Subtle.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: kewljAnd let me say this about sock puppets: The common use of a sock puppet is for someone banned to return with a new account. That is the one many people almost have fun with. Think, Nathan/karen or Buzz.
But the real dastardly use of a sock puppet is for someone making claims or something that haze ZERO credibility with any of the members, then creates a sock puppet to support him, so he gains some credibility. For this one the classic example was Rob Singer/Jerry Logan, although there may be more recent really good examples. (eyeroll)
link to original post
Without revealing any methods, let me say that this forum does take countermeasures to detect sock puppets. Paranoia about sock puppets may be fun to roll around in, but to date, there is no evidence that MarcusClarke is a sock puppet of MDawg, which is what you are clearly implying and there is indeed circumstantial evidence that he is not a sock puppet.
If you have evidence, then please state it. Otherwise eyeroll your eyes back into your head and go about your business and stop disparaging people by artful insinuation.
link to original post
Gordon I resent the "implied" accusation. I said nothing about anyone in particular. by restrictions placed on me that no one else has, I am prohibited from from saying anything about the person implied, so was careful not to. I also am over that particular situation because it has been resolved to my satisfaction. That is all I can and will say.
But not specific to any situation (so please don't imply) the use sock puppets for the purpose of someone gaining credibility where there otherwise is none, because not a single member believes them.....again, I will use the Rob Singer example just to be sure we are not talking about something else, IS STILL a concern. It is enables and encourages more of these situations.
No offense to you but your countermeasures and methods of detecting this TYPE of situation is not up to par. Dan Druff who owns and runs VCT is an expert. He is able to see through or past VPN's which is the problem today. And on the rare occasion he is unable to, he will ask a member to "unmask" for a single post, just to ensure there is no shenanigans going on.
Since Dan Druff is a member here, I asked him to come here to discuss this several months ago (possible just before you became mod). I believe it was oncedear who participated in the discussion with Dan Druff and it became clear WoV was lagging. I trust that the intent is good. But WoV seems to have been left behind a bit and that is a concern in this type of sock puppetry for credibility.
The sock puppetry of Tasha/nathan, and Buzz, and that type, that is almost harmless. Annoying but harmless. So I don't care. It is specifically sock puppets created to gain credibility where there otherwise is none that is my concern...going forward.
Kewl,Quote: kewljQuote: gordonm888Without revealing any methods, let me say that this forum does take countermeasures to detect sock puppets.link to original post
No offense to you but your countermeasures and methods of detecting this TYPE of situation is not up to par.
link to original post
I'll allow gordon to address your concerns with his post. He may not have been aware of posting restrictions you are under.
As to how we counter socks, I'll acknowledge that this forum used to lack certain security features. But we have requested and received a number of software enhancements. I'm not going to discuss technicalities because we are in a constant technical war with trolls spammers and socks. It does us no favours to reveal our methods or capabilities.
Quote: OnceDear[
As to how we counter socks, I'll acknowledge that this forum used to lack certain security features. But we have requested and received a number of software enhancements. I'm not going to discuss technicalities because we are in a constant technical war with trolls spammers and socks. It does us no favours to reveal our methods or capabilities.
Good to hear of the enhancements. All that kind of thing is way beyond me. I am sure you guys are doing your best, oncedear. I was just voicing a concern in the hope it can be addressed or improved upon before it comes into play again.
I guess I'll just say, Love MDawg or hate him, he seems like a smart guy.
Tricky isn't it? Let's not stray into personal insult territory.Quote: mwalz9I dont think MarcusClark is a sock puppet of MDawg, but Im not sure how to word why without getting suspended.
I guess I'll just say, Love MDawg or hate him, he seems like a smart guy.
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearTricky isn't it? Let's not stray into personal insult territory.Quote: mwalz9I dont think MarcusClark is a sock puppet of MDawg, but Im not sure how to word why without getting suspended.
I guess I'll just say, Love MDawg or hate him, he seems like a smart guy.
link to original post
link to original post
I didnt and wont. Thats why I worded it best I could.
Quote: kewljQuote: gordonm888Quote: kewljAnd let me say this about sock puppets: The common use of a sock puppet is for someone banned to return with a new account. That is the one many people almost have fun with. Think, Nathan/karen or Buzz.
But the real dastardly use of a sock puppet is for someone making claims or something that haze ZERO credibility with any of the members, then creates a sock puppet to support him, so he gains some credibility. For this one the classic example was Rob Singer/Jerry Logan, although there may be more recent really good examples. (eyeroll)
link to original post
Without revealing any methods, let me say that this forum does take countermeasures to detect sock puppets. Paranoia about sock puppets may be fun to roll around in, but to date, there is no evidence that MarcusClarke is a sock puppet of MDawg, which is what you are clearly implying and there is indeed circumstantial evidence that he is not a sock puppet.
If you have evidence, then please state it. Otherwise eyeroll your eyes back into your head and go about your business and stop disparaging people by artful insinuation.
link to original post
Gordon I resent the "implied" accusation. I said nothing about anyone in particular. by restrictions placed on me that no one else has, I am prohibited from from saying anything about the person implied, so was careful not to. I also am over that particular situation because it has been resolved to my satisfaction. That is all I can and will say.
But not specific to any situation (so please don't imply) the use sock puppets for the purpose of someone gaining credibility where there otherwise is none, because not a single member believes them.....again, I will use the Rob Singer example just to be sure we are not talking about something else, IS STILL a concern. It is enables and encourages more of these situations.
No offense to you but your countermeasures and methods of detecting this TYPE of situation is not up to par. Dan Druff who owns and runs VCT is an expert. He is able to see through or past VPN's which is the problem today. And on the rare occasion he is unable to, he will ask a member to "unmask" for a single post, just to ensure there is no shenanigans going on.
Since Dan Druff is a member here, I asked him to come here to discuss this several months ago (possible just before you became mod). I believe it was oncedear who participated in the discussion with Dan Druff and it became clear WoV was lagging. I trust that the intent is good. But WoV seems to have been left behind a bit and that is a concern in this type of sock puppetry for credibility.
The sock puppetry of Tasha/nathan, and Buzz, and that type, that is almost harmless. Annoying but harmless. So I don't care. It is specifically sock puppets created to gain credibility where there otherwise is none that is my concern...going forward.
link to original post
The only thing I will add to OnceDear's response is that, in my 4+ months, I think the moderators have spent more time on spammers (and potential spammers/AI bots) and analyzing potential sock puppets then we have on discussing possible violations and suspension of the regular members. When a new member logs onto the forum, (and often before the new member makes a post) both Dieter and OnceDear (in particular) are all over it and doing things that I will not discuss. We usually don't create a record on the Suspension List of the spammers and non-posting socks that we nuke, but there have been quite a number. We often refrain from immediate bans to wait until someone does take a clearly objectionable action- and on occasion we even have delayed just so we can educate ourselves by watching the progression of the potential spammer's behavior - to see if we can learn something.
It would be weird if a tiny backwater forum like the WOV was among the social media leaders in software to combat spammers and socks, so no surprise that some people may have more impressive technology. But there are online resources (regarding, say, VPNs) that at least one of us now utilizes to help us do a better job of identifying potential threats. Again, I'm being deliberately vague.
The proof is in the pudding - we are not overrun. Although, we could almost organize a deadpool, lol, because we do currently have a number of new-ish members who are sporadically active and whose motives and identities we highly suspect. The fact that these members are still on the forum doesn't mean that we are asleep on the job; rather we are diligently watching them and waiting.
BTW, we have indeed recently seen at least one example of new member accounts who are either two persons collaborating or who are puppets of a single person - the kind of situation you have expressed concern about. We think we understand the motivation behind what they are doing and we do believe we are on top of the situation.
Not every malicious poster blasts online pharmacy ads for an assortment of enhancement pills on their first try.
We usually try to apply a proportional response to infractions. I have been known to miscalculate, but permanent bans for every nuisance would be disproportionate.
Since we're sharing abstract old lady stories, one of my ex's great aunts used to dribble the watering can on the carpet between the potted plastic plants. She apparently had some really interesting stories to share.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: kewljQuote: gordonm888Quote: kewljAnd let me say this about sock puppets: The common use of a sock puppet is for someone banned to return with a new account. That is the one many people almost have fun with. Think, Nathan/karen or Buzz.
But the real dastardly use of a sock puppet is for someone making claims or something that haze ZERO credibility with any of the members, then creates a sock puppet to support him, so he gains some credibility. For this one the classic example was Rob Singer/Jerry Logan, although there may be more recent really good examples. (eyeroll)
link to original post
Without revealing any methods, let me say that this forum does take countermeasures to detect sock puppets. Paranoia about sock puppets may be fun to roll around in, but to date, there is no evidence that MarcusClarke is a sock puppet of MDawg, which is what you are clearly implying and there is indeed circumstantial evidence that he is not a sock puppet.
If you have evidence, then please state it. Otherwise eyeroll your eyes back into your head and go about your business and stop disparaging people by artful insinuation.
link to original post
Gordon I resent the "implied" accusation. I said nothing about anyone in particular. by restrictions placed on me that no one else has, I am prohibited from from saying anything about the person implied, so was careful not to. I also am over that particular situation because it has been resolved to my satisfaction. That is all I can and will say.
But not specific to any situation (so please don't imply) the use sock puppets for the purpose of someone gaining credibility where there otherwise is none, because not a single member believes them.....again, I will use the Rob Singer example just to be sure we are not talking about something else, IS STILL a concern. It is enables and encourages more of these situations.
No offense to you but your countermeasures and methods of detecting this TYPE of situation is not up to par. Dan Druff who owns and runs VCT is an expert. He is able to see through or past VPN's which is the problem today. And on the rare occasion he is unable to, he will ask a member to "unmask" for a single post, just to ensure there is no shenanigans going on.
Since Dan Druff is a member here, I asked him to come here to discuss this several months ago (possible just before you became mod). I believe it was oncedear who participated in the discussion with Dan Druff and it became clear WoV was lagging. I trust that the intent is good. But WoV seems to have been left behind a bit and that is a concern in this type of sock puppetry for credibility.
The sock puppetry of Tasha/nathan, and Buzz, and that type, that is almost harmless. Annoying but harmless. So I don't care. It is specifically sock puppets created to gain credibility where there otherwise is none that is my concern...going forward.
link to original post
The only thing I will add to OnceDear's response is that, in my 4+ months, I think the moderators have spent more time on spammers (and potential spammers/AI bots) and analyzing potential sock puppets then we have on discussing possible violations and suspension of the regular members. When a new member logs onto the forum, (and often before the new member makes a post) both Dieter and OnceDear (in particular) are all over it and doing things that I will not discuss. We usually don't create a record on the Suspension List of the spammers and non-posting socks that we nuke, but there have been quite a number. We often refrain from immediate bans to wait until someone does take a clearly objectionable action- and on occasion we even have delayed just so we can educate ourselves by watching the progression of the potential spammer's behavior - to see if we can learn something.
It would be weird if a tiny backwater forum like the WOV was among the social media leaders in software to combat spammers and socks, so no surprise that some people may have more impressive technology. But there are online resources (regarding, say, VPNs) that at least one of us now utilizes to help us do a better job of identifying potential threats. Again, I'm being deliberately vague.
The proof is in the pudding - we are not overrun. Although, we could almost organize a deadpool, lol, because we do currently have a number of new-ish members who are sporadically active and whose motives and identities we highly suspect. The fact that these members are still on the forum doesn't mean that we are asleep on the job; rather we are diligently watching them and waiting.
BTW, we have indeed recently seen at least one example of new member accounts who are either two persons collaborating or who are puppets of a single person - the kind of situation you have expressed concern about. We think we understand the motivation behind what they are doing and we do believe we are on top of the situation.
link to original post
Gordon, I really am unable to continue with these discussions due to restrictions I agreed to.
I will say, I think you guys are trying and I appreciate that, BUT busting some spammers selling furniture or kitchen fixtures is NOT the same as busting a well organized and thought out sock puppet designed to bolster a member's credibility where he has none. Again, I will use the Singer/jerry Logan example just to be sure no one is implying I am speaking of anything different.
With technology available and these kinds of people having more tools and ever changing advantages in hiding who they are or where they originate from, I do think Mods have to use some common sense. There are some members of this forum that are excellent, I mean really good at spotting similarities that give away sock puppets.
Quote: kewlj
Gordon, I really am unable to continue with these discussions due to restrictions I agreed to.
I will say, I think you guys are trying and I appreciate that, BUT busting some spammers selling furniture or kitchen fixtures is NOT the same as busting a well organized and thought out sock puppet designed to bolster a member's credibility where he has none. Again, I will use the Singer/jerry Logan example just to be sure no one is implying I am speaking of anything different.
With technology available and these kinds of people having more tools and ever changing advantages in hiding who they are or where they originate from, I do think Mods have to use some common sense. There are some members of this forum that are excellent, I mean really good at spotting similarities that give away sock puppets.
link to original post
1. kewlj, you are free to PM any of the moderators and share information privately. Others have done that in the past, and in your specific case it would not violate your gag order.
2. Everyone else is free to PM us moderators - especially any members who have sock-spotting gifts that were not part of our inheritance when we were born. Seriously, guys, all PM channels to the moderators are open to everyone all the time.
Quote: kewljAgain, I will use the Singer/jerry Logan example just to be sure no one is implying I am speaking of anything different.
Since your example is from long ago, and you are insisting that we not infer anything different - well, let's just stop wasting time and electrons chatting about an issue of no immediate interest. Dieter, OD and I will return to our simple-minded routine of pressing the lace curtains and overlooking the vermin.
Quote: OnceDearOK. We have a decision.Quote: Wizard Bolding mine....
I am still furious about the Marcus statement. However, I don't like to make decisions when on an emotional high or low. Plus, it involves me, so there would clearly be bias. Thus, I will leave sentencing, including none at all, up to the other admins. Let the record show I am absolutely pressing charges for, at the least, false quoting.
link to original post
Whether he intended it or not, MarcusClark66 mischaracterized Wizard's previous statements about MDawg.
This has clearly annoyed Wizard, who was inclined to penalise Marcus with a suspension for 'false quoting'. But we try not to impose penalties based on mood or anger or offence felt, even by Wizard or moderators.
As I see it, what Marcus did was not exactly what I would call a 'false-quote', nor 'putting words into wizard's mouth', but he did strongly imply a high level of endorsement or verification of the whole of MDawgs contribution here. Wizard has only verified observations of a very few specific facets of MDawg's posts.
link to original post
I will comment one time here and one time within MDawgs thread about this.
I did not in any way attempt to imply that MDawg was fully verified or witnessed, etc., by The Wizard for all of his postings/thread.
I was only ONLY saying that The Wizard met him and watched him play which would verify he was a real person and not a fictional character or anything if the likes. Yes, one time and one time only.
I apology to The Wizard for what I posted that upset him and was thought to imply what he believed and interpreted to be.
Respectfully,
Marcus Clark
Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: OnceDearOK. We have a decision.Quote: Wizard Bolding mine....
I am still furious about the Marcus statement. However, I don't like to make decisions when on an emotional high or low. Plus, it involves me, so there would clearly be bias. Thus, I will leave sentencing, including none at all, up to the other admins. Let the record show I am absolutely pressing charges for, at the least, false quoting.
link to original post
Whether he intended it or not, MarcusClark66 mischaracterized Wizard's previous statements about MDawg.
This has clearly annoyed Wizard, who was inclined to penalise Marcus with a suspension for 'false quoting'. But we try not to impose penalties based on mood or anger or offence felt, even by Wizard or moderators.
As I see it, what Marcus did was not exactly what I would call a 'false-quote', nor 'putting words into wizard's mouth', but he did strongly imply a high level of endorsement or verification of the whole of MDawgs contribution here. Wizard has only verified observations of a very few specific facets of MDawg's posts.
link to original post
I will comment one time here and one time within MDawgs thread about this.
I did not in any way attempt to imply that MDawg was fully verified or witnessed, etc., by The Wizard for all of his postings/thread.
I was only ONLY saying that The Wizard met him and watched him play which would verify he was a real person and not a fictional character or anything if the likes. Yes, one time and one time only.
I apology to The Wizard for what I posted that upset him and was thought to imply what he believed and interpreted to be.
Respectfully,
Marcus Clark
link to original post
How do you know? ...Were you present to verify the verification?
Disrespectfully,
rainman
Quote: billryanQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?
link to original post
The moderators moderately moderate each other.
Very true. It works well.Quote: DieterQuote: billryanQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?
link to original post
The moderators moderately moderate each other.
link to original post
And we have the bruises to prove it.
Quote: OnceDearVery true. It works well.Quote: DieterQuote: billryanQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?
link to original post
The moderators moderately moderate each other.
link to original post
And we have the bruises to prove it.
link to original post
Pictures or it didn't happen, as my favorite television judge sez.
Quote: billryanQuote: OnceDearVery true. It works well.Quote: DieterQuote: billryanQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?
link to original post
The moderators moderately moderate each other.
link to original post
And we have the bruises to prove it.
link to original post
Pictures or it didn't happen, as my favorite television judge sez.
link to original post
I do not believe that photographs of the injuries could be provided which do not constitute a "doxx".
The bruises are cleverly concealed and I cannot reach around far enough to take a photo.Quote: DieterQuote: billryanQuote: OnceDearVery true. It works well.Quote: DieterQuote: billryanQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?
link to original post
The moderators moderately moderate each other.
link to original post
And we have the bruises to prove it.
link to original post
Pictures or it didn't happen, as my favorite television judge sez.
link to original post
I do not believe that photographs of the injuries could be provided which do not constitute a "doxx".
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearThe bruises are cleverly concealed and I cannot reach around far enough to take a photo.
Hopefully none are friction burns.
Quote: mwalz9The new norm.
link to original post
It's a brave new world.
what did i miss?Quote: billryanThe world seems a little darker today. Speaking for myself, "that" thread was the most fun I've had here since the new regime took over.
link to original post
Quote: 100xOddswhat did i miss?Quote: billryanThe world seems a little darker today. Speaking for myself, "that" thread was the most fun I've had here since the new regime took over.
link to original post
link to original post
Fun. We can't be having that now, can we?
Quote: billryanThe world seems a little darker today. Speaking for myself, "that" thread was the most fun I've had here since the new regime took over.
link to original post
What thread?
Quote: billryan
I hate math and think it sucks. Personally, I am thrilled that the forum has gotten away from being strictly math and fact-based and is drifting into fantasy. I'm hoping we expand into cosplay but that might be too soon. Viva La Forum!!!!!!
link to original post
I thought billryan was saying the opposite of what he meant. But I guess any pokes at anything could be trolling by definition.
Quote: rxwineQuote: billryan
I hate math and think it sucks. Personally, I am thrilled that the forum has gotten away from being strictly math and fact-based and is drifting into fantasy. I'm hoping we expand into cosplay but that might be too soon. Viva La Forum!!!!!!
link to original post
I thought billryan was saying the opposite of what he meant. But I guess any pokes at anything could be trolling by definition.
link to original post
It's difficult to tell.
I have seen Bill on the right side of math.
But he also has said he believes MC claims are more believable than mine https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/trip-reports/36763-having-to-show-id-at-check-in/
Of course he likes to goad me a lot. He has been getting suspended almost solely for goading people.
Quote: darkozQuote: rxwineQuote: billryan
I hate math and think it sucks. Personally, I am thrilled that the forum has gotten away from being strictly math and fact-based and is drifting into fantasy. I'm hoping we expand into cosplay but that might be too soon. Viva La Forum!!!!!!
link to original post
I thought billryan was saying the opposite of what he meant. But I guess any pokes at anything could be trolling by definition.
link to original post
It's difficult to tell.
I have seen Bill on the right side of math.
But he also has said he believes MC claims are more believable than mine https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/trip-reports/36763-having-to-show-id-at-check-in/
Of course he likes to goad me a lot. He has been getting suspended almost solely for goading people.
link to original post
Well, I can't say that cosplay around here wouldn't be interesting, but that bit seems a big hint that the post wasn't serious.
Quote: rxwineQuote: darkozQuote: rxwineQuote: billryan
I hate math and think it sucks. Personally, I am thrilled that the forum has gotten away from being strictly math and fact-based and is drifting into fantasy. I'm hoping we expand into cosplay but that might be too soon. Viva La Forum!!!!!!
link to original post
I thought billryan was saying the opposite of what he meant. But I guess any pokes at anything could be trolling by definition.
link to original post
It's difficult to tell.
I have seen Bill on the right side of math.
But he also has said he believes MC claims are more believable than mine https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/trip-reports/36763-having-to-show-id-at-check-in/
Of course he likes to goad me a lot. He has been getting suspended almost solely for goading people.
link to original post
Well, I can't say that cosplay around here wouldn't be interesting, but that bit seems a big hint that the post wasn't serious.
link to original post
Yeah, I think his history of goading people caused that not serious post to be seen as more goading.
I.e. trolling.
The "Wizard of Odds" website has no forum, but posts a link to this one, which has nothing to do with math and is a Las Vegas travel forum.
Really?
Kill this board and substitute a new one, "Wizard of Odds" and limit it to gambling math-based matters.
Has LCB made that $2.4M back for the purchase of this and the odds site?Quote: TwelveOr21I don't think killing this one would be an option - the ad revenue must be worthwhile. ;)
link to original post
Quote: gordonm888billryan will indeed be getting an early release. Others may explain.
link to original post
The post could be argued to be sarcasm.
The post could also be taken at face value as a broad insult.
It's National Playing Card day eve, so I'm in a good mood.
Quote: DieterQuote: gordonm888billryan will indeed be getting an early release. Others may explain.
link to original post
The post could be argued to be sarcasm.
The post could also be taken at face value as a broad insult.
It's National Playing Card day eve, so I'm in a good mood.
link to original post
Doesn't an insult need to be directed at someone? If I say disco sucks, is that statement an insult? I can use some guidance here.
Mr. Wizard suspended me for a month and his rationale was I complained about the state of the forum. So I no longer complain about it, and defend the current status quo and qet suspended for it. Help a brother out here.
Someone yesterday said football betting sucks. Why is that allowed but I get suspended for saying math sucks?
As I read the rules, you can't insult a member. If my statement is an insult because some people here use math, where do you draw the line?
T.S. Elliot said that only those willing to go too far will find out just how far they can go. Help us out here. Can I safely say Muzak sucks or is that a thinly veiled insult to any board members who happen to enjoy its hypnotic pulsations?
I'm not being sarcastic. Help me understand the rules. My last three or four suspensions weren't for a violation of any written rule.
First I'm suspended for insulting a hypothetical nonmember, next I'm suspended for a month for having a negative attitude. Then bluejoy flips out because I tell him you aren't going to get a hundred rounds an hour at a BJ table, and I'm suspended because he used bad words. Then this latest one.
As I honestly have no idea what I can post without getting suspended, I think I'll just enjoy the rest of the vacation you so generously gave me. I look forward to your guidance.
As I understand the rules, this thread is designed for exactly this kind of post as I am discussing suspensions. Then again, it's pretty clear I don't understand your rules. Educate me.
Quote: billryanDoesn't an insult need to be directed at someone? If I say disco sucks, is that statement an insult? I can use some guidance here.
link to original post
It probably would, on a disco music forum where many members are disco musicians.
The reviewers generally thought it was sarcasm, not literal. I am sorry for my mistaken read of your statement.
Quote: billryanEducate me.link to original post
We allow members here to voice their complaints in moderation. We get that you don't agree with the forum's position on free speech. You've complained about it publicly hundreds of times. I get it! When you make the same complaint over and over and over, it becomes trolling. Your complaint to post ratio is much too high. If you want to stay on the good side of the rules, make your comments about forum management to me privately or not at all.
Quote: WizardQuote: billryanEducate me.link to original post
We allow members here to voice their complaints in moderation. We get that you don't agree with the forum's position on free speech. You've complained about it publicly hundreds of times. I get it! When you make the same complaint over and over and over, it becomes trolling. Your complaint to post ratio is much too high. If you want to stay on the good side of the rules, make your comments about forum management to me privately or not at all.
link to original post
When was the last time I complained about the forum management? I've completely embraced it. What complaint have I made over and over? As everything here is out front and open, it should be easy to copy my complaining about something over and over? Your position on free speech seems to be everyone has it, but me.
Quote: billryanMr. Wizard suspended me for a month and his rationale was I complained about the state of the forum. So I no longer complain about it, and defend the current status quo and qet suspended for it.
Sounds a bit hypocritical, but I get it: sometimes you just have zip your lip to save your ship.
Quote: billryanQuote: WizardQuote: billryanEducate me.link to original post
We allow members here to voice their complaints in moderation. We get that you don't agree with the forum's position on free speech. You've complained about it publicly hundreds of times. I get it! When you make the same complaint over and over and over, it becomes trolling. Your complaint to post ratio is much too high. If you want to stay on the good side of the rules, make your comments about forum management to me privately or not at all.
link to original post
When was the last time I complained about the forum management? I've completely embraced it. What complaint have I made over and over? As everything here is out front and open, it should be easy to copy my complaining about something over and over? Your position on free speech seems to be everyone has it, but me.
link to original post
Easy answer. Above post is OBVIOUSLY a complaint about forum management!
Why can't there be respectful discussion (in a thread entitled discussion no less) of the forum rules, involving suggestions and yes even complaints? In private discussion with Mike over the years, I can remember a couple times that he responded with something like, yeah you make a good point. And there have been times he explained his reasoning and although I probably didn't like it, maybe it helped me see where he was coming from and understand a little better.
So why can't that happen publicly as well. Why can't there be some input from the membership? Make us feel like part of the forum family? It won't undermine Wizard or any other mods. In the end, Wizard will still be "the big cheeze" and what he says ultimately goes. But I don't know why that can't mean there can't be some open and respectful discussion and input, in an effort to make the forum better and more enjoyable for all.
Quote: billryanWhen was the last time I complained about the forum management? I've completely embraced it. What complaint have I made over and over? As everything here is out front and open, it should be easy to copy my complaining about something over and over? Your position on free speech seems to be everyone has it, but me.
link to original post
Your sarcasm doesn't fool me. Here is the post you last got suspended for.
Quote:I hate math and think it sucks. Personally, I am thrilled that the forum has gotten away from being strictly math and fact-based and is drifting into fantasy. I'm hoping we expand into cosplay but that might be too soon. Viva La Forum!!!!!!