Change of banning rules debate - Page 3 - MensTennisForums.com
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 02:54 PM
Registered User
 
Kiedis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,866
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirata. View Post
Yeah, I'm really confused about why those two are ban-worthy offenses. I don't want this place to become THASP Jr. but I don't get how saying "I think X player fixed his match" is any different from people accusing the same player of tanking.

Free Edward Snowden | Free Brad Manning | Free SDG | Free CD | Free TSD

God is killing me
Kiedis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 02:57 PM
Moderator
 
Pratik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 20,126
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

I, for one, do not think that the permaban should be abolished. Beyond a point, enough is enough. You can not be given infinite chances. Looking at all the permabanned posters that I am familiar with, there isn't a single one who I think didn't deserve it. Thus, IMO the permaban rule is fine in terms of both its existence and implementation.

The only change that I would like to see is a little more transparency. For example, I think that "Multiple and repeated rule violations" is a very ambigous statement. I agree with Time Violation that if anything, moderation could be more strict in GM and more lax in chat(but not NT as a whole).
Pratik is offline  
post #33 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 02:58 PM
Slacker
 
Time Violation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mount Sharp
Age: 38
Posts: 17,858
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirata. View Post
Yeah, I'm really confused about why those two are ban-worthy offenses. I don't want this place to become THASP Jr. but I don't get how saying "I think X player fixed his match" is any different from people accusing the same player of tanking.
Players who are doping or fixing are to be removed from the tour, I think it's far more serious than tanking or simple lack of effort.

Ne volem nikog lutko
Time Violation is offline  
 
post #34 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 03:06 PM
Registered User
 
chalkdust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 46
Posts: 4,121
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

My suggestion would be to abolish the permaban, but otherwise keep any changes here to a minimum. In other words, rather than get bogged down in debate over all the different types of infractions, just keep them as they are, except add a rider saying:

"Where the rules would otherwise result in a permanent ban, a ban of 12 months shall be substituted".

If necessary, add an exception to that, e.g.

"Where the rules would otherwise result in a permanent ban, a ban of 12 months shall be substituted, except in cases involving:
(a) threats made to other forum members
(b)... etc. etc., ... where a permanent ban shall continue to apply.
chalkdust is offline  
post #35 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 03:10 PM Thread Starter
Rankings Master
 
Slasher1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Age: 31
Posts: 14,470
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalkdust View Post
My suggestion would be to abolish the permaban, but otherwise keep any changes here to a minimum. In other words, rather than get bogged down in debate over all the different types of infractions, just keep them as they are, except add a rider saying:

"Where the rules would otherwise result in a permanent ban, a ban of 12 months shall be substituted".

If necessary, add an exception to that, e.g.

"Where the rules would otherwise result in a permanent ban, a ban of 12 months shall be substituted, except in cases involving:
(a) threats made to other forum members
(b)... etc. etc., ... where a permanent ban shall continue to apply.
I would say that if the board permits it, replace 12 months with 24 months there in order to make it more severe.

Some random guy just watching tennis.
Slasher1985 is offline  
post #36 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 03:10 PM
Registered User
 
chalkdust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 46
Posts: 4,121
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

I would then review historic permanent bans, and apply the new rules to them (there are not that many, so it shouldn't be too onerous). I hope that would mean that a few guys could come back from e-purgatory. I thought Pope Benedict had abolished purgatory anyway!
chalkdust is offline  
post #37 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 03:11 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,488
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Castafiore View Post
It's still a subjective list, though.

What's trolling for example?
What's just a point of view for one person is trolling for the next. What's a joke for one person is troling for another person.

What would qualify as an extreme racist remark and why make the difference between a racist remark and an extreme racist and who is going to decide which is which?

Uttering threats? What sort of threat are you talking about?

---

If you want people to have a clear opinion, you have to define the various categories more precisely because this suggestion is a bit on the vague side and open to discussion.

Furthermore, I think that a discussion of the forum rules need to be made when people aren't emotional about the permaban of a popular ex-poster.
If I see people compare a permaban on one forum on the entire internet with the death penatly, it gives me the impression that they're being too emotional about it because that's exaggerated.

I agree. Definitions must be clear and simple enough for people to understand. Remember, majority of members here do not speak english as their first language (like myself, english is my third language).

For example:
What is "wishing death"?

Does "If I were you, I'd die from embarrassment" constitute wishing death?

Because a mod banned me for that for several months right away, without asking me for explanation, or warning or infractions. Not to mention, I had NEVER received any warning or infraction before that.

It seems as things currently stand, each mod is free to define the rules by themselves.
Don't believe me? Just have a look at my ban/warning/infraction history and see which mod gave me the most love.

Last edited by atennisfan; 03-28-2013 at 03:25 PM.
atennisfan is offline  
post #38 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 03:24 PM
RAVE ON
 
buddyholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LUBBOCK TX
Posts: 16,296
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

I can only make the odd, carefully worded, absolutely bland comment now. I have been banned twice for posts that were not understood by the mods. I like to play FITD and am going for the Grand Slam this year, so can not risk another ban.

My first ban was in a thread where abraxas asked if anyone had personal experience on how to stop smoking. I stopped smoking instantly one day, with absolutely no withdrawal symptoms. Statistically there is probably a good correlation with the fact I had a heart attack the same day. So in answer to abraxas's question on how to stop smoking, I replied 'have a heart attack'', which was not in any way a recommendation. Just a comment on my personal experience. I thought it was funny.
Yes folks, I got banned for wishing death. When I came back I tried to explain that the post was an answer to abraxas's question, not in any way a threat. The response from the mod was that given my history with abraxas, it was no doubt a death wish. The mod knew me better than I know myself.

Mods, please, no matter what your own states of mind are, please realise that the rest of us are well aware that an internet forum is an anonymous forum and we don't have a clue who we are talking to. No adult person would even think of being so silly as to seriously wish death on an anonymous character. And let's face it, even if you knew the poster, it is very, very unlikely he will get hit by a bolt of lightning. And as an atheist, I seriously doubt that wishes or prayers actually work, anyway.
For all I know, abraxas might be my 80 year old neighbour who bakes me cookies. Why would I want to risk cutting off the supply line? (Just in case: abraxas, I like chocolate chip.)

More seriously, it seems to me that the really personal hate language comes from GM, where the various fanboys and girls take every slight against their idols as a personal insult. In NT it is just provocative entertainment and most posters there know that. In Oxford and Cambridge debates the debaters are often assigned a side of the argument which is actually against their personal beliefs, but that is OK, they are there to hone their debating skills and a good way to do that is certainly to passionately support something you don't believe in. Like a good defense lawyer with an obvious murderer for a client. But for some reason, young people today more often think that is ''wrong.''

JOIN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER TODAY

Last edited by buddyholly; 03-28-2013 at 03:35 PM.
buddyholly is offline  
post #39 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 03:41 PM
Slacker
 
Time Violation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mount Sharp
Age: 38
Posts: 17,858
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
My first ban was in a thread where abraxas asked if anyone had personal experience on how to stop smoking. I stopped smoking instantly one day, with absolutely no withdrawal symptoms. Statistically there is probably a good correlation with the fact I had a heart attack the same day. So in answer to abraxas's question on how to stop smoking, I replied 'have a heart attack'', which was not in any way a recommendation. Just a comment on my personal experience. I thought it was funny.
Yes folks, I got banned for wishing death. When I came back I tried to explain that the post was an answer to abraxas's question, not in any way a threat. The response from the mod was that given my history with abraxas, it was no doubt a death wish. The mod knew me better than I know myself.
As we say in translation, context is the king. I don't know who banned you, but if I have one caveat/recommendation is that the mods for Nt should most definitely be people who frequent NT; mods for Gm should be people from GM and so on. When I glanced over the couple of newly elected mods for GM and the rest, they all seemed to be most acitve in Tennis Tipping, that seemed a bit odd if anything, and could lead to 'false positives' like this, where someone is banned on face value.

Ne volem nikog lutko
Time Violation is offline  
post #40 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 03:57 PM
Banned!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sen'jin Village
Age: 33
Posts: 18,509
                     
Wishing death rule should be removed, easily dumbest rule of the forum. So what if someone wishes death? It's not like its going to happen anyway.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App
Topspindoctor is offline  
post #41 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 04:01 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,488
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
I can only make the odd, carefully worded, absolutely bland comment now. I have been banned twice for posts that were not understood by the mods. I like to play FITD and am going for the Grand Slam this year, so can not risk another ban.

My first ban was in a thread where abraxas asked if anyone had personal experience on how to stop smoking. I stopped smoking instantly one day, with absolutely no withdrawal symptoms. Statistically there is probably a good correlation with the fact I had a heart attack the same day. So in answer to abraxas's question on how to stop smoking, I replied 'have a heart attack'', which was not in any way a recommendation. Just a comment on my personal experience. I thought it was funny.
Yes folks, I got banned for wishing death. When I came back I tried to explain that the post was an answer to abraxas's question, not in any way a threat. The response from the mod was that given my history with abraxas, it was no doubt a death wish. The mod knew me better than I know myself.
Similar thing happened to me as well.

I thought that I may have misunderstood what "wishing death" means and probably due to my lack of english comprehension (it's my third language).

And I thought it was completely unfair that the mod didn't give me any opportunity to explain. It all seems so random, depending if the mods on duty like you or not, or depending on their own interpretation (or lack of it).
atennisfan is offline  
post #42 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 04:02 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,488
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topspindoctor View Post
Wishing death rule should be removed, easily dumbest rule of the forum. So what if someone wishes death? It's not like its going to happen anyway.
For once, you make sense.
atennisfan is offline  
post #43 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 04:02 PM
In hiding.
 
SloKid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 33
Posts: 19,112
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirata. View Post
Yeah, I'm really confused about why those two are ban-worthy offenses. I don't want this place to become THASP Jr. but I don't get how saying "I think X player fixed his match" is any different from people accusing the same player of tanking.
As far fetched as it may sound, it may carry a liability for both the forum and the person, which is why there also has to be some sort of a warning for the poster to refrain from such posting in the future.
SloKid is offline  
post #44 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 04:03 PM
Registered User
 
The Prince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 12,421
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

The moderation is very lenient here. I am a member of a couple of other forums, where the moderation is more strict, and everyone is nice to eachother and constructive. Here, you can get away with loads before you get serious bans, so these changes would be going the wrong way.

Yes, we want MTF to be fun, but we don't want relaxed rules that encourage people to take minor hits for example wishing death and making doping allegations, because it's amusing.

So if anything, we need to go the other way.
The Prince is offline  
post #45 of 160 (permalink) Old 03-28-2013, 04:10 PM
Registered User
 
chalkdust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 46
Posts: 4,121
                     
Re: Change of banning rules debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bulldog View Post
So if anything, we need to go the other way.
What I don't get though, is that if people were given lengthy, but not permanent, bans for anything serious, how exactly would that give rise to chaos on the forums? Difficult posters just wouldn't be around very much, so people would hardly notice them.
chalkdust is offline  
Closed Thread

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