Need for clear DT/WoV rules.
Quote: RonCSo, was it an answer or drama that you had in mind?
I'm getting rather tired of having my motives questioned.
I asked for the only reason I ever ask questions: to find out the answer.
And I asked publicly so the rule would be on the record for all to see, if necessary. It saves a great deal of time, when the answer is forthcoming.
Sending Mike a PM would have saved some time. Not sure why you need it on the record, unless you think Mike would not honor what he said to you in the PM, but if he didn't, you could always just post up the PM in both forums ;)Quote: NareedI'm getting rather tired of having my motives questioned.
I asked for the only reason I ever ask questions: to find out the answer.
And I asked publicly so the rule would be on the record for all to see, if necessary. It saves a great deal of time, when the answer is forthcoming.
I really don't need any face-to-face drama.
I'll see enough people at the G2E meetup...
Quote: NareedI assume you mean "frowned-upon."
So, you spotted a typo? Interesting.
Quote: AxelWolfit's better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Awesome. Signature'd.
Quote: DJTeddyBearNow that we know WHY this dead horse got beaten so badly, I'm suddenly elated that the WoVcons are usually scheduled at a time where I can't make it.
I really don't need any face-to-face drama.
I'll see enough people at the G2E meetup...
FWIW, there was no face-to-face drama at WovCon ///, despite the presence of several people who had been constantly antagonizing each other on the board in the time leading up to it. Ahigh was in fact suspended at the time of the meetup, and everyone was quite amicable (including him).
Quote: NareedI'm getting rather tired of having my motives questioned.
I asked for the only reason I ever ask questions: to find out the answer.
And I asked publicly so the rule would be on the record for all to see, if necessary. It saves a great deal of time, when the answer is forthcoming.
Buddy,
Your motives are clear to the world, no one is questioning them.
If you want to live close to the "ban" line, then expect the occasional 30+ day stay exclusive to the REST OF THE INTERNET.
I asked a simple question regarding whether posting the same, or even similar, messages here and at DT constitutes double-posting. I wanted the answer on the public forum record so I could point at it, if favorable, if/when people complained about it. I did not get a clear answer. Some mods contradicted others, and the Wizard statement that "it is frowned upon," is rather vague. At work, for example, "it's frowned upon" to eat at one's desk. But unless you do it all the time or set up lunch there, you won't get more than a reminder not to do it.
Not getting a clear asnwer, I kept requesting clarity. In the meantime, the answers given to the question, not made by me, about forwarding PMs, were distressingly vague. Therfore I also raised questions about them.
That is all I did, that is all I intended to do. If you chose to make it something it's not, that is on your own responsibility, not mine.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
I really don't need any face-to-face drama.
I'll see enough people at the G2E meetup...
WoVCON East 2014 Part II this September, guaranteed drama-free or your money back!
Quote: Nareed
Not getting a clear asnwer
In the second post, (and first response to the OP in this thread) my answer was as follows:
Quote: Mission146No.
I later stipulated that I might Lock an identical thread at one site or another, but wouldn't necessarily do that.
How is "No," not a clear answer? Can anyone explain what is ambiguous about "No?"
Even if my answer were wrong, Nareed (if banned) could point out to Mike that I said it would not constitute a double-post, at which point Nareed would be unbanned for having done it with the permission of an Administrator and Mike would correct my understanding of the WoV/DT relationship.
Quote: NareedI'm going to say this only once more, then I'm blocking the thread
Wait a sec. You created this mess. Now you're gonna ignore it?
How typical.
Now that Nareed promised to block this thread, is it OK to say exactly what I think of her? She won't see it so it can't be considered insulting, can it?
Please respond quickly, because I have several choice comments I'd like to make.
Quote: WizardI'm getting rather tired of being asked to explain the forum rules in such detail as the official rules of baseball.
Reminds me of a part of the book Hawaii by James Michener (a great book, I might add). There a missionary was working on a translation of the Ten Commandments into the native Hawaiian language. When he got to the one about "no adultery" the translator asked, "Which kind of adultery?" The missionary responded "There is more than one kind?" The translator then said, "Oh, yes. We have hundreds of them. If we list each way one can commit adultery then it will only give people ideas to try the ones they didn't know about."
Again, posting the same topic at both forums is frowned up. I admit I started a thread about my prop calculator at DT while also writing about it at WoV. That calculator is the product of several years of work and felt the response at WoV was overly critical so I moved discussion to DT temporarily. However, I never posted the exact same message at both sites, as near as I can remember, and the subject matter was gambling related.
However, if anybody wishes to press charges of me breaking my own rules, please do so. If just one member officially complains then I will self-ban myself to show that I am not above my own rules.
I was about to officially complain. Then I remembered when a masochist says Beat Me, a true sadist says NO !
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Now that Nareed promised to block this thread, is it OK to say exactly what I think of her?
No, otherwise anyone could insult anyone else who does not happen to see the thread in which they are insulted and the only way to police insults would be for the insulted party to report them.
Quote: NareedI'm going to say this only once more, then I'm blocking the thread
Why stop there? See that "https://wizardofvegas.com/" at the top of your screen.....
For the record it is possible that I said something that could be considered a personal insult and it is also possible that I meant it, if I said it... I did give that person permission to decide if they thought it was a personal insult and then forward it to the moderators for action.
Should that happen and should I be considered for a few days of WoV-enforced vacation, I would understand.
I am hoping that this person blocks me again right away and that I never hear from them again except here, in the open forum (or on DT). That would be better for all concerned.
Quote: DJTeddyBearHey mods!
Now that Nareed promised to block this thread, is it OK to say exactly what I think of her? She won't see it so it can't be considered insulting, can it?
Please respond quickly, because I have several choice comments I'd like to make.
Feel free to PM me if you need to vent.
Quote: NareedI'm going to say this only once more, then I'm blocking the thread:
I asked a simple question regarding whether posting the same, or even similar, messages here and at DT constitutes double-posting. I wanted the answer on the public forum record so I could point at it, if favorable, if/when people complained about it. I did not get a clear answer. Some mods contradicted others, and the Wizard statement that "it is frowned upon," is rather vague. At work, for example, "it's frowned upon" to eat at one's desk. But unless you do it all the time or set up lunch there, you won't get more than a reminder not to do it.
Not getting a clear asnwer, I kept requesting clarity. In the meantime, the answers given to the question, not made by me, about forwarding PMs, were distressingly vague. Therfore I also raised questions about them.
That is all I did, that is all I intended to do. If you chose to make it something it's not, that is on your own responsibility, not mine.
I do not agree with several incorrect statements made in this last and a previous blast, but since Nareed has chosen to shoot and run, and the rest of you can read what I did and did not say, I will simply note there are incorrect statements and be done with it. If other people need further clarification, please ask.
Quote: beachbumbabsI do not agree with several incorrect statements made in this last and a previous blast, but since Nareed has chosen to shoot and run, and the rest of you can read what I did and did not say, I will simply note there are incorrect statements and be done with it. If other people need further clarification, please ask.
I'd say anyone who read this thread in its entirety (quite a painstaking venture), knows exactly what you're talking about.
I thought about it however I like this one betterQuote: AcesAndEightsAwesome. Signature'd.
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
This forum has some hard and fast rules and some suggestions. Besides posting the same thing on both forums, it is also suggested that the most sensitive topics like gay marriage and nude Betty White pictures be specifically put on DT.
If anyone is unsure if something would break a rule, just PM a moderator, preferably Mission or BBB, for advice. In the case in question, Nareed could have asked one of us, "May I post about the WoV meetup on both sites?" I would have said "yes," and I'm sure Mission or BBB would have too. This explicit permission could have been stated at the top of both threads so that nobody could have questioned if a rule was violated. It creates a lot of unnecessary drama to go through a guessing game about what exactly the rules allow and don't.
Nareed is still covered by insult protection as a member of the forum. There is no exception for blocked threads. So, no, she may not be insulted here or in any thread.
All of that was obvious, especially the last part. I think he just wanted to tell us how he felt, without saying how he felt.Quote: WizardOkay, let me try to catch up.
This forum has some hard and fast rules and some suggestions. Besides posting the same thing on both forums, it is also suggested that the most sensitive topics like gay marriage and nude Betty White pictures be specifically put on DT.
If anyone is unsure if something would break a rule, just PM a moderator, preferably Mission or BBB, for advice. In the case in question, Nareed could have asked one of us, "May I post about the WoV meetup on both sites?" I would have said "yes," and I'm sure Mission or BBB would have too. This explicit permission could have been stated at the top of both threads so that nobody could have questioned if a rule was violated. It creates a lot of unnecessary drama to go through a guessing game about what exactly the rules allow and don't.
Nareed is still covered by insult protection as a member of the forum. There is no exception for blocked threads. So, no, she may not be insulted here or in any thread.
Yep.Quote: AxelWolfAll of that was obvious, especially the last part. I think he just wanted to tell us how he felt, without saying how he felt.
I'm sure the "he" in that quote is me, in reference to my two posts at the top of the prior page.
I do have some things to say, but will keep them to myself. Not because of the rules. Not because Mission and Mike told me to. But because it is the right thing to do.
I would not have guessed he does the right thing for the sake of "it's the right thing to do" though.
Sunday afternoon: My dog is chewing on her "kong" while waiting to go for a walk -- impatient. CNN is in the background, Ukraine and the Malaysian flight -- sad. I've got "Zero Dark Thirty" queued up -- horrifying. My cat has constipation and needs to go to the vet -- sick.Quote: NareedI'm going to say this only once more, then I'm blocking the thread.
I am thankful for my good life.
[edit added. They gave my cat an enema.]
Quote: Mission146In the second post, (and first response to the OP in this thread) my answer was as follows:
I later stipulated that I might Lock an identical thread at one site or another, but wouldn't necessarily do that.
How is "No," not a clear answer? Can anyone explain what is ambiguous about "No?"
As I read the rant, this is exactly what I was thinking. Mission answered this question before Babs said anything, and before the Wizard 'clarified' that it was frowned upon. He said, unequivocally, "NO" it is not double-posting. I have been the voice against banning. Let me be the voice for banning. This is overt, purposeful antagonizing. I do not know if that is what trolling is or not, but this is not appropriate.
Soxfan started a thread last night entitled Quote of the Day. Apparently there had been an earlier thread with the same title but that's neither here nor there. It was started under off-topic general discussion. Doesn't off-topic mean just that? A little over an hour later the thread was closed and soxfan was given an "official warning" not to post on WoV anything non-gambling related.
I don't know where to start so let's look at official warning. To me, that implies that a rule was broken or, at the very least, skirted. Did that happen in this case? What is the warning structure? Are there regular warnings and more serious official warnings? Is a data base of warnings kept where they accumulate to ultimately become suspensions? Is this warning for soxfan only or should everyone take heed? Is there a heading where non-gambling topics can be posted or are they all forbidden?
Here is a partial list of non-gambling threads started or discussed in the last ten days. Many of them were pretty good.
Ray Rice suspension
Shades of gray memory
What would you do for money?
Dog hater
Crepitation contest
Naked girl in my house
Smokers in 2014
Who is single?
"Nice" men/women
Darwin awards
Give till it hurts
The three stooges are back
Im curious What's your internet speed
1910 Maryland license plate
Quote: 1BBFrom time to time we need a clarification of the rules. This is one of those times.
Soxfan started a thread last night entitled Quote of the Day. Apparently there had been an earlier thread with the same title but that's neither here nor there. It was started under off-topic general discussion. Doesn't off-topic mean just that? A little over an hour later the thread was closed and soxfan was given an "official warning" not to post on WoV anything non-gambling related.
I don't know where to start so let's look at official warning. To me, that implies that a rule was broken or, at the very least, skirted. Did that happen in this case? What is the warning structure? Are there regular warnings and more serious official warnings? Is a data base of warnings kept where they accumulate to ultimately become suspensions? Is this warning for soxfan only or should everyone take heed? Is there a heading where non-gambling topics can be posted or are they all forbidden?
Here is a partial list of non-gambling threads started or discussed in the last ten days. Many of them were pretty good.
Ray Rice suspension
Shades of gray memory
What would you do for money?
Dog hater
Crepitation contest
Naked girl in my house
Smokers in 2014
Who is single?
"Nice" men/women
Darwin awards
Give till it hurts
The three stooges are back
Im curious What's your internet speed
1910 Maryland license plate
If you were to start with the Wizard's statement, " Much like the previous "quote of the day" thread, it is a thinly-veiled attempt to promote a certain political point of view.", rather than bringing in a bunch of other stuff, it seems likely you would have your answer.
Quote: beachbumbabsIf you were to start with the Wizard's statement, " Much like the previous "quote of the day" thread, it is a thinly-veiled attempt to promote a certain political point of view.", rather than bringing in a bunch of other stuff, it seems likely you would have your answer.
Thanks for responding even though you didn't clarify anything or answer any of my questions. I was just about to bump this thread back to the top by telling a dumb joke. Forum Rule 9 allows this.
Soxfan was told to take it to DT. Does that mean that there are different standards between the sites. Is a political view allowed there? I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I really want to know. Are all non-gambling threads going to be rejected here?
I would guess if someone is purposely trying to disrupt or they Have a hidden agenda and do it often.Quote: 1BBThanks for responding even though you didn't clarify anything or answer any of my questions. I was just about to bump this thread back to the top by telling a dumb joke. Forum Rule 9 allows this.
Soxfan was told to take it to DT. Does that mean that there are different standards between the sites. Is a political view allowed there? I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I really want to know. Are all non-gambling threads going to be rejected here?
Quote: AxelWolfI would guess if someone is purposely trying to disrupt or they Have a hidden agenda and do it often.
Very true, Axel. I may not know the entire story but it raises what I feel are legitimate questions. Anyway, that's what Forum Rule 13 is for.
Quote: 1BBThanks for responding even though you didn't clarify anything or answer any of my questions. I was just about to bump this thread back to the top by telling a dumb joke. Forum Rule 9 allows this.
Soxfan was told to take it to DT. Does that mean that there are different standards between the sites. Is a political view allowed there? I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I really want to know. Are all non-gambling threads going to be rejected here?
It's really for the Wizard to answer you, not me, as he made the decision to warn and close. However, here's my take on it (as in, not speaking for Mike), but attempting to address your questions.
soxfan's "Quote of the Day" was posted under false pretenses, as a pointed political statement during a sensitive international time, not as a harmless quote thread as the title states. The Wizard has previously asked (several times) that political and certain other controversial threads be taken to DT. He wants this forum to concentrate on gambling and Vegas. He has not gone so far as to ban all non-gambling conversations. So soxfan, specifically, has been asked to keep his comments to gambling on this forum, because he used subterfuge to start a thread not pertinent or welcome to the forum, and also probably because he has a suspension history.
Your approach to this exchange ignores the perceptible subterfuge and intent of the OP, and history of the requests for this type of thread not to be started here. You imply, by listing the other conversations (and some comments you've made in some threads today questioning their pertinence), that there is a specific line that should be drawn, and that what soxfan posted was somehow equivalent to these other conversations. There isn't, and it's not.
DT was created in part (and from the start) to provide a place for more controversial topics, so in that sense, there is a different standard of content tolerated. However, the rules are similar and still need to be followed, and there is a cross-reference in membership, where violating either gets you suspended/banned from both. soxfan's thread is not the first that was closed and asked to be moved to DT because of inappropriateness. In these things, Mike is usually the arbiter, as he was here.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's really for the Wizard to answer you, not me, as he made the decision to warn and close. However, here's my take on it (as in, not speaking for Mike), but attempting to address your questions.
soxfan's "Quote of the Day" was posted under false pretenses, as a pointed political statement during a sensitive international time, not as a harmless quote thread as the title states. The Wizard has previously asked (several times) that political and certain other controversial threads be taken to DT. He wants this forum to concentrate on gambling and Vegas. He has not gone so far as to ban all non-gambling conversations. So soxfan, specifically, has been asked to keep his comments to gambling on this forum, because he used subterfuge to start a thread not pertinent or welcome to the forum, and also probably because he has a suspension history.
Your approach to this exchange ignores the perceptible subterfuge and intent of the OP, and history of the requests for this type of thread not to be started here. You imply, by listing the other conversations (and some comments you've made in some threads today questioning their pertinence), that there is a specific line that should be drawn, and that what soxfan posted was somehow equivalent to these other conversations. There isn't, and it's not.
DT was created in part (and from the start) to provide a place for more controversial topics, so in that sense, there is a different standard of content tolerated. However, the rules are similar and still need to be followed, and there is a cross-reference in membership, where violating either gets you suspended/banned from both. soxfan's thread is not the first that was closed and asked to be moved to DT because of inappropriateness. In these things, Mike is usually the arbiter, as he was here.
Well said.
Let me add to that that soxfan started another Quote of the Day thread in May with a false quote by Putin about Obama. That thread was also closed for the same reasons as this time, except this time it at least was evidently a true quote. So here he comes three months later and does the same thing. Soxfan also has a high percentage of posting things that are not gambling related, as far as I can tell. I tend to not pay much attention to the threads he does.
The general site policy is that threads about sexuality, religion and politics should be placed on DT. I recently closed a thread by Frank Scoblete on the war in Gaza, quoting this policy. Threads about tamer subjects, like the Three Stooges are still allowed here.
Finally, the thread about the 1910 Maryland license plate was started over two years ago.
Quote: 1BB
Here is a partial list of non-gambling threads started or discussed in the last ten days. Many of them were pretty good.
Ray Rice suspension
Shades of gray memory
What would you do for money?
Dog hater
Crepitation contest
Naked girl in my house
Smokers in 2014
Who is single?
"Nice" men/women
Darwin awards
Give till it hurts
The three stooges are back
Im curious What's your internet speed
1910 Maryland license plate
ALL BUT ONE BELONG IN DT... the Naked Girl in my Apartment really would have been DT too but for the "apartment" being a cache for cash and chips which makes the Naked Girl a different situation than in any other apartment somewhere else in the nation.
I don't know about "ridiculously" but over-moderated and uneven treatment for sure. By the time you get out the beer and cashews the show is over. hey, hey.Quote: soxfanThis forum is ridiculously over-moderated, and some so-called forum rules seem to apply to some and not to others. But, it is what it is and even that provides for some entertainments, hey hey.
Honestly, having a thread closed doesn't hurt anyone. Especially if you are explicitly told you can go on some other place.Quote: soxfanThis forum is ridiculously over-moderated, and some so-called forum rules seem to apply to some and not to others. But, it is what it is and even that provides for some entertainments, hey hey.
Also, suspensions are just not being able to post something for a few days. When you go on holiday, that's what happens anyway. Hardly a hurtful penitence!
So I would say Soxfan's reaction is "ridiculously over-exaggerated".
EDITED the spelling error. Sorry for those who liked it.
You made a spelling error but it happens with his name often. N and G is close, poor guy hey , hey.Quote: kubikulannSuxfan's
Quote: kubikulannHonestly, having a thread closed doesn't hurt anyone. Especially if you are explicitly told you can go on some other place.
Also, suspensions are just not being able to post something for a few days. When you go on holiday, that's what happens anyway. Hardly a hurtful penitence!
So I would say Suxfan's reaction is "ridiculously over-exaggerated".
Well, well, well, aren't you a brave little man hiding there behind yer computer keyboard! But, you did serve to prove my point, hey hey!
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, I think of this place as a cross between "1984" and "Stripes". You crack me up, DD; my favorite new guy.
Someday Tito Puente will be dead and you will be saying "I always listened to Tito Puente".
Quote: BozSomeday Tito Puente will be dead and you will be saying "I always listened to Tito Puente".
Boz,
I usually get this type of reference, but you shot completely over my head this time. Whaaa?
With all due respect, I consider anyone, controversial, who has not been to a WOV event or meet up with someone who is halfway respected "brave little men hiding there behind their computer"Quote: soxfanWell, well, well, aren't you a brave little man hiding there behind yer computer keyboard! But, you did serve to prove my point, hey hey!
Quote: beachbumbabsBoz,
I usually get this type of reference, but you shot completely over my head this time. Whaaa?
Stripes. Bill when she dumped him near the start. I could watch it again right for the 200th time. Love that movie.
Quote: BozStripes. Bill when she dumped him near the start. I could watch it again right for the 200th time. Love that movie.
Oooooh! Yeah, that's right! Thanks for the cue-in.
Quote: AxelWolfWith all due respect, I consider anyone, controversial, who has not been to a WOV event or meet up with someone who is halfway respected "brave little men hiding there behind their computer"
You mean like Kewlj? Or B9? Or me? We don't have
huge egos that constantly need to be fed. We don't
show up at events and hide behind menus or hats
and sunglasses like you do because who we are in
real life is far more important than who we portray
ourselves to be on a the internet. Something you
should think about..
Quote: AxelWolfWith all due respect, I consider anyone, controversial, who has not been to a WOV event or meet up with someone who is halfway respected "brave little men hiding there behind their computer"
Reminds me the days of good ol' grade/high school lunch table cliques.
