Discussion II about the Suspension List
Quote: redietz
So I have a few thoughts. First of all, I think it was crystal clear the Branson crack was a joke. It obviously implies that Marcus was gambling in Branson, won as he to-this-point always has reported, and then stayed because Branson hookers have weekly rates. I don't see how this could be taken seriously as Branson HAS NO CASINOS. Now one would think a security expert employed at a midwestern casino might know this, or a mod employed by WoV might know this, but I guess not. Draw your own conclusions.
redietz, interesting post with a lot to think on. I don’t understand the above though. You think people should have reasoned out the above and realized “Branson hookers” is necessarily a joke because it’s common knowledge Branson doesn’t have casinos (though presumably they do have hookers)?
I didn’t even know Branson was a place. I thought Branson must be a type of hooker I never heard of. So I went to urbandictionary.com (a real go to for anyone wanting to stay hip on innuendo) and found Branson: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Branson
Make what sense of that you will.
Now that I see it’s a place, I googled it this morning. First hit is a town in the Ozarks with a population of 11,416 (as of 2019). Doesn’t seem famous for anything let alone being famous for not having a casino.
;-)
Anyway, there was nothing in Gordon's post to imply that any of this wouldn't have been consensual. Secondly, Rule 19 didn't exist yet, so there was not a blanket rule against talk of a sexually charged nature at the time, nor a rule against controversial non-gambling subjects, in general.
In other words, while it may be a highly questionable post and one that Gordon may well like to have back, I'd have to conclude that it did NOT break any forum rule whatsoever that existed at the time. BECAUSE it broke no Forum Rule that existed at the time, there is no reason that it would disqualify a person from being a mod.
Quote: Mission146and even knowing THAT the mod would have to know that Branson is on a lake, not a river.
As far as I know, Table Rock Lake is part of the White River, which is a tributary of the Mississippi River.
I'm not fully versed in Missouri riverboat laws, but it's plausible to me that a permanently docked casino boat could be sited near Branson, even if none are there now.
As for the rest... Marcus Clark took it as a personal insult. He believed that the implication defamed him personally.
It would appear that redietz is getting offended on someone else's behalf by a general statement (not specifically directed at him nor his family) that was made some time ago. I have not read the alleged offensive post, but these other considerations would be factors.
Quote: redietz
So I have a few thoughts. First of all, I think it was crystal clear the Branson crack was a joke. It obviously implies that Marcus was gambling in Branson, won as he to-this-point always has reported, and then stayed because Branson hookers have weekly rates. I don't see how this could be taken seriously as Branson HAS NO CASINOS. Now one would think a security expert employed at a midwestern casino might know this, or a mod employed by WoV might know this, but I guess not. Draw your own conclusions.
Just to add a little more to what readers should or should not know on any given subject as pertaining to your opinions redietz I am going to add this bit of fact that took place a few weeks ago on another site.
In a political debate where it is not unusual for people to often get into heated discussions. You became upset with me on a position that I thought you were ignoring, where you stated that your position has now changed on that matter. Privately you let me know in no uncertain terms that if I had been reading the stories in your blog that I clearly would have known your position changed.
Quote: DieterAs far as I know, Table Rock Lake is part of the White River, which is a tributary of the Mississippi River.
I'm not fully versed in Missouri riverboat laws, but it's plausible to me that a permanently docked casino boat could be sited near Branson, even if none are there now.
As for the rest... Marcus Clark took it as a personal insult. He believed that the implication defamed him personally.
It would appear that redietz is getting offended on someone else's behalf by a general statement (not specifically directed at him nor his family) that was made some time ago. I have not read the alleged offensive post, but these other considerations would be factors.
Even if that's true, then it's the wrong river. Current state law says that a riverboat casino must be on the Missouri or Mississippi River directly. Just last year, there was a vote in order to allow a casino to be built on the Osage River...or supposed to be a vote...but I don't know if the vote ended up happening.
Hold on, I'll look now:
Okay, it's stalled for the time being:
https://www.lakenewsonline.com/story/news/2021/04/01/possibility-osage-river-casino-remains-dim-but-still-afloat/4848002001/
They have to pass a Constitutional Amendment to be publicly voted upon that will accomplish, I presume, two things:
1.) It would have to allow a casino on the Osage River specifically, or in the alternative, to allow Riverboat casinos on any river in the state. It could also get rid of the need to even be on a river, but I would think that St. Louis and Kansas City (population) would shut that down really quick. Can't imagine they'd want their casinos to have the competition.
2.) The Constitutional Amendment would have to allow for more than thirteen licensed casinos in the state, which is the current maximum and which is how many are presently licensed.
So, even if the lake is a river (?) it's the wrong river.
If MarcusClark directly stated that he took the comment that he was going to lay up with hookers for a week as an insult, then I really don't see what choice there is by the letter of the rules. Some might say that's the sort of joking insult that they would not complain about---but people are certainly in their rights to complain about anything they perceive as an insult.
Quote: Mission146It's an extremely popular tourist destination...mostly if the tourist is a redneck.
As a redneck I am offended. By being called a tourist:)
Quote: redietzRegarding Marcus Clark's last alleged (and still unreported) casino foray, OnceDear wrote,"Must have been good, 'coz he's still out celebrating a week later." I responded with, "Doesn't surprise me, both that he won and hasn't reported. Those Branson hookers come with a weekly rate."
Gordon then suspended me because, "Your comment does not appear to have been part of a joking, friendly exchange."
So I have a few thoughts. First of all, I think it was crystal clear the Branson crack was a joke. It obviously implies that Marcus was gambling in Branson, won as he to-this-point always has reported, and then stayed because Branson hookers have weekly rates. I don't see how this could be taken seriously as Branson HAS NO CASINOS. Now one would think a security expert employed at a midwestern casino might know this, or a mod employed by WoV might know this, but I guess not. Draw your own conclusions.
Second point. A mod suspends me for a hooker joke because someone complained it was offensive? And the same mod recommended that if people got their hands on $5 million, they should shoot for "the trifecta" involving (1) paying identical twins for sex, (2) paying a dwarf for sex, and 3) paying a double amputee for sex. I guess mods have their own definitions of offensive. I had no idea "the trifecta" was a thing.
Third point: Does gordon really believe nobody reading WoV found that post of his offensive? For personal reasons, I found it highly offensive, nauseating in fact. I have not seen a statute of limitations in the beloved rules, so allow me to file a formal complaint. I am highly offended. Perhaps gordon could suspend himself a few days.
Finally, what does it say about WoV that someone with gordon's nonchalant offensive history was chosen as a moderator? The double amputee crack suggests some sick asymmetric power fantasy. Perhaps, to some extent, moderating also fits that bill.
redietz
It is true that in that one post (from years ago) that I repeated an outrageous joke that I had heard from a popular comedian about a so-called sexual trifecta, perhaps alluding to existing but weird subcategories of pornography. It was not meant to be taken seriously and the joke was not originated by me. I agree that, in retrospect, it was not funny. But I will clarify: it was not a personal statement of my aspirations. As I seem to remember, not a single moderator or other member commented on it either way at the time. (I also don't recall the wording of that long-ago post with perfect accuracy, but I also don't think that I referred to "paying for sex" as you state, which is germane to the matter at hand.)
Quote: redietzGordon then suspended me because, "Your comment does not appear to have been part of a joking, friendly exchange."
That was not the entirety of what I said and I am not appreciative of you quoting a snippet of my ruling out of context. It is true that when I deliberated on your comment, I tried to discern whether you had an intent to insult the other party or whether it was part of a friendly exchange such as when AxelWolf kids pokergrinder and Romes about sleeping together, and they respond by kidding AxelWolf about his tranny hookers. In your defense, I pointed out these sorts of exchanges (which don't result in suspensions) with another moderator, but he and I did both concluded that your post was not part of such a joking, friendly exchange. We also determined that the other party felt insulted by your comment.
As a matter of practice, an appeal of a suspension is more effective when it is made:
- before the suspension is concluded
- as a PM to a moderator.
However, though labeled as an "appeal" your post is clearly not an appeal. IMO, it is an angry, even vengeful attack on a moderator in retaliation for a 3-day suspension.
I will allow other moderators to address this situation.
Quote: Mission146
So, even if the lake is a river (?) it's the wrong river.
Sorry, my misremembering of the definition of a lake.
My recollection was that a lake had to have an inflowage and an outflowage, making it essentially a wide spot in a river.
And, uhh, I am not fully versed on Missouri riverboat laws. I guess that show Ozark may have taken some creative license.
Quote: gordonm888
As a matter of practice, an appeal of a suspension is more effective when it is made:
- before the suspension is concluded
- as a PM to a moderator.
I'll point out that suspension revokes PM sending privileges. But I'm easy to reach at DT, or a couple of other forums.
Redeitz post was clearly retaliatory mentioning a 6 year old post that another troll had located for him ( I doubt Redeitz had sought it out himself)Quote:However, though labeled as an "appeal" your post is clearly not an appeal. IMO, it is an angry, even vengeful attack on a moderator in retaliation for a 3-day suspension.
I will allow other moderators to address this situation.
That 6 year old post was cringeworthy by today's standard, but back then had broken no rules.No case to answer. The body of Gordon's contribution to this forum is more than enough to see him in the sort of good standing expected of a moderator.
TBH, I was disappointed that Redeitz claimed any merit for his complaint.
Quote: Mission146I found Gordon's highly questionable post from more than six years ago...do you have a dossier you keep, or something? How on Earth can you just instantly remember a post from over six years ago? You'd have to have something like a file that you keep on every single poster just in case they become a mod.
Anyway, there was nothing in Gordon's post to imply that any of this wouldn't have been consensual. Secondly, Rule 19 didn't exist yet, so there was not a blanket rule against talk of a sexually charged nature at the time, nor a rule against controversial non-gambling subjects, in general.
In other words, while it may be a highly questionable post and one that Gordon may well like to have back, I'd have to conclude that it did NOT break any forum rule whatsoever that existed at the time. BECAUSE it broke no Forum Rule that existed at the time, there is no reason that it would disqualify a person from being a mod.
I will say that I have made >2300 posts on this forum and there are a large number that I am proud of and several that I do regret. The post in question was made about 6 years ago, when I was new to the forum and struggling to find my voice and a sense of what was appropriate. I repeated a joke I had heard a comedian make. I believe the comedian had been referring to weird sub-genres of pornography (which are available via a google search - and none of which appear to be portrayed as hurtful or objectionably "assymmetric" as redietz claims.)
But, yes, you are correct, it has indeed become a post I regret, almost from the moment I posted it. It was locker-room humor about weird stuff that none of us ever do.
I had nothing to do with this one way or another, I was just commenting on that with REDietz you may expect a certain form of posts from him, not that I like or approve of them always, but this one wasn't all that bad in my opinion.
Nice try MDawg.Quote: MDawgWho found the post for REDietz? Whoever found it, you are calling him/her a troll, and, are you importing drama from another forum?
I had nothing to do with this one way or another, I was just commenting on that with REDietz you may expect a certain form of posts from him, not that I like or approve of them always, but this one wasn't all that bad in my opinion.
You know very well who found it for him. I'm not importing that drama from the other forum. When the troll could not resist joining this forum and posted here, he imported it for us. He was a troll here. He was nuked here.
Post got deleted when I nuked him.
Quote: gordonm888But, yes, you are correct, it has indeed become a post I regret, almost from the moment I posted it.
You are appropriately contrite; as penance for your sins you must say three Hail Mary's, two Our Fathers, and not suspend anyone for three days.
Quote: MrVYou are appropriately contrite; as penance for your sins you must say three Hail Mary's, two Our Fathers, and not suspend anyone for three days.
You forgot at least one Act of Contrition.
Quote: WizardYou forgot at least one Act of Contrition.
LOL, I thought you were going to impose pushup's.
I'm an atheist now but those nuns sure did beat morality into me via guilt.
MrV & Wizard are reminded to review rule 19Quote: WizardYou forgot at least one Act of Contrition.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/2-forum-rules/#post37215
$:o)
Oops.
Back to the straight and narrow ...
Not so much you MrV... But moderators are held to a ... LOL.Quote: MrVUnderstood, but really there's nothing controversial about it, but yeah, you got us...technically.
Oops.
Back to the straight and narrow ...
Seen it, done it.
Quote: MrVYou are correct however, as a bit of harmless banter, if left unchecked, could quickly lead to a blizzard of B.S.
Seen it, done it.
Agree. Nothing was done wrong here, in my opinion. However, I try to NEVER bring up politics or religion. Innocent conversations usually escalate quickly!
Mwalz... Chill. It was a joke.Quote: mwalz9Agree. Nothing was done wrong here, in my opinion. However, I try to NEVER bring up politics or religion. Innocent conversations usually escalate quickly!
Quote: OnceDearMwalz... Chill. It was a joke.
Huh? I am chill as can be!
Confused, but chill.
Gordon seems to have been encouraging chill like behavior though.
I do not agree with anyone's attempt to interpret people returning to the forum as some sort of failure in honesty in the people that have returned. I don't appreciate anyone trying to shame people because they have returned. (Note, I'm not saying its a rules violation in and of itself because that depends on how it is worded- I'm just saying that I don't appreciate it because I think its wrong and counterproductive on several levels.)
I am glad that mwalz9 came back to the forum.
I am glad that kewlj came back to the forum (and welcome back from the phantom zone.)
Has anyone noticed some of the great content MDawg has recently been posting on rooms in Vegas hotels and on Baccarat tournament strategy? Thank you, MDawg!
I am not asking people to sit around a campfire and chant kumb-baa-yah with people that you are sore at, but I am asking that you act like the very intelligent adults that you are.
And I made just the one post above do not plan to comment further on any of that.
I AM NOT LEAVING! The good here outweighs the bad. I like the friemds I have here more than I dislike anyine or anything. Multiple people asked me to not leave and I did. I try to be chill, but then someone tries to.poke at me, and then chill I am not.
You and I will NEVER be friends here.
You never lose. I lose the house edge.
You are rich. I have average income.
You take vitamins. I smoke cigarettes.
We are different and thats OK.
We both bring value here at times. We both decrease the value here at times.
How about you leave me alone and Ill reciprocate the offer. Lets just ignore each other and not act like children!
Deal?
In the spirit of this, perhaps more content related posts from you at The Adventures of MDawg instead of just "das bezweifle ich" would be nice too. Thanks!
Quote: MDawgDeal.
In the spirit of this, perhaps more content related posts from you at The Adventures of MDawg instead of just "das bezweifle ich" would be nice too. Thanks!
I believe in the spirit of this, I'll just stay out of The Adventures of MDawg!
;0)
Quote: gordonm888I confess that it hurts me and my vision of what this forum can be when people leave this forum in anger, vowing never to return. And I am delighted when someone who has angrily decided to leave the forum subsequently changes his mind and announces they are returning. I view such a change as something that is good.
I agree with this. I have a number of times vowed to leave different forums, including this one, only to return. It isn't so much about leaving 'in anger' as temporary frustration that has built up. If later, even if it is a short time later, someone changes their mind and returns, in most ccase I view that as a good thing. Of course any detractors will make a big deal of it because that is what they do.
It appeared to be hijacking at the time.
It could easily be construed as bullying/trolling.
It definitely seems out of line under my open definition of "conduct unbecoming", which falls under Rule 0.
Rule 0:
Quote:The administration reserves the right to punish any activity it deems disruptive to the forum, whether against these rules or not.
I'm open to hear reasoned dissent on the matter.
Quote: DieterFollowing a rare pang of thoughtfulness after the fact, mdawg's current suspension may not have had the appropriate rule cited.
It appeared to be hijacking at the time.
It could easily be construed as bullying/trolling.
It definitely seems out of line under my open definition of "conduct unbecoming", which falls under Rule 0.
Rule 0:Quote:The administration reserves the right to punish any activity it deems disruptive to the forum, whether against these rules or not.
I'm open to hear reasoned dissent on the matter.
I think that certain discussions with certain posters are such that you can just, "Take the temperature," and sort of let it go for a little bit given the high probability that there will be an infraction where the ban doesn't even need to be explained.
For any other poster, I'd consider a ban for what occurred in that thread on fairly shaky ground that, at worst, should have yielded a soft warning if Administration was not inclined just to let the poster eventually bury himself. That said, there's something to be said for the precedent that posters who have already been banned several times not getting much leeway.
Another alternative might have been simply to PM MDawg and ask him to leave that thread, I suppose. MDawg's posts were topical at least to the extent that they related to Blackjack.
My reasoned dissent is that jumping straight to a two-week ban seems a bit unnecessary on this one given the plethora of other options available.
I really can't get behind trolling/bullying at all because I fail to see where bullying took place. It seems like he issued a challenge that KewlJ declined and for which KewlJ stated very logical reasons for declining.
But he does have his thread to make his claims, and in my opinion, is overly protected.
But that doesn't mean Mdawg should be free to enter other threads, in this case a thread about a real blackjack player (my brother) and the experience he is currently going through, and make the thread all about himself with more of his "I win every session" nonsense.
I could argue that if I am restricted from his threads, he should be restricted from mine, but really all I am asking is that every thread not be hijacked to Mdawg claiming he wins every session of every game he plays, including every stock pick. There HAS GOT to be a point that enough is enough.
Quote: Mission146Quote: DieterFollowing a rare pang of thoughtfulness after the fact, mdawg's current suspension may not have had the appropriate rule cited.
It appeared to be hijacking at the time.
It could easily be construed as bullying/trolling.
It definitely seems out of line under my open definition of "conduct unbecoming", which falls under Rule 0.
Rule 0:Quote:The administration reserves the right to punish any activity it deems disruptive to the forum, whether against these rules or not.
I'm open to hear reasoned dissent on the matter.
I think that certain discussions with certain posters are such that you can just, "Take the temperature," and sort of let it go for a little bit given the high probability that there will be an infraction where the ban doesn't even need to be explained.
For any other poster, I'd consider a ban for what occurred in that thread on fairly shaky ground that, at worst, should have yielded a soft warning if Administration was not inclined just to let the poster eventually bury himself. That said, there's something to be said for the precedent that posters who have already been banned several times not getting much leeway.
Another alternative might have been simply to PM MDawg and ask him to leave that thread, I suppose. MDawg's posts were topical at least to the extent that they related to Blackjack.
My reasoned dissent is that jumping straight to a two-week ban seems a bit unnecessary on this one given the plethora of other options available.
I really can't get behind trolling/bullying at all because I fail to see where bullying took place. It seems like he issued a challenge that KewlJ declined and for which KewlJ stated very logical reasons for declining.
That challenge has been brought up at least twice that I'm aware of. And undoubtedly will be again.
I don't see why he hasn't been nuked yet. This forum has really gone down hill in the last few months
and it has mostly has to do with one person. I'd much rather read what KewlJ has to say then MDawg.
Quote: billryanIf a new member came along and claimed he could win at will by using fairy dust, he'd be banned in a minute. But as long as he doesn't expose just what his secret sauce is, he is gold.
I don't know if that new player would be banned necessarily, but members, real players, math guys would certainly be allowed to challenge such claims. Or at least that is the way it used to be. I am not even sure what is allowed and what isn't any more.
And I really hate to see people (speaking of no one in particular) using THIS forum of all forums, a forum started by Michael Shackleford, a respected gambling math expert, a forum supposed to be about and based on math, to make all sorts of what I call voodoo claims and be protected from legitimate critisism and challenges to those claims.
Quote: kewljMission, The problem is the totallity of this situation. Mdawg has his thread, where he has made his claims for years now. MANY members, have argued his claims based on the math and been suspended for some variation of saying they don't beleive the claims, mostly of constant or always winning. I have even been restricted from participating in that thread.
But he does have his thread to make his claims, and in my opinion, is overly protected.
But that doesn't mean Mdawg should be free to enter other threads, in this case a thread about a real blackjack player (my brother) and the experience he is currently going through, and make the thread all about himself with more of his "I win every session" nonsense.
I could argue that if I am restricted from his threads, he should be restricted from mine, but really all I am asking is that every thread not be hijacked to Mdawg claiming he wins every session of every game he plays, including every stock pick. There HAS GOT to be a point that enough is enough.
I guess one of the suggestions in my post was that he could have been PM'ed and asked not to participate in your thread.
I also acknowledged that his prior posting history likely contributed to the penalty.
IOW, consider mine a very soft objection.
Quote: joedol
That challenge has been brought up at least twice that I'm aware of. And undoubtedly will be again.
I don't see why he hasn't been nuked yet. This forum has really gone down hill in the last few months
and it has mostly has to do with one person. I'd much rather read what KewlJ has to say then MDawg.
That specific challenge with KewlJ? I must admit to not being aware of that, so that might change my opinion if that is the case.
Under any analysis, this was at most a subtle offense. Reinstate him and give him ‘time served’.
Quote: SOOPOOAdministration has made it clear to MDawg that they want his math defying claims to be limited to his own thread in the betting systems section. His entry into the recent blackjack thread is a Clear attempt to circumvent that. I believe that admonishing MDawg to not bring his ridiculous claims to other threads should have sufficed in this instance, and the next time he did it he should suffer a suspension.
Under any analysis, this was at most a subtle offense. Reinstate him and give him ‘time served’.
I second the above and I respectfully ask the administration as well to reinstate him and give him the benefit of the doubt. He is a great member here and single-handedly allowed me to find the sideline of baccarat which I made a considerable amount of money and I put away a considerable amount as well. He is simply valued by some of us. Thanks, Marcus Clark,
Quote: Marcusclark66I second the above and I respectfully ask the administration as well to reinstate him and give him the benefit of the doubt. He is a great member here and single-handedly allowed me to find the sideline of baccarat which I made a considerable amount of money and I put away a considerable amount as well. He is simply valued by some of us. Thanks, Marcus Clark,
Isn't this an argument for his suspension. He's single handedly caused you to believe that you have an edge playing a game in which the house clearly has an edge over you. I believe you've even said that you wanted to stop playing at one point while you were losing, but MDawg convinced you to keep playing negative expectation wagers despite you not wanting to continue making them. Maybe I misunderstood. But you seem to be giving him credit for convincing you to play negative expectation games that you otherwise wouldn't play in the hopes of "making money". This just seems bad to me personally. Maybe others see it differently.
If I showed someone how to vulture UX then they could argue they learned something from me.
If I show someone how to martingale $5 bets starting with $640 and they win 5 straight sessions and praise me for my wisdom, have they learned anything from me? Should I be stopped before I "teach" someone else?
If I do this and someone calls me a terrible "teacher" should they be banned for it? Or are they correct and I'm the one who should be removed from the forum that ostensibly respects math.
Quote: Mission146That specific challenge with KewlJ? I must admit to not being aware of that, so that might change my opinion if that is the case.
Yes, but I don't remember what thread it was in.
Quote: sabreIsn't this an argument for his suspension. He's single handedly caused you to believe that you have an edge playing a game in which the house clearly has an edge over you. I believe you've even said that you wanted to stop playing at one point while you were losing, but MDawg convinced you to keep playing negative expectation wagers despite you not wanting to continue making them. Maybe I misunderstood. But you seem to be giving him credit for convincing you to play negative expectation games that you otherwise wouldn't play in the hopes of "making money". This just seems bad to me personally. Maybe others see it differently.
If I showed someone how to vulture UX then they could argue they learned something from me.
If I show someone how to martingale $5 bets starting with $640 and they win 5 straight sessions and praise me for my wisdom, have they learned anything from me? Should I be stopped before I "teach" someone else?
If I do this and someone calls me a terrible "teacher" should they be banned for it? Or are they correct and I'm the one who should be removed from the forum that ostensibly respects math.
No, you have it incorrect.
