Discussion II about the Suspension List
Quote: NathanNareed is a SHE? Color me surprised. O.O
I'll just say that I will address people by the pronoun they prefer.
Quote: WizardI'll just say that I will address people by the pronoun they prefer.
I'm a baby iguana.
ZCore13
Quote: NathanNareed is a SHE? Color me surprised. O.O
At one point many were surprised Nathan is a she
Quote: NathanNareed is a SHE? Color me surprised. O.O
I LOL'ed IRL
Quote: WizardI'll just say that I will address people by the pronoun they prefer.
I'm an attack helicopter
Quote: ams288Apparently some of you don't know what a "pronoun" is.
I do! He she, it, they, I, you. :)
Quote: NathanNareed is a SHE? Color me surprised. O.O
Oh dear.
Quote: ams288Apparently some of you don't know what a "pronoun" is.
I like turtles?
That’s good. Because it’s turtles all the way down.Quote: mcallister3200I like turtles?
I'm assuming, it's a noun that is salaried and on contract?Quote: ams288Apparently some of you don't know what a "pronoun" is.
She's asking for the other mods to weigh in and she has closed the thread, so I'll comment here.
I suspect the thread will be busted, not because of concerns about potential libel but because BBB wants to save darkoz from himself.
Heart of gold, fist of iron.
Doesn't matter to me. Can't even begin to compete with Nathan's corner.Quote: MrVBBB wants to bust / delete the darkoz thread of woe, claiming it is potentially libelous.
She's asking for the other mods to weigh in and she has closed the thread, so I'll comment here.
I suspect the thread will be busted, not because of concerns about potential libel but because BBB wants to save darkoz from himself.
Heart of gold, fist of iron.
Quote: MrVBBB wants to bust / delete the darkoz thread of woe, claiming it is potentially libelous.
She's asking for the other mods to weigh in and she has closed the thread, so I'll comment here.
I suspect the thread will be busted, not because of concerns about potential libel but because BBB wants to save darkoz from himself.
Heart of gold, fist of iron.
I don’t have a problem with BBB or the fact that she has authority as an Admin, obviously, but I fail to see under what interpretation of the Rules the thread should be deleted. There’s no doxxing on direct that I can see, so while DarkOz is referencing people close to him, he’s not doing so by name.
I also fail to see any obvious libel that would demand the thread be removed. Libel exists only when a statement about a person is BOTH written AND untrue. For libel to exist here, especially for the purpose of removing an entire thread, I think at a minimum we would want to have proof that something DarkOz is saying isn’t true. I fail to see any such proof and nor do I have any reason to disbelieve anything DarkOz is saying. I have no reason to believe him, either, but that just has to do with having no personal knowledge of the subject matter or anyone involved with exception to meeting DarkOz himself once for maybe an hour.
Anyway, libelous, potentially libelous....anything negative about another person could be viewed as, “Potentially libelous.” Hell, things meant to be positive could be viewed as, “Potentially libelous.”
If, “Potentially libelous,” is going to be a standard for thread removal, at the request of any Administrator, I’ll get to work putting together a list of the other hundreds, perhaps as many as a thousand, threads that need to be deleted.
Quote: MrVBBB wants to save darkoz from himself.
Too late for that, about 30 years..
IANAL. I've not seen anything that I know to be libellous, but then what do I know about US law. BBB has my opinion and has correctly (IMHO) referred this to site superiors. I don't know her motives, but I believe they are sincere.Quote: MrVBBB wants to bust / delete the darkoz thread of woe, claiming it is potentially libelous.
She's asking for the other mods to weigh in and she has closed the thread, so I'll comment here.
I suspect the thread will be busted, not because of concerns about potential libel but because BBB wants to save darkoz from himself.
Heart of gold, fist of iron.
But, also, it'd be hard to prove that untruths were knowingly told with a desire to cause harm when no identities were divulged.
Quote: rdw4potus
But, also, it'd be hard to prove that untruths were knowingly told with a desire to cause harm when no identities were divulged.
More importantly, any statement one person makes about another could be construed as, “Potentially libelous/slanderous,” under this standard.
And even if it is, why is that a problem for the forum?
This is just an impossible standard to hold to.
Quote: beachbumbabsI appreciate you all weighing in, but this won't be up to a forum vote. And we have, in the past, deleted posts that seem libelous, are obvious spam, and/or violate fair use standards from other publications. So there is precedent. I just don't think I should act unilaterally, so I have asked for an internal review.
With all due respect, what is the standard for, “Seems libelous?”
First, the thread is obviously not Spam, so that’s irrelevant. Second, if this story has been published elsewhere prior to here, that might be a reason.
I can understand why we wouldn’t allow Doxxing and why things could get hairy if we’re talking about one Forum Member talking about another...but if relating events and accounts is going to be grounds for removal under, “Potentially libelous,” then anything is potentially libelous.
Would we only be allowed to discuss events that have nothing to do with other people? I think you could make a case for removing the pictures of the guy, but that’d be about it.
Quote: OnceDearI don't know her motives, but I believe they are sincere.
I think it's brilliant..
In fact long personal issue threads almost always end up here sooner or later.
Not commenting on the veracity either way.
Quote: RSThere was what, 3 suspensions and probably 2 others that were likely borderline suspensions? All in what, like 10 hours or something? Yeah, probably best to close that thread for that reason by itself, let alone any other potential libelious or however you say that word stuff.
Closing it and deleting it are two different things.
I don’t particularly think it should even be closed, many threads have resulted in multiple suspensions, but I probably wouldn’t have said anything about it just being closed. It’s deleting the entire thing I take issue with rather than just deleting the only part (the albeit edited pictures of the fiancé) that could qualify as Doxxing. Certainly posting private pictures without permission of the party in the picture.
Anyway, my primary issue is with the notion of deleting the entire thread. I don’t see what possible reason there is for that under the Rules. Is there some stuff posted on there that APs might rather not see said? Sure. We have this whole freedom of speech thing within the confines of the laws of this country, and more specifically, the rules of the Forum. I can’t see what Rules the thread itself violates.
Quote: GWAEAlways makes me chuckle when a SM gets suspended
SM?
Quote: tringlomaneSM?
Mmm... I'm going with senior member? can't come up with anything else.
Quote: rainmanMmm... I'm going with senior member? can't come up with anything else.
Secret Mod. Most of us are one.
What a pile of road apples that decision was.
Nothing libelous, and darkoz wanted it posted.
What, are we children?
Quote: MrVWow, the thread's deleted.
What a pile of road apples that decision was.
Nothing libelous, and darkoz wanted it posted.
What, are we children?
It’s not deleted, I don’t think, but I believe it’s presently hidden.
“But, casino staff reads the forum.”
I’ll tell you this, nobody is going to be reading the Forum if we never talk about anything. That’s especially true when it comes to AP considering we kind of earned a reputation as, “The AP Forum.”
Anyway, I wrote that article pertaining to MC’ing awhile back (not being Master of Ceremonies) who do I need to ask whether I can leave that up or if it should be deleted?
FTR: If there are individual posts that could be edited, I could see how a few posts might be on shaky ground as relates the rules. But, the entire thread?
Quote: MrVBBB wants to bust / delete the darkoz thread of woe, claiming it is potentially libelous.
She's asking for the other mods to weigh in and she has closed the thread, so I'll comment here.
I suspect the thread will be busted, not because of concerns about potential libel but because BBB wants to save darkoz from himself.
Heart of gold, fist of iron.
Just glad I got to read it. Most interesting thread in a while, if darkoz willingly posted it, why bring it down? His choice.
Quote: Mission146It’s not deleted, I don’t think, but I believe it’s presently hidden.
“But, casino staff reads the forum.”
I’ll tell you this, nobody is going to be reading the Forum if we never talk about anything. That’s especially true when it comes to AP considering we kind of earned a reputation as, “The AP Forum.”
Anyway, I wrote that article pertaining to MC’ing awhile back (not being Master of Ceremonies) who do I need to ask whether I can leave that up or if it should be deleted?
FTR: If there are individual posts that could be edited, I could see how a few posts might be on shaky ground as relates the rules. But, the entire thread?
Oh yea you can go back to the thread if you have a link (look in your browser history)
Quote: MrVWow, the thread's deleted.
What a pile of road apples that decision was.
Nothing libelous, and darkoz wanted it posted.
What, are we children?
It's not deleted.
It's in hidden status awaiting Mike's review. That may take a day or two.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's not deleted.
It's in hidden status awaiting Mike's review. That may take a day or two.
Wizard posted in it several times and even claimed to make bets on the outcome of the theft. How can he do that and then say the thread should be deleted?
Quote: unJonThe undercurrent here that it may also be about disclosing too much about multicarding makes it feel a bit unseemly. The dark side understands the play. So removing it would be about preventing the spread of other APs doing it.
Bingo.
Those few here who AP that way want to keep it to themselves.
Greedy Gusses.
Quote: unJonThe undercurrent here that it may also be about disclosing too much about multicarding makes it feel a bit unseemly. The dark side understands the play. So removing it would be about preventing the spread of other APs doing it.
And casino supervisors, some of them read
this forum too. But that horse has already left
the barn, too late to close the door. That
thread has been up for days, it's been seen
by everybody who's going to see it. I'm sure
it wised up more than a couple casino people
who didn't even know about this AP play. Oh
well, loose lips sink ships.
Quote: randompersonWizard posted in it several times and even claimed to make bets on the outcome of the theft. How can he do that and then say the thread should be deleted?
To be fair, Wizard’s last post was on page 27 out of 46 total. I don’t know when all of Zcore’s crazy accusations started, but I’m pretty sure those were in the last 5-10 pages. I’m kinda surprised Zcore only got 2 days for that.
Quote: EvenBobAnd casino supervisors, some of them read
this forum too. But that horse has already left
the barn, too late to close the door. That
thread has been up for days, it's been seen
by everybody who's going to see it. I'm sure
it wised up more than a couple casino people
who didn't even know about this AP play. Oh
well, loose lips sink ships.
Any Casino person who does not know that play should not be anyone that an AP needs to worry about.
Quote: randompersonWizard posted in it several times and even claimed to make bets on the outcome of the theft. How can he do that and then say the thread should be deleted?
Wizard hasn't read it yet. It's on hold until he does. One of 4 things will happen after that.
It will be reopened unredacted.
It will be scrubbed and reopened.
It will be scrubbed and remain closed.
It will be deleted.
Patience, please.
Quote: BozSecret Mod. Most of us are one.
Is that why Bob never gets suspended?
Quote: randompersonWizard posted in it several times and even claimed to make bets on the outcome of the theft. How can he do that and then say the thread should be deleted?
I doubt he will. He lets the Trump thread go on. I personally don't care either way. I read it and enjoyed it.
Quote: FCBLComishAny Casino person who does not know that play should not be anyone that an AP needs to worry about.
You would be amazed at what some of them
know and don't know. They are often very lazy
and don't try and keep up on things. But when
something comes into their radar, they can be
bulldog tenacious about looking into it.
Quote: tringlomaneIs that why Bob never gets suspended?
What would I be suspended for, exactly.
I was suspended here once, in 2012,
for saying something about Nareed
and the movie Tootsie. I'm still fighting
that in family court..
Quote: beachbumbabsWizard hasn't read it yet. It's on hold until he does. One of 4 things will happen after that.
It will be reopened unredacted.
It will be scrubbed and reopened.
It will be scrubbed and remain closed.
It will be deleted.
Patience, please.
I think it was the best and most informative WOV thread I can remember. The Wizard himself participated in it as did Mission. I have no idea what kind of chat forum BBB wants to have (and frankly I don't care). I think she is totally out of sync with the forum on this decision.
