Test Center Violations Forum

Zindras · Post by **Zindras** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:06 pm

InGoodFaith wrote:You're an idiot.

TCR. A normal person in this situation might roll his eyes and go on about his business.

How, exactly, did his cell phone use or the proctor's response affect you or anyone else in that room?

Eberry · Post by **Eberry** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:10 pm

OP will be a great lawyer because he defends justice and obviously likes to argue. All of you are just h8ers.

lshopes · Post by **lshopes** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:14 pm

I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

abcde12345 · Post by **abcde12345** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:16 pm

lshopes wrote:I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

We're not defending him. You just made a really, really shitty utilitarian calculation. That's all.
Edit: It doesn't actually look like you made a utilitarian calculation at all. Which is the problem.

Tom Joad · Post by **Tom Joad** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:16 pm

I think it is brave that you stood up for what is right, but what if the guy had some kind of medical condition or personal problem that he needed the phone for?

20130312 · Post by **20130312** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:18 pm

lshopes wrote:I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

Safe to call troll now?

Zindras · Post by **Zindras** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:19 pm

lshopes wrote:I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

I'd rather work with him than with you.

Eberry · Post by **Eberry** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:20 pm

lshopes wrote:I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.

Please, don't thank me. I thank you...It's nice to know there are still heroes in this cruel and phone-filled world.

dextermorgan · Post by **dextermorgan** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:23 pm

lshopes wrote:
InGoodFaith wrote:You're an idiot.

I am personally tired of people who think that somehow the rules do not apply to them.

You're going to hate law school.

lshopes · Post by **lshopes** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:24 pm

Zindras wrote:
lshopes wrote:I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.
I'd rather work with him than with you.

I would rather you worked with him, too.

Zindras · Post by **Zindras** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:30 pm

lshopes wrote:
Zindras wrote:
lshopes wrote:I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.
I'd rather work with him than with you.
I would rather you worked with him, too.

Well, I'm glad the feeling's mutual. Carry on then.

lshopes · Post by **lshopes** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:33 pm

abcde12345 wrote:
lshopes wrote:I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.
We're not defending him. You just made a really, really shitty utilitarian calculation. That's all.
Edit: It doesn't actually look like you made a utilitarian calculation at all. Which is the problem.

Personally I believe that if an action is wrong (violation of rules) I should report the same regardless of the harm to myself. The utilitarian judgement I made here is that adherence to the rules ultimately provides the best outcome to everyone as a group even if it causes an undesirable outcome to one individual (whose outcome I am, again, not responsible for-he is).

lshopes · Post by **lshopes** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:34 pm

Zindras wrote:
lshopes wrote:
Zindras wrote:
lshopes wrote:I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.
I'd rather work with him than with you.
I would rather you worked with him, too.
Well, I'm glad the feeling's mutual. Carry on then.

Thank you and best of luck.

20130312 · Post by **20130312** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:34 pm

lshopes wrote:Personally I believe that if an action is wrong (violation of rules)

R86 · Post by **R86** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:36 pm

I'm still a little hazy on how you managed to report this guy.

Did you give a description?

A position in the room relative to your own?

Did you ask for him for his name? If so, did you do so blatantly or did you casually strike up conversation after the test?

facile princeps · Post by **facile princeps** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:47 pm

lshopes wrote:
abcde12345 wrote:
lshopes wrote:I must say I'm really shocked at all of you defending this guy. Maybe it's my military background that requires discipline and adherence to rules but if all of you were able to read and follow the regulations knowing this exam can make or break your future plans, why in the world would you tolerate someone in your midst who did not? Is this really the guy you want in the seat next to you for the next few years? Is this the guy you want to work with in a firm? Would you want him to represent your mother in a legal proceeding knowing he CHOOSES not to follow the rules? These were not difficult or arbitrary regulations. They have a purpose and that is to ensure test security. Call me anything you wish for turning him in but the proctor did not do her job and whether or not it affected me is irrelevant. I see him as another potential drag on the legal profession. I caused him no harm-he caused it to himself.

Thank you Eberry.
We're not defending him. You just made a really, really shitty utilitarian calculation. That's all.
Edit: It doesn't actually look like you made a utilitarian calculation at all. Which is the problem.
Personally I believe that if an action is wrong (violation of rules) I should report the same regardless of the harm to myself. The utilitarian judgement I made here is that adherence to the rules ultimately provides the best outcome to everyone as a group even if it causes an undesirable outcome to one individual (whose outcome I am, again, not responsible for-he is).

May i recommend a surgical procedure to remove that stick from up your ass? You sound like the kind of person that would report me when i used to wear white socks instead of black socks in high school (a school uniform 'rule'). I doubt it was necessary to report dude for what i presume as him being a careless, irresponsible dimwit. Your actions will likely result in much more harm than there would have been if you either ignored dude or tell him he was violating the rule. But whatever makes you sleep at night. Rock on.

hume85 · Post by **hume85** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:48 pm

Tom Joad wrote:I think it is brave that you stood up for what is right, but what if the guy had some kind of medical condition or personal problem that he needed the phone for?

Is Bo Pellini wearing a Christmas sweater? I love the avatar, because Bo Pellini is so fucking far from beautiful.

RodneyBoonfield · Post by **RodneyBoonfield** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:49 pm

LOL Good luck ever fitting into a law firm

lshopes · Post by **lshopes** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:50 pm

R86 wrote:I'm still a little hazy on how you managed to report this guy.

Did you give a description?

A position in the room relative to your own?

Did you ask for him for his name? If so, did you do so blatantly or did you casually strike up conversation after the test?

The admission tickets had photos attached. The proctors wrote our testing room info on each admission ticket. He was easily identifiable by photo (only one in room with 3 distinctive characteristics) when the room was known. I never spoke to him.

hume85 · Post by **hume85** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:54 pm

I am not sure about reporting somebody for something that was highly unlikely to help him. I believe in following the rules, and I dislike cheaters. But this guy didn't even benefit from breaking the rule.

alwayssunnyinfl · Post by **alwayssunnyinfl** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:05 pm

lshopes wrote:
R86 wrote:I'm still a little hazy on how you managed to report this guy.

Did you give a description?

A position in the room relative to your own?

Did you ask for him for his name? If so, did you do so blatantly or did you casually strike up conversation after the test?
The admission tickets had photos attached. The proctors wrote our testing room info on each admission ticket. He was easily identifiable by photo (only one in room with 3 distinctive characteristics) when the room was known. I never spoke to him.

You should hire a sketch artist.

paratactical · Post by **paratactical** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:07 pm

lshopes wrote:
R86 wrote:I'm still a little hazy on how you managed to report this guy.

Did you give a description?

A position in the room relative to your own?

Did you ask for him for his name? If so, did you do so blatantly or did you casually strike up conversation after the test?
The admission tickets had photos attached. The proctors wrote our testing room info on each admission ticket. He was easily identifiable by photo (only one in room with 3 distinctive characteristics) when the room was known. I never spoke to him.

Wait... you're telling us you looked through the admissions tickets of everyone in a room at your testing center?

Advice Dog · Post by **Advice Dog** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:14 pm

Dear Gentle OP,

You, sir, are a scholar and gentleman. Pay no mind to these charlatans and ne'er-do-wells who would let such insidious cheating go unabated. Our most sacred practice -- the law, in all of her splendor -- needs more devotees of such character and fortitude. I suggest that you wear a "safety patrol" sash during your first week of 1L to let the other students know that you will keep the class safe from the blasphemy of forbidden commercial outlines and will promptly report any discussion of the exams during winter break to the proper authorities.

Yours, etc.

Advice Dog

bitsy · Post by **bitsy** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:16 pm

OP

--ImageRemoved--

lshopes · Post by **lshopes** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:18 pm

paratactical wrote:
lshopes wrote:
R86 wrote:I'm still a little hazy on how you managed to report this guy.

Did you give a description?

A position in the room relative to your own?

Did you ask for him for his name? If so, did you do so blatantly or did you casually strike up conversation after the test?
The admission tickets had photos attached. The proctors wrote our testing room info on each admission ticket. He was easily identifiable by photo (only one in room with 3 distinctive characteristics) when the room was known. I never spoke to him.
Wait... you're telling us you looked through the admissions tickets of everyone in a room at your testing center?

No he was the only one in the room with certain identifying characteristics which I am sure were evident on the required photo.

Test Center Violations Forum

Any !idiots at your test center?

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Register for access!

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Register now!

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Re: Test Center Violations

Seriously? What are you waiting for?