10

Law.StackExchange.com has a close reason for something which is asking for specific legal advice.

I know this site doesn't get much traffic, but more and more questions seem to be very specific and overly concerned with a particular interaction between a freelancer and a client.

Perhaps it's merely how they are phrased. But I feel these questions asking for specific ways to deal with a specific client may be off topic because there's simply no way to know the actual interactions, the contract (if there is one), or any communication. At best the question details one side's perception which is almost always not the 100% valid accounting (even without any intentional deception).

Examples:

Some of these examples could be reworded to be more objective and less "interaction specific". I don't claim that this is a "black and white" area. Some subjectivity is understood at times. But these seem to be very subjective and opinion based.

Yes, I've answered a few, which I can do but it's all really opinion and I don't think can be based in anything more without all the details. I worry that this Q/A will become overly populated by opinions without any real solid answers.

I don't even know if it matters based upon site traffic and still being in beta. I think questions are still only closed by moderators due to lack of user votes (but I don't honestly know).

Perhaps an "Asking for Specific Interaction Advice" would be a valid close reason to add? I merely feel if the answer to a question is "well, here's how I'd handle that situation..." it may be too subjective overall.

It also makes it difficult to link duplicates because no two situations will ever be the same, especially in the eyes of the user posting a question.

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

I'm not an expert in law in any sense, but it is my understanding that giving specific legal advice is somewhat binding and has legal repercussions, right?

I don't think that a policy like that applies to freelancing.

What happens here is no different from asking our buddies for their opinions.

Some will have experiences to share, some will have beliefs that they will state and very similar problems may have widely different answers.

There are only so many questions about time tracking software and pricing to ask before people need to go down to specifics.

Everyone's freelancing journey is different and there's no way of being helpful without getting into the specifics.

There's no freelancing council that will prevent you from practicing freelancing because you gave advice online that turned out to be bad, and now you are forced to take the fallout because your "client" is suing for damages.

So I don't believe we should implement such policy.

1

"Perhaps an "Asking for Specific Interaction Advice" would be a valid close reason to add? I merely feel if the answer to a question is "well, here's how I'd handle that situation..." it may be too subjective overall.".

The asker should state their goal.

Workplace has this close reason:

Interpersonal Skills has this close reason:

  • "Asking "What should I do?" is off topic. - Questions should ask for help achieving a specific goal. Your question is asking for personal advice on "what to do" without defining a goal; this is too subjective. Edit your question to explain what you hope to achieve and how you would like to interact with the others involved.".

See the first paragraph from this answer on IPS.SE:

"I think questions of the form: "here's my tale of woe; what do I do now?" are too broad and opinion-based on many sites, especially here. You need to get askers to focus on the goal -- are you trying to avoid having to deal with that person in the future, are you trying to repair the relationship, are you trying to prevent rumors from spreading, what?".

When you are in need of questions and there are established norms for exactly the same situation it's better to conform to established practices rather than chase questions away. Having said that, questions that are solely about interpersonal skills or employment and have no freelancing component could be better answered elsewhere.

"It also makes it difficult to link duplicates because no two situations will ever be the same, especially in the eyes of the user posting a question.".

I handle those kind of duplicates all the time on MSE, it just a matter of being thoroughly familiar with your site and using your search skills with tenacity. If not the question is identical, it will be that the answer nearly perfectly applies to both situations.

It's also a question of is the answer going to be just an opinion or will it be an explanation of what is best practice, why it is best, and what the resulting outcomes are expected to be; possibly including further advice to avoid the problem in the first place or to ensure it can't reoccur. We will be: "Answering well-asked questions", after all.

0

"Law.StackExchange.com has a close reason for something which is asking for specific legal advice."

As someone who appears on the leaderboard for close vote reviews at Law Stack Exchange, and has reviewed 100+ close decisions there, I can tell you that the close reason you mentioned, is actually an extremely contentious issue, and many people including the highest-rep user of the site, frequently (maybe more often than not) vote to "leave open" when they see something enter the close-vote review queue for being a "personal advice" question.

Almost every question on Law.SE is asked by someone who seeks legal advice. It seems that this is what the site is for. (Sorry for ending the last sentence with a preposition, I wanted to make emphasis!)

Finally, this site has been extremely inactive compared to other sites that are around the same age. It was on the verge of getting shut down due to lack of people nominating themselves for the moderator elections. Adding more close-vote reasons doesn't seem to be the way to fix that problem, in this case.

I totally agree with the other two answers.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .