4 ms·

This is clearly an attempt to gather evidence about the defense and the journalists involved. It is also likely that they are attempting to identify the source

This is clearly an attempt to gather evidence about the defense and the journalists involved. It is also likely that they are attempting to identify the source for the Navy Time's reporting. Here's an analogy from the civilian world: An employee reports an OSHA violation. Their employer is fined and forced to spend money on fixing the violation. Angered by this, the employers management tries to find who reported them to OSHA. They were caught doing something wrong, and now they are trying to identify who caught them doing it. The ethical response is to admit wrong doing and make it right, not intimidate your opponents. If you don't understand that I'm not sure there's much debate to be had.

torstenvl 7y ago
Okay so what ethics rule are you claiming was violated? https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...
- chrischen 7y ago
  I don’t think they meant “ethics rules of just lawyers.” It’s unethical because the only reason they are trying to unsurface the leaker is so that they can potentially punish them to discourage that behavior which revealed bad behavior in the first place.
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    The comment discussed reporting them to the state bar. The state bar only enforces ethics rules of the type I'm discussing. If the original comment far upthread was contemplating reporting someone to the state bar for something that didn't violate state bar ethics rules, then that's even more egregiously inflammatory.
    - chrischen 7y ago
      That is true, but I think those were two unrelated points. That is “... is unethical” and also “they should report to the state bar.” I believe that was the original intent of the commenter, since the sentences did not directly follow each other in his paragraph.
- jplayer01 7y ago
  You seem to be incredibly skeptical of the most obvious and non-controversial opinions here. > U.S. Marine officer • Federal government attorney This is in your profile, so I assume you're being so defensive because you have some kind of skin in the game, even if it's blind faith and trust in colleagues you probably don't even know. Your "side" is perfectly capable of being immoral and unethical, and this is the perfect example, even if you seem to think it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard that only lawyers would think is appropriate for this conversation. People have explained to you clearly where the problem is and why. I think it's time you distanced yourself emotionally from the issue and try to look at it from the point of view of somebody who isn't a government employee or in the Navy. Hell, consider it from the point of view of a whistleblower or a journalist.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't get personal like this in arguments on HN. It doesn't help; it only hurts. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - jplayer01 7y ago
      Everybody has already made great arguments. I wasn't attacking him, just pointing out that there are personal factors that probably prevent him from seeing the other side. That's incredibly important and shouldn't be dismissed. It wasn't meant in any kind of accusatory or inflammatory way. It's really unnecessary and unproductive for my comment to be flagged. There's something very wrong with this place if nobody is ever allowed without any exception to engage with each other on a more personal level. Sometimes no logical well-thought out reasoned argument will ever convince somebody else, at which point it really helps to try to understand why a person believes the things he does. We're human, not robots. Our beliefs aren't just factual, they're based in our experience, our environment, and who we are.
      - dang 7y ago
        The first sentence, though personal, arguably managed to stay on the ok side of the line. But when you cross into "you're being so defensive", "it's time you distanced yourself emotionally from the issue", and so on, that's invasive personal commentary which does count as attack/accusatory/inflammatory (to put it in the terms you used). Nobody wants to be psychologized and patronized in this way. Even if your perceptions are accurate, it's the worst way to share them with the other person. I get that that wasn't your intention, but keep in mind that these things come across as much stronger and less innocuous to the reader than they do to the writer. Multiply that by 10x at least when you're the person being targeted. When users make arguments in this way, it nearly always leads to angrier, flamier, discussion, so I do think the flags on the comment are correct.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

torstenvl 7y ago

Okay so what ethics rule are you claiming was violated? https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...

chrischen 7y ago
I don’t think they meant “ethics rules of just lawyers.” It’s unethical because the only reason they are trying to unsurface the leaker is so that they can potentially punish them to discourage that behavior which revealed bad behavior in the first place.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  The comment discussed reporting them to the state bar. The state bar only enforces ethics rules of the type I'm discussing. If the original comment far upthread was contemplating reporting someone to the state bar for something that didn't violate state bar ethics rules, then that's even more egregiously inflammatory.
  - chrischen 7y ago
    That is true, but I think those were two unrelated points. That is “... is unethical” and also “they should report to the state bar.” I believe that was the original intent of the commenter, since the sentences did not directly follow each other in his paragraph.
jplayer01 7y ago
You seem to be incredibly skeptical of the most obvious and non-controversial opinions here. > U.S. Marine officer • Federal government attorney This is in your profile, so I assume you're being so defensive because you have some kind of skin in the game, even if it's blind faith and trust in colleagues you probably don't even know. Your "side" is perfectly capable of being immoral and unethical, and this is the perfect example, even if you seem to think it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard that only lawyers would think is appropriate for this conversation. People have explained to you clearly where the problem is and why. I think it's time you distanced yourself emotionally from the issue and try to look at it from the point of view of somebody who isn't a government employee or in the Navy. Hell, consider it from the point of view of a whistleblower or a journalist.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't get personal like this in arguments on HN. It doesn't help; it only hurts. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - jplayer01 7y ago
    Everybody has already made great arguments. I wasn't attacking him, just pointing out that there are personal factors that probably prevent him from seeing the other side. That's incredibly important and shouldn't be dismissed. It wasn't meant in any kind of accusatory or inflammatory way. It's really unnecessary and unproductive for my comment to be flagged. There's something very wrong with this place if nobody is ever allowed without any exception to engage with each other on a more personal level. Sometimes no logical well-thought out reasoned argument will ever convince somebody else, at which point it really helps to try to understand why a person believes the things he does. We're human, not robots. Our beliefs aren't just factual, they're based in our experience, our environment, and who we are.
    - dang 7y ago
      The first sentence, though personal, arguably managed to stay on the ok side of the line. But when you cross into "you're being so defensive", "it's time you distanced yourself emotionally from the issue", and so on, that's invasive personal commentary which does count as attack/accusatory/inflammatory (to put it in the terms you used). Nobody wants to be psychologized and patronized in this way. Even if your perceptions are accurate, it's the worst way to share them with the other person. I get that that wasn't your intention, but keep in mind that these things come across as much stronger and less innocuous to the reader than they do to the writer. Multiply that by 10x at least when you're the person being targeted. When users make arguments in this way, it nearly always leads to angrier, flamier, discussion, so I do think the flags on the comment are correct.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]