Discussion III about the Suspension List
Quote: MDawgDidn’t DarkOz say he’d quit the forum if suspended? so what’s the hurry.
link to original post
Not quite. It depended on the reason for the suspension.
This whole situation is very hard on me. I'm depressed about it and angry at myself about how I handled it.
Let me start with my comment "You would have to ask BBB that." I would like to rephrase, if I may. I am absolutely not accusing BBB of misleading anybody. I absolutely believe that she believes her version. I can see how my statement would not lead to that conclusion. For that, I apologize.
Next, with hundreds of posts about 18 yo's in a row, 80% win rates on even-money bets in roulette, and 60 consecutive wins in blackjack among other incredible claims here, I think the reasonable position is that it's possible for anybody to remember things incorrectly.
Next, I do not ask for anyone to take sides on which version is true. If I were anybody else, I would see this as a he-said/she-said situation and just shrug my shoulders.
Finally, despite believing what I do about what BBB said, I should have confirmed it with her before releasing Karen. For that, I also apologize.
BBB had a good friendship for years and I hate to see it end this way. For that, I accept responsibility. Of all the dramatic situations on this forum over the years, this is probably the only one that has spilled into real life hurt.
Thank you for listening. Carry on.
I believe many of the criticisms of the Wizard are unfair
I'm not commenting on the Nathan thing
it's an open forum - anyone can join
he can't police those who post nonsense
he provides excellent info on sports betting and machine play and other fun stuff like allowing the NFL pick contests
let sometimes think about all of the positive things he provides and give the guy a break sometimes - he's not perfect - but overall imho he does a great job
I realize some may not like this post and think I'm a sycophant
that's okay - I don't care - this is what I feel
.
Anyone smarter than me know what it is?
Quote: MDawgKeep in mind the quoted below from this thread.
But,
"The marathon session lasted 12 hours and contained all the ebb and flow of a typical blackjack game. Until, that is, Johnson was able to string together a streak of astronomical odds — taking more than 40 hands in row, according to a source."
https://nypost.com/2011/06/12/the-taking-of-atlantic-city/Quote: MDawgThis happened some two decades ago. Could I swear it was 60 in a row? No. Which is why I say "some sixty."
But, I do know how little I was betting and how much I won. There were double downs and blackjacks along the way, but as I recall most of the hands were regular wins. You do the math on how many hands in a row I won to get some 70K betting only about eight hunny a hand. It was a lot of wins in a row.
link to original postQuote: Mission146I'm going to take MDawg at face value on this one and would highly encourage everyone to direct WellBush to this thread.
In the event that, "Some sixty," consecutive Blackjack wins in a row can happen (disregarding pushes) as MDawg is claiming to have happened, AND the probability of losing an individual hand is greater than the probability of winning one (which it is) that means that MDawg was personally involved in an event that is LESS probable than losing, "Some sixty," hands in a row.
Therefore, if WellBush accepts anything even close to this account as true, then any negative progression betting system he can come up with (as we already know) can fail.
We have the real life proof account here, if MDawg is to be believed, except in reverse...because this event is actually less likely than losing some sixty hands in a row.
link to original postQuote: MDawgWell, what I remember is that I kept winning and winning and then when I finally lost two hands in a row I left. Which is why I recall no losses along the way....
Plus all the commotion over my streak to the point where they would deal only one hand to me and then immediately shuffle, every single time. And that they kept talking about it for years. It was quite a night. I mean, when I got a 16 and dealer had ten up I was already tucking my cards as the 5 came my way, I already knew what was coming. It was like that. There was a small crowd around me talking about how lucky I was. I didn't even consider it all that extraordinary at the time, as it was pretty much near the beginning of my gaming days. If I had realized how extraordinary it was I would have bet a lot more, which is what people were saying around me, that I should be betting maximum. Instead, I was just flat betting about eight hunny a hand. And got to about 70K ahead before I lost the two hands and left.
Again, could I swear to that I did not lose a single hand along the way? No.
I know there were pushes along the way.
link to original post
link to original post
Just don’t want to be included in a litany of all time infamous claims unless mine is at least quoted correctly. 😅
Quote: 100xOddsWiz also changed his Avatar.
Anyone smarter than me know what it is?
link to original post
https://mathenchant.wordpress.com/2020/03/10/the-square-root-of-pi/
I blame Lord Kelvin.
Quote: 100xOddsWiz also changed his Avatar.
Anyone smarter than me know what it is?
link to original post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_integral
and his business card???
Quote: 100xOddsQuote: teliotThis site is FUBAR.
Bye.
link to original post
And another valuable poster leaves. :(
I'm actually not that surprised he left.
He voiced his sadness (if that's the right word) for this site last year:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/36338-discussion-iii-about-the-suspension-list/29/#post883542
link to original post
Amen. Can anything be done to cater to the most valuable (even if not prolific) contributors?
I assume charges must be pressed only by the aggrieved. I understand that she is sore for being demoted and appears to be out for retribution so if it’ll make her happy I volunteer for a 3 day suspension.
I’d ask that the person whose lead I followed - Wizard - serve at least double my sentence but I’m fine being the scapegoat here since it seems that’s the only way to make BBB feel like she’s not been slighted. Sometimes you gotta take one for the team and I realize that Wizard has things to do here and I’m still out of town for a while anyway. With the snowstorm the skiing should improve shortly.
Quote: MDawgIt has come to my attention that notwithstanding that I made it clear that I was following Wizard’s lead where he affirmed that he had in fact discussed this Nathan reinstatement with BBB notwithstanding that I sua sponte posted an apology to BBB that still charges have been pressed demanding that I be suspended for posting that I believed Wizard over her and posing the question of whether she had been less than truthful.
I assume charges must be pressed only by the aggrieved. I understand that she is sore for being demoted and appears to be out for retribution so if it’ll make her happy I volunteer for a 3 day suspension.
I’d ask that the person whose lead I followed - Wizard - serve at least double my sentence but I’m fine being the scapegoat here since it seems that’s the only way to make BBB feel like she’s not been slighted. Sometimes you gotta take one for the team and I realize that Wizard has things to do here and I’m still out of town for a while anyway. With the snowstorm the skiing should improve shortly.
link to original post
I hope I may say without breaking any rules that she didn't ask for a suspension, but that the matter be reviewed for at least an admonishment.
What I would like to do is accept your 3-day self-suspension and I also accept the doubling of it for myself. I hate to do this right before the Super Bowl, as I was hoping to post on some proposition bets. I'm going to file both as a penance as opposed to a suspension.
While serving my penance, I may still serve my duties as a moderator. If you need to reach me for anything other than moderator issues, I can be reached at DT.
I probably will serve an official suspension after the Super Bowl as well for posting from private communication and false quoting.
Quote: WizardQuote: MDawgIt has come to my attention that notwithstanding that I made it clear that I was following Wizard’s lead where he affirmed that he had in fact discussed this Nathan reinstatement with BBB notwithstanding that I sua sponte posted an apology to BBB that still charges have been pressed demanding that I be suspended for posting that I believed Wizard over her and posing the question of whether she had been less than truthful.
I assume charges must be pressed only by the aggrieved. I understand that she is sore for being demoted and appears to be out for retribution so if it’ll make her happy I volunteer for a 3 day suspension.
I’d ask that the person whose lead I followed - Wizard - serve at least double my sentence but I’m fine being the scapegoat here since it seems that’s the only way to make BBB feel like she’s not been slighted. Sometimes you gotta take one for the team and I realize that Wizard has things to do here and I’m still out of town for a while anyway. With the snowstorm the skiing should improve shortly.
link to original post
I hope I may say without breaking any rules that she didn't ask for a suspension, but that the matter be reviewed for at least an admonishment.
What I would like to do is accept your 3-day self-suspension and I also accept the doubling of it for myself. I hate to do this right before the Super Bowl, as I was hoping to post on some proposition bets. I'm going to file both as a penance as opposed to a suspension.
While serving my penance, I may still serve my duties as a moderator. If you need to reach me for anything other than moderator issues, I can be reached at DT.
I probably will serve an official suspension after the Super Bowl as well for posting from private communication and false quoting.
link to original post
I am ignoring several innacuracies in mdawg's assumptions, and only addressing the Wizard's post. I suggest folks that want a reaction to what mdawg said consider 2 things; the brilliant and articulate dissection of mdawgs transgressions Mission posted upthread, and that there is a single standard for everyone on this forum, and that is what was evaluated and is being enforced, not some personal vendetta of mine.
I think it's harmful to the forum and Mike for the Wizard to refrain from posting his Super Bowl discussions. It's his signature calculation every year, one of his most valuable contributions, and very much an overreaction to a simple misunderstanding. I do not agree with the need for him to do any penance, but he is insisting, so I strongly request that he allow himself to post freely on the SB topic alone, as well as continuing moderation, as noted above.
Quote: MDawgIt has come to my attention that notwithstanding that I made it clear that I was following Wizard’s lead where he affirmed that he had in fact discussed this Nathan reinstatement with BBB notwithstanding that I sua sponte posted an apology to BBB that still charges have been pressed demanding that I be suspended for posting that I believed Wizard over her and posing the question of whether she had been less than truthful.
I assume charges must be pressed only by the aggrieved. I understand that she is sore for being demoted and appears to be out for retribution so if it’ll make her happy I volunteer for a 3 day suspension.
I’d ask that the person whose lead I followed - Wizard - serve at least double my sentence but I’m fine being the scapegoat here since it seems that’s the only way to make BBB feel like she’s not been slighted. Sometimes you gotta take one for the team and I realize that Wizard has things to do here and I’m still out of town for a while anyway. With the snowstorm the skiing should improve shortly.
link to original post
Jesus, talk about being an overly dramatic Martyr.
Where did BBB ask for someone be suspended for this event?
What's up with this assumption that she's sore? This is from left field.
I'm putting you on ignore like EvenBob for spewing stuff that makes my head hurt
Self-flagellation? Seems like a weird medieval practice, sort of a fringe cult thing, going on here.
Quote: MDawg
I’d ask that the person whose lead I followed - Wizard - serve at least double my sentence
how inane, ridiculous, presumptuous, and egotistical
beyond the pale
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: MDawg
I’d ask that the person whose lead I followed - Wizard - serve at least double my sentence
how inane, ridiculous, presumptuous, and egotistical
beyond the pale
.
link to original post
And it's MDawg who is always taking "snapshots" of my posts as examples of the way I am thinking.
SMH.
Quote: gordonm888
Self-flagellation? Seems like a weird medieval practice, sort of a fringe cult thing, going on here.
link to original post
The optics are all wrong. MDawg, knowing that he's in line for a rebuke from Wizard, offers to take 3 days if wizard takes 6 days. Is this some perverse alpha male behaviour? Mdawg demonstrating his influence?
Wizard made an error of judgement. Mdawg turned it into a spiteful attack on BBB. He seems to have overlooked how popular BBB is/was.
Isn't there a convention that self suspension should be 30 days?
Dr Dr. I'm into flagellation, bestiality and necrophilia. Do you think i'm flogging a dead horse?
PS, Glad to see you back, Babs!
PPS, I will volunteer to serve half of Wiz's sentence so that he will be free to post his Superb Owl prop wisdom next week. In my almost-decade here, I have never seen the inside of the WoV slammer. I hope it doesn't smell too bad!
Quote: JoemanWhy is Wiz self-suspending? Because he misspoke and then owned up to it? At most, that should be probation and time served -- no suspension. Besides, I thought standard penance around here was push-ups. Perhaps the aggrieved party should name the amount.
PS, Glad to see you back, Babs!
PPS, I will volunteer to serve half of Wiz's sentence so that he will be free to post his Superb Owl prop wisdom next week. In my almost-decade here, I have never seen the inside of the WoV slammer. I hope it doesn't smell too bad!
link to original post
I would do that also. Take some days from Wiz so he can post in Super Bowl lead up.
One set of rules for thee and thine, another for me and mine.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: gordonm888
Self-flagellation? Seems like a weird medieval practice, sort of a fringe cult thing, going on here.
link to original post
The optics are all wrong. MDawg, knowing that he's in line for a rebuke from Wizard, offers to take 3 days if wizard takes 6 days. Is this some perverse alpha male behaviour? Mdawg demonstrating his influence?
Wizard made an error of judgement. Mdawg turned it into a spiteful attack on BBB. He seems to have overlooked how popular BBB is/was.
Isn't there a convention that self suspension should be 30 days?
Dr Dr. I'm into flagellation, bestiality and necrophilia. Do you think i'm flogging a dead horse?
link to original post
Wizard has stated that he clearly remembers what he said to BBB, and that this is a case of "he-said she-said." What was his error of judgement?
Moderators self-suspend all the time for 3 or 7 days because of allegations that they are technically guilty of rule breaking. The 30-day self-suspension rule (which is not written down anywhere, but does have precedents) is for people who state that they want to be suspended by the moderators because they are sick of the forum and need a break. If you look at the suspension list, you will see that Wizard suspended MDawg as penance for phantom violation of rules. MDawg volunteered that he would agree to this, apparently discussed it with Wizard and Wizard enacted it. No lawyerly harrumphing or mischief-making by you or others is going to needlessly inflate MDawg's offer to serve penance into a 30 day sentence.
I do like your dead horse joke, ROFL.
Quote: lilredrooster.
I believe many of the criticisms of the Wizard are unfair
I'm not commenting on the Nathan thing
it's an open forum - anyone can join
he can't police those who post nonsense
he provides excellent info on sports betting and machine play and other fun stuff like allowing the NFL pick contests
let sometimes think about all of the positive things he provides and give the guy a break sometimes - he's not perfect - but overall imho he does a great job
I realize some may not like this post and think I'm a sycophant
that's okay - I don't care - this is what I feel
.
link to original post
Good points.
However, maybe this is the reason for the old saying "heavy lies the wizard hat." I think Gandalf or some wizard probably said that.
Not being a wizard myself, I used to think it meant the wizard hat was LITERALLY heavy as a function of the material and the way it sits on the head and stuff.
Quote: billryanSo some members get to discuss their possible suspensions while the rest of us have to deal with whatever rash decisions someone makes. That sounds about par for this course.
link to original post
Bill, if you need to make a rash decision, I suggest you consult a dermatologist.
I only consult audio engineers, because I confine myself to making sound decisions.
Quote: billryanSo some members get to discuss their possible suspensions while the rest of us have to deal with whatever rash decisions someone makes. That sounds about par for this course.
link to original post
I enjoy posting here. I would be unhappy with a permanent ban. A 3 day suspension? I must have had 5 or so of those. Easy to survive. How long SOMEONE ELSE gets suspended…. I may comment, but I really can’t care….
Quote: gordonm888Quote: billryanQuote: NathanI REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post
For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post
Three days for bullying.
You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.
The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post
I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.
You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.
We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.
We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
The Young Turks did a YouTube video about it recently but I won't post it here, you'll have to look it up.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: billryanQuote: NathanI REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended. He volunteered to self suspend as some sort of contrition/penance, but I REALLY don't think he should have done it.
link to original post
For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post
Three days for bullying.
link to original post
I agree with the 3 days for bullying.
If you can't be civil, block the thread, the member, and maybe take a break from the internet.
Quote: ChumpChangeI've got a simple question for Nathan/Karen. What is the gender marked on your Florida ID/Driver's License, and what is your actual gender? Because it is now a felony to have a mismatch of the gender on the ID in Florida with 5 years in prison in an effort to create political prisoners in the state or to drive disputed persons out of the state. It's just started in the past few days, so there's very little awareness over this issue. But if you have a mismatch, I don't know if there's still time to get it corrected at the DMV. Their previous policies for people in transition were just abolished.
The Young Turks did a YouTube video about it recently but I won't post it here, you'll have to look it up.
link to original post
Pretty Off-topic CC.
It's none of our business. No reason to suspect or imply that she is in breach of any law.
Karen has described herself and has presented photo and video evidence of her gender and identity. She never claimed to be in transition. The Nathan reference was just one of her many internet personas.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: ChumpChangeI've got a simple question for Nathan/Karen. What is the gender marked on your Florida ID/Driver's License, and what is your actual gender? Because it is now a felony to have a mismatch of the gender on the ID in Florida with 5 years in prison in an effort to create political prisoners in the state or to drive disputed persons out of the state. It's just started in the past few days, so there's very little awareness over this issue. But if you have a mismatch, I don't know if there's still time to get it corrected at the DMV. Their previous policies for people in transition were just abolished.
The Young Turks did a YouTube video about it recently but I won't post it here, you'll have to look it up.
link to original post
Pretty Off-topic CC.
It's none of our business. No reason to suspect or imply that she is in breach of any law.
Karen has described herself and has presented photo and video evidence of her gender and identity. She never claimed to be in transition. The Nathan reference was just one of her many internet personas.
link to original post
I actually chose the name Nathan because one of my favorite names is Nathaniel. :) Nathan is short for Nathaniel, so I went with Nathan. :) I mentioned this a VERY long time ago and mentioned that since Nathaniel is one of my favorite names, I should have just went with Nathaniel. ;)
Everyone can change as rare as that is. Goading her so she feels unwelcome or forced to become divisive is itself divisive. Let's practice what we preach.
Nathan has so far exhibited quite well restraint considering the number of negative posts to the point SHE is making you guys look bad.
Leave her alone. If she messes up, "relapses" so to speak, let that be on her.
Quote: OnceDearImporting from the Nathan's Corner Thread....
Quote: gordonm888Quote: billryanQuote: NathanI REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post
For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post
Three days for bullying.
You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.
The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post
I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.
You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.
We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.
We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post
I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.
Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.
Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.
I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.
It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
I just served seven days for "insult" when I did not in fact insult a member.
I wrote that a certain poster engages in self-aggrandizing and bragging.
Where is the insult, given that my description is 100% accurate and not inflammatory?
I didn't call anyone names, I only accurately described their posts.
What, did you get PM's claiming the person felt insulted?
And if so, did you take it at face value?
Quote: gordonm888Quote: OnceDearImporting from the Nathan's Corner Thread....
Quote: gordonm888Quote: billryanQuote: NathanI REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post
For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post
Three days for bullying.
You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.
The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post
I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.
You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.
We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.
We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post
I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.
Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.
Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.
I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.
It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post
I can’t disagree more with your ‘logic’. Billy, and the rest of us, are offended by Nathan’s presence here because of her lies, misrepresentations, multiple sock puppets, beyond rude comments directed at a moderator, and intentional misrepresentation of her gender at a real life meet up. How you or anyone can make this into a ‘civil rights’ issue bringing race/gender/ disability is beyond ludicrous.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: OnceDearImporting from the Nathan's Corner Thread....
Quote: gordonm888Quote: billryanQuote: NathanI REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post
For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post
Three days for bullying.
You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.
The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post
I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.
You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.
We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.
We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post
I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.
Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.
Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.
I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.
It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post
Reality is you should have left race and gender out of it. When you put it there you imply if it was said to a white male then it would be OK. It also sounds like you are lecturing us on race and gender, which would probably warrant a suspension for political statements.
Quote: MrVDieter:
I just served seven days for "insult" when I did not in fact insult a member.
I wrote that a certain poster engages in self-aggrandizing and bragging.
Where is the insult, given that my description is 100% accurate and not inflammatory?
I didn't call anyone names, I only accurately described their posts.
What, did you get PM's claiming the person felt insulted?
And if so, did you take it at face value?
link to original post
Quote: MrVQuote: MDawgWizard has given other nuked members a chance in the past too, but those members such as KewlJ screwed up again even more badly after returning, so they got the nuked boot again. Some men you just can't reach. Others, you may.
Just...wow...You really can't let go of the embarrassment KJ has caused you by "debunking", can you?
Why bring KJ up here, why hijack this thread, which you "fought" so hard for on behalf of Nathan, "your client?"
Oh wait...did you volunteer your "legal services" on behalf of The Damned just to get "her" reinstated here in order to gloat over KJ?
Could be...I mean, it's not like you really seem to care about helping "the little people," given your proclivity for self-aggrandizement and bragging about how much money you have available.
If so ... (fill in the blank with appropriate phrase)
link to original post
Quote: Rule 1Absolutely no personal insults. If you disagree with another forum member, politely attack the writing, not the writer.
I found plenty there that attacked the writer, not the writing.
Any private messages I did (or did not) receive are private, and "nunya".
Welcome back.
-D
Quote: gordonm888Quote: OnceDearImporting from the Nathan's Corner Thread....
Quote: gordonm888Quote: billryanQuote: NathanI REALLY wish Mdawg hadn't self Suspended
link to original post
For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO.
link to original post
Three days for bullying.
You are allowed to express disagreement with Wizard's decision. However, the statement "You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.
The context? It is that you parachuted into a thread named Nathan's Corner, and unconnected from an on-going discussion, say to Nathan "I wish you weren't here" and "You don't deserve to be here." The only possible interpretation of your intent is that you mean to hurt her feelings and to degrade her as a human being.
link to original post
I'm disappointed in you here Gordon. I can pretty much agree with most of what you said in justifying the 3 days. Everything except the clear implication that Billryan was motivated by Karen's Race, gender, or health status. You did nothing to establish that they were BillRyan's motives.
You chose to interpret his intent, but ...
A) That's not your role and
B) That's only your interpretation as a fellow member.
C) You presented no substantive evidence of such intent.
We are all allowed to speculate as to personality traits of other members, but you guys should base suspensions on actions and evidence, not speculative opinions.
We all know that Karen has a history here as a disruptor and that she broke cardinal rules that would cause anyone to not 'deserve to be here.'
link to original post
I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.
Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here." Those are words of exclusion. And, those are the exact words that billryan used. I don't believe he said them out of racial and gender prejudice; instead I wonder whether he said them knowingly in order to upset and offend Nathan in the hopes that she would blow up and respond by saying something that might get her banned. I don't know, but I don't expect civil rules violator to be candid about his motivations.
Nathan sent me a PM complaining about this post and in three times in her PM she said she was offended or that she strongly felt that billryans comment was offensive. In US civil rights law, the determination of whether language is discriminatory is not based on the claimed motivations of the speaker (because no person ever admits to an intent to discriminate) - instead it is based on whether the victim found the speech to be offensive. So this is a slam dunk for being a violation under US civil rights statutes: speech that is cruel and demeans a person in a protected category (black, disabled) and for which the targeted person has filed a complaint to WOV asserting that she feels offended.
I think there is also room for Nathan to feel that her autistic communications style, hobbled by her disability, is why billryan doesn't like her. The basic rule when dealing with people in protected categories of civil rights rules is: you may disagree with the content of their speech and/or their behavior but you are not permitted to treat them as if they are inferior to you. Billryan broke that general rule.
It is absolutely correct, when receiving a complaint like this, to take action against billryan and to explain that we at WOV (or at least I) do not permit speech like this. In fact, the Wizard's existing rules for the forum do a fine job of capturing the imperatives of civil rights compliance. Again, nothing is implied about billryan's motives here, it is simply that his speech crossed a line.
link to original post
This is straight creepy crap right here folks. Look how once again he attaches Racism to Billy's words in the second paragraph.
Gordon have you ever considered someone can dislike someone for reasons other than race or gender.
Quote: gordonm888 Snipped for brevity
"You don't deserve to be here" is a statement about Nathan as a person and it is unusually offensive because it is made to a member who is autistic, black and female. As is the statement "I wish you weren't here." This goes beyond rude, mean and uncivil, it is offensive on more than one level.
...
I never said that the motivation was race, gender or disability bias. I did say that his words were offensive -both to Nathan, and to me.
Imagine a sheriff in the old south walking someone out of a "no coloreds" hotel or restaurant and saying " I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here."
link to original post
A)Who raised the topic of race, gender and disability? Methinks it was Gordon.
B)Where did that come from except for Gordon's perception of unspoken words?
C)So, all of a sudden 'this place' has a 'no coloreds' rule? Of course it doesn't.
BillRyan offended Karen. I agree with that and with the the three days. I don't agree with Gordon's characterisation of BillRyan's motives. By extension, I feel that a few of us are being characterised as a group of hater's of Karen because of her race, gender and medical status. That second hand implication is itself offensive. Gordon should not base his suspension on the words that no-one used, especially as he already had his non-controversial grounds to suspend.
I have seen the craziest things done and said (including by police) that were obviously racist but done in an oblique way. That causes other people who innocently use the same tropes and language to perhaps unintentionally look suspect.
That is what Gordon is referring to. What would be called in politics "the optics".
We live in a racist society. That's just a fact. And so yes, one has to watch what one says, like it or not.
A true example is a decade or so ago a NY sports writer wrote a basketball team may have found "A chink in the armor" when it came to one star players abilities. The problem? That player was of Chinese nationality!
If you can't see the problem calling a Chinese person a chink EVEN INNOCENTLY, then you need to educate yourself. Would that comment have been perfectly fine if it was about a white player? Of course. Is that a double standard? Sadly yes but borne out of necessity from prior racist history and abuse.
So as high minded as "if this person was white, would you make the same claims" sounds righteous, it simply isn't. Sorry guys That's the society we live in. Not our fault but our ancestors. But it behooves everyone to have a knack for recognizing it.
Quote: darkoz
A true example is a decade or so ago a NY sports writer wrote a basketball team may have found "A chink in the armor" when it came to one star players abilities. The problem? That player was of Chinese nationality!
If you can't see the problem calling a Chinese person a chink EVEN INNOCENTLY, then you need to educate yourself. Would that comment have been perfectly fine if it was about a white player? Of course. Is that a double standard? Sadly yes but borne out of necessity from prior racist history and abuse.
Did they call him a chink or say there was a chink in the armor?
See,. when everything is made about race then everything ends up about race.
Do you see white people getting upset when they say a team getting blown out "waved the white flag?"
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: darkoz
A true example is a decade or so ago a NY sports writer wrote a basketball team may have found "A chink in the armor" when it came to one star players abilities. The problem? That player was of Chinese nationality!
If you can't see the problem calling a Chinese person a chink EVEN INNOCENTLY, then you need to educate yourself. Would that comment have been perfectly fine if it was about a white player? Of course. Is that a double standard? Sadly yes but borne out of necessity from prior racist history and abuse.
Did they call him a chink or say there was a chink in the armor?
See,. when everything is made about race then everything ends up about race.
Do you see white people getting upset when they say a team getting blown out "waved the white flag?"
link to original post
Of course he didn't call him a chink and said it was a "chink in the armor"
If you are going to insist that he was well within his rights to use that term in that scenario You should probably go to sensitivity training.
I understand your righteousness. I don't understand your lack of knowledge on how the world works. You simply have to be careful what you say.
If it makes you feel better, black people can do it too. While discussing white people they have to watch out about references to Crackers, whips and red necks.
Quote: darkozGuys, as a white male with a primarily mixed black family I can say I Fully understand Gordon's meaning.
I have seen the craziest things done and said (including by police) that were obviously racist but done in an oblique way. That causes other people who innocently use the same tropes and language to perhaps unintentionally look suspect.
That is what Gordon is referring to. What would be called in politics "the optics".
We live in a racist society. That's just a fact. And so yes, one has to watch what one says, like it or not.
A true example is a decade or so ago a NY sports writer wrote a basketball team may have found "A chink in the armor" when it came to one star players abilities. The problem? That player was of Chinese nationality!
If you can't see the problem calling a Chinese person a chink EVEN INNOCENTLY, then you need to educate yourself. Would that comment have been perfectly fine if it was about a white player? Of course. Is that a double standard? Sadly yes but borne out of necessity from prior racist history and abuse.
So as high minded as "if this person was white, would you make the same claims" sounds righteous, it simply isn't. Sorry guys That's the society we live in. Not our fault but our ancestors. But it behooves everyone to have a knack for recognizing it.
link to original post
These are billy's words.
"For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO."
Please point out where the racism is.
Quote: darkozQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: darkoz
A true example is a decade or so ago a NY sports writer wrote a basketball team may have found "A chink in the armor" when it came to one star players abilities. The problem? That player was of Chinese nationality!
If you can't see the problem calling a Chinese person a chink EVEN INNOCENTLY, then you need to educate yourself. Would that comment have been perfectly fine if it was about a white player? Of course. Is that a double standard? Sadly yes but borne out of necessity from prior racist history and abuse.
Did they call him a chink or say there was a chink in the armor?
See,. when everything is made about race then everything ends up about race.
Do you see white people getting upset when they say a team getting blown out "waved the white flag?"
link to original post
Of course he didn't call him a chink and said it was a "chink in the armor"
If you are going to insist that he was well within his rights to use that term in that scenario You should probably go to sensitivity training.
I understand your righteousness. I don't understand your lack of knowledge on how the world works. You simply have to be careful what you say.
If it makes you feel better, black people can do it too. While discussing white people they have to watch out about references to Crackers, whips and red necks.
Sensitivity training? You mean those classes given by people who cannot do productive work? No thanks. If I need to waste time I will watch "Hogan's Heroes" and at least enjoy myself. But maybe I will go if the rest of the world goes to "Act like a grown man/woman training." It is where you learn to not get all buthurt because of an innocent comment you decide to take the wrong way because you are waiting to be offended. People born before 1980 will generally be exempt because we learned it as part of growing up.
I do not care if a black man talks about Ritz crackers or the whip at the amusement park. I am man enough to know the difference between being called a name and hearing a word.
Quote: rainman
Please point out where the racism is.
link to original post
Seems to me it is in thinking someone black or female is less able to handle themselves. But then what do I know.
Quote: rainmanQuote: darkozGuys, as a white male with a primarily mixed black family I can say I Fully understand Gordon's meaning.
I have seen the craziest things done and said (including by police) that were obviously racist but done in an oblique way. That causes other people who innocently use the same tropes and language to perhaps unintentionally look suspect.
That is what Gordon is referring to. What would be called in politics "the optics".
We live in a racist society. That's just a fact. And so yes, one has to watch what one says, like it or not.
A true example is a decade or so ago a NY sports writer wrote a basketball team may have found "A chink in the armor" when it came to one star players abilities. The problem? That player was of Chinese nationality!
If you can't see the problem calling a Chinese person a chink EVEN INNOCENTLY, then you need to educate yourself. Would that comment have been perfectly fine if it was about a white player? Of course. Is that a double standard? Sadly yes but borne out of necessity from prior racist history and abuse.
So as high minded as "if this person was white, would you make the same claims" sounds righteous, it simply isn't. Sorry guys That's the society we live in. Not our fault but our ancestors. But it behooves everyone to have a knack for recognizing it.
link to original post
These are billy's words.
"For what its worth.,I wish you weren't here and had never been allowed back. You don't deserve to be here, IMO."
Please point out where the racism is.
link to original post
The racism is definitely in the last sentence. Black people are often told they don't belong somewhere.
The entire history of the South is rooted in segregation and black people being told they don't deserve to be in white establishments.
I feel I am not getting the point across. The comments by Bill Ryan became racist because of who they were spoken too.
This is just us as a society.
Black, white, Jewish. If someone German says to a Jewish driver when he is nearing E on his gas tank, "you need to get gassed", sorry but there is going to be a different sentiment than if that is said to a person of different nationality or race regardless of the innocent intent.
Likewise white people need to be SENSITIVE to what they say to black people. All people of one race, nationality etc need to be sensitive to these or face the consequences.
Case in point the guy who using chink in the armor was innocent when discussing an Asian basketball player. He got fired!
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rainman
Please point out where the racism is.
link to original post
Seems to me it is in thinking someone black or female is less able to handle themselves. But then what do I know.
link to original post
It's worse. Billy's decision to express his dislike for kentry could be born out of Her
being one of the most prolific puppet masters in Wov history, Her calling BBB the big C
etc... etc...
But no, people decide it must be racism because she's black.
