^^^^^^^^^----  F---ing Hell.... Sheesh!!  ---^^^^^^^^

And some retire before they ever become architect...

How can you retire if you haven't even started?

There is no broader traditional definition of the term architect, you either are or you aren't.

While it is in the mythical tradition of the architect to work until one drops dead at the drafting table, what about the many for whom that becomes difficult or impossible? One in six people will have a long-term disability in their lifetime. Some people with some conditions/illnesses/injuries/disabilities will still be able to continue working with little to no change to the hours they can put in or the type of work they can do, physically or cognitively or both - but many others will be forced to cut back on their work or their role in it, and some will need to discontinue it at some point.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot since I was diagnosed with a chronic condition recently - something that is currently limiting my stamina and thus decreasing my hours, and in the long run has a significant likelihood of progressing to more serious limitations that will bring into question whether I will be able to continue working to a typical retirement age and beyond.

It's not wise to dismiss retirement planning and saving on the basis that you will work forever. Even if that's what you want, for many it isn't possible, and you cannot predict whether you'll be one of that group.

Umm... well I am an architect, and luckily I've been saving steadily since the beginning of my career, and have been pretty steadily employed for 30 years, with just a few blips along the path - so I don't have quite the amount my financial planner would like, but not so far off. But Richard you're kind of sidestepping my point: I understand  that you plan to work until you die, and you think it's impossible to save while working in architecture. So what happens if you stay in this profession, continue to not save anything, and then one day you develop an illness, like I did, or what if you are in an accident and you can't work? It's not a remote possibility - close to 20% of adults will develop a long-term disability.

I understand that you personally live with parents and can probably expect not to have to function as an adult for another 20 years or so - but then what? How will you pay your property taxes if one day you can't work anymore? I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want to be counting on just social security/disability with no nest egg of my own. I've worked on enough subsidized elderly housing and it sure is a cautionary tale that will make you up your 401k contributions!

Balkins you spend a lot of time complaining about this profession, for someone who is so peripherally related to it and who has done so few real projects. It begs the question: why don't you just pick a better, more stable, more lucrative imaginary career? How about pharmacist? That's a profession with high starting salaries, demand is increasing, employment is a near guarantee. Don't pharmacists have websites you can haunt?

It is not mythical if one is the owner of the firm, and it is also not impossible because architecture is not hard labour that wears your body out, it just makes you bitter before you reach sweet old age ;)

so bitter..... lol. so, so bitter...

But even that doesn't save you if the market completely craters and the firm is flat out of work and headed for Chapter 11.

Best insurance is to be self employed or at least have a good side gig. You have to lose a lot of clients to completely get shut out of business, but only one employer.

And be a kiss-ass!

"of"

Haha!

"Haha!"

How could architect become programmers? Architects dont know programming. They are not taught programming in university??!!!

@Hyperion, check out this series of Archinect features, for some other examples.

I wonder who is thumbs-downing every comment on this thread where someone discloses being laid off?

No one needs buildings.

I always thought this was the "waist of time" but you're saying it's architecture?!?

Large firms tend hire and fire with project workload. It's a foolish practice.

I've known a lot of good people that got laid off for no fault of their own. Many times it's just being the unlucky one that finished a project with no new project to jump onto and nothing else in the pipeline coming up. That's more a fault of the rain makers in the office not finding enough work to make it rain ... but they'll keep their jobs until it gets really bad.

Even if the employee is a better worker/better at Revit/better suited to the role than someone else, they still end up getting laid off because it's too inefficient to bring someone else up to speed on the project when times are tough. For small hiccups in work, firms can usually make sacrifices to keep good workers, but if they are laying off more than a handful of people, it's because they don't have enough work in the pipeline and sometimes you can just be the unlucky one.

Exactly EA.

^ ok boss.. this is some of the worst advice i've seen on this website - avoid at all costs

Did an exploitation write this?

As a kid in the 80’s I remember my father getting laid off from his factory job. We went from working class to poor in a week, because without a cushion to delay the decent between classes that’s what happens. It took him 6 months to find stable work. Layoffs protection paid by the company, put aside as part of a salary, for at least 6months, ought to be a feature of any job, especially those that lack stability during economic ups and downs.

Layoff insurance of some sort.

And, I mean specifically paid by the company…that shifts the risk-reward dynamic for companies…because now they bear the burden of irresponsible or short sighted hiring practices. Why should we the tax payer bear the burden. Let tve companies carry the risk and provide the safety cushion.

so...regulate businesses more?

(not what i was expecting)

proto's comment is seriously making me think about taking jla off the ignore list just to see what was said. Then again ... nope not worth it.

x-jla wrote:

 "Layoff insurance of some sort."

You mean unemployment insurance?  We already have that.  It requires both state and federal government.  Not very libertarian of you x-jla.  

Nope. Unemployment is a government institution. I said “ specifically paid by the company…that shifts the risk-reward dynamic for companies…because now they bear the burden of irresponsible or short sighted hiring practices. Why should we the tax payer bear the burden. Let tve companies carry the risk and provide the safety cushion.”

Many shitty labor practices are enabled by the state. I’m talking about companies taking the responsibility to offer a safety net for employees. This is completely libertarian, because it’s not forced. It could become the norm…like sign on bonuses have.

It only take a few companies to take the initiative, and then others will feel obligated to include that to stay competitive for employees. The employer could offer something like a 50% holding on top of the salary for the first year, and hold that money in trust in case of a layoff. For example, if I pay an employee 10,000$ a month, I put 5000$ Additional dollars away per month on top of that for a year. After the first year, that’s a 6 month cushion, and that gets held in trust to be pain in case of a layoff. Rather than a sign on bonus or whatever, that’s some security and peace of mind.

fuck insurance. fuck insurance. fuck insurance.

being a parasite that makes money off of other people's fear of misfortune and misery is about as libertarian as it gets. thus: fuck insurance.

It’s weird that people can’t imagine solving problems without a government spanking.

it's weird that you think yourself an intellectual titan, but here we are.

You obviously didn’t read what I wrote.

A business that withholds a safety net for it’s employees is not “insurance”. It’s a job benefit provided by the employer.

Like Starbucks, some companies offer good things like tuition payment to get good employees. Employees and employers are both subject to the rules of supply and demand.

You think my insurance sentences were directed at you. They were not. And you seem to think my comment directed at you had something to do with my sentences about insurance. They did not. To quote an intellectual titan: "You obviously didn’t read what I wrote."

x-jla wrote:

 “Nope. Unemployment is a government institution. I said “ specifically paid by the company…that shifts the risk-reward dynamic for companies…because now they bear the burden of irresponsible or short sighted hiring practices. Why should we the tax payer bear the burden. Let tve companies carry the risk and provide the safety cushion.”” 

So instead of us paying taxes to the government for UI we’ll be paying part of our paycheck to the business we work for. Got it.  That sounds like just another tax to me.  

Just one question: who is going to enforce that business provide UI?  That sounds like the government is going to need to get involved to enforce this.  Especially for big businesses that are so big they can take the bad PR and can just hire more people. Think Amazon.  

Sounds like more government regulation, how is that libertarian? 

Don't worry Chad, there's a reason we don't have pensions anymore. I think it was the basis for the plot of Dumb and Dumber.

What x-jla is suggesting isn't a pension. It's literally business provided UI. Just like government provided UI the employee has to help pay for it. We'd literally just be handing over MORE money to our employers to pay for it to get the same benefit as government UI.  This would be due to the smaller risk pool that employers would be part of.  

It's analogous. The pension was a business provided retirement plan. The funds were deferred wages. The companies saw that pot of money just sitting there and couldn't resist. They used it. Then they forced everyone onto 401ks, which not accidentally put the money back into investments in their own companies. This is what happens when companies are put in charge of their own finances. They have a fiduciary duty to fuck everyone over except the shareholders. And if you think having a 401k means you're one of the shareholders I'm talking about, congratulations: you're an idiot.

If a company is providing UI and they go bankrupt, what happens to all the money paid for UI when all their workers need to make a claim and all the creditors are trying to get their piece of the pie (I think this is SP's point with the pension comment)? Who steps up to ensure it gets paid out to the workers?

Reinsurance companies? Ok, what happens when there's ... oh I don't know ... a global pandemic and lots of companies are folding or laying people off and the reinsurance companies have to cover everyone's UI payouts and they run out of money? Or worse, they argue an act of God or something and get out of having to pay UI claims because of some fine print? Who pays for it then?

If only there was an entity with the ability to create money out of thin air that could cover these costs. If there were such an entity why wouldn't we just let them run the UI program and cut out all the companies in the middle who take out their administrative fees and profits? Hypotheticals are fun aren't they?

do you watch cody's showdy?

Specifically I am suggesting that corporations are groupthink. Smart people get hired, get given a task, do the task, and get promoted. By the time they have enough information and a large enough amount of control, they've been indoctrinated into the culture of profit at all costs. They start putting the business first and blaming people for things like wanting a living wage and families and to not die of sickness. They look at their success and don't understand why everyone isn't like them.

Then they start lobbying politicians and writing model legislation to water down the boundaries and safeguards that protect benefits like pensions, so they can raid the extra profits that happen in good years in order to restructure. Then a lean year comes and ah, fuck. Now we have to pay out with money we suddenly DO NOT HAVE. Welp. You lazy fuckers should have been like me. Cya! And boom, we have 401ks, which benefit corporations more than they do workers.

Chad, like any other contract, it would be enforced by the courts if the employee

*employer breached

The monies can be held in trust, and I never said that you pay into it. It would be offered as a benefit on top of your salary, like vacation pay, sign on bonuses, etc.

I want to know more about this benevolent corporation that will just put away money in a savings account, and gift to peeple, without passing on the costs of doing a benevolence to the consumer. How about if workers just handle this all by themselves?

And, unions can push for this too. We rely too much on the government to solve problems. The solutions they provide are either way short, ineffective, or decades in the

Pipeline to get shit.

“If only there was an entity with the ability to create money out of thin air” we’d have inflation like we do rn. Lll

“without passing on the costs of doing a benevolence to the consumer”. No, pass on the cost. That’s part of the problem. Things should maybe be more expensive and reflect the true cost. Same issue with curbing made in China…

b3ta, you probably don't understand. The "market" will solve all of this. Just let the "invisible hand" sort it out.

A cost passed on to the consumer is a tax.

How about we just stop wage theft.

EA, the market solves far more than the government. And “the market” is a type of ecology. The intelligence and complexity of this spontaneous order is way greater than that of some central planners, which is why all successful nations have free markets, and all centrally planned states fail.

“A cost passed on to the consumer is a tax.”. No it’s not, but I’m not against “tax” per se. I’m against theft. A transaction tax is voluntary. An income tax is extortion backed by the threat of violence.

If you're in the pocket of corporations, you're down with wage theft.

The market. Is people. Who are greedy. And it solves nothing.

Yeah, except for literally everything you consume on a daily basis.

The market. Is the collective decisions of masses of people trading freely. And it solves most things.

That’s not to say that “the market” is free from problems. It just handles complexities that are impossible to be centrally planned.

I always make important decisions by just doing what a few million greedy fucks think is best for themselves.

You're looking at a result and assuming it's a planned result. It's chaos. It's luck. It's horse shit.

It’s spontaneous order- an emergent order that comes from many cooperative relationships.

Hahahahahahaaaaaaa. Sure, Jan. I'm out. The turd is in the pool. Time to hit the shower.

Do an inventory of the things that sustain and enhance your life and if they are products of the state or “the market”.

Every single thing I own used the highway to get here. Next.

No. Fuck. Not next. Ignore. Seriously. You're such a waste of time. I hope you're a decent landscape designer. Really. Because otherwise you're such a waste.

Sorry that you have to live in a world where not everyone agrees with you. It must be a hard pill for a narcissist to swallow.

The problem with the invisible hand is that you can't track what it's doing, and it often sticks its fingers in places that most people believe it shouldn't.

The problem with the invisible hand is that it leads people to anthropomorphize an uncaring, unintelligent system which leads them to trusting it over flesh and blood humans.

Have you compared heavily planned cities like we find in communist countries vs ones that emerge from spontaneous order? Which are more intelligent?

While Urbanicinc has some potentially reasonable advice for career choosing versus job seeking. Don't choose or stick with a career if you don't like the career more than you dislike it. If every day, you are bitching, moaning, and groaning about the profession, get out of that profession ASAP. 

There is not an occupation where you like every aspect of it but for f--- sake, if you are miserable all the time, then you are miserable to everyone around you or interact with. That is what I think Urbanicinc was trying to convey. When it comes to merely seek a job, take the job if it pays and you can do, so you can pay the bills but simultaneously/concurrently, you work on your migration to another occupation in which you feel better and is not miserable. This forum is filled with a lot of miserable people. 

If you are going to stick with a profession, you need to be happy and not miserable for the sake of everyone else. No employer wants miserable employees and so does all the other employees because a miserable person is miserable to others and before long, it is all miserable. 

If you were miserable all the time when you were taking classes from architecture school during your first year, you should change your major when you start your second year if not sooner when it is clear, that you are moaning griping miserable ass 24/7, or a lot throughout every single day.

I am all for this. Everyone around us is raising rates except most architectural practices. I suppose we want to maintain inflow of work but also remain acceptable to some institutions or clients that cannot afford big fees. Regardless maybe this means not as many people will be building, ironically probably better for the environment but that puts us out of business!

x- not sure if specialization is good or bad - overall it's probably good. i think what you mean is firms who aren't very diversified in the types of work they take on are the ones who are more susceptible to being moved by larger economic forces. if you have some public, some developer, some x.... - hopefully you don't have a situation where all the markets get hit the same way. that said, an event like 2008 hurt every firm - even though we focus mostly on institutional work (public and private), we lost all 3 of our biggest projects (2 museums and a church) within 2 weeks of lehman falling. all were backed by donors (in one case a broad group of donors) who all withdrew their commitments. so, even though there was zero work in the housing markets, we suffered almost as much.

Yes that’s what I mean. I agree that specialization is good, but as in nature, highly specialized niche dependent creatures are less resilient and adaptable to changes than more generalist creatures. It’s one of the reasons that humans are so dominant in the ecosystem.

This is an unfortunate double edged sword, because specialization is good for efficiency and expertise.

There is racism and ageism in this profession and all occupations. I am not sure your case is racism or ageism by your employers. There can be other reasons and from the tone of your message, is it possible that it is your attitude?

Just claiming it is racism or ageism doesn't mean it is. You didn't particularly discussed your experiences but I am not so sure you are understanding of your lay offs are based on raceism or ageism. Ageism may be more likely but that effects white people too... especially the more you're employer bases its practice on the latest software that is in vogue.

"I am not so sure you are understanding of your lay offs are based on raceism or ageism" 

 you are is suppose to be your.

your calculations and qualifications, if practiced, would wipe off a considerable majority of architectural practice and turn architecture into the hands of multinational, few, and financially secure corporate firms. if that happens, say goodbye to many things that maintain this profession worthwhile and creative from the bottom up. for me, it's hard to imagine having reserve funds to ride out a recession for five years without downsizing. relatedly, many small businesses that try to get it going have less than three months of reserves. you can't hold people liable for trying to establish a business. you know, that leads to a miserable monopoly.

Flab, sounds like you understand fuck-all about how arch practices function. It’s not your employers’responsibility to fund you during economic downturns. If there is no work, there is no fees to pay freeloaders.

Yes, when there is is layoffs there is a downturn in the income and/or procurement of projects. Flab, there are some issues with what you are saying that are not quite true or accurate as you portray it when looking at the profession as a whole. I have been criticized for some of that. 

1. First obvious fact that you need to be corrected on is, the duration of a recession is not a fixed length. You represented it as such when it is factually not the case. 

2. Regarding "5 years worth of staff salaries" --- Most consultant service type businesses don't have the profit margin to accumulate 5 years of capital and line of credits just aren't that much, and to be able to do that every 10 to 20 years. 

This problem doesn't relate to the race or ageism argument.

well... the problem only tangentially relates to racism and ageism as much as the issue impacts the economy but I think it is only a small limited and tangential. Employers have many other reasons to layoff employees than race or age. Most employers won't even base their hiring or firing decisions on race or age as that's against the law and grounds for lawsuits. Something a tight margin business really needs on top of the already high number of lawsuits architecture businesses are dragged into.... riiiight.

"So, why can't public agencies (hospitals, schools, local and Federal Government) and big corporate owners hire smaller start-up practices on a regular basis." 

 Because a small start-up firm probably doesn’t have the qualifications to do large, complex, specialized, and labor-intensive work? 

 Even if they can convince a client, figure out the project, and perform the work… what makes you think this work so good for supporting longevity? railing against large firms? Either these firms will themselves become large firms… or they will implode when inevitably the entire office is working on a single project that gets canceled by a client. 

 There is a reason why large firms run a bunch of large projects, and small firms run a bunch of small projects….

You sound kinda protective of your own entitlement. Yes I get it, if I were one of the .00001% of Architects who got elevated early into a 6 figure firm management position, as a human being, I too would unfortunately probably say crazy "SH#$%" like you just wrote above. 

 Focus, please. Most times people in smaller firms either like the folksiness of a smaller practice or got blocked from progressing into better opportunities? It's hard to tell what firms and individual Architects are indeed capable of unless you take a chance and try them out! 

 Give 'em some real work and see how they perform. Why make your entitled judgements before even trying to see what people are all about? very often those "nobody" people that you threw under the bus in your rant above are smart talented people who got some how "left behind"! 

It reminds me of somewhat of that less than stage ready British singer on the talent show a few years ago who is now a celebrated operatic talent, all because she was able to show "Simon" what she could do! The point is there are no benevolent "Simons" in Architecture searching for undiscovered old or new-age talent.  Why not?

QBS (common for public projects) effectively requires a firm to have a certain level of staff to perform the work. Smaller firms usually have to sub-contract with other firms to build up a project team sufficient in scale to compare to that of a larger firm but doing so makes it very difficult to compete, price-wise, and the logistical concerns. Gone are the days of solo architects with a handful of apprentices working on significant public projects.

@Flab: 

 I honestly can’t even tell if you’re talking to me, I wrote like 100 words basically just saying there are practical reasons that the size of a firm reflects the size and type of projects they do…. You make it sound like I’m a raving lunatic on a tirade against the little guy. Like, what are you reading? 

Also, thanks for the promotion to firm management? Guess I can stop drawing toilets now.

Flabbergasted wrote: 

"Most times people in smaller firms either like the folksiness of a smaller practice or got blocked from progressing into better opportunities?" 

Was that a question or a statement?  If it was a statement I'd say you're incorrect.  When working in a smaller firm you have to do a bit of everything and be good at it all.  

Now, you're talking about nepotism. Most architecture businesses and essentially family own business not much different than family owned construction firms that are passed down in the family. Nepotism is not racism or ageism. Yes, sometimes there is case points where that intersects but actually very seldom. Architecture does have a significant culture of nepotism throughout the history of the profession. I wouldn't outright call nepotism to be systemic racism. There's controversial interplay of nepotism and racism/systemic racism over history but they are separate issues and I can agree that nepotism can cause inadvertent and unnecessary barriers to people of color succeeding in the profession. There's presumptions that a son or daughter of an architect would be a better trained and prepared architect than an architect who was not a son or daughter of an architect based on the idea that they would have been raised their entire life into architecture. From time to time, that's been true.

It's (the profession) not a level playing field even for most "white" people so it is loaded with issues stemming from the whole history of architecture profession.

At least some good points there, Flabb. I'll be able to do a more thorough response to various points made when back at a regular pc because phone on-screen keyboards are a pita.

Another related to nepotism phenomenon that I see in Architecture is cronyism.

When I see these two phenomenons at play, I can see it as a barrier or hurdle. I don't see these as themselves, racism. When a firm engages in nepotism, I don't immediately call that racist as race may know no significant factor in the decisions. Yet, it is an issue of the profession that I can understand coupled with historical and present systemic racism, would be barrier no non-"whites".

While I do have First Amendment rights like anyone else, this is a private forum where the Constitution does not apply but that person is not the forum owner or any moderator that I know of on this forum so that person (Le Courvoisier) is out of line and out of order of any sort of authority to tell another user what to do. I'll continue but probably tomorrow. You do bring up important points that I agree with can and may be causing issues that harms the career development and welfare of people of color and part of the "whites" in the profession not privileged by certain biases. Not all of those biases being racial/ethnic. One thing the 'woke movement' (as some call it), has at least done something for society... shining a spotlight on "biases" and the institutions of biases.

Flabbergasted - 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice the First Amendment is about keeping the government from prohibiting free speech.  It says NOTHING about a private business not giving someone a platform.  Also there is NOTHING in the First Amendment that keeps you free from repercussions for what you say.  

In case you're having a hard time understanding this here is a cartoon:

Also... the USA constitution does not extend beyond your borders.

Pffft - Non dis is 'Murica. Our will extends to all. Well except Canada or any country that we get oil from.

The largest supplier of oil to the US is the US... perhaps not all of our will extends to ourselves...

Yup - the US only imports about 20% of its total oil used. Then again it's global market so we like to keep the worlds oil prices down. Our will can extend to ourselves but it all depends on who's will it is. The people, pollitions, or the government?

I was mostly making a joke... but accurate.

I wish I was only making a joke. ;)

Chad and N.S., you are correct but while the First Amendment applies to U.S., virtually all modern democratic and related republics and most Constitutional Monarchies in the 21st century have some equivalent of that First Amendment. 

There are only a handful of real shithole countries and backward-thinking dictatorships, juntas, etc. that are so disregarding of human rights and other basic rights. These places are unlikely to be places where their citizens would be on here freely talking. 

However, it's not the place of users of private forums to enforce moderation policies/rules. It is their responsibility to obey those policies and rules. Moderation enforcement is the role and function and right of the admin/owner of the site/forum and the privilege of those individuals granted moderation privileges.

Rick - 

None of the users hare are enforcing moderation policies / rules. Asking someone to be quite isn't enforcing moderation policies / rules anymore than it's violating someone's First Amendment.

The real question is, is "please don’t type any more responses Balkins" really asking or is it really an order. This comes down to Le Courvoisier's intent of outcome.

That's not how things work Rick. 

Doesn't matter Courv's intent. Unless he / she can actively cause it to happen it's just words on a screen. I could tell a user to go f#@k themselves. It's not a command that they must follow.

Intent matters as to whether it's asking or ordering. If it was intent to be an order, the next important question is, "is it a command that must be followed", so one must then evaluate the authority of the requester. There is a sequence and that we agree.

Anyone can ask. Anyone can make orders. However, it is not the case that anyone can enforce (compel) the orders to be followed. This forum has certain users with certain authority to do so but not everyone. 

Therefore, I'm going back to the topic discussion by Flabb before this off-topic chatter in the discussion before Courv's posts.

Rick - you sound like you're saying that certain users here who aren't mods have the ability to stop you from posting. First off that isn't true. Second, even the mods here don't necessarily have that level of control here. That type of control is typically limited to people like the Big Green Head. Just ask Donna - she used to be a mod. If someone is telling you to shut up and they aren't a high level mod or the BGH then their intent doesn't matter. It's not going to happen, even if they command you. This is an online form, not a courtroom.

That was not what I said and I think there's confusion about that. What I am saying, intent matters to the definition of the words "ask" and "order". It matters there. Words have definitions and meaning. Yes, it is not a courtroom. It doesn't mean linguistically speaking that intent doesn't matter because that's how one gets to the truth of what is really asking and what is ordering. Authority to order and to enforce is not a requirement. 

As for non-moderators having the power to get someone to stop posting. Directly, you are correct. Indirectly, that's murkier. How much power does a mod have? That's a good question. 

Was it Paul Petrunia who directly removed and blocked my posting privileges on other threads? I doubt he personally did that with every case. I am not claiming every moderator has these privileges but it's not like there is any way to know here as a regular user. Frequently, I do ignore orders from users who are not the BGH or are purported to be moderators. 

Sadly, there's no clear indicator here on this forum. Many other forums have a much clearer identification like the word: "moderator" next to their name or in the user's profile. There would be a clear way to identify a moderator. That I am factual about and can prove it but won't post that here as that should not be necessary in this case. 

However, the relationship some users may have with moderators of a forum may have a special influence. That is not a claim regarding this forum but I'm also not talking about intimate relationships but more broadly speaking of types of relationships than any particular type.

I said certain users on this forum have these privileges. Those users are moderators or the admin (BGH) but they are users of this forum, too.

Rick - The users with the power to stop someone from posting are not the users who are asking you to stop typing. As for the rest of your argument - see my comment about telling someone to go f#@k themselves.

The irony here is that Flabbergasted an yourself are bringing up free speech and saying it's  "for everyone and nobody should be allowed to crush (it). "  Then you're saying that other people shouldn't be allowed to tell you to shut up and let other speak. 

That's hypocrisy at it's finest.    

Chad, I didn't bring up this topic. I responded to it. 

What was my first response to Flabb regarding the free speech branch? What did I actually write? Don't conflate it with what Flabb wrote. 

Here's what I wrote: "While I do have First Amendment rights like anyone else, this is a private forum where the Constitution does not apply but that person is not the forum owner or any moderator that I know of on this forum so that person (Le Courvoisier) is out of line and out of order of any sort of authority to tell another user what to do." 

There's a difference between free expression and that of ordering someone what to do without authority. Based on the tactics of many and possibly most users on this forum for years, in my personal experience, statements like this: "please don’t type any more responses Balkins" is really saying "shut the fuck up". That's really an order in customary practice on this forum by a number of users especially by those who are using aliases instead of their real names and in turn act more like pricks. 

If Courv's not a moderator or the BGH (admin/owner), AND the intent was an order, Courv would be out of line and without authority by doing so? 

Courv and other users on the forum are privilege to express themselves in accordance with what is essentially a community guideline. 

https://archinect.com/forum/thread/1560/terms-of-use - a link of reference. 

A lot of us had in one way or another violated the terms of use, including myself. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to comply with the terms of use. Like you said, I can symbolically respond with the "go f#@k themselves" but without actually saying it to their faces in accordance with rules 1 and 2. 

If Courv's intent was in fact not an order but intended as a polite request, I apologize for interpreting Courv's intent as an order.

If you don't like him just use the 'Ignore User' option. Rick may be verbose but he's typically a decent guy.

Le Courvoisier, this isn't a date. Dating on Archinect, I would imagine would suck. When it comes to writing, I am more verbose than I am when it comes to verbal communication.

As you should be completely free to be! Expression is an in-grained human trait. A freedom that nobody should be allowed to crush. Societies that muzzle verbal dissent and petulantly burn public library books, fire innocent teachers from innocently expressing their own ideas because they conflict with some small-minded political guy's view of "normalcy" and social acceptability

You're reaching here Flabbergasted. I think you're the type of person that doesn't understand the First Amendment and erroneously promotes your version of free speech until someone says something you don't agree with.

You're new here. Do you know anyone in person who is generally a good person but has diarrhea of the mouth, to the point that they end up taking over or shutting down any conversation they take part in? Do you passively let them drone on and on until everyone leaves the conversation, or if you like them, do you earnestly say, "hey buddy, pipe down, you're doing it again, let someone else talk." The latter is closer to how many of the long-time regulars here feel about Rick.

"hey buddy, pipe down, you're doing it again, let someone else talk." - I would appreciate others here to try this tact better because if they did that, it would feel less, offensive. That would be a lot better and actually also more professionally cordial. TY Wood Guy.

If others want to write something, just write it. It's a web forum not an in person chat room. What you want to convey is persistently there for others to read.

I have often defended Rick and his right to post here as often as he wants, and we sometimes communicate outside of this space. Stick around for ten years and let us know if you still feel the same way. In the meantime, why are you treading on our rights to write what we want to???

Or not. You are missing some perspective. This is not a case of "feeling the need to shut people up all the time."

While I can appreciate your earnestness in a neutrality and openness to the variety of perspectives in the world, there is a long history of this character pretending to represent with authority the voice of an architect. We all tried for a long time to roll with it. But it gets tiresome covering the same ground, and we are burned out on it.

Re: blocking others from talking: the walls of text do block others, and are especially irritating when they are just way off-base

A community has every reason to speak up for itself.

proto, people should quit whining about walls of text. Sheesh, I probably have to deal with my own walls of text and any by others, than they do as I probably read and respond to more posts, comments, and replies than most other users on this forum. I agree that I should strive not to make so many "walls of text". 

I also agree that a community should within reason speak for itself but try to remember the terms of use as that's where the rules of conducts are.

https://archinect.com/forum/thread/1560/terms-of-use (Link for reference)

Rick - respectfully, you're being a hypocrite again. 

You want people to allow you speak as often and as long as you want. However if someone disagrees with you and / or tells you to be quite you say that they need to stop.

If you want to be able to post as often and as long as you want then you need to be able to let people to respond to what you post.  You can't have it both ways.  

Had to go on an errand. At time of writing, I haven't refreshed to see any responses. Anyway, to be clear, you have the privilege on this forum to write your thoughts. However, nothing prohibits criticism of the arguments of a personmakes. My criticism is complaining about wall of text is kind of petty waste of time to complain about. A wall of text is really just a lengthy post. How are you actually hurt or harmed by another user's long comments? More specific, how is the length of a post or group of lengthy posts actually hurting or harming you? Would you think it is better to use your time complaining about more important things?

Ricky-

Others have already stated why walls of text are not welcome here. Again you're being a hypocrite. 

You said: "that person (Le Courvoisier) is out of line and out of order of any sort of authority to tell another user what to do." Yet you then say that others cannot tell you to stop posting walls of text. You don't have any authority to do so. 

If you want to post here I'd suggest you abide by requests of the users and the site owner. The latter has deleted your posts and banned your for your walls of text. That should be a clear signal from someone with the authority that your long posts are not wanted here.

Chad, what does rule 1 of the "terms of use" of Archinect say? 

I'm not the moderator but any user can point to the rules of the posted terms of use. Telling someone to shut up might actually violate rule 1. If someone wants to respond to me, post the response. There's nothing that stops them from posting except themselves. I don't have the power to stop anyone from posting replies. Just post them. 

However, we should post replies in accordance with the terms of use that you (as well as I) have agreed to by using Archinect. I'll get to it, it's asynchronous but I'll get to see it unless a mod removes it or something. Sometimes I might add posts in reply to what I wrote because I see something after reading what I have wrote that may need more precision and clarity to what I meant or for purpose of correcting myself.

Ricky- Others have already stated why walls of text are not welcome here. Again you're being a hypocrite. You said: "that person (Le Courvoisier) is out of line and out of order of any sort of authority to tell another user what to do." Yet you then say that others cannot tell you to stop posting walls of text. You don't have any authority to do so. If you want to post here I'd suggest you abide by requests of the users and the site owner. The latter has deleted your posts and banned your for your walls of text. That should be a clear signal from someone with the authority that your long posts are not wanted here. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The rules I am required to follow are those in accordance with the terms of use as set forth by the Archinect team. If walls of text is prohibited then set a character count limit and number of posts in the same thread over a set period of time. Do the programming, Archinect team. This forum is already largely a custom written forum.

Point to exactly where "wall of text" (which is lengthy posts) against the terms of use. 

This is the rules: ( https://archinect.com/forum/thread/1560/terms-of-use ). Those are the rules users of this forum agreed to follow. 

What exactly constitutes a "wall of text"? How many words or letters? How many consecutive posts. Maybe if we are going to enforce such policy, maybe set a word count or number of character counts and number of consecutive replies a user may post by some software programming modification to the forum. 

Rules need to be clear and objective not wishy washy. If such a case as this went before a court, it has to be clear enough for people to follow and have some consistency because it will be the courts holding jurisdiction to arbitrate these disputes if it ever went into a lawsuit.

Basically define it so it could be enforced the same for each user like a contractual agreement.

Rick, it's not against the terms of use; I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise.

Good. Users also agreed not to harass other users. If my lengthy posts due to their lengthiness (complaints of the "wall of text") are not against the rules (terms of use), then why the harassment? Wood Guy, I am not claiming you are harassing me. (to make clear to everyone)

Small FYI: The primary legal governing jurisdiction over Archinect is the United States. Some case matters, the state of jurisdiction where the business entity that operates Archinect is founded is the governing jurisdiction as well as U.S. Federal jurisdiction as federal laws apply.

All this angst seems to happen since I criticized Courv for his or her statement: "please don’t type any more responses Balkins". It came off to me as some kind of order or demand or command. That, therefore led to my response: "...but that person is not the forum owner or any moderator that I know of on this forum so that person (Le Courvoisier) is out of line and out of order of any sort of authority to tell another user what to do." It felt like Courv was telling me to "STFU". It is not the place for forum users to do that. It is the place of moderators to tell a user to shut up or discontinue a behavior and comply with the rules of the forum.

Besides, my response was directed to Courv but was in direct response to Flabb. So it was a statement that based on the tone, it felt like an order as a less profane way of saying STFU (if fully spelled out). If Courv wrote it a little differently like "would it be possible to post less and allows others to write responses before making further responses", that might have been less offensive. What the rest of the band wagon that followed did took this and turned it into a "harass Rick" exercise. I'd advise them to read the Terms of Use agreement.

"If you want to post here I'd suggest you abide by requests of the users and the site owner. The latter has deleted your posts and banned your for your walls of text. That should be a clear signal from someone with the authority that your long posts are not wanted here." 

The request of the site owner, I can understand and the site owner is a California-incorporated corporation --- Extra Medium, Inc. Corporations/businesses are treated a little differently under the laws in these matters than just a private personally owned site. 

Businesses operating web forums and other online services have to outline the rules in a terms of use agreement / terms of service agreement (to establish a contractual relationship in order to legally bind a user to the agreement and may elect to reference a written community guidelines document that is referenced by the contract (terms of use agreement) and give it legal authority. 

I'm not ordering you or anyone to do anything. You and they are already under the "orders" of the terms of use agreement.... the *rules*. I'm just pointing out statements of facts like here are the rules. Am I wrong to assume the rules apply to other users as it does to me?

I don't believe you. 

I don't think you're busy at work.  I think you're attempting to troll and failing miserably.  

Your previous comments an inability to grasp the hypocrisy of your own statements. Your attempting to end the discussion because users have pointed out your hypocrisy damages your credibility.  

(tbh, i will admit my first thought was flabbergasted = balkins)

First, I apologize if I mistook what you said as you trying to order me if that is the case. 

When 2-3 or more gang up to harass me, I do have to defend myself and I have to present the more detail reason behind my decisions in what I wrote. Why? No one here is coming to defend me. My honor requires me to defend myself from attackers but can not rely on others to come and defend.

The moderators hyper-enforcement of the rules against me but next to zero enforcement of rules of the personalities on this forum that they like (even when those personalities breaks the rules even when harassing me makes it feel like "I have to follow the rules") but they don't. 

I don't own the forum. They want to run it that way, it is their prerogative. 

All this means, I defend myself instead of wasting my time sending complaints to the complaints email address outlined in the Terms of Use or elsewhere. Generally, I just don't whine to their email when moderators should be just as vigilant on the enforcement of the rules with every user as they are with me or even a small group of users including myself.

Rick, you need help . Sincerely

Rick, you need help . Sincerely

From the Terms of Use: *bold* are those I highlight

As a condition of use, you promise not to use the Services for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these Terms, or any other purpose not reasonably intended by Archinect. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to use the Services:

1. To abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate any person;

2. To post or transmit, or cause to be posted or transmitted, any Content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or that infringes any copyright or other right of any person;

3. To communicate with Archinect representatives or other users in an abusive or offensive manner;

4. For any purpose (including posting or viewing Content) that is not permitted under the laws of the jurisdiction where you use the Services;

5. To post or transmit, or cause to be posted or transmitted, any Communication designed or intended to obtain password, account, or private information from any Archinect user;

6. To create or transmit unwanted ‘spam’ to any person or any URL;

7. To falsely impersonate or misrepresent an individual or identity

8. To post copyrighted Content that does not belong to you, unless you are commenting on Visual Content in Blogs, where you may post such Content subject to providing appropriate attribution to the copyright owner and a link to the source of the Content;

9. With the exception of accessing RSS feeds, you agree not to use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission. Additionally, you agree that you will not: (i) take any action that imposes, or may impose in our sole discretion an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure; (ii) interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Site or any activities conducted on the Site; or (iii) bypass any measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to the Site;

10. To advertise to, or solicit, any user to buy or sell any third party products or services, or to use any information obtained from the Services in order to contact, advertise to, solicit, or sell to any user without their prior explicit consent;

11. To promote or sell Visual Content of another person unless you are expressly authorized to do so; or

12. To sell, assign or otherwise transfer your profile.

PS: My criticism of the moderation is not a communication with a representative of Archinect under Rule #3. There is not an exchange in that tone with the moderators and no written verbal abuse made. 

I'm stating a concern I have. I haven't seen moderators admonishing users or requesting users to stop harassing users just because there is a difference in opinion. 

Why is there this terms of use agreement if it doesn't apply to all evenly? 

I'm not talking that people being banned or suspended or whatever but even admonition and posts removed (with or without removing their posting to a thread) and maybe even a PM or email warning and stern request to follow the rules.

Rick - to be fair you have violated the terms of use of this site many times and been banned from threads and this site for it.

When those bannings happened you lamented that your free speech was being violated and you should be able to say whatever you wanted.  

For you to now say that someone needs to not tell you to be quiet because is violates the sites TOS is not only incorrect but hypocrisy.  

This site and the company that operates this site are governed by and under the laws of the state of California and the United States. Aside from that, "Terms of use" is a binding agreement. You seem to suggest the rules does apply just because you are replying to me. That is not how rules work. When a user tells another user to be quiet, that may violate rule 1. Look up in the dictionary the definition of "harass". Here's a link from Dictionary.com ( https://www.dictionary.com/browse/harass ).

verb (used with object)
1. to disturb or bother persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; pester:
2. to intimidate or coerce, as with persistent demands or threats:
3. to subject to unwelcome sexual advances:
4. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

Regardless of my past actions on this forum, the fact that I am posting on the forum means, under law, that I agreed to the terms of use agreement.... as you are, too... as with everyone else.

"You seem to suggest the rules does apply just because you are replying to me." ----> "You seem to suggest the rules does not apply just because you are replying to me." 

Where did that "not" go?

No. 

 The terms of use is not a binding agreement (legally enforceable).  The TOU only applies to a person's use of the site, that's it, nothing more. It's up to the site owner to determine if someone has violated the TOU and any consequences for doing so. Aslo, by your own definition you're posts are considered harassment.

Before you respond please understand that due to a certain unhinged user here our lawyer has looked into this and what I just posted above is their findings. You may not agree with it but I'm going to believe our lawyer not you.

Chad, how is a mob of users hounding another user, not harassment?

You're missing the legal definition of harassment.  That is what counts.  

"A course of repeated conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose other than to cause harm." 

 There are three types. 

 1. Verbal / Written 

 2. Physical 

 3. Visual. 

Simply being annoyed that someone insulted you is not harassment.

If you want to go by legal definition, you need to cite statutory law and administrative law. Written / Verbal would be the category for written and spoken harassment. Web forums uses a more broader encompassing definition than statutory definitions. Back in 1995, Internet netiquettes was introduced: RFC1855 ( http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html and https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt ). Shortly before and around the dawn of the Internet was Virginia Shea's book "Netiquette" and the excerpt titled "The Core Rules of Netiquette". ( http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html and http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html )

If you want to go by legal definition, you need to citOver time, this among the varied online posting of student behavioral conduct online at colleges and universities began to set things in motion for private entities running forums. Some took pages back to pre-internet platform rules and rules of various BBSs. Ultimately, businesses online had to have "posted rules" just as they did at their stores and such. If you didn't post rule that no outside food and/or beverages. You can't remove someone for coming into the movie theater that came in with a hamburger unless you post a rule. Websites are treated similarly. Businesses are treated a little different than a private person. 

As a private person, I can remove a person because of their ethnicity. (Yes, that would be racist but not against the law. Not saying I would do that. It's an example highlighting there's important differences in how a person and a business is treated.) As a business, it would be unlawful. It is also the case with online presence of a business. 

A business including their web forums is subject to the laws of California and U.S. federal laws. This site is an extension of Extra Medium, Inc. not Paul Petrunia (legally separate persons) so its not exactly like its his personal home. 

If it was some Paulpetrunia.com site running a phpbb web forum, he can more freely remove anyone he doesn't like. As a site of a company, it can't be as capricious. Banning someone on basis of race would be illegal for a business. It would violate some anti-discrimination laws.

Are you starting to see the web of laws that comes into play? This argument began with some implied claim relating to length of posts and consecutive posts. First, lets define "wall of text". A post may be a wall of text to some but not to others. This needs to be defined if there is to be any rule regarding walls of text. Likewise, rules regarding the number of consecutive posts, comments, replies over a period of time. This can be arbitrary but one set forth by Archinect. There is no science to this but can involve the community to provide feedback, a polling, etc. 

Little side note: ( https://www.upcounsel.com/are-website-terms-and-conditions-legally-binding ) ---- 

The terms of use agreement may have unenforceable terms but only the individual terms may be unenforceable but only after declared in a legal proceeding. Until then, it is enforceable.

If there are problems in legal enforcement due to irregularities, then they can always make the corrections, and bam, its enforceable and they can do so. It can be legally binding without requiring a signature. Just like those Microsoft agreements that essentially by using the OS, you agree to the terms. It's been the case for 30+ years.

To make it affirmatively enforceable: 

1. During account creation, a user would be required to read the terms of use and click, I agree. A record of that be date and time-stamped in the accounts record. 

2. In addition, each post, comment, or reply would have a submit button with check box (to make the submit button clickable) that says something like this: "By clicking this check box and submitting this post, comment or reply or edit of my post, comment or reply, I confirm the post, comment or reply or edit of my post, comment or reply is in accordance with the terms of use agreement and that I reaffirm my agreement to the Terms of Use Agreement". 

Again, a record of that is stored in the accounts database and records. This can be done and implemented and records keeping automated.

Rick - You just proved my point that the terms of service are not legally enforceable for this site and that claiming harassment in a court based on the dictionary definition of the term is BS.

Regardless of what you post here I'm still going to listen to our lawyers. At this point you're basically just posting to justify your beliefs to yourself.  

The argument has gone on too long and been going in circles. Enough of that.

To your petition.... no.

I say we rename it 'I'm not a lawyer but I do post at length on Archinect'. 

I will say this - the laws on this stuff are very odd and rather counterintuitive.  I only barely comprehend this topic because I had to have a lawyer teach me about it. 

Fine. Listen to your lawyers. However, lawyers that deals with "Terms of Use" agreements have conflicting opinions in part of conflicting nature of individual states. It would be important to understand the laws according to the laws of the State of California and applicable federal laws.

Reason:

MISCELLANEOUS

The Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the USA, as applicable without regard to conflicts of laws principles. The United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods does not apply and is expressly excluded.

Any controversies or disputes arising out of or relating to these Terms shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the then-current Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association or of the International Center for Dispute Resolution to be held in California. The parties shall select a mutually acceptable arbitrator knowledgeable about issues relating to the subject matter of these Terms. The arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in English and all documentation shall be presented and filed in English. The arbitrator shall not have the authority to modify any provision of these Terms or to award punitive damages. The arbitrator shall have the power to issue mandatory orders and restraint orders in connection with the arbitration. The decision rendered by the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties, and judgment may be entered in conformity with the decision in any court having jurisdiction. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable legal costs relating to that aspect of its claim or defense on which it prevails, and any opposing costs awards shall be offset. The agreement to arbitration shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law. During the continuance of any arbitration proceeding, the parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under these Terms. The parties agree that, notwithstanding any otherwise applicable statute(s) of limitation, any arbitration proceeding shall be commenced within two years of the acts, events, or occurrences giving rise to the claim.

Terms of use agreements like the ones used of web forums falls into two broad approach types: browsewrap and clickwrap. Don't get too caught up with the terms "browsewrap" and "clickwrap" but understand the underlying principles. 

Reference: ( https://www.upcounsel.com/are-website-terms-and-conditions-legally-binding ). Upcounsel articles are written by lawyers. 

Browsewrap agreements are and have legal precedence of being recognized in courts. Clickwrap is generally better because it requires an explicit clicking a button or something to that effect to accept terms and better for enforceability. The individual terms of a TOU has to be assessed in court in the jurisdiction of the agreement. That jurisdiction is California and you have to challenge the enforceability of individual terms or the terms themselves in court before it can be officially declared unenforceable or unless you can cite a court case with regards to this exact TOU and with Archinect / Extra Medium, Inc. where the term or terms were stricken as unenforceable. Someone would have had to sue them, already. Now you can consult your attorney and follow their advice. 

Having said all the above, I request that we discontinue arguments regarding this topic and not to contact me on or off this forum regarding the topic of "Terms of Use" of this site. If I have issues or concerns of other users including you regarding potential violation of the Terms of Use (TOU), I'm not going to give the courtesy of reminding people of the rules, I'm just going to email or contact Archinect, directly to resolve the matters. 

If anyone attempts to harass me on these matters or any matter, on this site or elsewhere, I reserve the right to take legal action in my state in my local Circuit Court or through the local Federal court or any court as the laws may require. What happens beyond this site falls outside the TOU. 

I prefer to use a clickwrap setup but one that also collects identifying information at account creation and a simpler click check box and button but data record linked to the account. Of course, there would be a required data privacy policy and so forth. 

No term of contract is unenforceable unless challenged in court. It has to be challenged in a legal proceeding but at the same time, many provisions of contracts often can only be enforced through a legal proceeding (court, arbitration, etc.). Until you challenge it, you have to assume the agreement you agree to by creating an account and posting, commenting, or replying on the forum, is in effect. 

By the way, this site's terms of use agreement is technically a Clickwrap because there is a check box that says, I agree to Archinect's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use with links to it and a reCAPTCHA. 

From there it is Archinect's responsibility to store the required information, IP address, and time/date stamp the agreement was made (which may be precisely with the account creation. This also includes responsibilities related to data protection and record storing and retention. 

Neither, mine or your responsibility. If they done a sloppy job, it is their problem and would potentially compromise the enforceability of their TOU.

I think we should discontinue arguing. You should follow your lawyer's advice. It's difficult for Architect to sue you for violating terms of use if you are following your lawyers' legal advice.

"It's difficult for Architect to sue you for violating terms of use if you are following your lawyers' legal advice." -- insert "successfully" between the words "to" and "sue".

I did. Until you wrote that profanity-laced comment. When someone says and infers he/she is done with the arguing and in essence walking away.... word of advice, leave the person alone and let the person walk away quietly and calmly.

Please let us know when you will be done.

Hey now, watch that language. It could violate the TOU and be considered harassment.  You could go to jai.  ;) 

I keep starting a reply and then realize that the only way to make it stop is to stop posting.

Naw. We'll just hijack the thread.  Besides, I have the best retort to anything Rick says on the subject - 'My lawyer says you're wrong'

My lawyer says you're wrong. ;)

Retirement is overrated especially if you are male. You'll be busier than any job you ever had.