Quote: Dieter[
Shockingly astute oracle, it is indeed.
Wrong thread.
Mods, please move to Even Bob roulette thread.
Quote: MrVQuote: Dieter[
Shockingly astute oracle, it is indeed.
Wrong thread.
Mods, please move to Even Bob roulette thread.
link to original post
It's right about 68% of the time.
Quote: PokerGrinder
Axel is just joking around, him and I do that all the time. We are friends IRL.
Actually second thought instead of unbanning him can you nuke him instead? 😂
link to original post
Now that's funny..
Quote: DieterQuote: MrVQuote: Dieter[
Shockingly astute oracle, it is indeed.
Wrong thread.
Mods, please move to Even Bob roulette thread.
link to original post
It's right about 68% of the time.
link to original post
Except I have the actual Magic 8 Ball given it to me in 1958 for Christmas. For the average player who makes random bets against random outcomes the Magic 8-Ball could be a big help. For me not so much.
Quote: DieterQuote: AxelWolfI can't believe someone bullying poor little PokerGrinder.
That would be like someone bullying Karen/Nathan.
You know, being that Karen/Nathan had some mentality handicap issue's. Oh yeah, never mind I can see the comparison. Makes sense.
link to original post
Let's call that 3 days for insult.
link to original post
I understood this to be a suspension for insulting former member Karen/Nathan.
Quote: MDawg
I understood this to be a suspension for insulting former member Karen/Nathan.
link to original post
If it is an insult to Karen/Nathan, Pokergrinder, or both, it would still appear to be an insult.
which is why I assume he'd not feel insulted by what AWolf said here because he's brought the topic up openly himself more than once and doesn't seem to be bothered by it. Didn't he even post that he had no problem with what AWolf said?
even though this might make me look sycophantic - still, I feel I need to say it
I really appreciate what the Mods do here - my understanding is that they are unpaid
they have an awful lot of difficult stuff they have to deal with - a lot of it can't be much fun
so, for all you do - the Bud's for you
.
Quote: lilredroosterso, for all you do - the Bud's for you
It's not like we have a massive membership where something might be overlooked. We all know each other by now.
Quote: lilredrooster______________
even though this might make me look sycophantic - still, I feel I need to say it
I really appreciate what the Mods do here - my understanding is that they are unpaid
link to original post
Don't feel too bad.
I hear that's still triple what the last crew was getting as mods.
Thanks to all the members.
It's always interesting, albeit sometimes in a "Chinese Curse" sort of way.
Quote: MrVQuote: lilredroosterso, for all you do - the Bud's for you
link to original post
It really is a beautiful plant.
Odd one this. Posts with the distinctive style and content of existing member Soxfan. But existing member Soxfan is not a banned member.
So, was it, I wonder, a Sock account, or was it maybe an imposter account?
Nuked anyway as either would be bannable.
Why create a sock acct when main acct isnt banned?Quote: OnceDearHello and goodbye to Soxfan88
Odd one this. Posts with the distinctive style and content of existing member Soxfan. But existing member Soxfan is not a banned member.
So, was it, I wonder, a Sock account, or was it maybe an imposter account?
Nuked anyway as either would be bannable.
link to original post
hm.. forgot password and created new acct?
Quote: 100xOddsWhy create a sock acct when main acct isnt banned?Quote: OnceDearHello and goodbye to Soxfan88
Odd one this. Posts with the distinctive style and content of existing member Soxfan. But existing member Soxfan is not a banned member.
So, was it, I wonder, a Sock account, or was it maybe an imposter account?
Nuked anyway as either would be bannable.
link to original post
hm.. forgot password and created new acct?
link to original post
Maybe forgotten password.
I've decided that there's no cause to nuke the original SoxFan account. But this one goes as either a secondary account or as an imposter.
If Soxfan can't do a password reset and he really wants to post here, then he can probably find a backchannel to me to assist him.
Quote: MDawgI think over all, people who are dubious of what someone has to say, should just post once or twice how they feel, and then let it go. Repeating trolling doesn't make their position any more clear, and leads to unproductive feuding - not to mention hundreds of pages long threads where someone who is genuinely interested in the topic has to then wade through all the repetitive naysaying.
It's not like we have a massive membership where something might be overlooked. We all know each other by now.
link to original post
I agree 100%, and it's why some of us wish the mods would crack down more on some of these unproductive threads and the obviously false claims contained therein. I seriously have genuine interests in, for example, betting systems and methods, but it is usually clear when they are full of **** and mathematically dubious, and those are the threads that should be stamped out ASAP, and their proponents not be allowed to continuously promote their false beliefs ad nauseum.
Yes, I realize I have been part of the problem.
Quote: MDawgI think over all, people who are dubious of what someone has to say, should just post once or twice how they feel, and then let it go.
link to original post
the problem with that idea is that the people making unverified claims don't stop posting their unverified claims
so newbies are unlikely to go very far back in time to find rebuttals of these unverified claims and may be influenced by their falsehoods
these unverified claims are not just made here - they're all over the place - especially at gamblingforums.com
and very interesting to me - of all of the unverified claims of specifically beating a negative EV game in the long run with either bet selection or money management systems:
- 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙧 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙣_________
and there surely have been hundreds of such claims if not thousands - think reddit, think twitter, think Quora
.
Do not post the same message more than once. This includes posting the same message in two or more places, and re-posting because nobody replied the first time. If you didn't get a response the first time, chances are nobody else had anything to say about it.
That's rule 5.
But "same message" should include making the same argument even with different words.
How many times have we read the same arguments in the EvenBob roulette thread? Wording has been different but the message has been the same.
EB was suspended and then did his Buh-Bye thread - then went over to gamblingfourums.com as Spike and did his thing - but came back - apparently his experience at gamblingforums.com was not fulfilling enough
I think he was angry when he got suspended
can't help wondering if this thread of his is some kind of 𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙚
.
Quote: lilredrooster____________
EB was suspended and then did his Buh-Bye thread - then went over to gamblingfourums.com as Spike and did his thing - but came back - apparently his experience at gamblingforums.com was not fulfilling enough
.
link to original post
Oh my god, he's posted a system thread over there, too, and it's over 150 pages of just.... just nothing....LOL
Quote: TigerWuQuote: MDawgI think over all, people who are dubious of what someone has to say, should just post once or twice how they feel, and then let it go. Repeating trolling doesn't make their position any more clear, and leads to unproductive feuding - not to mention hundreds of pages long threads where someone who is genuinely interested in the topic has to then wade through all the repetitive naysaying.
It's not like we have a massive membership where something might be overlooked. We all know each other by now.
link to original post
I agree 100%, and it's why some of us wish the mods would crack down more on some of these unproductive threads and the obviously false claims contained therein. I seriously have genuine interests in, for example, betting systems and methods, but it is usually clear when they are full of **** and mathematically dubious, and those are the threads that should be stamped out ASAP, and their proponents not be allowed to continuously promote their false beliefs ad nauseum.
Yes, I realize I have been part of the problem.
link to original post
Part of the problem, that's big of you. You post in these threads constantly and when you can't control them that way you want them canceled. Ever hear of The Blocking feature? Thank God you're not in control of anything around here.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: lilredrooster____________
EB was suspended and then did his Buh-Bye thread - then went over to gamblingfourums.com as Spike and did his thing - but came back - apparently his experience at gamblingforums.com was not fulfilling enough
.
link to original post
Oh my god, he's posted a system thread over there, too, and it's over 150 pages of just.... just nothing....LOL
link to original post
Because you do not understand the subject it looks like nothing to you. Ever wonder if the problem is with you and not with everybody around you? Nah, that would never occur to you.
Quote: MDawgWhy was GenoDRPh in red yesterday for a while?
link to original post
I believe there was an errant click.
I believe it has been rectified.
Sorry for the trouble, Geno. I hope you were not inconvenienced.
Quote: DieterQuote: MDawgWhy was GenoDRPh in red yesterday for a while?
link to original post
I believe there was an errant click.
I believe it has been rectified.
Sorry for the trouble, Geno. I hope you were not inconvenienced.
link to original post
I was more perplexed than anything. I spent a great deal of time looking at my emails and PMs for any indication why I was sanctioned. Looks like I didn't look at the right place for an explanation, however innocuous it may have been. I send my gratitude to MDawg for pointing this out and for any assistance in speedy rectification!
Gene
My apologies to all those affected.
I thought for sure they figured out you were actually Robbi Lew 😀Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: DieterQuote: MDawgWhy was GenoDRPh in red yesterday for a while?
link to original post
I believe there was an errant click.
I believe it has been rectified.
Sorry for the trouble, Geno. I hope you were not inconvenienced.
link to original post
I was more perplexed than anything. I spent a great deal of time looking at my emails and PMs for any indication why I was sanctioned. Looks like I didn't look at the right place for an explanation, however innocuous it may have been. I send my gratitude to MDawg for pointing this out and for any assistance in speedy rectification!
Gene
link to original post
Quote: DieterI was a day late in releasing wizardofbuffalo and MrV from suspension.
My apologies to all those affected.
link to original post
That's okay, nobody noticed. You could have gone all week.
You just can't get the staff $:o)Quote: DieterI was a day late in releasing wizardofbuffalo and MrV from suspension.
My apologies to all those affected.
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearYou just can't get the staff $:o)Quote: DieterI was a day late in releasing wizardofbuffalo and MrV from suspension.
My apologies to all those affected.
link to original post
link to original post
We used to have someone who was very good about effecting timely releases.
Until these new guys up their game, one can only suggest avoiding running afoul of the penalty system.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymHow does one "politely" state that postings show spinelessness or intellectual cowardice without being suspended for "insulting" the poster and his or her lack of candor or honesty?
tuttigym
link to original post
Maybe you should speak your truth take the suspension and quit being a spineless coward!
Kidding, just kidding Gym sometimes I just cant help myself.
There is always truth in jokes, suspensions are meaningless perhaps even a badge of honor.
Quote: tuttigymHow does one "politely" state that postings show spinelessness or intellectual cowardice without being suspended for "insulting" the poster and his or her lack of candor or honesty?
tuttigym
link to original post
Read most of my thousands of posts…. Especially n the EVENBob roulette thread until I recused myself from that thread.
One posts that xxxx didn't exhibit much spine or intellectual courage in that post. " I cannot commend poster XXXX;s demonstration of candour and honesty"Quote: tuttigymHow does one "politely" state that postings show spinelessness or intellectual cowardice without being suspended for "insulting" the poster and his or her lack of candor or honesty?
tuttigym
link to original post
tuttigym
If you think they show double standards, then say so politely and link to your examples. You're a grown up: I'm sure you can do 'polite' feedback and should have nothing to fear.Quote: tuttigymThank you all. One more query, how about Mods that use a double standard and some hypocrisy in doling out those dastardly suspensions? BTW, easily proven.
tuttigym
link to original post
Note. I'm not a moderator
Quote: OnceDearIf you think they show double standards, then say so politely and link to your examples. You're a grown up: I'm sure you can do 'polite' feedback and should have nothing to fear.Quote: tuttigymThank you all. One more query, how about Mods that use a double standard and some hypocrisy in doling out those dastardly suspensions? BTW, easily proven.
tuttigym
link to original post
Note. I'm not a moderator
link to original post
Long time before the statute of limitations runs out on your past crimes my friend. :)
Quote: tuttigymThank you all. One more query, how about Mods that use a double standard and some hypocrisy in doling out those dastardly suspensions? BTW, easily proven.
tuttigym
link to original post
Sir, you are taking this forum way too serious you can change nothing but your perception.
Quote: tuttigymThank you all. One more query, how about Mods that use a double standard and some hypocrisy in doling out those dastardly suspensions? BTW, easily proven.
tuttigym
link to original post
Each situation is evaluated on a case by case basis.
There are many things that get considered.
Quote: tuttigymThank you all. One more query, how about Mods that use a double standard and some hypocrisy in doling out those dastardly suspensions? BTW, easily proven.
tuttigym
link to original post
I have been a moderator for over a year and I have been genuinely surprised at how much work and discussion goes into moderator decisions. Almost every decision is vetted with other moderators, and often affected by those discussions. If a moderator is angry over something than has been said, or frustrated with a pattern of behavior, they almost always declare their emotional state and allow the other moderators to decide the situation in a cooler, more clinical way. (OD was particularly religious about doing this and served as a model for Dieter and I.)
"Double standard" - Well, the Forum Rules are our overall single standard, but, as Dieter has said, we do make decisions on a case by case basis because there are lots of factors to consider when trying to be fair. If you feel we have been inconsistent, please give examples.
"doling out those dastardly suspensions" - well, the words 'dastardly' and 'doling' are alliterative, but are 3-day suspensions truly worthy of the adjective "dastardly"? Would "doling out those dinky suspensions" not have also worked?
"hypocrisy" - I'm really surprised by this allegation. If you wish to mention some examples, we're all ears.
0 to 999. Set it and forget it when someone is suspended. The counter runs down from whatever it is set at by the mods. When it reaches 0 the person is released from the phantom zone. (each number representing a day)
Quote: gordonm888
"Double standard" - Well, the Forum Rules are our overall single standard, but, as Dieter has said, we do make decisions on a case by case basis because there are lots of factors to consider when trying to be fair. If you feel we have been inconsistent, please give examples.
"doling out those dastardly suspensions" - well, the words 'dastardly' and 'doling' are alliterative, but are 3-day suspensions truly worthy of the adjective "dastardly"? Would "doling out those dinky suspensions" not have also worked?
"hypocrisy" - I'm really surprised by this allegation. If you wish to mention some examples, we're all ears.
link to original post
Quote: Rule 0These rules should be considered as a guideline of what we will not tolerate. Just because a behavior is not on this list does not mean it will be tolerated or go unpunished. The administration reserves the right to punish any activity it deems disruptive to the forum, whether against these rules or not.
link to original post
I also found a list of 8 letter words that started with D. "Dastardly" was disappeared from the document. Don't despair, this is about as poetic as I intend to get.
So, uhh, what Gordon said eloquently, plus some other stuff.
As thoughtless and whimsical as I may seem, there is some nontrivial consideration that goes into decisively dispensing discipline.
Quote: Dieter
As thoughtless and whimsical as I may seem, there is some nontrivial consideration that goes into decisively dispensing discipline.
link to original post
Which we do diligently. We indubitably do.
Just remember this
Insults we won't miss
Cussing won't get by
This we will indubitably do
As time goes by
Quote: tuttigymThank you all. One more query, how about Mods that use a double standard and some hypocrisy in doling out those dastardly suspensions? BTW, easily proven.
tuttigym
link to original post
I agree with this, but with so many people making so many posts, lots of stuff is going to slip through the cracks.
Having said that, there has definitely been some "favoritism" going on in the past.... and I'm sure it will continue in the future...
Quote: gordonm888Quote: tuttigymThank you all. One more query, how about Mods that use a double standard and some hypocrisy in doling out those dastardly suspensions? BTW, easily proven.
tuttigym
link to original post
I have been a moderator for over a year and I have been genuinely surprised at how much work and discussion goes into moderator decisions. Almost every decision is vetted with other moderators, and often affected by those discussions. If a moderator is angry over something than has been said, or frustrated with a pattern of behavior, they almost always declare their emotional state and allow the other moderators to decide the situation in a cooler, more clinical way. (OD was particularly religious about doing this and served as a model for Dieter and I.)
"Double standard" - Well, the Forum Rules are our overall single standard, but, as Dieter has said, we do make decisions on a case by case basis because there are lots of factors to consider when trying to be fair. If you feel we have been inconsistent, please give examples.
"doling out those dastardly suspensions" - well, the words 'dastardly' and 'doling' are alliterative, but are 3-day suspensions truly worthy of the adjective "dastardly"? Would "doling out those dinky suspensions" not have also worked?
"hypocrisy" - I'm really surprised by this allegation. If you wish to mention some examples, we're all ears.
link to original post
All right gordon888, I will start with you simply because I feel yours is the most blatant.
1. On Sept. 13, 2022 Page 20 of EB's Roulette thread you posted "The important feature of quoting is that you not change the meaning of what was said when abridging the original post in your quote that is, not change the meaning so as to misinform a conversation or to make someone look bad ...."
2. On Sept. 4, 2022 Page 272 of the General Sports Talk thread I, tuttigym, stated SPECIFICALLY (emphasis) "There is NO science that has actually linked steroids with batting/hitting performance."
3. On Sept. 4, 2022 Page 273 of the General Sports talk thread your post stated "Baseball analysts have studied the link between steroids and improved performance in MLB players." "Analysts" and not necessarily scientists. "Improved performance" is vague not specific and not targeted to any particular phase or skill within the sport. You did not link any such analysis to that statement nor name any author with the associated analysis. In short, you changed the specific meaning of my statement to include "scientific study on steroids that provides more fundamental understanding of their effect on athletic performance."
4. On Sept 6, 2022 Page 274 of the General Sports Talk thread "As I recall, you (tuttigym) have posted that you have very little math beyond the third grade level - so why are you lecturing us about the scientific process and what constitutes science proof?" That post presumes that you know me, my background, and my overall intellect. Do you not no satire? Should you not have been more prudent and asked me directly about my educational and athletic background before jumping to erroneous and false recollections? I have no idea what your educational levels are or any athletic participations might have been, so I would not assume any of what you assumed of me. Perhaps you could enlighten us all so that we might assess your competence in these fields.
5. The final sentence of that post states something that I never do, i.e., "ignore your opinion." I try to take opinions as learning opportunities -- sometimes positive and sometimes negative but never to be ignored.
6. On Page 274 of the General Sports Talk thread I, tuttigym, responded with a portion of relevant sports science background and other info. gordon888 response ..... crickets.
There is a little more to this but I need to do some more research to be accurate, so to be continued.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: gordonm888Quote: tuttigymThank you all. One more query, how about Mods that use a double standard and some hypocrisy in doling out those dastardly suspensions? BTW, easily proven.
tuttigym
link to original post
I have been a moderator for over a year and I have been genuinely surprised at how much work and discussion goes into moderator decisions. Almost every decision is vetted with other moderators, and often affected by those discussions. If a moderator is angry over something than has been said, or frustrated with a pattern of behavior, they almost always declare their emotional state and allow the other moderators to decide the situation in a cooler, more clinical way. (OD was particularly religious about doing this and served as a model for Dieter and I.)
"Double standard" - Well, the Forum Rules are our overall single standard, but, as Dieter has said, we do make decisions on a case by case basis because there are lots of factors to consider when trying to be fair. If you feel we have been inconsistent, please give examples.
"doling out those dastardly suspensions" - well, the words 'dastardly' and 'doling' are alliterative, but are 3-day suspensions truly worthy of the adjective "dastardly"? Would "doling out those dinky suspensions" not have also worked?
"hypocrisy" - I'm really surprised by this allegation. If you wish to mention some examples, we're all ears.
link to original post
All right gordon888, I will start with you simply because I feel yours is the most blatant.
1. On Sept. 13, 2022 Page 20 of EB's Roulette thread you posted "The important feature of quoting is that you not change the meaning of what was said when abridging the original post in your quote that is, not change the meaning so as to misinform a conversation or to make someone look bad ...."
2. On Sept. 4, 2022 Page 272 of the General Sports Talk thread I, tuttigym, stated SPECIFICALLY (emphasis) "There is NO science that has actually linked steroids with batting/hitting performance."
3. On Sept. 4, 2022 Page 273 of the General Sports talk thread your post stated "Baseball analysts have studied the link between steroids and improved performance in MLB players." "Analysts" and not necessarily scientists. "Improved performance" is vague not specific and not targeted to any particular phase or skill within the sport. You did not link any such analysis to that statement nor name any author with the associated analysis. In short, you changed the specific meaning of my statement to include "scientific study on steroids that provides more fundamental understanding of their effect on athletic performance."
4. On Sept 6, 2022 Page 274 of the General Sports Talk thread "As I recall, you (tuttigym) have posted that you have very little math beyond the third grade level - so why are you lecturing us about the scientific process and what constitutes science proof?" That post presumes that you know me, my background, and my overall intellect. Do you not no satire? Should you not have been more prudent and asked me directly about my educational and athletic background before jumping to erroneous and false recollections? I have no idea what your educational levels are or any athletic participations might have been, so I would not assume any of what you assumed of me. Perhaps you could enlighten us all so that we might assess your competence in these fields.
5. The final sentence of that post states something that I never do, i.e., "ignore your opinion." I try to take opinions as learning opportunities -- sometimes positive and sometimes negative but never to be ignored.
6. On Page 274 of the General Sports Talk thread I, tuttigym, responded with a portion of relevant sports science background and other info. gordon888 response ..... crickets.
There is a little more to this but I need to do some more research to be accurate, so to be continued.
tuttigym
link to original post
TLDR. (I skimmed some). This can’t be doing YOU any good! I can’t remember who coined the phrase… but…. “Get a life!”
As far as favoritism…. OF COURSE there is favoritism. The moderators and the Wiz will give more rope to a valuable poster, like Mickey Crimm, KEWLJ, BillyRyan before giving them the axe. Posters without a history of valuable posts would have been axed sooner.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: tuttigymQuote: gordonm888Quote: tuttigymThank you all. One more query, how about Mods that use a double standard and some hypocrisy in doling out those dastardly suspensions? BTW, easily proven.
tuttigym
link to original post
I have been a moderator for over a year and I have been genuinely surprised at how much work and discussion goes into moderator decisions. Almost every decision is vetted with other moderators, and often affected by those discussions. If a moderator is angry over something than has been said, or frustrated with a pattern of behavior, they almost always declare their emotional state and allow the other moderators to decide the situation in a cooler, more clinical way. (OD was particularly religious about doing this and served as a model for Dieter and I.)
"Double standard" - Well, the Forum Rules are our overall single standard, but, as Dieter has said, we do make decisions on a case by case basis because there are lots of factors to consider when trying to be fair. If you feel we have been inconsistent, please give examples.
"doling out those dastardly suspensions" - well, the words 'dastardly' and 'doling' are alliterative, but are 3-day suspensions truly worthy of the adjective "dastardly"? Would "doling out those dinky suspensions" not have also worked?
"hypocrisy" - I'm really surprised by this allegation. If you wish to mention some examples, we're all ears.
link to original post
All right gordon888, I will start with you simply because I feel yours is the most blatant.
1. On Sept. 13, 2022 Page 20 of EB's Roulette thread you posted "The important feature of quoting is that you not change the meaning of what was said when abridging the original post in your quote that is, not change the meaning so as to misinform a conversation or to make someone look bad ...."
2. On Sept. 4, 2022 Page 272 of the General Sports Talk thread I, tuttigym, stated SPECIFICALLY (emphasis) "There is NO science that has actually linked steroids with batting/hitting performance."
3. On Sept. 4, 2022 Page 273 of the General Sports talk thread your post stated "Baseball analysts have studied the link between steroids and improved performance in MLB players." "Analysts" and not necessarily scientists. "Improved performance" is vague not specific and not targeted to any particular phase or skill within the sport. You did not link any such analysis to that statement nor name any author with the associated analysis. In short, you changed the specific meaning of my statement to include "scientific study on steroids that provides more fundamental understanding of their effect on athletic performance."
4. On Sept 6, 2022 Page 274 of the General Sports Talk thread "As I recall, you (tuttigym) have posted that you have very little math beyond the third grade level - so why are you lecturing us about the scientific process and what constitutes science proof?" That post presumes that you know me, my background, and my overall intellect. Do you not no satire? Should you not have been more prudent and asked me directly about my educational and athletic background before jumping to erroneous and false recollections? I have no idea what your educational levels are or any athletic participations might have been, so I would not assume any of what you assumed of me. Perhaps you could enlighten us all so that we might assess your competence in these fields.
5. The final sentence of that post states something that I never do, i.e., "ignore your opinion." I try to take opinions as learning opportunities -- sometimes positive and sometimes negative but never to be ignored.
6. On Page 274 of the General Sports Talk thread I, tuttigym, responded with a portion of relevant sports science background and other info. gordon888 response ..... crickets.
There is a little more to this but I need to do some more research to be accurate, so to be continued.
tuttigym
link to original post
TLDR. (I skimmed some). This can’t be doing YOU any good! I can’t remember who coined the phrase… but…. “Get a life!”
As far as favoritism…. OF COURSE there is favoritism. The moderators and the Wiz will give more rope to a valuable poster, like Mickey Crimm, KEWLJ, BillyRyan before giving them the axe. Posters without a history of valuable posts would have been axed sooner.
link to original post
#FreeBillryan