Is it time to change the Statler and Waldorf policy?

Quote: 24Bingo

Come to think of it - isn't the "I'm a bigot" option sort of an attack on Nareed?

I guess it depends on the intent, but I assumed there was some element of humor in the structuring of the original poll that inspired the meme. I suppose it's possible that Nareed was deadly serious.

Quote: DeMango

Bingo! To me the vile hatred of the last "N word" thread should have led to being nuked. All Christians were attacked but you know who is a you know what. No excuse at all for this thread, I see no S&W here.

The "I'm a Bigot" option is just plain funny, I don't care who you are. It was hysterically subjective in its first use, as Nareed well knew, and remains funny in reminding all of us that we are coming from unique perspectives.

There have been appalling things said in this forum every time religion or politics comes up, and many times when that's not even the subject but someone takes it there. I'm not even going to pick a side to say that about; just appalling, to the point I can't even read several threads for their anger and extreme intolerance, whether religious or political. If I were to agree with Mission about cutting down the non-gambling threads, these are the ones I would boot first. But several of those members most involved in the vitriol are people I respect and value in other areas. And further, I think Aaron Sorkin had it correctly in "the American President":

'America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free. '

I don't think a week goes by on this forum where I don't have to almost chant this to myself to keep from just screaming at the monitor. But it's part of what makes the forum great; the balance the guys achieve in allowing all voices to be heard, while insisting on decorum and respect. So, shine on, free speech.

Quote: gpac1377

I guess it depends on the intent, but I assumed there was some element of humor in the structuring of the original poll that inspired the meme. I suppose it's possible that Nareed was deadly serious.

There was no humorous intent. The original poll was created by someone who strongly supports gay marriage and wanted to belittle those who disagree by giving them only the "bigot" option. The ironic thing is that it just barely missed winning. ;)

Quote: Beethoven9th

There was no humorous intent. The original poll was created by someone who strongly supports gay marriage and wanted to belittle those who disagree by giving them only the "bigot" option. The ironic thing is that it just barely missed winning. ;)

Still hilarious, worked on multiple levels.

Quote: Wizard

I agree that more good moderators would be a good thing. Any long-time members may apply to be secret admins and secret admins may apply to be full admins at any time.

Can you explain the need for secret admins? Not sure why not just have them out in the open. What kind of "power" dose a sneaky admin have?

I am not asking because I would want to be one I'm just curious. Personally I don't know who would want to do this kind stuff without any compensation.

reminds me of this song: Secret Agent Man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaR3WO71j4&feature=kp

Quote: 24Bingo

Come to think of it - isn't the "I'm a bigot" option sort of an attack on Nareed?

I mean, I guess originally mocking the poll in question would have been an attack on what she said, but making it a meme like this does feel far enough from the original poll that I'd have to call it a form of personal attack.

It is not a personal attack, it is a bit of satire. Nareed posted a poll that basically said if you did not agree with his position you were a bigot. I was one of the first to add "I'm a bigot" to another poll and it kind of caught on. It has clearly gotten far enough away that more than one person has asked "why do you peeps keep doing this?"

This kind of thing is old online. Anyone else here remember Usenet and the "Green Golf Ball Joke?"

Quote: Sonuvabish

Why would you refer to everyone on the forum as a bunch of nondescript cats? Your tone would imply a cut-down, and your explanation is hard to swallow, respectfully.

Cat is pretty well known to be synonymous with "dude", "guy", "mate", etc.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CAT&defid=668457

Quote: Wizard

When I started this thread I thought "no ad hominem attacks" was a fancy way of saying "no personal attacks." However, I see now that may not be the case and the "ad hominem" standard may confuse people, including me. So, going forward it is safe to equate the choice for "no ad hominem attacks" to represent "no personal attacks/insults."

I agree that more good moderators would be a good thing. Any long-time members may apply to be secret admins and secret admins may apply to be full admins at any time.

Why are the Admin's "secret"? The rule we use is simple. Admins have a different "name" color and can post as they wish. But when they have to post as a Mod or Admin, it is to be in the "official" green moderator color.

If someone has been around, they have posted good info and have kept a level head, and can offer time to be a Mod or Admin, then you (Mike, Mission, etc) extend an offer to help run the site.

SFB

Quote: Sonuvabish

Why would you refer to everyone on the forum as a bunch of nondescript cats? Your tone would imply a cut-down, and your explanation is hard to swallow, respectfully.

That term has been around for 50+ years.

Quote: DeMango

Bingo! To me the vile hatred of the last "N word" thread should have led to being nuked. All Christians were attacked but you know who is a you know what. No excuse at all for this thread, I see no S&W here.

See - and here we have a perfect illustration of one of the things I was talking about earlier. It's been a recurring theme on this board that to some people, the love of a superbeing about to at least allow all humanity to be tortured unless they believe something not only utterly absurd in its own right but something He Himself has deliberately obfuscated to meet His damnation quota is so dear to their hearts that even to point out that that's what it is is seen as a personal attack.

And what do you call this?

Quote: AZDuffman

Nareed posted a poll that basically said if you did not agree with his position you were a bigot.

Quote: 24Bingo

And what do you call this?

A sentence.

Quote: 24Bingo

And what do you call this?

Quote: AZDuffman

Nareed posted a poll that basically said if you did not agree with his position you were a bigot.

As Nareed is a male I call it descriptive.

Perhaps an elegant solution would be just to limit controversial off-topic posts to 280 characters. There would be enough to quote and respond, but not enough text for insults if you care to have a point.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Perhaps an elegant solution would be just to limit controversial off-topic posts to 280 characters.

This ain't Twitter!

Quote: Beethoven9th

This ain't Twitter!

#nospacefordramaorinsultslol

Quote: wudged

Cat is pretty well known to be synonymous with "dude", "guy", "mate", etc.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CAT&defid=668457

Soxfan says it all the time, worst yet, he adds an Hey, Hey to the end of it.

I have to admit that I get a chuckle every time I get to the end of one of Soxfan's posts, hey hey! It never gets old, for me, though I don't know why not.

Quote: Buzzard

Forget that! Just got a PM saying he already has that title. And he suspended me because of my Dumb Blonde remark. Can't trust anybody.

Are you being serious? I don't think so, but who knows.

Quote: Mission146

I have to admit that I get a chuckle every time I get to the end of one of Soxfan's posts, hey hey! It never gets old, for me, though I don't know why not.

It's unique and it grows on you. I may want to borrow it but I don't think I could pull it off.

Quote: Beethoven9th

To be perfectly honest, I don't think it had any effect on the Wizard's decision to unban RogerKint. Also, I honestly did not remember who had protested by not posting (I believe there were 2 members total) when I wrote that, and I do apologize if my post sounded like it was aimed directly at you guys. It was meant to be about the group as a whole including everyone who has posted about it here.

To everyone: People, this is a freaking internet forum. Someone got banned and unbanned. Is this really some grave issue that deserves 90 posts in the past few hours? lol

BTW, I voted Bigot. ;)

You may have read into missions post to much I am not sure that the Wizard made any decisions regarding Rogers un-banning or banning. I think it was Missions call by respecting the rules imposed by the Wizard. I may be wrong. I have a feeling if Mission made the rules. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLwCJ0qqoGk

Quote: AxelWolf

You may have read into missions post to much I am not sure that the Wizard made any decisions regarding Rogers un-banning or banning.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/3853-discussion-about-the-suspension-list/220/#post327266

Quote: wudged

Cat is pretty well known to be synonymous with "dude", "guy", "mate", etc.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CAT&defid=668457

I read the post that got him banned. I stand corrected. I stand by my original thesis that the rules are quite strict. Although I must say, using cat and hey hey is quite peculiar.

Quote: Sonuvabish

I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. As an AP, I am frequently the only one out of a thousand people in the building who have any clue as to what I am doing. 100 of those people will hold the same incoherent beliefs as one another, and God help me if a group of them happen upon each other and all sit at my table. The majority is often taken by poor ideas, and is very difficult to convince otherwise. This is a fact that extends beyond gambling and internet forums. In the formation of our government, judicial review was crafted to protect the minority from the bad ideas the majority held. It is still used today.
I do not think that it is necessary for name calling, but sometimes it can be frustrating when the minority is correct and the masses are judging incorrectly. When I did something stupid as a child, my dad would call me a retard and threaten me with the back of his hand. My mom would basically ignore it, maybe make a comment. In operant conditioning, they would say my dad used punishment whereas my mother used extinction. Who do you think had the more convincing argument that I should not do whatever I was doing?

I certainly understand the frustration of trying to argue with the masses, especially when it comes to AP issues. However, once you have spent some time here, I think you will understand that this forum has a collective IQ that is probably very high. You won't need a hammer here to make any points.

I don't recall the exact phrase anymore, but it went something like this,
"Never try to educate a fool. All it will do is frustrate you, and piss off the fool."

If you are a knowledgeable AP, I think you will find value, and be a valuable poster, here. After a few months, I think you will understand a bit more why this discussion is taking place. Welcome to the forum.

PS. I am not an AP. I am a craps player. Enough said. ;-)

Quote: RaleighCraps

I certainly understand the frustration of trying to argue with the masses, especially when it comes to AP issues. However, once you have spent some time here, I think you will understand that this forum has a collective IQ that is probably very high. You won't need a hammer here to make any points.

I don't recall the exact phrase anymore, but it went something like this,
"Never try to educate a fool. All it will do is frustrate you, and piss off the fool."

If you are a knowledgeable AP, I think you will find value, and be a valuable poster, here. After a few months, I think you will understand a bit more why this discussion is taking place. Welcome to the forum.

PS. I am not an AP. I am a craps player. Enough said. ;-)

First I want to say, I find sox's catchphrase so odd that I made it part of my signature. If Sox finds this derogatory in any way, please PM me and I will remove it. I think it is funny, because that is the first thing it made me think of.
Thank you for the words Raleigh, I hope to be valuable and add to the collective IQ. It seems to me that this discussion is taking place because blacklists or bannings or whatever they may be called are subjective. And they are often questioned and criticized. From what I saw, HotBlonde may have been barred for comments she made but was not banned for, then just made another comment and that was it. Roger was clear error, in my opinion (and I certainly do not mean to imply I would not have made far more errors in the long run than the administration has). And the thing is, when you use a muppet standard (I had to google what that standard was), then maybe that error is not so clear. Because it is not very scientific. And I think it is good to have the discussion when an error is made, because it not only acknowledges there was an error which shows great character in taking responsibility beyond the required minimum, it seeks to prevent the same thing from happening again. I mean, I know these are not the only issues, I have read forum posts. You always have someone getting out of hand, and you need to have control, and some standard of handling it. I don't claim to know what the perfect system is.
But that is my newbie take on it. Perhaps the discussion exists for completely different reasons, or for more complex reasons as you suggest may be the case. So I hope I do not intrude on the subject-matter. I just find this an interesting discussion--and I like to participate in interesting discussions. So far, APing is the only thing I have found to my taste, and I don't believe in dice setting. I certainly do not want to get involved in politics or religion. And an egghead like me has little to contribute in areas like betting systems.

Sox will expect a royalty check every month. Or Aceofspades will send me to collect !

I go away for one weekend, and come back to this?

I mean, I'm coming off a 5 day moonshine binge and my 27th (yay) concussion, and I should be in bed. But reading this, I had to get back up and speak on it, it riles me so. I just can't decide whether to be the diplomat or the drunk. Hmm...

First, I can't remember when or where, but Bab's and Mosca's posts - Respect.

Second, y'all must all have some engineering backgrounds, because you are making the simple nigh impossible. Rule changes, definitions, ToS agreements... you are insane! Are my last two sentences worthy of suspension? No. Do we need a long winded legal document in order to recognize that? Also no.

"You know it when you see it". Is that crystal clear? Again, no. But is it really necessary to be so?

I remember being a child, which I guess is surprising what with all the brain damage. But even at 7-8 yrs old, I was aware of "the line". I couldn't pin point it, but I knew what it was and about where it existed. And being a young boy, I tested that limit. I wiggled my toes over that line in the sand. And ya know, sometimes I was sure I crossed it, yet I'd feel my Pop's hand on the back of my head, and he'd give a gentle reminder to back on up before tousling my hair and sending me back to play. Other times, I was nearly certain I was well behind the line, yet I'd catch a wallop that would send me reeling for reasons I didn't exactly understand.

Did I need exact coordinates of the line? Of course not. If I at 8 knew its whereabouts, the grown folk here surely do as well. And was it fair I caught some of those whoopin's? Nope, but who cares? Don't test it and you'd have no worries.

There are suspensions that have occurred that I can't and never will understand. Further, there are folks that I would have banned for life a long damn time ago, who have somehow avoided any sort of fair punishment. But life goes on.

For the non admin members who want a change for the better, it really is simply up to you. It's cliche, but be the change you want to see. Others will rise to you. For those who have habitually served to diminish the quality of this utopia, the problem of them is as simple as a click on the ban button. Wiz has always been benevolent and as fair as possible, and I'd surely "forgive" him if he up and banned a joker without warning.

The Nuke Rule, in my mind, was specifically designed to prevent having to list any and every infraction. I deal with this in my line of work all the time. Casinos have 100,000 policies and procedures, and not a week goes by that I don't have to deal with a violation that has no written rule regarding it. Does that make it OK? Do I now have to completely rewrite the Nation/State Compact to account for it? No and no. You're done. I don't need literature to know it's wrong, and neither does the offender. Quite simply, you know it when you see it, and you. are. done.

Quote: Wizard

When I started this thread I thought "no ad hominem attacks" was a fancy way of saying "no personal attacks." However, I see now that may not be the case and the "ad hominem" standard may confuse people, including me. So, going forward it is safe to equate the choice for "no ad hominem attacks" to represent "no personal attacks/insults."

I agree that more good moderators would be a good thing. Any long-time members may apply to be secret admins and secret admins may apply to be full admins at any time.

I totally get where you're going with your intention of this rule. However, there are many here who willfully engage in exactly this type of behavior. I jab and jive with Buzz, thecesspit, boymimbo, and a host of others, all purposefully ad hominem as we try to rile and one-up each other, of course, in good nature. I doubt it is your intention to lose that, so an exception would have to be made. Then someone might try to join the fun... does he also get a pass? I guess it would depend on the nature of the jab and poster history... which leads right back to having to judge, which is what the rule was supposed to relieve. Or, you could even have someone maliciously attack, then use our examples and give the old "but they said it and nothing happened" line.

In short, as I stated above, I think everyone is making this much more complicated than need be. "You know it when you see it". So what if that's not crystal clear? Deal With It.

And with that, I'm gonna grab a double...make that a triple scotch and find my comfy chair in the good ol' boy's club over at DT. It's quiet and relaxing there, and I need to chill before going any farther with my thoughts on this.

In the meantime, if the thoughts above struck you in an agreeable way, I'd be fine with having my name in green upon my return. Until then, I'll be at DT talking hockey, making a trip report, uploading tons of video, and (/gasp) talking about gambling at Kewadin =p

If I read this right, you are insisting on more rules. Is that correct ?

Quote: Buzzard

If I read this right, you are insisting on more rules. Is that correct ?

Me? More rules? Surely, you jest ;)

I think the rules are fine. They give a very good, broad stroke guideline. Many of us have been here for years without issue; any problems we have now are certainly not because a rule doesn't cover it.

Personally, I'd have rules for stuff I wouldn't think about. Like the "No Free Advertising" rule, or stuff to keep the place clean, like the "No Bump Without A Joke" rule. Rules on decorum are something I personally find embarrassing to have a need for.

Good grief. I just saw this thread and am appalled.
Let me give you some unasked for advice, as somebody
who has been on forums since 1992, sometimes as a
mod.

This is NOT a democracy, it's benevolent dictatorship.
If you want to punish somebody, do it. If you want
to ban somebody, do it. Quit worrying so damn much.
This is a meaningless internet forum, if your actions
as as a mod piss somebody off, screw em. They can
go elsewhere.

You mods worry too much and take this wayyyy to
seriously. Relax, be nice, be stern, be cruel once
in awhile, but chill out. In the long run, nobody
cares..

Quote: EvenBob

Good grief. I just saw this thread and am appalled.
Let me give you some unasked for advice, as somebody
who has been on forums since 1992, sometimes as a
mod.

This is NOT a democracy, it's benevolent dictatorship.
If you want to punish somebody, do it. If you want
to ban somebody, do it. Quit worrying so damn much.
This is a meaningless internet forum, if your actions
as as a mod piss somebody off, screw em. They can
go elsewhere.

You mods worry too much and take this wayyyy to
seriously. Relax, be nice, be stern, be cruel once
in awhile, but chill out. In the long run, nobody
cares..

I like the discussion of the suspension list. Other places I go people just disappear, you're never sure why and you're by the rules never allowed to ask.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

I like the discussion of the suspension list. Other places I go people just disappear, you're never sure why and you're by the rules never allowed to ask.

I often find the suspension list discussion way more interesting than any actual topics.

Kinda like watching Nascar only for the crashes

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Other places I go people just disappear, you're never sure why and you're by the rules never allowed to ask.

Isn't that the way it usually works in dictatorships?

Quote: paisiello

Isn't that the way it usually works in dictatorships?

Yes guess so. You're not a spy here to take me out as a malcontent I hope.

I CAN'T DECIDE AHHHHH

Quote: Beethoven9th

This is a freakin internet forum, guys. Not... Vietnam. lol

For sure. Ain't seen any actual bullets flying around here lately...

Quote: chickenman

For sure. Ain't seen any actual bullets flying around here lately...

Try touting a new system you'll be dodging bullets. Also watch out for Charlie in the trees.

Quote: djatc

watch out for Charlie in the trees.

Been there, done that.

Quote: Buzzard

Sox will expect a royalty check every month. Or Aceofspades will send me to collect !

I love how you always invoke your right to counsel - of course, that counsel being me lol

Quote: EvenBob

Good grief. I just saw this thread and am appalled.
Let me give you some unasked for advice, as somebody
who has been on forums since 1992, sometimes as a
mod.

This is NOT a democracy, it's benevolent dictatorship.
If you want to punish somebody, do it. If you want
to ban somebody, do it. Quit worrying so damn much.
This is a meaningless internet forum, if your actions
as as a mod piss somebody off, screw em. They can
go elsewhere.

You mods worry too much and take this wayyyy to
seriously. Relax, be nice, be stern, be cruel once
in awhile, but chill out. In the long run, nobody
cares..

Or in other words... MIKE'S HOUSE.. MIKE'S RULES

Quote: aceofspades

I love how you always invoke your right to counsel - of course, that counsel being me lol

" “He’s aces — always pleasant, gets along with everyone, everyone likes him,” said one neighbor. “He’s a professional, suit and tie, works lots of hours.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mob-attorney-punches-man-steakhouse-article-1.1510921#ixzz2tafXPtAc

Reminds me of another lawyer who is Aces !

How bout a policy where we keep to gambling or at least loosely related to gambling topics- if you are going to enforce rules let's make it across the board- diversity tommm was created so that this board kept to gambling for the most part instead we have a few people that just continually post non gambling stuff for zero reason

Quote: strictlyAP

How bout a policy where we keep to gambling or at least loosely related to gambling topics- if you are going to enforce rules let's make it across the board- diversity tommm was created so that this board kept to gambling for the most part instead we have a few people that just continually post non gambling stuff for zero reason

Or just make DT a subset of this forum. That would satisfy everyone, I think.

Quote: Mosca

Or just make DT a subset of this forum. That would satisfy everyone, I think.

I'm thinking the main source of annoyance is the "Recent Threads" list at upper-right on the Forums page. The off-topic stuff clutters the list, which annoys people who only want to discuss gambling. If the DT "subset" is eligible for the Recent Threads list, then the annoyance will remain, although it doesn't bother me.

Quote: gpac1377

I'm thinking the main source of annoyance is the "Recent Threads" list at upper-right on the Forums page. The off-topic stuff clutters the list, which annoys people who only want to discuss gambling.

As it is, users can freely and easily block the Off Topic section and it won't appear in the Recent Threads part when they log on. There is no cause for complain.

I've blocked the Blackjack section because I'm not interested in it.

Quote: Face

I go away for one weekend, and come back to this?

.....

I totally get where you're going with your intention of this rule. However, there are many here who willfully engage in exactly this type of behavior. I jab and jive with Buzz, thecesspit, boymimbo, and a host of others, all purposefully ad hominem as we try to rile and one-up each other, of course, in good nature. I doubt it is your intention to lose that, so an exception would have to be made. Then someone might try to join the fun... does he also get a pass? I guess it would depend on the nature of the jab and poster history... which leads right back to having to judge, which is what the rule was supposed to relieve. Or, you could even have someone maliciously attack, then use our examples and give the old "but they said it and nothing happened" line.

In short, as I stated above, I think everyone is making this much more complicated than need be. "You know it when you see it". So what if that's not crystal clear? Deal With It.

.....talking about gambling at Kewadin =p

Face,

Great post. Spot on. (I shortened it only for readability in my reply) Good advice.

What is Kewadin? EDIT: Google is my friend. Hope you had fun over there.

deleted

Quote: Nareed

As it is, users can freely and easily block the Off Topic section and it won't appear in the Recent Threads part when they log on. There is no cause for complain.

Good point, thank you.

Quote: Mission146

See, AZDuffman, but you're a Conservative, so of course you would call for less Government.

(I can say that, now, as argument, but could not under the proposed new Rule)

If this is how the new rule works, it is a terrible change.

I vote that the Admins continue to do they great job they have been doing (thanks Mission/Wiz), and start leveling out some more suspensions as they see fit when a two or more members "get into it".

if Members start complaining about their perceived bias of the suspension protocol, they are free to leave or, and hear is an idea, stay out of the political/religious/morality/personal achievement tooic discussions that cause all the suspensions anyway.....you know the threads that really belong on DT and rarely have a gambling theme.

Before you change the S&W rule, institute a new rule that strictly enforces the "gaming threads only" purpose of the Forum. Bet your "sticky decisions" here go down exponentially!

Quote: gpac1377

Good point, thank you.

You're welcome.

Quote: Nareed

As it is, users can freely and easily block the Off Topic section and it won't appear in the Recent Threads part when they log on. There is no cause for complain.

Perhaps not and I took your advice as well and blocked what I wasn't interested in, thanks for that.

But the DT threads are the ones that create 90% of the problems for the Admins around here.