[Johnny Groove]

I still like the idea of a public trial thread for every banned member.

Too bad the transparency fearing mods will never have it.

It's like the fucking Sopranos here.

[scoobs]

Originally Posted by Johnny Groove

I still like the idea of a public trial thread for every banned member.

Too bad the transparency fearing mods will never have it.

It's like the fucking Sopranos here.

If that were true, I'd have put a contract on you by now.

[Seingeist]

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Can't believe leng jai and buddyholly are banned.

Never saw those coming.

Nor I. Truly bewildering.

In any case, rules always exist for a reason, so "rules = rules" ought never be the end of the discussion. Whatever the reasons may be behind the "no double accounts" rule, it is highly unlikely that any of leng jai's behavior with "Ajdeman" is the target of the rule.

Of course, I understand that the integrity of rules must be maintained in order that they might remain potent. However, as many others here have already suggested, adhering to a 3-month ban in this instance is laughably absurd. The rule will not lose any of its force if leng jai's ban is reduced. Consider it a sentence with parole, if you like.

And please don't offer any "slippery slope"-type responses. Of course it isn't feasible (nor remotely desirable) to put on a grand trial for every single banned poster as Groove suggests above. However, when you have a 3-page appeal for a particular poster's ban, I think that it is more than reasonable to reconsider their individual case.

And just look at the situation on the face of it. Filo V went on the most vicious and nasty troll-spree that I've ever seen during last year's ACC thread, and here he is again posting away after less than 6 months or so. Leng jai makes a more-or-less innocent joke (albeit ill-advised and--let's be honest here--dreadfully worn out), and he eats a ban for over half the duration of Filo V's sentence. If adherence to the rules gives rise to such a ludicrously imbalanced situation, then it is time for a revision of the rules, whether that be some nuance added to the existing rules (context of double account) or a completely new rule (reconsidered punishments in the face of an earnest and just appeal such that we've seen here).

I can't comment on buddyholly's ban because I haven't the foggiest idea what he said, but I have an extremely hard time imagining that it was deserved.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Seingeist

Nor I. Truly bewildering.

In any case, rules always exist for a reason, so "rules = rules" ought never be the end of the discussion. Whatever the reasons may be behind the "no double accounts" rule, it is highly unlikely that any of leng jai's behavior with "Ajdeman" is the target of the rule.

Of course, I understand that the integrity of rules must be maintained in order that they might remain potent. However, as many others here have already suggested, adhering to a 3-month ban in this instance is laughably absurd. The rule will not lose any of its force if leng jai's ban is reduced. Consider it a sentence with parole, if you like.

And please don't offer any "slippery slope"-type responses. Of course it isn't feasible (nor remotely desirable) to put on a grand trial for every single banned poster as Groove suggests above. However, when you have a 3-page appeal for a particular poster's ban, I think that it is more than reasonable to reconsider their individual case.

And just look at the situation on the face of it. Filo V went on the most vicious and nasty troll-spree that I've ever seen during last year's ACC thread, and here he is again posting away after less than 6 months or so. Leng jai makes a more-or-less innocent joke (albeit ill-advised and--let's be honest here--dreadfully worn out), and he eats a ban for over half the duration of Filo V's sentence. If adherence to the rules gives rise to such a ludicrously imbalanced situation, then it is time for a revision of the rules, whether that be some nuance added to the existing rules (context of double account) or a completely new rule (reconsidered punishments in the face of an earnest and just appeal such that we've seen here).

I can't comment on buddyholly's ban because I haven't the foggiest idea what he said, but I have an extremely hard time imagining that it was deserved.

Agree with you on this.

Also Filo appealed against his ban and got a month knocked off. One of the mods should have explained why that was.

[RagingLamb]

Originally Posted by Seingeist

Nor I. Truly bewildering.

In any case, rules always exist for a reason, so "rules = rules" ought never be the end of the discussion. Whatever the reasons may be behind the "no double accounts" rule, it is highly unlikely that any of leng jai's behavior with "Ajdeman" is the target of the rule.

Of course, I understand that the integrity of rules must be maintained in order that they might remain potent. However, as many others here have already suggested, adhering to a 3-month ban in this instance is laughably absurd. The rule will not lose any of its force if leng jai's ban is reduced. Consider it a sentence with parole, if you like.

And please don't offer any "slippery slope"-type responses. Of course it isn't feasible (nor remotely desirable) to put on a grand trial for every single banned poster as Groove suggests above. However, when you have a 3-page appeal for a particular poster's ban, I think that it is more than reasonable to reconsider their individual case.

And just look at the situation on the face of it. Filo V went on the most vicious and nasty troll-spree that I've ever seen during last year's ACC thread, and here he is again posting away after less than 6 months or so. Leng jai makes a more-or-less innocent joke (albeit ill-advised and--let's be honest here--dreadfully worn out), and he eats a ban for over half the duration of Filo V's sentence. If adherence to the rules gives rise to such a ludicrously imbalanced situation, then it is time for a revision of the rules, whether that be some nuance added to the existing rules (context of double account) or a completely new rule (reconsidered punishments in the face of an earnest and just appeal such that we've seen here).

I can't comment on buddyholly's ban because I haven't the foggiest idea what he said, but I have an extremely hard time imagining that it was deserved.

Bewildering indeed.

Because you mentioned it: Filo's ban happened in the context of the ACC. He was repeatedly provoked and, as should have been clear to anyone, eventually flipped out.

That's the difference. No one provoked Leng Jai. He didn't create the double account in a fit of rage. It's not that he wasnt thinking clearly. Quite the opposite. He knew very well what he was doing, and figured it was worth it. In the end, he got exactly what he bargained for.

That's not to say his ban will remain unchanged. Just trying to clarify the difference between the two situations.

Anyhow, that's the last I'll say about this.

[Seingeist]

Originally Posted by RagingLamb

Bewildering indeed.

Because you mentioned it: Filo's ban happened in the context of the ACC. He was repeatedly provoked and, as should have been clear to anyone, eventually flipped out.

That's the difference. No one provoked Leng Jai. He didn't create the double account in a fit of rage. It's not that he wasnt thinking clearly. Quite the opposite. He knew very well what he was doing, and figured it was worth it. In the end, he got exactly what he bargained for.

That's not to say his ban will remain unchanged. Just trying to clarify the difference between the two situations.

Anyhow, that's the last I'll say about this.

Wow. Perhaps you don't very accurately remember how things went down there, but I do; I was on the receiving end of a great deal of it. Filo V was spewing a lot of shit in every imaginable direction, and as soon as he received any in return, he went completely off-the-rails. His "provocation" was his own doing and ought not serve as a mitigating excuse.

Apparently, his ceaseless and unfounded cries of homosexual victimization have occasionally deceived moderating minds. Pity.

In any case, nowhere in my post above did I suggest that I could draw no distinctions between their two cases (indeed, much of my point involved doing precisely that). Even if we were to concede for the sake of argument that there is a disparity of provocation between the two cases (and I do not concede that in fact), I fail to see how that has any material effect on the point at hand. That is, "unprovokedly" doing something harmless is in no way as bad (or half as bad, for that matter) as "provokedly" doing something reprehensible.
(E.g. stealing a few paper clips of your own free will is not as bad as murdering someone because they made you angry, etc.)

Anyway, Filo V does not ultimately have anything to do with this; I simply used his case to make a point. What should be manifestly "clear to anyone," as you say above, is that 3 months for some harmless farting around is ridiculous.

[viruzzz]

I agree that 3 months for Mr Leng Jai is so damn much.
If you're trying to have fun or you commit a mistake there should be a talk before with the user. Everyone deserves a trial, everyone deserves to explain what they did.

Me, for example, I was banned for 3 months back in 2010 for saying "Go to hell" to a player. Sorry mods, but if that's a wishing death sentence, you're clearly not doing your job right. I would understand it if you deleted my post and PM me, but you banned me without saying a single word. It's never wishing death if that wasn't the intention.

Whatever... Regarding Leng Jai. He's a funny poster and everything he does, he does it for the lulz, so I really think MTF is doing things really wrong.
Look, the police don't kill you if you stole a bread for a funny act, they talk to the man. I'm pretty sure Leng would have deleted the account in a minute if you warned him before acting.

It's not fair to shoot the man before asking him what is he doing.

I think MTF is taking some things so, so seriously... Really, this ain't anarchy, we are users, not criminals.

[tripwires]

Originally Posted by RagingLamb

That's the difference. No one provoked Leng Jai. He didn't create the double account in a fit of rage. It's not that he wasnt thinking clearly. Quite the opposite. He knew very well what he was doing, and figured it was worth it. In the end, he got exactly what he bargained for.

I don't mean to be overly technical, but I just have to point out that, like I said in an earlier post, the rules as they are currently written do not make it clear at all that the moderators' discretion on whether to ban a user for having a double account outright or not is apparently limited only to the circumstances that Snowwy mentioned earlier in this thread. Now, I realise this is just an Internet forum, but if posters are to obey the rules, the rules have to be clear so that posters know what the outcome will be when they break the rules. It's possible that he read the rules and thought that there was a chance that he wouldn't be banned for the DA and that there was room for him to argue for the mods to exercise their discretion - because that's what the rules implied.

Originally Posted by viruzzz

I agree that 3 months for Mr Leng Jai is so damn much.
If you're trying to have fun or you commit a mistake there should be a talk before with the user. Everyone deserves a trial, everyone deserves to explain what they did.

Me, for example, I was banned for 3 months back in 2010 for saying "Go to hell" to a player. Sorry mods, but if that's a wishing death sentence, you're clearly not doing your job right. I would understand it if you deleted my post and PM me, but you banned me without saying a single word. It's never wishing death if that wasn't the intention.

Whatever... Regarding Leng Jai. He's a funny poster and everything he does, he does it for the lulz, so I really think MTF is doing things really wrong.
Look, the police don't kill you if you stole a bread for a funny act, they talk to the man. I'm pretty sure Leng would have deleted the account in a minute if you warned him before acting.

It's not fair to shoot the man before asking him what is he doing.

I think MTF is taking some things so, so seriously... Really, this ain't anarchy, we are users, not criminals.

I agree generally, but to be fair, Snowwy did PM me and him to ask about the account before banning him. Sucks that you were banned without even a PM though.

[Lee]

I am wondering if mods have discussed the issues raised here and have come to any conclusion?

IMO, the rules may need more distinctions between reasons behind DA. Like in RL law here, there are first degree, second degree and involuntary homicides

[Kat_YYZ]

Originally Posted by viruzzz

I agree that 3 months for Mr Leng Jai is so damn much.
If you're trying to have fun or you commit a mistake there should be a talk before with the user. Everyone deserves a trial, everyone deserves to explain what they did.

Me, for example, I was banned for 3 months back in 2010 for saying "Go to hell" to a player. Sorry mods, but if that's a wishing death sentence, you're clearly not doing your job right. I would understand it if you deleted my post and PM me, but you banned me without saying a single word. It's never wishing death if that wasn't the intention.
...

wow, that's terrible, Viruzzz. That could only be considered wishing death if you actually believe in hell. Otherwise, it's a figure of speech.

[viruzzz]

I'm not here to cry about my ban (though I think it was unfair).

And after you say Tripwires, I must admit Leng did the wrong thing, still, more than 20 days for that little offense, it's crazy. Really, crazy.
Come on MTF... We are humans, aren't you?

Then, stop acting like robots.

[tripwires]

Actually it was more like we got a PM, we responded explaining the situation, then he got banned. I don't think he was given a chance to delete the double account.

[BigJohn]

The fact that leng jai is banned that long is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as the fact that Sart Da Game is not permabanned.


He's been gone long enough. I say unban leng jai to balance the fact that Start da Game should have been permabanned long ago.

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by tripwires

Actually it was more like we got a PM, we responded explaining the situation, then he got banned. I don't think he was given a chance to delete the double account.

Users/mods can't delete accounts I think, that's usually reserved for admins? Anyway, I agree with what has been said, some psychos get away with too many things, making this case look difficult to fathom. For example, out_grinder posted something about Nadal's brain coming out/getting spilled on the court, don't remember the exact quote, but really disgusting stuff, and got one month for "wishing injury".

I don't think users should decide who to ban and how, but it doesn't seem like this is going to set a new standard or anything. People complained when Glenn was banned, think that's the only other occasion I can remember

[scoobs]

The situation has been discussed exhaustively by the mods.

We've decided to reduce Leng Jai's ban to 1 month, which means he will return some time around May 9th I think, off the top of my head.

We'll amend the rules so that, if the mod team determines that a duplicate account was not created for malicious reasons - e.g. ban evasion, then issuing a 1 month ban is more appropriate than a 3 month ban.