Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

Whimsical test data and its risks

• Many developers use obviously fake or humorous data (Batman, “Rich Bastard,” cartoon characters, meme machines, Lovecraft quotes, heavy-metal band names, emoji, etc.) so test data is clearly non‑production and easy to spot.
• Multiple anecdotes show this backfires when test data leaks into production, demos, documentation, or customer mailings (“Dear Rich Bastard”, cartoonish VM names in official training, strange default ports).
• Some argue there’s zero benefit and only downside risk; others say lighthearted test data helps morale and can even help spot data integrity issues (out‑of‑place characters reveal cross‑system leaks).
• Several people now follow a rule of thumb: use clearly labeled, non‑offensive “Test…” data you wouldn’t mind a judge, client, or executive seeing.

Names, dummy data, and software assumptions

• Stories highlight collisions between “fake” names and real people (Batman surname, “Richard Test,” “Tester” families) and show that many systems mishandle unusual names (“Fake,” “Null,” tricky Unicode, multiple scripts, no fixed name, etc.).
• This feeds into the “falsehoods programmers believe about names” theme: assumptions about uniqueness, character sets, mandatory names, and single canonical spellings often break in real life.

Watermarks and legal document norms

• The dragon isn’t treated as a small logo but a full‑page, high‑opacity background that clearly impairs readability; several people say they’d find it intolerable in any serious document.
• Lawyers note courts already impose very strict formatting rules (fonts, spacing, margins, line numbers, page limits); watermarking filings at all is unusual and often disallowed.
• The judge’s order is seen as enforcing consistency and readability, similar to rejecting Comic Sans or neon colors. Some liken it to the “no brown M&Ms” clause: proof the lawyer can follow detailed instructions.

Decorum, optics, and bias in court

• Many emphasize that court is not a venue for “fun”: it’s where liberty and life can be at stake, so decorum and neutral presentation help maintain seriousness and reduce distractions.
• Comparisons arise with tattoos, purple hair, or slangy filings: people acknowledge courts and juries are biased by appearance and style, so a rational client should avoid anything that might prejudice judge or jury—even if, in principle, it “shouldn’t matter.”
• Some worry the legal system over‑prioritizes optics over substance; others respond that procedure and formality are precisely what help keep proceedings fair and focused.

Underlying prison‑care case vs dragon sideshow

• Several commenters are disturbed that the media focus is on the mascot rather than the allegation that a prisoner nearly died from lack of medical care.
• There’s debate over prisoner lawsuits: some recount credible, horrific abuse cases; others note courts see many exaggerated or meritless prison suits, prompting triage systems and restrictive laws.
• A recurring concern: both courts and the public may be too quick to discount inmate claims, while at the same time becoming fixated on trivial optics like a dragon watermark.

Lawyer professionalism and marketing angle

• Commenters note the firm’s branding (“Dragon” name, AI pitch, vanity phone number) and apparent website issues (broken links, generic‑sounding reviews), seeing the watermark as part marketing, part stunt.
• Opinion is split between treating this as quirky branding vs a red flag that the attorney isn’t taking a high‑stakes civil‑rights case with sufficient gravitas.

Side thread on furries and “scalies”

• The dragon mascot triggers a long tangent explaining furry culture, “scalies,” and “therians,” with both curiosity and discomfort in the reactions; some emphasize these identities are mostly harmless ways people find community.