ct690911: I'm upset that it wasn't lifted long enough for me to post a timely response for my friend Peter...but at least it was eventually posted.
Me too Colin.........so here I go
The posting guidelines are available and for the most part are pretty clear. Sure there are grey areas, and as such are circumnavigated from time to time, but often law is about the intent when it was written, not necessarily the way it is interpreted, For that, as for the guidelines, I have no problem.
But then there is an anomaly......where does it mention the penalties if those very guidelines are broken?
In golf, in a stroke round and I ground my club in a hazard, I accept I will receive a 2 stroke penalty.
Now if I break those posting guidelines - what penalty will I receive.
The problem as I see it, this is subjective, and as we know, subjectivity can be unfair, biased and unjust.
In Colin's case, I think the he could have/should have at least had a temporary lifting of his moderation, so he could post in real time regarding Peter, not wait a day until it showed. This was also highlighted when the Andyson tournament was run, some players could not post scores or even post at all......surely some discretion should be used.
Therefore these guidelines should be updated to also state what punishments will be, including length and should future transgressions occur, what those ramifications will be.
So what I think should happen is:
- Advise the player what rules they have broken
- Advise the length of the punishment
- process for appealing, including timeframes and process
This would add transparency to the process, which currently does not exist.
Now here is one of those grey areas, and bear in mind, this thread is 11 pages long.
From the guidelines -
"Creating threads with the intention of highlighting disciplinary actions taken against a player"
Sort of highlights the conditions and how these guidelines can be interpreted and I suppose the lack of consistency.
Yes when I created the thread, it was in hope that Colin could post freely, but was done in a light hearted manner with humour injected, But at the core it highlights the frailties of the system, when anyone can fall foul of the system, or the people in charge of that system are not impartial.