Proposed Rule Change -- Respect the Ten Commandments of Gambling
Poll
 | 18 votes (25.71%) | ||
| | 4 votes (5.71%) | ||
| | 40 votes (57.14%) | ||
| | 2 votes (2.85%) | ||
| | 6 votes (8.57%) |
70 members have voted
It isn't just this, but we've had other members, like Vermenti, who posted hundreds of times in defense of his betting system. A period of peace never seems to last long before somebody new comes along to stir up trouble.
In response, I'm seriously considering adding a new rule that will be phrased more or less as follows.
Quote: New RuleRespect the Ten Commandments of Gambling: Members may not repeatedly post messages contrary in belief to those expressed in my Ten Commandments of Gambling. This rule was added in an effort to promote a sense of unity and avoid endless arguments. Bet welchers and betting system believers are specifically not welcome.
You might wonder if this will cover the dice influence believers. I think I'll reluctantly allow discussion of that, for now, but reserve the right to change my mind.
I'm not going to ban people who make one post that violates this new rule, but just those who do it over and over and over.
The question for the poll is how do you feel about adding this rule?
That said, I don't like anything that crushes polite dissent. I am think you have enough in your rules to have banned Lemieux66. I honestly believe that it was trolling.
Quote: strictlyAP1000000 percent agree please do it fast
I don't feel strongly about it either way, but I do like the idea of keeping this site as a place where helpful / accurate / interesting / entertaining information is exchanged. I hope my posts fall mostly with-in one of those categories.
Quote: WizardI'm getting very tired of the two Lemieux66 threads where he has tirelessly defended his position to welch on a sports bet. However, as it stands, my hands are tied by my own rules. I can't fairly do anything about it because 66 is at least being polite and respectful of existing rules.
It isn't just this, but we've had other members, like Vermenti, who posted hundreds of times in defense of his betting system. A period of peace never seems to last long before somebody new comes along to stir up trouble.
In response, I'm seriously considering adding a new rule that will be phrased more or less as follows.Quote: New RuleRespect the Ten Commandments of Gambling: Members may not repeatedly post messages contrary in belief to those expressed in my Ten Commandments of Gambling. This rule was added in an effort to promote a sense of unity and avoid endless arguments. Bet welchers and betting system believers are specifically not welcome.
You might wonder if this will cover the dice influence believers. I think I'll reluctantly allow discussion of that, for now, but reserve the right to change my mind.
I'm not going to ban people who make one post that violates this new rule, but just those who do it over and over and over.
The question for the poll is how do you feel about adding this rule?
I agree with the intent of the rule change and simply stopped reading the threads but feel the wording of the new rule comes across a little heavy handed. We all know it is your site, your rules but the "contrary in belief to those expressed in my...." somehow feels a little too snarky. I don't have any suggestion for better wording.
#1 - Don't cheat - GOOD
#2 - Honor thy debts - GOOD
#3 - Expect to lose - Good for me, but counters will have problems with this one
#4 - Trust the odds - GOOD
#5 - Overbet - GOOD
#6 - Betting Systems - GREAT
#7 - Hedge - This is a problem for me. Except I could probably argue that anything I hedge for is probably "life changing" even though it would be a minor life change.
#8 - Covet Rules - Fine
#9 - Thou shalt not make side bets - This is the one that causes the biggest problem. We have people on this site who design side bets. Any time someone posts about a side bet, they will be banned? This could be an issue.
#10 - Good gambling etiquette - GOOD
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI disagree with a portion of Commandment 10. I won't say I am an anti-tipper. But I definitely would want the ability to make my point of view against those who say that tipping is always necessary.
I don't see any conflict here. The commandment is about respect, not stating that you must always tip, but that a tip is a signal that you respect the dealers. That's all. If you don't tip, it could be for a number of reasons including your own personal financial difficulties, or even moral opposition to tipping. Stating to the dealers that you respect them in one way or another in place of tipping might be an option for someone who has moral oppositions to tipping yet wants to honor the spirit of the tenth commandment.
Why not just have a catchall rule that the site owner can take any action he deems appropriate to maintain an orderly and enjoyable site. (if you don't already have such a rule)
Quote: WizardI think I'll reluctantly allow discussion of that, for now, but reserve the right to change my mind.
Here's my "other" response. For now, huh?
I feel like your stance on dice is in violation of your own tenth commandment on gambling. Can you ban yourself first if you adopt this new rule?
You should have more respect for the subject of the very real possibility that craps may be possible to perform advantage play right now today.
But a ban should have come by page three when it was obvious he was flooding and considering his body of work which is mostly flooding and meaningless posts
a long vacation would be appreciated by all.
Quote: WizardI'm getting very tired of the two Lemieux66 threads where he has tirelessly defended his position to welch on a sports bet. However, as it stands, my hands are tied by my own rules. I can't fairly do anything about it because 66 is at least being polite and respectful of existing rules.
It isn't just this, but we've had other members, like Vermenti, who posted hundreds of times in defense of his betting system. A period of peace never seems to last long before somebody new comes along to stir up trouble.
In response, I'm seriously considering adding a new rule that will be phrased more or less as follows.Quote: New RuleRespect the Ten Commandments of Gambling: Members may not repeatedly post messages contrary in belief to those expressed in my Ten Commandments of Gambling. This rule was added in an effort to promote a sense of unity and avoid endless arguments. Bet welchers and betting system believers are specifically not welcome.
You might wonder if this will cover the dice influence believers. I think I'll reluctantly allow discussion of that, for now, but reserve the right to change my mind.
I'm not going to ban people who make one post that violates this new rule, but just those who do it over and over and over.
The question for the poll is how do you feel about adding this rule?
I personally don't plan to ever mention the situation again. As for others alluding to it, I can't stop them. I just won't feed the trolls.
It would be unwise to pay a conman or someone who only collects and never pays. That's just stupid to pay a welcher if after a bet is made, you find out the bettor doesn't pay when he loses and he owes many people for ages. More to the point, you owe $50 and they owe you $100. You wouldn't pay them $50 today and let them pay $100 on Tuesday.
Ban this suggestion. Can you even grow a beard to be a dictator? Doesn't seem like your personality type.Quote: MoscaYour house, your rules.
run this place as a democracy, when it's
clearly not. Just do what you see fit. Like
with Buzz. You have a rule about suspensions,
and under those rules Buzz should have
got 30 days for his latest insult. But you
gave him 3 days because you wanted to.
Just apply that to everything, do what you
see fit and don't worry what we think about
it.
Quote: EvenBobI don't understand why you keep trying to
run this place as a democracy, when it's
clearly not. Just do what you see fit. Like
with Buzz. You have a rule about suspensions,
and under those rules Buzz should have
got 30 days for his latest insult. But you
gave him 3 days because you wanted to.
Just apply that to everything, do what you
see fit and don't worry what we think about
it.
Obviously, the Wizard WANTED to ask for input. That is how he prefers to run his site. Ironically, you are the one who is suggesting Wizard run his site contrary to how he wants.
Quote: sodawaterObviously, the Wizard WANTED to ask for input. That is how he prefers to run his site. Ironically, you are the one who is suggesting Wizard run his site contrary to how he wants.
He runs it how he wants anyway, why ask
for input. I would certainly run it how I wanted.
Let people talk about what they want and
if it gets out of hand, get rid of it. We don't
want a forum run like a Vegas condo board.
I remember an episode of Fraser when he put
an antique knocker on his door and 2min later
it was gone and there was a note saying it
was against the buildings rules.
Quote:Respect the Ten Commandments of Gambling: Members may not repeatedly post messages contrary in belief to those expressed in my Ten Commandments of Gambling.
I don't think you should try to enforce all 10, but the two you mention only: welching and betting systems.
For those, I would applaud it. But ...
_
If you tried to enforce the thing about side bets, you'd have to can a few of your moderators.
We HAVE to discuss only the most mathematically correct way?
Hello, stifling wet blanket; greetings, homogenization.
I say forget adopting the rule which requires we adhere to your so-called ten commandments.
We don't follow the ten commandments as passed down by no less a figure than Moses, and he had a direct line to the One True Wizard.
Of course, he only said violators will go to Hell for eternal damnation, and still we violate the rules; you can only suspend or ban.
No, I think you should forget that approach.
You could adopt a new rule, as follows: "I reserve the right, at my sole discretion, to suspend and / or ban any poster whose posting seriously annoys and / or offends me. Except for the most glaring examples I will give them at least one warning, both on this board and by private message, before imposing a sanction."
Quote: MrVYou could adopt a new rule, as follows: "I reserve the right, at my sole discretion, to suspend and / or ban any poster whose posting seriously annoys and / or offends me. Except for the most glaring examples I will give them at least one warning before imposing a sanction."
Even though I said in another thread that V
should be shot, I agree with this. Loose
rules and run over anybody you want with
your truck if they get annoying.
Meanwhile, please honor your gambling debts, even if you can't stand the person you owe.
So some clarification please Mr Wiz. Either I don't understand what you are trying to say. Or maybe, you are saying AP's aren't welcome? (I don't think that is the case)
Quote: WizardThanks for all the comments thus far. Based in part on your comments, I am heavily leaning against the resolution.
Meanwhile, please honor your gambling debts, even if you can't stand the person you owe.
Wizard, I'm curious about something. I'm keeping the money because it's the best form of revenge that will mostly hurt him only. The big issue is if his girlfriend finds out. He told me once that if she finds out that he has this job, she would break up with him so I kept it quiet.
I need to know what is the best form of revenge you would use, besides money, that is both crushing and low key.
Quote: WizardI'm getting very tired of the two Lemieux66 threads where he has tirelessly defended his position to welch on a sports bet. However, as it stands, my hands are tied by my own rules. I can't fairly do anything about it because 66 is at least being polite and respectful of existing rules.
I still think you should opt to use your post limit on people you deem necessary who don't break rules.
Set a 5 post per day limit on people like Limieux. Or some low number.
You could have used it on other people. Like LarryS. Might have kept him out of trouble.
Quote: rxwineI still think you should opt to use your post limit on people you deem necessary who don't break rules.
Set a 5 post per day limit on people like Limieux. Or some low number.
You could have used it on other people. Like LarryS. Might have kept him out of trouble.
That's just being biased.
Quote: MrVYou could adopt a new rule, as follows: "I reserve the right, at my sole discretion, to suspend and / or ban any poster whose posting seriously annoys and / or offends me. Except for the most glaring examples I will give them at least one warning, both on this board and by private message, before imposing a sanction."
That is probably a better idea than respecting the Ten Commandments, but I don't think I'll do that either. There are lots of active members on this board who annoy me but I put up with it in the name of free speech.
Quote: kewljSomeone mentioned number 3, 'expect to lose'. I too would like some clarification on that Wiz. AP's don't expect to lose.
I was referring to recreational gamblers with commandment number 3.
Quote: Lemieux66I need to know what is the best form of revenge you would use, besides money, that is both crushing and low key.
Why don't you re-post that in one of the threads already devoted to glorifying welching.
Quote: Lemieux66I said in both of those threads that I was done posting in them. I always keep my word.
You mean except when it comes to your debts.
Quote: Lemieux66I said in both of those threads that I was done posting in them. I always keep my word.
Thank you!
I'd suggest bringing up the topic of revenge at DT and I'll be happy to address it in a general sense.
Quote: WizardThank you!
I'd suggest bringing up the topic of revenge at DT and I'll be happy to address it in a general sense.
Sounds like a plan.
Respect the bet, the "House" offering a fair game, the Rules of Play, and the money.
* I might bet $10 Pai Gow no commission (-1.25%) if I place a -4% $1 JP bet, for example.
Quote: Wizard
I was referring to recreational gamblers with commandment number 3.
I see. I thought maybe #3 was a follow-up to #2, the gambling debt commandment. Something along the lines that if you make a bet with Wizard.....you should expect to lose. LOL.
For example, I have disagreed with #7, "Thou Shalt Not Hedge" on here. This is simple background views as I have training in finance and locking in a gain when you can, and protecting your position. I wouldn't be a child about it, but I really don't want yet another thing to worry about in offending a rule.
Quote: AZDuffmanFor example, I have disagreed with #7, "Thou Shalt Not Hedge" on here. This is simple background views as I have training in finance and locking in a gain when you can, and protecting your position. I wouldn't be a child about it, but I really don't want yet another thing to worry about in offending a rule.
I'm not saying I would punish somebody for making a hedge bet, even for a bad reason. However, if somebody posted hundreds of times advocating always insuring a blackjack, I would get a little annoyed.
In fact, I hedged myself with my half point parlay cards last season when I had five-digit wins hanging on Monday Night Football. When very large sums are involved, looking it on a utility of money basis, hedging can be justified.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI hedge my passline bet on the comeout with a craps/horn bet when betting $25 or more. And sometimes when betting less. I make side bets including the Fire Bet.
Yeah. So I'm not sure if the Wizard's proposal would ban you for DOING that or for SUGGESTING that it is a good idea or both. This entire forum could change shape quickly if people were banned for their reported behavior when not on the forum.
Edit: just read his response.
While I never hedge a bet (or a stock-market decision), I do agree that there is gaming for fun with some of the profits.
Quote: Lemieux66I need to know what is the best form of revenge you would use, besides money, that is both crushing and low key.
Mature adults don't usually go around looking for revenge.
Quote: WizardI'm not saying I would punish somebody for making a hedge bet, even for a bad reason. However, if somebody posted hundreds of times advocating always insuring a blackjack, I would get a little annoyed.
In fact, I hedged myself with my half point parlay cards last season when I had five-digit wins hanging on Monday Night Football. When very large sums are involved, looking it on a utility of money basis, hedging can be justified.
I understand where you are coming from. I just think a few basic rules are better than more.
Consider the US Constitution vs the Failed EU Constitution from a few years back. (sorry if this is repeating myself.) The US version is about 3 pages, the EU was many times that. This was because the EU version tried to spell out every lasts right a person had. Just make a rule that if a person is behaving badly the management has the right to refuse service to anybody. Then just IM the offending party.
Don't worry about justifying your own actions on your own site.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceMature adults don't usually go around looking for revenge.
That's foolish. You need to show people they can't mess with you.
I think many gay men may disagree with that as well :0
Quote: VCUSkyhawkYour new signature is a bit disturbing Lemieux.
I think many gay men may disagree with that as well :0
All quotes from the Spartacus series are golden.
Quote: drmarioAs a long time lurker I'd prefer not to stifle threads even on controversial subjects. The members here self police very well even as evidenced by the thread in question. In reality, the pay back thread should have been locked very early on when it was clear the "conversation" was over. Probably sometime right around this post by the Wiz "The IPs are almost, but not exactly, the same". At that point Lemieux was clearly trolling the forum and deserved a short cooling off ban, not based on the topic but his behavior.
I already mentioned that was a friend of mine. It's also none of your business.
