My first trip report.

Quote: AxelWolf

Can't you implement something that automatically kicks in and silences newbs for to many posts with a manual override? If it's some mind blowing post then cross that bridge when you come to it.

I think I know when and for who this was changed.

It was working before just fine why no go back to it?

You give me too much credit. I can't implement anything. That's a Wiz/Zuga request.

I could do the opposite. I could do the entire thing manually, and I do just that several times a week. But in this case, he's not spamming, and that's what that rule is for.

Quote: Face

he's not spamming, and that's what that rule is for.

Spam is still simulated crap substitute for the real thing when people would prefer something else?

no further comment from me.

Quote: rxwine

Spam is still simulated crap substitute for the real thing when people would prefer something else?

no further comment from me.

I don't know what they are made of but spam sammies are good, right up there with Fukashima fish.

A new member shouldn't be able to post
35 times in less than 2 days, no newbie
has that much to say to a bunch of strangers.

Quote: AxelWolf

Can't you implement something that automatically kicks in and silences newbs for to many posts with a manual override? If it's some mind blowing post then cross that bridge when you come to it.

I think I know when and for who this was changed.

It was working before just fine why no go back to it?

I think Axel has the best of intentions for the forum at heart, just my opinion. I could go with another frequent poster and say "you got a rule, why don't you enforce it?" Face has already responded to that question, at least in general. Jeez, a bunch of people are working hard, pretty much round the clock, to attempt to keep this 'thing' as beautiful as it once was, and can continue to be going forward. So pls consider his suggestion in the above post.

Apparently Axel has doubts about me, or at least that's the impression I got a week or so ago. I am what I am (Popeye). Members, maybe lots of them, may have blocked my posts. That is a usefull function. I joined a couple years ago, embarrassed myself right off the bat, and went and hid under a rock for a year or so. Then came back.....

I'm going to start a new thread, I haven't done many. It's a suggestion for a new member to have to sort-of introduce themselves to the forum, tell the forum something about yourself. Like where you live, SE USA would be me. How long have you been gambling? Just couple years for me, exclusively Blackjack. (Means I don't have a clue bout roulette, craps, or the now dreaded Bac, or VP or anything else). Are you young or ahead of easy john, sp). Do you win, or lose? Do you care?.............just something to give the watchdogs, whether official or not, a glimpse at who you are so they don't have to try to piece it together from your posts, and grammar, and phrases, and references. Is that OK? I think it should be posted under 'general discussion'. Did I get that right? Just a thought, feedback accepted gladfully. 2F (that's me).

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I'm going to start a new thread, I haven't done many. It's a suggestion for a new member to have to sort-of introduce themselves to the forum, tell the forum something about yourself. Like where you live, SE USA would be me. How long have you been gambling? Just couple years for me, exclusively Blackjack. (Means I don't have a clue bout roulette, craps, or the now dreaded Bac, or VP or anything else). Are you young or ahead of easy john, sp). Do you win, or lose? Do you care?.............just something to give the watchdogs, whether official or not, a glimpse at who you are so they don't have to try to piece it together from your posts, and grammar, and phrases, and references. Is that OK? I think it should be posted under 'general discussion'. Did I get that right? Just a thought, feedback accepted gladfully. 2F (that's me).

As a new member I really like that idea. It would give a new member the opportunity to say hello and show that I would like to participate in already exist forum and it's members and get an idea of the people I will be interacting with.

2F stated, "I joined a couple years ago, embarrassed myself right off the bat, and went and hid under a rock for a year or so. Then came back....." I know this feeling myself, as when I joined I made the same mistakes.

I feel that an induction thread for new members could possibly remove some of the suspicion that some new members come under without them knowing/understanding of recent events that have occurred in this forum. Just my two white chips....

Quote: Face

You give me too much credit. I can't implement anything. That's a Wiz/Zuga request.

I could do the opposite. I could do the entire thing manually, and I do just that several times a week. But in this case, he's not spamming, and that's what that rule is for.

Who and why was it taken off in the first place? I know why it was originally added, it just so happen to help solve another problem.

Quote: mason2386

2F stated, "I joined a couple years ago, embarrassed myself right off the bat, and went and hid under a rock for a year or so. Then came back....." I know this feeling myself, as when I joined I made the same mistakes..

So you have a duplicate account ?

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I think Axel has the best of intentions for the forum at heart, just my opinion. I could go with another frequent poster and say "you got a rule, why don't you enforce it?" Face has already responded to that question, at least in general. Jeez, a bunch of people are working hard, pretty much round the clock, to attempt to keep this 'thing' as beautiful as it once was, and can continue to be going forward.

Good post.

Are you saying it shouldn't take a mathematician to add 2 & 2?

Quote: AxelWolf

So you have a duplicate account ?

TwoFeathersATL
Member since: May 22, 2013
Threads: 9
Posts: 205

Edit: sorry, misread who you were addressing.

Quote: AxelWolf

So you have a duplicate account ?

I have only one account. I regret how I entered into this forum, as I should have entered as an observer and began by asking questions that were pertinent and not by making stupid quips. If I didn't have something relevant to the conversation, I should have kept my typing to myself. I came to this forum to learn as much as I could about the game of craps from the people that have more knowledge of the game than I have. In my short tie I have learned that I love the game and want to become proficient at my play.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I'm going to start a new thread, I haven't done many. It's a suggestion for a new member to have to sort-of introduce themselves to the forum, tell the forum something about yourself. Like where you live, SE USA would be me. How long have you been gambling? Just couple years for me, exclusively Blackjack. (Means I don't have a clue bout roulette, craps, or the now dreaded Bac, or VP or anything else). Are you young or ahead of easy john, sp). Do you win, or lose? Do you care?.............just something to give the watchdogs, whether official or not, a glimpse at who you are so they don't have to try to piece it together from your posts, and grammar, and phrases, and references. Is that OK? I think it should be posted under 'general discussion'. Did I get that right? Just a thought, feedback accepted gladfully. 2F (that's me).

Alright, I slept on the idea, (I'm quoting myself, is that bad form)?
A lot of people join the forum every day, many days.
Some a couple of times per day ;-)
I suppose that's way too many intros for anyone to keep up with.
Many just come to read and to learn, not to post much.
Maybe only if you want to post, particularly post ALOT,
then your first post should be an introduction of yourself.
Still thinking, I'm slow. 2F

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Alright, I slept on the idea, (I'm quoting myself, is that bad form)?
A lot of people join the forum every day, many days.
Some a couple of times per day ;-)
I suppose that's way too many intros for anyone to keep up with.
Many just come to read and to learn, not to post much.
Maybe only if you want to post, particularly post ALOT,
then your first post should be an introduction of yourself.
Still thinking, I'm slow. 2F

Moved the thoughts above over to an older thread, under 'Rules', thread titled "about welcoming new members'

Forum Rule #14--Posting limits: For the first 30 days of membership, the number of threads you may start is equal to the number of days you have been a member plus two, and the maximum number of posts you can make is limited to the number of days you have been a member plus 10. This is to help combat spam. (Added 3/8/2012)

I don't understand why this rule cannot be enforced without harming some "great thinker" who may come along. Perhaps the numbers need tweaked a little bit, but why have it as a rule if it is going to be ignored? Put the rule in a welcome email to new members, tell them that we want them here, and they'll soon be able to post as much as they please. The people who want to be members here can live with the rules; the ones that don't (the disruptive folks) probably will not stick around for 30 days to get to the point of posting freedom.

The rule does need a little tweak, IMHO--It basically limits you to about 40 posts and 32 thread starts in the first 30 days of membership based on a daily count...11 and 3 on the first day, 12 and 4, etc. I would suggest allowing a few more posts (maybe 5 per day) and less threads (no more than 1 per day; I would prefer 10 or so in the month). Starting 32 threads and only being able to post 40 times (won't 32 of those posts be the first comment in the thread?) means that a newbie would be unable to have a conversation about the thread he/she started if they are at the limits.

If the automatic features are not in place, then the rule is not preventing spam in the first place--perhaps it should just be deleted from the rules because the moderators can get rid of spam when it appears. Is there a rule needed for that?

I guess my point is--either have a rule and enforce it or don't have a rule...

I went gambling last night but with all the 'crap' on this board decided against posting. Sorry some of you are so "intellectually lazy" as they say. Your minds forbid absorbance. Thanks, 'Manny'.

Quote: lion457

I went gambling last night but with all the 'crap' on this board decided against posting. Sorry some of you are so "intellectually lazy" as they say. Your minds forbid absorbance. Thanks, 'Manny'.

So instead of understanding why some have issues with new posters here and moving forward, you would rather toss an insult at some members and go from there?

Perhaps a good trip report with a couple of pictures would go a long way towards changing some attitudes and/or proving some people wrong.

I know I have said that you are breaking the posting limits in the rules; that is a fact, but ownership/management has decided not to enforce it at this time. I question whether there should even be a rule if it is selectively enforced but I also understand that mods may use it to give someone enough rope to hang themselves.

You are either doing the right thing or the wrong thing...if you are doing the right thing, stand by it and post trip reports. People will move past where they are at right now. If you just insult people because you are insulted, no one is going anywhere...

Quote: RonC

Forum Rule #14--Posting limits: For the first 30 days of membership, the number of threads you may start is equal to the number of days you have been a member plus two, and the maximum number of posts you can make is limited to the number of days you have been a member plus 10. This is to help combat spam. (Added 3/8/2012)

I don't understand why this rule cannot be enforced without harming some "great thinker" who may come along. Perhaps the numbers need tweaked a little bit, but why have it as a rule if it is going to be ignored? Put the rule in a welcome email to new members, tell them that we want them here, and they'll soon be able to post as much as they please. The people who want to be members here can live with the rules; the ones that don't (the disruptive folks) probably will not stick around for 30 days to get to the point of posting freedom.

The rule does need a little tweak, IMHO--It basically limits you to about 40 posts and 32 thread starts in the first 30 days of membership based on a daily count...11 and 3 on the first day, 12 and 4, etc. I would suggest allowing a few more posts (maybe 5 per day) and less threads (no more than 1 per day; I would prefer 10 or so in the month). Starting 32 threads and only being able to post 40 times (won't 32 of those posts be the first comment in the thread?) means that a newbie would be unable to have a conversation about the thread he/she started if they are at the limits.

If the automatic features are not in place, then the rule is not preventing spam in the first place--perhaps it should just be deleted from the rules because the moderators can get rid of spam when it appears. Is there a rule needed for that?

I guess my point is--either have a rule and enforce it or don't have a rule...

I thought Face answered this very well, and almost exactly as I would have, but I'll discuss it a little since you're still asking about it. The note at the end of Rule 14 is really instructive on the intent IMO. In the particular case of lion, since that's the most recent member about whom the question is being asked, he was not spamming the forum. A majority of his posts were directly in conversation with the membership, which participated "early and often" in what he posted. Had he posted the same thing multiple times, invaded multiple threads with postings, posted links to off-the-wall sites, any number of other ways of providing meaningless content and/or interruptions, Rule 14 exists to police those activities.

The format of a live trip report has several precedents on here, with real-time postings of a paragraph or two. The rest of lion's posts that were not in discussion were pretty much all trip updates, within the demonstrated format and expectation. There has been no correlation to any previously banned member, though it appears he read at least some of the forum before beginning to post. So, it would be a misuse of Rule 14 to ban someone for making posts pertinent to the subject and intent of the board, and more importantly, to respond to many questions and assertions made directly to and about him.

That's really all I have to say about it. I think you're looking for a black-and-white interpretation, but my understanding is that the intent is for the rule to be applied on a case-by-case basis, and the content and interaction does matter.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I thought Face answered this very well, and almost exactly as I would have, but I'll discuss it a little since you're still asking about it. The note at the end of Rule 14 is really instructive on the intent IMO. In the particular case of lion, since that's the most recent member about whom the question is being asked, he was not spamming the forum. A majority of his posts were directly in conversation with the membership, which participated "early and often" in what he posted. Had he posted the same thing multiple times, invaded multiple threads with postings, posted links to off-the-wall sites, any number of other ways of providing meaningless content and/or interruptions, Rule 14 exists to police those activities.

The format of a live trip report has several precedents on here, with real-time postings of a paragraph or two. The rest of lion's posts that were not in discussion were pretty much all trip updates, within the demonstrated format and expectation. There has been no correlation to any previously banned member, though it appears he read at least some of the forum before beginning to post. So, it would be a misuse of Rule 14 to ban someone for making posts pertinent to the subject and intent of the board, and more importantly, to respond to many questions and assertions made directly to and about him.

That's really all I have to say about it. I think you're looking for a black-and-white interpretation, but my understanding is that the intent is for the rule to be applied on a case-by-case basis, and the content and interaction does matter.

I'd like either a black and white interpretation and perhaps some more allowance for posting or to have the rule removed altogether.

If there really is no more of a rule than "I can't define spam but I will know it when I see it"...that is 100% fine. You folks administer the board pretty well; there is no need for a rule limiting posting when there is no real need to limit posting from LEGITIMATE members. Toss the spammers, and let the newbies who are not spammers go free.

I understand the INTENT of the rule; it seems to me the actual INTENT provided by you and Face is NOT to enforce it except in the case of spammers. Why have a rule that you don't want to enforce...it is much simpler to say:

Rule ____: No spamming allowed. Spam will be removed and spammers will be banned without warning.

That, of course, was covered with an earlier rule that has since been changed to be covered by other rules, including the one in question:

"3. We have a zero-tolerance policy for spam. Anyone found or perceived to be spamming may be permanently banned from the forum."

Quote: beachbumbabs

That's really all I have to say about it.

Not exactly the tone I would like to hear from someone when I am simply asking questions and having a discussion. It seems a little snippy to me; I have not been so to you. Maybe it is just a perception...

Quote: beachbumbabs

I think you're looking for a black-and-white interpretation, but my understanding is that the intent is for the rule to be applied on a case-by-case basis, and the content and interaction does matter.

The rule is quite clear as written and was enforced as such at one time. Suggesting a revision of the rule to encompass the interpretation being used by moderators is not all that crazy of an idea...

I see Lion457 name in red now, imagine that.
3 days for insult.
I had expected an IP mistake.

Quote: beachbumbabs

There has been no correlation to any previously banned member, though it appears he read at least some of the forum before beginning to post.

Hopefully you mean IP correlation, because this guy id most certainly connected to a previously banned member.

It's not hard to use a VPN and or a different device.

I did not hear anything about the fire..Maybe enviers..(