[tripwires]

Kiedis, seriously, leng jai's situation is completely different. I already explained this. I never said he shouldn't have been banned; I said that he shouldn't have been banned for three months.

And yes, Ash86's post was stupid. The content of her post was stupid. That's not the same as CD personally insulting the people that disagree with him. I can't be bothered to get into the specifics of what he said; his post is in the thread that I started asking the mods why my post was deleted but not his or Karin's. You can read it for yourself. I didn't even want to get involved in the mess in that thread, but I personally can't stand it when a person generalises a group of people based on the behaviour of a few. Obviously, no one is completely angelic on MTF. I shouldn't have responded to Ash86 at all, and I shouldn't have told her to go get a fucking brain or whatever it was I said (I still stand by calling her post stupid). But it's pretty telling that I've never received a warning or infraction since I joined this site, and CD has received enough to get himself a permaban.

I can't be bothered to comment on the quality of Ash86's posting, but I'd say that, despite my affection for BigJohn, I wouldn't be surprised if he got a permaban one day. And when that day comes, I wouldn't go around begging the mods for leniency.

[Mimi]

in CD's case, we also do not say he should not be punished, he deserves a ban, or get a punishment for not being allowed to post in GM, just not a permanent one.

no offence, but in my opinion, telling someone to get a fucking brain is quite an insult coz without a brain, we are almost useless.

[leng jai]

He has been banned or punished several times before and there gets to a stage where it becomes pointless. None of use know how many bans plus infractions he has had so it's fruitless to just say "well he shouldn't be permabanned because IMO he wasn't that bad". Don't forget you have probably missed a large percentage of his worst posts which would have been deleted. I've said this whole time only the mods know the whole picture and unless they outline all his offenses (which they don't have to) then none of us are in a position to say indefinitely if he deserves it or not.

This is a side rant but it makes a bit of a mockery of the moderation that this is even being reviewed. Presumably they probably would have considered permanently banning CD for quite a while now. You'd hope there was a lot of consideration put into it before it was finally done and to have it reviewed almost immediately is not exactly a glowing endorsement on their ability to make the right decision.

[tripwires]

Originally Posted by Mimi

in CD's case, we also do not say he should not be punished, he deserves a ban, or get a punishment for not being allowed to post in GM, just not a permanent one.

no offence, but in my opinion, telling someone to get a fucking brain is quite an insult coz without a brain, we are almost useless.

Yup, it was very rude and I would've deserved a warning for that. My post also deserved to be deleted, but I fail to see why CD's response to me wasn't also deleted.

[2003]

I think he deserves another chance

[Mimi]

I supposed the mods made all the right decisions whenever they issued a ban, but there were cases being overturned just like leng jai's/Sapeod's/Iloveblue86's etc. We can just let the mods to re-consider the cases whenever an appeal is coming, to consider showing some mercy/counting on that poster's merits & faults/looking into other posters' responses etc.

[Kat_YYZ]

I guess I'll weigh in with my experience...

I didn't tangle with him too much at first, but I confronted Clay Death a few months ago in the thread about timewasting.
http://www.menstennisforums.com/show...+style&page=14
(pg 14 & 15)
I stood my ground and refused to engage in insults. He calmed down and we had some good exchanges here and there after that. He later sent me a PM to invite me to post at the Castle. (I replied thanks, but the whole "Chat Thread" scene was new to me & I was just getting comfortable in one that didn't seem to have so much politics/allegiances attached; I said I might drop by sometime, but I never got around to it.)

Based on what I saw in GM and checking out the Castle, I think there was a pretty reasonable person there who didn't particularly enjoy the tard-based HateFests in GM. Though that doesn't mean he's immune to joining in. We all succumb to it from time to time, I think.

I didn't like the nasty nicknames. I wondered if it wasn't a tactic to avoid infractions. In many cases, the nicknames didn't sound anything like any poster's username, and he didn't quote the post he was 'responding' to. Therefore, he couldn't be reported for insulting someone... because he could always deny that a particular poster was the target of the post. No complainant, no infraction. At least that's what I thought might be going on. Anyways, I don't like that sort of teasing/bullying.

I don't know what triggered this final ban or how many infractions he had, I never saw the offending posts (I'm sure they're deleted). I don't know if it's 'well deserved' or not. I didn't find him to be a troll or that his insults were as vicious as many others here, but it does seem that he insulted/attacked people quite a bit.

But I do think he made good contributions to the forum and that 'big personalities' like his and GlennMirnyi's add some character to forums and will be missed.

[LeChuck]

In Clay Death's first 6 months or so on this forum when he joined in 2008, he was guilty of some of the worst and most relentless trolling ever seen in this place.

He did majorly clean up his act after his lengthy ban back then, but still he has been very lucky to be given chance after chance over the past couple of years.

Anyone stupid enough to get overly worked up on a tennis message forum whilst speaking to anonymous people behind a computer screen, and in the process pick up regular bans, deserves what they get.

[finishingmove]

I see people in this thread openly insulting others.

Clay Death by nature is more peaceful than most of these trigger-happy posters. Yet, he is banned and they continue to... do what they do.

I can only imagine their behavior if someone persecuted them in the same way.

Lots of self-righteousness and over-inflated egos flowing around...

[Mimi]

He cannot defend himself any more, but people are still beating a dead man. I can also see people whom he has treated with kindness and only words of praise, instead of saying some nice words whether to help him or just a formal farewell, kicked him even harder than those who are not friendly/no connection with him. May be I am just too naive and old-fashioned, there is no "friendship" in a message board and we can't expect people to pay your back even though you have been nice to them.

[masterclass]

Originally Posted by leng jai

He has been banned or punished several times before and there gets to a stage where it becomes pointless. None of use know how many bans plus infractions he has had so it's fruitless to just say "well he shouldn't be permabanned because IMO he wasn't that bad". Don't forget you have probably missed a large percentage of his worst posts which would have been deleted. I've said this whole time only the mods know the whole picture and unless they outline all his offenses (which they don't have to) then none of us are in a position to say indefinitely if he deserves it or not.

This is a side rant but it makes a bit of a mockery of the moderation that this is even being reviewed. Presumably they probably would have considered permanently banning CD for quite a while now. You'd hope there was a lot of consideration put into it before it was finally done and to have it reviewed almost immediately is not exactly a glowing endorsement on their ability to make the right decision.

leng jai, yes, your situations are/were different. But pertinent logical comparisons can be made.
Whatever the excuse, you knowingly violated one of the most serious rules on the site - double or multiple accounts.
I'm would have to guess that the moderators/administrators also reviewed your case before initially banning you for the prescribed period.

Your defenders rushed to your defense claiming that you deserved better and to not just look at the violation, but look at it in context of your posting record and in the context that you were "doing it as a joke". Based on this complaint, the administrators/moderators rightly re-reviewed your case. This required a completely subjective judgement on the part of the administrators/moderators. They quite rightly (in my opinion) ended up reducing your penalty.

Clay Death had a relatively minor infraction that happened to be reported (We know many of these types of infractions are not).
This minor infraction caused him to go over an arbitrary limit of total infractions that got him permanently banned.
This is the point I'm arguing. This kind of infraction should not get him permanently banned, it should get him banned to whatever the penalty of that infraction dictates for him. If he's violated that rule many times, then he should get the maximum penalty for that particular infraction, which shouldn't be much more than the minimum penalty for a serious offense.

Regardless, I find it rather sad that you, you who have had leniency granted to you upon re-review, apparently so dislike the poster in question (this must be the reason, I see no other), that you feel administrators shouldn't even re-review this case. It is the height of double standard/hypocrisy, and should be called out as such.

Respectfully,
masterclass

[Mimi]

masterclass

[hat__boy]

Originally Posted by masterclass

leng jai, yes, your situations are/were different. But pertinent logical comparisons can be made.
Whatever the excuse, you knowingly violated one of the most serious rules on the site - double or multiple accounts.
I'm would have to guess that the moderators/administrators also reviewed your case before initially banning you for the prescribed period.

Your defenders rushed to your defense claiming that you deserved better and to not just look at the violation, but look at it in context of your posting record and in the context that you were "doing it as a joke". Based on this complaint, the administrators/moderators rightly re-reviewed your case. This required a completely subjective judgement on the part of the administrators/moderators. They quite rightly (in my opinion) ended up reducing your penalty.

Clay Death had a relatively minor infraction that happened to be reported (We know many of these types of infractions are not).
This minor infraction caused him to go over an arbitrary limit of total infractions that got him permanently banned.
This is the point I'm arguing. This kind of infraction should not get him permanently banned, it should get him banned to whatever the penalty of that infraction dictates for him. If he's violated that rule many times, then he should get the maximum penalty for that particular infraction, which shouldn't be much more than the minimum penalty for a serious offense.

Regardless, I find it rather sad that you, you who have had leniency granted to you upon re-review, apparently so dislike the poster in question (this must be the reason, I see no other), that you feel administrators shouldn't even re-review this case. It is the height of double standard/hypocrisy, and should be called out as such.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Quite shocked to read some posters views in here. One rule for the kool kids, another for the rest of us. Leng Jai broke a concrete rule, no grey area at all, yet everyone rushed to his defence and his ban was lessened. This was probably the right decision, if only for the fact that things should be looked at in as much context as possible. Still, I know if I did the same thing, I would not have my ban lessened. That doesn't sit right with me at all.

[tripwires]

There are more people defending CD in this thread than those who are not.

I'll state this simply for clarity's sake:

leng jai: first offence
CD: repeated offence

leng jai: silly DA created to do a friend a silly favour and mostly posted in Non-Tennis
CD: from what I gather, made another offensive post

leng jai: little history of offensive posting in GM
CD: history of offensive posting in GM

leng jai: one prior (and unrelated) infraction
CD: enough prior infractions to warrant a permanent ban

Hat Boy, if you created a DA now and mucked around with it without trolling the fanbases in GM and you got banned for 3 months, I would advocate on your behalf as well using the same arguments I used for leng jai; and since his case set a precedent, you'd probably have your ban lessened. Let's not make this into an issue of insinuated favouritism.

Masterclass, your accusation that leng jai said whatever he said about CD because he doesn't like CD is disingenuous to say the least. Did you not read his post where he said that although he finds CD's rhetoric tiresome, he doesn't really have any issues with him?

[Nathaliia]

Originally Posted by masterclass

leng jai, yes, your situations are/were different. But pertinent logical comparisons can be made.
Whatever the excuse, you knowingly violated one of the most serious rules on the site - double or multiple accounts.
I'm would have to guess that the moderators/administrators also reviewed your case before initially banning you for the prescribed period.

Your defenders rushed to your defense claiming that you deserved better and to not just look at the violation, but look at it in context of your posting record and in the context that you were "doing it as a joke". Based on this complaint, the administrators/moderators rightly re-reviewed your case. This required a completely subjective judgement on the part of the administrators/moderators. They quite rightly (in my opinion) ended up reducing your penalty.

Clay Death had a relatively minor infraction that happened to be reported (We know many of these types of infractions are not).
This minor infraction caused him to go over an arbitrary limit of total infractions that got him permanently banned.
This is the point I'm arguing. This kind of infraction should not get him permanently banned, it should get him banned to whatever the penalty of that infraction dictates for him. If he's violated that rule many times, then he should get the maximum penalty for that particular infraction, which shouldn't be much more than the minimum penalty for a serious offense.

Regardless, I find it rather sad that you, you who have had leniency granted to you upon re-review, apparently so dislike the poster in question (this must be the reason, I see no other), that you feel administrators shouldn't even re-review this case. It is the height of double standard/hypocrisy, and should be called out as such.

Respectfully,
masterclass

when i thought poland wouldn't be able to come up with anything logically coherent after maria sklodowska-curie's death, then comes masterclass with his post