Thread Rating:

OnceDear
OnceDear 
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 58
  • Posts: 6681
Thanks for this post from:
AxelWolfrsactuaryams288FTB
November 28th, 2022 at 1:09:47 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Oncedear says "If anyone is still interested in this nothingburger of an issue, I'll relate my opinion"

I was recently suspended and when I came back I said nothing about it. You on the other hand have to make an Encyclopedia Britannica entry about your suspension. What does that tell us.
link to original post

That you and I are different?
That my posts are longer and more verbose than yours but less frequent?
I've said nothing about my suspension in that post. I was answering a posed question about my opinion of MDawg's 'maybe an insult'.
Oh.... And it does tell us that you don't have me blocked. Not much beyond that.
Enjoy life.
OD.
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
TigerWu
TigerWu
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 4623
Thanks for this post from:
SOOPOO
November 28th, 2022 at 8:09:30 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Oncedear says "If anyone is still interested in this nothingburger of an issue, I'll relate my opinion"

I was recently suspended and when I came back I said nothing about it. You on the other hand have to make an Encyclopedia Britannica entry about your suspension. What does that tell us.
link to original post



It tells us you're more concerned about the suspension than OnceDear is, because it doesn't even relate to you at all, yet you still decided to make a post about it.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 156
  • Posts: 20903
November 28th, 2022 at 12:22:09 PM permalink
Why is rxwine in red?
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Johnzimbo
Johnzimbo
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 1045
November 28th, 2022 at 12:32:07 PM permalink
He like merlot over chardonnay??
Mission146
Mission146 
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 135
  • Posts: 15771
November 28th, 2022 at 12:32:08 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Why is rxwine in red?
link to original post



https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/37590-election-betting-odds/64/#post872883

I don't see it, personally, but I'm probably a little biased in favor of rxwine in the capacity of a Member rather than former Mod. The only thing I think RX might have done is replace the word, "You," with something like, "A person," but even then I don't think he was actually talking about the people he was quoting, necessarily. Replacing the second-person with third-person/generic would have removed any doubt on that, though.

My opinion obviously doesn't matter, but Rxwine has not had a Suspension since 03/2021, so I'd have probably just given him a soft warning. Even that Suspension from 03/21 is one that he had to know he was taking as it was a pretty blatant violation that was doubtlessly intentional. I feel like Rxwine wouldn't have beaten around the bush as he tends to say what he wants to say, so if he wanted to suggest that anyone from this forum is a racist, then I think he would have just done it directly and taken a little time out.

Gordon seems to indicate that this Suspension might be reviewed by other mods, I think? I think his language on that was a bit ambiguous, so I guess we'll see.

Oh, and I'll get in front of Tuttigym's almost-inevitable sarcastic comment on this one---nobody's opinions really matter except those of the Admins, but this thread exists for the purpose of discussing Suspensions, which is what I was doing.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
MDawg
MDawg
Joined: Sep 27, 2018
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 5507
November 28th, 2022 at 1:09:03 PM permalink
You made a lengthy argument about how someone who has a lot of prior suspensions should be given less rope than someone with few priors. In criminal law, priors may be used in some circumstances depending on the statute to lengthen the sentence imposed statutorily. A judge may also use priors to hand down a longer sentence by discretion, unless disallowed by statute.

However, here at WOV we have abolished the martingale rule, so priors don't seem to carry much if any weight when it comes to the length of sentence. At minimum, we would have to say that there is no automatic doubling of the prior suspension.

So, your argument about giving a person less discretion doesn't matter at WOV as far as length of sentence - but then, that's not what you were talking about.

What you were talking about, is giving less leeway to someone who has a lot of recent priors, when the post in question might or might not violate the WOV rules. I'd ask you to consider whether you're trying to say that one's character as demonstrated by prior specific instances of conduct (prior suspensions) should be offered to prove their conduct on a specified later occasion. That - isn't allowed by any rules of evidence with which I am familiar - it becomes a sort of "rule violators, violate rules" argument (the equivalent in criminal law would be that burglars burgle). It's one thing to point out a specific prior act to prove for example intent, quite another to say that because someone broke the rules before he is more likely to have broken them again.

From the Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a personís character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.



The general rule: CHARACTER EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. More particularly, character evidence is generally not admissible when offered for the purposes of proving conduct in conformity with the character trait offered.
I tell you itís wonderful to be here, man. I donít give a damn who wins or loses. Itís just wonderful to be here with you people. https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
Mission146
Mission146 
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 135
  • Posts: 15771
Thanks for this post from:
OnceDear
November 28th, 2022 at 1:37:01 PM permalink
That's pretty much correct, or I have no disagreements with it. Three days still seems to be the standard for the shortest initial Suspension length, so since that is the Suspension length aside, it becomes a binary question of, "Suspension or no Suspension." Without the Martingale, you'd look at the post standing alone, so looking at that, I would say that there is no way that is more than a three-day Suspension.

The longer paragraph, which I will quote:

Quote: MDawg

What you were talking about, is giving less leeway to someone who has a lot of recent priors, when the post in question might or might not violate the WOV rules. I'd ask you to consider whether you're trying to say that one's character as demonstrated by prior specific instances of conduct (prior suspensions) should be offered to prove their conduct on a specified later occasion. That - isn't allowed by any rules of evidence with which I am familiar - it becomes a sort of "rule violators, violate rules" argument (the equivalent in criminal law would be that burglars burgle). It's one thing to point out a specific prior act to prove for example intent, quite another to say that because someone broke the rules before he is more likely to have broken them again.



The difference between this and criminal law is that we do have a clear incident (the post) that is there for all to see and it's a question of determining whether or not the post violates any rules. It's not as if you have a burglary, so because a person has burgled before, you go and arrest the former burglar when you don't even have evidence that puts him at the scene of the crime. The evidence is the post, suspension or none, so it's just a question of, "Is this post a 'crime'?"

I imagine that there are exceptions in physical criminal law where the question of whether or not a crime even happened comes into play, probably shady accounting and things of that nature would be an example, but most crimes a criminal event either happened or it didn't and the burden of proof is unchanging, as you point out.

That's not the case with posters and Suspensions aren't particularly life-changing (I would hope not) anyway. If you have someone with no priors, or very few, then you can say, "Given his posting history and number of posts, that was probably an accident. Let's just shoot him a PM to check his verbiage in the future or perhaps give a light in thread warning." If you have someone with a ton of infractions already, then they don't get the leeway and your assumption as an Admin, be it right or wrong, is that they are just trying to figure out how close to the line they can get.

Also, as an Admin, there are honestly some people you'd prefer to have gone anyway as generally disruptive to the Forum, but not quite to the extent that you feel like you can justify the rarely-used, "Rule 20." With that, you just kind of hope for those people to hang themselves sometimes with the rope that they have also supplied to themselves; as an Admin, you definitely don't try to goad someone into committing an infraction as that would be WAY overstepping.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
MDawg
MDawg
Joined: Sep 27, 2018
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 5507
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
November 28th, 2022 at 2:01:54 PM permalink
We might be both saying somewhat close to the same thing.

What I'm saying is that using a prior rule violation to show intent - is okay, such as say, so and so keeps taking cheap shots at so and so without naming him, and here is yet another example of the same as demonstrated by the prior rule violation where the same or similar verbiage was used. That works.

But simply saying that someone who has committed more rule violations should have his current potential rule violation considered more strictly than someone who has less rule violations, is not right especially if the new rule violation has nothing to do in context with the prior one. Maybe the guy learned his lesson and is genuinely trying not to break the rules any longer. Otherwise everyone who has a record doesn't get the same justice as far as guilt or innocence as those without one.

There are situations where prior bad acts are admissible, but not simply to try to show that because he broke the rules before he is probably breaking them again now.
I tell you itís wonderful to be here, man. I donít give a damn who wins or loses. Itís just wonderful to be here with you people. https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 211
  • Posts: 5018
Thanks for this post from:
DieterRayFinkleFTB
November 28th, 2022 at 4:09:00 PM permalink
Quote: MDawg



From the Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a personís character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.





how completely and totally ridiculous to quote this in reference to a suspension on a gambling board

trying to show off knowledge of the law

irrelevant and immaterial

knowledge without common sense is a worthless thing


.
"believe half of what you see and none of what you hear" - Edgar Allan Poe
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 4061
November 28th, 2022 at 4:18:00 PM permalink
The outcome of the moderator review of rxwine's suspension in the Election Betting Odds thread is that the suspension stands at 3 days but that the justification is changed to a Rule 12 violation.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.

  • Jump to: