New Rule

Quote: Wizard

I would like to encourage posters who prefer to discuss now-banned topics to take it to Diversity Tomorrow or any other forum of your choice. Have a good day.

At least this forum has the tireless efforts of beachbumbabs as moderator, DT does not.

Quote: ams288

Dumb rule. Say goodbye to most of the traffic this forum gets.

I would generally agree.

Not sure if it's applicable, but I think it is... we have a similar "wish to control" in my sim racing league. Many folks deride the amount of classes as they feel they dilute the overall mob. They felt with fewer choices, it would group everyone back up again. But these aren't push pins, these are people. If you take what they want, they don't migrate to where you want them. They leave entirely.

If you take my CTS-V, I'm not gonna hop into a Z4 and rip it just to stay with a particular group. I'll just find somewhere that doesn't mind turd tanks and weight penalties and race with them instead. And so I have.

It CAN be done, and I've seen it before. But with near 100% certainty, the only leagues that survive are those with a rock solid and supremely dedicated base that is wholly on board with the vision. These survive because, IMO, they're self sustaining. With a dedicated base, they can afford the strife. The pop is low, yes, but their vision is strong and they are successful. It CAN be done.

But, IMO, I don't see that here. It appears to me that most of the "base" that makes up your dedicated gaming population are AP in nature with much of the communication done under shroud. That's not going to sustain a public forum. Another group would included those in it for the math, which while interesting, is kinda finite and niche. The rest seem little more than toe dippers with a trip report or anecdote to share. All of it good and fine, none of it (IMO) capable of serving as a foundation.

I'd typically end with a tossing of the hands and a statement to "do whatever", but I will leave a warning this time - Choose wisely. Thinking to my sim race experience, rarely can these bells be un-rung. There's no such thing as a "test run".

Go NCAA style and adjust win/post counts accordingly and see what happens lol.

How stringent is the new rule for individual posts.

A post that compares denying AP exist to climate change deniers enough for a banhammer?

Or mention of Trump in a post (which invariably brings taut replies).

Are certain topics going to be handled like profanity on this site? Grounds for banning?

I am not being funny. Tryjng to gauge the extent of the enforcement.

Quote: Wizard

I will say that discussion of politics will be allowed only to the extent that it directly affects the gaming business.

Fair enough, thank you for clarification.

This is awesome! This is better than anything I could have hoped for. It's not often that someone comes up with a more extreme solution to a problem than whatever I have proposed, but I'm on board with this 100%!

Hell, I might even ask to become an Administrator again. The only thing about resigning that was something of a blessing was not having to read almost all of the threads anymore, now I'll likely WANT to read almost all the threads.

I do recommend at least keeping, "Miscellaneous Discussion Thread," as long as it does not get political. Every Forum should have at least one thread where people can just chat.

Quote: ams288

Dumb rule. Say goodbye to most of the traffic this forum gets.

Are you referring to the fact that you'll be posting some 95% less?

Quote: SOOPOO

DT is no longer a good option for adult discussion as long as the poison that is Nathan is allowed to be there.

Nathan had a single thread here and that was too much for people. Everyone just had to gang up on Nathan. I've got even money says she wouldn't be at either site if the people who don't like her had just ignored her, so to those upset with her presence at DT, I say, "That's what you get." May she post there forever.

Quote: Gandler

Will discussing Atlantic City still be allowed?

Cutting off issues in all non Vegas gaming cities from discussion seems silly for a gambling forum?

I think this is a poor decision regardless as the vast majority of traffic in this site lately has been to the political threads.... DT is pretty dead and there is not much interesting debate there.....

That would be awesome were this WizardofPolitics.com. I think the, "And," in the OP was meant to be an, "Or." Gambling OR Vegas.

Quote: MDawg

Everything MDawg said

Thank you and I agree 100%!

Quote: CyrusV

Took a long time coming and not before time. Wizard of Vegas is suppose to be a gambling related site, such a turn off and many give this board a wide berth having to trawl though some of the non-gambling crap that permeates this board.

It sounds like we may see you posting here more often, that would certainly be welcome!

Quote: Darkoz

Well, lets see where this site goes now. But the gambling advantage secret holders will probably be the ones who keep the site from gaining any traction imo

Them not talking at all beats outright sabotage.

I welcome this new rule; it is a great relief. Thank you.

IMO, every Wizard ruling on this thread about what is an allowable topic has been perfect. It is simple common-sense as to what is allowed.

To be fair to EvenBob, I think his recent thread "What Are You Reading?" has been wonderful and I enjoy it. It is not divisive and we share thoughts about authors that we enjoy. It is possible to be off-topic without being divisive and having confrontational discussions that enflame and enrage.

Very happy with this new rule.

As for the topics, discussions , and members that this weeds out .. I won’t miss any of them.

Quote: darkoz

How stringent is the new rule for individual posts.

A post that compares denying AP exist to climate change deniers enough for a banhammer?

Probably.

Quote:

Or mention of Trump in a post (which invariably brings taut replies).

I one wanted to refer to one of the casinos that previously bore (or is it "barred") his name, that would be fine. Since he still has a condo with his name in Vegas, it's fine to talk about that. Basically, his name or brand would have to have a direct impact on something gambling/Vegas related.

Quote:

Are certain topics going to be handled like profanity on this site? Grounds for banning?

Yes.

Quote: Mission146

Are you referring to the fact that you'll be posting some 95% less?

Is anyone actually going to be posting here more now than they did previously?

To start, perhaps a select few people who couldn't figure out how to block threads they didn't like will post more to try to prove a point. But that will die off.