Law school graduation is coming up and that means it’s time to engage in duplicitous backstabbing of everyone you call a friend in a mad scramble for graduation week event tickets.
That’s why the process of selling graduation week tickets has to be managed with a level of procedural fairness normally reserved for stock quotes or Miley Cyrus tickets. It’s also the reason everything can quickly descend into a lower circle of hell if someone feels they’ve been screwed over for tickets.
That’s what happened when a top law school accidentally gave the LLMs an early bite at the grad event ticket apple. And what they tried to do next lit up a hornets’ nest of entitled tools….
(Please note the UPDATES added below.)
George Washington Law gave the LLMs access to purchase tickets. The problem is they hadn’t opened the site to the JD students yet. Rather than let the LLMs suck up tickets without competition, the school refunded the tickets and waited to reopen the site at a time when everyone had a fair shot at the tickets.
That gave rise to this Facebook exchange. The names have been changed to protect the jackholes:
How does it look like they’re saving spots? It looks like they’re trying to ensure that every member of the law school has equal access to the tickets. And exactly how were the early tickets purchased fair and square? Just because the LLMs didn’t snap up tickets with malice, didn’t make the conditions fair.
Perhaps these LLMs need a refresher in contracts, but when the tickets are going to be reoffered in an open process later in the week, there’s not really much argument for specific performance. Take your refunds.
Oh, you want to complain some more? Fine.
Translation: “We were buying tickets to keep JDs out and the school should have let us.” That’s probably not a winning argument.
Two things here. First, Conspiracy Carl is starting to sound like a white guy who just figured out how affirmative action works: “Whoa! I’m all for doing something to help people overcome years of discrimination, but can we make sure it in no way affects our access to the privileged position that’s ultimately responsible? Thanks!” It never occurs to him that “square one” is a conceivable fair starting point. Hell, he even describes just halting the sales now so the LLMs can’t make a run on the inventory as “debatable.” Second, check out the word “materially” in that last comment. Oh, you know this is going to go down the road to #lawyerdouchebaggery.
Oh, right. The infamous George Washington alcohol situation. Of course this is the school that would botch an event.
Some reasonable people arrive at the party. Too bad Carl’s already bolted three clicks past rational thought. The administration will shut down the event because it didn’t let LLMs game the system to deprive JDs from access to graduation? Sure.
That video is of course the epic Rabble Rabble bit:
“Your arguments contradict the law (on the eve of your graduation) and you think I’m the one that needs perspective?” Again, Carl may need to buy a contract outline.
Well since he was already at the dean’s office, I’m sure the whole issue has been resolved in Carl’s favor by now.
UPDATE (4/12/2014, 11:20 a.m.):
Conspiracy Carl, LLM has responded on Facebook.
The narrative (including the nicknames) obviously favors the SBA’s perspective. Like this thread, this article is premised on the incorrect idea that the issue raised to the dean was one of conspiracy or deliberate shutout. That is incorrect and all people who sat in those meetings can confirm that I preemptively stopped the deans from addressing the conspiracy issue because that was not my allegation.
The issue I raised wasn’t conspiracy. I told the deans (two deans and an assistant dean) that I believed the SBA’s story about mistake.
Intersting, because “Obviously, this looks like you guys are saving spots.” Certainly sounds like a conspiracy, and it looks like three deans shared our read, but let’s keep an open mind.
I read [Sad Admin]‘s explanation while I was waiting for the first meeting and I walked in there and told the school that I accept it as fact. Not a single argument alleging ~deliberate~ impropriety was made against the SBA to the school. And I stopped the deans to save them the trouble of addressing that issue (because it wasn’t my issue) twice.
So the problem here is one of timing. Carl accepted the SBA assertion of innocence after he’d already marched to the dean’s office. Fair enough. This is actually a good lesson in why we used pseudonyms for the characters in this human drama — so real people don’t get tagged forever for their snap judgments. We should probably rename Carl…
The issue (as recorded in the emails and [Someone Else] heard me say it myself) was whether the SBA’s unilateral mistake made the sale voidable. The school responded that the SBA has discretion to determine whether its own mistake is voidable.
Well, obviously. Because that’s pretty basic. The conspiracy element was pretty much the only possible reason that this wouldn’t have been the right answer. Once that was, apparently, conceded this just became a waste of everyone’s time.
Like I said earlier, your posts weren’t very academic.
Neither is that article.
True, the article did not put anyone in soul-crushing debt.
Compare what actually happened to the circus of strawmen arguments above (that eventually found its way to ATL). Congratulations, trolls. You spent 92 posts commenting on the wrong thing and then someone (possibly one of you) took your point of view and published it.
The “strawmen” being, of course, that the SBA had every right to feel the situation was unfair and then void the sales and dispense full refunds provided it opens the market at a later date to allow everyone in the school, including the prior purchasers, a fair and reasonable opportunity to buy the tickets? I guess?