TLS Adcomm Stalking Forum

[kapachino]

I guess no one remembers Dean Pless then

You get caught with ONE prostitute and everyone forgets your name

I liked Dean Pless. He answered my questions and was a pretty nice guy.

[BillPackets]

You would say that Manilla. And can we stop wasting everyone's time with this nerdy LSAT bullshit? You're free to look it up for yourself on these forums, but I've seen three separate incidents where people have reported being contacted by the office of admissions regarding their TLS posts, and thought it would be helpful to relay that to you. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. It's no skin off my ass.

I never indicated I didn't believe you. I actually am the one who stated that I had heard of Google/Facebook stalking. So your arguing against the mirror. I just wanted to see what you were referring to. I don't know how to look something like that up, either. I'm not a google search expert, sorry.

Pretty sure he's referencing the search function for these forums, not doing a general google search to find a specific topic mentioned a few times on TLS forums.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Re PDaddy's post - I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing what adcomms do, just relaying what people here have reported. Obviously a private Facebook account is one thing, but I'm not sure applicants have any reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they post here or on sites covered by Google. And while it would likely be illegal discrimination to use some info (such as race, ethnicity, religion), I don't think "being an ass on the internet" constitutes a protected class.

Which is just to say that people should think about their posting here and elsewhere as public, because it is. (The lounge isn't captured by Google and isn't accessible unless you're a registered user and logged in, but there's nothing stopping an adcomm from making an account. I don't know that anyone's had adcomms talk about their lounge posting as opposed to their on-topic posting, though.)

I don't think "being an ass" on the internet is reflective of a person either..

Why isn't it? Is someone sitting next to you at your computer with a gun to your head making you be an ass on the internet?

[Mal Reynolds]

You would say that Manilla. And can we stop wasting everyone's time with this nerdy LSAT bullshit? You're free to look it up for yourself on these forums, but I've seen three separate incidents where people have reported being contacted by the office of admissions regarding their TLS posts, and thought it would be helpful to relay that to you. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. It's no skin off my ass.

I never indicated I didn't believe you. I actually am the one who stated that I had heard of Google/Facebook stalking. So your arguing against the mirror. I just wanted to see what you were referring to. I don't know how to look something like that up, either. I'm not a google search expert, sorry.

I'M JUST ATHKING QUETHTIONS

[manillabay]

Re PDaddy's post - I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing what adcomms do, just relaying what people here have reported. Obviously a private Facebook account is one thing, but I'm not sure applicants have any reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they post here or on sites covered by Google. And while it would likely be illegal discrimination to use some info (such as race, ethnicity, religion), I don't think "being an ass on the internet" constitutes a protected class.

Which is just to say that people should think about their posting here and elsewhere as public, because it is. (The lounge isn't captured by Google and isn't accessible unless you're a registered user and logged in, but there's nothing stopping an adcomm from making an account. I don't know that anyone's had adcomms talk about their lounge posting as opposed to their on-topic posting, though.)

I don't think "being an ass" on the internet is reflective of a person either..

Why isn't it? Is someone sitting next to you at your computer with a gun to your head making you be an ass on the internet?

1. I sure hope that's a rhetorical your.
2. I didn't know there was an obligation to maintain your RL personality on blogs.

[guano]

Re PDaddy's post - I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing what adcomms do, just relaying what people here have reported. Obviously a private Facebook account is one thing, but I'm not sure applicants have any reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they post here or on sites covered by Google. And while it would likely be illegal discrimination to use some info (such as race, ethnicity, religion), I don't think "being an ass on the internet" constitutes a protected class.

Which is just to say that people should think about their posting here and elsewhere as public, because it is. (The lounge isn't captured by Google and isn't accessible unless you're a registered user and logged in, but there's nothing stopping an adcomm from making an account. I don't know that anyone's had adcomms talk about their lounge posting as opposed to their on-topic posting, though.)

I don't think "being an ass" on the internet is reflective of a person either..

Why isn't it? Is someone sitting next to you at your computer with a gun to your head making you be an ass on the internet?

1. I sure hope that's a rhetorical your.
2. I didn't know there was an obligation to maintain your RL personality on blogs.

being an asshole online, but not IRL means you're an asshole who's too [insert favorite verb here] to be himself

[A. Nony Mouse]

2. I didn't know there was an obligation to maintain your RL personality on blogs.

There isn't. But neither is there an obligation on the part of adcomms (or whoever) who might look at your online presence to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to figure out which is the "real" you and which is the "internet" you. (I'm also not sure how the "internet" you isn't just as reflective of your personality as anything else about you, since the "real" you decided to go on the internet and act a certain way.)

[snagglepuss]

being an asshole online, but not IRL means you're an asshole who's too [insert favorite verb here] to be himself

Example: being an asshole online, but not IRL means you're an asshole who's too spelunking to be himself

...I don't think you're mad lib works. Did you mean adjective?

[PDaddy]

Re PDaddy's post - I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing what adcomms do, just relaying what people here have reported. Obviously a private Facebook account is one thing, but I'm not sure applicants have any reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they post here or on sites covered by Google. And while it would likely be illegal discrimination to use some info (such as race, ethnicity, religion), I don't think "being an ass on the internet" constitutes a protected class.

Which is just to say that people should think about their posting here and elsewhere as public, because it is. (The lounge isn't captured by Google and isn't accessible unless you're a registered user and logged in, but there's nothing stopping an adcomm from making an account. I don't know that anyone's had adcomms talk about their lounge posting as opposed to their on-topic posting, though.)

Our use of "USERNAMES" makes the point of privacy redundant; if there was no reasonable expectation of at least some privacy we would all use our real names or initials. So the expectation of "public-privacy" is a given. We employ usernames because we want to speak freely, and we don't want to be identified while having done it.

Like every poster here, I totally get it [the point of the other posts here]. I was just having some LSAT LR fun...lighthearted, you know? While I did feel that the poster who made the attemp at it before me missed some actual flaws - as they would be identified on the LSAT - my intent was not to be a troll.

We all know adcoms peruse the boards, and I believe that their stated purpose - to get a feel for what applicants/students are thinking" - insults our intelligence. While they may use the boards for such purpose(s), it would be reasonable to believe that another purpose is to spy on students for admissions purposes, see if they can identify them. Most of you don't know me, but I serve it up straight!

[manillabay]

2. I didn't know there was an obligation to maintain your RL personality on blogs.

There isn't. But neither is there an obligation on the part of adcomms (or whoever) who might look at your online presence to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to figure out which is the "real" you and which is the "internet" you. (I'm also not sure how the "internet" you isn't just as reflective of your personality as anything else about you, since the "real" you decided to go on the internet and act a certain way.)

Perhaps my understanding of online forums/blogs is off. I am quite new to this anyway. I've never looked at them all that seriously because you don't know who you are talking to, nobody has any idea who you are, and you suffer little to no consequences for your words (notwithstanding, apparently, adcomms judging you). Personally, I've valued the anonymity afforded me by the internet and challenge guano for saying that one is too [blank] to be himself.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Our use of "USERNAMES" makes the point of privacy redundant; if there was no reasonable expectation of at least some privacy we would all use our real names or initials. So the expectation of "public-privacy" is a given. We employ usernames because we want to speak freely, and we don't want to be identified while having done it.

Sure, but I don't think that's any protection to providing enough information about yourself under that username that adcomms/employers can identify you and associate you with that username. A friend of mine used to keep a blog under a pseudonym - nothing with her name or location - and got fired because she posted about her workplace. All that mattered was that her employers could tell it was her.

And manillabay - see the example above for "little to no consequences for your words."

[PDaddy]

2. I didn't know there was an obligation to maintain your RL personality on blogs.

There isn't. But neither is there an obligation on the part of adcomms (or whoever) who might look at your online presence to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to figure out which is the "real" you and which is the "internet" you. (I'm also not sure how the "internet" you isn't just as reflective of your personality as anything else about you, since the "real" you decided to go on the internet and act a certain way.)

Well...there's an argument that the unconstrained "you" is the real you. Now, which you is the unconstrained you? Many would argue that it's the online you.

However, that doesn't address the real issue, which is whether or not adcoms have the right to transgress the package you submit (your proverbial "best foot forward) during the app process to look below the hood without your knowledge and then use any information gained against you without applying context or any sort of filter, or allowing you to explain anything questionable. I say it's unethical.

If they like to browse the boards, they should issue some form of "Miranda Rights" to applicants..."anything you say or do in the public sphere can and WILL be used against you during the application process". Applicants could then enter the process with open eyes and eschew schools that engaged in the searches - if they so desired.

But that's their dirty little secret. They don't want to turn applicants off because their ranking would be affected; so they all keep mum on the issue.

[PDaddy]

Our use of "USERNAMES" makes the point of privacy redundant; if there was no reasonable expectation of at least some privacy we would all use our real names or initials. So the expectation of "public-privacy" is a given. We employ usernames because we want to speak freely, and we don't want to be identified while having done it.

Sure, but I don't think that's any protection to providing enough information about yourself under that username that adcomms/employers can identify you and associate you with that username. A friend of mine used to keep a blog under a pseudonym - nothing with her name or location - and got fired because she posted about her workplace. All that mattered was that her employers could tell it was her.

And manillabay - see the example above for "little to no consequences for your words."

You would be shocked at what users here have revealed over time, and how many users have been outed, especially when Law School Numbers profiles are connected to the TLS usernames. I have heard some horror stories. I vaguely remember a story of one applicant supposedly losing his admission to H/Y/S for misrepresenting info either on TLS or LSN. Maybe I have it wrong, or maybe it isn't true, but those stories definitely exist.

[A. Nony Mouse]

However, that doesn't address the real issue, which is whether or not adcoms have the right to transgress the package you submit (your proverbial "best foot forward) during the app process to look below the hood without your knowledge and then use any information gained against you without applying context or any sort of filter, or allowing you to explain anything questionable. I say it's unethical.

If they like to browse the boards, they should issue some form of "Miranda Rights" to applicants..."anything you say or do in the public sphere can and WILL be used against you during the application process". Applicants could then enter the process with open eyes and eschew schools that engaged in the searches - if they so desired.

But anything someone does in the public sphere can be used against them. Why would anyone expect otherwise? You can go out in the public sphere and say almost anything you like, but you can't prevent people from judging you for it.

(I actually do think adcomms mostly read here to understand the concerns/issues facing current applicants - it's like a ready-made focus group. But it's awfully hard not to connect the dots on who here is which applicant, given what people post.)

[sublime]

..

[PDaddy]

Re PDaddy's post - I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing what adcomms do, just relaying what people here have reported. Obviously a private Facebook account is one thing, but I'm not sure applicants have any reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they post here or on sites covered by Google. And while it would likely be illegal discrimination to use some info (such as race, ethnicity, religion), I don't think "being an ass on the internet" constitutes a protected class.

Which is just to say that people should think about their posting here and elsewhere as public, because it is. (The lounge isn't captured by Google and isn't accessible unless you're a registered user and logged in, but there's nothing stopping an adcomm from making an account. I don't know that anyone's had adcomms talk about their lounge posting as opposed to their on-topic posting, though.)

I don't think "being an ass" on the internet is reflective of a person either..

If memberships in religious or ethnic-based organizations can become protected classes, almost any legal behavior can become protected. So the operative word you omitted is "yet".

Until now, beauty discrimination (where one is perceived to be "too beautiful" or "not beautiful enough") wasn't recognized, but states are beginning to recognize it. Obesity discrimination wasn't recognized - although "disability" was - but more and more cases are going to court.

How would you like certain schools to discriminate against you because you speak out in favor of or against AA, for example?

Social network membership - regardless of how one employs that membership - could become a protected class if tethered to other constitutional issues, such as free speech, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity, etc.

If I was an adcom I would just stay away from it and evaluate what applicants submit. We all know good and well that a good number of them are doing more than that.

[PDaddy]

However, that doesn't address the real issue, which is whether or not adcoms have the right to transgress the package you submit (your proverbial "best foot forward) during the app process to look below the hood without your knowledge and then use any information gained against you without applying context or any sort of filter, or allowing you to explain anything questionable. I say it's unethical.

If they like to browse the boards, they should issue some form of "Miranda Rights" to applicants..."anything you say or do in the public sphere can and WILL be used against you during the application process". Applicants could then enter the process with open eyes and eschew schools that engaged in the searches - if they so desired.

But anything someone does in the public sphere can be used against them. Why would anyone expect otherwise? You can go out in the public sphere and say almost anything you like, but you can't prevent people from judging you for it.

(I actually do think adcomms mostly read here to understand the concerns/issues facing current applicants - it's like a ready-made focus group. But it's awfully hard not to connect the dots on who here is which applicant, given what people post.)

Again, online public differs from "in-person" public in that I have an expectation that my in-person behavior can lead to my identification. I also have the reasonable opportunity to identify the users of my identity as well as how information is being used. Lastly, I have an opportunity to state my case, so-to-speak, and clear up misconceptions.

Once I begin to employ an alter-ego, I have made a statement that I do not want to be identified...that I do not wish my statements to be attributed to ME. An adcom who seeks to "out" me has transgressed that, and I am not endowed with any of the opportunities I mentioned above - even though I should be.

[A. Nony Mouse]

If memberships in religious or ethnic-based organizations can become protected classes, almost any legal behavior can become protected. So the operative word you omitted is "yet".

Until now, beauty discrimination (where one is perceived to be "too beautiful" or "not beautiful enough") wasn't recognized, but states are beginning to recognize it. Obesity discrimination wasn't recognized - although "disability" was - but more and more cases are going to court.

How would you like certain schools to discriminate against you because you speak out in favor of or against AA, for example?

Social network membership - regardless of how one employs that membership - could become a protected class if tethered to other constitutional issues, such as free speech, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity, etc.

If I was an adcom I would just stay away from it and evaluate what applicants submit. We all know good and well that a good number of them are doing more than that.

I think this overly optimistic about applicants' (or employees') ability to win these kinds of discrimination suits and courts' willingness to expand categories of discrimination.

And as for your online alter-ego argument, my friend (and many others) would consider you wildly optimistic about the ability to distance/detach your real life identity from any statements you make online. Maybe the world should work the way you're arguing, but I think it would be naive and disingenuous to claim that it actually does - which is what people posting here need to think about.

[sublime]

..

[dwil770]

Re PDaddy's post - I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing what adcomms do, just relaying what people here have reported. Obviously a private Facebook account is one thing, but I'm not sure applicants have any reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they post here or on sites covered by Google. And while it would likely be illegal discrimination to use some info (such as race, ethnicity, religion), I don't think "being an ass on the internet" constitutes a protected class.

Which is just to say that people should think about their posting here and elsewhere as public, because it is. (The lounge isn't captured by Google and isn't accessible unless you're a registered user and logged in, but there's nothing stopping an adcomm from making an account. I don't know that anyone's had adcomms talk about their lounge posting as opposed to their on-topic posting, though.)

I don't think "being an ass" on the internet is reflective of a person either..

Why isn't it? Is someone sitting next to you at your computer with a gun to your head making you be an ass on the internet?

Idk plenty of top lawyers can be asses maybe it's a slight bump?

[Pneumonia]

Not caring what people think is the biggest flame ever. Shame has a purpose.

[PDaddy]

If memberships in religious or ethnic-based organizations can become protected classes, almost any legal behavior can become protected. So the operative word you omitted is "yet".

Until now, beauty discrimination (where one is perceived to be "too beautiful" or "not beautiful enough") wasn't recognized, but states are beginning to recognize it. Obesity discrimination wasn't recognized - although "disability" was - but more and more cases are going to court.

How would you like certain schools to discriminate against you because you speak out in favor of or against AA, for example?

Social network membership - regardless of how one employs that membership - could become a protected class if tethered to other constitutional issues, such as free speech, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity, etc.

If I was an adcom I would just stay away from it and evaluate what applicants submit. We all know good and well that a good number of them are doing more than that.

I think this overly optimistic about applicants' (or employees') ability to win these kinds of discrimination suits and courts' willingness to expand categories of discrimination.

And as for your online alter-ego argument, my friend (and many others) would consider you wildly optimistic about the ability to distance/detach your real life identity from any statements you make online. Maybe the world should work the way you're arguing, but I think it would be naive and disingenuous to claim that it actually does - which is what people posting here need to think about.

For an aspiring law student, I think you have things quite backwards. Moreover, it's clear that you haven't been following the types of "fringe" cases I am mentioning. States are already recognizing other types of discrimination, so you have no argument there; my suggestions are not overly optimistic, because they have already come to fruition.

Consider also that legal precedents are set every day...based on THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE, not the way things actually are.

But hey, everyone on TLS and LSD (the website, not the drug), said I was crazy when I predicted in 2008 that college athletes would soon find a way to get paid, and that law schools would be facing exposure for fraud. And although the suits haven't been successful, it's only a matter of time before they are.

Look at my old posts, and you will see that I am "that dude": the guy who thinks outside of the box, who everyone says is crazy only to find out later that I wasn't so crazy after all.

I'm telling you right now, eventually some controls will have to be put into place to require adcoms to disclose each and every factor used in the admissions process.

As for the other poster's suggestion that no one has a right to privacy in public, try telling that to men who look up women's skirts with hidden cameras and wind up convicted as sex offenders.

Even in the public sphere there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy. As I said before, if I was wrong, we would all be using our legal names here on TLS. To suggest anything else is disingenuous.

[PDaddy]

You essentially have zero rights to privacy outside your home and anything you put into public is fair game, online or not. hth

Ok..."sublime". So you don't mind showing who you are then, eh?

Btw...what is your real name? What's your address? Could you please post your transcripts for all of us to see? We want to know if you're telling the truth about your stats.

After all, you have no right to privacy in the public sphere, right? So why are you hiding your real identity here on TLS?

[chuckbass]

You essentially have zero rights to privacy outside your home and anything you put into public is fair game, online or not. hth

Ok..."sublime". So you don't mind showing who you are then, eh?

Btw...what is your real name? What's your address? Could you please post your transcripts for all of us to see? We want to know if you're telling the truth about your stats.

After all, you have no right to privacy in the public sphere, right? So why are you hiding your real identity here on TLS?

DIAF.

[PDaddy]

DIAF.

???? DIAF yourself! If you don't want to learn, you can kick rocks!