MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com (http://www.menstennisforums.com/index.php)
-   Feedback, Suggestions & Questions (http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Clarification on Site rule #8. (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=206844)

masterclass 07-23-2012 05:09 PM

Clarification on Site rule #8.
 
Dear administrators,

Could we please have some clarification on site rule #8?

(8) Do not post messages on behalf of banned members. They are banned for a reason. Doing so will result in a ban for the poster who is conveying the message, and an increase in the ban length for the poster who is sending the message.

Some members who have posted here for years may be banned for one reason or another. During that time it is likely they have made many "acquaintances", especially in the Non-Tennis Chat forum.

I always supposed that this rule was in place to discourage/prevent a current poster in good standing from posting posts in General Messages saying something like "banned poster says that x player will win the US Open" or, "banned poster in internet site y forum z says that x player will win the US Open" or, "banned poster encourages everyone to leave internet site/forum x for site/forum y". I can understand how this rule should be in place for this type of thing.

But it seems rather harsh and unreasonable to apply this rule to: "Banned poster says hi to his friends" in a Non-Tennis Chat forum thread where the poster was participating for years. This seems like only a common courtesy, and I don't understand what harm it could cause.

On the other hand, just because it is in NT Chat, I don't think we should be allowed to post negative messages, like "banned poster says leave MTF", or something to that effect.

But a harmless hello? I understand that we could PM a message conveying the "hello". But it's awful tedious to do so in a thread where hundreds of users participate.

Shouldn't we have a bit of flexibility in what is being said and in which forum?

Edit: Flexibility should apply to the penalty as well. It's too black and white in my opinion. I think in most cases a warning would suffice for first time violations, second violation an infraction, and third a ban. Of course in some cases a harsher penalty might be warranted from the start, especially when the message itself breaks a rule, e.g. "Poster x says he wishes death to y".

Thanks for taking the time to consider this.

Respectfully,
masterclass


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.