Discussion III about the Suspension List

Quote: tuttigym

Quote: AxelWolf

] Mee too, but if this site can't take a little joking sarcasm then do what you got to do. Was that post not a joke ... "I haven't yet decided whether I need a stimulant or a sedative"? I certainly hope so.

link to original post

Perhaps one should use my suggestion -- SARCASM ALERT: ......

tuttigym

link to original post

One just needs to use little comment sence.

Quote: tuttigym

Quote: AxelWolf

] Mee too, but if this site can't take a little joking sarcasm then do what you got to do. Was that post not a joke ... "I haven't yet decided whether I need a stimulant or a sedative"? I certainly hope so.

link to original post

Perhaps one should use my suggestion -- SARCASM ALERT: ......

tuttigym

link to original post

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Quote: Dieter

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

link to original post

No, no, it seems that some posters are trying to be sarcastic, but their comments are possibly being misinterpreted by mods and others to be insults. The "alert" would perhaps provide clarity of purpose.

tuttigym

Quote: Wizard

I just wish to say that, except for two people, I harbor no hard personal feelings about any member of the forum and wish everyone else well.

link to original post

My guess is that the two people that Wizard harbors ill feeling towards are :

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: Wizard

I just wish to say that, except for two people, I harbor no hard personal feelings about any member of the forum and wish everyone else well.

link to original post

My guess is that the two people that Wizard harbors ill feeling towards are :

Show Spoiler

Dieter and I. And he had his vengeance on us by making us mods. j/j

link to original post

No way, it's MDawg and myself!

Signed, Marcus Clark

Quote: Marcusclark66

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: Wizard

I just wish to say that, except for two people, I harbor no hard personal feelings about any member of the forum and wish everyone else well.

link to original post

My guess is that the two people that Wizard harbors ill feeling towards are :

Show Spoiler

Dieter and I. And he had his vengeance on us by making us mods. j/j

link to original post

No way, it's MDawg and myself!

Signed, Marcus Clark

link to original post

So who is the other person?

Quote: billryan

Quote: Marcusclark66

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: Wizard

I just wish to say that, except for two people, I harbor no hard personal feelings about any member of the forum and wish everyone else well.

link to original post

My guess is that the two people that Wizard harbors ill feeling towards are :

Show Spoiler

Dieter and I. And he had his vengeance on us by making us mods. j/j

link to original post

No way, it's MDawg and myself!

Signed, Marcus Clark

link to original post

So who is the other person?

link to original post

GOOD ONE!!!

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: Wizard

I just wish to say that, except for two people, I harbor no hard personal feelings about any member of the forum and wish everyone else well.

link to original post

My guess is that the two people that Wizard harbors ill feeling towards are :

Show Spoiler

Dieter and I. And he had his vengeance on us by making us mods. j/j

link to original post

I will say Wizard has been exceptionally courteous about any hard feelings.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: Wizard

I just wish to say that, except for two people, I harbor no hard personal feelings about any member of the forum and wish everyone else well.

link to original post

My guess is that the two people that Wizard harbors ill feeling towards are :

Show Spoiler

Dieter and I. And he had his vengeance on us by making us mods. j/j

link to original post

joke of the day 😃

Quote: Wizard

As I've said before, one cay say they don't believe MDawg, but they can't say he is lying. That is where a line is drawn.

link to original post

Bolding is mine.

I interpret Wizard's line in the sand as being one of many, in that intent, tone and diplomacy are involved. It is where a line is drawn, but there are other, more nuanced lines nearby.

I'll cite an example.

Say, Oncedear posts

Quote: OnceDear - Not A Real Quote

After many years, I graduated with a Ph.D in Physics and became a Senior Engineer.
With some of the stat's and physics that I learned along the way, I've been able to maintain a pretty good roulette session record of 100 winning sessions out of 101 total sessions and I've won over $5m over that playing career.

SomeOne* might come along and quote that with the simple comment...

Quote: SomeOne - Not A Real Quote

I don't believe OnceDear

He might be more specific and say

Quote: SomeOne - Not A Real Quote

I don't believe that OnceDear had 100 out of 101 winning sessions

or he might even say

Quote: SomeOne - Not A Real Quote

I don't believe OnceDear has a Ph.D or was ever a Senior Engineer

Now. There is a conundrum here. SomeOne would seemingly not have crossed Wizard's line, with any of those assertions, while OnceDear would have been clearly insulted by the latter assertion. For SomeOne to effectively dismiss years of study and professional career would clearly be an insult and fall foul of rule 1.
So, what I'm saying is that each personal insult is judged on its merit, and one line in the sand does not quite fit all situations.
I'll add that there is nothing in the forum rules that dictates that any poster must post
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
There is nothing in the forum rules that dictates that any member must believe everything or anything in any post.

If in doubt, maybe we should refer to this line in the rules.

Quote: rule 12

Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen

Which is yet another rabbit-hole. :o)

I'm not really sure what the difference is between saying I don't believe a word poster X writes and calling him a liar but if Mr. Wizard says one is acceptable and the other isn't, it seems like he is the final judge of it. Perhaps every poster should begin using the forum as their personal blog and revel us with tales of the impossible. I think everyone has a novel waiting to be written. Why not take advantage of the built-in audience here. Doesn't everyone want to read about WINNING?

Quote: billryan

I'm not really sure what the difference is between saying I don't believe a word poster X writes and calling him a liar but if Mr. Wizard says one is acceptable and the other isn't, it seems like he is the final judge of it.

It is indeed nuanced. It comes down to what constitutes an insult and what is courteous or discourteous. Judgement is indeed subjective and even moderators might have different opinions.

Quote:

Perhaps every poster should begin using the forum as their personal blog and revel us with tales of the impossible. I think everyone has a novel waiting to be written. Why not take advantage of the built-in audience here.

We have blog spaces here. I'll take the invitation to regale you with mine.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/#post2349

Do the same rules apply to blogs or are they unmonitored spaces where one can freely express their thoughts without worrying about breaking one of the brazzilion rules this forum has put in place?

Quote: billryan

Do the same rules apply to blogs or are they unmonitored spaces where one can freely express their thoughts without worrying about breaking one of the brazzilion rules this forum has put in place?

link to original post

Good question.
Let's analyse that.
Forum rules are labelled as forum rules:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/

Blog spaces are only assessed via the forum, therefore encompassed by any site rules?
We absolutely don't have explicit a set of 'Blog rules'

By precedent,
Blogs here ARE monitored by the same moderators, who have the same 'green powers' there.
We absolutely do not accept Spamming in blogs
We absolutely do not accept obscenity in blogs
We absolutely do not accept personal insults in blogs
We absolutely do not accept copyright abuse in blogs

Implicitly, Blog posts and comments here are subject to the same principles of behaviour as forum posts and replies.

I wasn't even aware there was a blog section. Seems like you greenies get to do twice the work for the same pay.

Quote: billryan

I wasn't even aware there was a blog section. Seems like you greenies get to do twice the work for the same pay.

link to original post

We get double pay when we moderate the blogs.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: billryan

I wasn't even aware there was a blog section. Seems like you greenies get to do twice the work for the same pay.

link to original post

We get double pay when we moderate the blogs.

link to original post

I mean I get that I don't have your tenure, but I barely get half that.

with regard to the negative progression thread, i have this to say:

i have voluntarily withdrawn my participation in it for now. reason: for my own psychological health. that's not to say i am in psychological difficulty. no. far from it. i am quite psychologically healthy, and intend staying that way.

staying psychologically healthy means withdrawing from exposure to psychologically detrimental behaviour by others (anyone anywhere should always consider reducing public exposure when psychological tolerance levels are reached). psychologically detrimental behaviour is something many can experience on different websites in various ways (and in real life as well). some naysayers may think they've "won" when a believer withdraws from a discussion. they certainly haven't "won" if psychologically detrimental behaviour is the reason a poster withdraws. if naysayers want to claim "victory," they can only do so if they "win" the scientific discussion.

i am quite willing to continue the scientific discussion in the negative progression thread, if things were to change to my satisfaction. (BTW, i DON'T consider I own that thread. WOV owns the thread. i consider i started the thread and should have some say on what happens there. how much say, who knows? it's not the point i was trying to make. the point was that there was a poster in that thread who i believe was being very unfair. nothing more, nothing less). i was also not making a threat. i was just stating that there would be a consequence from any kind of psychologically detrimental behaviour that is allowed to persist. E.g. posters withdrawing; a very interesting discussion being terminated prematurely, upsetting site users.

people can downplay psychologically detrimental behaviour all they like. but they cannot say it has zero effect, or that people's tolerance levels for coping with psychologically detrimental behaviour should be "this much," or "that much." the only person that can say if a tolerance level has been reached, is the person experiencing the detrimental behaviour.

has MB exceeded acceptable levels of behaviour at WOV? from WOV's point of view, obviously not. if WOV are comfortable with that, fine. I am stating here that I'm not comfortable with it. I'm entitled to an opinion and a response, also. what I will point out is what MB has been doing in two threads that I started: 1. Negative Progression, 2. Beat the house at blackjack!!!

if people were to look at those two threads, they will be able to see MB's contribution to the them. I don't have a problem coping with occassional stoushes or insults. i do have a problem if a poster is saturating a thread, by relentlessly taking down another. this is what my objection is, pure and simple. a poster behaving this way is NOT "winning" a scientific discussion. not only that, but naysayers have a psychological advantage on this site when it comes to that sort of thing. will other naysayers (possibly admin, too) back the naysayer behaving in this manner? from my experience here, i definitely think they do. i believe the current state of the negative progression thread is one example. another way this can be seen is by a "pile on" effect by naysayers toward a believer. E.g. "Yeah, good on you Joe. Jim's ideas are ********." A one-off comment like this means little to me. it's the number of comments and relentless nature that matters to me. some would call it bullying. certain posters controlling, changing, undermining a legitimate scientific discussion, through nothing but weight of numbers in negative comments.

I have seen Wizard say something like this to an unrelenting poster: "I get it. no need to continue with the negative posting. posters don't need to keep reading another poster's posts, if they don't like something." I think there should be a rule concerning the unrelenting argumentative poster, and posters piling on. there should be limits. i q whether i will expose myself to the WOV forum whilst there is nothing done about the behaviours i'm enunciating.

do i want to put MB permanently in the naughty bin? no, i don't. i have seen a snapshot of his many other posts in various parts of this site and on his own site. although he is susceptible to getting ants in his pants over things at times, he otherwise seems like a decent chap. my point here is this: why do some posters feel the need to defend "whatever" without relent, by taking down another, or taking down what another is discussing, without relent? only the posters concerned can answer that. My dispute is not where posters can/can't post. It's the saturating nature of the posts that I don't agree with. I don't want to call the behaviour bullying because it may be classed as incorrect and an insult, but it's worth considering whether it is a form of bullying?

When considering my suggestions above, I think admin and naysayers need to consider what it would be like if they were on the believer's (qualification: i'm not a believer! i'm part believer, part naysayer) side of the fence. It shouldn't be about defending the WOV's naysayer position. Mods can disqualify threads that WOV think violate their naysayer position, anytime they like. My case is about prevention of saturation by anyone, in a thread proposing anything, as long as that thread is within WOV's acceptable theoretical position. E.g. a limit on the number of posts supporting the opposing argument in a thread (say two such posts per page, with such posts not exceeding two paragraphs each, is one idea).

Quote: Wellbush

i do have a problem if a poster is saturating a thread, by relentlessly taking down another....

link to original post

Wellbush, I've said this umpteen times, and I'll say it again: You can't come to a forum, essentially claim to have magic beans, and expect to not get called on it. Simple as that.

On top of it, when you exhibit Ion Saliu Syndrome, you lose the benefit of the doubt.

Finally, when you say preposterous things like this:

Quote: Wellbush

Mathematicians have been saying that it's theoretically impossible to beat the dealer using such a strategy. Don't be fooled by their ignorance. I will tear their theories apart and shove them in the bin, where they belong. (source)

...then you invite scorn. And rightly so.

Oh, and the victimization card you're playing is item #7 in Ion Saliu Syndrome.

Quote: OnceDear

We get double pay when we moderate the blogs.

I wanted to link to Curly of the Three Stooges saying, "Two times nuthin' is nuthin'!", but I couldn't find it, so this will have to suffice.

WoV code doesn't appear to allow starting a video at a certain timestamp, so scroll to 4:43.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

WoV code doesn't appear to allow starting a video at a certain timestamp, so scroll to 4:43.

link to original post

Thanks for that. We can use from 8:00 when Martingalers come insisting that we Naysayers are wrong.

Shoutout to Wellbush. Never have I seen such a long treatise with both the words 'phsychological' and 'naysayer' repeated so often.

Quote: OnceDear

Shoutout to Wellbush. Never have I seen such a long treatise with both the words 'phsychological' and 'naysayer' repeated so often.

link to original post

👍

Especially for a new member, Wellbush has shown incredible restraint and cheerfulness in responding to many of the posts here. I expect that by now most new (or even existing) members would have crossed the line into obscenity laced rages at some of the comments directed at him.

Whether you agree with his content or not, you have to give him that. He seems like a grounded enough, happy go lucky soul, and plods on with that in which he believes.

If I'm part-believer, part-naysayer, does that mean my mathematical disposition is bi?

I disagree with sabres suspension. My definition of a "quote" is when you say someone said something verbatim. If some one says, "Man, that temperature really dropped, it was 90 degrees just weeks ago, but today it's windy and 60 degrees cooler. Crazy!", and then I say to someone else that the person told me it's cold outside, is that a mis quote? Or is that me saying what they said in my own words as an independent thought? That and a $1 bill will get me a cup of coffee, so I guess it doesn't matter.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I can 100% show posts from MarcusClark saying he talked to MDawg privately and then also his previous post in the "sabre/coach's challenge" thread, that states it all came from MDawgs post and not privately.

I feel like I have above average intelligence, but figuring out the "rules" of this forum, to me is like the 8th Wonder of The World.

Quote: Marcusclark66
"Almost gave up and left a $1,500.00 loser, but MDAWG is to credit and receive a huge hug and high five for his ‘words of wisdom’ and other private things that have been absorbed from the great one! Public thanks and huge appreciation to the Great MDawg!"

So can MarcusClark get suspended for misquoting MDawg if MDawg did in fact not offer him things he could have absorbed privately? Does MarcusClark get his encouragement about baccarat just thru MDawgs threads? Or in private correspondence?

I absorb things privately, what’s the big deal?

I read, I learn, it goes into my system.

I create my own and unique way of wagering. And that is private of course.

And whatever MDawg and myself discuss by p.m., that is private. Like the weather, restaurants and possibly women before both of us were married, etc.

Thank you, Marcus Clark.

Figures. OK, I'll get back to work.

Long story short, MDawg has taught you NOTHING. His posts may have motivated you to play baccarat, that's where his "mentorship" stops.

I highly doubt he's shared anymore strategy with you than he has the rest of us.

A coach's challenge comes from the authority figure in charge of one-half of the people engaged in a competition. To elevate a members complaint up to a coach's challenge is as ridiculous as the mental acrobats some here are engaging in to try and say even the possibility that a one in three billion or so possibility did in fact happen to a poster on this forum.
I'm curious- has any other dispute between members ever been handled this way? I've been a regular here since 2015 or so and have never heard of such a thing. Perhaps I missed it.

The quote above certainly makes it clear to me that MarcusClark is saying he and the other guy have had private conversations or consultations.

I'm pretty sure if Nathan had claimed to have won sixty straight hands of BJ,it would have been handled differently.

It appears to me that one person made an unbelievable statement and now three members have been suspended for defending truth and our forum, while the moderators seeming do little.

"Coach's challenges" are discussed in Rule 14.

Quote:

We will treat it like a "coach's challenge" in the NFL. If a banning is warranted, it will be given. If not, a banning of a perceived victim may be made for making a false claim.

While predominantly applied to violations in private messages, I believe it's an appropriate method for addressing grievance-countergrievance situations.

Quote: billryan

A coach's challenge comes from the authority figure in charge of one-half of the people engaged in a competition. To elevate a members complaint up to a coach's challenge is as ridiculous as the mental acrobats some here are engaging in to try and say even the possibility that a one in three billion or so possibility did in fact happen to a poster on this forum.
I'm curious- has any other dispute between members ever been handled this way? I've been a regular here since 2015 or so and have never heard of such a thing. Perhaps I missed it.

The quote above certainly makes it clear to me that MarcusClark is saying he and the other guy have had private conversations or consultations.

I'm pretty sure if Nathan had claimed to have won sixty straight hands of BJ,it would have been handled differently.

It appears to me that one person made an unbelievable statement and now three members have been suspended for defending truth and our forum, while the moderators seeming do little.

link to original post

As a long standing member here, it appears to me that MDawg and MarcusClark have a different set of rules than the rest of the forum members. I cannot understand, no matter how hard I try, why that is, but the stuff that they get by with wouldn't last 5 minutes if someone else said it. The suspension list is full of proof.

In the last month or so, I was suspended by Mr. Wizard for supposedly insulting a non-member of the forum, and again by Mr. Wizard for suggesting someone was bamboozling him. Then I was lectured about the tone of my posts, with the suggestion that a rule may be needed to guide peoples tone.
What is next? Will my thoughts get me suspended? Do I need to watch the tone of my thoughts?

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”
― Pablo Picasso

Rules are like bones. They are meant to be broken.
-Tommy Dreamer

Quote: billryan

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”
― Pablo Picasso

Rules are like bones. They are meant to be broken.
-Tommy Dreamer

link to original post

"Rules, schmules"
--my grandmother

Quote: billryan

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

link to original post

Yeah, but look where he is now.

Quote: mwalz9

Quote: billryan

A coach's challenge comes from the authority figure in charge of one-half of the people engaged in a competition. To elevate a members complaint up to a coach's challenge is as ridiculous as the mental acrobats some here are engaging in to try and say even the possibility that a one in three billion or so possibility did in fact happen to a poster on this forum.
I'm curious- has any other dispute between members ever been handled this way? I've been a regular here since 2015 or so and have never heard of such a thing. Perhaps I missed it.

The quote above certainly makes it clear to me that MarcusClark is saying he and the other guy have had private conversations or consultations.

I'm pretty sure if Nathan had claimed to have won sixty straight hands of BJ,it would have been handled differently.

It appears to me that one person made an unbelievable statement and now three members have been suspended for defending truth and our forum, while the moderators seeming do little.

link to original post

As a long standing member here, it appears to me that MDawg and MarcusClark have a different set of rules than the rest of the forum members. I cannot understand, no matter how hard I try, why that is, but the stuff that they get by with wouldn't last 5 minutes if someone else said it. The suspension list is full of proof.

link to original post

I don’t think so sir.

I had my share of suspensions until I learned to follow the rules and regulations of the board.

I recommend everyone follow the rules and regulations as well.

Thank you
Marcus Clark

Despite Billryan's return from suspensions today we currently have 8 forum members serving suspensions (not counting sock puppets and spammers who have been nuked.) They are: sabre, Wellbush, lilredrooster, Expectedvalue, joedol, redietz, coachbelly and ChumpChange.

No comments allowed about the people suspended -because they cannot defend themselves. But I wonder if this is a forum record?

I was once suspended for documenting which members had been suspended the most.  😂 And this was even after the Wizard had encouraged the discussion.

Quote: gordonm888

Despite Billryan's return from suspensions today we currently have 8 forum members serving suspensions (not counting sock puppets and spammers who have been nuked.) They are: sabre, Wellbush, lilredrooster, Expectedvalue, joedol, redietz, coachbelly and ChumpChange.

No comments allowed about the people suspended -because they cannot defend themselves. But I wonder if this is a forum record?

link to original post

It's definitely a broken record.

(And there's a double entendre in that statement)

With roughly a third of the regular posters suspended in the last week, an outside observer might wonder about the cause, rather than the effects. What has infected this forum to cause so many people to behave so badly? Is it the water? Was there some rare astrological event that caused it?
When his sheep are upset about the presence of a wolf nearby, does the good shepherd punish the flock or does he try to remove the perceived threat?

Quote: billryan

With roughly a third of the regular posters suspended in the last week, an outside observer might wonder about the cause, rather than the effects. What has infected this forum to cause so many people to behave so badly? Is it the water? Was there some rare astrological event that caused it?
When his sheep are upset about the presence of a wolf nearby, does the good shepherd punish the flock or does he try to remove the perceived threat?

link to original post

POST OF THE YEAR!

My feeling is that all discipline should be handled privately, not publicly.

Quote: billryan

With roughly a third of the regular posters suspended in the last

link to original post

I am totally blown away!

You cite nearly a third of the regular posters….

8 suspended, so 24 regular posters…..only….

Yet, there are nearly 21,000 members and over 11,000 active members…..

Okie Doki, I guess.

Quote: Marcusclark66

Quote: billryan

With roughly a third of the regular posters suspended in the last

link to original post

I am totally blown away!

You cite nearly a third of the regular posters….

8 suspended, so 24 regular posters…..only….

Yet, there are nearly 21,000 members and over 11,000 active members…..

Okie Doki, I guess.

link to original post

How many of those 11,000 post "regularly"? I'd say less than 50!

Or maybe he's just exxagerating the real number trying to fit in! ;o)

Aren't stats wonderful?
Some of these suspensions have made for suspenseful entertainment, real edge of your seat stuff.

Quote: Marcusclark66

Quote: billryan

With roughly a third of the regular posters suspended in the last

link to original post

I am totally blown away!

You cite nearly a third of the regular posters….

8 suspended, so 24 regular posters…..only….

Yet, there are nearly 21,000 members and over 11,000 active members…..

Okie Doki, I guess.

link to original post

Many times Bill Ryan has accused me of not being very good at math

LMAO!

Quote: billryan

With roughly a third of the regular posters suspended in the last week, an outside observer might wonder about the cause, rather than the effects. What has infected this forum to cause so many people to behave so badly? Is it the water? Was there some rare astrological event that caused it?
When his sheep are upset about the presence of a wolf nearby, does the good shepherd punish the flock or does he try to remove the perceived threat?

link to original post

Trolling. Based on prior offenses, 30 days.

Again, I disagree. This is a Discussion about Suspension thread. I don't see that post as trolling. Again, Im nothing of importance here. That's just my 2 cents.

I feel bad for billryan. I'm not sure what that guy is even allowed to post in here anymore.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: billryan

With roughly a third of the regular posters suspended in the last week, an outside observer might wonder about the cause, rather than the effects. What has infected this forum to cause so many people to behave so badly? Is it the water? Was there some rare astrological event that caused it?
When his sheep are upset about the presence of a wolf nearby, does the good shepherd punish the flock or does he try to remove the perceived threat?

link to original post

Trolling. Based on prior offenses, 30 days.

link to original post

Are you serious? How is this trolling? I think it was actually spot on if you really think about it.

I can't really find anything in his post that is even suspension-worthy, I take it nor could you, so then you just randomly file it under the trolling rule?


You are in charge so it's your rules, but I highly suggest you ask your administrators to be honest and tell you if this was truly the right call.

P.S. As if claiming you won some 60 hands in a row isn't flaming/trolling.

Quote: mwalz9

Quote: Marcusclark66

Quote: billryan

With roughly a third of the regular posters suspended in the last

link to original post

I am totally blown away!

You cite nearly a third of the regular posters….

8 suspended, so 24 regular posters…..only….

Yet, there are nearly 21,000 members and over 11,000 active members…..

Okie Doki, I guess.

link to original post

How many of those 11,000 post "regularly"? I'd say less than 50!

Or maybe he's just exxagerating the real number trying to fit in! ;o)

link to original post

The real question is... how many of those 11,000 accounts are actually Nathan's. 🤷‍♂️