leng jai's ban - MensTennisForums.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-12-2012, 08:16 PM Thread Starter
.
 
rocketassist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,693
                     
leng jai's ban

Look, I know double accounts aren't allowed, and for banned users that's fair enough, but why has leng jai got three months just for having a joke about? Ajdeman is OBVIOUSLY him, he's not hiding anything, not causing trouble or trolling?

For example out_grinder was clearly Rodre Fegassi and was rightly banned, but that was just a double account trolling the same shite his predecessor was doing. Ajdeman wasn't a banned user trying to get back on.

For leng jai to get a ban, the same ban as wishing death, just for having a bit of fun with the Ajde gimmick, is a travesty and I personally feel you should lift it.

Mods?

unbiased analyst extraordinaire
rocketassist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 12:44 AM
Anathemaniac
 
Sunset of Age's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Wall.
Posts: 41,908
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

Well, rules = rules, but I fully sympathize with rocketassist's sentiments.

There are certain posters around on this forum who rack up TONS of temporary bans, by trolling/messing up any thread that comes along/insulting certain fanbases with each and every post they make because of their blatant fanboyism, but who apparently are allowed to keep on going despite... whatever.

leng jai, on the contrary, is a smart, funny poster. Moreoever, one that never goes as low as to troll/insult anyone. Should anyone ever feel insulted by leng jai, that says more about said poster than about him.
Let him off the hook, mods.

"It's getting colder, I'm getting colder, older, it's getting colder...

Am I still here? As one, with The Fear?
Am I still alive? I'm still f*cking ... Here...!"


"The Storm Before The Calm"

Anathema

Into music of the PROG-Dorky-kind? visit my blog or MTF's Prog Rock Thread.
Sunset of Age is offline  
post #3 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 04:26 AM
Registered User
 
tripwires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Posts: 13,526
                     
Re: leng jai's ban



In all seriousness, I completely agree. It seems a bit stringent to adhere strictly to the rules and ban duration without taking into consideration the circumstances of this particular double account. For the most part he didn't cause any harm with the Ajdeman account and he didn't even start it with the intention of trolling MTF with it. He barely posted in GM with Ajdeman. I accept that some form of punishment has to be given out for breaking the no-multiple-accounts rule, and even if he has to be banned, 3 months honestly excessive. All things considered 1 month should be more than sufficient.

Also, the reason for his ban should be double account and not multiple.

Roger Federer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Fed's groundstrokes never were that good to begin with.
tripwires is offline  
post #4 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 06:02 AM
Motherhater
 
RagingLamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Age: 34
Posts: 5,571
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

I sympathize with your concerns.

But Leng Lai has been here long enough to know that creating more than one account will result in a ban. He probably also knew that he would likely be caught, and how long such a ban would last. But it seems, despite this knowledge, he chose to go ahead and create an account, which is odd, unless he didn't care about being banned.

Anyhow, I understand the comments about his actions being "harmless", etc., so I will discuss this with the other mods.

But know this: the proper way to moderate the forum is to apply the rules consistently. It is unfair to treat members differently merely based on the fact that they are funny or popular (or that they are not popular).

The more reliance on subjective or contextual factors, the less consistency there will be, and pretty soon, each mod will be applying their own version of the rules. That's something we want to avoid.
RagingLamb is offline  
post #5 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 06:34 AM
Registered User
 
Ilovetheblues_86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 11,406
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

We could create a MTF jury thread where 5 moderators and 5 non-mods users selected by each one of the moderators could discuss different punishments, allowing some extra fun in the forum.
I think leng jai deserves 27 days of ban.
Ilovetheblues_86 is offline  
post #6 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 07:35 AM
Registered User
 
tripwires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Posts: 13,526
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingLamb View Post
I sympathize with your concerns.

But Leng Lai has been here long enough to know that creating more than one account will result in a ban. He probably also knew that he would likely be caught, and how long such a ban would last. But it seems, despite this knowledge, he chose to go ahead and create an account, which is odd, unless he didn't care about being banned.

Anyhow, I understand the comments about his actions being "harmless", etc., so I will discuss this with the other mods.

But know this: the proper way to moderate the forum is to apply the rules consistently. It is unfair to treat members differently merely based on the fact that they are funny or popular (or that they are not popular).

The more reliance on subjective or contextual factors, the less consistency there will be, and pretty soon, each mod will be applying their own version of the rules. That's something we want to avoid.
Thanks for your response. I don't think Karin was suggesting that he should be treated differently because he's funny/popular, but that he does not deserve such a long ban because he hasn't demonstrated himself to be an offensive poster who contributes nothing to the 1% of serious tennis discussion that goes on in GM. In other words, he's a good poster with sharp insights on the sport that this forum is dedicated to, and on that account he should be differentiated from the usual trollish double accounts that get a 3 month ban, and definitely shouldn't be punished in the same way as obnoxious posters who were banned for wishing death or whatever. While I totally understand your slippery slope concern, the punishment imposed by the mods for rules-breaking also have to be fair. Fairness is contingent also upon the particular circumstances of the individual case, not just a uniform application of the rules; the punishment, in other words, has to befit the crime. In this case, compared to the other users who were/are banned for the same broken rule, banning him for 3 months really is too excessive.

Roger Federer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Fed's groundstrokes never were that good to begin with.
tripwires is offline  
post #7 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 08:02 AM
Motherhater
 
RagingLamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Age: 34
Posts: 5,571
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripwires View Post
Thanks for your response. I don't think Karin was suggesting that he should be treated differently because he's funny/popular, but that he does not deserve such a long ban because he hasn't demonstrated himself to be an offensive poster who contributes nothing to the 1% of serious tennis discussion that goes on in GM. In other words, he's a good poster with sharp insights on the sport that this forum is dedicated to, and on that account he should be differentiated from the usual trollish double accounts that get a 3 month ban
Regardless of what Karin meant, lifting or changing the ban means treating one poster differently than others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripwires View Post
While I totally understand your slippery slope concern, the punishment imposed by the mods for rules-breaking also have to be fair. Fairness is contingent also upon the particular circumstances of the individual case, not just a uniform application of the rules; the punishment, in other words, has to befit the crime. In this case, compared to the other users who were/are banned for the same broken rule, banning him for 3 months really is too excessive.
I agree that circumstances and individuals should sometimes be considered, but this type of treatment is better suited for contexts where resources are available for such considerations. Unfortunately we don't have the time and resources to make the same considerations in each and every single case. Don't forget, if we were to do this for Leng jai, we would have to take the time to review the history and "posting skills" of each and every member for each and every infraction.

Even if we had the time to do this (and believe me, we don't), one of the undesired effects of such an approach would be to give members the impression that as long as they are good posters, or popular or whatever, they may get away with certain things. This is not what we hope to achieve from having rules.

Again, I can understand that people don't want to see Leng jai banned. But don't forget that Leng jai knew what he was doing and what consequences he would face. But he chose deliberately to disregard the rules and created a double account anyway.

And now we have to show leniency because he's a "sharp poster"? I'm not sure that's a good enough reason.

Anyhow, like I said, I'll discuss this with others to see what can be done.

Last edited by RagingLamb; 04-13-2012 at 08:12 AM.
RagingLamb is offline  
post #8 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 08:45 AM
Registered User
 
tripwires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Posts: 13,526
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

I'm probably his biggest fan in the whole of MTF and I'm not even saying that he shouldn't be banned. All I'm saying is that he shouldn't be banned for 3 months taking everything into consideration. Leniency should be shown in this case not because he's a good poster per se, but because that should be one of the many factors (account created for fun, didn't cause forum disruption, didn't troll fanbases, didn't get into flame wars, etc) that should be taken into account when deciding how long a poster (not just him) should be banned for. In his case, I think 1 month is quite sufficient especially since it's the first time he's ever done this.

Anyway, I appreciate you guys talking this over and I hope for a good outcome.

Roger Federer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Fed's groundstrokes never were that good to begin with.
tripwires is offline  
post #9 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 10:18 AM
Anathemaniac
 
Sunset of Age's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Wall.
Posts: 41,908
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

RL, my first sentence in said post was "rules = rules", and as such I didn't mean to say that leng didn't deserve the ban - as you say, he's made a double account, and for whatever purposes one does so, it means he'll rightly meet the ban-hammer.

I fully agree with tripwires that a three month ban is highly overdone for the exact reasons (s)he already indicated. I've seen people getting far shorter bans for far worse infractions... at least imho. It's a personal opinion though.
Hope you guys reconsider this.

"It's getting colder, I'm getting colder, older, it's getting colder...

Am I still here? As one, with The Fear?
Am I still alive? I'm still f*cking ... Here...!"


"The Storm Before The Calm"

Anathema

Into music of the PROG-Dorky-kind? visit my blog or MTF's Prog Rock Thread.
Sunset of Age is offline  
post #10 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 12:35 PM
Registered User
 
Snowwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A place that's too cold.
Posts: 23,011
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset of Age View Post
RL, my first sentence in said post was "rules = rules", and as such I didn't mean to say that leng didn't deserve the ban - as you say, he's made a double account, and for whatever purposes one does so, it means he'll rightly meet the ban-hammer.

I fully agree with tripwires that a three month ban is highly overdone for the exact reasons (s)he already indicated. I've seen people getting far shorter bans for far worse infractions... at least imho. It's a personal opinion though.
Hope you guys reconsider this.
The three month ban is taken straight from the rules. It is not a personal opinion of anyone. It seems funny that rules = rules, yet a paragraph in each post of your after saying rules =/ rules

Site-Wide Rules and Guide to Rule-Breaking Consequences

Peter Polansky
Nestor - Chvojka - Pospisil - Raonic - Peliwo
Snowwy is offline  
post #11 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 01:23 PM
Registered User
 
tripwires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Posts: 13,526
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwy View Post
The three month ban is taken straight from the rules. It is not a personal opinion of anyone. It seems funny that rules = rules, yet a paragraph in each post of your after saying rules =/ rules

Site-Wide Rules and Guide to Rule-Breaking Consequences
Can I just understand something? In that post it's stated that "there may be no yellow card" for the multiple accounts offence and that it "may" see an immediate red card. The word "may" doesn't signal that the immediate red card is a mandatory penalty which actually implies that there is a chance that the poster may get a yellow card and therefore avoid the 3-month ban. In other words, the moderators have the discretion to decide whether to even issue the immediate red card.

Am I wrong?

If I'm not wrong, in exercising this discretion the moderators presumably would have regard to subjective factors like that ones I've talked about in this thread. Otherwise, how would you decide whether to issue a yellow or red card? Unless, of course, no such decision-making actually takes place, in which case it's probably appropriate to change the word "may" to "will". In any event, as the rules currently stands and from the way I read them, it seems to me like the rules themselves already allow for the exercise of discretion.

I'd like some clarification on this please. Thanks.

Roger Federer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Fed's groundstrokes never were that good to begin with.
tripwires is offline  
post #12 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 01:25 PM
When You're On The Poster
 
Johnny Groove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Age: 26
Posts: 40,910
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

The punishment does not fit the crime.

Change the rules.

1 month is plenty.

Follow my Youtube Channel for all my matches
Follow me on IG for the latest news, vids, pics, and memes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novak Djokovic
Obviously, you play a lot of mind games with yourself, but it is important to always believe that you can play your best, perform your best, and in the end, your convictions are stronger than your doubts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
If I took the time to respond to every criticism that came across my desk, there would be no time for constructive work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey Bogart
The only thing you owe the audience is a good performance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niccolo Machiavelli
There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.
Johnny Groove is online now  
post #13 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 01:37 PM
Registered User
 
Snowwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A place that's too cold.
Posts: 23,011
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripwires View Post
Can I just understand something? In that post it's stated that "there may be no yellow card" for the multiple accounts offence and that it "may" see an immediate red card. The word "may" doesn't signal that the immediate red card is a mandatory penalty which actually implies that there is a chance that the poster may get a yellow card and therefore avoid the 3-month ban. In other words, the moderators have the discretion to decide whether to even issue the immediate red card.

Am I wrong?

If I'm not wrong, in exercising this discretion the moderators presumably would have regard to subjective factors like that ones I've talked about in this thread. Otherwise, how would you decide whether to issue a yellow or red card? Unless, of course, no such decision-making actually takes place, in which case it's probably appropriate to change the word "may" to "will". In any event, as the rules currently stands and from the way I read them, it seems to me like the rules themselves already allow for the exercise of discretion.

I'd like some clarification on this please. Thanks.
That word was just changed about three months ago to may instead of will so that a red card could not be handed out in examples where a poster had an account in 2006, left MTF and came back and without knowing it, created a second account in 2012. There was no intent to create a double account there. In our case, there was intent to create a double account and everyone involved knew the rules, therefore straight red, which will happen most times with the infractions talked about in that section.

Peter Polansky
Nestor - Chvojka - Pospisil - Raonic - Peliwo
Snowwy is offline  
post #14 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 02:50 PM Thread Starter
.
 
rocketassist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,693
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

I dunno why a ban reduction couldn't be possible. Filo V was banned till the middle of April, but he boasted in one thread he had complained to the mods and had it reduced by a month, so surely some leniency could be used here perhaps?

This double account was blatantly obvious, everyone would know it was him off the bat, and he was having a bit of a joke around, it's not like it was a banned user coming back to troll the same old garbage as it was with out_grinder or others.

unbiased analyst extraordinaire
rocketassist is offline  
post #15 of 70 (permalink) Old 04-13-2012, 03:09 PM
Registered User
 
tripwires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Posts: 13,526
                     
Re: leng jai's ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwy View Post
That word was just changed about three months ago to may instead of will so that a red card could not be handed out in examples where a poster had an account in 2006, left MTF and came back and without knowing it, created a second account in 2012. There was no intent to create a double account there. In our case, there was intent to create a double account and everyone involved knew the rules, therefore straight red, which will happen most times with the infractions talked about in that section.
Okay, maybe that part can be changed to better reflect this. I don't mind drafting it if the mods are too busy. It's just on a plain reading it suggests that the mods will have discretion whether to issue a red or yellow for this DA offence which, from what you said, isn't actually the case.

Roger Federer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Fed's groundstrokes never were that good to begin with.
tripwires is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome