Discussion about the Suspension List

Quote: Face

Almost guaranteed you'd see no effect.

It works one of two ways. On one hand you have your gentlemen, your typical member. He won't be an issue for several years, then one moment, one comment, one thread, and he will be compelled to speak from the heart. He gets dinged for three days, often returning to either apologize or state he felt a certain way and stands behind it, and then he's never an issue again. On the other hand, there's those who just can't or won't help themselves. Any poster than makes more than one "mistake", that is, reaches the seven day mark, almost invariably will continue on until banished. Go ahead and check it for yourself. After a brief look I think I saw but one person with a seven under their belt yet still remains here. The others either get bounced or they stop posting.

Either you can handle the rules or you can't. Time is not a factor.

I'm a 7 dayer still here. Then again I was suspended once for saying someone didn't know gaming (which they don't) and another time for asking the same person if he was wanting to date me after they insinuated I should meet them in person to settle things. Terrible offenses that got me some penalty box time.


ZCore13

I still don't see how it would hurt to have a six-month or one-year suspension. Cut out the 14-day and go for the 30-day. That way there isn't more suspensions, just longer ones. If it doesn't work it doesn't work. But there's no harm in giving it a try. Some of those that have been terminated would come to appreciate the forum and it's rules with a long vacation to ponder their demeanor. It doesn't cost anything to give it a try. I hope it can be considered by the administrators.

Quote: Greasyjohn

I still don't see how it would hurt to have a six-month or one-year suspension.

I, and I don't think anyone else, said it would hurt. I just said it wouldn't matter.

I also said you're free to ask Wiz. But I guess, reading between the lines, you may feel it better to come from a Green. So I'll ask him now =p

Place your bets! My guess is on the "no", for the reasons I posted previously, though I will not influence Wiz when I ask him. Please stand by...

Quote: Zcore13

I'm a 7 dayer still here. Then again I was suspended once for saying someone didn't know gaming (which they don't) and another time for asking the same person if he was wanting to date me after they insinuated I should meet them in person to settle things. Terrible offenses that got me some penalty box time.


ZCore13

I am, too. One suspension, seven days. It was a bit excessive but whatever. So many people have gotten so little for so much and I got hammered for a nuke that was an early call (though I would end up agreeing with a nuke a bit later).

Some people do get away with a lot more than others around here; it is what it is.

Quote: RonC

I am, too. One suspension, seven days. It was a bit excessive but whatever. So many people have gotten so little for so much and I got hammered for a nuke that was an early call (though I would end up agreeing with a nuke a bit later).

Some people do get away with a lot more than others around here; it is what it is.

When I saw the mention of 7 days, I immediately thought of your suspension which I have mentioned in the past. I didn't want to bring it up again in case you didn't want the attention. It was a real head scratcher.

How about spam? Many get nuked, some get 7 days, some get 3 and others get nothing for the dreaded spam. Couldn't there be a friendly warning for a first time offender, especially a new person making their first post? I'm not talking about blatant spam like the fake ID guys, rather the innocent dropping of a link with no ill intent. I'm sure most can distinguish the difference. Some are so excited to join this site that wading through all the rules may not be the first thing they do. Should they be punished for that?

As much fun as it may be to nuke someone we could be losing valuable contributors by summarily banning them.

I was suspended for 3 days because I cursed in response to another member's suspension when he was very obviously trolled and baited. And that was when there was still a written rule exception for cursing to really actually emphasize a point, which is all that I did.

Quote: 1BB

To some the internet may be all they have.

To many, only the casinos... where nobody says much. Some come here to vent as a foregone consequence, more or less just expecting all to be believed.

Quote: 1BB

That must be very frustrating.

Seems like this is what "turns your wheels".

Were the casinos frustrating, people would more easily quit. Furthermore, going to the casinos - or building a life around that - can't put you above the internet crowd or beyond any form of frustration.

Even were whatever all I had, I would be very happy for the opportunity. It's called making the best of it; especially, by not getting so caught up in it.

Quote: 1BB

As much fun as it may be to nuke someone we could be losing valuable contributors by summarily banning them.

How valuable can anyone be on a gambling forum, especially one on which the experts don't post trip reports/specifics, and the systems-players are shunned from doing so? A valid question.

The reason that some of us like to post: "Where's the beef?"


Add on: I don't know, perhaps we're still at the casino... a form of the (movie) "Matrix" within a matrix.

In the interest of transparency when is the Suspension List going to be updated? We had a name go red over 24 hours ago and still nothing on the list. Is this another case of trying to determine the length of suspension for a multiple offender? Is time being taken to determine the "value" of said offender? Didn't we just go through this?

By contrast goatcabin was put on the list a mere 30 minutes after his offense and he brings more value to this forum than almost anyone.

Quote: 1BB

In the interest of transparency when is the Suspension List going to be updated? We had a name go red over 24 hours ago and still nothing on the list. Is this another case of trying to determine the length of suspension for a multiple offender? Is time being taken to determine the "value" of said offender? Didn't we just go through this?

By contrast goatcabin was put on the list a mere 30 minutes after his offense and he brings more value to this forum than almost anyone.

Why so serious??


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

Why so serious??


ZCore13

I wonder the same thing.

1BB, why the fascination with the suspension list? You have great insight into many gambling related topics, but you also seem to spend a lot of time critiquing the validity of suspensions/nukes, the length of the punishment, and the comparison of different transgressions. Why?

Quote: 1BB

In the interest of transparency when is the Suspension List going to be updated?

Me again. It is close to impossible (for me, anyways) to edit the list on my phone, and that's all I have atm.

Be a couple weeks for Boz. There's an unfortunate pattern of purposely insulting while knowing he's going to get suspended.

Quote: Face

Me again. It is close to impossible (for me, anyways) to edit the list on my phone, and that's all I have atm.

Be a couple weeks for Boz. There's an unfortunate pattern of purposely insulting while knowing he's going to get suspended.

I think the list is much ado about nothing.
If somebody gets suspended, oh well, we have rules here. I just move on.
I never check the suspension list, whats the point.

Quote: MidwestAP

I wonder the same thing.

1BB, why the fascination with the suspension list? You have great insight into many gambling related topics, but you also seem to spend a lot of time critiquing the validity of suspensions/nukes, the length of the punishment, and the comparison of different transgressions. Why?

It's possibility his pet peeve, let him have it. Everybody has something that annoys them.


Its to my understanding he is opposed to the suspension list because its a form of public shaming and childish. I get the feeling he has the attitude.... by god if we have to have it, make it fair and do it right.

I have a feeling he thinks there's a bias on the forum. Perhaps he wants everything to be 100% fair and everybody to be treated equal.

I think that's impossible considering all the mods and members involved. I can't imagine all the mods read every post and know the history of each member.

I believe there's different considerations when a suspension is due and each situation is different, that's life and it isn't always fair. This is just an internet forum so there's no need for it to be perfect since it has little effect on ones life.

Quote: AxelWolf

It's possibility his pet peeve, let him have it. Everybody has something that annoys them.


Its to my understanding he is opposed to the suspension list because its a form of public shaming and childish. I get the feeling he has the attitude.... by god if we have to have it, make it fair and do it right.

I have a feeling he thinks there's a bias on the forum. Perhaps he wants everything to be 100% fair and everybody to be treated equal.

I think that's impossible considering all the mods and members involved. I can't imagine all the mods read every post and know the history of each member.

I believe there's different considerations when a suspension is due and each situation is different, that's life and it isn't always fair. This is just an internet forum so there's no need for it to be perfect since it has little effect on ones life.

I'm not suggesting he can't or shouldn't pay attention to it, that's his choice. I was just wondering why. I take a similar approach as you, it's just an internet forum, so I don't allow myself to get worked up about what is fair.

Quote: MidwestAP

I wonder the same thing.

1BB, why the fascination with the suspension list? You have great insight into many gambling related topics, but you also seem to spend a lot of time critiquing the validity of suspensions/nukes, the length of the punishment, and the comparison of different transgressions. Why?

I think I saw a compliment in there so thank you for that.

Fascination was your word but I do find it to be a very interesting look into human nature. Let's just say that, other than one administrator that I think is fair, I would not want to be a defendant in a court case and have any of the others as the judge deciding my fate. Okay maybe two.

Read Axel's post. He captured my feelings to the letter and expressed them much better than I was going to. With the amount of members on this site there are going to be differences of opinions and they should be welcomed if presented respectfully. I've never been one to "kiss up" and I'm not about to start now although I will never knock those who do. I have enough disdain for the list that I have a long standing request that anyone insulting me not be suspended. Boy has that one been honored lately!

I've opined that the list does nothing to improve the forum, other than generating the top post in a gambling forum, and suggested that it be abolished. I've also suggested that banned members be offered reinstatement after a period of time, citing that even murderers get paroled from prison.

Your turn, MidwestAP. Why are you so concerned with my posts? Are you offended by them? Do you think they hurt the forum in any way? Would you have responded in kind if someone else had made that post? If anyone would have been offended by my post I would think it would be Face since he said he was the one who hadn't updated the list. Far from being offended, he took the time to answer me in a non judgmental and respectful way.

Thank you for your comments even though we don't agree. It's really okay to have different opinions. I'd love to talk blackjack with you sometime. We may find common ground there.

I think perpetually annoyed rather than offended would be a better term for how I, and think others, feel about the constant nitpicking and commenting on every suspension. I think you do it because you enjoy annoying people, just my unasked for .02.

Quote: mcallister3200

I think perpetually annoyed rather than offended would be a better term for how I, and think others, feel about the constant nitpicking and commenting on every suspension. I think you do it because you enjoy annoying people, just my unasked for .02.

Your two cents is always welcome, mcallister3200, although I think you exaggerate just a tad. I assure you that I would never engage in something as petty as trying to annoy another person on an anonymous internet site. How is it that you let something so trivial get under your skin? Tell me, is there anything else on this entire forum that annoys you? Thank you for weighing in.

1BB last 3 months Jan15 Feb15 Mar15 and today and yesterday, 66 posts in this thread over about 90 days

This thread has 5,659 posts and 525,618 views. I'm proud to be a tiny part of it's success. Does anyone know who the secret administrator is?

Quote: 1BB

I've opined that the list does nothing to improve the forum, other than generating the top post in a gambling forum, and suggested that it be abolished.

I agree.

Quote: 1BB

I think I saw a compliment in there so thank you for that.

Fascination was your word but I do find it to be a very interesting look into human nature. Let's just say that, other than one administrator that I think is fair, I would not want to be a defendant in a court case and have any of the others as the judge deciding my fate. Okay maybe two.

Read Axel's post. He captured my feelings to the letter and expressed them much better than I was going to. With the amount of members on this site there are going to be differences of opinions and they should be welcomed if presented respectfully. I've never been one to "kiss up" and I'm not about to start now although I will never knock those who do. I have enough disdain for the list that I have a long standing request that anyone insulting me not be suspended. Boy has that one been honored lately!

I've opined that the list does nothing to improve the forum, other than generating the top post in a gambling forum, and suggested that it be abolished. I've also suggested that banned members be offered reinstatement after a period of time, citing that even murderers get paroled from prison.

Your turn, MidwestAP. Why are you so concerned with my posts? Are you offended by them? Do you think they hurt the forum in any way? Would you have responded in kind if someone else had made that post? If anyone would have been offended by my post I would think it would be Face since he said he was the one who hadn't updated the list. Far from being offended, he took the time to answer me in a non judgmental and respectful way.

Thank you for your comments even though we don't agree. It's really okay to have different opinions. I'd love to talk blackjack with you sometime. We may find common ground there.

1BB - I'm sure we could find common ground on many items, and since you took the time to respond to my question, I will respond to yours in kind.

I think comparing court case judgements to internet forum judgements is apples and oranges. In one situation there is legal considerations, in the other there is flexibility to use personal discretion, past events, and other factors for good of the forum. I've never taken the rules here as 'law', but more as a guideline for preferred behavior. And as such, I think there that there is a need to police the forum to maintain civility. It doesn't matter to me one way or another if there is a list or not, but I'm not sure how it hurts. Those who have been placed on the list (that I've paid any attention to) really have no one to blame but themselves. We all know there is a blurry line that can't be crossed to stick around, simply just don't get close to it and you'll never go over.

Now to your direct questions:

"Why are you so concerned with my posts?" - In my opinion I'm not overly concerned with your posts, I think I've made two or three references to them out of 750 posts.

"Are you offended by them?" - Not at all, it takes a lot to offend me. I think the ones related to the suspension list, or perceived lack of fairness, often times take shots at admins that I perceive you don't think are fair or competent. And while I believe they can defend themselves just fine, I'm trying to understand why it appears you have such an issue with their effort to keep the forum enjoyable, especially given they are not compensated for their work here.

"Do you think they [1BB's posts] hurt the form in any way?" - Usually no, especially the gambling related topics, you add quite a bit. But the posts that come out of left field to renew a grudge (my opinion at least), do bring the forum down.

"Would you [MidwestAP] have responded in kind if someone else had made the post?" - Sure, if the person had the same posting history, otherwise probably not.

Quote: 1BB

I've opined that the list does nothing to improve the forum, other than generating the top post in a gambling forum, and suggested that it be abolished. I've also suggested that banned members be offered reinstatement after a period of time, citing that even murderers get paroled from prison.

I'm not really sure how much of a gambling forum it is. 8 of the top 9 most popular threads of all time are not gambling related. It may be a general discussion forum with a sub category for gambling.


ZCore13

If you look at the suspension list, it is the non-gambling topics that get a majority of posters into trouble.

Quote: 1BB

This thread has 5,659 posts and 525,618 views. I'm proud to be a tiny part of it's success. Does anyone know who the secret administrator is?

It's probably just a ruse. It's nice to have a secret mod to blame if something goes wrong. Dam that secret mod. It's. Also a good idea that we think we are being watched kind of like fake sucutity camera's.

Quote: Zcore13

I'm not really sure how much of a gambling forum it is. 8 of the top 9 most popular threads of all time are not gambling related. It may be a general discussion forum with a sub category for gambling.ZCore13

According to the site's title, the primary subject is / should be "Wizard of Vegas."

OK, so what does THAT mean?

Surely it wasn't Mike's intention that all posts pertain to him, and him only.

No, I take a broader view: Las Vegas, gambling, odds "and the like."

Yeah, there is a lot, probably too much, of the off-topic stuff, but short of busting the threads, what is a mod to do, given that "off-topic" subjects are permitted?

The site's new owner could simply require that all posts must apply only to Las Vegas or gambling matters, and nothing else, if that is his desire.

We'll see.

Quote: 1BB

I've opined that the list does nothing to improve the forum, other than generating the top post in a gambling forum, and suggested that it be abolished.

So you want the thread that you post the most
in to be abolished. So you have no place to
complain when somebody gets suspended.

That makes no sense. Just block it and for
you it's gone, poof. Problem solved.

Quote: Face

Me again. It is close to impossible (for me, anyways) to edit the list on my phone, and that's all I have atm.

Updated.

Quote: terapined

I think the list is much ado about nothing.
If somebody gets suspended, oh well, we have rules here. I just move on.
I never check the suspension list, whats the point.

For you, perhaps. But from a moderating standpoint, it is a valuable resource. As a member, I never look at it. As a mod, it's in constant reference and examination. Without it, many decisions would be based on faulty memory and current emotional status. And since the membership seems to put a premium on fairness, I think that way would be a disaster. I like this way better.

As for 1BB's "fascination" with this thread, I don't think it's that hard to understand. Everyone has a "thing", and it's seen in many different threads. If you post anything about DI, dicesitter will likely be attracted to support it and MrV will chime in to dispute it. If I lay down a post with deep atheistic undertones, DeMango will mock it and Keyser will claim that I'm likely autistic. If one were to start questioning simulations, mustangsally will be in there in a jiffy. Talk chess and here come teliot and EdCollins.

Even I'm no different. I don't gamble and I'm no longer in the biz, so if it's game talk or math talk you're not likely to here a peep from me. But if talk drifts from game mechanics into psychology or philosophy, I'll come running. That's my thing. Everyone has a thing. This thread appears to be 1BB's.

And yes, 1BB, we've heard your criticism of it very well. But I think we may be looking at this from different angles. As a standalone thread, I can see why you can't understand why it's here. After all, it has nothing to do with gaming, or really hits on a topic that is important to most. But I believe it has great value as a containment thread. Without it, these 5,000+ posts would be scattered amongst many, many different threads, and as suspensions often draw interest and ire, many of those threads would have been severely disrupted. By having this here, it serves as a place for those spinoffs to run their course, while leaving the original thread as unmolested as possible. Because of that reason alone, if ever a vote came concerning this thread, I would fight to keep it.

@GreasyJohn - So sorry, I forgot to get back to you. I did talk to Wiz about the change to suspension lengths. He said there is no rule restricting lengths to 30 or 60 and that going to half and whole years is fine. But he also brought up the point that by the time one gets to a 30, they are almost always not worth the trouble to keep, to which I mostly agree. As for adjusting the current rules of doubling time per infraction, he stated he likes the way it was, and while he's not adverse to changing rules, he quite likes a good argument to do so. Based on our conversation, the only argument I had was "because mickeycrimm is missed", which doesn't fulfill the "good argument" clause. So for now, no change.

Trout season just opened and hockey tournaments cometh. Feel free to remind me when Boz is out, as I'll almost certainly forget =)

Quote: Zcore13

I'm not really sure how much of a gambling forum it is. 8 of the top 9 most popular threads of all time are not gambling related. It may be a general discussion forum with a sub category for gambling.


ZCore13

One has to wonder how that sits with the new owners who, after all, run gambling sites. It just doesn't seem that they signed up for the other things. Are they okay with it or are they biding their time?

By the way, for the person keeping track, not all my posts are complaints. Many are just responses to my good friends who care enough to partake in my posts. We'd hate to give the incorrect impression that they are all complaints.

An aside if I may. Am I the only one who has a feeling that Buzz may still be posting here? He is one smart man!

Quote: 1BB

An aside if I may. Am I the only one who has a feeling that Buzz may still be posting here? He is one smart man!

Currently banned member "dummy" was Buzz, a fact I furtively pointed out in reparte upon his 10th post. For those who miss Buzz, he has obtained clemency and is a member in good standing at DT.

Quote: 1BB

One has to wonder how that sits with the new owners who, after all, run gambling sites. It just doesn't seem that they signed up for the other things. Are they okay with it or are they biding their time?

By the way, for the person keeping track, not all my posts are complaints. Many are just responses to my good friends who care enough to partake in my posts. We'd hate to give the incorrect impression that they are all complaints.

An aside if I may. Am I the only one who has a feeling that Buzz may still be posting here? He is one smart man!

As I said from the beginning, I think this site was just a throw in on the deal and I think the deal was way over-paid. The Odds site has much more value as far as marketing goes. Although I'm sure this site has traffic, participation is limited to a few dozen regulars mostly. It's more of a club house. Half of the new people that show up have a system they think is good, want to know how to "beat" a game or are duplicates of a banned member.

The new owners got what they paid for. Not much has changed from the day before the sale to now and most likely not much will change anytime soon.


ZCore13

Quote: Face

Currently banned member "dummy" was Buzz, a fact I furtively pointed out in reparte upon his 10th post. For those who miss Buzz, he has obtained clemency and is a member in good standing at DT.

I did pick up on "dummy". I'm still not convinced that he's not here now under yet another name, possibly one that is not so new.

He'll be a great addition to DT and I wish him well. I take it that his repeated returns here will have no bearing on his DT status?

Perhaps slightly off topic, of course, but this may relate to some of the recent comments about attacking other posts and posters....

I thought that some of you who are amused/annoyed by people who post their rants on the internet might like the current theme of the Dilbert comic strip. So far, there have only been two days of strips specifically on this theme, but I suspect there might be a few more over the coming days.

Background: the useless co-nonworker Wally started spouting gibberish about economics, and the clueless CEO decided to make him the corporate chief economist, since the CEO couldn't understand what was being said, which he took as a sign the gibberish was important. Turns out that one of Wally's comments was interpreted by the media as the only accurate prediction of a market collapse. If you start with this strip for this past Wednesday and click the right arrows (triangles) through to the next two days' strips, you can meet "Dick from the internet" and try to anticipate where this might go.

Quote: Face

@GreasyJohn - So sorry, I forgot to get back to you. I did talk to Wiz about the change to suspension lengths. He said there is no rule restricting lengths to 30 or 60 and that going to half and whole years is fine. But he also brought up the point that by the time one gets to a 30, they are almost always not worth the trouble to keep, to which I mostly agree. As for adjusting the current rules of doubling time per infraction, he stated he likes the way it was, and while he's not adverse to changing rules, he quite likes a good argument to do so. Based on our conversation, the only argument I had was "because mickeycrimm is missed", which doesn't fulfill the "good argument" clause. So for now, no change.

My argument for thinking that having 6-month or 1-year suspensions was not based on missing a forum member, that was only the catalyst for my recommendation. A longer suspension could apply before all those that are banned were banned.

Quote: 1BB

I take it that his repeated returns here will have no bearing on his DT status?

Not my call to make. The only spoken rule regarding the divide is that banned WoV members who receive a pass to DT are not to use the opportunity to get on a soapbox about WoV. So far, no issues. How Wiz will respond to someone disrupting what is now his business (WoV) and how that will be received at his home (DT) is left as an exercise for the reader ;)

Quote: Greasyjohn

My argument for thinking that having 6-month or 1-year suspensions was not based on missing a forum member, that was only the catalyst for my recommendation. A longer suspension could apply before all those that are banned were banned.

Understood. But that was addressed by my stating that Wiz likes the way it is. And I pretty much agree. It's just not that hard to stay within the rules here, which basically amounts to "don't be an #$%^#&$". What he would need to hear is "why". Why should someone who can't do something so simple be given extra chances, or a different scale of punishment?

Further, and to sort of contradict myself, I think that we already do sort of what your asking. Even without being privy to behind the scenes discussion, one can see that not all on the nuke list have followed a strict doubling-of-punishment-to-expulsion course. Guys that weren't pure trolls and had some substance, your mickeycrimm, your Buzz, your B9, were all given subjective punishments. Time and again, grown men had rules availed to them, had them explained in detail, had them all but begged to be followed, yet were unable to comply. So, in some cases, what you're asking has been tried. And those people still wound up banned. What more can be done?

@Doc, great submission. I giggled, and will likely follow =)

Quote: Doc

Background: the useless co-nonworker Wally started spouting gibberish about economics, and the clueless CEO decided to make him the corporate chief economist, since the CEO couldn't understand what was being said, which he took as a sign the gibberish was important.

It's not that funny when you realize that useless Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan got away with talking gibberish for years.

The media thought he was a genius and dubbed it 'Fedspeak', but it was really his way of hiding the fact that he was a clueless fraud and a con artist.

No one, including Congress, would question what he was saying, and pretended to understand him, for fear of showing their own ignorance.

"The members of the Board of Governors and the Reserve Bank presidents foresee an implicit strengthening of activity after the current rebalancing is over, although the central tendency of their individual forecasts for real GDP still shows a substantial slowdown, on balance, for the year as a whole."

While he was spouting his BS, his unregulated banks were using depositors' money like an ATM at a casino.

He could have prevented the recession which cost our economy trillions in lost wealth and nearly nine million lost jobs.

Total Fraud

Quote: Face

Not my call to make. The only spoken rule regarding the divide is that banned WoV members who receive a pass to DT are not to use the opportunity to get on a soapbox about WoV. So far, no issues. How Wiz will respond to someone disrupting what is now his business (WoV) and how that will be received at his home (DT) is left as an exercise for the reader ;)



Understood. But that was addressed by my stating that Wiz likes the way it is. And I pretty much agree. It's just not that hard to stay within the rules here, which basically amounts to "don't be an #$%^#&$". What he would need to hear is "why". Why should someone who can't do something so simple be given extra chances, or a different scale of punishment?

Further, and to sort of contradict myself, I think that we already do sort of what your asking. Even without being privy to behind the scenes discussion, one can see that not all on the nuke list have followed a strict doubling-of-punishment-to-expulsion course. Guys that weren't pure trolls and had some substance, your mickeycrimm, your Buzz, your B9, were all given subjective punishments. Time and again, grown men had rules availed to them, had them explained in detail, had them all but begged to be followed, yet were unable to comply. So, in some cases, what you're asking has been tried. And those people still wound up banned. What more can be done?

@Doc, great submission. I giggled, and will likely follow =)

Thank you Face for taking the time to consider my request. That's all I could hope for and it is appreciated.

Soxfan got suspended for "hate speech."

I looked and didn't see a rule prohibiting that, unless it is considered illegal or trolling?

Quote: MrV

Soxfan got suspended for "hate speech."

I looked and didn't see a rule prohibiting that, unless it is considered illegal or trolling?

MrV,

There was enough of it in the thread it could be considered trolling over several posts, but I wasn't satisfied it was a violation under the rules as published, so I un-banned him about 10 minutes later and edited the thread. I agree, there is no specific prohibition on hate speech at the present time.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I agree, there is no specific prohibition on hate speech at the present time.

huh? then why did Mickey get banned?

Quote: 100xOdds

huh? then why did Mickey get banned?

Massive profanity, more than a few personal insults, inability to post IAW the rules over numerous violations and additional chances. The hate speech was a bonus round of sorts, I guess. I had thought it was in the rules specifically because of his nuking, but it's not, which is why I reversed the call on soxfan.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I had thought it was in the rules specifically because of his nuking, but it's not, which is why I reversed the call on soxfan.

Wiz stated he would not associate himself with that type of post, in his address speaking of MC's ban.

Well, perhaps it's time for an examination of the rules in that area. I had gotten that strong impression myself.

This was posted on March 15th of this year.

Quote: Wizard

This forum no longer supports absolute freedom of speech. I gave it a try when it first started and people like Jerry Logan soon showed me the cost of that policy. We then limited free speech to just the "free speech zone," but that cesspool contaminated the whole site.

While I no longer own this site, I still feel it has my name on it. As such, I will let free speech go only so far. For the same reason, the University of Oklahoma expelled the students involved in the infamous bus video, I am expelling Mickey. It made it easier given his long rap sheet of prior offenses.

In respect of free speech, I am letting the posts in question stand, despite some suggestions they be removed. I'm not big on censorship, and wish it to be fully known the reason Mickey was nuked.

As BBB said, I truly do wish Mickey well and thank him for his many great stories and contributions to the forum.

In light of Mike's post, I am going forward with the 7 day suspension on soxfan.

I don't think we should allow for hate speech, personally. I recall Nuking someone, in part, for hate speech of a homophobic nature:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/16622-rush-limbaugh-sage-or-fat-windbag-discuss/6/

It was TournamentKing, who may have been only Suspended once before, but also, someone who I remember as being otherwise of little or no value to the greater goals of the Forum. He was sometimes funny, though. I found his insults towards me amusing, anyway.

Anyway, I Nuked him pursuant to Rules 6 & 12. Rule 6 because I don't consider hate speech, "Keeping it PG," and Rule 12 because I think that hate speech would constitute, "Trolling." There are certainly Members on here (myself included) who believe that minorities of any kind have the right not to be abused in writing with the pages of this site, and Wizard has a long history of defending, not just Members, but being a strong supporter of the rights of minorities, in general.

To have vitriol spewed at you, for absolutely no good reason, whether that vitriol be general or specifically directed, violates the inherent rights not just of the group(s) being discussed, but also the rights of other, perhaps more tolerant Members, to not have a Forum clogged with a bunch of bigoted crap. Ergo, such posts are unnecessarily divisive, fundamentally not topical, can NEVER BE topical, and are, therefore, Trolling.

I would say that any hate speech is inherently violent and inherently trolling, and therefore, bannable.

If the Members and/or other Administrators deem it necessary, though, I would happily be the first to move for a new Rule that would specifically prohibit direct hate speech on this site.

Besides that, to the extent that such hate speakers may even have a point, (they don't) a good writer can convey that point without using direct hate speech, and I know Soxfan is a better writer than the post for which he was Suspended would lead one to believe, hey hey.

Then I would say all 4 of us are in agreement. Thanks for the support, guys.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Then I would say all 4 of us are in agreement. Thanks for the support, guys.

I would say 99% of everyone here would be in agreement.

ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

I would say 99% of everyone here would be in agreement.

ZCore13

Hey hey

It's Soxfan.... Do you really need a valid reason ?

As BBB said, I did agree with her original action for banning.

For those who like to wonder and question, there is no rule specifically against what soxfan did. However, as BBB quoted and I mentioned earlier, there has been precedence in cases like these, and I think she was safe in following the Wiz's lead.

Further, I'll say what I said to her. I personally prefer to remain as free as possible. Some of the things we talk about, whether politics, religion, race, or orientation, often cause conflict. I like talking about difficult subjects, and I've often pushed for that liberty (occasionally to my and your own detriment). But I think many here are capable of doing so in an intelligent and respectful manner. To sort of point out where I personally draw the line, I see a difference, and believe I can judge, between when a post is made that causes conflict, and when a post is made TO cause conflict. I think there's an important distinction there, and one that is obvious to most. Based on some of the comments in the offending thread as well as the ones here, I think you can see it, too.

So that was my input into the decision and where this guy draws his line. That is all.

Quote: Face

As BBB said, I did agree with her original action for banning.

For those who like to wonder and question, there is no rule specifically against what soxfan did. However, as BBB quoted and I mentioned earlier, there has been precedence in cases like these, and I think she was safe in following the Wiz's lead.

Further, I'll say what I said to her. I personally prefer to remain as free as possible. Some of the things we talk about, whether politics, religion, race, or orientation, often cause conflict. I like talking about difficult subjects, and I've often pushed for that liberty (occasionally to my and your own detriment). But I think many here are capable of doing so in an intelligent and respectful manner. To sort of point out where I personally draw the line, I see a difference, and believe I can judge, between when a post is made that causes conflict, and when a post is made TO cause conflict. I think there's an important distinction there, and one that is obvious to most. Based on some of the comments in the offending thread as well as the ones here, I think you can see it, too.

So that was my input into the decision and where this guy draws his line. That is all.

The over under was even money by April -6- 2015.

+120 if you parlayed that to a BBB banning.

+150 for a wizard banning.

+130 for any other mod banning (not including secret mod)