Regarding the tales of winning 50 out of 52 times and all that, is MDawg a fraud? Interesting question. It's a very different question from "Is MDawg lying?"link to original post
Now let me break down the "Is MDawg lying" question first. If I reported to you every time I made 10 out of 10 free throws in practice, and skipped reporting every time I did not, is that lying? Technically, it's not lying.
And if I then went on bragging about my free throw shooting and how people were always watching me and complimenting me on my foul shooting, would I be lying? Who knows, but possibly not. If I only tell you the comments made by people who watched me sink 10 out of 10 and skipped the comments (like "you suck, loser") when I made 6 out of 10, is that lying? No, it's self-serving, biased reporting, but it's not technically lying.
Where it turns into lying, and being a fraud, is if somebody directly asks, "So, your foul shooting includes every session you practice?" and you say yes when the answer is no. Then you are a liar and a fraud. But up to that point, you're just guilty of seeing how gullible people are.
Now as to fraud, if I give a lecture to Emily's School for Morons, Imbeciles, and Idiots (using the old formal IQ classification categories -- look it up) and I tell Emily's students that I ride a dragon and kill evil casinos for a living, and all of Emily's students believe me, is that fraud? If people are incapable of ascertaining reality from fairy tales, then the issue, I suppose, really is not on my end. It's on the end of the Morons, Imbeciles, and Idiots.
In conclusion, selective reporting of reality isn't really fraud unless you pin the person down with a statistical, not an anecdotal, series of questions, and then they lie.
And second, if people are unable to grasp what is and isn't possible when the claims are outrageous, that's partly because they are attending, whether intentionally or not, Emily's School for Morons, Imbeciles, and Idiots (using the old formal IQ classification, of course, and not meant as any judgement).
I admire anyone who is willing and does speak their opinions openly, the thing is when does a person go too far.
Someone agreeing or disagreeing with the individual should have no bearing on the matter. Will the administration review the above-quoted post? Why? Because I believe it carries some significance by where a line is either drawn or crossed for future references. That's the hard part of being an Administrator. The reason for this post is that I think that all that the membership is asking for, or for that matter deserves is a semblance of consistency in Administrations Decisions. Any future inconsistent decisions or what the membership considers insignificant nitpicking and someone may point out the previous actions or non-actions that were taken on another previous post, thank you.
I'll have more to say in a bit, real life takes precedent at the moment.
I believe this means that every administrative response should be adaptable to suit the offense.
In general, people seem to want minimal enforcement on themselves ("Aww, c'mon, it was a JOKE", etc), and maximal enforcement on their detractors ("How can you not NUKE him for his 'joke'?").
Mandatory minimums are probably unfair.
Maximums are removed, due to martingale precedent.
Incessant petty bickering that devolves into offensive impropriety really isn't what administrators want to deal with.
So... based on these disparate principles, what system is simple to administer yet effectively curtails problems?
The lines between accepted behavior and unacceptable behavior have been shifting constantly since well before the forum's inception.
If the administrators have to call a full quorum to concur on a response, there will surely be complaints from people about how we aren't enforcing the rules swiftly enough, and how so-and-so is getting away with repeated troublemaking while we're making up our minds.
The only consolation I can offer is that individual administrative actions are subject to review and adjustment by the quorum.
I'm certainly open to suggestions.
I might go play $25 min. tables. I might play $100 min. tables later. I might play several hands or none at all. I might watch football or the Giants vs Dodgers game later. I might bang (cant say that here).
But one thing is for certain. I wont give a thought worth a thimble of crap as to what RE Dietz thinks.
If he is granted something divine or luck? He probably deserves it. Just being healthy, wealthy, and wise is reward enough at 89..🤔
Oh, one more thing. Anyone care to hear his secret?
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain
When someone wrongfully touts their record of winning at a casino game and offers to sell a system or to give lessons for a fee, that is fraud. That is certainly forbidden on this site (Indeed offering any system of wager sizing for fees is strictly forbidden on WoV.)
Lying or Mental Confusion or Other
When someone tells us that they have won in 1000 of 1000 gambling sessions, with no attempt to benefit financially, that is
- lying (including exaggerating), or
- selective memory, or
- a mental/cognitive issue, or
- having an unannounced advantage over the game, or
- extremely lucky
Lying, exaggerating, selective memory or mental confusion are not against the rules of this site. All of us have lied at times in our lifetime. This is the internet, we don't know if you are housebound, never been near a casino and writing fiction about your gambling exploits, or exaggerating your prowess or whatever. Moderators are not fact checkers! Get over this!!.
It is possible that an individual is defying the statistics of perfect randomness because they have an unannounced advantage in a game. Phil Ivey would not have been required to explain edge carding to this forum; if someone was using video cameras and computer software to defeat roulette then they are not required to announce that on this forum.
There are probably at least one billion people who have gambled in the world, maybe more. So, we expect at least one person to have had good luck that is unlikely to 0.000000001. And, if they have had such good luck, I would understand if they were to publicly brag about it.
I am just describing the range of possibilities in order to educate your imagination. I am not naive. I am free to think and assign, in my mind. my own set of probabilities to the above possibilities for any given statement made on this forum. You may do this as well. But I am not sympathetic towards people who want to see another member nuked simply because they suspect them to be guilty of untruthful boasting.
But I am not sympathetic towards people who want to see another member nuked simply because they suspect them to be guilty of untruthful boasting.link to original post
I admit I have not read alot of MDawgs posts. For one thing, it's baccarret and I havent a clue. My method is a quick scan. For instance, I might see where Bosox made a post. His posts are often insightful, funny, and/or inspirational. At least for me.
I find MDawg to be colorful and a great sense of humor to his boo'ers. There was a thread where he took pictures of his luxury suite. It didnt mean much to me. Sorry MDawg. But my friends marveled at those pics and now love to read his posts.
So lying on this forum is acceptable, but calling out the liar isn't. What a wonderful standard.link to original post
I am saying that lying on this forum is not punishable by disciplinary actions under the rules. However, the forum is, to a degree, self-moderating and you may call out statements that you do not believe and challenge individuals on their statements. But you may not insult the people making these posts by calling them liars.
EX: I currently interact with a community of volunteers almost all of whom are 70-88 years old. I hear statements made by members of this group that I do not believe -but I also do not believe they are lying. Instead, I believe they are suffering cognitive decline -an early stage of the onset of dementia which is not an uncommon aspect of aging. To accuse the cognitively impaired of lying -of being liars - is unfair and insulting. They are suffering from the human condition, and not a failure of integrity.
EX: It is well known that witnesses to the same event (say an accident) often give conflicting accounts of what happened. Each person is often being as truthful as possible. It may be selective memory or some perception/brain failure -I'm sure there are many studies of this one can read. But "unreliable reporting" is not necessarily the same thing as lying. And glibly calling these witnesses "liars" would be unfair and insulting.
I am not going to get into a Leronimab-like debate with you on this matter. The truth is that when I hear a statement that surprises me on the face of it, I try to consider whether there is something that I don't know that I don't know. My knee-jerk reaction is not to name-call in righteous anger, but to think and analyze. And if I conclude that I am highly confident that the statement is willfully untrue, I try to be mindful of the strictures and consequences of name-calling and insulting persons, given the situation and forum I am in. But, that's just me.