Discussion II about the Suspension List
Quote: mcallister3200#free_sir-grinder_of-Nottingham.
Edit: freed already nvm
I totally forgot about that name lol.
I see what happened to Romes here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/31392-racist-or-not/35/#post670808
so saying 'I think XYZ a troll' is now banable?
edit: I think zero tolerance Is getting silly. is it even needed on this site?
what happened to Mission?
link?
Quote: 100xOddsMission146 and Romes is red?!?
ok, what happened?
link?
Last 1-2 Both political threads
Rome’s called AZ a troll
Mission told someone to shove something up their butt
Quote: 100xOddsMission146 and Romes is red?!?
I see what happened to Romes here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/31392-racist-or-not/35/#post670808
so saying 'I think XYZ a troll' is now banable?
what happened to Mission?
link?
I never thought I'd see the day Romes and Mission ended up in Red! What a beyond shocking day! O.O :O
Quote: NathanI never thought I'd see the day Romes and Mission ended up in Red! What a beyond shocking day! O.O :O
You say that every time someone gets suspended...
Quote: PokerGrinderYou say that every time someone gets suspended...
I've only said that for THREE people.
Quote: NathanI've only said that for THREE people.
No, more like about 15 people, but who's counting any more? You chime in on just about every one of them.
Happens to a lot of us; it is sometimes good to clear the air with a short break.
It isn't like being banned for any period of time has real meaning in one's life.
Dollars to donuts she will not chime in shocked about Nathanhater getting nuked in 15 min.Quote: beachbumbabsNo, more like about 15 people, but who's counting any more? You chime in on just about every one of them.
Quote: RonCMission had enough and went ahead and said at least part of what he thought about a member.
Happens to a lot of us; it is sometimes good to clear the air with a short break.
It isn't like being banned for any period of time has real meaning in one's life.
Yup. Do your time in the hole then come back to gen-pop.
Quote: unJonDollars to donuts she will not chime in shocked about Nathanhater getting nuked in 15 min.
I was asleep when Nathanhater(Who we all know really is, ;) :/) was a brief Member here. I did wake up to a very nasty and unwanted PM from NH, however.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/31392-racist-or-not/38/#post670926
Here is the post for which the ban was applied:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/31392-racist-or-not/5/#post670271
Maybe some members can share their opinion on my estimation of 9/10 people not sharing the assumption this moderator made.
Quote: rawtuffI'll put this here as well:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/31392-racist-or-not/38/#post670926
Here is the post for which the ban was applied:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/31392-racist-or-not/5/#post670271
Maybe some members can share their opinion on my estimation of 9/10 people not sharing the assumption this moderator made.
You quoted someone and than said "U". Had you not quoted them, I think there would be no problem. Since you quoted them, I too assumed you were talking to them.
ZCore13
If my understanding of the forum rules is correct, you can forward the PM to a mod just for the record of it if nothing else.Quote: NathanI was asleep when Nathanhater(Who we all know really is, ;) :/) was a brief Member here. I did wake up to a very nasty and unwanted PM from NH, however.
Quote: unJonIf my understanding of the forum rules is correct, you can forward the PM to a mod just for the record of it if nothing else.
To be fair, NH was already banned by the time I got that nasty PM. ;)
He’s on the suspension list for having multiple IDs.
It was clear from his first post that he was a sock. I’m just curious if my theory as to who it was is correct...
Quote: unJonIf my understanding of the forum rules is correct, you can forward the PM to a mod just for the record of it if nothing else.
Forum rules do not allow for personal insults via PM. Victims may forward the offending message to an admin for action. This should be done only for purposes of reporting rule-breaking PMs. Personal information may and should be edited out.
I don't know why they don't/ won't give us that information.Quote: ams288Who was Scoobydoo?
He’s on the suspension list for having multiple IDs.
It was clear from his first post that he was a sock. I’m just curious if my theory as to who it was is correct...
ams288 why don't you just tell us who you think it may have been?
Mods is there a good reason for not disclosing that information, IIRC it used to be added to the suspention list?
No secret... https://wizardofvegas.com/member/scuzzy/Quote: ams288Who was Scoobydoo?
He’s on the suspension list for having multiple IDs.
It was clear from his first post that he was a sock. I’m just curious if my theory as to who it was is correct...
Quote: WizardForum rules do not allow for personal insults via PM. Victims may forward the offending message to an admin for action. This should be done only for purposes of reporting rule-breaking PMs. Personal information may and should be edited out.
Rule 16 states: "Private Messaging: Private messages are supposed to be private. Of course, by mutual agreement they can be quoted to a larger audience. The rules above also apply to private messaging, including rule #1. An exception to the privacy rule is that abuses may be reported to the Wizard, JB or Mission146. We will treat it like a "coach's challenge" in the NFL. If a banning is warranted, it will be given. If not, a banning of a perceived victim may be made for making a false claim. (Added 8/17/2012)"
I have some trouble with this: "a banning of a perceived victim may be made for making a false claim."
Only an idiot would forward a false PM to a mod, claiming another sent it to him/her: in that case sure, ban him/her.
But what do you mean by "false?"
Would that include a weak claim, i.e. one by a person more sensitized to negative comment than admin?
For example, what about a case where the PM was rude, not nice, but for whatever reason perceived as not having crossed the line as defined by admin?
Should the victim be banned for having skin thinner than that of admin?
I don't PM, but I suspect many here do PM each other and I suspect some of the emotion as expressed in forum posts carries over to PM, perhaps even more so.
Members should be allowed to contact each other in private via PM and say pretty much whatever they want without fear of recrimination: threats should not be allowed and should be reportable/actionable but private insults probably should not be.
It's not as if the perceived victim would be left without a remedy: he/she could block the offending forum member, which presumably would end their ability to forward new unwanted PM's to the victim.
Just my two cents.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI am curious as to why Zen was spared being martingaled on this latest suspension. He repeated the same act within 2 days of his previous ban being lifted and looks like he was initially given 14 then reduced to 7. Was Mike feeling particularly jovial today?
Not really sure. Don't really care.
Do you also correct a dealer paying a player for a 21 when they really have 22?
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI am curious as to why Zen was spared being martingaled on this latest suspension. He repeated the same act within 2 days of his previous ban being lifted and looks like he was initially given 14 then reduced to 7. Was Mike feeling particularly jovial today?
I argued it down with OD, so I'll take the blame. I don't think the Martingale is always appropriate as an automatic measure. It was a single f-bomb, so the 7 makes the point with the repeated offense. I'm weighing that with not just his previous profanity offenses, but also the many people who've dropped them and I've just issued a masking and a warning. And others have also been suspended.
Parity is difficult. But I asked, and OD agreed to do it. So there it is.
In the interest of clarity... I consider the reduction in ZK's punishment to be 'a suspended sentence' If he repeats the same sort of offence upon his early release that would be provocative, I would be inclined to add the 7 days straight back on to whatever is imposed next time. Let's hope there is no next time.Quote: beachbumbabsI argued it down with OD, so I'll take the blame. I don't think the Martingale is always appropriate as an automatic measure. It was a single f-bomb, so the 7 makes the point with the repeated offense. I'm weighing that with not just his previous profanity offenses, but also the many people who've dropped them and I've just issued a masking and a warning. And others have also been suspended.
Parity is difficult. But I asked, and OD agreed to do it. So there it is.
Really. The guy is quite capable of being eloquent, regardless of whether we agree with him or not. So he has no excuse for swearing after so many warnings and requests not to. I'm not his enemy and I'd like to think we could all debate his viewpoints with no more suspensions. I'd also like to challenge some of his views to maybe enlighten us all, but I cannot while he's suspended.
Quote: MrVWould that include a weak claim, i.e. one by a person more sensitized to negative comment than admin?
For example, what about a case where the PM was rude, not nice, but for whatever reason perceived as not having crossed the line as defined by admin?
Should the victim be banned for having skin thinner than that of admin?
Just an interim opinion... If a member truthfully and vocally complains about mild perceived abuse and it's clear that his intention is just to provoke a suspension, where none is considered justified, then the 'victim' might get told to grow thicker skin or use the block feature and to let it drop. Only in the very most extreme case would the complainant get banned.
Each case on its merits, probably decided by more than one admin.
Quote: MrVI have some trouble with this: "a banning of a perceived victim may be made for making a false claim."
Only an idiot would forward a false PM to a mod, claiming another sent it to him/her: in that case sure, ban him/her.
But what do you mean by "false?"
Would that include a weak claim, i.e. one by a person more sensitized to negative comment than admin?
For example, what about a case where the PM was rude, not nice, but for whatever reason perceived as not having crossed the line as defined by admin?
Should the victim be banned for having skin thinner than that of admin?
I don't PM, but I suspect many here do PM each other and I suspect some of the emotion as expressed in forum posts carries over to PM, perhaps even more so.
Members should be allowed to contact each other in private via PM and say pretty much whatever they want without fear of recrimination: threats should not be allowed and should be reportable/actionable but private insults probably should not be.
It's not as if the perceived victim would be left without a remedy: he/she could block the offending forum member, which presumably would end their ability to forward new unwanted PM's to the victim.
Just my two cents.
In the many years of this forum, I think we've had only one or two cases of complaints of personal insults via PM. All were valid complaints. I'm sure there are a many more cases of insults via PM that go non-reported. Nothing we can do about that. In my opinion, there needs to be more of an official remedy to insults and bullying via PM. Your points are well taken, but I don't see the current policy as being a big problem.
Quote: WizardIn the many years of this forum, I think we've had only one or two cases of complaints of personal insults via PM. All were valid complaints. I'm sure there are a many more cases of insults via PM that go non-reported. Nothing we can do about that. In my opinion, there needs to be more of an official remedy to insults and bullying via PM. Your points are well taken, but I don't see the current policy as being a big problem.
If they go unreported for more than 38 years do not believe them whatsoever
Blame them for starting a fuss
Quote: darkozIf they go unreported for more than 38 years do not believe them whatsoever
Blame them for starting a fuss
About the Suspension List? PM’s?
I know I’m not an Admin around these parts, but I don’t believe this Forum has been around that long.
Quote: Mission146I know I’m not an Admin around these parts, but I don’t believe this Forum has been around that long.
I believe it was a joke referring to the Kavanaugh allegation of attempted rape.
But ya, when you start claiming sh*t 35+ year's later and it's obvious there's an agenda, I don't belive your coached scripted BS lies.
Quote: AxelWolfNot sure why he is joking about that since he supports Ford and her meliscouse lies.
But ya, when you start claiming sh*t 35+ year's later and it's obvious there's an agenda, I don't belive your coached scripted BS lies.
There is humor in everything
Just look at all the memes out there from Cosby to Manson
Quote: MrVI know we cannot use F-bombs; having said that, is it OK to use an abbreviation containing a banned word, e.g. "WTF?"
Or how about
Fork you, you piece of shat(ner) as in William
Quote: darkozIf a guys name is Dick is it an insult to call him Dick?
I’d play it safe and refer to him as Richard
Quote: MrVI know we cannot use F-bombs; having said that, is it OK to use an abbreviation containing a banned word, e.g. "WTF?"
English language is so weird. People will often say wtf, or freak. In a way Is it not the intention of the word that makes it bad opposed to the actual word.
Same goes for masking a word. Does it really matter if I write F%$# instead of the actual word?
It seems that masking and abbreviations are socially ok but scream the F word would not be.
Quote: GWAEEnglish language is so weird. People will often say wtf, or freak. In a way Is it not the intention of the word that makes it bad opposed to the actual word.
Same goes for masking a word. Does it really matter if I write F%$# instead of the actual word?
It seems that masking and abbreviations are socially ok but scream the F word would not be.
The English language is even more foul
We play with our balls in sports
Its not an insult nor obscenity to say someone is Cock of the Walk
There is a famous Marx Brothers line the Hays office banned
Groucho as Professor Spaulding has returned from Africa
Groucho: I took pictures of the native girls but they werent developed
Quote: michael99000I’d play it safe and refer to him as Richard
Not necessarily safe
People are finicky about their names
If the guy prefers to be called Dick your calling him Richard may be misconstrued as the insult
Quote: NathanI wonder what Hursedog did to get banned/suspended. I did my homework this time and actually looked at his posts to see what got him banned/suspended. His posts all look normal to me. Was he a sock puppet of an already banned poster?
Most likely an iteration of Buzzard, a beloved cantankerous ex poster.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt was Buzz, yes.
Okay. Makes sense. It doesn't hurt to ask however. I remember a poster being banned after like two days and all of her posts were normal. I brought this up and an Admin responded something like,"We actually made a mistake," and immediately unbanned her. So like I said it doesn't hurt to ask.
Dang, now I might have to read some of his posts.Quote: beachbumbabsIt was Buzz, yes.
Quote: NathanOkay. Makes sense. It doesn't hurt to ask however. I remember a poster being banned after like two days and all of her posts were normal. I brought this up and an Admin responded something like,"We actually made a mistake," and immediately unbanned her. So like I said it doesn't hurt to ask.
Actually, it hurts YOU to ask, because you rarely, if ever, pass up the chance to comment on every single disciplinary thing that happens here.
If I had absolutely no life, I bet I could go back and find 70-100 posts from you, probably more, commenting on other people's suspensions, not including another 100+ carrying on about WoN post-banning.
It's a form of trolling that's particularly annoying, because it makes a big deal out of a lot of nothing, and escalates the irritation factor that runs in the background of any moderated forum.
We make calls. We generally highlight why in the thread, quoting the insult or whatever. I don't know who banned Buzz this time, but if I had seen the sock evidence first, I would have noted it while quoting or banning his sock, as I have several times before. This one may have gotten listed as such in the Suspension List, I haven't looked.
But having to not just do whatever needs to be done, but then have to go back and explain it to you every time just p!$$es people off, not just the mods, but whoever is nursing or looking to develop a grudge. It's divisive and undermines the forum.
If you seriously think there was an Admin error, the polite thing would be to PM the mod first, whether the error was inadvertent or you think it was an error of judgement.
Better yet would be to look for yourself what the issue is, including links in a thread or from that person's profile or on the Suspension list, and not make comments that have to be answered.
Just like I would have preferred to discuss this with you via PM, if you have to ask or comment at all, but it's not possible to leave this crap unanswered publicly, once you post it publicly.
Hope you can stand me being honest.
Quote: NathanI wonder what Hursedog did to get banned/suspended. I did my homework this time and actually looked at his posts to see what got him banned/suspended. His posts all look normal to me. Was he a sock puppet of an already banned poster?
Sometimes the reason for suspension may not be apparent just through reading the persons posts.
Quote: beachbumbabsActually, it hurts YOU to ask, because you rarely, if ever, pass up the chance to comment on every single disciplinary thing that happens here.
If I had absolutely no life, I bet I could go back and find 70-100 posts from you, probably more, commenting on other people's suspensions, not including another 100+ carrying on about WoN post-banning.
It's a form of trolling that's particularly annoying, because it makes a big deal out of a lot of nothing, and escalates the irritation factor that runs in the background of any moderated forum.
We make calls. We generally highlight why in the thread, quoting the insult or whatever. I don't know who banned Buzz this time, but if I had seen the sock evidence first, I would have noted it while quoting or banning his sock, as I have several times before. This one may have gotten listed as such in the Suspension List, I haven't looked.
But having to not just do whatever needs to be done, but then have to go back and explain it to you every time just p!$$es people off, not just the mods, but whoever is nursing or looking to develop a grudge. It's divisive and undermines the forum.
If you seriously think there was an Admin error, the polite thing would be to PM the mod first, whether the error was inadvertent or you think it was an error of judgement.
Better yet would be to look for yourself what the issue is, including links in a thread or from that person's profile or on the Suspension list, and not make comments that have to be answered.
Just like I would have preferred to discuss this with you via PM, if you have to ask or comment at all, but it's not possible to leave this crap unanswered publicly, once you post it publicly.
Hope you can stand me being honest.
Ummm. This is the discussion about suspensions list, is it not? Someone was suspended and she asked. It wasn't added to the suspension list so I was going to ask myself, cause I was curious.
The way buzz wrote that it seemed like he was trying to make it look like he was zk.
