Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Statute of Limitations

  1. #1
    Cricketer Of The Year Adamc's Avatar
    Chicken Champion! Battle Pong Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    in the wind, so to speak
    Posts
    9,129

    Statute of Limitations

    Recent distressing events have brought to the attention of the newly formed and self appointed Cricket Web Law Reform Committee the need for a Statute of Limitations on the issuing of bans. At present an infraction can be issued for a post at any time after the post was made. An empirical survey of recent bans conducted by the CWLRC indicates that infractions are being issued up to five months after the alleged offence.

    I refer readers to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Forum Rules Amendment Act 2011. Among the stated aims of the rule changes is to make the system 'more transparent and fair' (Nixon, 2). The ever present threat of infraction for long forgotten posts is clearly antithetical to both these stated aims.

    Moreover, the Memorandum states, at 3, '[a]t every point a member knows how many points they have on their account, so a long or short ban does not seem like it is 'coming out of nowhere'.' Being infracted for a post made several months prior is precisely 'coming out of nowhere'. It is clear that a Statute of Limitations is necessary in order to uphold the purpose and spirit of the Act.

    The Forum Rules indicate that infractions are to expire after 42 days. This seems a reasonable starting point as a maximum period after which infractions can no longer be issued for a post. It is the Committee's view that a shorter period, ideally 14 days, is appropriate, particularly when it is clear that moderators have read the supposedly offending post (i.e. by replying directly or posting shortly after it).

    Private submissions have already been tendered by some of CW's senior legal minds indicating general support for the implementation of a Statute of Limitations.

    CWLRC
    "Under the spreading chestnut tree,
    I sold you and you sold me."

  2. #2
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    32,494
    Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?

    With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left

  3. #3
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamc View Post
    Recent distressing events have brought to the attention of the newly formed and self appointed Cricket Web Law Reform Committee the need for a Statute of Limitations on the issuing of bans. At present an infraction can be issued for a post at any time after the post was made. An empirical survey of recent bans conducted by the CWLRC indicates that infractions are being issued up to five months after the alleged offence.

    I refer readers to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Forum Rules Amendment Act 2011. Among the stated aims of the rule changes is to make the system 'more transparent and fair' (Nixon, 2). The ever present threat of infraction for long forgotten posts is clearly antithetical to both these stated aims.

    Moreover, the Memorandum states, at 3, '[a]t every point a member knows how many points they have on their account, so a long or short ban does not seem like it is 'coming out of nowhere'.' Being infracted for a post made several months prior is precisely 'coming out of nowhere'. It is clear that a Statute of Limitations is necessary in order to uphold the purpose and spirit of the Act.

    The Forum Rules indicate that infractions are to expire after 42 days. This seems a reasonable starting point as a maximum period after which infractions can no longer be issued for a post. It is the Committee's view that a shorter period, ideally 14 days, is appropriate, particularly when it is clear that moderators have read the supposedly offending post (i.e. by replying directly or posting shortly after it).

    Private submissions have already been tendered by some of CW's senior legal minds indicating general support for the implementation of a Statute of Limitations.

    CWLRC
    As I have a legal qualification, and am getting on a bit, I'm qualified to make a submission on that basis so give us the facts

  4. #4
    Cricketer Of The Year Adamc's Avatar
    Chicken Champion! Battle Pong Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    in the wind, so to speak
    Posts
    9,129
    It was my understanding that you had been apprised of the facts by one benchmark00. Your correspondence with him was taken as an unofficial submission.


  5. #5
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,812
    benchmark00 ???

    rings a vague bell somewhere but don't think I know him

    ........... unless he's the bloke who does the gorillagrams?

  6. #6
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,339
    This thread is obviously a little bit of a piss-take but I think it's something we could seriously look into. I'm not too sure, as a rule, if we should be giving people infractions for posts made so long ago that the infraction would've expired by now if we gave it at the time. Certainly something worth discussing anyway. The flip side of the argument is of course the fact that if the mods miss something originally it doesn't mean it should go unpunished.
    ~ Cribbage

    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by simonlee48 View Post
    Sanga has done well but Murali has done better. In my opinion, Murali is simply the best off spinner in history of cricket and I can't make that kind of statement for Sanga.
    Sanga isn't the best off spinner in the history of cricket? News to me.

  7. #7
    Cricketer Of The Year Adamc's Avatar
    Chicken Champion! Battle Pong Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    in the wind, so to speak
    Posts
    9,129
    The format of my post is just me being facetious, as is my wont, but the suggestion is genuine.

  8. #8
    cpr
    cpr is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year cpr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    9,912
    I too challenge James I's Divine Right of Kings and shall raise an army to march on London forthwith. Shall be calling on the Dukes of Lancashire (definitely a roundhead) and Berkshire (comes accross as a cavalier) to head my armies.
    "All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce
    Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!
    GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individual
    Burgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.
    Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers

  9. #9
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,078
    Worth considering of course that infractions are always doubling in length. If in theory a poster had already had a few for said offence by the time of the offence, then the length would be much longer. I speak from experience given I have infractions from summer that don't expire until April. I'd imagine benchmark would be in a similar boat.
    "It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
    Jason Koumas

    SWA

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  10. #10
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,223
    "Turn the bans around."

    - T Abbott, 2010, 2011 & 2012.
    Son Of Coco likes this.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  11. #11
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,078

  12. #12
    International Coach HeathDavisSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rummaging through Iain O'Brien's dustbins.
    Posts
    14,308
    Should probably start by booting the moderator who thought it was reasonable to infract a post made five months previously.

    And then infract GIMH just for laffs.
    >>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>
    Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
    Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
    Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
    Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.


    Vimes tells it how it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    Heath worryingly quick.

  13. #13
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,078
    Seems fair

  14. #14
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,812
    In all seriousness adamc is of course entirely correct for the reasons that he identifies.

    It also seems to me that if a post is five months old, and hasn't been noticed by the mods or reported, then its not easy to actually see how it can be fitted into any of the infractable sins anyway

    I think I recall the post in question and I remember at the time thinking that benchy had taken a risk, but then nothing was said so I assumed it must have been intended in and taken in jest, thus I think benchy was entitled to assume the same

    If it was just missed then I can understand that the mods might still want to flag it up, but surely in those circumstances the punishment that fits the crime is a warning, so the poster concerns knows what he has to do/not do in the future

  15. #15
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,339
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    Should probably start by booting the moderator who thought it was reasonable to infract a post made five months previously.
    We can't really boot that particular moderator.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •