Discussion about the Suspension List
Quote: EvenBobHere:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/trip-reports/24091-house-of-the-rising-sun/6/#post494510
You said "What do I have to be happy about"? I said the suspension of RS. That was hardly a complaint.
Quote: WizardI can't believe 1BB hasn't complained about the RS suspension yet. What are the odds?
Dobie Gray. Who? Dobie Gray. Dobie Gray had a hit song in the 60s called "The In Crowd". Maybe RS thought he was in the in crowd here when he asked if I made a personal insult. Of course a mod immediately said no insult. Maybe when he said he wouldn't mind seeing me suspended. Who's in the in crowd now?
I'm complaining less and commenting more. There is a difference. Right now I'm keeping an eye on Team Kentry. Go Kentry! :-)
Quote: WizardI can't believe 1BB hasn't complained about the RS suspension yet. What are the odds?
We all know you're a gambling man, but looking for the odds on 1BB's comments on RS suspension?
Really?
Be nice ;-) , yes that is the only smiley I know!
Quote: KentryI wonder why Rackoddball is banned. He only had one post about "Knowing you are not an AP when you lose 30 hands in Blackjack." Seemed innocuous to me.
Multiple Accounts-Previously Nuked Individual
Quote: KentryI wonder why Rackoddball is banned. He only had one post about "Knowing you are not an AP when you lose 30 hands in Blackjack." Seemed innocuous to me.
A few posts later, a moderator indicates that Rackoddball is another account of the banned member Buzzard and is getting the boot.
Quote: beachbumbabsBuzzard,
Not funny. See ya.
Quote: KentryI wonder why Rackoddball is banned. He only had one post about "Knowing you are not an AP when you lose 30 hands in Blackjack." Seemed innocuous to me.
Once certain people read what "rackoddball" wrote, it was not hard to determine it was a fake account - it was merely a question of "who" (now that we know it was Buzz, I have to laugh as I believe it was his way of saying hello to me)
but - thems the rules
Quote: Mission146Multiple Accounts-Previously Nuked Individual
Wow, like we didn't see this coming. lol
Quote: WizardPersonal insult. Although this is a first offense, I find this post very heavy and worthy of jumping to seven days.
Not only it this comment not that 'heavy', it is not really all that much of an insult, being that it comes out of a several page discussion about Evenbob's unusual marriage situation that he (Evenbob) initiated and invited people to weigh in with his post "Marriage is frightening. Closeness to his wife breeds hostility". During that several page discussion, he stated "he has no idea what his wife is doing and doesn't care and vice versa. Being happy doesn't enter into it".
The comments by RS was just an extension of that several page discussion of Evenbob's situation. Again, Evenbob initiated that particular spinoff of that discussion, so I don't see how RS's comments are that inappropriate.
It only looks like an insult if you aren't familiar with where it came from and are taking it out of context, which apparently you are.
Has anyone contacted Buzzard and asked him to stop? His complete contact information is in his profile. He has provided his address, email, and telephone number.
Has anyone thought about blocking that IP address in Colorado?
Does anyone remember why he was banned and who banned him?
Some still say he had value. He certainly was a top poster here. He holds 11th place on the list of most posts and 18th place under the name buzzpaff.
Despite the "general rule" that a ban here also applies to DT, he is allowed to post there where he is on his second name. I guess he likes this site more.
Quote: aceofspadesOnce certain people read what "rackoddball" wrote, it was not hard to determine it was a fake account - it was merely a question of "who" (now that we know it was Buzz, I have to laugh as I believe it was his way of saying hello to me)
but - thems the rules
I agree...Buzz was just saying "welcome back".
Quote: 1BBWe have a new entry to the suspension list. RACKODDBALL has been banned after it was determined that he was a sock puppet of bloodoil and redjohn. What has glaringly been omitted from the entry is the fact that this is yet another incarnation of Buzzard who continues to come and go as he pleases and receive special treatment.
Has anyone contacted Buzzard and asked him to stop? His complete contact information is in his profile. He has provided his address, email, and telephone number.
Has anyone thought about blocking that IP address in Colorado?
Does anyone remember why he was banned and who banned him?
Some still say he had value. He certainly was a top poster here. He holds 11th place on the list of most posts and 18th place under the name buzzpaff.
Despite the "general rule" that a ban here also applies to DT, he is allowed to post there where he is on his second name. I guess he likes this site more.
This is pot-stirring nonsense.
When the post appeared, it was determined it was Buzz, and he was banned again. Never mind how it was determined, but blocking Buzzard's IP wouldn't end it.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is pot-stirring nonsense.
When the post appeared, it was determined it was Buzz, and he was banned again. Never mind how it was determined, but blocking Buzzard's IP wouldn't end it.
The nonsense is the disrespect shown to the person who banned him.
The nonsense is falling all over a guy that added very little to the forum.
The nonsense is accusing me of pot stirring when you don't like what you hear. I have every right to voice my opinion whether you like it or not. I take "pot-stirring nonsense" as a personal insult. Please suspend yourself. Keep in mind that it will be your second offense.
The nonsense was the special treatment given to him under the name hyisgp. Do you want to talk about that?
Quote: kewljNot only it this comment not that 'heavy', it is not really all that much of an insult, being that it comes out of a several page discussion about Evenbob's unusual marriage situation that he (Evenbob) initiated and invited people to weigh in with his post "Marriage is frightening. Closeness to his wife breeds hostility". During that several page discussion, he stated "he has no idea what his wife is doing and doesn't care and vice versa. Being happy doesn't enter into it".
The comments by RS was just an extension of that several page discussion of Evenbob's situation. Again, Evenbob initiated that particular spinoff of that discussion, so I don't see how RS's comments are that inappropriate.
It only looks like an insult if you aren't familiar with where it came from and are taking it out of context, which apparently you are.
Let me make some policy clear.
First, the admins are not under the obligation to do an investigation over every perceived insult whether it was a true statement or not. An insult is an insult, even if there is some truth to it.
Second, as I wrote before, it is one thing to make self-effacing remarks but quite another to have them thrown back in your face by somebody who isn't a friend. If you wish to remind the forum of something another member said, put it properly in quotation tags.
Third, a gentleman never refers to another man's wife unless it is an entirely complimentary way or a factual statement necessary to make a point. For example, "Steve cancelled his vacation because his wife was sick." This may not go for the other mods, but if anybody refers to another man's wife in a post I'm going to review it very carefully with my suspension flag ready to throw, even if the wife is not being directly insulted. Consider the insult from this clip from War Games. Even though the wife isn't being insulted, just bringing her into it makes it twice as offensive.
Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwDbgE54QYE
Fourth, whether the one making the insult or the object of it add "value" or not to the forum is immaterial.
Quote: WizardAn insult is an insult, even if there is some truth to it.
This can become a slippery slope.
What if a comment is 100% true, based on the target's own admissions, yet is still objectively minimally insulting?
For example, assume a board member is a known, self-avowed card-carrying sadist; in a thread, someone posts "Whoever loves you is in for a tough time of it."
100% true, yet on its face minimally insulting.
Worthy of suspension?
Quote: 1BBThe nonsense is the disrespect shown to the person who banned him.
The nonsense is falling all over a guy that added very little to the forum.
The nonsense is accusing me of pot stirring when you don't like what you hear. I have every right to voice my opinion whether you like it or not. I take "pot-stirring nonsense" as a personal insult. Please suspend yourself. Keep in mind that it will be your second offense.
The nonsense was the special treatment given to him under the name hyisgp. Do you want to talk about that?
Quote: WizardLet me make some policy clear.
First, the admins are not under the obligation to do an investigation over every perceived insult
This is precisely why I commented. I feel like you may not have been aware of the related discussion and wanted to bring it to your attention.
RS's comment seemingly out of the blue, seems like an insult, although mild IMO. But taken in the context of that recent discussion of which Evenbob introduced the topic of his unusual marriage arrangement and even more unusual feeling that he and his wife have for each other, I don't believe this was meant or should even be perceived as an insult. There was some playful back and forth between several of us in that thread, including Evenbob going after Axelwolf's girlfriend.
I was just trying to provide you with the context so that you might have the opportunity to reconsider.
Quote: IbeatyouracesLarry is just loving all of this stuff.
What's Larry been up to? Has he been posting anywhere?
Quote: MrVThis can become a slippery slope.
I won't speak for Wiz, but I think that's rather the point.
I recall a time when this place was much more stiff, and I'm not saying that as a critique. I rather liked it that way because I have the entire rest of the internet to play in if I wanted to delve into some a@#holery. It was nice to have a place where you could win a debate on merit, as opposed to just trolling your opponent into submission and claiming victory based on your skill of being the bigger ass.
My style is to try and codify and define every rule and action for the benefit of the members. I find Wiz to be less lenient and a bit more shoot-from-the-hip. I'm sure that frustrates some, as I know I've seen something and let it slide only for Wiz to show up a few hours later and ding the person. While that may be a bit confusing... I kind of like the confusion. It sort of creates a buffer. It should make someone question before posting. It's sort of like the town that has that one cop that'll ding you for reckless endangerment for speeding. Sure, it might be more extreme than normal. But it's knowledge of that extreme which should cause a little more caution on the part of the participant, making it a long-term benefit.
But you can be the judge. The Wiz-Mission-Babs-Face combo has been rolling for a few years now. There's been some bumps along the way, but do you see us sliding towards some nasty fate? I don't. I see some decisions which caused dispute and discussion, but nothing that leads me to believe we're falling over ourselves in a race to the bottom.
Quote: FaceI recall a time when this place was much more stiff, and I'm not saying that as a critique. I rather liked it that way because I have the entire rest of the internet to play in if I wanted to delve into some a@#holery. It was nice to have a place where you could win a debate on merit, as opposed to just trolling your opponent into submission and claiming victory based on your skill of being the bigger ass.
This board seems to have veered left from its math-based roots.
That's one reason why I have suggested that the owners consider creating a second board at WOO.
That would likely involve the stiffer, math-based discussions you and others prefer.
Soon, we won't be able to throw anyone in jail for murder, or even point out the errors of others, because the thought of these too could be an insult to the criminal, or the pseudo scholarly.Quote: IbeatyouracesLarry is just loving all of this stuff.
I guess a real gentleman knows when rules, especially the unwritten ones, ought to be crapped on. Otherwise, the evil really will prevail whether it knows and understands itself, or not.
'And the sign says "Everybody welcome, come in, kneel down and pray... "'
Quote: MrVThis board seems to have veered left from its math-based roots.
That's one reason why I have suggested that the owners consider creating a second board at WOO.
That would likely involve the stiffer, math-based discussions you and others prefer.
I do believe that everyone, most everyone, heard your suggestion the first time, or at least the second time.
Three strikes you're out?
Quote: TwoFeathersATL
Three strikes you're out?
There'd be 30 less people here if this was the case =)
Quote: FaceThere'd be 30 less people here if this was the case =)
Then we should definately allow for at least 4 strikes, maybe five
Quote:I do believe that everyone, most everyone, heard your suggestion the first time, or at least the second time.
I like this board the way it is; I only mentioned it because others have expressed a yearning for the good old days.
I'll zip my lip and hobble my fingers on the issue forthwith.
Quote: MrVI like this board the way it is; I only mentioned it because others have expressed a yearning for the good old days.
I'll zip my lip and hobble my fingers on the issue forthwith.
With more ads and reloads of a mostly-text-based website being 5 to 10 seconds per refresh sometimes, one might contemplate the cost of using the site to folks short on free time (for reading).
But if someone is waiting on reload, may be more likely to click ads.
Monetizing ad revenue is not always about top-quality posts from the brightest minds who know what games are cheapest.
Forum Rule 6 reads in part: "No pornographic or violent images or text".
CasinoCrasher was suspended for "Inappropriate avatar (Rule 6 violation"). Let me describe the avatar as it appears at this time. It is an image of the back of a woman naked from the waist up. Long flowing hair covers her back and a skimpy bikini bottom covers part of her ample derriere. Some will posit that the bikini is actually tan lines but I think not. The poor quality of some avatars leaves something to be desired so that argument doesn't hold. She is definitely wearing clothing. I used the word image because said poor quality makes it difficult to discern whether this is an actual photo or a caricature.
Do we now have to make another rule on acceptable avatars. Who's standards should be used? A person in their 20s or a person in their 60s? A woman's or a man's?
Does this forum consider the female body pornographic? This politically correct, diverse, forum that welcomes all ideas and lifestyles? Does anyone remember the photo of the very real naked woman that a longtime member posted on this very site? She was completely naked looking out on the strip from a hotel balcony. Was that pornographic? I didn't read any complaints or negative comments about that one. How about a certain member posing with various "models" in skimpy attire throughout this forum? How about the "entertainer" from downtown with the pasties. Was that pornographic? The body painted ladies in Times Square?
While a female body may have been considered pornographic in the 50s - the 1650s - I would like to think that we have gotten beyond that. Images of violence are much more offensive than a natural, God given female body. Oops, did I just mention God?
If one were to list the TV shows that have shown bare buttocks in prime time, that would be a very long list. I'm referring to regular network TV, not the pay channels.
CasinoCrasher, when you return you had better get a burka on that image. Pronto!
Does anyone here find the female body pornographic or offensive in any way? Serious answers only please. We don't need the tired old responses like it's only three days, it's only the internet, it won't change anyone's life or the big one - this is a dictatorship.
Quote: 1BBNo one wants odds on whether I'm going to comment on the latest suspension? Ya snooze ya lose.
Forum Rule 6 reads in part: "No pornographic or violent images or text".
CasinoCrasher was suspended for "Inappropriate avatar (Rule 6 violation"). Let me describe the avatar as it appears at this time. It is an image of the back of a woman naked from the waist up. Long flowing hair covers her back and a skimpy bikini bottom covers part of her ample derriere. Some will posit that the bikini is actually tan lines but I think not. The poor quality of some avatars leaves something to be desired so that argument doesn't hold. She is definitely wearing clothing. I used the word image because said poor quality makes it difficult to discern whether this is an actual photo or a caricature.
Do we now have to make another rule on acceptable avatars. Who's standards should be used? A person in their 20s or a person in their 60s? A woman's or a man's?
Does this forum consider the female body pornographic? This politically correct, diverse, forum that welcomes all ideas and lifestyles? Does anyone remember the photo of the very real naked woman that a longtime member posted on this very site? She was completely naked looking out on the strip from a hotel balcony. Was that pornographic? I didn't read any complaints or negative comments about that one. How about a certain member posing with various "models" in skimpy attire throughout this forum? How about the "entertainer" from downtown with the pasties. Was that pornographic? The body painted ladies in Times Square?
While a female body may have been considered pornographic in the 50s - the 1650s - I would like to think that we have gotten beyond that. Images of violence are much more offensive than a natural, God given female body. Oops, did I just mention God?
If one were to list the TV shows that have shown bare buttocks in prime time, that would be a very long list. I'm referring to regular network TV, not the pay channels.
CasinoCrasher, when you return you had better get a burka on that image. Pronto!
Does anyone here find the female body pornographic or offensive in any way? Serious answers only please. We don't need the tired old responses like it's only three days, it's only the internet, it won't change anyone's life or the big one - this is a dictatorship.
Dodsferd's former avatars showed more skin than this guys and NOBODY said a word!
Porno is like a table game: "I'll know it when I see it" is how the world judges things. IE: hello politics.
Quote: 1BBNo one wants odds on whether I'm going to comment on the latest suspension? Ya snooze ya lose.
Forum Rule 6 reads in part: "No pornographic or violent images or text".
CasinoCrasher was suspended for "Inappropriate avatar (Rule 6 violation"). Let me describe the avatar as it appears at this time. It is an image of the back of a woman naked from the waist up. Long flowing hair covers her back and a skimpy bikini bottom covers part of her ample derriere. Some will posit that the bikini is actually tan lines but I think not. The poor quality of some avatars leaves something to be desired so that argument doesn't hold. She is definitely wearing clothing. I used the word image because said poor quality makes it difficult to discern whether this is an actual photo or a caricature.
Do we now have to make another rule on acceptable avatars. Who's standards should be used? A person in their 20s or a person in their 60s? A woman's or a man's?
Does this forum consider the female body pornographic? This politically correct, diverse, forum that welcomes all ideas and lifestyles? Does anyone remember the photo of the very real naked woman that a longtime member posted on this very site? She was completely naked looking out on the strip from a hotel balcony. Was that pornographic? I didn't read any complaints or negative comments about that one. How about a certain member posing with various "models" in skimpy attire throughout this forum? How about the "entertainer" from downtown with the pasties. Was that pornographic? The body painted ladies in Times Square?
While a female body may have been considered pornographic in the 50s - the 1650s - I would like to think that we have gotten beyond that. Images of violence are much more offensive than a natural, God given female body. Oops, did I just mention God?
If one were to list the TV shows that have shown bare buttocks in prime time, that would be a very long list. I'm referring to regular network TV, not the pay channels.
CasinoCrasher, when you return you had better get a burka on that image. Pronto!
Does anyone here find the female body pornographic or offensive in any way? Serious answers only please. We don't need the tired old responses like it's only three days, it's only the internet, it won't change anyone's life or the big one - this is a dictatorship.
On the plus side, more talk about http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Turkey+Titties
What do you think will generate more traffic? Talk about the nanotech advantage patent I posted or talk about the link to what exactly is an offensive nipple look like?
Quote: AhighOn the minus side, less talk about math.
On the plus side, more talk about http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Turkey+Titties
What do you think will generate more traffic? Talk about the nanotech advantage patent I posted or talk about the link to what exactly is an offensive nipple look like?
I'm going with the "offensive nipple look alike".
Talk about your patent application appeals to maybe 2% of the members here.
It makes the other 96% of us yawn.
Someone check my calcs on those percentages. Did I get the math right?
Quote: KentryOkay, it definitely makes sense that Rackoddball is banned because he was a previously banned member posting under a new name.
Things that make you go hmmmmm
Quote: aceofspades
That guy may be a member here. I hope you got permission to post that. :-)
I hope it's okay to call him a guy.
Quote: WizardofnothingThings that make you go hmmmmm
Hmm what? I was told that Rackoddball was banned because he was a previously banned member when I asked why he was banned after having just one innocuous post, so I am saying that it makes sense.
The "good old days" is what led up to this point in time.Quote: MrVI only mentioned it because others have expressed a yearning for the good old days.
The real deal doesn't fizzle out (to say, a hundred new members with a few superficial posts each), but becomes better by nature.
Politics is a way to feel good about yourself after repeatedly changing your mind, and ending up at the mess in which you started. The people we elect work for us, or, in some cases, the richest among us. But, it's still the same us at any rate, all along, who call the shots.
In fact, some have pointed this out, in one sense or another, from the start here. Many of the older members have given up on the process of new leaders altogether because a process alone isn't enough.
Quote: TheGrimReaper13The "good old days" is what led up to this point in time.
The real deal doesn't fizzle out (to say, a hundred new members with a few superficial posts each), but becomes better by nature.
Politics is a way to feel good about yourself after repeatedly changing your mind, and ending up at the mess in which you started. The people we elect work for us, or, in some cases, the richest among us. But, it's still the same us at any rate, all along, who call the shots.
In fact, some have pointed this out, in one sense or another, from the start here. Many of the older members have given up on the process of new leaders altogether because a process alone isn't enough.
Maybe not Kerkebet.
Maybe studied under Kerkebet.
I need an interpreter ;-)
Your head in the treetop, buddy? Someone must have peed in your cereal.Quote: TwoFeathersATLMaybe not Kerkebet.
Maybe studied under Kerkebet.
I need an interpreter ;-)
You made me look. I wondered what had happened to TTB? It seems as though he was nuked.Quote: TheGrimReaper13Your head in the treetop, buddy? Someone must have peed in your cereal.
I do hope his money was returned.
Welcome, banebane!
Quote: 1BBDid anyone catch the new name in green. I really hope it's someone from the new ownership.
Welcome, banebane!
Ok I'll ask, why?
Quote: TheGrimReaper13Your head in the treetop, buddy? Someone must have peed in your cereal.
Technically, I don't think that is how pee'd is spelled.
The treetops, I only wish I was still there..
Quote: IbeatyouracesAny odds on when a mod will figure out which banned member TGR is?
Always trying to make a buck, you can't help it can you? (Joke! )
Yes, still there perchance.Quote: TwoFeathersATLTechnically, I don't think that is how pee'd is spelled.
The treetops, I only wish I was still there.
pee1
n., pl. pees for 1; pee for 2.
1. the letter p.
2. Brit. penny (def. 2).
pee2
Slang: Sometimes Vulgar.
verb (used without object), peed, peeing.
1. to urinate.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peed
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peed
Pee'd is in the Urban Dictionary? At any rate, I know the difference between might and may.
