Discussion: View Thread

For me, there exists a significant difference between what is posted on a 'serv vs what is publicly published- such as in a peer reviewed journal or quoted from one's or another's verbatim Expert report or legal testimony.  I think that many just do not appreciate the foundational differences between these and our listserv.  Hence, the overlap in unabashedly "quoting what another said" as if all of it is equal, benign, fair play, and open for public use.  Not so fast.  A published article is intended for critical public use; testimony is set in stone and unless agreed to by relevant parties, it is public record.  The 'serv does not have this purpose.   (This brings to mind, on another level, the totally confused distinctions between license and certification-but I digress.)<o:p></o:p>

Hence, the confusion or abuse of "what is written" in the Forensic Listserv.   It does not have the same intent nor weight.  However, to the jury, opposing counsel, etc.  - "who is going to sweat the small stuff, no?"   Actually, the listserv is largely intended for "trying out" ideas, admitting crossroads that seemingly have no "right answer," introducing new, and perhaps untried ideas, debating points of view, wishing one another well, sharing our gems of experience, and sharing "what works for me" vs. foundational fact of public exposure.  As of now, this is not an acceptable defense against one who uses a post for their benefit and against their legal opponent.  <o:p></o:p>

What is needed here, imo, is that the listserv has to refresh its own identity for what it is.  This may readily, imo, be done as part of the "Rules," etc. as published in the prefaced portion of this IARP member benefit. <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, imo, there is no obvious ethical rail made obvious within the listserv's identity (or IARP (& CRC) Ethics code for that matter) regarding outward sharing of listserv information.   For something to breach ethics, it must be a named and numbered item as part of an Ethical code.  Ethics is not a feel-good generality that we all somehow sense we belong to, or impose on others as a supposedly and commonly shared element.  <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, there is no IARP Listserv Rule that addresses the use of "outward" verbatim sharing of inside author or communication (posts)- even if it is helpful stuff for one's peer or mentoree.  That is why the conundrum continues without solution.<o:p></o:p>

When an organization wants (as we obviously desire) and hopes for common conduct, that item must be put into writing as binding to persons who subscribe to x, y, and z.  Relying upon good-will, common sense, and idealized values does not cut it with something this sensitive, this desired, this unique format, and this valued.<o:p></o:p>

A path forward might be to create language, signed by participants, which specifically states that a) the author's identity coupled with the b) content of posting on the IARP Forensic Listserv is not for any use outside of the Listserv itself, and in fact is prohibited (with sanctions, etc.).  Now, tell that to a judge and jury!   Until then, the serv has been left haplessly losing involvement, flat-footed, angsting, and missing a golden opportunity to polish off and grow the gem we had needlessly come to miss and love.   As always, the input and opinions of others is wholesomely welcomed.    <o:p></o:p>

For me, there exists a significant difference between what is posted on a 'serv vs what is publicly published- such as in a peer reviewed journal or quoted from one's or another's verbatim Expert report or legal testimony.  I think that many just do not appreciate the foundational differences between these and our listserv.  Hence, the overlap in unabashedly "quoting what another said" as if all of it is equal, benign, fair play, and open for public use.  Not so fast.  A published article is intended for critical public use; testimony is set in stone and unless agreed to by relevant parties, it is public record.  The 'serv does not have this purpose.   (This brings to mind, on another level, the totally confused distinctions between license and certification-but I digress.)<o:p></o:p>

Hence, the confusion or abuse of "what is written" in the Forensic Listserv.   It does not have the same intent nor weight.  However, to the jury, opposing counsel, etc.  - "who is going to sweat the small stuff, no?"   Actually, the listserv is largely intended for "trying out" ideas, admitting crossroads that seemingly have no "right answer," introducing new, and perhaps untried ideas, debating points of view, wishing one another well, sharing our gems of experience, and sharing "what works for me" vs. foundational fact of public exposure.  As of now, this is not an acceptable defense against one who uses a post for their benefit and against their legal opponent.  <o:p></o:p>

What is needed here, imo, is that the listserv has to refresh its own identity for what it is.  This may readily, imo, be done as part of the "Rules," etc. as published in the prefaced portion of this IARP member benefit. <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, imo, there is no obvious ethical rail made obvious within the listserv's identity (or IARP (& CRC) Ethics code for that matter) regarding outward sharing of listserv information.   For something to breach ethics, it must be a named and numbered item as part of an Ethical code.  Ethics is not a feel-good generality that we all somehow sense we belong to, or impose on others as a supposedly and commonly shared element.  <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, there is no IARP Listserv Rule that addresses the use of "outward" verbatim sharing of inside author or communication (posts)- even if it is helpful stuff for one's peer or mentoree.  That is why the conundrum continues without solution.<o:p></o:p>

When an organization wants (as we obviously desire) and hopes for common conduct, that item must be put into writing as binding to persons who subscribe to x, y, and z.  Relying upon good-will, common sense, and idealized values does not cut it with something this sensitive, this desired, this unique format, and this valued.<o:p></o:p>

A path forward might be to create language, signed by participants, which specifically states that a) the author's identity coupled with the b) content of posting on the IARP Forensic Listserv is not for any use outside of the Listserv itself, and in fact is prohibited (with sanctions, etc.).  Now, tell that to a judge and jury!   Until then, the serv has been left haplessly losing involvement, flat-footed, angsting, and missing a golden opportunity to polish off and grow the gem we had needlessly come to miss and love.   As always, the input and opinions of others is wholesomely welcomed.    <o:p></o:p>

For me, there exists a significant difference between what is posted on a 'serv vs what is publicly published- such as in a peer reviewed journal or quoted from one's or another's verbatim Expert report or legal testimony.  I think that many just do not appreciate the foundational differences between these and our listserv.  Hence, the overlap in unabashedly "quoting what another said" as if all of it is equal, benign, fair play, and open for public use.  Not so fast.  A published article is intended for critical public use; testimony is set in stone and unless agreed to by relevant parties, it is public record.  The 'serv does not have this purpose.   (This brings to mind, on another level, the totally confused distinctions between license and certification-but I digress.)<o:p></o:p>

Hence, the confusion or abuse of "what is written" in the Forensic Listserv.   It does not have the same intent nor weight.  However, to the jury, opposing counsel, etc.  - "who is going to sweat the small stuff, no?"   Actually, the listserv is largely intended for "trying out" ideas, admitting crossroads that seemingly have no "right answer," introducing new, and perhaps untried ideas, debating points of view, wishing one another well, sharing our gems of experience, and sharing "what works for me" vs. foundational fact of public exposure.  As of now, this is not an acceptable defense against one who uses a post for their benefit and against their legal opponent.  <o:p></o:p>

What is needed here, imo, is that the listserv has to refresh its own identity for what it is.  This may readily, imo, be done as part of the "Rules," etc. as published in the prefaced portion of this IARP member benefit. <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, imo, there is no obvious ethical rail made obvious within the listserv's identity (or IARP (& CRC) Ethics code for that matter) regarding outward sharing of listserv information.   For something to breach ethics, it must be a named and numbered item as part of an Ethical code.  Ethics is not a feel-good generality that we all somehow sense we belong to, or impose on others as a supposedly and commonly shared element.  <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, there is no IARP Listserv Rule that addresses the use of "outward" verbatim sharing of inside author or communication (posts)- even if it is helpful stuff for one's peer or mentoree.  That is why the conundrum continues without solution.<o:p></o:p>

When an organization wants (as we obviously desire) and hopes for common conduct, that item must be put into writing as binding to persons who subscribe to x, y, and z.  Relying upon good-will, common sense, and idealized values does not cut it with something this sensitive, this desired, this unique format, and this valued.<o:p></o:p>

A path forward might be to create language, signed by participants, which specifically states that a) the author's identity coupled with the b) content of posting on the IARP Forensic Listserv is not for any use outside of the Listserv itself, and in fact is prohibited (with sanctions, etc.).  Now, tell that to a judge and jury!   Until then, the serv has been left haplessly losing involvement, flat-footed, angsting, and missing a golden opportunity to polish off and grow the gem we had needlessly come to miss and love.   As always, the input and opinions of others is wholesomely welcomed.    <o:p></o:p>

For me, there exists a significant difference between what is posted on a 'serv vs what is publicly published- such as in a peer reviewed journal or quoted from one's or another's verbatim Expert report or legal testimony.  I think that many just do not appreciate the foundational differences between these and our listserv.  Hence, the overlap in unabashedly "quoting what another said" as if all of it is equal, benign, fair play, and open for public use.  Not so fast.  A published article is intended for critical public use; testimony is set in stone and unless agreed to by relevant parties, it is public record.  The 'serv does not have this purpose.   (This brings to mind, on another level, the totally confused distinctions between license and certification-but I digress.)<o:p></o:p>

Hence, the confusion or abuse of "what is written" in the Forensic Listserv.   It does not have the same intent nor weight.  However, to the jury, opposing counsel, etc.  - "who is going to sweat the small stuff, no?"   Actually, the listserv is largely intended for "trying out" ideas, admitting crossroads that seemingly have no "right answer," introducing new, and perhaps untried ideas, debating points of view, wishing one another well, sharing our gems of experience, and sharing "what works for me" vs. foundational fact of public exposure.  As of now, this is not an acceptable defense against one who uses a post for their benefit and against their legal opponent.  <o:p></o:p>

What is needed here, imo, is that the listserv has to refresh its own identity for what it is.  This may readily, imo, be done as part of the "Rules," etc. as published in the prefaced portion of this IARP member benefit. <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, imo, there is no obvious ethical rail made obvious within the listserv's identity (or IARP (& CRC) Ethics code for that matter) regarding outward sharing of listserv information.   For something to breach ethics, it must be a named and numbered item as part of an Ethical code.  Ethics is not a feel-good generality that we all somehow sense we belong to, or impose on others as a supposedly and commonly shared element.  <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, there is no IARP Listserv Rule that addresses the use of "outward" verbatim sharing of inside author or communication (posts)- even if it is helpful stuff for one's peer or mentoree.  That is why the conundrum continues without solution.<o:p></o:p>

When an organization wants (as we obviously desire) and hopes for common conduct, that item must be put into writing as binding to persons who subscribe to x, y, and z.  Relying upon good-will, common sense, and idealized values does not cut it with something this sensitive, this desired, this unique format, and this valued.<o:p></o:p>

A path forward might be to create language, signed by participants, which specifically states that a) the author's identity coupled with the b) content of posting on the IARP Forensic Listserv is not for any use outside of the Listserv itself, and in fact is prohibited (with sanctions, etc.).  Now, tell that to a judge and jury!   Until then, the serv has been left haplessly losing involvement, flat-footed, angsting, and missing a golden opportunity to polish off and grow the gem we had needlessly come to miss and love.   As always, the input and opinions of others is wholesomely welcomed.    <o:p></o:p>

For me, there exists a significant difference between what is posted on a 'serv vs what is publicly published- such as in a peer reviewed journal or quoted from one's or another's verbatim Expert report or legal testimony.  I think that many just do not appreciate the foundational differences between these and our listserv.  Hence, the overlap in unabashedly "quoting what another said" as if all of it is equal, benign, fair play, and open for public use.  Not so fast.  A published article is intended for critical public use; testimony is set in stone and unless agreed to by relevant parties, it is public record.  The 'serv does not have this purpose.   (This brings to mind, on another level, the totally confused distinctions between license and certification-but I digress.)<o:p></o:p>

Hence, the confusion or abuse of "what is written" in the Forensic Listserv.   It does not have the same intent nor weight.  However, to the jury, opposing counsel, etc.  - "who is going to sweat the small stuff, no?"   Actually, the listserv is largely intended for "trying out" ideas, admitting crossroads that seemingly have no "right answer," introducing new, and perhaps untried ideas, debating points of view, wishing one another well, sharing our gems of experience, and sharing "what works for me" vs. foundational fact of public exposure.  As of now, this is not an acceptable defense against one who uses a post for their benefit and against their legal opponent.  <o:p></o:p>

What is needed here, imo, is that the listserv has to refresh its own identity for what it is.  This may readily, imo, be done as part of the "Rules," etc. as published in the prefaced portion of this IARP member benefit. <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, imo, there is no obvious ethical rail made obvious within the listserv's identity (or IARP (& CRC) Ethics code for that matter) regarding outward sharing of listserv information.   For something to breach ethics, it must be a named and numbered item as part of an Ethical code.  Ethics is not a feel-good generality that we all somehow sense we belong to, or impose on others as a supposedly and commonly shared element.  <o:p></o:p>

As it stands now, there is no IARP Listserv Rule that addresses the use of "outward" verbatim sharing of inside author or communication (posts)- even if it is helpful stuff for one's peer or mentoree.  That is why the conundrum continues without solution.<o:p></o:p>

When an organization wants (as we obviously desire) and hopes for common conduct, that item must be put into writing as binding to persons who subscribe to x, y, and z.  Relying upon good-will, common sense, and idealized values does not cut it with something this sensitive, this desired, this unique format, and this valued.<o:p></o:p>

A path forward might be to create language, signed by participants, which specifically states that a) the author's identity coupled with the b) content of posting on the IARP Forensic Listserv is not for any use outside of the Listserv itself, and in fact is prohibited (with sanctions, etc.).  Now, tell that to a judge and jury!   Until then, the serv has been left haplessly losing involvement, flat-footed, angsting, and missing a golden opportunity to polish off and grow the gem we had needlessly come to miss and love.   As always, the input and opinions of others is wholesomely welcomed.    <o:p></o:p>