Discussion III about the Suspension List
I will announce that Moderators have a gentlemen's agreement to not disagree with each other in public. However, the PM system is used for discussion between moderators, and sometimes the discussion is . . . "vigorous."
This thread is open.
The suspension list can be found Here
{Moderator note: No typo goes unnoticed! The typo in the Thread Title has since been corrected. Thank you ChumpChange!}
Cheers GordonM888.Quote: gordonm888The last Discussion thread was getting long, and because it is temporarily closed, let's use this moment to start a new thread.
Indeed. And very constructive it is too! Good to have some new perspectives on the team.Quote:I will announce that Moderators have a gentlemen's agreement to not disagree with each other in public. However, the PM system is used for discussion between moderators, and sometimes the discussion is . . . "vigorous."
I defer to Gordon's judgement on that.Quote:This thread is open.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: gordonm888
This thread is open.
I defer to Gordon's judgement on that.
It seemed wrong to lockdown the forum's discussion, when we, the moderators, are still burning up electrons on the PM system, chewing on everything like it is beef jerky. ;)
If someone posts nonsense system stuff here, talks about their adventures as a recreational player or AP or has something interesting to say about game development, math or some advantage play, then all of that is fine by me. What is not fine are all the rules and moderation, all the back and forth fighting about suspensions and everything else that has evolved over the last 12 years of trying to create a fair and ethical system for folks to post under.
A single benevolent dictator is always the best choice to run a forum, a combination between a kindergarten teacher and army sergeant. Right or wrong, at least decisions are made and that's the end of it. My recommendation to the new owners -- ditch all the rules, ditch all the moderators and start over. This site is beyond repair through incremental change.
I will continue to be an infrequent poster here, though not for want of desire. I am continually looking for the good stuff and an opportunity to contribute, it's just very hard to find.
Quote: teliotI rarely post on this forum. I just want to state, once for the record, that the reason I rarely post is 100% the endless discussions about the rules, personal gripes and suspensions here in this thread and in myriad other threads at the expense of content and thoughtful discussion. This site is painful to skim, let alone read.
If someone posts nonsense system stuff here, talks about their adventures as a recreational player or AP or has something interesting to say about game development, math or some advantage play, then all of that is fine by me. What is not fine are all the rules and moderation, all the back and forth fighting about suspensions and everything else that has evolved over the last 12 years of trying to create a fair and ethical system for folks to post under.
A single benevolent dictator is always the best choice to run a forum, a combination between a kindergarten teacher and army sergeant. Right or wrong, at least decisions are made and that's the end of it. My recommendation to the new owners -- ditch all the rules, ditch all the moderators and start over. This site is beyond repair through incremental change.
I will continue to be an infrequent poster here, though not for want of desire. I am continually looking for the good stuff and an opportunity to contribute, it's just very hard to find.
I very much agree with your statement of the problem. I think its weird that "discussion of the suspension list" has seen 10s of thousands of posts and I constantly say that no one is attracted to this forum because they want to read discussions about its suspension list. Your "Cut the Gordian Knot" solution might be the correct one but we would still be left with an administrator of some sort, and (given vacations and personal life, etc.) its really difficult for a single person to cover the forum. So, you start evolving back to a system with multiple administrators.
Its easy to imagine a single benevolent dictator that is a near-perfect person, but what you sometimes get is a Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro or King Louis XIV or an Idi Amin. So people who design governance tend to employ checks and balances. But you're extremely smart and you certainly know all this.
Perhaps we, the moderators, need to make more dispassionate decisions and disallow complaints and arguments about our decisions? But we would also need to avoid engaging in the life of the forum -become more detached. We're not paid and there are no perks -and we're all here because we have some online friends here and because we enjoy some of the content.
I sincerely want to make the forum a better place. I'd like to be positive, praise people for good posts, encourage newcomers, help with problems - and I almost certainly will do all that. But we're up against human nature - some people like to quarrel, some like drama, and some may actually have various kinds of mental disorders. Some have bad days, get off their meds, etc. Virtually everyone is very bright and most like to show off their intelligence - they know how to skirt the rules and let's face it, many of them have egos, are tempermental and are sore at each other. We've banned political and religious discussion and yet people still fight about "idiot issues" - issues that, if finally resolved the way they want, will not make their lives any better or themselves any happier.
I do note that on the mathematical threads we have no fighting. But on the other threads? Well, you can ask your single benevolent dictator to stand on the beach, spread out his mighty arms and promise to hold back the tide. I wonder if it will work, though.
BUT WAIT, DON'T KNOCK HEAD AGAINST THE WALL YET AT THAT SUGGESTION.
New rule. ***** Members have two posts to discuss why their suspension was unfair. One initial. And one follow-up if necessary. Anything beyond that merits a suspension.
All other members allowed only one comment on said suspension. Either AGREE OR DISAGREE no EXPLANATIONS!!!
And that is the whole content of the future suspension list.
(That is for Discussion about the suspension list, btw)
Maybe the ONLY discussion allowed in that thread should be between the damned (he who was exiled) and the admin who suspended him.
All others should butt out because really, what can we possibly add that would be helpful?
Quote: MrVIt's not just that "the damned" whine about being suspended; the problem is that lots of others, including me, feel the urge to "chime in."
Maybe the ONLY discussion allowed in that thread should be between the damned (he who was exiled) and the admin who suspended him.
All others should butt out because really, what can we possibly add that would be helpful?
1. Make the suspension list some kind of easy to click link, maybe next to "Top Contributors?"
2. Then people who do not care for the drama can just ignore the "Discussion about the suspension list" thread but can easily see why a user got suspended. I rarely care unless it is an old-timer/"famous" poster who has been around for years and said much.
Only other suggestion would be to allow a user to ask a mod to recuse themselves from ruling on them if that mod seems to have a long term beef with them. I asked a mod once and they declined when it was obvious they had a personal issue with me. Even if it would not do a ton it would make things seem more fair.
Quote: MrV
Maybe the ONLY discussion allowed in that thread should be between the damned (he who was exiled) and the admin who suspended him.
All others should butt out because really, what can we possibly add that would be helpful?
The suspended cannot speak out during a suspension.
The rest of the community may plead for dispensation of benevolent clemency.
AxelWolf can tell us what a predictably mediocre job we're doing.
I am not convinced that a different system would be an improvement.
Let me say a couple of things, as long as I'm posting.
First, we do allow members to object and discuss suspensions of themselves and others. I think that is part of respecting free speech. Since there is so much complaining about suspensions, I chose to try to contain it to this thread, as opposed to seeing grievances all over the place. Regarding complaining, I have my limits. If someone's primary contribution to the forum is to gripe about suspensions and management in general, it becomes trolling. This especially includes mentioning suspensions that happened years ago. As a reminder, nobody is forced to be here and this is just an Internet forum.
Second, we define hijacking as posting something completely unrelated to the topic at hand. However, it's considered one of the more mild offenses and we often don't notice it or let it go if the infraction isn't too blatant. If posting a story is relevant to the topic at hand, that should be okay.
Quote: QFITConfucius said: "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated."
I agree.
Nice to see you Norm. Hope you're doing well. Feel free to stick around.
Quote: QFITConfucius said: "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated."
Most people including myself would be vehemently disagree with this. Life is actually very complicated and if you can make it simple, good on you. Because most people can't. It's what keeps shrinks in business.
Posted here as the original thread, consisting exclusively of copied content, is deleted.
Following consultation with Dieter, the penalty set to time served and a reminder to review rule 2.Quote: DieterMarcusClark66 is punished for Copyright and Spam violations.
Posted here as the original thread, consisting exclusively of copied content, is deleted.
Generally speaking, quotes from third party sites should only be short snippets (fair use) and should bear some attribution note.
IANAL.
OD, your abbreviations may be understood by you, and one or two others, but the rest???Quote: OnceDear
IANAL.
Attacks on others....I think WOV needs to look at take-downs. The unfortunate believers can be scolded, but not by every Tom, Dick and Harry! There should be a limit, otherwise it's too lopsided.
Some even use take-downs to troll! It's easily recognised and isn't fair. If you look at my original thread "beat the house at blackjack!!!!" I complained about some within the thread and via PM to mods, but I was completely ignored. Again, people don't have to read these kind of threads, and saturating them with all kinds of snipes is so unfair.
Would I be able to get away with constantly sniping at naysayers? Maybe the answer is to allow one or two disagreements on any new topic, then allow the topic to run? Mods could even add a running header in a different colour, and bold, where necessary...E.g. WOV DOESN'T AGREE WITH BETTING SYSTEMS.
No sniping would be needed in a thread with this kind of running header on each page of posts, and believers could go for their life.
I don't have any problem with any betting system post being immediately allocated to a heading on the main page, e.g. BETTING SYSTEMS. As long as the heading, BETTING SYSTEMS, is easily accessible, the posts only need be seen by those accessing it.
Quote: WellbushOD, your abbreviations may be understood by you, and one or two others, but the rest???
Attacks on others....I think WOV needs to look at take-downs. The unfortunate believers can be scolded, but not by every Tom, Dick and Harry! There should be a limit, otherwise it's too lopsided.
Some even use take-downs to troll! It's easily recognised and isn't fair. If you look at my original thread "beat the house at blackjack!!!!" I complained about some within the thread and via PM to mods, but I was completely ignored. Again, people don't have to read these kind of threads, and saturating them with all kinds of snipes is so unfair.
Would I be able to get away with constantly sniping at naysayers? Maybe the answer is to allow one or two disagreements on any new topic, then allow the topic to run? Mods could even add a running header in a different colour, and bold, where necessary...E.g. WOV DOESN'T AGREE WITH BETTING SYSTEMS.
No sniping would be needed in a thread with this kind of running header on each page of posts, and believers could go for their life.
IANAL translates to "I Am Not A Lawyer", and is a standard disclaimer applied to posts which could be misconstrued as legal advice.
As for the rest; consider that if everyone is arguing with you, you might be wrong and their sincere hope is to bring you to an epiphany.
Quote: DieterIANAL translates to "I Am Not A Lawyer", and is a standard disclaimer applied to posts which could be misconstrued as legal advice.
As for the rest; consider that if everyone is arguing with you, you might be wrong and their sincere hope is to bring you to an epiphany.
I also did not know what IANAL meant.
I'm also sorry to say that I just kept attributing it's meaning to saying it as it kinda sounds.
I anal. It made sense to me!
yes, and I shouldn't need to be unmercifully derided to get to the epiphany.Quote: Dieter
As for the rest; consider that if everyone is arguing with you, you might be wrong and their sincere hope is to bring you to an epiphany.
And many may not have the wherewithal to know how to put their objections in print?
Also consider that there may seem many arguing with me because of the kind of posters drawn to this site....a site upholding a certain mathematical point of view. In that case, the naysayers should be comfortable enough not to need to delve into the betting systems area of the website, and WOV can only have an enlarged audience with a separate believers area under "BETTING SYSTEMS."
There are other sites that cater for believers. I may not need to be shown the epiphany over there? Telling me I should stick over there has value, but there's also value in the kind of separate area (BETTING SYSTEMS) opportunity on this site, too.
Quote: Wellbushyes, and I shouldn't need to be unmercifully derided to get to the epiphany.
And many may not have the wherewithal to know how to put the objections in print?
Also consider that there may seem many arguing with me because of the kind of posters drawn to this site....a site upholding a certain mathematical point of view. In that case, the naysayers should be comfortable enough not to need to delve into the betting systems area of the website, and WOV can only have an enlarged audience with a separate believers area under "BETTING SYSTEMS."
Many of our mathematically talented members enjoy enthusiastically dissecting betting systems as good intellectual sport.
Some people would prefer to have their ego battered in vigorous debate with well informed counterparts instead of having their bankroll decimated by a belief in a mathematically disprovable approach.
How much you bet isn't going to change how the dice land or how the cards come out.
I make no value judgment; it's your money to squander as you see fit. I'm fond of coin pushers, personally.
if that's the underlying attitude (vigorous debate), then why has OD, on more than one occasion, shut me down?Quote: DieterMany of our mathematically talented members enjoy enthusiastically dissecting betting systems as good intellectual sport.
Some people would prefer to have their ego battered in vigorous debate with well informed counterparts instead of having their bankroll decimated by a belief in a mathematically disprovable approach.
How much you bet isn't going to change how the dice land or how the cards come out.
I make no value judgment; it's your money to squander as you see fit. I'm fond of coin pushers, personally.
I think a clear majority in both camps (naysayers and believers) would rather post without it getting too nasty. Hence why I think it's better to separate the two areas.
That brings another opportunity, and my view in this regard is "more is more." WOV could have a discussion area (maybe headed: Objections) for dissecting anything anyone wants dissecting.
A couple of added areas (1. Betting Systems, 2. Objections) to the WOV website that I think would only add, rather than detract, from this site. A dissecting area would probably have to have rules to limit excessive behaviours.
A dissecting area would also allow anyone with a disagreement with a thread, to voice their objection there, without objecting in the thread being objected to.
Quote: Wellbushif that's the underlying attitude (vigorous debate), then why has OD, on more than one occasion, shut me down?
Sincere questions rooted in a genuine failure to comprehend a topic are often identical in appearance to insincere questions based on feigned incomprehension.
The former is the basis of learning; the latter is the basis of trolling.
In either case, if the first five answers didn't form a suitable reply, it is unlikely that further restatements of the same information will better inform the questioner, but would "feed the troll".
Regarding the seeming attitude by some toward me on this site, Dieter, I don't think I'm blind to the mathematical truths that they think I am. I have a BA (Psychology) and I had to do some majors in statistics and probability. Far from the levels of those doing a major in Math, but still, some understanding at least.Quote: DieterMany of our mathematically talented members enjoy enthusiastically dissecting betting systems as good intellectual sport.
Some people would prefer to have their ego battered in vigorous debate with well informed counterparts instead of having their bankroll decimated by a belief in a mathematically disprovable approach.
How much you bet isn't going to change how the dice land or how the cards come out.
I make no value judgment; it's your money to squander as you see fit. I'm fond of coin pushers, personally.
The basic subjects I did were enough for me to know that math theory is not all sown up. Historically, different formulae are updated as more accurate one's take their place.
Personally, I would like to think I'm open-minded, rather than stubborn, when it comes to the mathematical truths of gambling. I don't think winning gamblers should be outright dismissed as being imposters, and MD is testament to that.
Just as much as some here can dress me down about the mathematical truths re gambling, I can fire back with competing views. And it has very little to do with stubbornness. If I'm firing back it's to query the argument, not for the sake of arguing.
Let me answer this post Dieter, by using the "Teaching EV to Wellbush" thread, as an example. You are aware of that thread. I learnt something more about EV and the way it's calculated. The formula for EV, as far as OD explained it, seemed fairly simple and gave the EV for my use of the G Marty as 0.Quote: DieterSincere questions rooted in a genuine failure to comprehend a topic are often identical in appearance to insincere questions based on feigned incomprehension.
The former is the basis of learning; the latter is the basis of trolling.
In either case, if the first five answers didn't form a suitable reply, it is unlikely that further restatements of the same information will better inform the questioner, but would "feed the troll".
Okay, now I can go away and say: "That's it! Epiphany arrived at! Everyone, just follow the formula. All betting systems can be analysed and debunked according to the formula for EV. I (Wellbush) have arrived and I'm on the naysayer side for evermore!!"
I can easily do that and it wouldn't be a problem for me to. I still may, who knows?
But what many here may not realise, is that I won't immediately do that for the reasons they think. They would probably think, and some have voiced this already, that I'm stubborn and insulting. I can see why they think that, but they're wrong!
I am actually in limbo. I can see the EV formula and I'm learning more about it over time. But I don't think the EV formula is necessarily all encompassing.
If people were shown the history of math, and how different theories have evolved and dissipated over time, they may not accept every seemingly fitting glorious formula! Hell, we'd be in the dark ages (or worse!) if all scientists and mathematicians did that.
I can't go into details lest this post get exceedingly longer than what it already is, but suffice to say, I don't query and refuse to believe the math, simply because I'm stubborn!
Quote: QFITI fear you are confusing simple math with complex physics.
I fear you are confusing a legitimate posted with an illegitimate one.
Quote: Wizardwe define hijacking as posting something completely unrelated to the topic at hand. However, it's considered one of the more mild offenses and we often don't notice it or let it go if the infraction isn't too blatant. If posting a story is relevant to the topic at hand, that should be okay.
Thank you for posting the clarification about hijacking. Wizard, please correct me if I am wrong, but then this means that my posting about my experiences in casinos, win, lose, or draw, as they relate to the thread topic is okay. In other words, there is no such rule as: “MDawg is talking or boasting about himself again, so that is trolling or hijacking” – because that sort of “rule” was way out.
As an aside, yes, I may mention that whatever I am doing works for me, but that doesn’t mean automatically that my post is solely for aggrandizement purposes. I just post about the way that I navigate life and casinos, as might anyone else.
So, Wizard, just clarifying that there are no special rules for hijacking or trolling when it comes to me.
Quote: MDawgSo, Wizard, just clarifying that there are no special rules for hijacking or trolling when it comes to me.
This is true.
no. not at all. math has evolved, like science, believe it or not! to clarify, more complex math has evolved, not simple math.Quote: QFITI fear you are confusing simple math with complex physics.
Understanding EV could be construed as very simple. but are you saying EV has got the math of winning gamblers sown up?Quote: QFITWe're talking about EV, not non-Euclidean geometries or Hilbert spaces.
Quote: Wizard... I think that is part of respecting free speech. ...
If I may note, BUT we don't have free speech here as certain topics are banned. So, why not refine it, since we don't have it anyway?
For instance, I can explain why it's logical to include all known new descriptions of "system" betting, but don't see the point of allowing repetitive declarations. One allowance of all flat-Earth theory is good enough isn't it? Does it need to be several volumes of discussion?
Btw, I wouldn't mind seeing a section dedicated to common gambling scams old or new explained like "3 card monte' More as a faq, than a discussion, for anyone who wants to contribute such subjects.
That's all I have to say. 1.5 cents worth.
I
Quote: WellbushUnderstanding EV could be construed as very simple. but are you saying EV has got the math of winning gamblers sown up?
Of course not. EV doesn't include risk. I don't use EV. I use SCORE or win rate with risk.. As for winning, there are a large number of non-mathematic factors. But, without a positive SCORE, your risk of ruin over time is overwhelming and the other factors are not relevant. That aside, you do need a positive EV.
well your kind of answering the q. there are a number of various factors, beyond the formula for EV, that gamblers may be able to take advantage of, that may result in winning strategies. that's one reason (proven and witnessed winning gamblers are another) why i'm not gonna immediately jump on the "gamblers can't win" side of the argument. i'd feel quite unsure of myself on this topic, if i did.Quote: QFITOf course not. EV doesn't include risk. I don't use EV. I use SCORE or win rate with risk.. As for winning, there are a large number of non-mathematic factors. But, without a positive SCORE, your risk of ruin over time is overwhelming and the other factors are not relevant. That aside, you do need a positive EV.
And, "gamblers can't win" is not a valid statement. Someone will win a lottery. Just don't use the lottery as a retirement plan as the average gambler will lose in the long run.
WOV could ban all systems posts. do you think WOV would be bigger and better for it? if you read the other posts, there's something to be said for having an accessible "betting systems" area on the site. personally, i think there's far better chance WOV will be bigger and better doing that.Quote: rxwineIf I may note, BUT we don't have free speech here as certain topics are banned. So, why not refine it, since we don't have it anyway?
For instance, I can explain why it's logical to include all known new descriptions of "system" betting, but don't see the point of allowing repetitive declarations. One allowance of all flat-Earth theory is good enough isn't it? Does it need to be several volumes of discussion?
Btw, I wouldn't mind seeing a section dedicated to common gambling scams old or new explained like "3 card monte' More as a faq, than a discussion, for anyone who wants to contribute such subjects.
That's all I have to say. 1.5 cents worth.
also, some argue that the math of betting systems is not all sown up!
Possibly. I'm sitting on the fence re this, for now. Is that allowed, or like some here, do you think i'm completely outta line for hedging and wanting time to consider this? Geez, I reckon I'd be flogged a coupla centuries ago!Quote: QFITNo, there are other factors that can affect longevity, events per hour, etc. But, without a positive EV as a basis, they are not relevant. You must start with a positive EV.
true, and you agree then that some gamblers win!?Quote: QFITAnd, "gamblers can't win" is not a valid statement. Someone will win a lottery. Just don't use the lottery as a retirement plan as the average gambler will lose in the long run.
i'm happy for you to be confident that the only gambling winners have had variance on their side. personally, i haven't formed that view yet.Quote: QFITGeorge Burns smoked heavily and lived to 100. The head of the Miami Heart Institute dropped dead of a heart attack at a young age while jogging. That does not mean smoking is better than exercise. Winning does not mean you did something right. Variance exists.
Quote: WellbushWOV could ban all systems posts. do you think WOV would be bigger and better for it?
No I think ONE copy of any betting system should be here. Why would it be better to keep repeating it more than once?
every single mathematician on this planet will tell you that negative expectancy at a house game cannot be overcome by money management (progressions) or by bet selection or by a combination of both
a WOV poster indicating he can do just that has the same amount of credibility as a WOV member posting that he can bench press 1500 pounds 100 times
.
Quote: lilredrooster_
a WOV poster indicating he can do just that has the same amount of credibility as a WOV member posting that he can bench press 1500 pounds 100 times
.
I'm tempted to go to a weight training forum and see how long they would tolerate such a claim there? I could argue that they should as many times as someone wants to claim such things, but that just seems crazy to me.
well there are many internet dwellers who would love to read about as many betting systems as they could. that's why WOV would be much bigger and better for it. but i accept you're not in that category.Quote: rxwineNo I think ONE copy of any betting system should be here. Why would it be better to keep repeating it more than once?
i haven't heard this before! amazing!Quote: lilredrooster_________
every single mathematician on this planet will tell you that negative expectancy at a house game cannot be overcome by money management (progressions) or by bet selection or by a combination of both
a WOV poster indicating he can do just that has the same amount of credibility as a WOV member posting that he can bench press 1500 pounds 100 times
