I am really excited about the poker metaphor, and look forward to engaging with it in some live games. It did feel like there were a few logistical hurdles in getting this set up, but hopefully these will smooth out as we go along. Very excited for the remainder of the course.
I think that litigation is a lot like poker; what concerns me, though, is the notion that there is no objective truth to the enterprise. Bluffing is based on credibility--that other players believe that you are demonstrating that you have a strong hand--but it really doesn't matter one bit what hand you've been dealt unless it comes down to the end. I would hope that litigation has some dimension of that, but also that jurors and the court can see past the theatrics and to get to the facts.
The poker analogy is interesting and I'm looking forward to playing it in class. I will watch some poker tutorial vids before class tomorrow to help learn the game better. Are we supposed to answer the questionnaire in the journal or is the journal more for our thoughts?
At the beginning of class, Professor Nesson asked us whether we are different with or without a mask? Then, Professor Nesson went on to use a poker comparison (comparing it with the two different poker websites). I do personally think that we act differently when we know whether people it is us (behind the action). I am interested to see if we will see differences between the two. I am looking forward to the class, and I really liked the unconventional but relevant poker metaphor to further understand the law. I am a bit unclear about the journal entries (but it also seems like some of other students are too), so I would definitely appreciate some clarification on that point.
I never expected the epistomology of poker would be used in a legal settings but I look forward to seeing it play out and see how it ultimately ties back into the nature of a jury and whether jury reform is warranted.
I appreciate this unique approach to teaching a J-term workshop and already feel that a great synergy between myself, the instructors, and the other students. I look forward to engaging with everyone and learning the ins and outs of poker (and our jury system)!
I'm still working out my thoughts on the death penalty. I'm very engaged by the question and like the challenge of thinking about it. I'm glad it's confidential because one of my concerns is someone taking what I wrote out of context or saying "here you said you think XYZ should happen! How could you think that?!" I think one of the best things about law school or these kinds of environments is the ability to discuss challenging ideas without behind tied or committed to the thoughts we express. I'm hoping everyone extends charity with each other so that we don't have to have our guard up when discussing difficult issues. I like the idea of using analogies like poker and isolating different concepts and phenomena that are present in law and discussing on their own and in the trial context
I very much enjoyed our discussion of the death penalty and whether it is appropriate for potential jurors to be asked about the death penalty before serving on capital juries. I think it’s an incredibly important question that we do not talk about enough in law school outside of criminal courses. So much of discourse is connected to who is party to the conversation — who are the jurors in the room — we need to be asking questions about who is at the table to begin to understand what might constitute ideal discourse. I also enjoyed our conversation about poker as a metaphor for communication. I’ve played poker here and there over the years, but I’ve never thought about it as an abstracted form of a conversation — explicit and implicit messages telegraphed around a table. I imagine as one becomes more expert at poker and betting the messages one is able to send become more nuanced and can actually come to resemble something of a true exchange of ideas.
I really enjoyed learning about the parallels between poker and lawsuits, especially since what I assumed about how I would proceed in the latter was actually not really accurate. In fact, the way I play poker is more like how I play in real life, including how I approach risks, even in the legal world. I'm definitely going to keep an eye out for whether or not I should change my approach, and whether sometimes I let my dedication to following my principles get in the way of my own success. I also sometimes wonder if I focus too much on reacting to the strategies of others rather than being more independent on my own. But that will come with time!