MensTennisForums.com - View Single Post - Clay Death Permaban: Consider rescinding please.

View Single Post

Old 07-25-2012, 09:10 AM   #67
country flag tripwires
Registered User
 
tripwires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Hague
Age: 28
Posts: 13,227
tripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Clay Death Permaban: Consider rescinding please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterclass View Post
I didn't really want to get involved in commenting among opinions here, but I'll make one exception in this case because it provides an example of one of my main policy complaints.

leng jai, your assertion by inference that someone should be permanently banned for x number of "minor" offenses is similar to saying that an individual comitting x number of misdemeanors offenses should result in life imprisonment, simply because enough is enough. No, "the punishment should fit the crime" logic should be held to here. If he violates a minor offense, give him the appropriate penalty for that. Repeated offenses for that minor offense should result in elevated penalties, but never to a level for a more serious offense. For example, violation escalation should be warning, infraction, 1 week ban, 2 weeks, etc. up to an appropriate maximum - say 1 month. Continued violations should then result in that maximum penalty repeatedly applied.

I realize this is not a court of law, and the owners and administrators have the right to run it in the way they please, but it seems to me that good judgement goes a long way in keeping a site like this open and commentary freely flowing while still providing a measure of control without censorship.

Another example of good judgement I know of, since it was well publicized, was when you got a reprieve for what is considered here to be a rather serious offense - Double account.

I think in your case, the sentence was eventually rightly judged to be overly harsh and reduced.

You should at least be sympathetic to judgements not being made purely by the numbers.

Respectfully,
masterclass
leng jai's case and CD's case are not comparable at all. leng jai's double account was stupid but inoffensive. Clay Death's behaviour on GM has been pretty offensive on a host of occasions. That was why he was banned. leng jai's ban arose from a strict application of a pretty administrative rule that didn't make any sense (not to mention the rule was unclear in the first place) and the 3-month ban was therefore unreasonable, not to mention it was his first offence. In sharp contrast, CD has been banned before; he had a stack of infractions; he knew very well that his behaviour in GM was in violation of the rules and he did it anyway. If leng jai were to create another DA, I'd say that he would deserve his original punishment (or whatever the punishment is for a second DA, even if it's a permanent ban).

In the same vein, CD had ample warning and was put on notice by the infractions that were presumably in his user CP, not to mention he's been here a while so surely he knew the rules. And yet he should be excused because he was allegedly baited?! Let's not make him out to be the victim here. Nobody forced him to react in a certain manner. This forum has an ignore function that he could have easily utilised, but he chose not to. His friends here told him to stop being a douche in GM, but he chose not to. leng jai's most likely right - he responded the way he did not because he's hot tempered or some crap (I am extremely hot tempered in real life and I don't behave like him in GM), but because he enjoys it. Sounds like another case of Start da Game to me.
__________________
"But certain interests of particular people are so important that it would be wrong - morally wrong - for the community to sacrifice those interests just to secure an overall benefit. Political rights mark off and protect these particularly important interests. A political right, we may say, is a trump over the kind of trade-off argument that normally justifies political action." - Ronald Dworkin (RIP)
tripwires is offline View My Blog!