Proposed Forum Rule
Poll
 | 16 votes (50%) | ||
| | 16 votes (50%) |
32 members have voted
September 1st, 2010 at 7:59:38 AM
permalink
I would like to propose a new rule for the forum:
No insults, no personal attacks.
All in favor say YES.
No insults, no personal attacks.
All in favor say YES.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 1st, 2010 at 8:17:32 AM
permalink
That's a good rule that should be (and usually is) followed in real life, but is too often ignored on the Internet.
Unfortunately, I don't think people will follow that rule. I voted yes regardless.
Another good rule would be no grammar attacks.
Unfortunately, I don't think people will follow that rule. I voted yes regardless.
Another good rule would be no grammar attacks.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
September 1st, 2010 at 8:25:57 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
September 1st, 2010 at 9:46:16 AM
permalink
Quote: teddysThat's a good rule that should be (and usually is) followed in real life, but is too often ignored on the Internet.
Unfortunately, I don't think people will follow that rule. I voted yes regardless.
I don't think it will be followed, either. But at least it will be there. As it is now the rules say nothing about insults or personal attacks.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 1st, 2010 at 9:50:36 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedI would like to propose a new rule for the forum:
No insults, no personal attacks.
All in favor say YES.
Restrict free speech? Come on ... and who is going to be the judge and jury for whether a statement is an insult or personal attack? And what are the consequences? Should there be a committee of members who read all the posts and decide which category they fall and what penalty should be assessed?
You can call me any list of names you like, so under no circumstances do I want such limitations applied to what people say about me. I want people to be able to say nasty things about me. It's one aspect of how I personally like to interact.
The problems that arise once free speech is limited are immense.
--Dorothy
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
September 1st, 2010 at 10:00:09 AM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleRestrict free speech? Come on ... and who is going to be the judge and jury for whether a statement is an insult or personal attack? And what are the consequences? Should there be a committee of members who read all the posts and decide which category they fall and what penalty should be assessed?
You can call me any list of names you like, so under no circumstances do I want such limitations applied to what people say about me. I want people to be able to say nasty things about me. It's one aspect of how I personally like to interact.
The problems that arise once free speech is limited are immense.
--Dorothy
I couldn't have said it better myself you arrogant pig. Seriously if you are all a bunch of namby pamby's then go to LVA or somewhere else where free speech is limited. There are enough of those cheesy sites.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:00:16 AM
permalink
I interpreted Rule 4 to cover this. "Harrassing" posts may be flagged, and if flagged by enough users, will be removed. I would expect the user whose posts are being removed would eventually abandon the forum. I realize removing the post does not undo the hurt it may have inflicted.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:00:19 AM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleRestrict free speech? Come on ... and who is going to be the judge and jury for whether a statement is an insult or personal attack? And what are the consequences? Should there be a committee of members who read all the posts and decide which category they fall and what penalty should be assessed?
You can call me any list of names you like, so under no circumstances do I want such limitations applied to what people say about me. I want people to be able to say nasty things about me. It's one aspect of how I personally like to interact.
The problems that arise once free speech is limited are immense.
--Dorothy
I've found that people on internet forums--PARTICULARLY moderators--don't grasp the distinction between "that's a stupid thing to say" and "you're stupid". Smart people (as well as, of course, dumb people) say dumb things all the time. Pointing out the dumbness of such statements is not a personal attack, nor should it be sanctioned as such.
Certainly, the disagreement can be presented with varying degrees of civility, as in "I think you may have been in error", or, "You must have been sniffing glue when you wrote that". But social groups--as this one is--have to be self-policing, if at all. The last thing we all need is some kind of censor.
And solely because you enjoy it--God, Dorothy, you're a moron.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
September 1st, 2010 at 10:03:04 AM
permalink
Since when is the Wiz no longer in charge of this website and this forum. Seem's like a bunch of others are trying to take over and make all of there own rules. The Wiz has been around long enough to know what rules should and shouldn't apply.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:24:02 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321God, Dorothy, you're a moron.
Quote: thlfI couldn't have said it better myself you arrogant pig.
You two both have thumbs, right? (I wonder if that's an insult -- maybe the censors should figure it out).
--Dorothy
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
September 1st, 2010 at 10:56:45 AM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleRestrict free speech?
No. He may be the Wizard, but he's lacks the capability. If he tried it he'd surely land in jail. Only governments can restrict free speech. Private individuals, businesses and corporations can only restrict or regulate speech in their property. They cannot fine you or throw you in jail for saying somehting they don't like, nor prevent you from speaking elsewhere. Governments can.
My proposal is just a proposal. The Wizard can do about it whatever he wants. He can ignore it, act on it, tell me to shut up, any number of things.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 1st, 2010 at 11:04:34 AM
permalink
Sorry, while I don't like to see personal insults used, the last thing I believe we need is word police monitoring the playground. We are all grown ups and should be able to take cyber-insults and attacks from trolls and strangers.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:12:00 AM
permalink
Quote: ruascottSorry, while I don't like to see personal insults used, the last thing I believe we need is word police monitoring the playground. We are all grown ups and should be able to take cyber-insults and attacks from trolls and strangers.
That sums up my position as well. The feature to block any other user you wish should be up soon.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 1st, 2010 at 11:42:04 AM
permalink
That's a good rule of thumb, but it's an awful lot of responsibility to heap on the moderator(s). What passes as friendly banter to one may be of utmost offense to another, "for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so" (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2). Who's to judge?
As a long-ago regular in several Usenet forums, I can say with confidence that flame wars tend to have a dampening effect on productive conversation. Several modern techniques have mitigated this effect, and allow you (individually) to control the level of decorum without requiring a massive policing effort from the moderators:
1) The "ignore" feature, where a user's forum content has certain other members' posts filtered out
2) The ranking feature, where a post's value is ranked (plus/minus, thumbs up/down, etc) and ranked posts below a certain threshold are hidden by default.
There are others in a similar vein, but you get the point.
As a long-ago regular in several Usenet forums, I can say with confidence that flame wars tend to have a dampening effect on productive conversation. Several modern techniques have mitigated this effect, and allow you (individually) to control the level of decorum without requiring a massive policing effort from the moderators:
1) The "ignore" feature, where a user's forum content has certain other members' posts filtered out
2) The ranking feature, where a post's value is ranked (plus/minus, thumbs up/down, etc) and ranked posts below a certain threshold are hidden by default.
There are others in a similar vein, but you get the point.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
September 1st, 2010 at 2:17:29 PM
permalink
As a lurker, I understand the sentiment, but such a rule also strikes me as unworkable.
This board used to be populated by a comparatively tight group of regular posters. As the site has become more popular, that intimacy had diminished and the exchanges have sometimes increased in coarseness. I share the disappointment; I enjoyed it as a calmer and more intelligent version of other boards that are so common on the web. But that's the internet.
This board used to be populated by a comparatively tight group of regular posters. As the site has become more popular, that intimacy had diminished and the exchanges have sometimes increased in coarseness. I share the disappointment; I enjoyed it as a calmer and more intelligent version of other boards that are so common on the web. But that's the internet.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:33:14 PM
permalink
In the past 3 months this forum has definitely taken a turn towards nastiness and name calling, and we are all worse off because of it. I find it hard to believe that adults feel compelled to behave on this forum the same way preteens behave on other internet forums. I watched the same thing happen on the Motley Fool Forums years ago. You start out with a great site, and lots of informed people willing to help anyone who ventured in. Soon enough the trolls showed up, and the easy ambiance of the site started to decline. Once it got bad enough, the informed people who did not want to put up with the juveniles left, only to be replaced by more juveniles, and more name calling. Eventually you end up with something as useful as the brilliant Yahoo groups. Motley Fool headed it off by charging a subscription. That weeded out the bozos. I'm not suggesting that is needed for this forum by any means, just saying.
In person discussions are more civil since the risk of getting punched is real. Call someone enough names and they may react. On a forum, I can antagonize someone all I want and they have no real recourse. That makes me braver and allows me to act like an idiot. Social media at its finest.
Already on here, I have noticed some posters who used to be regular contributers have not posted in a while. Could it be that the decline of informed posters has begun here as well?
In person discussions are more civil since the risk of getting punched is real. Call someone enough names and they may react. On a forum, I can antagonize someone all I want and they have no real recourse. That makes me braver and allows me to act like an idiot. Social media at its finest.
Already on here, I have noticed some posters who used to be regular contributers have not posted in a while. Could it be that the decline of informed posters has begun here as well?
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
September 1st, 2010 at 3:16:40 PM
permalink
I tend to agree with RaleighCraps' sentiments. This forum is "maturing" rapidly. Certainly, it's easy for us to be offended and innocent barbs turn into insults turn into flame wars. Such is the nature of social media. We all can tend to be idiots online. It would be nice to tame these a bit.
I don't believe in moderation except in organizing threads in the right place and moving things where necessary and also removing absolutely offending posts.
The ignore and rating features will help, as will private chat. They apparently are coming soon.
Another thing that is happening is that the sheer number of threads and volumes of posts make it difficult to get caught up. If I am away at work, I can come home to find a thread on the 2nd page of forum postings and by that time, it's passe. So I would like to see the home page have a listing of the latest 40-50 threads instead of the last 10, which is no longer adequate.
I don't believe in moderation except in organizing threads in the right place and moving things where necessary and also removing absolutely offending posts.
The ignore and rating features will help, as will private chat. They apparently are coming soon.
Another thing that is happening is that the sheer number of threads and volumes of posts make it difficult to get caught up. If I am away at work, I can come home to find a thread on the 2nd page of forum postings and by that time, it's passe. So I would like to see the home page have a listing of the latest 40-50 threads instead of the last 10, which is no longer adequate.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
September 1st, 2010 at 4:04:00 PM
permalink
Naw, he wouldn't have done anything criminal. (This isn't Mexico! :P). WoV=Paid for by Wizard=Wizard's Property=Wizard's right to put whatever he wants on the site including restricting free speech. That's a basic right to be able to do whatever you want in a private forum; you don't have to follow the Constitution.Quote: NareedNo. He may be the Wizard, but he's lacks the capability. If he tried it he'd surely land in jail.
There are two posters who made the atmosphere of this board really nasty. The first one is gone for now, thankfully. The second one adds a lot to the discussion be does so in a very argumentative way and seems to want to take an adverse position to everything and break down every statement. This isn't in itself a bad thing but is mentally grating and not really what this board is about.
I would pay for access to this site. I think it is that useful. I think one of the other Vegas sites, I think it was VegasRex, started charging for his forum and got a lot of subscribers.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
September 1st, 2010 at 4:30:08 PM
permalink
RaleighCraps, I agree. We joined about the same time, by the way. Initially I found the forum to be rather cliqish, ala the high school group that is less than welcoming to the new kid in school. When I finally dared to express an opinion at odds with one or more of the inner circle, I felt I was rather harshly treated.
Thanks to some members who pointed out that words posted on an internet forum are not important, I did get past that. I must admit though that the urge to strike back is sometimes uncontrollable.
teddys, I agree with you also. I was reviewing the "casinos should be able to bar advantage players" thread and was amazed again at how many believe that a private business must welcome any and all comers. If Daniel Negreanu shows up at my weekly neighborhood poker game wanting to play, do I have to allow him? Anyway, I think the website owner can do just about whatever he or she pleases with his/her website short of libel and slander. Of course those who disagree can bring their civil action.
RaleighCraps, I have another craps topic in mind. Would you join me in another thread? I must warn you, I and possibly any respondents to my question will probably be subject to much disdain and ridicule.
Thanks to some members who pointed out that words posted on an internet forum are not important, I did get past that. I must admit though that the urge to strike back is sometimes uncontrollable.
teddys, I agree with you also. I was reviewing the "casinos should be able to bar advantage players" thread and was amazed again at how many believe that a private business must welcome any and all comers. If Daniel Negreanu shows up at my weekly neighborhood poker game wanting to play, do I have to allow him? Anyway, I think the website owner can do just about whatever he or she pleases with his/her website short of libel and slander. Of course those who disagree can bring their civil action.
RaleighCraps, I have another craps topic in mind. Would you join me in another thread? I must warn you, I and possibly any respondents to my question will probably be subject to much disdain and ridicule.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:46:27 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboAnother thing that is happening is that the sheer number of threads and volumes of posts make it difficult to get caught up. If I am away at work, I can come home to find a thread on the 2nd page of forum postings and by that time, it's passe. So I would like to see the home page have a listing of the latest 40-50 threads instead of the last 10, which is no longer adequate.
As I've stated elsewhere, the standard forum feature elsewhere that tracks a users last read article needs to be turned on or implemented.
See the Help section "More features" thread.
Those in charge have yet to comment.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
September 1st, 2010 at 5:06:57 PM
permalink
Quote: teddysNaw, he wouldn't have done anything criminal. (This isn't Mexico! :P). WoV=Paid for by Wizard=Wizard's Property=Wizard's right to put whatever he wants on the site including restricting free speech.
That's just it. He can't restrict free speech because he only has a say about it in his property. He can't imprison you, fine you or prevent you from going elsewhere without breaking all sorts of laws (ergo he'd land in jail himself).
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 1st, 2010 at 5:07:23 PM
permalink
Headlock, I'd be happy to join you in another thread. Please be assured I may not agree with all of your thoughts, but I am happy to read any and all points of view, as long as the comments being made are not malicious in nature. I don't mind opposing or different views, I only mind views that are presented in an attacking or provocative manner.
Shall we discuss the merits of a Put vs a Place bet ?
Shall we discuss the merits of a Put vs a Place bet ?
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:59:21 AM
permalink
Maybe I should make this a poll, but in the interests of keeping this forum focused on Vegas, I'm thinking of making separate forums, on separate sites, for gambling in general (a Wizard of Odds forum) and a miscellaneous forum for topics that have nothing to do with gambling or Vegas.
There are pros and cons to the idea. The main pro is that by diverting other topics to the other sites, this one could be focused on just Vegas topics. The main con is that it might split up the community. I'd be interested in feedback on the idea.
There are pros and cons to the idea. The main pro is that by diverting other topics to the other sites, this one could be focused on just Vegas topics. The main con is that it might split up the community. I'd be interested in feedback on the idea.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:03:22 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:41:24 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardMaybe I should make this a poll, but in the interests of keeping this forum focused on Vegas, I'm thinking of making separate forums, on separate sites, for gambling in general (a Wizard of Odds forum) and a miscellaneous forum for topics that have nothing to do with gambling or Vegas.
There are pros and cons to the idea. The main pro is that by diverting other topics to the other sites, this one could be focused on just Vegas topics. The main con is that it might split up the community. I'd be interested in feedback on the idea.
As long as the various threads are properly grouped under subclassifications, what's the problem? If someone doesn't want to read the posts under "best hot dog in Vegas", or for that matter, "best bikini waxes east of the Mississippi", all they have to do is not click on that classification in the first place.
I would also like to suggest that aspects of gambling outside of Vegas often have relevance to that which occurs in Vegas, so it may be a mistake to completely divorce the two.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:48:46 PM
permalink
I have always felt a bit funny when I posted information related to my gambling in PA and MS on this site. However, as mkl points out, what happens in other places does have an impact in Vegas as well.
Knowing I can get 20x odds, vig only on the win, for the buy 4,5,9,10, and 3x field in MS gives me something to compare to while I am in Vegas. Now I have a benchmark, and some decisions....
Do I go to Stratosphere to play at 10x (but get 2x field and pay 4/10 vig up front).
Do I play the strip?
MGM props grandfather me when they raise table mins.
Harrah's props don't, but they have the fire bet.
Both collect 4/10 buy vig only on the win.
Go back downtown?
If this site is to be a Vegas drawing card, perhaps it should be restricted to Vegas only topics, but then the overall gaming experience will likely suffer some.
If the site is about gaming, then the idea of a Vegas only drawing card will suffer a bit.
Personally, I believe this site, as is, enhances Vegas, even though it is not restricted to Vegas only topics. Only Vegas topics would likely grow stale anyway.
Knowing I can get 20x odds, vig only on the win, for the buy 4,5,9,10, and 3x field in MS gives me something to compare to while I am in Vegas. Now I have a benchmark, and some decisions....
Do I go to Stratosphere to play at 10x (but get 2x field and pay 4/10 vig up front).
Do I play the strip?
MGM props grandfather me when they raise table mins.
Harrah's props don't, but they have the fire bet.
Both collect 4/10 buy vig only on the win.
Go back downtown?
If this site is to be a Vegas drawing card, perhaps it should be restricted to Vegas only topics, but then the overall gaming experience will likely suffer some.
If the site is about gaming, then the idea of a Vegas only drawing card will suffer a bit.
Personally, I believe this site, as is, enhances Vegas, even though it is not restricted to Vegas only topics. Only Vegas topics would likely grow stale anyway.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:03:05 PM
permalink
While we're at it, let's ban war, people who shout into cell phones, bad customer service, and thunderstorms.
I am against it. The site already has distinct categories and I visit to get an overview of it all and see what wacky things people are talking/arguing about. Male strippers, Glenn Beck, Sharron Angle, whatever.
Just being honest: if the site were only about gambling or only about those other things, I probably wouldn't visit.
Quote: WizardMaybe I should make this a poll, but in the interests of keeping this forum focused on Vegas, I'm thinking of making separate forums, on separate sites, for gambling in general (a Wizard of Odds forum) and a miscellaneous forum for topics that have nothing to do with gambling or Vegas.
There are pros and cons to the idea. The main pro is that by diverting other topics to the other sites, this one could be focused on just Vegas topics. The main con is that it might split up the community. I'd be interested in feedback on the idea.
I am against it. The site already has distinct categories and I visit to get an overview of it all and see what wacky things people are talking/arguing about. Male strippers, Glenn Beck, Sharron Angle, whatever.
Just being honest: if the site were only about gambling or only about those other things, I probably wouldn't visit.
September 7th, 2010 at 2:01:28 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardMaybe I should make this a poll, but in the interests of keeping this forum focused on Vegas, I'm thinking of making separate forums, on separate sites, for gambling in general (a Wizard of Odds forum) and a miscellaneous forum for topics that have nothing to do with gambling or Vegas.
There are pros and cons to the idea. The main pro is that by diverting other topics to the other sites, this one could be focused on just Vegas topics. The main con is that it might split up the community. I'd be interested in feedback on the idea.
Speaking as a n00b ...
If you want to focus on Vegas, focus on Vegas. I guess every site needs a break room, so maybe there's value to a non-Vegas thread or two for people to talk about other things. But really, why would you want to make/manage/moderate two separate forums? There's a zillion forums out there already. IMHO, I would be more inclined to taking away the "break room" than managing/moderating a whole 'nother forum.
But there may be financial rewards in doing that that I'm not seeing ...
My $0.02.
