though in that *recently* the culture is the law of the playground rather than likeminded people having a chat in the pub. None of the experts in the other forums end up in rows with posters. On those forums, discussion is a chat with the common goal to help the OP with their problem that they've shared.
Again, this forum is different.
Fix the angry, holier than thou culture, make this a productive and open place where people can share their views (right, wrong or grey area) and let experts explain if people have misconceptions in a respectful way.
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 21st October 20:26
When Police officers explain anything on here they get called 'robots' for pointing out an absolute offence. It really is as simple as black and white with a lot of traffic stuff yet people will pick holes in anything and everything they say because they dont agree with a certain offence. Hey it someones right to ignore a speed limit if they think its too low right? Well no its not, ignore it, take the risk but dont go quimming when you get caught.
It really is tedious hence why nearly all police officers have given up and left.
Idiots with access to google is all you'll have from now on, shame really.
It really is tedious hence why nearly all police officers have given up and left.
Idiots with access to google is all you'll have from now on, shame really.
The site has definately gone down market. People are keen to be argumentative for the sake of it when there's no need.
The experts can be very helpful especially to the person seeking help. The idiots just barge in with their statements when they could be asking for clarification in a politer manner.
The experts can be very helpful especially to the person seeking help. The idiots just barge in with their statements when they could be asking for clarification in a politer manner.
Boosted LS1 said:
The site has definately gone down market. People are keen to be argumentative for the sake of it when there's no need.
The experts can be very helpful especially to the person seeking help. The idiots just barge in with their statements when they could be asking for clarification in a politer manner.
Mirroring society in general. I remember when this was all fields ( well TVRs)The experts can be very helpful especially to the person seeking help. The idiots just barge in with their statements when they could be asking for clarification in a politer manner.
JustinP1 said:
I've contributed consistently in a number of forums on PH for ten years. Every forum has their experts.
This forum is somehow different though in that *recently* the culture is the law of the playground rather than likeminded people having a chat in the pub.....,Fix the angry, holier than thou culture, make this a productive and open place where people can share their views (right, wrong or grey area) and let experts explain if people have misconceptions in a respectful way.
It's true I'm afraid.This forum is somehow different though in that *recently* the culture is the law of the playground rather than likeminded people having a chat in the pub.....,Fix the angry, holier than thou culture, make this a productive and open place where people can share their views (right, wrong or grey area) and let experts explain if people have misconceptions in a respectful way.
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 21st October 20:26
Just look at SP&L.
I am *not* an expert but do enjoy a constructive debate where I can research and learn - in a pragmatic way and in the correct section of the forum.
It's interesting (to some). Not to others (so you'd think they wouldn't read it!).
However it's more often polluted by people hell bent on arguing, saying what they "think" and ignoring / devaluing the intention of discussion from the OP.
In many such cases, when you investigate their overall forum contribution it's more often than not more related to football, cycling or anything other than PH!
How about a "like" button or post scoring system for contributions (perhaps controlled by the OP?) which could be tallied up to the username?
Don't really know what else to suggest.
G.
Edited by Gallen on Wednesday 21st October 20:56
Perhaps one of the problems is that we can't always be sure which posters are police, lawyers, etc, and which are just pretending. The Internet abounds with stories of such "fake experts", who are often extremely convincing. Wikipedia in particular has had many "expert" editors who turned out to be still at school in some cases. The Safe Speed forum had a fake police officer for many years. And of course newcomers don't even necessarily know when someone is claiming to be an expert, unless they happen to mention it in a thread they see, or they look at their profile (assuming the information is even there).
What would be ideal is some kind of badge system on PH, to say who's what, but obviously it would need to be verifiable. I remember when people were doubting whether StreetCop was a real police officer, and then another officer (I presume!) confirmed that he'd had mail from StreetCop via the police system. Perhaps the PH mods could somehow verify vonhosen and a few other police officers, then they could handle future verifications themselves (I don't know how they'd verify retired officers like Derek Smith, but presumably there's a way). With any luck, experts in other fields could also verify each other in similar fashion.
Obviously confirmed experts should have their views respected when it comes to their fields, and I think a badge system would help with that. But their expertise should not make them immune to criticism if, for example, they sanctimoniously rub it in when someone has been caught speeding and is seeking help on (shock horror) a motoring forum. This gloating at people's misfortune seems to be something that is lamentably common among those here who claim to be lawyers, and I don't think it's fair to expect people not to criticise said gloating just because the gloaters' expertise may at times be valuable.
If they're so sensitive to people having a go at them for saying "Oh dear, what a pity, if only you had known what that round '30' sign meant" that they can't bear to post here anymore, then maybe they shouldn't gloat in the first place. Just an idea.
What would be ideal is some kind of badge system on PH, to say who's what, but obviously it would need to be verifiable. I remember when people were doubting whether StreetCop was a real police officer, and then another officer (I presume!) confirmed that he'd had mail from StreetCop via the police system. Perhaps the PH mods could somehow verify vonhosen and a few other police officers, then they could handle future verifications themselves (I don't know how they'd verify retired officers like Derek Smith, but presumably there's a way). With any luck, experts in other fields could also verify each other in similar fashion.
Obviously confirmed experts should have their views respected when it comes to their fields, and I think a badge system would help with that. But their expertise should not make them immune to criticism if, for example, they sanctimoniously rub it in when someone has been caught speeding and is seeking help on (shock horror) a motoring forum. This gloating at people's misfortune seems to be something that is lamentably common among those here who claim to be lawyers, and I don't think it's fair to expect people not to criticise said gloating just because the gloaters' expertise may at times be valuable.
If they're so sensitive to people having a go at them for saying "Oh dear, what a pity, if only you had known what that round '30' sign meant" that they can't bear to post here anymore, then maybe they shouldn't gloat in the first place. Just an idea.
The main problem, generally, is the frequent pronouncements regarding morals and the like - it dilutes the point of this forum entirely in my eyes. An OP has a legal question and wants it answered - end of story.
As to the experts clearing off, no small wonder given some of the arguments on here. My expertise is very very niche indeed, but if I were to be doubted ALL the time, I'd throw in the towel too. PH in general has become a bit of a willy-waving contest in recent years, where being seen to be right or occupying the moral high ground is key.
As to the experts clearing off, no small wonder given some of the arguments on here. My expertise is very very niche indeed, but if I were to be doubted ALL the time, I'd throw in the towel too. PH in general has become a bit of a willy-waving contest in recent years, where being seen to be right or occupying the moral high ground is key.
GPSHead said:
Perhaps one of the problems is that we can't always be sure which posters are police, lawyers, etc, and which are just pretending. The Internet abounds with stories of such "fake experts", who are often extremely convincing. Wikipedia in particular has had many "expert" editors who turned out to be still at school in some cases. The Safe Speed forum had a fake police officer for many years. And of course newcomers don't even necessarily know when someone is claiming to be an expert, unless they happen to mention it in a thread they see, or they look at their profile (assuming the information is even there).
What would be ideal is some kind of badge system on PH, to say who's what, but obviously it would need to be verifiable. I remember when people were doubting whether StreetCop was a real police officer, and then another officer (I presume!) confirmed that he'd had mail from StreetCop via the police system. Perhaps the PH mods could somehow verify vonhosen and a few other police officers, then they could handle future verifications themselves (I don't know how they'd verify retired officers like Derek Smith, but presumably there's a way). With any luck, experts in other fields could also verify each other in similar fashion.
Obviously confirmed experts should have their views respected when it comes to their fields, and I think a badge system would help with that. But their expertise should not make them immune to criticism if, for example, they sanctimoniously rub it in when someone has been caught speeding and is seeking help on (shock horror) a motoring forum. This gloating at people's misfortune seems to be something that is lamentably common among those here who claim to be lawyers, and I don't think it's fair to expect people not to criticise said gloating just because the gloaters' expertise may at times be valuable.
If they're so sensitive to people having a go at them for saying "Oh dear, what a pity, if only you had known what that round '30' sign meant" that they can't bear to post here anymore, then maybe they shouldn't gloat in the first place. Just an idea.
You cannot realistically expect serving police officers to provide a means to PH to identify themselves, they have too much to lose. What would be ideal is some kind of badge system on PH, to say who's what, but obviously it would need to be verifiable. I remember when people were doubting whether StreetCop was a real police officer, and then another officer (I presume!) confirmed that he'd had mail from StreetCop via the police system. Perhaps the PH mods could somehow verify vonhosen and a few other police officers, then they could handle future verifications themselves (I don't know how they'd verify retired officers like Derek Smith, but presumably there's a way). With any luck, experts in other fields could also verify each other in similar fashion.
Obviously confirmed experts should have their views respected when it comes to their fields, and I think a badge system would help with that. But their expertise should not make them immune to criticism if, for example, they sanctimoniously rub it in when someone has been caught speeding and is seeking help on (shock horror) a motoring forum. This gloating at people's misfortune seems to be something that is lamentably common among those here who claim to be lawyers, and I don't think it's fair to expect people not to criticise said gloating just because the gloaters' expertise may at times be valuable.
If they're so sensitive to people having a go at them for saying "Oh dear, what a pity, if only you had known what that round '30' sign meant" that they can't bear to post here anymore, then maybe they shouldn't gloat in the first place. Just an idea.
Here's an example to contemplate - I've obviously not used the usernames:
OP: (Genuine question)
Poster 1: (To the OP) "...Are you one of those weirdos who blanks the numberplate of his car when he puts a picture of it online?"
Poster 2: (Discussion)
Poster 1: "...How do you paranoid types function in the real world?"
Poster 2: (Diffusing the aggro) "Why thank you for the prompt reply, although now I feel somewhat bad knowing I've made a grown man "weep" before 0900 on a Sunday morning."
Poster 1: "Tears of laughter. At you not with you. I see that you are in "risk". Tough job for a person without a spine. Top tip: stay in bed, hide under the covers. That way, no risk."
There's an example of direct belittling of the OP, followed up by an attack on someone defending the OP, followed up by the final blow. There, Poster 1 has held up Poster 2 in front of the crowd, told him he was laughing stock. Then, clearly Poster 1 has been motivated enough to view Poster 2's profile for further ammunition to humiliate him, before stating that he is spineless' and using that to suggest that he is professionally inept.
IMHO this is not 'banter' or a bit of 'attitude', this is nothing other than 'bullying' for want of a better word, and I genuinely only look at those posts in disgust.
Also IMHO this should be simply not acceptable on this forum - what kind of culture does this breed?
OP: (Genuine question)
Poster 1: (To the OP) "...Are you one of those weirdos who blanks the numberplate of his car when he puts a picture of it online?"
Poster 2: (Discussion)
Poster 1: "...How do you paranoid types function in the real world?"
Poster 2: (Diffusing the aggro) "Why thank you for the prompt reply, although now I feel somewhat bad knowing I've made a grown man "weep" before 0900 on a Sunday morning."
Poster 1: "Tears of laughter. At you not with you. I see that you are in "risk". Tough job for a person without a spine. Top tip: stay in bed, hide under the covers. That way, no risk."
There's an example of direct belittling of the OP, followed up by an attack on someone defending the OP, followed up by the final blow. There, Poster 1 has held up Poster 2 in front of the crowd, told him he was laughing stock. Then, clearly Poster 1 has been motivated enough to view Poster 2's profile for further ammunition to humiliate him, before stating that he is spineless' and using that to suggest that he is professionally inept.
IMHO this is not 'banter' or a bit of 'attitude', this is nothing other than 'bullying' for want of a better word, and I genuinely only look at those posts in disgust.
Also IMHO this should be simply not acceptable on this forum - what kind of culture does this breed?
JustinP1 said:
Here's an example to contemplate - I've obviously not used the usernames:
OP: (Genuine question)
Poster 1: (To the OP) "...Are you one of those weirdos who blanks the numberplate of his car when he puts a picture of it online?"
Poster 2: (Discussion)
Poster 1: "...How do you paranoid types function in the real world?"
Poster 2: (Diffusing the aggro) "Why thank you for the prompt reply, although now I feel somewhat bad knowing I've made a grown man "weep" before 0900 on a Sunday morning."
Poster 1: "Tears of laughter. At you not with you. I see that you are in "risk". Tough job for a person without a spine. Top tip: stay in bed, hide under the covers. That way, no risk."
There's an example of direct belittling of the OP, followed up by an attack on someone defending the OP, followed up by the final blow. There, Poster 1 has held up Poster 2 in front of the crowd, told him he was laughing stock. Then, clearly Poster 1 has been motivated enough to view Poster 2's profile for further ammunition to humiliate him, before stating that he is spineless' and using that to suggest that he is professionally inept.
IMHO this is not 'banter' or a bit of 'attitude', this is nothing other than 'bullying' for want of a better word, and I genuinely only look at those posts in disgust.
Also IMHO this should be simply not acceptable on this forum - what kind of culture does this breed?
Poster 1 certainly does act like a pompous child on here despite his 'expert' status.OP: (Genuine question)
Poster 1: (To the OP) "...Are you one of those weirdos who blanks the numberplate of his car when he puts a picture of it online?"
Poster 2: (Discussion)
Poster 1: "...How do you paranoid types function in the real world?"
Poster 2: (Diffusing the aggro) "Why thank you for the prompt reply, although now I feel somewhat bad knowing I've made a grown man "weep" before 0900 on a Sunday morning."
Poster 1: "Tears of laughter. At you not with you. I see that you are in "risk". Tough job for a person without a spine. Top tip: stay in bed, hide under the covers. That way, no risk."
There's an example of direct belittling of the OP, followed up by an attack on someone defending the OP, followed up by the final blow. There, Poster 1 has held up Poster 2 in front of the crowd, told him he was laughing stock. Then, clearly Poster 1 has been motivated enough to view Poster 2's profile for further ammunition to humiliate him, before stating that he is spineless' and using that to suggest that he is professionally inept.
IMHO this is not 'banter' or a bit of 'attitude', this is nothing other than 'bullying' for want of a better word, and I genuinely only look at those posts in disgust.
Also IMHO this should be simply not acceptable on this forum - what kind of culture does this breed?
This "oh no, someone was unpleasant to me (or to someone else) on the internet and this has made me sad" stuff is reminiscent of the current nonsense developing on the campuses of developed nations, viz:-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/j...
Justin, if you do not like having your keen amateur opinions on legal subjects tested and exposed to informed critique by people who do the stuff full time, then maybe go to law school, and practise law professionally, but on second thoughts that would be a bad idea, as the critique would only become more intense. Real life lawyer world is rather a robust environment in which BS is readily detected and you can't get away with flannel. Try appearing in front of three Court of Appeal Judges - imagine the hardest viva voce exam you have ever had and then treble that.
Also, once again: it's just the internet, and reading the stuff here is optional. If you are upset by words on a screen, maybe don't look at words on screens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/j...
Justin, if you do not like having your keen amateur opinions on legal subjects tested and exposed to informed critique by people who do the stuff full time, then maybe go to law school, and practise law professionally, but on second thoughts that would be a bad idea, as the critique would only become more intense. Real life lawyer world is rather a robust environment in which BS is readily detected and you can't get away with flannel. Try appearing in front of three Court of Appeal Judges - imagine the hardest viva voce exam you have ever had and then treble that.
Also, once again: it's just the internet, and reading the stuff here is optional. If you are upset by words on a screen, maybe don't look at words on screens.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I find it goes more like this.
OP: Genuine question
Expert: correct answer (not the one OP was hoping to hear.)
OP: f
king disgrace/small print/rip off/you're an idiot/I don't know how you sleep nights working in an industry like that you bloodsucking leech.
Expert
And that, if that happens, is unacceptable too IMHO.OP: Genuine question
Expert: correct answer (not the one OP was hoping to hear.)
OP: f
king disgrace/small print/rip off/you're an idiot/I don't know how you sleep nights working in an industry like that you bloodsucking leech.Expert
Posters who ask a genuine question should not be berated. Posters who try to help the OP should not be berated.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff