Dark Oz Suspension
Quote: Zcore13
There's more delusion to address in your post, but I'm board with it already.
ZCore13
It's amazing how full of yourself you are. You enjoy being wrongfully condescending to people who disagree with your ill thought opinions?
Quote: HomelessnycIt's amazing how full of yourself you are. You enjoy being wrongfully condescending to people who disagree with your ill thought opinions?
Actually when it comes to casino knowledge Zcore is one of the best on here. And from the start he has been a voice of reason. Many of us have put agendas out here, Z hasn’t.
Not sure how how anyone can question where he stands, like it or not.
Quote: BozActually when it comes to casino knowledge Zcore is one of the best on here. And from the start he has been a voice of reason. Many of us have put agendas out here, Z hasn’t.
Not sure how how anyone can question where he stands, like it or not.
Casino knowledge has zero to do with his condescending post.
Really don't understand this post. You usually have insight and reasonable post.
Quote: HomelessnycIt's amazing how full of yourself you are. You enjoy being wrongfully condescending to people who disagree with your ill thought opinions?
Personal insult. As your third offense since July, let's make it another two weeks. You are invited to not return at all.
Quote: Homelessnyc
Disagree all you like you are free to.
Your "never won top prize" reasoning shows me that there will be no having a useful converstation with you on this topic.
It's a fact you have bias mods here who ban people without a valid reason and will refuse to ban people who have broke the rules all because of his or her political views
I don't need to be free to, particularly not when you made a constructive statement that is provably and irrefutably false, that being that you said a ban will never be overturned. Bans have been overturned, therefore, your statement is demonstratively untrue. I apologize for my willingness to challenge completely untrue statements if you take offense to such a challenge.
My reasoning is that, just because your ban was not reversed/modified does not mean that we have never reversed/modify a ban. Further, it does not mean that we will not reverse/modify a ban in the future. Again, the first statement is provably true...because we have reversed and/or modified in the past. Because the first statement is true, the second statement can be assumed to be a possibility.
I don't really know anything about most peoples' political views because I generally do not read the political threads. Even if I did, I wouldn't care what other peoples' political views are, speaking only for myself. Generally speaking, I think that people would do well to speak more moderately in those threads, and if they did, then I would consider reading them more frequently and/or not recuse myself of their moderation unless directly requested to look at them.
Quote: gordonm888
And if you think I am inflating the issue, perhaps Mike could post for us a metric on WOV site usage, say a yearly average number of forum posts per day, for the years 2011 to 2017.
If there has been a decline, I would argue that is also somewhat indicative of message boards in general as a medium of communication. The fact is that social sites have overtaken to a large degree, and as we do well and continue to do well, it is because the focal point of these forums is somewhat of a niche subject. If the subject matter of the forums were more general audience/general interest, we'd probably be in pretty bad shape.
Up until yesterday, these forums are the only "social media" I've participated in. I've met some pretty cool dudes from these forums and I'm thankful for that.
Btw, if you havent been to a WOV get together, I highly recommend it. The level of intelligence here can be intimidating but everyone that I've met has been super nice.
Like gordon said, no one is questioning Mike's or his admins' authority -- he built it, it's his, he can do what he wants with it. That isn't to say we, as a community, can't give input or share our thoughts on how we'd like to see the community to be run. You know, that's how communities work, right? To stonewall a valid discussion with "it is what it is", as if that's a legitimate response, is retarded. To say "life isn't fair, too bad so sad" is equally as stupid, as it's confirming the unfairness. How people can't understand this is beyond me.
Quote: RogerKintBtw, if you havent been to a WOV get together, I highly recommend it. The level of intelligence here can be intimidating but everyone that I've met has been super nice.
Howcome you never go to none of the meetups? I'll throw down a few sheckles for a nice bus pass for you and the missus ($3.50 total, max) to come out to LV.
Anything that makes it there is usually in the framework of someone having been Suspended, but that doesn’t mean any Rules couldn’t be discussed sans someone being recently Suspended under them.
I think, “This Rule needs to be made more specific or is ambiguous,” is a better opening framework for the discussion than, “The Admins suck and are biased,” though.
Quote: RSHonestly, the stance of "it's just an internet forum, get over it" is complete garbage. I don't care if it's an internet forum or someone going to prison for the rest of their life, unfairly, wrong is wrong.
Like gordon said, no one is questioning Mike's or his admins' authority -- he built it, it's his, he can do what he wants with it. That isn't to say we, as a community, can't give input or share our thoughts on how we'd like to see the community to be run. You know, that's how communities work, right? To stonewall a valid discussion with "it is what it is", as if that's a legitimate response, is retarded. To say "life isn't fair, too bad so sad" is equally as stupid, as it's confirming the unfairness. How people can't understand this is beyond me.
Howcome you never go to none of the meetups? I'll throw down a few sheckles for a nice bus pass for you and the missus ($3.50 total, max) to come out to LV.
The issue is that your term "unfair" is your opinion and subjective. I don't find anything here unfair.
ZCore13
Quote: RSTo say "life isn't fair, too bad so sad" is equally as stupid, as it's confirming the unfairness. How people can't understand this is beyond me.
LOL
What, you think life is fair?
How you can't understand this salient aspect of the human condition is beyond me.
Quote: Mission146That’s what the, “Discussion About the Suspension List,” thread is for. We read and we typically respond.
So people's problem with this discussion is.....that we're in the wrong thread? :rolls_eyes:
Quote: Mission146Anything that makes it there is usually in the framework of someone having been Suspended, but that doesn’t mean any Rules couldn’t be discussed sans someone being recently Suspended under them.
I think, “This Rule needs to be made more specific or is ambiguous,” is a better opening framework for the discussion than, “The Admins suck and are biased,” though.
I don't see anyone having a problem with any rules being too specific or ambiguous, but with bias or uneven enforcement of the rules from admins.
Quote: Zcore13The issue is that your term "unfair" is your opinion and subjective. I don't find anything here unfair.
Quote: Zcore13What world do you live in where you get everything you want, everything is fair and every rule is enforced by the letter in every situation? Grow up.... [ellipses added so I don't get banned for 'misquoting']
You don't find anything here unfair, yet you insinuate it isn't fair and the rules aren't enforced by the letter of the law, given the above (the second of yours) quote.
A: "That's unfair."
B: "Nothing's fair." <-- insinuating it isn't fair
A: "So we should fix it, maybe...?"
B: "I think it's fair."
*facepalm*
Quote: MrVLOL
What, you think life is fair?
How you can't understand this salient aspect of the human condition is beyond me.
Enough with the trolling, MrV.
I didn't say life is unfair. But we shouldn't use "life is unfair" to perpetuate unfairness.
Quote: RSEnough with the trolling, MrV. I didn't say life is unfair.
No, you didn't. I did: "Yeah, the world just ain't fair, is it?"
You responded with "To say "life isn't fair, too bad so sad" is equally as stupid."
Quote: RSSo people's problem with this discussion is.....that we're in the wrong thread? :rolls_eyes:
That’s not what I meant, I just meant there is a place to discuss the Rules and you’ll generally get a response from an Admin.
That’s in the context of a general rule, though, or specific Suspension. I’ll often refrain from discussing specific suspensions if I did not levy them, but sometimes I’ll discuss them.
Quote:
I don't see anyone having a problem with any rules being too specific or ambiguous, but with bias or uneven enforcement of the rules from admins.
That’s where I think there may be room to discuss the underlying rule itself. Would it be possible to construct a set of Rules that leave less room for personal bias to come into play? That would be a worthy discussion.
Let’s assume for a second that there will not be any changes to the Admin staff, because there haven’t been in terms of, “Greens,” for awhile. As far as Secret Admins, I don’t even think I know who all of them are. Given the assumption, and your opinion of uneven moderation, it seems the best course of action would be to suggest changes to the rules such that bias (real or perceived) is less likely to come into play.
That’s one of the reasons I’d advocated for a no ad hominem rule at one point in the past. You have some subjectivity with what is or isn’t a personal insult, but less when it comes to what is or isn’t an ad hominem statement of any kind. Whether or not something is an ad hom statement is pretty clear.
The only problem is that would be a much stricter rule than, “No personal insults,” so that’s an obvious downside. I think just about anyone would agree we don’t want the rules to be too strict. I wouldn’t want them to be too strict, but my idea of, “Too strict,” is probably more strict than that of most people. So, even if I could write the rules, I doubt if most people would want me to.
Five reasons that I’m aware of:
1. They basically act as regular Admins when it comes to Spam deletion. The more the merrier, there.
2. They can turn someone red for a particularly egregious offense, then a Green can come in later and decide how long the ban will be.
3. More specific to them: Given the existence of Secret Admins, nobody can look at who is online, see that there are no Greens and then figure they can violate the Rules now and edit the post later. Could be a SA on, the person would have no way of knowing.
4. In a few cases, it’s almost like a training.
5. In a few other cases, they want to help out, but don’t WANT to be green.
Quote: MaxPenI find it hard to see the need for secret admins, especially on a forum with less than a page worth of threads per day. The way people get banned around here pretty soon it will only be admins and secret admins. In my opinion things should be allowed to breathe a little more around here. Might promote some growth.
Worth mentioning is the fact that the concept of Secret Admins has been around for several years, so it's not like we're just rolling this out. We just never ceased having Secret Admins.
Aside from that, I stand behind the five reasons in my post. For what it's worth, I don't think there have been more than five or so bans (other than spammers and/or dupes) initiated by a Secret Admin in...as long as I remember. To the extent that there have been any bans of Members otherwise in good standing, in almost all instances, it has been for something that a Green would have banned the person for anyway.
Quote: RS
Howcome you never go to none of the meetups? I'll throw down a few sheckles for a nice bus pass for you and the missus ($3.50 total, max) to come out to LV.
I have but it's been a while. I'm waiting for Monet to pick us up from the airport in his Jeep.
Speaking of top prizes, I think Megabucks has hit more times than suspensions have been overturned( I'm not saying they should be). I don't think your top prize example really helped your argument.Quote: Mission146I'm going to disagree with that on the grounds that bans have been modified and/or overturned in the past on more than zero occasions.
Just because we didn't end up overturning your personal suspension doesn't mean we never do it. I've never won top prize in a casino drawing (have in a slot tournament, though) but that doesn't mean nobody ever does..
Quote: Mission146As far as Secret Admins, I don’t even think I know who all of them are.\.
What's it worth to you?
So it's kinda like your own little version of Grinder. You go, boy!! ☺☺Quote: RogerKintI've met some pretty cool dudes from these forums and I'm thankful for that.
(Only 36 more to go.)
Quote: AxelWolfSpeaking of top prizes, I think Megabucks has hit more times than suspensions have been overturned( I'm not saying they should be). I don't think your top prize example really helped your argument.
LOL @ What's it worth to you.
I don't need it to help my argument. He said NEVER, nada, zero. I said not zero. Not zero is objectively correct. Argument over.
Quote: RogerKintI have but it's been a while. I'm waiting for Monet to pick us up from the airport in his Jeep.
It's bad form to dis the damned, I mean the banned, when they can not come here to respond to the nattering nabobs of negativity.
More importantly, you know where to find him as you just joined that forum: take it there.
Yeah, sure, you betcha, that's the ticket. Make it even more like the online forum place that all the very most mentally & emotionally, ah, "interesting" people went to, totally free to rave, er, "breathe" in their deranged, um, make that "special & unique" way different than the rest of the world, making it such a vibrant wildly successful site...Quote: MaxPen...In my opinion things should be allowed to breathe a little more around here. Might promote some growth.
Oh, wait, what's this...
...but there's always the Son of the Asylum Rejects Forum after that one for the "interesting" people died, and by now it is bound to be practically a virtual Grand Central Station for those extremely "interesting" wannabe forum denizens...Quote: G.G. (rhymes with glen)Active Topics for the last 24 hours:
Topic - Replies - Last Reply - Author
No active topics found.
Surprise, surprise, how can that be, when it is the very thing being asked for? Could it be that most people really don't enjoy plunging into the depths of such weirdness, and is it possible that some of those most vocal about wanting to further indulge those too weird for the asylum are a reason most folks with an interest in gambling and Las Vegas want nothing to do with the forum side of this site after looking at it, just like they consistently say in conversations about it time and time again, even while complimenting the value of the work done on the non-forum information side?Quote: T.P.B.(rhymes with box)Total Members: 12
Nah, that couldn't possibly be so, 'cause practically everybody really likes to be around folk who function at the level of severely troubled eight or nine year olds like the little group of tree fort boys here and formerly here, and oodles of normal folk are surely so eager to sign on for discussions with them, and can hardly wait to see them spit more political slogans at one another and hear the eruptions as their tender psyches become filled with rage that their superior brilliance is once again being insufficiently appreciated. So it's a cinch that those places that are exactly what the l'ill club is calling for will no doubt be thriving shortly when y'all go there now, right?
Or, maybe not, if almost everybody else actually does NOT find that behavior to be an attraction at all, and would rather clean the floor under the fridge than go anywhere near that, let alone sign on to become part of it.
Quote: NathanAbout unfair suspensions, I was SHOCKED when a certain Moderator suspended me for two weeks for posting posts about alimony twice in thread about a guy trying to hide his Jackpot. And the real kicker is I wasn't even the one who brought up the alimony thing in the first place! I was innocently responding to two separate people who mentioned alimony!
It went something like this, "Poster one " The guy could have been trying to hide his Jackpot because he could have alimony payments. I don't even know what alimony is, but it sounds awful. " I responded something like, "Alimony is what you pay your ex spouse after a divorce. I've always hated the idea of alimony. Why should I have to financially support an ADULT that I am no longer legally bonded to anymore? Especially if the reason I we are divorced is because my ex spouse CHEATED on me? So I have to pay someone who CHEATED on me? That's really messed up!"
Poster 2 mentioned alimony saying something like,"If I had alimony payments, I would try to hide my Jackpot. " I said,"Alimony sucks! It should be outlawed! " I was suspended for two weeks for posting twice about alimony after this post. In fact, when I saw the "You have been suspended for two weeks" part I thought it was another poster who had been suspended (I hadn't read the whole post at first), and wondered,"Who is the poster who got suspended for two weeks? " and I remember thinking,"I know it's not me because I haven't posted anything offensive, insulting, or inappropriate. " I read in horror the whole post and immediately thought,"Oh crap! How the hell did my innocent responses about alimony cause me to be suspended for two weeks?! A poster stuck up for me saying, "Nathan doesn't deserve a two week suspension! Nathan was innocently responding to two other people who brought up alimony! This is one of the most unfair suspensions of all time on this forum!" The suspension stuck however. Boo! :(
I've been busy with personal obligations and difficulties, so I'm following this up now, to include some of the later conversation.
Your initial complaint, above, was sadly lacking in some important respects.
You had just come off a previous suspension for trolling, which is sometimes a nuking offense, but you were given some leniency in receiving a 7 day offense instead.
Suspensions are martingaled, generally 3-7-14-28-nuke, though there are many reasons those are modified one direction or the other. You turned right around and offended again.
There was a general issue with hijacking in threads, and several people, not just you, were taken to task on it. You also were hijacking multiple threads at the time, and that was just one thread where you did it (twice). Note that this thread WAS about DARKOZ's suspension, not yours, but you hijacked it to your agenda for several pages, so I guess you learned very little. However, the thread itself is about a suspension, so I'll give you partial credit.
Your other activity at that time, and some months before and after, have included nonsense threads (several of which got deleted after your initial post), some additional trolling of members, and some passive aggressive disruption, resulting in complaints I considered valid enough to review your body of posts.
The total situation resulted in your two-week suspension. I stand by my decision from then.
Edited to add: it was my oversight in not logging this 2nd offense in the Suspension List. That has been corrected.
Quote: MaxPen...... In my opinion things should be allowed to breathe a little more around here. Might promote some growth.
I don't disagree. However, I've stood back a bit for a.couple weeks on some things, watching to see where things went, rather than dropping the ban hammer immediately. In each case I would normally have acted, another moderator or SA has acted in some way. That indicates to me that we all have a similar understanding of where lines are drawn and what's appropriate.
So if there is a problem, I think it is with the rules themselves, rather than inconsistent administration of them. Mike has been open before to modifying or re-defining rules; perhaps some suggestions with that intent (leniency and growth ) could be considered.
I appreciate the SAs, myself. They help a lot with spam deletion and coverage . I think Mission defined their role very well.
If you think it is intimidating here, you should see the level of discourse at a certain Norwegian gambling forum I used to belong to.Quote: RogerKintThe level of intelligence here can be intimidating but everyone that I've met has been super nice.
Quote: Mission146Quote: gordonm888
And if you think I am inflating the issue, perhaps Mike could post for us a metric on WOV site usage, say a yearly average number of forum posts per day, for the years 2011 to 2017.
If there has been a decline, I would argue that is also somewhat indicative of message boards in general as a medium of communication. The fact is that social sites have overtaken to a large degree, and as we do well and continue to do well, it is because the focal point of these forums is somewhat of a niche subject. If the subject matter of the forums were more general audience/general interest, we'd probably be in pretty bad shape.
These are good points with which I agree. It is very difficult to come up with a single quantitative metric that might reflect the effect of permanent bans and suspensions on the forum. Here are a few subjective observations:
- Your most prolific poster, EvenBob, now posts on a different forum -his stated reason for not posting here is that he doesn't like the moderation at this site
- I consistently find interesting old threads by searching on the names of people who are on your suspension lists. I wish that some of those people (but not all) were active today.
Well then, it looks like the mods are doing a very successful job after all.Quote: gordonm888Here are a few subjective observations:
- Your most prolific poster, EvenBob, now posts on a different forum -his stated reason for not posting here is that he doesn't like the moderation at this site
Quote: gordonm888
These are good points with which I agree. It is very difficult to come up with a single quantitative metric that might reflect the effect of permanent bans and suspensions on the forum. Here are a few subjective observations:
- Your most prolific poster, EvenBob, now posts on a different forum -his stated reason for not posting here is that he doesn't like the moderation at this site
- I consistently find interesting old threads by searching on the names of people who are on your suspension lists. I wish that some of those people (but not all) were active today.
It is difficult. The only thing I know, and this is one of the rare events where I feel like I can speak for the site, is that I’ve seen unmoderated places and most of them are garbage. Even some of the ones that do well on traffic. A great example, while not a forum, is to look at YouTube comments.
The bread and butter is we focus on gambling and the current assemblage here combines to know a ton about gambling and to have strong discourse on the subject. Honestly, I think we would rather have twenty posters who know a ton about gambling and discuss it in a rational and educated way than 1,000 active members who don’t. Best 1,000 active members who do, obviously, but again, niche. I’m a pretty significant decrease from Wizard-level knowledge, but I strongly believe I know more about gambling than 99.9% of the general population.
EvenBob does what EvenBob wants to do. The site in question is owned by the former owner of this site who is still, at the end of the day, in charge of the Administration of this site. To wit, Wizard could revoke Admin status from anyone of us at any time he wants.
I agree with that. Some of the people, and everything is a collaboration at the end of the day, we have felt the need to ban have been very unfortunate. There are certainly many people with a ton of gambling knowledge who are not currently welcome to post here.
For some of them, it was just a matter of not being able to justify bending the rules and further or with any greater frequency. Was I biased in favor of keeping MickeyCrimm around? Abso-freaking-lutely...your general discussion type person would have been gone months before him. With some people, though, it just hits a certain point where you ask yourself, “Am I just not going to enforce the rules AT ALL on this guy?”
For others, it was just interpersonal difference. Let’s not lie: Some of them royally ticked Wizard off. So what? If I own a restaurant and you don’t like the food and complain, fine, I’ll work on it. If you eat the food and complain about it everyday, I’ll suggest to you there are other restaurants. If you come into the restaurant JUST to complain about the food and don’t even order anything, it’s not going to take long before I demand you not come back. If you directly insult me, you’re gone immediately.
I worked at a hotel I didn’t even own and wouldn’t put up with any of that kind of crap. Wizard has taken more written abuse on here and let it slide, in some cases, than I would ever take verbal abuse at the hotel.
Quote: Homelessnyc
It's amazing how full of yourself you are. You enjoy being wrongfully condescending to people who disagree with your ill thought opinions?
Quote: WizardPersonal insult. As your third offense since July, let's make it another two weeks. You are invited to not return at all.
1. Definition of "Full of yourself" is:
very self-satisfied and with an exaggerated sense of self-worth.
That comment, imo, was a criticism on the tone and content of the post that he quotes in his post. Because you have isolated the comment from the posted quotation that he was referring to, you have subtly changed its apparent meaning and made it seem as if it was directed at a person, rather than at a post.
Quote: Wizard. . . You are invited to not return at all.
First, I enjoy homelessnyc's posts and I personally hope that he does return.
Second, this comment of yours seems to be intended to be hurtful (especially coming from someone of your stature) and has the tone of anger. This seems to be an example of the kind of thing that people are objecting to : the display of emotions by the moderators as they "discipline" the forum members, which creates a basis for people hypothesizing that the specifics of the suspension decision were influenced by whether the moderator likes or dislikes the forum member.
Third, on a thread where some have been lamenting the decline of participation in the forum and claiming that the moderation style is part of the problem, you jump in and tell a forum member "You are invited to not return at all." What are we supposed to think?
It really sounds as if you personally don't enjoy the forums and being a moderator here.
Quote: gordonm888
That comment, imo, was a criticism on the tone and content of the post that he quotes in his post. Because you have isolated the comment from the posted quotation that he was referring to, you have subtly changed its apparent meaning and made it seem as if it was directed at a person, rather than at a post.
Wizard may be along to answer for himself, if he chooses, so please don’t take this as me answering for him.
Given his history, I would read the statement as a personal insult, too. How can you say someone is, “Full of yourself,” rather than, “You sound like you’re full of yourself in this post.” One is an insult, the other isn’t. In one, you’re telling a person he/she is full of himself/herself, in the other you’re not.
Looks pretty clear to me.
Maybe you let someone with no previous bans slide with an open warning, but he’s not someone with no previous bans.
Quote:
Second, this comment of yours seems to be intended to be hurtful (especially coming from someone of your stature) and has the tone of anger. This seems to be an example of the kind of thing that people are objecting to : the display of emotions by the moderators as they "discipline" the forum members, which creates a basis for people hypothesizing that the specifics of the suspension decision were influenced by whether the moderator likes or dislikes the forum member.
Given that he just called someone full of himself, I’d be very surprised if HINY is hurt by Wizard’s posts. I imagine he’ll tell us if he was.
I can’t speak to your perception of the tone of the post because it is your perception. I can’t speak as to whether or not Wizard was angry when he wrote it because I’m not the Wizard. In terms of a word like, “Anger,” I don’t know that I’ve ever personally known the Wizard to be angry about anything.
Quote:Third, on a thread where some have been lamenting the decline of participation in the forum and claiming that the moderation style is part of the problem, you jump in and tell a forum member "You are invited to not return at all." What are we supposed to think?
It really sounds as if you personally don't enjoy the forums and being a moderator here.
HYC is invited not to return at all, that’s what everyone is supposed to think. Wizard would be fine with it if he returns (implied) and would perhaps be even more fine with it if he doesn’t return. Seems pretty obvious to me.
I can’t answer for whether Wizard enjoys that stuff. I assume he does since he does it. I enjoy it, for whatever that’s worth.
Quote: Mission146
HYC is invited not to return at all, that’s what everyone is supposed to think. Wizard would be fine with it if he returns (implied) and would perhaps be even more fine with it if he doesn’t return. Seems pretty obvious to me.
I can’t answer for whether Wizard enjoys that stuff. I assume he does since he does it. I enjoy it, for whatever that’s worth.
Apparently, Wizard did not feel that HYC's post merited a permanent ban. So,why did he not simply hand him a 2-week suspension? Instead, he went beyond that: he injected his personal disdain for HYC by then telling HYC that he was unwelcome - that he was "welcome to not return at all." That went beyond the role of administering the rules of the forum; there was no need to further injure and piss off HYC by telling him that he was unwelcome.
The contributing members of this forum are valuable assets to this forum. You have no content and no forum without the members! When HYC is treated with disdain and told he is unwelcome (for disturbing the peace by saying that someone is 'full of yourself', my God! ) it not only drives HYC away but it drives other people away from being part of this forum. In my opinion, telling HYC that he was unwelcome was inappropriate and a little bit ugly and objectionable.
If I say, "Omg, ARE YOU STUPID?" do you think I'm asking a legitimate question, or do you think I'm calling you stupid?
But if EvenBob's perception of the admins is what's keeping him from posting here, then the admins are doing something right....and that's probably the most important thing, IMO.
Quote: gordonm888Apparently, Wizard did not feel that HYC's post merited a permanent ban. So,why did he not simply hand him a 2-week suspension? Instead, he went beyond that: he injected his personal disdain for HYC by then telling HYC that he was unwelcome - that he was "welcome to not return at all." That went beyond the role of administering the rules of the forum; there was no need to further injure and piss off HYC by telling him that he was unwelcome.
I imagine he didn’t feel that way because his post doesn’t merit a permanent ban. I can’t imagine anyone would argue it does.
With that, you do have someone who has multiple bans within the last six months, I believe, for personal insult. One of which was graduated from three days to two weeks for multiple targets. I also read the tone of some of the posts as excessively adversarial, but that’s just my perception.
Again, I don’t think he’s injured. I am going to give HNY (HYC was an accident) credit for having a thicker skin than that. Quite frankly, I think he’ll either return or won’t and is not particularly concerned with Wizard’s opinion of his posts or the opinions of anyone else.
Also, look at this thread. I’ve been busy arguing with HNY that objective and provable facts are objective and provable facts and that’s not enough to get him to concede that his use of the word, “Never,” was erroneous. Perhaps he would have, in fairness, I guess our conversation wasn’t necessarily over yet.
Quote:The contributing members of this forum are valuable assets to this forum. You have no content and no forum without the members! When HYC is treated with disdain and told he is unwelcome (for disturbing the peace by saying that someone is 'full of yourself', my God! ) it not only drives HYC away but it drives other people away from being part of this forum. In my opinion, telling HYC that he was unwelcome was inappropriate and a little bit ugly and objectionable.
They are until they are determined not to be. Ones who are Nuked have been determined not to be, in most cases, or at least the costs of them being here outweigh the benefits.
When someone is temporarily banned, that means we believe that they are not a net asset to the Forum the way they are currently conducting themselves. I would guess that Wizard’s speculation is that the behavior of HNY that led to the current ban and Wizard saying what he said will continue. I have no personal opinion of whether or not it will continue.
We have a rule that is No Personal Insult. Not, “No Personal Insult except those that aren’t that bad.” Wizard has determined there was a Personal Insult, and not that it matters, but I agree.
I do apologize that you found Wizard’s statement objectionable. I imagine more than zero people will agree with you and that some people will not find it objectionable. I do not think it was, but could see where someone would, particularly if that someone disagrees with the underlying ban.
Quote: gordonm888Apparently, Wizard did not feel that HYC's post merited a permanent ban. So,why did he not simply hand him a 2-week suspension? Instead, he went beyond that: he injected his personal disdain for HYC by then telling HYC that he was unwelcome - that he was "welcome to not return at all." That went beyond the role of administering the rules of the forum; there was no need to further injure and piss off HYC by telling him that he was unwelcome.
The contributing members of this forum are valuable assets to this forum. You have no content and no forum without the members! When HYC is treated with disdain and told he is unwelcome (for disturbing the peace by saying that someone is 'full of yourself', my God! ) it not only drives HYC away but it drives other people away from being part of this forum. In my opinion, telling HYC that he was unwelcome was inappropriate and a little bit ugly and objectionable.
You sound just like the casino customers I have to ask to leave and sometimes even tell them there are other casino around if they don't like our rules.
Same silly answers. "I'm the customer". "Soon you'll have no customers." "I'm not bothering anyone." "I have a right to do what I want."
The business makes the rules. The customers can choose to follow them or not, to stay or go, to return or do business elsewhere. Crying about the rules or thw handling of them at the establishment , without them asking for your input does about as much good as throwing yourself to the ground and spinning around in circles.
As the old saying goes, you shop with your feet. Thats how business is done. Thats how business jusge whether what they are doing is working or not. Not by listening to a very small complaining minority.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13You sound just like the casino customers I have to ask to leave and sometimes even tell them there are other casino around if they don't like our rules.
Same silly answers. "I'm the customer". "Soon you'll have no customers." "I'm not bothering anyone." "I have a right to do what I want."
The business makes the rules. The customers can choose to follow them or not, to stay or go, to return or do business elsewhere. Crying about the rules or thw handling of them at the establishment , without them asking for your input does about as much good as throwing yourself to the ground and spinning around in circles.
As the old saying goes, you shop with your feet. Thats how business is done. Thats how business jusge whether what they are doing is working or not. Not by listening to a very small complaining minority.
ZCore13
Totally agree with this post.
To really understand the ban for HNY, you need to read his whole body of work. I suspect the Wiz's decision was based on that, not just on the "full of yourself" comment. If you read the whole body of his posts, you'll realize he has an anger problem that he needs to deal with.
Quote: RSMission, don't kid yourself. Telling someone they are welcome to not return isn't like, "Well, technically, he can return if he wants to or not return, errmegurr". It's telling someone NOT to return. You can play your word games and technicalities, but it is what it is.
I disagree because we’d just Nuke him. That’s how we tell people not to return. I’m not going to mince words, the verbiage would suggest that Wizard would prefer if he, of his own volition, does not return.
Quote:If I say, "Omg, ARE YOU STUPID?" do you think I'm asking a legitimate question, or do you think I'm calling you stupid?
I agree with that. But that’s not in the context of any official action.
Quote: Mission146I agree with that. But that’s not in the context of any official action.
Are you saying that would or wouldn't be a basis for a suspension? What if I asked EvenBob directly, "Are you a worthless troll?" (Example, of course.) Can one simply ask a question to skirt around calling that person an <insulting word>"?
Quote: Zcore13You sound just like the casino customers I have to ask to leave and sometimes even tell them there are other casino around if they don't like our rules.
Same silly answers. "I'm the customer". "Soon you'll have no customers." "I'm not bothering anyone." "I have a right to do what I want."
The business makes the rules. The customers can choose to follow them or not, to stay or go, to return or do business elsewhere. Crying about the rules or thw handling of them at the establishment , without them asking for your input does about as much good as throwing yourself to the ground and spinning around in circles.
As the old saying goes, you shop with your feet. Thats how business is done. Thats how business jusge whether what they are doing is working or not. Not by listening to a very small complaining minority.
ZCore13
Just my general observation, that the Wizard pretty much runs things similarly. And if people don't grind their axe too often or too hard, he doesn't pay too much attention.
Once in awhile, someone's day and night axe grinding annoys him enough to slam the door on them. Not sure why anyone is surprised at that. Some things might get changed. Some things may not change no matter how many times someone brings it up.
Quote: rxwineJust my general observation, that the Wizard pretty much runs things similarly. And if people don't grind their axe too often or too hard, he doesn't pay too much attention.
Once in awhile, someone's day and night axe grinding annoys him enough to slam the door on them. Not sure why anyone is surprised at that. Some things might get changed. Some things may not change no matter how many times someone brings it up.
Exactly. Same with me at work. My employer says the F word is unacceptable at the tables. You can get away with shit and crap and damn and many other words, but not the F word.
So, when I hear it, I tell the person nicely, no F word please. How they react to that makes a difference on how much leniency they get the rest of the way. If they acknowledge the mistake, apologize, or say something good natured back, I can overlook the next time and just warn them again, or if I see they caught themselves right after, just let it go. If time elapses and it happens again, they've probably made an effort to not do it so ill start back at step one.
If they were a jerk, like just recently when someone claimed they are an adult and can talk how they want, the next one is a final warning and the 3rd strike and he's out.
Now, to an outsider or someone just counting warnings this may seem unfair. One person gets numerous warningz over the night, while one is out on the 3rd occurrence. Too bad. That's where life can be unfair if you are just counting warning. But to a normal person not looming to grind an axe, its pretty easy to see the difference in the situations and move on.
ZCore13
Quote: RSI'd say 99% chance Wizard didn't read the post and suspend him on his own but was likely sent a PM from ZCore, for what it's worth.
Ridiculously wrong and completely fabricated. As far as i can recall in my 9 years here, I have never in my life sent an email complaining about a post, asking for a suspension or tried to get out of my own suspension.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13You sound just like the casino customers I have to ask to leave and sometimes even tell them there are other casino around if they don't like our rules.
Same silly answers. "I'm the customer". "Soon you'll have no customers." "I'm not bothering anyone." "I have a right to do what I want."
The business makes the rules. The customers can choose to follow them or not, to stay or go, to return or do business elsewhere. Crying about the rules or thw handling of them at the establishment , without them asking for your input does about as much good as throwing yourself to the ground and spinning around in circles.
As the old saying goes, you shop with your feet. Thats how business is done. Thats how business jusge whether what they are doing is working or not. Not by listening to a very small complaining minority.
ZCore13
There are no rules at Indian casinos. They do as they please.
Quote: RSAre you saying that would or wouldn't be a basis for a suspension? What if I asked EvenBob directly, "Are you a worthless troll?" (Example, of course.) Can one simply ask a question to skirt around calling that person an <insulting word>"?
No, what I mean is Wizard wasn’t skirting an insult. Suggesting someone not return is not a personal insult.
Quote: RSI'd say 99% chance Wizard didn't read the post and suspend him on his own but was likely sent a PM from ZCore, for what it's worth.
Um...If Wizard hadn’t banned him, I would have, and nobody sent me a PM. I may well have had it before Wizard, except I was actually composing a response to HNY’s post to me at the time.
You’ll notice my next post was two minutes after Wizard announced the ban...I just hadn’t made it that far in the thread, yet.
In a business or a casino you offer a product and your customers do not particularly care about how many other customers you have.
In a forum, you come to read posts and chat with other people -you seek peer interactions. As the forum authorities start to banish people, the quality and richness of the forum declines -and as it declines, some people elect to leave because its not worth their time and so it declines further. The forum becomes half-dead -and then, maybe, more people are banished and suddenly it reaches a tipping point and it is completely dead.
For that reason, the mathematics that governs the growth and decline of a forum is completely different than that of a business or casino.
A forum is more comparable to teenagers hanging out at a mall. If the mall authorities decide they only want 1/3 as many teenagers at the mall they might decide to banish 2/3 of the teenagers - but then, very quickly, they would have zero teenagers at the mall. Because the unbanished population of teenagers will leave to go to whatever mall or parking lot that the banished teenagers have shifted to. The teenagers are looking for peer interactions. That is the way a forum is - and the WOV forum could empty out very quickly if the attrition reaches a certain tipping point.
I don't see why anyone would have problems with these rules. People don't need to feel insulted; profanity is not necessary; you can source your opinions with facts or quotations. I think that if someone can't play by these rules they shouldn't be here. It's not like Mike is asking for money (in fact the site had some financial hardship due to his exclusive relationship with BoDog) or that the rules are ridiculous. Anyone with a semblance of control should be able to abide by these rules.
And there are members (or past members) who can't. Some are just a little rough around the edges. Some people feel that profanity is fine. Some people feel that people should be able to handle insults. But if you push the line to something where the rules are more liberal, then all the mods are doing is generating suspensions under a different line.
Then you will have a bunch of posters on here complaining about how rough the insult person A did on person B but person B didn't get banned for calling C a name. And another poster complaining that F used the F word four times in a post and got suspended but person S used the S word ten times in another post and didn't.
People here who are complaining are saying that suspensions are politically motivated, or are unfair, or that the rules are too strong. The request may be to move the line, but I would suggest that if the line is moved, the complaints will not be reduced. What will result is a different population of people leaving the forum because it's too rough.
In the end this is a gambling forum meant to discuss all things Las Vegas. There are political threads too which are allowed in "off topic" and the "off topic" section has been around since the forum's inception and frankly has driven a lot of traffic to the sight; you will see the most frequent posters are active in these threads, so I can see the business justification of keeping the threads around. Gambling boards shouldn't be ridden with profanity and insults. That's never what Mike would want.
