Discussion about the Suspension List

Quote: beachbumbabs

Thanks for the suggestion, rx.

The mods only have to reply to any questions, "that suspension is not over 7 days, and no appeal".

End of story. Bingo.

up to 7 days ban hasn't killed anyone yet. (not that I know of)

The problem with that suggestion is the "Martingale policy."

Just like in the US criminal system, the punishment for minor transgressions is less important than the record. To have received a "brief" suspension is to be permanently subject to a longer suspension for further "offenses," and that fact merits an appeal.

Quote: 24Bingo

The problem with that suggestion is the "Martingale policy."

Just like in the US criminal system, the punishment for minor transgressions is less important than the record. To have received a "brief" suspension is to be permanently subject to a longer suspension for further "offenses," and that fact merits an appeal.

I suggested it for the convenience of the operator of the board, not ours.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Thanks for the suggestion, rx.

Hello, beachbumbabs, I trust all is well with you. I am posting this message here because a discussion related to the enforcement of forum rules is best suited for this thread.

But first, I must implore everyone who is reading, please do not view this post as a childish, vengeful rant, for I have gone through painstaking efforts to cite specific posts/quotes in order to support my positions rather than leave myself open to the charge that I am simply making unfounded accusations.

Also, I want everybody to know from the outset that I am NOT:

1) appealing my suspension
2) questioning the forum rules themselves
3) arguing that the rules shouldn't be enforced

I've always said in the past that everybody should keep things in perspective and not get all worked up about getting suspended on an internet forum, so I will take my own advice. Instead, what I'd like to bring up is selective enforcement of the rules, which is relevant to every member of the forum.

Before I get into that, let me quickly provide an explanation about:

Quote: beachbumbabs

(next post to bw) And what else did I say in that post, Einstein? Oh, that's right...you didn't read the rest of it!

(next post to bw) You really need to have a talk with your fellow LGBTEWSLWQWLQ members. According to them, anyone who opposes gay marriage is "anti-gay".

Quote: beachbumbabs

he's calling bw stupid, though he's clever about it.

The third bw quote he's mocking the LGBT community, and its members on this forum including possibly bw, by adding all the nonsense letters, making it derisive and meaningless.

It's interesting that you found the "Einstein" comment to be an insult because you were directly asked about this before, and your response was this:

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: rxwine

What about comparing them to Einstein?

Such as, "Hey Einstein, that's not still not true no matter how many times you say it."

Edgy. I can see S&W saying it to the nearest Muppet. But still obviously meant as a sarcastic attack. So jury's out for me.


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/poker/17181-deathmatch-for-10k-paisiello-v-anonimuss-split-from-betting-when-small-blind/35/#post335846

My question is, how is "Einstein" a clear violation of forum rules when you admitted yourself that the "jury's out for me"? I had used your own words as a guideline and thought I was safe.

In regards to my second comment, the acronym I was trying to think of is: LGBTQQIP2SAA

It's a very long acronym, and I doubt that most people would remember it correctly off the top of their head. I didn't feel like doing a Google search right in the middle of writing that post, but I had no idea that typing an incorrect acronym would warrant a suspension. And for the record, I had thought that 'W' stood for "Whoever agrees with gays", but I was wrong. In the correct acronym, it's the 'A' that stands for "Allies of gays". Harmless mistake (or so I thought).

__________________________________________________


Let me return now to my original point: the selective enforcement of rules. Here are a few clever insults that ultimately got a pass:

Quote:

LarryS,

I think your stance on issues like these may be overtaking your common sense.


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/16783-min-wage-10-10/19/#post341910

If a suspension is justified for "Einstein" and "intellectually dishonest", then shouldn't this person also get suspended for implying that LarryS has no common sense? As people have been constantly reminding me, the forum rules are clear:

"Be civil...NO personal insults"

Quote:

Gamblor is a lost cause at best; why waste your breath?


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/17446-mathematicians-fallacy-baccarat/22/#post340736

NOTE: Gamblor was still a member in good standing at the time of this post, so he was protected from personal attacks. Calling him a "lost cause" appears to be an insult, don't you think?

Quote:

Done with this thread of garbage


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/17304-hillary-breaks-godwins-law/3/#post336175

AZDuffman's thread was referred to as being "garbage". One could argue that this is also an insult. For example, if I referred to the HOT HOT HOT GOGO BOYS thread as "garbage", I'm pretty sure that the OP would get offended.

Quote:

Axel, are you dyslexic? Should we be calling you Wolf?


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/17295-i-need-to-know-the-mathematical-calculation/10/#post336793

Asking somebody if they are dyslexic (even if done in jest) could be taken as an insult. To use an analogy, if I asked a member if they were bipolar, I doubt they would like it. (Before someone interjects and states that AxelWolf did not take offense at the joke, I must point out that neither bw nor Twirdman had expressed offense at my humorous comments.)

Quote:

I'm beginning to think dj needs a tramp stamp on the base of his spine. Perhaps a street sign: "One Way: Do Not Enter"


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/17406-mandalay-bay-fined/2/#post339019

Once again, a harmless joke, but if this poster can get away with asking people if they are "dyslexic" and telling others that they should get a "One Way: Do Not Enter" tattoo above their derriere, then what's the harm in joking about someone being "shifty" (as in "shifting" their argumentative positions)?

However, the most interesting observation of all is that the above posts were written by you. Even more surprisingly, in the first example (where you sarcastically implied that LarryS doesn't have any common sense), you wrote that just one day prior to suspending me for saying "Einstein" and "intellectually dishonest".

How's that for irony?

__________________________________________________


Meanwhile, ams288 made some derogatory comments as well. You participated in the same thread, so I assume you read his remarks before locking the thread, yet the "Be civil...NO insults" rule was neither enforced nor was a warning issued.

Here are the offending posts:

Quote: ams288 to Beethoven9th

What a stupid, stupid question.


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/glbt-corner/17219-gay-marraige-gay-rights/12/#post336404

Quote: ams288 to Beethoven9th

you're just a common lowlife who puts words in other people's mouths.


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/glbt-corner/17219-gay-marraige-gay-rights/3/#post336502

Quote: ams288 to Beethoven9th

It's justified to call a person a lowlife when they've called you a hypocrite based on nothing but their sad imagination.


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/glbt-corner/17219-gay-marraige-gay-rights/3/#post336526

Quote: ams288 to Beethoven9th

otherwise I will be justified in referring to you as a lowlife liar


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/glbt-corner/17219-gay-marraige-gay-rights/3/#post336585

Three instances (in the same thread) of a member calling another member a "lowlife". Again, you locked the thread, so I assume that you read all of these posts, yet they were ignored. I can understand one of these insults slipping by, but three?

Also, compare these 2 quotes:

Quote: ams288 to Beethoven9th

YOU, sir, are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.

Result: Pass


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/glbt-corner/17219-gay-marraige-gay-rights/15/#post336537

Quote: Beethoven9th

But you people are intellectually dishonest and won't even admit that I didn't even use the words "predisposed" or "guaranteed"!

Result: Suspension

This is the main reason why I had assumed that "intellectually dishonest" was within the forum rules. It's very confusing to members when they see a comment on the board, figure it's OK to say the same thing themselves, but then they get punished for it while other members get off scot-free. This gives the appearance of selective enforcement.

I haven't had the time to go through other members' posts for additional examples, but I know they exist, and I can look into it further, if need be. I'm sure s2dbaker's posts will be a treasure trove.

(Before somebody brings up the fact that s2dbaker got suspended along with me, I would like to remind them that he got suspended by a different moderator who didn't see the rule violation until much, much later. The moderator who suspended me saw s2's rule violation before locking the thread, ignored it, and instead gave s2 some helpful advice saying: "please at least label it [RE: sarcasm] as such if you must say it in the first place".

I sure wish I had gotten friendly advice like "please at least label it...if you must say it in the first place": https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/17450-the-lgbt-military-shower-debate/11/#post342043 )

(And I know that someone will also bring up the fact that ams288 got suspended for calling me a "bigot", but I will again point out that he was punished by a different moderator who didn't see the violation until much later.)

I do want to add that my goal here is NOT to get ams288 or s2dbaker suspended. I merely want to highlight the fact that you suspended me for using "Einstein" and "intellectually dishonest", while ignoring violations that were far worse (such as "lowlife liar" & an ugly, ugly rape joke aimed at djatc).

___________________________________


At first I didn't know what to make of such (apparent) inconsistencies, but then I remembered this post, which seems to acknowledge selective enforcement of the rules:

Quote: beachbumbabs

Nareed has more moderator support than she will ever know or likely acknowledge


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/17308-need-for-clear-dt-wov-rules/2/#post336608

My question is, why does Nareed get "more moderator support" than the rest of us? Are ams288 and s2dbaker also on the whitelist? For that matter, are you on the whitelist too? I'm pretty sure I'm not.

To illustrate:

Quote: Nareed

Ok, Einstein. But it takes days of visiting computer supply stores in downtown Mexico City to get the components.


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/casual-corner/14308-windows-8-must-be-destroyed/8/#post253175

Quote: Nareed

Why are you discussing your deity in a gambling forum, Einstein?


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/casual-corner/6443-does-god-exist/10/#post90698

With this in mind, I had thought that "Einstein" was OK to say, but that appears to be true only for members who receive "more moderator support than they will ever know or likely acknowledge".

____________________________________


In closing, I would like to repeat that I am neither questioning the forum rules themselves nor appealing my suspension. I am also NOT arguing that others should be suspended just because I was. I'm simply bringing up selective enforcement because it is an issue that is relevant to everybody on the board.

I also want to repeat that I went to great lengths to cite references to support everything I've said, so please do not mistake this post for a lengthy, gratuitous rant. Rather, this is an inquiry into: (1) whether or not a moderator should set an example for the forum OR if they are exempt from the rules, and (2) why members at large are prohibited from saying things like "Einstein" and "intellectually dishonest", while those who receive "more moderator support" get a pass for more serious offensives (e.g., calling someone a "lowlife liar" three times in the same thread).

Thank you for listening.

Stay well, and I wish it all for you...hey hey

wow that isnt too long, I bet one of these days when we get 20 feet of snow and still have power, I'll read it

Of course it is selective enforcement. It's like referees at an NHL game. Sometimes they let things go, and sometimes they don't.

First, we've been told that those members with more posts are held to a higher standard than those with fewer posts. So, ams' insults and derogatory remarks are held to a lower standard than like remarks from members with more posts.

Second, I feel that your "volume of work" generally comes across as quite argumentative and derogatory. You skirt the line a great deal of the time, I feel, falling just short of a blatant insult, but insulting none-the-less. I was banned a couple of years ago for a remark that I felt wasn't bad at all compared to what others had posted, but I was being held to a higher standard.

Quote: Beethoven

But first, I must implore everyone who is reading, please do not view this post as a childish, vengeful rant, for I have gone through painstaking efforts to cite specific posts/quotes in order to support my positions rather than leave myself open to the charge that I am simply making unfounded accusations.

Also, I want everybody to know from the outset that I am NOT:

1) appealing my suspension
2) questioning the forum rules themselves
3) arguing that the rules shouldn't be enforced

You've told us what not to view or what you aren't doing... so what ARE you trying to say?

This forum is governed by the moderators, who can do with us as they will. This, like Obama's regime, is not a democracy.

Quote: boymimbo

so what ARE you trying to say?

Please read the post. It was clearly stated at the end.


Edited to add:

Quote: boymimbo

So, ams' insults and derogatory remarks are held to a lower standard than like remarks from members with more posts.

So members with fewer posts can call other members "lowlife liars" three times in the same thread with no repercussions? Thank god you don't run the forum, my friend!

Quote: Beethoven9th

Please read the post. It was clearly stated at the end.

I read your post. You could have just asked the question.

Quote:

But first, I must implore everyone who is reading, please do not view this post as a childish, vengeful rant, for I have gone through painstaking efforts to cite specific posts/quotes in order to support my positions rather than leave myself open to the charge that I am simply making unfounded accusations.

Also, I want everybody to know from the outset that I am NOT:

1) appealing my suspension
2) questioning the forum rules themselves
3) arguing that the rules shouldn't be enforced

Restate:

I am going to give a number of example where members posted things to cite specific posts/quotes in order to support my position, which is:

1) I feel that my suspension is unfair.
2) Rules should be enforced evenly among all members.
3) The terms of what an insult is (or any other rule violation) should be well defined and applied equally to everyone.

...

Quote: boymimbo

This forum is governed by the moderators, who can do with us as they will. This, like Obama's regime, is not a democracy.

I have higher expectations of them than I do of Obama's regime!

Quote: RonC

I have higher expectations of them than I do of Obama's regime!

...had to throw in a bone so that Beethoven would feel better. Getting banned once is a badge of honor. It shows that you care.

Quote: boymimbo

I read your post.

Then there was no need to ask your initial question.

B9, that was a comprehensive and well written post.

I don't have answers to everything you stated, hopefully someone does. You bring up what I think has been at the heart of people trepidation about the "new" forum standards. I would like to address a few of your points.

I'm loosely breaking your post into
1-Thesis statement: But first, ... to every member of the forum.
2-Background: Before I get into that, ... Harmless mistake (or so I thought).
3-A selection BBB's recent comments: Let me return ... How's that for irony?
4-Some comparable examples: Meanwhile, ams288 ... aimed at djatc
5-More moderator support: At first I didn't know ... end of Nareed's second quote
6-Conclusion: In closing, I would ... hey hey

[Wow, I just reread your post. That was extraordinary. I find it one of the best written and reasoned posts not related to math/gambling I have seen on this site. Well done.]

As I said I can't address all of those but I can address a few.
3) Some of those comments (the first 3) came from much larger posts which I feel when considered completely and in context were not insulting.
A, first quote) She is saying that Larry's passion is overpowering his decorum as an admin
B, second quote) At page 22 of circular thread she is suggesting it is time for everyone to call it a day and let the thread die
C, third quote) She finds a thread to be of little value and is announcing her intention to leave it. In the overwhelming majority of threads, insulting a thread is IMO not an insult to the starter, as it was not an insult in this case.
D, fifth quote) She did give it the smiley face, which apparently means joke and "this post is not serious" (BTW I don't particularly like this bylaw, but it seems to be ingrained so I go with it.) It appears none of your posts she cited had such an emoticon so I think they were taken at face value.

4) I think there is a tendency to let each thread get its own slightly different set of tonal guidelines. These guidelines are determined by the posters in it. In the case of an argument, if one side "raises its volume" by shifting to a slightly more insulting tone it is natural for the other side to do the same. This results in the over escalation you point to. That thread had a very argumentative tone (as was predicted by Face in the second post in the thread). I think this is something we as members and moderators should be more wary of.

5) There are two points here. First, BBB's does not say Nareed gets more support than others, it says she gets more than she will ever know or acknowledge. Second, both of the Nareed's posts you quoted come from before the "new" forum rules.

Again, I respect the completeness, coherence, and intelligence of your post. Those are some of my thoughts on your points. I hope others will also contribute. I have observed that the management here is open minded to customer compliments/complaints. I think together we can all make this into a place where not only we can find interesting information but feel comfortable and welcome.

I suspect the other mods may want to answer for themselves, so I'll remind you that this is just my opinion with no outside influence. But several points have been brought up, some of which I think I can answer for and will do so now.

First, on the perceived unfairness. Like boymimbo just offered, there is a bias involving membership length. Handed down by Wiz himself, he stated the longer you are here, the shorter your leash. I think it would be fair to say that he believes that having been here for a spell means you should have no question as to what is expected regarding conduct. As boymimbo stated, he himself got dinged for a relatively mild comment, and said suspension was precisely because of his tenure.

Also, keep in mind the job we few in green are asked to perform. In many ways, it reminds me of my days in Surveillance. You have a thousand things going on and only 3 people manning a room. Obviously, you'll not catch everything immediately, and some things you won't catch it all. Proof of this was a recent suspension I handed down. I noticed what I believed to be an insult, yet didn't notice the response from the insult which itself contained an insult, until another member pointed it out. That's just the nature of the beast. Not to mention that in addition to being admins, we're also members. While I wished to "give back" and help with keeping this place tidy, I still like to read, write, and argue my own positions. As such, I'm not always "on the clock". I miss stuff. We miss stuff. We're not perfect.

Of course things aren't going to be fair. We don't have a large body of police. We don't have a 100 page document full of lawyer speak to denote the rules and regs. We don't have tens of unbiased, trained judges to hear every case. It's not a democracy. If you've been here awhile, you'll notice Wiz rarely but occasionally goes on banning sprees just because he's in a bad mood and has low tolerance. Personally, I don't like to ban, period, rather choosing to speak to the person in an attempt to defuse the situation. But like Wiz, I sometimes feel the condition of the forum reaches a sort of critical mass, where there's just too many little fires here and there, and I can't take that same care that I normally would. That change in my patience, that lack of my ability to sort everything out, only adds to the unfairness as people get dinged on Tuesday for something that someone else got away with on Sunday. It's not fair. But it is what it is. The best way to avoid having an issue is, again, to steer clear of the rules instead of tip toeing that line.

Regarding your examples posted of similar infractions that received no action, that is a result of the evolution of the rules. As you'll see if you read the rules, the no insult policy was amended on 2/23/14 to state that no insults will be tolerated whatsoever. Just like you, I had questions as what exactly that meant. Does intent matter? Malice? If two guys are just busting on each other in jest, "guy talk", is that still an insult? It wasn't until 3/17/14 that LarryS engaged Wiz in a conversation here that Wiz spelled out exactly what he meant and PM'd me (and I assume all mods) that this was the policy. As you can see, all your examples posted of similar insults occurred previous to that clarification, whereas yours occurred after. I could understand if you think that's unfair, that no large announcement was made, but I'll say it again... steer clear of the line, and there would be no problem.

Now, I'm gonna take a risk here. You and I have spoken in private, I believe we have each other's mutual respect. As I'm sure you saw, I embarrassed myself heavily yesterday. But I still wished for input and critique, no matter how agonizing, so I could learn and move forward. I will do the same here for you, not to put you on blast, but as an exchange of information to hopefully make us all better in the future.

I personally agree with boymimbo's opinion of your posting technique. I don't mind that you are argumentative, a fire starter, or a pot stirrer. In fact, I rather enjoy it. You certainly inspire a lot of dialog and discussion. But what put you on my radar from an admin perspective is the tactics you use. It all comes down to the whole "attack the writing, not the writer" rule.

If you engage rxwine and you believe he is avoiding your point by going off on a tangent, you absolutely should address that to bring it back on point. You can state that his counterpoint is a tangent not related to the topic, you can state he never addressed your question. But referring to him as "Mr. Tangent" is sort of childish and insulting. It's beneath someone who has the intelligence to make a good, strong argument. Ditto that for Twirdman. Believing that he shifts the topic is well within your right to address, and you can do so similar to the example I posted about rxwine. You should address failures to answer your argument and defend your points. But calling him "shifty" is in that same vein of inappropriateness. And when it comes to sexuality, someone's offering of a personal detail does not necessarily mean it's open season on it. I think you were well within your rights to question it, as he brought it up. However, his statement that he did not wish to speak on it further should be the end of it, completely. Continuing to pester him, referring to him as "the asexual", or bringing it up in future posts at random serves no purpose other than to rile and inflame.

Again, it is not my desire to put you on blast or otherwise single you out. There are plenty of other examples of members skirting the line, and I suspect their future transgressions will be addressed in a similar matter. But, since you asked for a sort of clarification, and since I believe we have a previous mutual respect, I hoped I could just point out exactly what I felt without having you take it personal. I also hope it serves to inform everyone else of how at least this admin would hope things run in the future.

Face,

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. It's early here in Vegas so I'm still kind of groggy, and I'll have to come back to answer more thoroughly when I'm fully awake. lol! :)


But I will quickly say:

Quote: Face

I believe we have each other's mutual respect...

since I believe we have a previous mutual respect, I hoped I could just point out exactly what I felt without having you take it personal.

Absolutely. Nothing taken personally at all. In fact, your message confirms my respect for you as a member/moderator.

Quote: Face

But referring to him as "Mr. Tangent" is sort of childish and insulting...

Continuing to pester him, referring to him as "the asexual", or bringing it up in future posts at random serves no purpose other than to rile and inflame...

Just for the record, I have not called anyone "Mr. Tangent" or "the asexual" since the forum rules were amended.

Likewise, I'm sure you have also noticed that I have stayed away from any conversations with gr8player since then.

_____________________________________

Again, thank you for your feedback. :)

(Hopefully, somebody can address the moderator behavior I cited in my initial post—behavior which occurred after the forum rules were amended)

Take care!

Quote: Face

I suspect the other mods may want to answer for themselves, so I'll remind you that this is just my opinion with no outside influence. But several points have been brought up, some of which I think I can answer for and will do so now.

First, on the perceived unfairness. Like boymimbo just offered, there is a bias involving membership length. Handed down by Wiz himself, he stated the longer you are here, the shorter your leash. I think it would be fair to say that he believes that having been here for a spell means you should have no question as to what is expected regarding conduct. As boymimbo stated, he himself got dinged for a relatively mild comment, and said suspension was precisely because of his tenure.

Also, keep in mind the job we few in green are asked to perform. In many ways, it reminds me of my days in Surveillance. You have a thousand things going on and only 3 people manning a room. Obviously, you'll not catch everything immediately, and some things you won't catch it all. Proof of this was a recent suspension I handed down. I noticed what I believed to be an insult, yet didn't notice the response from the insult which itself contained an insult, until another member pointed it out. That's just the nature of the beast. Not to mention that in addition to being admins, we're also members. While I wished to "give back" and help with keeping this place tidy, I still like to read, write, and argue my own positions. As such, I'm not always "on the clock". I miss stuff. We miss stuff. We're not perfect.

Of course things aren't going to be fair. We don't have a large body of police. We don't have a 100 page document full of lawyer speak to denote the rules and regs. We don't have tens of unbiased, trained judges to hear every case. It's not a democracy. If you've been here awhile, you'll notice Wiz rarely but occasionally goes on banning sprees just because he's in a bad mood and has low tolerance. Personally, I don't like to ban, period, rather choosing to speak to the person in an attempt to defuse the situation. But like Wiz, I sometimes feel the condition of the forum reaches a sort of critical mass, where there's just too many little fires here and there, and I can't take that same care that I normally would. That change in my patience, that lack of my ability to sort everything out, only adds to the unfairness as people get dinged on Tuesday for something that someone else got away with on Sunday. It's not fair. But it is what it is. The best way to avoid having an issue is, again, to steer clear of the rules instead of tip toeing that line.

Regarding your examples posted of similar infractions that received no action, that is a result of the evolution of the rules. As you'll see if you read the rules, the no insult policy was amended on 2/23/14 to state that no insults will be tolerated whatsoever. Just like you, I had questions as what exactly that meant. Does intent matter? Malice? If two guys are just busting on each other in jest, "guy talk", is that still an insult? It wasn't until 3/17/14 that LarryS engaged Wiz in a conversation here that Wiz spelled out exactly what he meant and PM'd me (and I assume all mods) that this was the policy. As you can see, all your examples posted of similar insults occurred previous to that clarification, whereas yours occurred after. I could understand if you think that's unfair, that no large announcement was made, but I'll say it again... steer clear of the line, and there would be no problem.

Now, I'm gonna take a risk here. You and I have spoken in private, I believe we have each other's mutual respect. As I'm sure you saw, I embarrassed myself heavily yesterday. But I still wished for input and critique, no matter how agonizing, so I could learn and move forward. I will do the same here for you, not to put you on blast, but as an exchange of information to hopefully make us all better in the future.

I personally agree with boymimbo's opinion of your posting technique. I don't mind that you are argumentative, a fire starter, or a pot stirrer. In fact, I rather enjoy it. You certainly inspire a lot of dialog and discussion. But what put you on my radar from an admin perspective is the tactics you use. It all comes down to the whole "attack the writing, not the writer" rule.

If you engage rxwine and you believe he is avoiding your point by going off on a tangent, you absolutely should address that to bring it back on point. You can state that his counterpoint is a tangent not related to the topic, you can state he never addressed your question. But referring to him as "Mr. Tangent" is sort of childish and insulting. It's beneath someone who has the intelligence to make a good, strong argument. Ditto that for Twirdman. Believing that he shifts the topic is well within your right to address, and you can do so similar to the example I posted about rxwine. You should address failures to answer your argument and defend your points. But calling him "shifty" is in that same vein of inappropriateness. And when it comes to sexuality, someone's offering of a personal detail does not necessarily mean it's open season on it. I think you were well within your rights to question it, as he brought it up. However, his statement that he did not wish to speak on it further should be the end of it, completely. Continuing to pester him, referring to him as "the asexual", or bringing it up in future posts at random serves no purpose other than to rile and inflame.

Again, it is not my desire to put you on blast or otherwise single you out. There are plenty of other examples of members skirting the line, and I suspect their future transgressions will be addressed in a similar matter. But, since you asked for a sort of clarification, and since I believe we have a previous mutual respect, I hoped I could just point out exactly what I felt without having you take it personal. I also hope it serves to inform everyone else of how at least this admin would hope things run in the future.

I'm wondering if a simple S**t happens we may jump the gun sometimes or a oops my bad Ill make it up to you on the next one, would work? If we lost B9 due to a nuke on this site it would be HORRIBLE at best. I always look forward to seeing a post of his. He is one of the most interesting reads on the site. Shorter leash for a major contributor? That just sounds ass-backwards in this situation. I get the fact that a new person may need some leeway when it comes to not knowing a particular rule. But letting newbs spew garbage systems for simple trolling reasons. really confuses me.

I know that BBB is a level headed nice dam fair person as are most of the mods. This may be whats confusing B9. He may think BBB does not love him anymore.

PS after B9 last post, I now suspect he has worked for the CIA at some point in his life.

Over at Casinomeister, Bryan Bailey seems to do all of the moderation of his board without much drama. He is former military who taught elementary school for a while.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Likewise, I'm sure you have also noticed that I have stayed away from any conversations with gr8player since then.

Gr8 play B9 that's like leaving the prisoners alone to guard the prison all day.

Quote: AxelWolf

Shorter leash for a major contributor? That just sounds ass-backwards in this situation.

Yep, if regular members have a shorter leash than new members, then wouldn't it be logical to assume that moderators should have an even shorter leash than both? After all, why should they be able to get away with calling members a "lost cause" or implying that a member has no "common sense" when the rest of us would be serving time for such offenses?

Quote: AxelWolf

Gr8 play B9 that's like leaving the prisoners alone to guard the prison all day.

Touché! (haha)

Quote: AxelWolf

PS after B9 last post, I now suspect he has worked for the CIA at some point in his life.

LOL!! :) :) :)

Quote: teliot

Over at Casinomeister, Bryan Bailey seems to do all of the moderation of his board without much drama. He is former military who taught elementary school for a while.

Does Casinomeister have as much political discussion as here?

The other forum I post at regularly, Vegas Message Board, clearly forbids political discussion and such posts are simply deleted. And yes, GLBT's in the shower is still "political discussion". This is a rule that makes that forum likely a lot, lot easier to moderate.

Edit: Apparently I made the wrong guess on which thread B9 got suspended in. I finally started to read the Phelps thread. I liked it when the mods attached the offending post for easy reference. Some of them are fun to read, imo.

Quote: teliot

Over at Casinomeister, Bryan Bailey seems to do all of the moderation of his board without much drama. He is former military who taught elementary school for a while.

OHH you mean that site that's chalked full of casino adds and advertisements including a casino spam section and has been known to sweep corrupt casino incidents under the rug? I heard roomers of that site being a complete a sell out. I have known a few people who have been silenced there.

Hows the information quality and diversity over there?

Quote: tringlomane

Does Casinomeister have as much political discussion as here?

Every board has a comparable set of issues. Ergo Godwin's law.

Quote: AxelWolf

OHH you mean that site that's chalked full of casino adds and advertisements including a casino spam section and has been known to sweep corrupt casino incidents under the rug? I heard roomers of that site being a complete a sell out. I have known a few people who have been silenced there.

Hows the information quality and diversity over there?

FYI If I get a chance I will try to find my username and password and track down a post I made there a while back, where I simply said Bovada has always paid me with not problems and they had good customer support. My post was deleted. I asked why and I never got a reply.

Quote: teliot

Every board has a comparable set of issues. Ergo Godwin's law.

Issues? No my GF has "issues" with me. They have corruption and are all about the money at the players expense. You really are comparing apples and oranges.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Hello, beachbumbabs, I trust all is well with you. I am posting this message here because a discussion related to the enforcement of forum rules is best suited for this thread..... <snip>

And this is why I will never become a moderator, though no one has asked (here). Nothing wrong with your post B9. But I would never want to be the policeman among friends. It is thankless. Actually it is thankless after it is impossible.

Quote: Mosca

And this is why I will never become a moderator, though no one has asked (here). Nothing wrong with your post B9. But I would never want to be the policeman among friends. It is thankless. Actually it is thankless after it is impossible.

Yeah, it's a bunch of effort. I do appreciate those that have volunteered to do it though.

Quote: Face

I personally agree with boymimbo's opinion of your posting technique. I don't mind that you are argumentative, a fire starter, or a pot stirrer. In fact, I rather enjoy it. You certainly inspire a lot of dialog and discussion. But what put you on my radar from an admin perspective is the tactics you use. It all comes down to the whole "attack the writing, not the writer" rule.

If you engage rxwine and you believe he is avoiding your point by going off on a tangent, you absolutely should address that to bring it back on point. You can state that his counterpoint is a tangent not related to the topic, you can state he never addressed your question. But referring to him as "Mr. Tangent" is sort of childish and insulting. It's beneath someone who has the intelligence to make a good, strong argument. Ditto that for Twirdman. Believing that he shifts the topic is well within your right to address, and you can do so similar to the example I posted about rxwine. You should address failures to answer your argument and defend your points. But calling him "shifty" is in that same vein of inappropriateness. And when it comes to sexuality, someone's offering of a personal detail does not necessarily mean it's open season on it. I think you were well within your rights to question it, as he brought it up. However, his statement that he did not wish to speak on it further should be the end of it, completely. Continuing to pester him, referring to him as "the asexual", or bringing it up in future posts at random serves no purpose other than to rile and inflame.

I think this sum's up why I cringed when I started reading some of your posts, B9. Remember, on most issues I agree with the content of your posts. And on the most recent disagreement, the gay shower thread, we went at each other, but solely based on the merits of the subject. I think if you remove the "Mr. tangent, Mr. Shifty, Mr. asexual" type references you would be the most interesting read here..... You are rarely outmaneuvered when it comes to using real facts to support your arguments. I think if I was the debate teacher, I would have given the decision to you over me in our hotly contested battle!
Welcome back!

Quote: Face

As I'm sure you saw, I embarrassed myself heavily yesterday.

Aw hell. What juicy piece did I miss by choosing to go on an all day Arrested Development marathon repeat? (Got up to episode 14, season 1.)

Quote: Beethoven9th

Face,

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. It's early here in Vegas so I'm still kind of groggy, and I'll have to come back to answer more thoroughly when I'm fully awake. lol! :)


But I will quickly say:

Absolutely. Nothing taken personally at all. In fact, your message confirms my respect for you as a member/moderator.


Just for the record, I have not called anyone "Mr. Tangent" or "the asexual" since the forum rules were amended.

Likewise, I'm sure you have also noticed that I have stayed away from any conversations with gr8player since then.

_____________________________________

Again, thank you for your feedback. :)

(Hopefully, somebody can address the moderator behavior I cited in my initial post—behavior which occurred after the forum rules were amended)

Take care!

Phew! I always worry when addressing someone directly (as Buzz says - Anytime someone says 'don't take it personal', take it personal =p). I'm glad my faith that we would remain respectful adults and you would see my intentions was confirmed. Respect added =)

And to confirm, yes, I have noticed a pullback not only from you, but all members in this era of trepidation. The pullback is appreciated, although I'd like to move past the trepidation.

I think many on this forum like some drama, myself included. It's just when it gets silly that I, and I think most of the mods and many of the members, get frustrated. I don't expect anyone to cease speaking, I don't expect anyone to avoid each other, and I don't expect anyone to see eye to eye. I'd just hope that when members clash in the future, we can stick to the conduct of the site. Argue, argue vehemently, if that does ya fine. But argue the point, not the person.

@Axel - An admission of a mistake works at times, and I have seen it done several times. I got lambasted yesterday; I basically wrote a novella in response that amount to little more than "whoops, sorry". I know Wiz also frequently responds to member input to decisions he's made. I like to think we're all pretty open to input, are aren't afraid to say when we're wrong.

As far as the short leash goes, I think it's a great rule. That doesn't mean newbs spew garbage without reproach. In fact, I couldn't list the number of first time posters that you and most here have never even glimpsed because I deleted their posts and nuked their profile within minutes of their first post. The short leash statute doesn't translate as you are describing. I just means that if a new, valid poster breaks a rule, they are often remind first that there are rules and are directed toward them rather than an outright ban. Whereas a long time member should be well aware of said rules and has no excuse.

Quote: Mosca

And this is why I will never become a moderator, though no one has asked (here). Nothing wrong with your post B9. But I would never want to be the policeman among friends. It is thankless. Actually it is thankless after it is impossible.

Oh, ye of little faith =) I've learned a lot in the last two days. A lot has changed in the last two days. It seems, at the moment, everyone sort of had it out and are now sort of basking in the glow of understanding and renewal. I feel like a step has been taken, and in the right direction. That's neither thankless, nor impossible =)

Quote: Mosca

Aw hell. What juicy piece did I miss by choosing to go on an all day Arrested Development marathon repeat? (Got up to episode 14, season 1.)

/sigh

Don't take it personal, but this is not a philosophy forum. Bounce who-ever for what-ever.

Quote: Face

/sigh

Feh. That was nothing. Don't worry about it. Telling her to follow him doesn't change her winning or losing at all, so it was immaterial.

And regarding me being the policeman, it just wouldn't work for me. I'd get to in to it, and then hate it.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: Face

I personally agree with boymimbo's opinion of your posting technique. I don't mind that you are argumentative, a fire starter, or a pot stirrer. In fact, I rather enjoy it. You certainly inspire a lot of dialog and discussion. But what put you on my radar from an admin perspective is the tactics you use. It all comes down to the whole "attack the writing, not the writer" rule.

If you engage rxwine and you believe he is avoiding your point by going off on a tangent, you absolutely should address that to bring it back on point. You can state that his counterpoint is a tangent not related to the topic, you can state he never addressed your question. But referring to him as "Mr. Tangent" is sort of childish and insulting. It's beneath someone who has the intelligence to make a good, strong argument. Ditto that for Twirdman. Believing that he shifts the topic is well within your right to address, and you can do so similar to the example I posted about rxwine. You should address failures to answer your argument and defend your points. But calling him "shifty" is in that same vein of inappropriateness. And when it comes to sexuality, someone's offering of a personal detail does not necessarily mean it's open season on it. I think you were well within your rights to question it, as he brought it up. However, his statement that he did not wish to speak on it further should be the end of it, completely. Continuing to pester him, referring to him as "the asexual", or bringing it up in future posts at random serves no purpose other than to rile and inflame.

You are rarely outmaneuvered when it comes to using real facts to support your arguments. I think if I was the debate teacher, I would have given the decision to you over me in our hotly contested battle!
Welcome back!

Can you imagine if he had 2 weeks to come up with something?

Quote: Face

[
As far as the short leash goes, I think it's a great rule. That doesn't mean newbs spew garbage without reproach. In fact, I couldn't list the number of first time posters that you and most here have never even glimpsed because I deleted their posts and nuked their profile within minutes of their first post. The short leash statute doesn't translate as you are describing. I just means that if a new, valid poster breaks a rule, they are often remind first that there are rules and are directed toward them rather than an outright ban. Whereas a long time member should be well aware of said rules and has no excuse.
]

Fair enough but I'm still trying to fig out why b9 was suspended.

Quote: AxelWolf

Can you imagine if he had 2 weeks to come up with something?

Just shoot me. Nah, j/k. ;-)

Quote: Beethoven9th

Yep, if regular members have a shorter leash than new members, then wouldn't it be logical to assume that moderators should have an even shorter leash than both? After all, why should they be able to get away with calling members a "lost cause" or implying that a member has no "common sense" when the rest of us would be serving time for such offenses?

NOTE: This is for general consumption and not a reply to B-9 personally, he just said it last.

Maybe instead of "shorter leash" it would be better to say, "held to a higher standard?" While I am the last to suggest more touchy-feeley words, I will make an exception.

Like if you are an officer in the military or manager where you work. You are in a leadership role and expected to know and act better? While there are not official "leaders" here on the board other than the moderators, there actually are. You know who you are or might be. Your behavior drives the behavior of the new folks here, even if you do not realize it. Same as if you are around children and do something, you will often see them do the same thing or try it, just because "the big people did it!"

I take it as a point of pride that I am being held to a higher standard, thought I try to do it on my own not just here but everywhere. I consider it "manly" behavior (yes, I know there are a few women here but take the point as intended.) I encourage any and all to try it, you'll feel better about yourself.

Quote: Face

Phew! I always worry when addressing someone directly (as Buzz says - Anytime someone says 'don't take it personal', take it personal =p). I'm glad my faith that we would remain respectful adults and you would see my intentions was confirmed. Respect added =)

Thank you! :)

Quote: SOOPOO

You are rarely outmaneuvered when it comes to using real facts to support your arguments. I think if I was the debate teacher, I would have given the decision to you over me in our hotly contested battle!
Welcome back!

Thank you, too! :)

Quote: endermike

both of the Nareed's posts you quoted come from before the "new" forum rules.

Point well taken, endermike. However, the following post about "Einstein" was written by a moderator after the forum rules were amended, not before:

Quote: Snipped from my earlier post:

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: rxwine

What about comparing them to Einstein?

Such as, "Hey Einstein, that's not still not true no matter how many times you say it."

Edgy. I can see S&W saying it to the nearest Muppet. But still obviously meant as a sarcastic attack. So jury's out for me.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/poker/17181-deathmatch-for-10k-paisiello-v-anonimuss-split-from-betting-when-small-blind/35/#post335846

My question is, how is "Einstein" a clear violation of forum rules when you admitted yourself that the "jury's out for me"? I had used your own words as a guideline and thought I was safe.

____________________________________________________________

Quote: AZDuffman

Like if you are an officer in the military or manager where you work. You are in a leadership role and expected to know and act better? While there are not official "leaders" here on the board other than the moderators, there actually are. You know who you are or might be. Your behavior drives the behavior of the new folks here, even if you do not realize it. Same as if you are around children and do something, you will often see them do the same thing or try it, just because "the big people did it!"

+100

AZ, ftw! :)

Quote: odiousgambit

wow that isnt too long, I bet one of these days when we get 20 feet of snow and still have power, I'll read it

Bwahahahahahahaha, my thoughts exactly.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Point well taken, endermike. However, I'm still trying to find an explanation for the following post about "Einstein" from a moderator (which was written after the forum rules were amended):

Quote: Snipped from my earlier post:

Quote: BeachBumBabs

Edgy. I can see S&W saying it to the nearest Muppet. But still obviously meant as a sarcastic attack. So jury's out for me. I'll let the Wizard call it, if he will.

I myself use "no sh%&, Sherlock" in much the same way, but not on this board.

My question is, how is "Einstein" a clear violation of forum rules when you admitted yourself that the "jury's out for me"? I had used your own words as a guideline and thought I was safe.

I read the phrase "jury's out for me" as "I'm not yet sure if that is OK or not." So as I read it was a dangerous wording to use until someone made a ruing on it. Looks like the ruling came down: not ok. Somebody had to be the test case. Thanks for taking that for the rest of us.

Quote: endermike

I read the phrase "jury's out for me" as "I'm not yet sure if that is OK or not."

OK, but now we're relying on your interpretation of a moderator's statement saying that they had no interpretation regarding whether or not a comment complies with the definitive interpretation of the forum rules.

See how this causes confusion for members??

Also, FYI, most people on other forums do not get suspended for "Einstein", so it's not like it's totally unreasonable for a person to think it would be OK to use here, especially in light of the post I just cited.

Quote: Beethoven9th

OK, but now we're relying on your interpretation of a moderator's statement saying that they had no interpretation regarding whether or not a comment complies with the definitive interpretation of the forum rules.

See how this causes confusion for members??

Also, FYI, most people on other forums do not get suspended for "Einstein", so it's not like it's totally unreasonable for a person to think it would be OK to use here, especially in light of the post I just cited.

I got suspended for jokingly asking if I was being asked on a date when someone offered to "meet me" somewhere in a hidden fight insinuation. Too much moderation here now in my opinion.


ZCore13

Quote: Beethoven9th

OK, but now we're relying on your interpretation of a moderator's statement saying that they had no interpretation regarding whether or not a comment complies with the definitive interpretation of the forum rules.

See how this may cause confusion for members??

Most definitely. English is an imperfect language, however I believe the most common reading of the quote in question implied caution was in order. When I'm in doubt I would try to err on the side of caution if you worry about saying something over the line.

Quote:

FYI, most people on other forums do not get suspended for "Einstein", so it's not like it's totally unreasonable for a person to think it would be OK to use here, especially in light of the post I just cited.

Totally true. However most forums don't have nearly as high a standard of decorum as this one. That's one of the reasons I spend time here.

We only need one moderator so let's get rid of the other two. That would still leave three people in authority. Hold an election so the members vote can for moderator. Let those who want the job campaign for it.

To get by with less, simply change the flag option. Call it a check this post option. When activated it sends the questionable post directly to the moderator for instant review. No muss, no fuss.

Quote: 1BB

We only need one moderator so let's get rid of the other two. That would still leave three people in authority. Hold an election so the members vote can for moderator. Let those who want the job campaign for it.

To get by with less, simply change the flag option. Call it a check this post option. When activated it sends the questionable post directly to the moderator for instant review. No muss, no fuss.

The main reason for having additional Moderators is because I couldn't be on all of the time. On my days off from work, for example, I'm on maybe once that day and sometimes not at all. I'll be in Vegas from 4/13-4/18, might not be on at all while I am there, it'd be the only time in three years my wife and I have required more than one laptop, (so we only have one) but she's at school and posting from my phone is a pain.

If I were the only Administrator, I would probably make it a point to be on at least once per day while in Vegas, but that's not the point.

Here's a compromise: Out of myself, Wizard, BeachBumBabs and Face, generally three of us are on every day, so what if we had, "Temporary Suspensions," in which a Member could be Suspended and the Suspending Administrator PM'ed the other Administrators with the Suspension and proposed ban length, unless at least one other Administrator agrees within twelve hours, (and both the original Administrator and Assenting Administrator make public their opinion) the ban is automatically lifted.

Would something like that work? It seems the main issue people are having is that they don't see the consistency in Moderation that there once was here...and of course there will be slightly less consistency...because you no longer have one person doing 90% of the Suspensions!

Quote: Mission146

Here's a compromise:

1) "Too many cooks spoil the broth," Popular Saying.

2) "The only way to have any law is to have as little of it as possible." Austen Heller in The Fountainhead.

For anything under 7 days there's no need for more complication. For anythign greater than 7 days, set up a contact form/email link so those suspended can appeal.

Quote: Mission146

The main reason for having additional Moderators is because I couldn't be on all of the time. On my days off from work, for example, I'm on maybe once that day and sometimes not at all. I'll be in Vegas from 4/13-4/18, might not be on at all while I am there, it'd be the only time in three years my wife and I have required more than one laptop, (so we only have one) but she's at school and posting from my phone is a pain.

If I were the only Administrator, I would probably make it a point to be on at least once per day while in Vegas, but that's not the point.

Here's a compromise: Out of myself, Wizard, BeachBumBabs and Face, generally three of us are on every day, so what if we had, "Temporary Suspensions," in which a Member could be Suspended and the Suspending Administrator PM'ed the other Administrators with the Suspension and proposed ban length, unless at least one other Administrator agrees within twelve hours, (and both the original Administrator and Assenting Administrator make public their opinion) the ban is automatically lifted.

Would something like that work? It seems the main issue people are having is that they don't see the consistency in Moderation that there once was here...and of course there will be slightly less consistency...because you no longer have one person doing 90% of the Suspensions!

Meh. It will never be consistent. Besides, we are all gamblers here.

I like the current way of doing things where people get suspended and then other people complain about it. the mods are all pretty reasonable people and sometimes they even change their minds.

Quote: Mission146

Here's a compromise: Out of myself, Wizard, BeachBumBabs and Face, generally three of us are on every day, so what if we had, "Temporary Suspensions," in which a Member could be Suspended and the Suspending Administrator PM'ed the other Administrators with the Suspension and proposed ban length, unless at least one other Administrator agrees within twelve hours, (and both the original Administrator and Assenting Administrator make public their opinion) the ban is automatically lifted.

It's an internet forum, not The United Nations. Just suspend who you think should be suspended, and overturn it if you become convinced you were wrong. Not that big a deal.

Quote: endermike

Totally true. However most forums don't have nearly as high a standard of decorum as this one. That's one of the reasons I spend time here.

An octogenarian Bible forum wouldn't have the level of decorum this one demands. Proper decorum is generally a good thing to have for the respectable types--but it's a little out of hand. The only practical solution is probably along the lines of what 1BB suggests, because a moderator's job is to moderate. What if most of us were moderators? Every other member would constantly get suspended for something by someone. I think Nareed's idea about the appeal form is good...all these people complain or applaud a suspension, but the suspendee has no voice (unless they can contact the site?).

If someone mildly, or even moderately, insults me I don't want them suspended. I'm not talking about stalking or anything like that, just off the cuff remarks. I may be offended at the time but I'll get over it very soon.

You can't always get a handle on the written word which is why I think that if many of these so called insults were made face to face they would blow over in a minute. It would be a non issue and the parties involved wouldn't dwell on it.

Quote: 1BB

If someone mildly, or even moderately, insults me I don't want them suspended. I'm not talking about stalking or anything like that, just off the cuff remarks. I may be offended at the time but I'll get over it very soon.

You can't always get a handle on the written word which is why I think that if many of these so called insults were made face to face they would blow over in a minute. It would be a non issue and the parties involved wouldn't dwell on it.

+10

Totally, totally agree.

And it still amazes me that a moderator sees a freakin' RAPE joke, acknowledges the RAPE joke, and then simply tells the guy (I'm paraphrasing here): "Oh, just label it as sarcasm if you have to say that, please!"

Huh? (And BTW, wasn't sarcasm supposed to be discouraged anyway?)

What's wrong with this picture, folks?

Quote: Mission146

Here's a compromise: Out of myself, Wizard, BeachBumBabs and Face, generally three of us are on every day, so what if we had, "Temporary Suspensions," in which a Member could be Suspended and the Suspending Administrator PM'ed the other Administrators with the Suspension and proposed ban length, unless at least one other Administrator agrees within twelve hours, (and both the original Administrator and Assenting Administrator make public their opinion) the ban is automatically lifted.

Would something like that work? It seems the main issue people are having is that they don't see the consistency in Moderation that there once was here...and of course there will be slightly less consistency...because you no longer have one person doing 90% of the Suspensions!

I don't think it is needed, not for Level 1 (3-day) anyways. And really not if we can have the warning system that seems to have unofficially (to me) seems to have popped up for minor infractions. It is like the time a woman I worked with claimed her son "didn't know why he was suspended from school." The other guys in the room and I laughed at her, as we knew when you get in that much trouble you know.

FWIW my suggestion is:

1. Give a warning for minor stuff on a first offense.
2. Make sure the flag feature means mods look at it. Keep the weight so longer term members flags "mean more" as it makes things more self-policing, a good thing.
3. 7 day suspensions or nukes have to go to the wizard or at least the star chamber you described. Think nuclear sub keys and the reason for them.

Quote: Beethoven9th

And it still amazes me that a moderator sees a freakin' RAPE joke, acknowledges the RAPE joke, and then simply tells the guy (I'm paraphrasing here): "Oh, just label it as sarcasm if you have to say that, please!"

Rape jokes are not funny. Male on male, female on male, male on female. Whatever way around you want to keep it. Even if intended as sarcasm or a joke, that sort of thing is not healthy to encourage.