Discussion about the Suspension List
Quote: odiousgambit... if anybody asks 'who says so', you can say it was Me"
Easier just to say, "I say so." Does that sound awkward?
Quote: odiousgambitYou can say it was Me.
Yes, attribute it to Me.
Quote: waasnodayBeen reading pretty much every post for several years now. I just pointed out that the admin did not overrule the ban. So although he may not agree with, he did not overrule it.
What 1BB is getting at is that Zuga is the "top admin" on the site now that it has been sold. And Zuga specifically said early in the debate that he wasn't going to take any action.
Later, the secret admin nuked strictlyAP and the Wizard and the 3 other non-Zuga mods all decided not to contest that nuke.
And nothing of value was lost.
EDIT: 1BB came out with it a couple of pages later. I should really finish the thread before I post a reply.
Quote: Doc"You and I should stop arguing about whether this pedantic nonsense applies to you and me."
Quote: RaleighCrapsCorrect !
One Man’s Quest to Rid Wikipedia of Exactly One Grammatical Mistake
Quote: Andrew McMillen @BackchannelHenderson has now made over 47,000 edits to the site since 2007, virtually all of them addressing this one linguistic pet peeve.
Quote: AcesAndEightsWhat 1BB is getting at is that Zuga is the "top admin" on the site now that it has been sold. And Zuga specifically said early in the debate that he wasn't going to take any action.
Later, the secret admin nuked strictlyAP and the Wizard and the 3 other non-Zuga mods all decided not to contest that nuke.
And nothing of value was lost.
EDIT: 1BB came out with it a couple of pages later. I should really finish the thread before I post a reply.
This analysis is factually incorrect and assumes actions by people who were not involved. As did 1BB in the first place.
It's not up to me to discuss it further, but I'm not willing to let wrong attributions and assumptions go unchallenged any longer.
Do you guys really want a Welcher on this forum? It's like have a pedophile work at ChuckECheese. You don't trust your kids around pedophiles, I don't trust welchers on gambling forums.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis analysis is factually incorrect and assumes actions by people who were not involved. As did 1BB in the first place.
It's not up to me to discuss it further, but I'm not willing to let wrong attributions and assumptions go unchallenged any longer.
But...Zuga did say that no action was warranted. And Wizard did say that a secret admin felt so strongly that they took it upon themself to ban SAP, and he did also say that nobody elected to undo the ban. And...well...we're out of possible "wrong attributions" in A&8's post.
edit: Zuga's post Wiz's post
Quote: rdw4potusBut...Zuga did say that no action was warranted. And Wizard did say that a secret admin felt so strongly that they took it upon themself to ban SAP, and he did also say that nobody elected to undo the ban. And...well...we're out of possible "wrong attributions" in A&8's post.
edit: Zuga's post Wiz's post
The only thing I can come up with is that perhaps one of the "greenies" was not consulted in the process; that doesn't change very much and calling something "factually incorrect" while maybe true, is a bit strong and seems extra defensive.
Either the board owners/admins allow an openly proud welcher here or they don't. There isn't much more to it than that...why such a strong statement?
Quote: 1BBYou can only circle the wagons for so long before the wheels start to come off.
If this is about strictlyap
Its one thing not to pay.
Its another thing to troll the thread about not paying.
My opinion is he was trolling and should of been banned
He broke the rules regarding trolling , he got banned.
I wasn't asked about AP's banning as I was in the middle of the ocean during the entire dust up and they have not yet fitted cell towers to the backs of dolphins. But that is immaterial. As is, I believe, Zuga's opine that a banning wasn't warranted.
As I have said before, we all largely work autonomously. I suspect the secret mod in question does as well, because I did too when I was secret. And even when we do sort of have a meeting of the minds, it seems we acquiesce to the person with the strongest feeling or best argument. We've seen this before. I've warned someone to "clean it up" referring to language only to have Wiz post minutes later to hand down a ban. EB was banned and I fought for him, getting him back early. I banned Mosca and Mission went to bat for him. Now, if Zuga felt strongly against the ban, I assume he would have changed it. But Zuga seems to be doing exactly what he told all of you and all of us he would do - letting things remain how they've always been with no changes to how we operate. Wiz, too, could have given a Wizardly pardon. He did not. Any of the rest of the Green could have made a push; to my knowledge, none have. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." In other words, this is always how it's been done.
My personal feeling on AP, had I been in-country, would have been to let him stay if for no other reason than to allow the possibility of the issue getting resolved and Aye getting paid. On welchers, I have no strong opinion. I'm not a gambler, I don't have an intimate understanding of "the code", I've never been burned before. But, while I would have expressed a slight lean toward letting him stay for the reasons above, in the end I follow the pack. I'm here for the forum, and the vast majority of posts I saw were completely against AP with several calls for his head. If it was a mixed bag of "yays" and "nays" and someone let their emotions get the best of them, I would have pulled for reinstatement in the interest of those clamoring for him to stay. But there was little to none of that. Really, the main detractors to the ban, as far as I can tell, are just those who are more focused on the rules than the actual event. That, I feel, is a separate issue.
Hopefully that clears up some if not most. If there's further confusion, well, I'm still bored. Let's have it.
Quote: terapinedIf this is about strictlyap
Its one thing not to pay.
Its another thing to troll the thread about not paying.
My opinion is he was trolling and should of been banned
He broke the rules regarding trolling , he got banned.
Are you kidding? StrictlyAP was banned 14 days ago and the reason on the Suspension List reads "For allegedly welching on a bet". It's a little late to start back peddling and call it trolling. I understand that this is an emotional issues with the gamblers here. I agree that bets should be honored but come on.
StrictlyAP - Join date June 20, 2012, threads started 116, posts 983 and as far as I can tell not one suspension. What is the suspension for a first offense of trolling, 3 days maybe 7? The Suspension List has several examples to choose from and nothing comes remotely close to a nuke. Again, I'm with you on the settling of bets but not on the, in my opinion, heavy handed treatment of a good member who had one alleged issue.
Do you think the secret administrator will eventually reveal him/herself? Wink wink.
Quote:The punishment for violating these rules will be meted out on a case by case basis. Options include a warning, temporary ban, and permanent ban.
Says nothing about fairness. Says nothing about precise enforcement. It does say, "case by case basis."
I always thought boredom was a luxury I didn't have time for. Idle hands are the devils workshop [or something like that]Quote: FacePretty bored at the moment so I'll comment.
I would think you would be talking all that nautical stuff like tacking to port or bildgerats or even keel or something? Were you wearing an eye patch or anything? Come on man, get in character, walk the plank mate-ee, somethin.Quote:My personal feeling on AP, had I been in-country,
Quote:I would have pulled for reinstatement in the interest of those clamoring for him to stay. But there was little to none of that. Really, the main detractors to the ban, as far as I can tell, are just those who are more focused on the rules than the actual event.
Quote: strictlyAP
You think by going on and on im going to change my stance but I wont
petroglyph ;I got ten bucks says you do-
Petroglyph: "It seems if SAP was going to intentionally welch as an AP move, he would have taken my offer. This is exactly what my ten bucks was saying. His stance has changed, he now doesn't have one. [a stance that is] IMO
Petro Quote: "I'm not defending his pov in any way, but I realize there are always a minimum of two sides to an argument.
I can imagine a scenario where I would refuse to pay. You can also. We all can. I don't know SAP from Neil Armstrong but this is my take. Didn't he offer to give the money to someone else instead, just refusing to give it to Aye? Sounds not unlike an honor stance to me. We don't know the facts. The guy has been a member for quite a while in good standing without any violations. Where is the benefit of the doubt in his case? Every one seems to want to pile on and say he is a welcher, which we all agree is wrong. There are situations where I would not pay you or anyone, and I am fairly honest, just sayin.
Now that SAP is no longer a member, I believe that Aye can divulge any evidence he feels substantiates his position, IIANM? Prove him guilty or reinstate him is my opinion, right now its a he said he said and one can't even respond. I know it is wov house, wov rules but that is pretty unfair.
Face quote; "Hopefully that clears up some if not most. If there's further confusion, well, I'm still bored. Let's have it." What say yee, landlubber ?
Quote: petroglyphWhat say yee, landlubber?
Be ye askin' if wernt to be better for me to be askin' AP back, as ye yerself requested a bit o' pardon on his account? Or rather be ye askin' if Aye be given leave to reveal his proof to the claims that AP be a scoundrel and a scallywag?
On bringing AP back, I've no plans to do so myself. Partly is because of my belief that it is not the wishes of the majority of the forum. The other is because Wiz has already (if I remember correctly) offered a way for AP to return. Perhaps if I was fiercely passionate about it, I would talk to Wiz in private and ask him to adjust the terms given. But I'm not, so I haven't.
As far as allowing Aye to reveal his proof, again, Wiz has already made it clear that this case did not meet his requirements to allow that particular breach of the rules. And again, I have not yet been motivated, by self or by the members, to argue against it.
Me eye has drifted from the glimmer of the gallow's key, aye. Be it on another's soul, for my attention falls back to the booty.
Quote: rxwineDirect from the Forum Rules:
Says nothing about fairness. Says nothing about precise enforcement. It does say, "case by case basis."
There should be no place here for vindictiveness. Isn't this forum better than that?
Quote: FaceBe ye askin' if wernt to be better for me to be askin' AP back, as ye yerself requested a bit o' pardon on his account? Or rather be ye askin' if Aye be given leave to reveal his proof to the claims that AP be a scoundrel and a scallywag?
On bringing AP back, I've no plans to do so myself. Partly is because of my belief that it is not the wishes of the majority of the forum. The other is because Wiz has already (if I remember correctly) offered a way for AP to return. Perhaps if I was fiercely passionate about it, I would talk to Wiz in private and ask him to adjust the terms given. But I'm not, so I haven't.
As far as allowing Aye to reveal his proof, again, Wiz has already made it clear that this case did not meet his requirements to allow that particular breach of the rules. And again, I have not yet been motivated, by self or by the members, to argue against it.
Me eye has drifted from the glimmer of the gallow's key, aye. Be it on another's soul, for my attention falls back to the booty.
I didn't know this was a democracy? SAP did not have one beef with even one mod, but a gang decides he has welched. Who's next?
I thought you were more of a sheepdog? Just like society in general, only 5 percent of the people are willing to say anything and everyone else would rather live by rules they object to rather than be exposed for non conforming.
"Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak.
But why is the rum gone? "http://youtu.be/FTi40http://youtu.be/FTi40w0nLgow0nLgo
Quote: 1BBThere should be no place here for vindictiveness. Isn't this forum better than that?
As the resident rule auditor, is that what you think this was?
I had a few ideas about the source of the friction, but that claim wasn't even close to being on my radar. I remember Lemieux being raked over the coals, not even for screwing over a member, but just because he said he had done so in the past to "someone who deserved it". I feel the flak received from this admission is a large part of why he isn't here anymore. So there is precedence that this behavior is ill-received by the majority.
Remember mrjjj? I remember him well. What I can't remember is him being a habitual rule breaker. No real tirades, no real insults despite that he received many... yet he was still trounced on a "case by case" basis which, I think the majority at the time agreed, was in the best interest of the forum at large.
You can claim it's unfair, or at least "uneven", and I can see that. But your posting makes me unsure of exactly what your complaint is. Is it just that, that it's "unfair"? Or is there something else, like you think he should still be here?
Quote: petroglyphI didn't know this was a democracy? SAP did not have one beef with even one mod, but a gang decides he has welched. Who's next?
If you have a valid reason for not paying. That is not welching. Of course a valid reason is debatable.
To have a secret reason for not paying, well that is welching.
Say you are challenging your personal credit report regarding non-payment of a bill.
Do you claim the debt was not valid for secret reasons? That doesn't fly.
We all practically begged SAP for a valid reason.
He simply refused.
In fact SAP actually posted that he would pay at a later date, when that deadline passed, somebody asked in the thread if he paid.
He refused to pay and give a reason why he wasn't paying. And this is after he posted he would pay.
That's when the thread got flooded.
Bottom line, he lost, agreed to pay, delayed payment then refused to pay and all for secret reasons.
Quote: terapinedIf you have a valid reason for not paying. That is not welching. Of course a valid reason is debatable.
To have a secret reason for not paying, well that is welching.
Say you are challenging your personal credit report regarding non-payment of a bill.
Do you claim the debt was not valid for secret reasons? That doesn't fly.
We all practically begged SAP for a valid reason.
He simply refused.
In fact SAP actually posted that he would pay at a later date, when that deadline passed, somebody asked in the thread if he paid.
He refused to pay and give a reason why he wasn't paying. And this is after he posted he would pay.
That's when the thread got flooded.
Bottom line, he lost, agreed to pay, delayed payment then refused to pay and all for secret reasons.
You may be right IDK. It just seemed like it was between them. In our privately lives someone could kill my dog, and I would refuse to pay them, [hypothetically], that I don't think should get someone nuked from the board.
If it is by popular vote and we don't know both sides, how is it fair for us to judge? Granted he had opportunity I guess to give evidence. Something happened, I don't know what. Other than this one situation he has been a valued member, it doesn't seem right to me, and I also don't believe this to be a democracy. As in Mikes houses, Mikes rules. I am ok with that.
I just wonder if now that SAP no longer is a member if Aye can post the evidence he was unable to while Sap was a member and everyone that voted sap out of here can be even more justified?
I have, and probably you have been on the receiving end of some group, it sucks. He stood his ground, until I know different, good for him.
Quote: petroglyphI didn't know this was a democracy? SAP did not have one beef with even one mod, but a gang decides he has welched. Who's next?
I thought you were more of a sheepdog? Just like society in general, only 5 percent of the people are willing to say anything and everyone else would rather live by rules they object to rather than be exposed for non conforming.
I've always considered this a benevolent dictatorship. In other words, "What Wiz/Zuga says goes", but each are not unreasonable or unwilling to hear out their members and adjust accordingly. So that's the path I likewise try to follow.
We can see where this is true. Buzz not getting a strict martingale, B9 rising from the nuclear grave, JJ getting an insta-nuke and likewise rising from the dead. The rules are guidelines, and for the most part, that's all that's needed. But in some cases, the dictator reigns. Fortunately for all of us, it seems to happen so infrequently that when it does, there's legitimate surprise, as evidenced by arguments such as these.
A sheepdog? Perhaps, at times. But a sheepdog's priority is the herd, not any one individual, and I think I've regardless done my share of individual protection. It may be unpopular to some, as most all decisions of mine of this sort are, but in this case, I'm not inspired to fight. And with Wiz already declaring what AP had to do to get back in, I don't even see an opportunity to fight. The opportunity for AP to return is already on the table (if memory serves). All he needs do is what has been prescribed.
The herd can take care of itself, it is the stragglers that need the help.Quote: FaceBut a sheepdog's priority is the herd, not any one individual,
Quote:and I think I've regardless done my share of individual protection.
Maybe he feels he was wronged and has more pride than to suck up to a virtual authority.Quote:The opportunity for AP to return is already on the table (if memory serves). All he needs do is what has been prescribed.
I will wager in real life if some gang told Face all he had to do to get back in the club was kiss the leader's boot, it would be a very long time if ever you were back in.
You have done great Face, I will drop this. I won't change my opinion, but it hardly matters, eh? I want to say this though. Although plenty did not like B-9, I don't think he snuck in with another handle? Others as well.
Pride goeth before the fall, sometimes. There is no need to kick a man when he is down, that is a cowardly act, imo.
Quote: FaceThe rules are guidelines
Quote: Facemy attention falls back to the booty
Insert Pirates of the Caribbean joke here.
Quote: FaceAs the resident rule auditor, is that what you think this was?
I had a few ideas about the source of the friction, but that claim wasn't even close to being on my radar. I remember Lemieux being raked over the coals, not even for screwing over a member, but just because he said he had done so in the past to "someone who deserved it". I feel the flak received from this admission is a large part of why he isn't here anymore. So there is precedence that this behavior is ill-received by the majority.
Remember mrjjj? I remember him well. What I can't remember is him being a habitual rule breaker. No real tirades, no real insults despite that he received many... yet he was still trounced on a "case by case" basis which, I think the majority at the time agreed, was in the best interest of the forum at large.
You can claim it's unfair, or at least "uneven", and I can see that. But your posting makes me unsure of exactly what your complaint is. Is it just that, that it's "unfair"? Or is there something else, like you think he should still be here?
That's exactly what I think and, yes, I think he should still be here. In my opinion, this was done to appease the gamblers, those involved as well as those not involved. Why else would a good member with a spotless record and good contributions be summarily dismissed for what was the offense again? An alleged something or another. Revenge can be ugly and it seldom makes anyone feel better. I ask you and anyone else if you think the forum better off without strictlyAP?
Yes, I remember mrjjj, in fact I believe I was the first person to respond to his very first post. I remember a guy who enjoyed roulette whether playing or discussing it. That's all he wanted to do. I remember him being mercilessly taunted, baited and insulted until he finally had a meltdown. I do not condone some of the things that he posted and make no excuses for him but we know that the treatment that he received would not be allowed today.
Quote: petroglyph
I will wager in real life if some gang told Face all he had to do to get back in the club was kiss the leader's boot, it would be a very long time if ever you were back in.
You have done great Face, I will drop this. I won't change my opinion, but it hardly matters, eh?
It depends, but yeah, I'd likely take the attitude that I'd bow to no one. Sometimes to my gain, sometimes to my pain. But others, a slim few, it has served to make me humble and allowed me a do-over. Those I have generally regarded as the best, whether I felt kowtowing was necessary or not, whether I needed a dose of humility or not. In other words, whether it was actually AP who got screwed or not, he alone can make this what he chooses. Will he remain stiff of neck and go out with head held high? Will he return only to go out in a blaze of glory? Will he kowtow and reinvent himself? Who knows. But what's done is done. What will be done, though, is entirely within his control.
Quote: rdw4potusInsert Pirates of the Caribbean joke here.
Mmmm... Knightley ;)
Quote: 1BB
That's exactly what I think and, yes, I think he should still be here. In my opinion, this was done to appease the gamblers, those involved as well as those not involved. Why else would a good member with a spotless record and good contributions be summarily dismissed for what was the offense again? An alleged something or another. Revenge can be ugly and it seldom makes anyone feel better. I ask you and anyone else if you think the forum better off without strictlyAP?
Duly noted, and not unreasonable. And no, I would not go so far to say that the forum is "better off" for two reasons. One is that, like I said, I can't empathize with the anger that a non payment of a bet causes. I can see it by the posts of fellow members, I can gauge its importance by its inclusion in Wiz's 10 Commandments of Gambling, but I can not "get it" intimately. Second is that while I've only had direct communication with AP very few times, those times were neither rude nor disruptive, and he further caused no problems within the forum that I can recall (and I'm usually from OK to Good at recalling). The only things I could possibly say towards the forum being "better" is that it ceased a lot of angry chatter that I believe would have continued were he still here, as it did with Lemieux. Of course, I realize that is merely a prediction and thus carries little weight.
Of course, this is a gambling forum, and he was charged with one of the most serious offenses in gambling, if not the most serious. I use "charged" liberally, and also dispute your use of "alleged", because I believe he so much admitted that he would never pay Aye so long as he lived (paraphrased and unquoted), despite that he did not dispute that Aye had won and, in fact, had promised to pay.
So... yeah. I don't really know where to go from here, at least as far as explaining goes. Actions, those appear to all have been already made. Outside of requesting parley with Wiz or Zuga, I see little other option for action.
Quote: MintyImagine a forum with no nukes, no suspensions and rational discussion 24/7.
With all due respect to John Lennon, please show me any unmoderated active forum that isn't a complete cesspool.
Quote: onenickelmiracleMy honest guess there really isn't a secret mod who banned unilaterally, the maneuver is to save face being unofficial, and it's all fine by me. No pun intended.
I can assure you no such thing has happened, not this time nor ever before. Tough decision or not, popular or no, we all swing the hammer ourselves and take our lumps like men and women.
If that weren't the case, I'd be taking credit for them all. I like the challenge of arguing with you all =)
I am not sure why you want him back. He offered a bet on the total amount of a to be revealed scratcher. I accepted, and the bet was confirmed by him. He lost the bet. Days past and he did not pay. When inquiries were sent, he said he was out of the country. Okay, I can understand that. More time passes, He says he is back in country, a promise to pay is made... and nothing.Quote: SonuvabishSAP broke no rules, he got thrown out by the mob. Policy and rules are in place to prevent such a permanent suspension, but it happened anyway. Doesn't make much sense to me. Had SAP lied and said "oh yeah, I paid plus a late fee, Aye is lying. No, I have no proof, I keep terrible records," I have a feeling any nuke would have been overturned. The forum wanted to know what Aye did to wrong SAP, and if SAP wasn't willing to gossip, he's outta the group. This isn't comparable to credit scores and debt...that stuff is legally enforceable. If I lose a bet to someone, and then he sleeps with my sister...I get to decide whether I want to pay. And if I don't want to tell 100 people why I'm not paying, I don't have to. And any consequences to said hypothetical actions, are below me.
"You will have it in the morning before you wake up"...
Nothing.
At this point, it is time to go public. The Super bowl is coming and I would hate for others to get ripped off too. The rest is basically in the "When a forum member doesn't pay" thread. It is unfortunate that strictlyAP made up some allegation about a phone call, apparently to deflect attention from the truth: if he won the bet, I, and others on this board who take their obligations seriously, would have (and in the past have) paid him quickly. Rather than behaving honorably, he chose to stall, lie, and not pay.
The question for those who want him back is, "Would you let your friend bet with him without saying something?" I would not, and I think most others here would not either. If he is restored, I hope his behaviour will improve. I would not wager with him, but others may not be aware of this history. If they get burned, it will be on those who lobbied for his return. You are vouching for him.
Quote: AyecarumbaI am not sure why you want him back. He offered a bet on the total amount of a to be revealed scratcher. I accepted, and the bet was confirmed by him. He lost the bet. Days past and he did not pay. When inquiries were sent, he said he was out of the country. Okay, I can understand that. More time passes, He says he is back in country, a promise to pay is made... and nothing.
"You will have it in the morning before you wake up"...
Nothing.
At this point, it is time to go public. The Super bowl is coming and I would hate for others to get ripped off too. The rest is basically in the "When a forum member doesn't pay" thread. It is unfortunate that strictlyAP made up some allegation about a phone call, apparently to deflect attention from the truth: if he won the bet, I, and others on this board who take their obligations seriously, would have (and in the past have) paid him quickly. Rather than behaving honorably, he chose to stall, lie, and not pay.
The question for those who want him back is, "Would you let your friend bet with him without saying something?" I would not, and I think most others here would not either. If he is restored, I hope his behaviour will improve. I would not wager with him, but others may not be aware of this history. If they get burned, it will be on those who lobbied for his return. You are vouching for him.
Nothing against you; you won a bet and deserved to get paid. Also, making a thread informing everyone you weren't paid, and trying to put a little pressure on the "debtor' to pay you, also absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, you should have done it.
If you've read my posts on the subject, I just don't think it's in line with the rules and policy of the forum to banish someone. Actually, the action seems clearly against the forum rules and policy. Never talked to SAP, I don't "want" him back. I want the rules to be fair and predictable and as-written. Face nailed it on the head when he said the issue from the detractors isn't about SAP, but with the rules. If I'm driving down the expressway at 55 mph, I don't want a ticket for going 90 mph, even tho I just stole $20 out of my mother's purse. And I feel that is sort of what happened here. He broke no rule, he's guilty of being a bad guy in the court of public opinion. Even under this ridiculous aggregation theory the mods sometimes use to suspend someone, he wouldn't have gotten suspended because, in the aggregate, his behavior was good and didn't rise to the level of breaking a rule even when added all together. I complain about my suspensions. But there's usually at least an aggregate reason that can be back-dated and then related to a forum rule. In SAP's case, there really was no applicable rule. And the one who suspended him was a secret mod, which is highly unusual and questionable as it relates to his/her relationship with this dispute.
But as I said, Face pretty much hit it right on with my issue at least, not sure about the couple others who disagree with the ruling. But in no way take any of my comments to mean I think you were wrong regarding the merits of the public dispute. You appeared to be owed money. He did appear to welch. You have every right to be unhappy in my opnion, and of course, would understandably not cry over SAP's banning.
As for your last statements, I do not gamble very often, and probably never would with strangers over the internet. I do not consider APing with 0%-1% RoR gambling. The rules, as I interpret them, are that no one is allowed to bet. I don't see why disallowing SAP from placing any wagers with anyone would be any sort of problem, since selective enforcement of rules is a trend. I don't think anyone is vouching for his reliability in paying up on losing wagers; I think some of us are saying a permanent ban was not justified. Please excuse me if any of my analogies or statements led you to believe anything to the contrary.
You hit every single point I was thinking and I wouldn't be able to state it better myself.
Rules in this country are generally (or were supposed to be) made not only to protect the transgressed but as well as the transgressor.
Years ago I was a moderator and admin on a gaming website. Basically, we hosted our own games and ran a forum. If you did stuff in game that wasn't right, you'd get temporarily (or permanently, depending on the offense) from playing in games. If you did stuff on the forum that was against the rules, you'd be banned from the forum (temp or perm). All the time, people would get banned, and come on the forum and start b*tching, "technically I didn't break any rules, because the rules don't specifically address this unique situation."
My favorite answer to these idiot trolls was, "It's called discretion. It doesn't matter if it's specific in the rules or not. Chances are, if you wouldn't want someone to do that to you or in your game, it's probably worthy of a ban."
And there were plenty of times people "technically" broke the rules but didn't get banned. Maybe if everyone but 1 player left the game, then someone broke a rule...or they broke some rule 5 seconds before losing.
So while the rules don't specifically claim welching to be against the rules, it goes without saying: If you're on a gambling forum and welch on bet(s), you should be banned.
Rule 13, our very own Sword of Damocles.
And yes, I am squarely in the good riddance column as he was given a chance to stick around and refused to do so.
But I do understand that some of you are more concerned about the rule than the affected person in this case. However I do think it is a battle you are going to lose, but again I agree with your right to defend what you see as an injustice.
Quote: BoulderDamItWow incredibly well stated Son.
You hit every single point I was thinking and I wouldn't be able to state it better myself.
Thank you very much.
Quote: RS#13: Basically reads "for people who can slip through the cracks without actually breaking the rules listed, but do sh*t and should be banned". If welching doesn't fit that description, I don't know what would.
Years ago I was a moderator and admin on a gaming website. Basically, we hosted our own games and ran a forum. If you did stuff in game that wasn't right, you'd get temporarily (or permanently, depending on the offense) from playing in games. If you did stuff on the forum that was against the rules, you'd be banned from the forum (temp or perm). All the time, people would get banned, and come on the forum and start b*tching, "technically I didn't break any rules, because the rules don't specifically address this unique situation."
My favorite answer to these idiot trolls was, "It's called discretion. It doesn't matter if it's specific in the rules or not. Chances are, if you wouldn't want someone to do that to you or in your game, it's probably worthy of a ban."
And there were plenty of times people "technically" broke the rules but didn't get banned. Maybe if everyone but 1 player left the game, then someone broke a rule...or they broke some rule 5 seconds before losing.
So while the rules don't specifically claim welching to be against the rules, it goes without saying: If you're on a gambling forum and welch on bet(s), you should be banned.
Yes, there is the Rule 13 mother hubbard clause. But it is clearly stated that nukes will be used SPARINGLY to deal with egregious trolling. It seems that they are not actually used all that sparingly, but nonetheless, nuking an established member with no history and who has not broken any rule is against forum policy. Rule 13 does not apply; it does more to support employing the aggregation theory when dishing out suspensions for singular non-violations, and their shunning of the 'sparingly' ideal in favor of what is most practical. Rule 13 does not support appeasing a mob and/or gving undue respect to a secret mod's autonomy. To my knowledge, secret mods have not previously suspended anyone. This seems like an incredibly controversial case, regarding violation and penalty, to mark the first occassion.
Next, here is my 2¢:
Quote: 1BBRule 13 can be used to eliminate dissidents and homogenize the forum. Is that where we want to go, a bunch of yes men toeing the company line?
Your contributions to the forum have largely been:
1) complaints about why there are rules here, and how they don't specifically outline in excruciating detail every possible situation that could ever possibly arise throughout the course of eternity;
2) sarcastic, snide, inflammatory, or patronizing comments;
and more importantly:
3) useful, real-life blackjack and casino information/advice.
Speaking for myself only (not necessarily the owners or other moderators unless they chime in to agree), I value #3 enough that I look the other way on #1 and #2 rather than getting trigger-happy and invoking Rule 13. The forum is intended to host gambling-related discussions. It's not intended to be a festival of unicorns and rainbows, but that doesn't mean everybody should be as hostile as possible, to as many people as possible, as often as possible, either. There is a middle ground.
Quote: JBSince much of the recent discussion is about StrictlyAP, I will first say that I did not ban him, and I have no idea who did.
Next, here is my 2¢:
Your contributions to the forum have largely been:
1) complaints about why there are rules here, and how they don't specifically outline in excruciating detail every possible situation that could ever possibly arise throughout the course of eternity;
2) sarcastic, snide, inflammatory, or patronizing comments;
and more importantly:
3) useful, real-life blackjack and casino information/advice.
Speaking for myself only (not necessarily the owners or other moderators unless they chime in to agree), I value #3 enough that I look the other way on #1 and #2 rather than getting trigger-happy and invoking Rule 13. The forum is intended to host gambling-related discussions. It's not intended to be a festival of unicorns and rainbows, but that doesn't mean everybody should be as hostile as possible, to as many people as possible, as often as possible, either. There is a middle ground.
hey, i like 1BB. He reminds me of IBYA. Or is it the other way around? Honestly, I don't know which is which. I would like to say that 1BB is one of the most valuable posters here, and that none of his posts are remotely snide...but I do remember him mentioning he flagged some of my posts during one my suspensions...so I'm gonna have to join the mods in wondering why 1BB's posts are so snide.
Quote: RSPersonally, I would consider welching on a bet, claiming to owe money, while saying "I'm not going to pay no matter what" [not verbatim], to be egregious trolling. Well, perhaps not trolling by definition, but essentially the same thing.
I don't think so. The entire forum was berating him. The thread was dedicated to the subject of SAP, which may have been humiliating. That doesn't seem like a very egregious response. It's certainly not trolling, he was solicited for answers. His contribution to the thread is minimal, considering the thread is all about him. You're almost saying it's only not trolling if he agrees to pay, lies and says he already paid, or makes no posts at all.
Quote: JBSince much of the recent discussion is about StrictlyAP, I will first say that I did not ban him, and I have no idea who did.
Next, here is my 2¢:
Your contributions to the forum have largely been:
1) complaints about why there are rules here, and how they don't specifically outline in excruciating detail every possible situation that could ever possibly arise throughout the course of eternity;
2) sarcastic, snide, inflammatory, or patronizing comments;
and more importantly:
3) useful, real-life blackjack and casino information/advice.
Speaking for myself only (not necessarily the owners or other moderators unless they chime in to agree), I value #3 enough that I look the other way on #1 and #2 rather than getting trigger-happy and invoking Rule 13. The forum is intended to host gambling-related discussions. It's not intended to be a festival of unicorns and rainbows, but that doesn't mean everybody should be as hostile as possible, to as many people as possible, as often as possible, either. There is a middle ground.
Thank you for your input, JB. I never thought of you as trigger happy, in fact, if anyone was the opposite I would think it was you. I must say that I'm surprised and flattered that you find value in at least some of my posts.
I agree that the forum was intended to discuss gambling related issues so what happened? What exactly should be discussed in a thread called Discussion about the Suspension List, the top thread in this forum? I'm taking your post exactly the way it was intended.
Quote: RS#13: Basically reads "for people who can slip through the cracks without actually breaking the rules listed, but do sh*t and should be banned". If welching doesn't fit that description, I don't know what would.
...
So while the rules don't specifically claim welching to be against the rules, it goes without saying: If you're on a gambling forum and welch on bet(s), you should be banned.
I disagree. Welching, while undesirable, isn't that big of a problem to the forum.
The problem, as I've stated before, is conduct unbecoming. Dragging the discussion on for weeks over many many pages, constantly changing the story, and generally making a ruckus was the problem, IMO.
Had StrictlyAP just stood up at the beginning and said "You know what, I'm not going to pay it", I genuinely think he'd still be here.
Everyone would have blocked him and nobody would take his action, but I think he wouldn't be banned.
Quote: DieterQuote: RS#13: Basically reads "for people who can slip through the cracks without actually breaking the rules listed, but do sh*t and should be banned". If welching doesn't fit that description, I don't know what would.
...
So while the rules don't specifically claim welching to be against the rules, it goes without saying: If you're on a gambling forum and welch on bet(s), you should be banned.
I disagree. Welching, while undesirable, isn't that big of a problem to the forum.
The problem, as I've stated before, is conduct unbecoming. Dragging the discussion on for weeks over many many pages, constantly changing the story, and generally making a ruckus was the problem, IMO.
Had StrictlyAP just stood up at the beginning and said "You know what, I'm not going to pay it", I genuinely think he'd still be here.
Everyone would have blocked him and nobody would take his action, but I think he wouldn't be banned.
I have to disagree. He was suspended for welching (which I agree, is not covered in Rule 13). There was nothing to indicate any other reason, and under the circumstances, if there was another reason, it should have been proffered. I also don't think he bears a whole lot of responsibility for dragging on the discussion. Almost any of his statements could be construed as attempts to close the matter from public discourse. There was a long stretch with zero contribution from SAP. And the discussion contnuedeven after he was nuked. Payment (not welching) was the only way to not drag on the conversation.
I do agree with your other point. His story did change from I will pay later to I won't pay ever without explanation. It looks like he's lying, and it doesn't make him very popular. I doubt the mod took a poll to accurately assess whether a nuke would be well received, but SAP's unpopularity is probably preventing his renstatement.
Quote: Sonuvabish
I do agree with your other point. His story did change from I will pay later to I won't pay ever without explanation. It looks like he's lying, and it doesn't make him very popular. I doubt the mod took a poll to accurately assess whether a nuke would be well received, but SAP's unpopularity is probably preventing his renstatement.
StrictlyAP's reinstatement is still available to him under the terms the Wizard stated a couple weeks ago. It has nothing to do with popularity, either his, or of the decision.
Quote: 1BBI agree that the forum was intended to discuss gambling related issues so what happened? What exactly should be discussed in a thread called Discussion about the Suspension List, the top thread in this forum? I'm taking your post exactly the way it was intended.
My intent wasn't to alter, disrupt, or complain about the discussion going on in this thread. It was to point out that the dreaded "Rule 13" is a rarely-invoked last resort.
