Discussion II about the Suspension List
Quote: AxelWolfThat's exactly what you should have said to the person who complained about Max's Avatar,
No. I and others were told
we cannot have a political
leader as an avatar. Max had
Putin as his, why was he exempt.
If he can have Putin, I want my
mine back.
To make everybody happy I'm
using Mike's mooning gnome
as my new avatar. Enjoy!
I personally didn't even notice this about Trump, all I got from it was the media was not being calm and accurate, losing credibility. I really have to rack my brain to see how this works any more, it doesn't even seem to be at a conscious level someone could even see the political statement. It makes me pretty uncomfortable to have so much pressure where 1 little minor comment can get you suspended you don't even pay attention to yourself. I don't have a political sense of awareness, I don't like getting into it, so maybe that's why I can't see what others are excited about, because I don't care about fighting or thinking we make any difference beyond being pawns. It's too much work to summarize everything for me, I'll probably just wind up in the category of people not posting anymore out of fear or suspensions.Quote: WizardI agree with what he said in that video. He even had Ann Coulter smiling and laughing. However, there was a dig at Trump in there and his whole show is very political.
I recommend to the forum if you agree with what somebody else says about something, don't just throw out a link, but restate their opinion in your own words.
Looks like a homeless gnome prostitute. LOL.Quote: WizardHere is one of my garden gnomes. The strange thing about him is he was white when born but his skin turned brown over time under the bright Vegas sun.
Quote: WizardHere is one of my garden gnomes. The strange thing about him is he was white when born but his skin turned brown over time under the bright Vegas sun.
He got a suntan.
Quote: EvenBobTo make everybody happy I'm
using Mike's mooning gnome
as my new avatar. Enjoy!
The other one was better/funnier.
Harder to see what this one actually is in tiny avatar-size.
Ha. All this time, until people started posting about it, I thought Max's avatar was Robert Blake!Quote: AxelWolfWould a doppelganger Avatar of Putin be against the rules?
Quote: JoemanHa. All this time, until people started posting about it, I thought Max's avatar was Robert Blake!
At first I thought that was someone else, don't want to upset m**n f*hr*r saying who it looks like.
PS Think the gnome is female with a beard.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey do have equal rights. But thank you for agreeing it is a political statement. Can we have them taken off of avatars now?
My "gay flag" has been changed for months... (in fact I even removed my prior avatar of Fort Pulaski to avoid political implications).... (All voluntarily).....
Nobody else here has such a flag to my knowledge....
You keep drawing out strawmen to single out certain groups that you disdain which is fine, but at least be consistent....
Quote: GandlerMy "gay flag" has been changed for months... (in fact I even removed my prior avatar of Fort Pulaski to avoid political implications).... (All voluntarily).....
Nobody else here has such a flag to my knowledge....
You keep drawing out strawmen to single out certain groups that you disdain which is fine, but at least be consistent....
I saw one just a few weeks ago, I forget who it was. That is why I mentioned it.
ONM. It's very strongly implied here that you are likening a senior moderator here as similar to adolf hitler. That sir is a serious personal insult in my book. You 'starred it' but that did nothing to mask the insult.Quote: onenickelmiracleAt first I thought that was someone else, don't want to upset m**n f*hr*r saying who it looks like.
Now these are tense times and I don't want to suspend anyone. Nor do I think it's right that we should be 'treading on eggshells over the topic of avatar policy.
So here it is, in my opinion. All members should respect the moderators decision to tolerate or not tolerate avatars as they see fit. We discuss such decisions amongst ourselves and take SOME consideration of member opinions. But this topic is settled.
As to ONM's insult, I'm imposing a suspended sentence of 14 days. That sentence may be imposed at Wizard's discretion.
ONM really should know better and maybe he SHOULD think twice before any controversy or doubt in his posts because he is now lined up for 28 days for even a trivial infraction..
Quote: onenickelmiracle
PS Think the gnome is female with a beard.
Singing "This Is Me"
Quote: AZDuffmanI saw one just a few weeks ago, I forget who it was. That is why I mentioned it.
I can't claim to have read every post over the last several months. But, I have never seen one except for my former one (I would probably remeber because it would catch my eye).
So clearly all of the posts on here asking for them to be banned refer to me, which has been a moot point for months (long before the formal ban...)
Before I removed any Avatar I had Fort Pulaski for a while, but my pride flag has not been visible for months (and I had pretty much the same avatar for years without any drama because the pic I used to overlay it was from 2014 or 2015 I beleive, I think at one point I briefly changed the flag overlay to France because of Charlie Hebdo -Ironically I changed it to support free speech at that time- , but then changed it back to the standard Pride overlay).....
People only cared after the politcal ban last fall..... It was never a problem before that (except for a few snide comments in the past, but I don't care)...
I would go back to the default and say, just go back to the old way and remove all avatars, because it just causes drama and people debate who should be allowed what, using vague terms and discretionary reasoning..... I plan on keeping no Avatar. (Unless people keep petitioning for pride flags to be banned in which case I may change it back until if/when the formal ban is enacted just as a statement).....
Quote: AxelWolfThat's exactly what you should have said to the person who complained about Max's Avatar, and for that matter, anyone who's ever complained about someone else's Avatar that wasn't x-rated or significantly/obviously offensive.
For me, and probably some others.... this this isn't really about Bob's Avatar. It's about the other people that were forced to take theirs down. There's 21 people offended by Bob's Avatar, so let's be fair and have him take his down. Do you think there's 21 people that were offended by the Putin Avatar? I don't see how a rainbow flag isn't political(?)
I asked before, does it matter what the actual Avatar is or does it matter what it represents? Would a doppelganger Avatar of Putin be against the rules?
I like your avatar Ax. It is amazing!
Why, thank you.Quote: WatchMeWinI like your avatar Ax. It is amazing!
temporarily replacing the
mooning gnome with a pic
of me in my new persona.
A black spandex headband
for a mask and a Harley hat.
I have over 300 Harley hats
to choose from, I can wear
a different one every time
I leave the house.
Quote: MintyI've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't envy the mods here.
Thank you.
Quote: MintyI've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't envy the mods here.
Why do you say that? I think they bring a lot
of the criticism on themselves.
For instance there's a member who just created a
second account here after a 4 year hiatus and the
mods allow him to continue posting. Anybody else
would have had both accounts nuked immediately
for multiple accounts. Those who selectively enforce
the forum rules are just begging to be criticized.
Well, that doesn't make the fake Alan Mendelson feel any better. LOLLLLLLLL :):):):):):)Quote: alan.mendelsonI'm sorry if I did something wrong but all I did was open my account using the Facebook app. By the way, unlike those of you who are anonymous I'm using my real photo, real name, real Facebook account so I'm not hiding anything.
Please try to behave yourself, Alan.
Welcome back. Have you personally witnessed anything interesting in the past 4 years?Quote: AlanMendelsonThank you Wizard. I should have checked with you first.
Quote: PuckerbuttWelcome back. Have you personally witnessed anything interesting in the past 4 years?
Nope.
Quote: WizardWhat I assume is going on here is Alan is asking to end his voluntary self-suspension, which was requested on Jan 8, 2016. Making another account is not how one is supposed to ask to return, but at least Alan is not trying to deceive anybody. So, I am banning this account and unbanning AlanMendelson, without a period.
Please try to behave yourself, Alan.
Wow a 4 year self suspension.
I wonder who is now serving the longest ongoing self suspension.
Quote: billryanWhat is the point of someone self suspending?
For some they need to break the habit and it is like the self-exclusion list.
If the old issues return the same arguments would return. Nothing would change.
If they come up again I'll walk away again. There are other things in life that are more important.
I also stopped posting at another forum because I tired of the same arguments and same misstatements being repeated by the same people.
you might be in luck in that alot of old members have been banned/left because of one reason or another in those 4 years.Quote: AlanMendelsonNo. It wasnt self exclusion. I just got tired of arguing the same things over and over again including the same misstatements over and over again.
If the old issues return the same arguments would return. Nothing would change.
If they come up again I'll walk away again. There are other things in life that are more important.
I also stopped posting at another forum because I tired of the same arguments and same misstatements being repeated by the same people.
and geez.. it's been 4yrs?
wow.. i've been on this forum for 8?
and it's been around 2 decades since the Wiz replied to one of my emails to him?
i'm getting old. :(
Just ignore all of that stuff if it comes up again. Don't engage. I know it's easier said than done.Quote: AlanMendelsonNo. It wasnt self exclusion. I just got tired of arguing the same things over and over again including the same misstatements over and over again.
If the old issues return the same arguments would return. Nothing would change.
If they come up again I'll walk away again. There are other things in life that are more important.
I also stopped posting at another forum because I tired of the same arguments and same misstatements being repeated by the same people.
Rule 19Quote: zippyboyWhy is sevencard2003 suspended?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/34540-when-will-casinos-open/9/#post766006
I was tempted to cite rule 18 too.
With 19 rules, some must be broken more than others.
How about anytime the Powers That Be add a rule, they void out whichever rule is the least broken.
Nineteen rules seems a bit of overkill. I bet we can function just as well with 18, or maybe even 17.
if an unhinged rant violates both rule 18 and rule 19, why do we need both of them?
If the Creator of the Universe thinks man only needs ten rules, why do we need nineteen
I'd be happy with one $:o)Quote: billryan...If the Creator of the Universe thinks man only needs ten rules, why do we need nineteen
What the hell is rule 19? I'm not sure what he said that was so bad, I almost think I agree with him. Perhaps I better read it again before I say that.Quote: OnceDearI'd be happy with one $:o)
The UK probably started the virus and blamed it on China.
Quote: billryanA modest proposal.
With 19 rules, some must be broken more than others.
How about anytime the Powers That Be add a rule, they void out whichever rule is the least broken.
Nineteen rules seems a bit of overkill. I bet we can function just as well with 18, or maybe even 17.
if an unhinged rant violates both rule 18 and rule 19, why do we need both of them?
If the Creator of the Universe thinks man only needs ten rules, why do we need nineteen
I just reviewed the rules list, for the first time ever.
It’s actually difficult to find one that could be removed. They all make sense. Maybe some could be combined.
As for which one has been broken the fewest times , probably the one about misquoting.
Quote: michael99000I just reviewed the rules list, for the first time ever.
It’s actually difficult to find one that could be removed. They all make sense. Maybe some could be combined.
As for which one has been broken the fewest times , probably the one about misquoting.
Was I on there for being untouchable? I've been touched, haven't had the time to check. Think there might be a rule against me saying that, might have had a talking to, might not have, I forget.
Quote: 100xOddsyou might be in luck in that alot of old members have been banned/left because of one reason or another in those 4 years.
and geez.. it's been 4yrs?
wow.. i've been on this forum for 8?
and it's been around 2 decades since the Wiz replied to one of my emails to him?
i'm getting old. :(
Actually I'm sorry some of the old members aren't here anymore. Recently someone who I supported online about his controversial plays confessed to me that he lied, duped me, and used me in a plot to cover what may have been illegal.
Quote: AlanMendelsonActually I'm sorry some of the old members aren't here anymore. Recently someone who I supported online about his controversial plays confessed to me that he lied, duped me, and used me in a plot to cover what may have been illegal.
That sounds juicy. Do tell!
Quote: AlanMendelsonI want permission from an administrator. I don't want to cause a problem.
That's sort of hard to give blindly. We discourage quotes from previously banned members, for example, if this person is one of those. Otoh, if you got used, it would be worth knowing the scam in order for others to avoid it, if that's part of the story.
Perhaps you want to tell Mike, or me, or OD? Or review the rules and keep your story clear of violating them? I'll be happy to correspond with you via PM if you want, about any questions you might have.
The previous banned member is Rob Singer, he would be considered a public figure(?) I'm not sure if that changes anything.Quote: beachbumbabsThat's sort of hard to give blindly. We discourage quotes from previously banned members, for example, if this person is one of those. Otoh, if you got used, it would be worth knowing the scam in order for others to avoid it, if that's part of the story.
Perhaps you want to tell Mike, or me, or OD? Or review the rules and keep your story clear of violating them? I'll be happy to correspond with you via PM if you want, about any questions you might have.
Quote: AxelWolfThe previous banned member is Rob Singer, he would be considered a public figure(?) I'm not sure if that changes anything.
Thanks. It's under discussion.
Quote: beachbumbabsThanks. It's under discussion.
We are exchanging messages and yes I asked that my messages be forwarded to Mike for his decision.
I put something on my own personal website which made it a public discussion.
By the way, the other party in an article he wrote, admitted to his liability for possibly committing a crime and says in his article that he went public only when he believed the statute of limitations prevented his prosecution. So this point of violating law should not be an issue in deciding whether to make this public on your site.
given rob singer's reputation, i'm surprised you supported him?Quote: AlanMendelsonWe are exchanging messages and yes I asked that my messages be forwarded to Mike for his decision.
I put something on my own personal website which made it a public discussion.
By the way, the other party in an article he wrote, admitted to his liability for possibly committing a crime and says in his article that he went public only when he believed the statute of limitations prevented his prosecution. So this point of violating law should not be an issue in deciding whether to make this public on your site.
Quote: AlanMendelsonWe are exchanging messages and yes I asked that my messages be forwarded to Mike for his decision.
I put something on my own personal website which made it a public discussion.
By the way, the other party in an article he wrote, admitted to his liability for possibly committing a crime and says in his article that he went public only when he believed the statute of limitations prevented his prosecution. So this point of violating law should not be an issue in deciding whether to make this public on your site.
Thanks for offering to share with us. And also thanks for checking with the moderators first if you were concerned about the appropriateness.
Quite frankly, it is discussions that you are (hopefully) about to bring up that attract many to this site. Not what EvenBob had for lunch yesterday.
Assuming Rob Singer is telling the truth and he played the double up bug(for those who don't know, that's what he's claiming). That was not illegal. Did he know that at the time? According to his own statements he waited until after the statutes of limitations were up before he revealed what he claims he was actually doing. Given that fact, even he wasn't sure what he was doing was illegal or not, so you can take issue with that. But please don't claim what he was doing was illegal just because it sounds worse for him and helps your case.Quote: AlanMendelsonWe are exchanging messages and yes I asked that my messages be forwarded to Mike for his decision.
I put something on my own personal website which made it a public discussion.
By the way, the other party in an article he wrote, admitted to his liability for possibly committing a crime and says in his article that he went public only when he believed the statute of limitations prevented his prosecution. So this point of violating law should not be an issue in deciding whether to make this public on your site.
Let's assume Rob did admit his video poker system didn't work and it was all a ruse and order to hide what he was actually doing would his books and or whatever he wrote regarding his system be considered fraudulent? I'm thinking not, but it sure the hell should be.
Would you have a legitimate legal case against him if you could prove he caused you damages to your reputation and the time it took for you to promote his system, books, and whatever else he was doing with all that?
But that wasn't the issue with me.
The issue with me is that I was told the player had ten years of wins that totaled a million dollars from a unique system that others could learn. But later I was told that was not true. Only about $300,000 over three years came from the unique system.
There's a big difference in seven years and $700,000.
