PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP Forum

[goodolgil]

Why is asking on the Internet about a case any worse than reading about it in a supplement?

Having someone else do your legal reasoning and research vs. doing your own legal reasoning and research.

I see a big difference there.

The professor gave them the material so they would have time to do their own research and reasoning about that particular bit before applying it on the exam.

I see this post as the op asking us to do his work for him. Exam specific work.

If this post were made before he knew the exam subject material it would be different. Just my opinion though and we all know how that goes

By this logic, using someone else's outline would be cheating too.

[schooner]

Why is asking on the Internet about a case any worse than reading about it in a supplement?

Aren't you worried that you'll get crappy (some deliberately so) advice? I mean, TLS can be fantastically helpful, but in this instance people seem really put-off by your request. (Prolly because it smacks of cheating and it makes you seem helpless & lazy, which invites scorn, etc. I think there are legitimate reasons for asking for academic help around here, but that kind of specific exam help is pushing it.)

Hey, this is not "my" request!

Sorry about that. I forgot to start the post w/ "OP, ".

[schooner]

By this logic, using someone else's outline would be cheating too.

Already knowing what passive sources to consult and how to extract the right answer from them (not cheating) isn't the same as asking someone else, during an exam, which sources to consult and how to get the right answer (arguably cheating).

[Gemini]

My final is in 2 days; my professor gave us the case (Walker v. Harrison) he is basing the final exam on. He told us he is going to mix certain facts around but in line with the case . I'm extremely nervous can someone please give me their opinion as to what they gather from the case; issues that I might not have spotted. Thanks in advance for the help. link for the case http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

You could have approached this a better way. You should have posted YOUR thoughts on this case. Perhaps THEN someone might have been willing to engage.

[RMstratosphere]

So you're a URM Latino who previously worked in the Kings County DA office enrolled in Cardozo's May Program. Sure hope this doesn't violate the honor code; bet there aren't many who fit your description...

/assistance from someone good at Contracts.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't use tls to cheat on your finals.

I went ahead and locked the first post too, just in case op was thinking about editing it.

TLS, sometimes I fall in love all over again.

[swfangirl]

Lol so lazy.

[Rule11]

Wait, why would this be "cheating?" Unless the professor asked people not to discuss it (quixotic, but conceivable), I don't really see the issue here. Could someone who's sure this is "cheating" explain why?

[Gemini]

Wait, why would this be "cheating?" Unless the professor asked people not to discuss it (quixotic, but conceivable), I don't really see the issue here. Could someone who's sure this is "cheating" explain why?

He didn't ask anyone to discuss it. The OP asked people for the ANSWER. Which he would then probably use as his own answer. What's that called again?

[Rule11]

Wait, why would this be "cheating?" Unless the professor asked people not to discuss it (quixotic, but conceivable), I don't really see the issue here. Could someone who's sure this is "cheating" explain why?

He didn't ask anyone to discuss it. The OP asked people for the ANSWER. Which he would then probably use as his own answer. What's that called again?

Where do you locate that request in the OP? The best I can figure is that you think asking others for help spotting issues is the same as asking for them to write his answer wholesale. That reading seems, charitably, quite strained, so maybe you meant something else? I can't really see how the OP is doing something materially different from discussing with classmates (which may have been prohibited, which would be an important fact). Could you elaborate on how asking people on the internet is different from asking people in person? Is it because people on the internet are smarter?

[Ineedhelpplease]

What answer; how is asking analysis/thoughts about a case asking for an answer. I was never presuming anyone was going to be right; I wanted to get ideas to bounce off.

[Gemini]

There is a difference between citing a case, discussing your OWN thoughts and opinions on it, and opening up a discussion with others; and straight out just asking people to post their own analysis of the case.

[Ineedhelpplease]

the professor is going to CHANGE certain facts around in his questions; I just wanted to look at the case in every angle possible. I even wanted to use "wrong" thoughts as a way to grasp the subject better. Im just really annoyed about the idea of getting an answer; never did I expect a TSL'r to break down every single way a professor would ever think of asking questions.

[Ineedhelpplease]

There is a difference between citing a case, discussing your OWN thoughts and opinions on it, and opening up a discussion with others; and straight out just asking people to post their own analysis of the case.

i did not think I needed to be that specific; so I was going to write down what anonymous people who I have had experience are not always well intentioned and use all the information on my final. Nooooo that makes way more sense then just bouncing ideas around

[Rule11]

There is a difference between citing a case, discussing your OWN thoughts and opinions on it, and opening up a discussion with others; and straight out just asking people to post their own analysis of the case.

And that difference amounts to cheating in what way? Can you explain the reasoning here? I certainly would not expect the line between permissible/cheating to be the degree to which the help-seeker offered insights to others beforehand. For what it's worth, a more sensible line seems to me to be any discussion vs. no discussion, but that would make your assertion even more puzzling, as offering one's own insights (in addition to soliciting others' insights) would then become a greater violation than the solicitation alone.

So, as you can see, I'm struggling with your argument. Could you help me out here?

[mebeSajid]

Why would the OP not just look the case on Lexis/Westlaw and see what they had? Better yet, why not look to see what treatises cited the case, and see how they addressed it? That seems a little bit smarter than posting a random question, no?

[Ineedhelpplease]

O god your so right. What if OP did that and was just trying a avenue he didnt expect to much from but worth a shot

[schooner]

What answer; how is asking analysis/thoughts about a case asking for an answer. I was never presuming anyone was going to be right; I wanted to get ideas to bounce off.

This is too open-ended of a request. The answers you're going to get probably aren't even going to help you. Hell, you're wasting a lot of time here just debating your request. You're better off consulting supplements (or the internets) and the sources that you [should] have learned in class.

[Gemini]

And that difference amounts to cheating in what way? Can you explain the reasoning here? I certainly would not expect the line between permissible/cheating to be the degree to which the help-seeker offered insights to others beforehand. For what it's worth, a more sensible line seems to me to be any discussion vs. no discussion, but that would make your assertion even more puzzling, as offering one's own insights (in addition to soliciting others' insights) would then become a greater violation than the solicitation alone.

So, as you can see, I'm struggling with your argument. Could you help me out here?

In my opinion, the fact that OP never offered up his own analysis but asked for others treads the line of cheating. Sure, he says he's using it to bounce ideas around, but you never know.

If someone wants assistance on an internet forum like this, they should be willing to extend their own opinions first. If you read this entire thread, you'll notice no one here actually contributed to OP's question.

How does anyone know that OP actually has some analysis worked out? Maybe he really IS looking for some answers. How would you know?

And yes, OP probably has a lot more credited resources he can look into for this. Including his own classmates.

[Rule11]

And that difference amounts to cheating in what way? Can you explain the reasoning here? I certainly would not expect the line between permissible/cheating to be the degree to which the help-seeker offered insights to others beforehand. For what it's worth, a more sensible line seems to me to be any discussion vs. no discussion, but that would make your assertion even more puzzling, as offering one's own insights (in addition to soliciting others' insights) would then become a greater violation than the solicitation alone.

So, as you can see, I'm struggling with your argument. Could you help me out here?

In my opinion, the fact that OP never offered up his own analysis but asked for others treads the line of cheating. Sure, he says he's using it to bounce ideas around, but you never know.

If someone wants assistance on an internet forum like this, they should be willing to extend their own opinions first. If you read this entire thread, you'll notice no one here actually contributed to OP's question.

How does anyone know that OP actually has some analysis worked out? Maybe he really IS looking for some answers. How would you know?

And yes, OP probably has a lot more credited resources he can look into for this. Including his own classmates.

I don't really think this is responsive. You claimed OP's behavior was cheating, and you said that the salient difference between permissible conduct and the OP's conduct was the OP's failure to offer up his/her own insights first. Best I can figure, you're saying that this difference is important because OP's conduct suggests that he or she wanted "answers" rather than "ideas." If that's not your argument, let me know.

If that's your argument, I remain confused. First, the OP's request was for help finding "issues" he or she might have missed. So, I'm not sure why we should credit your strained inference over the clear meaning of the request. But that aside, so what if the OP had asked for a detailed exegesis of the case and the surrounding caselaw, and a detailed analysis of all of the legal issues presented? Sure, that would be a gauche request, and one that few would jump to fulfill, but what I'm interested in is your claim that it's "cheating." We don't know what the professor prohibited--let's assume, in line with what we know, that the professor was silent on whether discussion of the case was prohibited, and the honor code is the same. If so, the only potential cheating I could see coming from the OP's request would be if he or she plagiarized verbatim a post made in response to the request. But that would only be cheating when it happened on the test--reading such a helpful post wouldn't strike me as "cheating" any more than reading the westlaw casenotes, or asking a friend for her analysis.

But what you've said is even more strange! You've suggested that it wasn't necessarily cheating, but became cheating because the OP failed to bring anything to the table. Merely asking wasn't the problem, it was asking without first giving. But, your latest post suggests that not providing his or her own analysis was problematic mostly because it was a breach of internet etiquette, not because it constituted cheating.

So, I ask again: why did you think it was cheating? Do you still think that? I'm not asking: why do you think OP's conduct is stupid, or bad, or rude. I'm asking why you think we should consider it--and by it, I mean the OP's question alone, asked as it was--academic dishonesty. Can you explain that, beyond mere assertion?

[Gemini]

Oh Jesus Christ.

TL;DR

[schooner]

I like how there is nothing about this thread that is truly helping the OP. If nothing, it's detrimental for him to waste time reading these debates.

I'm sorry but I can't help laughing

[Gemini]

I like how there is nothing about this thread that is truly helping the OP. If nothing, it's detrimental for him to waste time reading these debates.

I'm sorry but I can't help laughing

LMAO this. Rule11 should be giving OP all his/her thoughts and opinions on the case, instead of wasting time talking about the definition of cheating.

[Rule11]

I like how there is nothing about this thread that is truly helping the OP. If nothing, it's detrimental for him to waste time reading these debates.

I'm sorry but I can't help laughing

LMAO this. Rule11 should be giving OP all his/her thoughts and opinions on the case, instead of wasting time talking about the definition of cheating.

OP seems dumb--couldn't care less about him.

I'm posting because I'm interested in how it was that so many people (like you) thoughtlessly concluded that this was cheating. The more I see, the more your arguments seem bizarre, childishly-reasoned and internally incoherent. It's still interesting to me--like hearing a child argue tooth-fairy-gnosticism. Still, I was trying to be polite to you about it.

But! I guess you'd rather we were jerks to each other.

[Gemini]

How about this: we'll continue this discussion over PMs.

[Rule11]

How about this: we'll continue this discussion over PMs.

I can't see why we would do that. I like posting where everyone can see what I'm saying and evaluate it. But if you have something to say that you don't want to share with others, I'm happy to take a look and try to respond in good faith.