Thread Rating:

TigerWu
TigerWu
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 4623
October 22nd, 2022 at 3:23:37 PM permalink
Bovada has Mark Cuban for President at +15000.
JackSpade
JackSpade
Joined: Aug 26, 2022
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 233
October 24th, 2022 at 10:12:14 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Quote: JackSpade

I don't think his tenure as Transportation Secretary has done any good for his presidential prospects.
link to original post



Political statement. Given a specific violation and warning just yesterday, three-day suspension.

As a reminder, you may state what you think are good bets in this thread, but you can't state reasons why.
link to original post



It is of course within Wizard's purview to enforce the rules of the forum regardless of whether I agree with them. However, the circumstances that led to my suspension were were a direct result of Wizard's inconsistencies in communicating and applying those those rules.

I started this thread with a post in which I made note of "Biden's declining faculties and Kamala's unpopularity," argued Trump has "burned too many bridges," and suggested Tim Scott or Larry Elder might benefit from media attention.

Several days later, Wizard posted: "Friendly reminder that while discussing betting on politics is absolutely allowed, discussing politics is not. The posts above were fine." Wizard thus communicated that it was "fine" for me to bring up Biden's faculties, Harris's unpopularity, and Trump's burnt bridges in relation to their odds of becoming president.

I subsequently posted about Tulsi Gabbard's current political views. Wizard issued a warning, asserting my characterization of her views amounted to me "making a political statement."

I then posted about Pete Buttigieg's current job in relation to his odds of of becoming president - being careful to not bring up any of his political views. Wizard suspended me for that, posting: "As a reminder, you may state what you think are good bets in this thread, but you can't state reasons why."

Contrary to Wizard's "As a reminder" phrasing, a broad prohibition against "reasons why" had never previously been announced or enforced on this thread. In fact, I had stated multiple reasons why I favor betting on and betting against certain politicians in my initial post, which was approved by Wizard himself!

Based on Wizard's judgment that my initial post was "fine" it was reasonable for me to conclude that the rules allowed me to say something about why I don't think Buttigieg is a good bet and impossible for me to predict that Wizard would issue a blanket ban on explanations. It wasn't reasonable for Wizard to retroactively enforce what amounted to an abrupt rule change (i.e., an ex post facto law) by suspending my account.

I therefore charge Wizard with wielding his moderator powers in an arbitrary, capricious, and unfair manner. I appeal to other moderators to render a verdict.
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 3813
October 24th, 2022 at 11:50:14 AM permalink
Quote: JackSpade

Quote: Wizard

Quote: JackSpade

I don't think his tenure as Transportation Secretary has done any good for his presidential prospects.
link to original post



Political statement. Given a specific violation and warning just yesterday, three-day suspension.

As a reminder, you may state what you think are good bets in this thread, but you can't state reasons why.
link to original post



It is of course within Wizard's purview to enforce the rules of the forum regardless of whether I agree with them. However, the circumstances that led to my suspension were were a direct result of Wizard's inconsistencies in communicating and applying those those rules.

I started this thread with a post in which I made note of "Biden's declining faculties and Kamala's unpopularity," argued Trump has "burned too many bridges," and suggested Tim Scott or Larry Elder might benefit from media attention.

Several days later, Wizard posted: "Friendly reminder that while discussing betting on politics is absolutely allowed, discussing politics is not. The posts above were fine." Wizard thus communicated that it was "fine" for me to bring up Biden's faculties, Harris's unpopularity, and Trump's burnt bridges in relation to their odds of becoming president.

I subsequently posted about Tulsi Gabbard's current political views. Wizard issued a warning, asserting my characterization of her views amounted to me "making a political statement."

I then posted about Pete Buttigieg's current job in relation to his odds of of becoming president - being careful to not bring up any of his political views. Wizard suspended me for that, posting: "As a reminder, you may state what you think are good bets in this thread, but you can't state reasons why."

Contrary to Wizard's "As a reminder" phrasing, a broad prohibition against "reasons why" had never previously been announced or enforced on this thread. In fact, I had stated multiple reasons why I favor betting on and betting against certain politicians in my initial post, which was approved by Wizard himself!

Based on Wizard's judgment that my initial post was "fine" it was reasonable for me to conclude that the rules allowed me to say something about why I don't think Buttigieg is a good bet and impossible for me to predict that Wizard would issue a blanket ban on explanations. It wasn't reasonable for Wizard to retroactively enforce what amounted to an abrupt rule change (i.e., an ex post facto law) by suspending my account.

I therefore charge Wizard with wielding his moderator powers in an arbitrary, capricious, and unfair manner. I appeal to other moderators to render a verdict.
link to original post



Per your request, the matter will be discussed.
May the cards fall in your favor.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 436
  • Posts: 26029
October 24th, 2022 at 12:33:07 PM permalink
Quote: JackSpade



I therefore charge Wizard with wielding his moderator powers in an arbitrary, capricious, and unfair manner. I appeal to other moderators to render a verdict.
link to original post



LOL! You're funny
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1438
  • Posts: 24889
October 24th, 2022 at 1:52:21 PM permalink
Quote: JackSpade

I therefore charge Wizard with wielding his moderator powers in an arbitrary, capricious, and unfair manner. I appeal to other moderators to render a verdict.
link to original post



Okay, you've had your say. I will let you have the last word on that. However, if you wish to drag other moderators into a suspension that has already been served, that is your right to ask them directly. My advice would be to let it go.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -- Carl Sagan
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 3813
Thanks for this post from:
MichaelBluejay
October 24th, 2022 at 2:45:36 PM permalink
Quote: JackSpade



I therefore charge Wizard with wielding his moderator powers in an arbitrary, capricious, and unfair manner. I appeal to other moderators to render a verdict.
link to original post




Following discussion, we believe the suspension to be valid.


There were two warnings issued.
JackSpade's posts seemed to be increasingly political after each warning.
Warnings should be seen as a 'wake-up call' to reduce the objectionability of posts.
May the cards fall in your favor.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 1687
October 24th, 2022 at 3:30:29 PM permalink
This seems like an impossible topic to discuss in the given parameters.

It's hard to mention how odds can change without commenting on pending legislation, current events/controversies, experience of candidates or even who is (potentially) going to run for which party.

It would be like in the sports thread if you are allowed to mention upcoming games and the odds that are out there for the teams as a whole, but can't mention any player's history, teams' performances, player issues (such as legal or discipline that may suspend a player from a coming game) or coaching staff credentials.

This thread may as well be transferred to DT given the restrictions (or maybe the "Free Speech Zone" here with the understanding that more can be posted there within reason).

(I am not disagreeing with any mods or decisions made, I just think this topic is a can of worms where everyone will bush boundaries to justify posting some controversy, which will encourage others to bush boundaries. My prediction is if this thread stays open, the suspensions so far will not be the only ones.)
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1438
  • Posts: 24889
Thanks for this post from:
GandlerRogerKint
October 24th, 2022 at 3:39:40 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

This thread may as well be transferred to DT given the restrictions (or maybe the "Free Speech Zone" here with the understanding that more can be posted there within reason).
link to original post



I have never had much success with the "take it to DT" suggestion. The Free Speech Zone ended a long time ago.

However, what do you think of a lifting of the "no politics" rule during an election season? Said lifting would be limited to just ONE thread about betting the election.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -- Carl Sagan
TigerWu
TigerWu
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 4623
Thanks for this post from:
Gandler
October 24th, 2022 at 3:47:12 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard


However, what do you think of a lifting of the "no politics" rule during an election season? Said lifting would be limited to just ONE thread about betting the election.
link to original post



Either ban election betting threads altogether, or at least allow for SOME leniency in discussion in that one specific thread.

I don't gamble on elections, so I'm fine with the former, but maybe put it up to a vote, because I'm sure some people will care.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 1687
October 24th, 2022 at 3:48:58 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Quote: Gandler

This thread may as well be transferred to DT given the restrictions (or maybe the "Free Speech Zone" here with the understanding that more can be posted there within reason).
link to original post



I have never had much success with the "take it to DT" suggestion. The Free Speech Zone ended a long time ago.

However, what do you think of a lifting of the "no politics" rule during an election season? Said lifting would be limited to just ONE thread about betting the election.
link to original post



I honestly did not know that the free speech zone was off limits.

But, I think that would be a reasonable compromise if this thread remains open as is.

Of course, doing so will almost certainly make this thread the most active on here for several months at least (well actually probably for the next two years and beyond if you don't have strict timelines before and after elections), so you ultimately have to do what is best for the forum. You can always consider a "campaign sign rule" (the thread is open 180 days before a given election and closes 15 days after, or whatever timeline you think it best, that is just from my head, of course when you factor that some key States have runoffs -which will likely be in play-, this gets more complicated).

  • Jump to: