Proposed rule change on restricting free speech.

ok, ok, fair enough :)

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

ok, ok, fair enough :)

Agreed. :)

Back on topic. I read everyone's arguments (including my own) and voted for other. My preference would having mods add a highly visible disclaimer to try help any drive-by visitors or newbies. Further, if a poster defies rational thought it should get moved to a "voodoo/psychic" section. If a poster repeatedly interrupts non-"voodoo/psychic" section material with unsubstantiated arguments they should be suspended/nuked.

Quote: Wizard

I never claimed the level of hostility was the same, and even prefaced my remark with "Maybe this is a bad comparison."

Since you said "maybe it's a bad comparison" I presume you had some missgivings about it.

Quote:

However, I think it is possible to have a discussion about the merits of free speech using Holocaust denial as an example, without being accused of being insensitive about it.

On the merits of free speech, yes. On the merits of gambling systems, or whether to allow them here, I think not.

For one thing free speech simply doesn't apply here. This is private property. You can regulate speech as much or as little as you want. For a second thing, as I explained the levels simply don't match.

And I said "doing something bordering on insensitive." I did not accuse you of being insensitive. That is, I grant you were not trying to be insensitive, nor malicious, nor even trying to annoy anyone, but that the object for your analogy was way off and touched upon a very sensitive subject.

Quote: Wizard

Thank you. This is exactly how I feel.

For those who have experience at other forums, how do other forums devoted to a particular topic handle this problem? Maybe this is a bad comparison, but what would a forum on Judaism do with a Holocaust denier who was otherwise polite, well-spoken, and obeyed forum rules?

Bad comparison??? I should say so.

Lets say for example that your father was liberated from a concentration camp by the US troops, to find that his parents and 5 brothers were killed, family business confiscated, 90 percent of all relatives killed, and came to the united states and raised a family without outwardly showing to his children the pain that must have been inside daily.

and then u suggest to this mans son that handling deniers of what his father and fathers family went through is equivalent to dealing with a gambling belief philosophy.

the comparison in itself trivializes the holocaust.....and could be viewed as anti-(banable word)

I would think that a contrarian view to a gambling philosophy is much easier to tolerate by a wide degree......just a wild guess.

However like I have always said....your post or anyone elses doesnt offend me.....because I dont know you

I am ignorant of advanced math, but I think others here are well versed.

So if someone has a "system" couldnt people with more knowledge wipe the floor with them via cogent mathematical proof? Thereby putting an end to long repeated posts

In debunking a system...sometimes something is learned by the masses.

Is that too time consuming? I dont know what it takes to debunk a system


Secondly we are all adults....I dont need a mommy trying to protect me from falling for someones "system"

I can do my own due diligence. Make a level decision.

banning opposing views makes one think that the methods supposedly being protected cannot stand on their own merrits.

Quote: Sonuvabish

As 1BB mentions, perhaps changing the Betting System thread to Voodoo and adding a disclaimer (and moving posts) is the solution here, if it is your good name that is the concern.

A very strongly worded disclaimer by the Administrator(s) should immediately be placed in every "betting system" thread that gets started.

Quote: LarryS

I am ignorant of advanced math, but I think others here are well versed.

So if someone has a "system" couldnt people with more knowledge wipe the floor with them via cogent mathematical proof? Thereby putting an end to long repeated posts

In debunking a system...sometimes something is learned by the masses.

Is that too time consuming? I dont know what it takes to debunk a system


Secondly we are all adults....I dont need a mommy trying to protect me from falling for someones "system"

I can do my own due diligence. Make a level decision.

banning opposing views makes one think that the methods supposedly being protected cannot stand on their own merrits.

None of the system people ever tell how exactly their system works. They just say something like.. I win 55% of my bacarrat hands, or I roll a 7 40% of the time. Therefore not allowing it to be disproven mathematically.

Well if thats the case and they arent sellling anything..how could someone be harmed?

there are no directions for someone to follow.

yes the ideas may seem inane, but so are some comments on the political threads.

there are comments on the politcal threads that are categorically wrong info...about health insurance, taxes, for example. If someone follows advice regarding those important subjects so that it negatively impacts them.(ie making some tax deduction, or selecting a health plan) based on anonymous people on a board...who is looking out for them?

are they going to be censored as well?

everyone just has to put on their big boy pants and take consequences for their own actions if they are going to follow anonymous advice.

another alternative is a welcome on the home page

"THIS IS A FORUM FOR THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AS LONG AS I APPROVE OF THEM, AND THE WORDING USED TO EXPRESS THEM"

That goes for any editorial section of any newspaper as well.....its not something just applicable to this site.

This site portrays itself as, and is, a source for expert (mathematically based) advice on gambling. It makes no comparable claim on the political discussions. While I agree that anyone who takes advice on the internet without further verification is going to be soon parted with their money. Let's not be a site which helps the process.

Edit: and my answer to the problem is to let the members do the heavy lifting on the debunking. If there comes a day there is insufficient "debunk" available, then banning some topics might, and I stress might, be the right thing to do. In the meantime a disclaimer from admins and/or the math from the members will be sufficient.

Quote: LarryS

So if someone has a "system" couldnt people with more knowledge wipe the floor with them via cogent mathematical proof? Thereby putting an end to long repeated posts. In debunking a system...sometimes something is learned by the masses. Is that too time consuming? I dont know what it takes to debunk a system

Systems players are a recurring nightmare in the gambling forums. I think those that can debunk them grow weary of having to do it over and over and over again. It gets to be a drag.

Quote: mickeycrimm

Systems players are a recurring nightmare in the gambling forums. I think those that can debunk them grow weary of having to do it over and over and over again. It gets to be a drag.

And yet some live just to do that. SO LET THEM

Quote: LarryS

and then u suggest to this mans son that handling deniers of what his father and fathers family went through is equivalent to dealing with a gambling belief philosophy.

the comparison in itself trivializes the holocaust.....and could be viewed as anti-(banable word)

Exactly.

However, as to a latter post of yours, this forum being private property, the Wizard was the right to set any rules he wants and restrict speech as much or as little as he chooses to, with or without a valid reason.

That's not to say you can't have an opinion about it, or express it.

Quote: Nareed

Exactly.

However, as to a latter post of yours, this forum being private property, the Wizard was the right to set any rules he wants and restrict speech as much or as little as he chooses to, with or without a valid reason.

That's not to say you can't have an opinion about it, or express it.

I totally agree. The owners of any establishment sets the rules. And can offend anyone they want within the law. The wizard didnt offend me trivializing my families trials and travails......But someone in my same position might be offended and thats just too bad.

Like wizard said to Evenbob....if they dont like it ..."dont let the door hit you...."

at least thats the prevailing attitude....which is reality. And reality,rules

It just shows, deeply offensive material doesnt have to eminate from "name calling"....it can be embedded in calm concise sentences

But I guess you could say I am a real "Einstein" for pointing out the obvious.

Quote: LarryS

It just shows, deeply offensive material doesnt have to eminate from "name calling"....it can be embedded in calm concise sentences

Yes, indeed. In fact, some calm sentences can do much more harm precisely because they're not strident and don't sound abusive.

Quote:

But I guess you could say I am a real "Einstein" for pointing out the obvious.

I wouldn't say that. Sometimes the obvious is overlooked, and then it needs to be pointed out.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: Wizard

Resolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems...

Let me elaborate. By "advocate" I meant claim that the betting system can lower the house edge.

Discussion of betting systems would reluctantly be allowed so long as nobody is claiming following said system or strategy dents the house edge. For example, it is completely sound to discuss methods of reaching certain win goals, for purposes of tournaments or Internet casinos bonuses. An example what would not be allowed is to claim a 98-step roulette system that can give the player an advantage.

I voted for Resolution 1, especially with the clarification given above. Many times someone wants some math help to understand what their range of short-term outcomes will be like using a given "system," fully understanding that they have no expectation to win. Those threads are pretty harmless.

The posters who actually advocate for systems just lead to headaches. I will occasionally chip in my 2 cents of -1 + -1 < 0, but I don't have the math chops to really tear them apart.

Now there is a thin line between the two types of threads, so it would add a bit more work for the mods.

In general, I block all such threads anyway, but I still support the resolution because it's fewer threads for me to block.

I don't support Resolution 2 because DI is theoretically possible if you can actually change the distribution of the dice. So discussing the theory is fine, and posting results should be encouraged so that everyone can learn more about what is possible and what isn't. I remain unconvinced that it is commonly possible, but I don't rule out the possibility that some people, somewhere, are good enough to do it.

Quote: SOOPOO

This one is easy for me. If it was MY forum, MY house, MY place of business, I would NOT ban anyone from INITIALLY making posts regarding a betting system's magic in beating the casino. But after a reasonable amount of back and forth, I would let the espouser know that he is no longer welcome here. There is no way you can believe that the forum is better off with both CG and gr8 continuously posting and clogging up the site. They have nothing new to say, no new ideas, nothing to add to the forum.
There are many acceptable things that we can discuss about betting systems.... "What system will allow me to last the longest with a $100 buy in on a $5 craps table?" "If I don't care if I go broke, but want to try and quintuple my money, what system should I use on Pai Gow Poker?" Once the poster starts TELLING us he can beat the casino using his system, he should be given the standard explanation, and after a short expected back and forth, if he continues to post misinformation, he should be dispatched post haste.....

The DI discussion is more complicated, as it is at least theoretically possible.....

Yes, couldn't agree more. Less clogging and a higher signal/noise ratio would be a great thing for the forum and IMO for the Wiz's reputation.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: Wizard

Resolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems...

Let me elaborate. By "advocate" I meant claim that the betting system can lower the house edge.

Yeah, but where is the line between advocate and discuss? What if someone doesn't understand that a betting system can't win, but isn't necessarily advocating it's use to the public? They'll probably end up getting banned anyway for walking too close to the line. On top of that, there's plenty of reason to advocate a betting system. You can win 99% of your sessions with a particular betting system. For some people, short term success is more appealing than long-term, because they might only play once in their lives. So in short, yeah I could see if you strictly construe the word advocating, then it may be OK to prohibit. But there's already a rule against selling systems, which is advocating it. So don't really need the resoultion, unless you want to make the above examples real grey areas. Maybe some looser interpretations of what may construed as soliciting is more appropriate, in my mind.

Yes, by all means ban discussion of anything but "advantage" play. Of course, the resident ap-wiseguys never discuss their "advantage" plays in open forum, so this place would become mighty boring, indeed, hey hey.

Quote: soxfan

Yes, by all means ban discussion of anything but "advantage" play. Of course, the resident ap-wiseguys never discuss their "advantage" plays in open forum, so this place would become mighty boring, indeed, hey hey.

There is lots of real advantage play talked about here. I have learned a ridiculous amount from this forum.

The problem is that the signal-to-noise ratio isn't very good; too many people think that they can square the circle or add up a bunch of negative numbers to get a positive one or some other such nonsense.

Less noise is a good thing.