Wanted -- Moderators
Poll
 | 4 votes (7.01%) | ||
| | 3 votes (5.26%) | ||
| | 5 votes (8.77%) | ||
| | 5 votes (8.77%) | ||
| | 5 votes (8.77%) | ||
| | 13 votes (22.8%) | ||
| | 35 votes (61.4%) | ||
| | 18 votes (31.57%) | ||
| | 3 votes (5.26%) | ||
| | 6 votes (10.52%) |
57 members have voted
WHAM! BAM! BYE BYE MAN. Gotta be like a judge processing traffic tickets not death penalty cases.
Quote: rxwineMission, BBB, and FACE all seemed capable of engaging in long explanations if needed for why they banned someone. That right there is too much effort for me.
WHAM! BAM! BYE BYE MAN. Gotta be like a judge processing traffic tickets not death penalty cases.
I could give you ten paragraphs explaining that I ate an apple and two pieces of dry raisin bread for breakfast, and why.
Quote: Mission146I could give you ten paragraphs explaining that I ate an apple and two pieces of dry raisin bread for breakfast, and why.
...and probably with footnotes! :}
Quote: Mission146I could give you ten paragraphs explaining that I ate an apple and two pieces of dry raisin bread for breakfast, and why.
The real fun will be when Mission quotes the offending post for suspension and still adds a thank you to it.
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Certified Gaming Regulations Interpreter for Corporate Applications
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert (Real Competitive Versions) & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Mastering Cracking it. Bit-by-Bit, Piece-by-Piece Crediting Forum Members
Baccarat Winning Session Record: 7 out of 7 & 1 out of 1 Mini Session
Quote: Marcusclark66I would have made a good one, completely fair, honest and I would have enforced all of the rules and regulations the way that the wizard desired.........BUT........
(Taglines removed, duplication)
The other thing is that you are, by your admission, real person---casino security. That's perfectly fine as an occupation, of course, but it virtually assures that anyone who is an advantage player would stop posting here if you could access their IP Addresses---which you could as a Green moderator.
To be clear, I do not believe you would actually do anything untowardly with that information.
Quote: Mission146(Taglines removed, duplication)
The other thing is that you are, by your admission, real person---casino security. That's perfectly fine as an occupation, of course, but it virtually assures that anyone who is an advantage player would stop posting here if you could access their IP Addresses---which you could as a Green moderator.
To be clear, I do not believe you would actually do anything untowardly with that information.
Just to back that up, Spring flings where dark siders might have attended were met with hostility on this forum.
AP's don't want their faces known by anyone in casino security or surveillance much less their IP addresses
Quote: darkozJust to back that up, Spring flings where dark siders might have attended were met with hostility on this forum.
AP's don't want their faces known by anyone in casino security or surveillance much less their IP addresses
I've met close to a dozen members I think. I don't ask what they do or how they gamble. I don't really care. As I've said in the past, it's my (casinos) job to protect games and prevent situations where they are at a disadvantage. If you are not a criminal and you treat people right, we'd never have a problem. I can only think of one person that I know of on this forum that falls under the criminal/not good person tag.
ZCore13
Amen to that.Quote: darkoz
AP's don't want their faces known by anyone in casino security or surveillance much less their IP addresses
Quote: Zcore13I can only think of one person that I know of on this forum that falls under the criminal/not good person tag.
ZCore13
Just for the record, I am not a criminal.
What I really want is Mission to BE a moderator, but to feel free to be friends with forum members. Mike and I are friends. That has not prevented him from suspending me I believe 3 separate times! So, Mission, take the job, but don’t ignore my texts begging for help on Ocean Magic!
Quote: SOOPOOIf Mission will not meet with me because he is a moderator then I don’t want him to be a moderator. If I’m not ‘grandfathered’ in as a ‘friend’, then I don’t want Mission as a moderator.
Timely conditional objection noted.
Mission, the ball's in your court now: in or out?
Me, I've no objection to Mission being a moderator again; heck, like him I don't much care for people, either.
Let's just all vote for Mission to be miserable, that seems to be when he is happiest.
Quote: SOOPOOIf Mission will not meet with me because he is a moderator then I don’t want him to be a moderator. We have had multiple discussions where he has helped me with minor AP moves, and I’ve also had other pleasant chats with him. If I’m not ‘grandfathered’ in as a ‘friend’, then I don’t want Mission as a moderator.
What I really want is Mission to BE a moderator, but to feel free to be friends with forum members. Mike and I are friends. That has not prevented him from suspending me I believe 3 separate times! So, Mission, take the job, but don’t ignore my texts begging for help on Ocean Magic!
SOOPOO is hereby grandfathered, by request. You can feel free to text or call me for non-gambling related stuff every once in a while, in case you wondered.
Quote: DRichI vote that Mission gets just the opposite of what he wants. If he wants to be a moderator we shall forbid him. If he doesn't want to be a moderator, it shall be forced upon him. That bastard has never once came to Vegas and said, "Hey DRich, do you want to go out for a drink or a lap dance?" No, he can not be bothered with associating with us peasants. He sits upon his throne and looks down at us with disdain.
Let's just all vote for Mission to be miserable, that seems to be when he is happiest.
I’m making it REALLY easy for anyone to prevent me from being a Moderator, if that tells you anything.
But, that’s mostly because I’m pretty apathetic about it. If 100% either want me to do it or don’t care, then I’ll do it. If more than 0% do not want me to, then I won’t.
Quote: Mission146I’m making it REALLY easy for anyone to prevent me from being a Moderator, if that tells you anything.
But, that’s mostly because I’m pretty apathetic about it. If 100% either want me to do it or don’t care, then I’ll do it. If more than 0% do not want me to, then I won’t.
LOL. I officially vote for MDawg as moderator and MarcusClark as secret moderator, since he is in security and knows about secrecy.
It seems only fair that the person providing the most content and generating the most views should help decide the content of the content. And MarcusClark is always a truth teller, as proven by the fact he says he's always a teller of truth. And nobody can get called a liar at WoV, so whoever proclaims truth-telling the loudest is clearly telling the loudest truths.
So put me down -- official votes for MDawg and MarcusClark.
How about MDawg?
the way he seems to pop up in some of these polls lately.
Quote: MDawgYes I was wondering why one of the poll choices wasn't
How about MDawg?
the way he seems to pop up in some of these polls lately.
If nobody objects within a week and you want to go to one on one vote against me, provided we set certain Joined Date parameters, feel free to ask Wizard.
Or, you can object to me right now and I am out of the running. Not that I think you’d be promoted anyway, in my opinion, but it would at least take me out.
Quote: MDawgNo, I'm fine with Mission146's being the moderator, but I was just wondering - the
post made by zippyboy about Mission146 - would that constitute a formal objection?
I’m not at liberty to go into detail, but I’m inclined to believe that Zippyboy no longer objects. If I’m wrong, he will have plenty of time to say so as his Suspension is only three days now.
I got suspended from what was a statement of fact. It probably had to do with how I worded it, but when someone's objectively bereft, all descriptions are legitimate to me.Quote: Mission146Far from an insult, it’s a statement of fact based exclusively on your postings.
I'd like to see a rule against putting your signature text in the post, rather than in the signature area. And it shouldn't be 9 lines.
Also, against signing your screenname to your post (as though it's not already prominently displayed automatically).
Quote: MichaelBluejayI got suspended from what was a statement of fact. It probably had to do with how I worded it, but when someone's objectively bereft, all descriptions are legitimate to me.
I'd like to see a rule against putting your signature text in the post, rather than in the signature area. And it shouldn't be 9 lines.
Also, against signing your screenname to your post (as though it's not already prominently displayed automatically).
I’ll be happy to bring that up to Wizard, if promoted, but that wouldn’t be a decision it would be in my capacity to make unilaterally. I also assume he will read this thread again, at some point, and will see your post.
That said, I do believe I would be within my authority to request that these tag lines be restricted to one post per page pursuant to my interpretation of:
Rule 5: It’s effectively duplicative.
AND:
Rule 7: The tags are often unrelated to the conversation taking place in the thread.
Vis-a-Vis Rule 7: It would be like if I answered a math question in a thread and then added a recipe for banana bread.
Then again, maybe it's all just a ploy to get some much needed attention: "Look at ME! My life matters!"
Quote: MichaelBluejay
I'd like to see a rule against putting your signature text in the post, rather than in the signature area. And it shouldn't be 9 lines.
Also, against signing your screenname to your post (as though it's not already prominently displayed automatically).
Those rule requests would superficially appear to target specific users' benign peculiarities, rather than egregious behaviour.
Quote: Mission146snip . . .I just think that the rules make the forum better, except the profanity one. I’ve never understood that one.
For example, and no offense to the poster, but there was a post about some person who doesn’t have nudes on OnlyFans—-whatever the hell that is—-and that’s within the rules, which is fine—-but I can’t say the, “S Word,” to emphasize how bad a casino game is?
I’ll also adhere to and enforce the no profanity rule, but I’ve always politely expressed my disagreement with it. That’s just my preference coming out. Ask most people who talk to me and they’ll tell you it’s mostly 10+ letter words and the F Bomb.
I could argue the profanity rule both ways.
Some people use profanity well and in a way that is acceptable to me - these are usually people that use language well, in general. Profanity is useful for emphasis, for humor and occasionally for shock value. IMO, the A-word is particularly acceptable as a reference to a part of the body, especially when used as humor. But, there are other people who string F-Bombs together -as an adjective, noun, verb and exclamation - in a way that coarsens the conversation and lowers the level of intellectual exchange. And the 10+ letter hyphenated words and the C word are almost always used for one purpose: to insult people.
I personally would have no problem with someone using the S-word to denounce a bad casino game. But maybe the inventor and/or owners of the game are on the forum and he/she/they might take offense. And maybe it would be a more 'valuable' post if we instead used words that clarified the lame or dysfunctional aspects of the casino game that make it worthy of the S-Word. Like I said, I can argue it both ways.
I think I'm pretty much agreeing with Mission.
And Yes, a lot of rules in the world are overly broad, however we must either follow them or break them at our peril. So, I choose to obey the flippity-flop rule on profanity.
Quote: DieterThose rule requests would superficially appear to target specific users' benign peculiarities, rather than egregious behaviour.
I agree
However there is a signature available for people which gets duplicated every post. Having your signature in the post is annoying.
It also seems a method to make people duplicate your signature every time you are quoted or have to delete long lines to get to the relevancy of the quote.
While most forum rules are dictated by the actions of the many, it's not without bounds if the actions of a few cause rule changes also.
Quote: DieterThose rule requests would superficially appear to target specific users' benign peculiarities, rather than egregious behaviour.
Is it really benign for 25% of the length of some pages to consist of tag lines? I think keeping it to one set per page is a reasonable moderation request.
To be clear, I normally wouldn’t refer to the manner or style of the game using that word, but would rather use it to express disdain for a high house edge.
Quote: Mission146Is it really benign for 25% of the length of some pages to consist of tag lines? I think keeping it to one set per page is a reasonable moderation request.
Rules 5 and 7 would seem to cover these cases, at the discretion of the powers that be.
Specifically enacting the newly requested rules would seem to be in contradiction with the spirit of Rule 7 (and there is an argument for grandfathering, anyway).
It may be annoying, but I do see it as benign. Certainly no worse than my neighbor who painted their house hot pink.
edit: creating rules to target one user would violate the spirit of Rule 12, not Rule 7.
Quote: DieterRules 5 and 7 would seem to cover these cases, at the discretion of the powers that be.
Specifically enacting the newly requested rules would seem to be in contradiction with the spirit of Rule 7 (and there is an argument for grandfathering, anyway).
It may be annoying, but I do see it as benign. Certainly no worse than my neighbor who painted their house hot pink.
Start with that we agree that it can be annoying, especially in threads where one must scroll through the tag lines three or four times in a single page.
Therefore, if the Rules enable me to reduce something that annoys Members, then that seems an appropriate use of my capacity as Moderator. It’s not as if I’m just arbitrarily asking someone not to do something; I’m simply asking someone to generally comply with Rules 5 & 7–and explicitly excusing limited non-compliance with Rule 7.
Quote: Mission146Start with that we agree that it can be annoying
Is the juice worth the squeeze?
There is a block user feature, after all.
Dieter
aka Dieter, a pseudonymous person
Former professional coin toss controller
Disputed champion player of the coin pusher down at the laundromat
Citer of bizarre reference texts (citation needed)
Quote: Mission146Start with that we agree that it can be annoying, especially in threads where one must scroll through the tag lines three or four times in a single page.
Therefore, if the Rules enable me to reduce something that annoys Members, then that seems an appropriate use of my capacity as Moderator. It’s not as if I’m just arbitrarily asking someone not to do something; I’m simply asking someone to generally comply with Rules 5 & 7–and explicitly excusing limited non-compliance with Rule 7.
Scrolling through a post takes a fraction of a second.
The tag lines don't annoy all the members...as far as you know they only annoy a few complainers.
The current moderators haven't taken any action regarding the "annoying" content, so there's precedent not to take action.
It's not appropriate for you to announce your intention to break precedent in that regard.
I'll object to your participation as moderator on that basis.
Quote: DieterIs the juice worth the squeeze?
There is a block user feature, after all.
Dieter
aka Dieter, a pseudonymous person
Former professional coin toss controller
Disputed champion player of the coin pusher down at the laundromat
Citer of bizarre reference texts (citation needed)
True, but that only applies to those with an account who are logged in.
Quote: coachbelly
I'll object to your participation as moderator on that basis.
I'll object to your objection, and offer that Mission seems to be thoughtfully considering an issue rather than campaigning to quash the unworthy with the iron boots of injustice for the petty amusement of a few complainers.
Quote: coachbellyScrolling through a post takes a fraction of a second.
The tag lines don't annoy all the members...as far as you know they only annoy a few complainers.
The current moderators haven't taken any action regarding the "annoying" content, so there's precedent not to take action.
It's not appropriate for you to announce your intention to break precedent in that regard.
I'll object to your participation as moderator on that basis.
True, but personal insults probably don’t annoy all of the Members, but there’s a rule against those that is enforced.
The thing about a set of Rules is that they don’t get enforced by popular vote. If they did, then you wouldn’t have Administrators for anything. It doesn’t seem that anyone disagrees that the tag lines could be seen as violations of Rules 5 & 7, so any objections are basically tantamount to the notion that a Rule should be broken provided not too many people have a problem with it.
Anyway, if you object, then that’s that and I’m out of this thread. I kind of figured you’d be the one to object. I appreciate you not wasting six more days of me having to read and respond to things in this thread.
Quote: Mission146True, but that only applies to those with an account who are logged in.
If this is the manner in which an individual cares to craft their public image...
It's not a mortal sin to wear these trousers after labor day, even if some find it unbecoming.
Quote: Mission146
Vis-a-Vis Rule 7: It would be like if I answered a math question in a thread and then added a recipe for banana bread.
There you go again. Any discussion of banana bread should supersede all other conversations. There has never been a discussion here more relevant than banana bread.
Quote: coachbellyI'll object to your participation as moderator on that basis.
Of course you will: it's what you do.
Ah, but are you "in good standing?"
Survey says ...
Quote: Mission146I kind of figured you’d be the one to object.
LOL...that's past-posting.
Quote: coachbellyLOL...that's past-posting.
I’m supposed to be leaving this thread, so don’t respond to this post.
I can’t say it ahead of time, or it wouldn’t happen. However, there is a PM that I sent that predicted this.
EDIT & FULL DISCLOSURE: I hedged. The PM says either Coach Belly or EvenBob.
Quote: DieterI'll object to your objection, and offer that Mission seems to be thoughtfully considering an issue rather than campaigning to quash the unworthy with the iron boots of injustice for the petty amusement of a few complainers.
Overruled...annoyance is not an issue that merits thoughtful consideration in this theater.
But your objection is noted.
Try strenuously objecting, like LCDR JoAnne Galloway.
Quote: Mission146I can’t say it ahead of time, or it wouldn’t happen.
Wrong...I wouldn't have curtailed my objection just to spite you.
I objected on the merits of what you wrote.
Quote: coachbellyOverruled...annoyance is not an issue that merits thoughtful consideration in this theater.
But your objection is noted.
Try strenuously objecting, like LCDR JoAnne Galloway.
I doubt that a strenuous objection would amount to a hill of beans.
You are free to recant your objection.
Quote: DieterYou are free to recant your objection.
LOL...of course I am, who would stop me?
Quote: coachbellyWrong...I wouldn't have curtailed my objection just to spite you.
I objected on the merits of what you wrote.
If we’re quite finished, I have no further need to follow this thread, thank you. You’re welcome to PM me if continuing this line of conversation is absolutely necessary, otherwise, I concede all possible arguments to you on this matter.
Quote: Mission146(Taglines removed, duplication)
The other thing is that you are, by your admission, real person---casino security. That's perfectly fine as an occupation, of course, but it virtually assures that anyone who is an advantage player would stop posting here if you could access their IP Addresses---which you could as a Green moderator.
To be clear, I do not believe you would actually do anything untowardly with that information.
Its fine, no hard feelings whatsoever.
I do have a full time +, 6 days a week career job that I seldom log under 70 hours a week. At times I cannot even get on the board if I so desired.
You make a point about the IP addresses but if you truly knew my agenda you would vouch for me. BUT..........not worth another thought.
You are the best person for the job of Super Moderator!! :)
Pat On The Back, High Five and a Hug!
Marcus Clark
Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66
Professional Casino Security Expert
Certified Company Firearms Instructor
Certified Gaming Regulations Interpreter for Corporate Applications
Tic-Tac-Toe Expert (Real Competitive Versions) & Mastering Chess
Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club
Mastering Cracking it. Bit-by-Bit, Piece-by-Piece Crediting Forum Members
Baccarat Winning Session Record: 7 out of 7 & 1 out of 1 Mini Session
