Discussion about the Suspension List
Quote: rdw4potusNot true! If everyone here says that 2+2=4 and I said that 2+2=fish, I'm quite sure that I'd be mocked:-)
more likely they would tell you that 2+2 = 7:1
Quote: rdw4potusNot true! If everyone here says that 2+2=4 and I said that 2+2=fish, I'm quite sure that I'd be mocked:-)
2+2=5 for very large values of 2 :P
That's mockery, of sorts, but delivered in a friendly, joking sort of way. The thing is to keep the arguments civil.
Quote: DJTeddyBearYeah, but generally, only spammers will go thru the hoops of getting around that. Normal members will take their lumps and wait out the suspension.
Generally, I agree. But some problem users whoa re really angry and want to disrupt a forum, can go to such lengths as well. I had such a problem in an SF board I admin'd for a few years ago. Looking back on it, though, I should have banned myself, too.
Quote: mrjjjOf course I do get a kick out of a certain definition.......a person here is a 'good member' just as long they go along (agree) with the masses. Individual thought/ideas will be dealt with swiftly.Ken
I consider that to be an insult of Buzz and myself. You've been suspended for 7 days before. Let's make it 14 days this time.
Welcome back.
Quote: buzzpaffIF YOU CAN"T DO THE TIME, DON"T DO THE CRIME.
You were gone? You're back? Oh..
Quote: DanMahownyI never use the word GAY or HOMO.
I prefer FAGGOT.
Quote: KeyserCall it what you will, in science we simply refer to them as homosexuals. At one time it was referred to as a mental illness. As such I feel that we should continue to search for a cure.
if this were said about you or one of your children, would you think it was tolerable expression?
i guess it depends on the type of board you want this to be.
Let's break down the word: World English Dictionary
homosexual (ˌhəʊməʊˈsɛksjʊəl, ˌhɒm-)
n
1.
a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex
adj
2.
of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality
3.
of or relating to the same sex
Now, what's wrong with the dictionary meaning?
or
Is it because I said that I feel we should continue to search for a cure? Like it or not, some people are born wired to be a homosexual. Some would rather be like the majority of the human race, and would choose to be cured, rather than suffer. That being said, please note that I don't discriminate. I don't care whether someone is homosexual, or heterosexual. I feel it would be cruel to discriminate against them in the same way that it would be cruel to discriminate the mentally ill.
Quote: boymimboWhen you start getting into name calling and telling people off, you've crossed the Wizard's line.
Calling a spade a spade sometimes requires telling people off - logic trumps honor! The truth is to be enshrined above emotion or ego. There's no legitimacy to sharing conclusions if "feeling great" were the most important thing. We can all just sit in silence separately and just "feel" and "believe intuitively" whatever we want. Frank interactive discussion ought to assume the supremacy of objectivity and cruel logic, and I hope that the mathematically inclined and those privy to them, as most of us are, can accept and describe unpalatable Reality in good stride. I would agree that name-callings (i.e. insults?) are usually unnecessary, however. But then again, the intellectually sound are mature enough to be emotionally sturdy in the face of psychologically offensive adversaries and don't need to be so litigious as to seek to vaporize them instantly through "disciplinary sanctions". Sarcasm and witty contumely are the prerogatives of those possessing superior understanding. Which is why I don't insult; I simply don't feel qualified. So, I would never feel compelled to "report" someone who delivered to me a clever, memorable brow-beating - I'm proud of my thick skin, and if they can prove the truth of their commentaries when asked to do so, guess what - they have the immunity of Truth on their side.
And if I ever do end up "suspended" for any reason (or for no reason), it's just as well - a blog is not an addiction or a need. I've been rejected before; I can live without it.
Quote: NowTheSerpentCalling a spade a spade sometimes requires telling people off - logic trumps honor! The truth is to be enshrined above emotion or ego. There's no legitimacy to sharing conclusions if "feeling great" were the most important thing. We can all just sit in silence separately and just "feel" and "believe intuitively" whatever we want. Frank interactive discussion ought to assume the supremacy of objectivity and cruel logic, and I hope that the mathematically inclined and those privy to them, as most of us are, can accept and describe unpalatable Reality in good stride. I would agree that name-callings (i.e. insults?) are usually unnecessary, however. But then again, the intellectually sound are mature enough to be emotionally sturdy in the face of psychologically offensive adversaries and don't need to be so litigious as to seek to vaporize them instantly through "disciplinary sanctions". Sarcasm and witty contumely are the prerogatives of those possessing superior understanding. Which is why I don't insult; I simply don't feel qualified. So, I would never feel compelled to "report" someone who delivered to me a clever, memorable brow-beating - I'm proud of my thick skin, and if they can prove the truth of their commentaries when asked to do so, guess what - they have the immunity of Truth on their side.
And if I ever do end up "suspended" for any reason (or for no reason), it's just as well - a blog is not an addiction or a need. I've been rejected before; I can live without it.
I really like your last two sentences. It's a great outlook and one that I share with you.
We certainly have mathematically inclined and intellectually sound members on this forum and that's putting it mildly. Their numbers are few and their methods may differ, but they all share a few things in common. They stay on topic, they don't condescend or resort to name calling or any of the other nonsense that is becoming more prevalent here. Much to their credit they don't use this site for their own shameless self promotion. If everyone held themselves to these standards there would be no need for discipline.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have those who break the rules at the drop of a hat. When there is a disagreement or something is not understood the attacks begin. Many thoughtful posts are responded to with goofy, juvenile one or two word answers that have nothing to do with the subject of the post. It seems to me that these people have nothing helpful to contribute and just want to raise their post count.
These are a few of the reasons for suspensions. Let's hope that process remains fair and equitable to everyone.
Quote: NareedThat's BS and you know it.
Yeah Nareed, you're probably right.
Ken
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/9786-blackjack-table-dealt-joker-on-a-non-joker-table-and-voided-the-deck/3/#post147312:
Quote: wbuballa23your a douche bag... I was only asking for help I did not ask for idiots to post there thoughts or comments on whether I deserve to be compensated or not... fuck off wizardofengland... such a gay name by the way
Quote: DJTeddyBearSuspension candidate.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/9786-blackjack-table-dealt-joker-on-a-non-joker-table-and-voided-the-deck/3/#post147312:
To be fair, WOE egged him on with this rude comment:
Quote: WizardofEnglandWell the answer is, take your $235 and shut the f up!
If anything your lucky to get $235.
wbuballa23's response, on the other hand, is a different story.
Quote: cardsharkQuote: DJTeddyBearSuspension candidate.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/9786-blackjack-table-dealt-joker-on-a-non-joker-table-and-voided-the-deck/3/#post147312:
To be fair, WOE egged him on with this rude comment:
Gee, I seem to remember someone else hurling insults and using profanity and only getting a warning because she was "badgered". Did I say she?
Quote: 1BBQuote: cardsharkQuote: DJTeddyBearSuspension candidate.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/9786-blackjack-table-dealt-joker-on-a-non-joker-table-and-voided-the-deck/3/#post147312:
To be fair, WOE egged him on with this rude comment:
Gee, I seem to remember someone else hurling insults and using profanity and only getting a warning because she was "badgered". Did I say she?
Quote: HotBlondeYou're an asshole.
Gentlemen, why is it that whenever a woman wanders into this site she never lasts?
Quote: WizardGentlemen, why is it that whenever a woman wanders into this site she never lasts?
Excuse me?
Quote: NareedExcuse me?
Exception duly noted.
Quote: WizardDorothyGale has requested to be self-banned.
Gentlemen, why is it that whenever a woman wanders into this site she never lasts?
Because its all men. In the old days, the men would go to
the parlor and have cigars and drinks, while the women
had tea in the dining room. There were and are tons
of men's clubs and a few women's clubs. Men and women
do not get along well, we think differently and have
totally different interests. But the funny thing is, nobody
was as hard on HB as DG was. A man would never talk
to HB like that.
Quote: rdw4potusWas just going to say - Perhaps Nareed sets too high a bar for our female members? :-)
Nah. I just have more time to waste :P
Quote: andreaWell i have
passport
casino players card
Medical card
credit card
library card
prescription card
I'm wondering why andrea was banned today. She only had 6 posts, none of them spam or argumentative.
Quote: zippyboyI'm wondering why andrea was banned today. She only had 6 posts, none of them spam or argumentative.
I saw that, too. Hopefully, that's just what happens when a new member meets their daily posting limit?
Quote: WizardDorothyGale has requested to be self-banned.
Gentlemen, why is it that whenever a woman wanders into this site she never lasts?
Aww. I'm gonna miss DG. She had a way about her.
Quote: WizardDorothyGale has requested to be self-banned.
Gentlemen, why is it that whenever a woman wanders into this site she never lasts?
Perhaps the lack of the later is due to the near non existence of the former.
Quote: zippyboyI'm wondering why andrea was banned today. She only had 6 posts, none of them spam or argumentative.
Actually his/her last post was spam, but because I removed it, it doesn't show up in the list of posts they have made.
He/she signed up, waited several days, made some small talk during that time, and then posted the spam earlier this morning. I typically don't add spammers to the suspension list.
Quote: WizardDorothyGale has requested to be self-banned.
Gentlemen, why is it that whenever a woman wanders into this site she never lasts?
Margaret Hanilton has forgiven Dorothy Gale. Margaret has always been my heroine !
What purpose does a self-ban accomplish? Is it really like a casino self-ban where you're addicted, and need an outside influence to break the addiction?
Because of my own weight issues, and that I won't be in Vegas for the weight-in, I've been ignoring the HB Weight Loss thread, although I wish her success.Quote: EvenBob...nobody was as hard on HB as DG was.
But is that where the issue is? Is Dorothy so embarrased and/or ashamed of comments she made that she wanted the self-ban? If so, then maybe this has nothing to do with the "Gentlemen chasing out the ladies" as the Wiz implied.
Quote: JBActually his/her last post was spam, but because I removed it, it doesn't show up in the list of posts they have made.
He/she signed up, waited several days, made some small talk during that time, and then posted the spam earlier this morning. I typically don't add spammers to the suspension list.
Actually, the first post also reeked of spam material, though nothing (or little) was said about it. Why somebody would go through the motions of waiting and then posting is beyond me, but hopefully it's not a trend.
As for DG, I guess I'm not on a lot of threads she posts on, since it seems to me she had been rarely posting anyways. I agree a self-ban is a strange way of going about this, but unless she stated a specific reason against the men on this forum, I'm not sure you can lay the blame on the guys.
Still I wish her well.
I thought at first the two posts were simultaneous but now I see they were well spread apart. Both posts seem like advertising, but are placed in the Las Vegas (other) category.
I'd say that it's a non-problem considering the lack of a any posts or visits since January.
That lone respondant has an equally obscure post.
Personally, because these seem odd and not potentially problematic, I didn't bother to hit the Flag Post buttons.
Quote: WizardDorothyGale has requested to be self-banned.
Gentlemen, why is it that whenever a woman wanders into this site she never lasts?
It isn't just this site, it is forums in general. Well, it is forums where people have strong opinions in general. I've been on forums since usenet in 1991. If you ever had more than 20% women you were doing good. It could be any number of reasons. One I feel is that women bond far faster IRL than men do. You see it at an office all of the time. Heck, we had one woman at my office was sad to not be seeing women at the courthouse-and the women at the courthouse were sad to see her go. This was a courthouse we were working all of a month!
IOW, men "need" a forum more for interaction than women do.
Quote: WizardDorothyGale has requested to be self-banned.
Gentlemen, why is it that whenever a woman wanders into this site she never lasts?
This is ridiculous. Quite self serving to ask to be self-banned. If you don't like it here just go away. Woman or man.
Quote: 1BBDidn't someone else request to be banned recently?
There have been several such requests, including the infamous mkl.
Quote: SOOPOOThis is ridiculous. Quite self serving to ask to be self-banned. If you don't like it here just go away. Woman or man.
Self-ban is ludicrous. If you can't stop yourself from posting on a forum when you don't want to post anymore then you have some serious self-control problems.
1. Under protest about something I did, or didn't do. mkl is a good example.
2. Self-control problems. I think some have regretted things they wrote and didn't trust themselves to not return and do it again.
I won't say Dorothy's reason, because I assume it was meant in confidence.
Quote: Wizard
2. Self-control problems. I think some have regretted things they wrote and didn't trust themselves to not return and do it again.
If I ever decided to give up gambling, I'd almost certainly self-exclude myself from this site. Chatting with y'all is fun, and I'd miss it, but the subject matter would make it a *little bit* too hard to stay away from the casinos...:-)
I don't think I have said much on here that I would regret.
I too am a little sad to see DG go, I really liked reading her posts (and I heard from the man on the street that she made it up Red Cap (hat) faster than I did).
I know I haven't been here very long, compared to many other members, but if I may comment, the second link in your post is completely beyond the pale. I actually happen to be a Moderator at a Philosophy Forum and there is absolutely no way that someone would make an unjustified, unwarranted, unsolicited and un-called for personal attack of that nature and not receive an immediate lifetime ban dished out by yours truly.
I will admit that I have responded to some of EvenBob's posts to this point, and have even enjoyed a few of them, but I will respond to them no longer. I have absolutely no desire to associate myself with comments such as those, and by associating with the person who made that comment, I would be associating myself with the comment.
If I may be so bold, my recommendation would be an irrevocable and unappealable lifetime ban.
Quote: Mission146If I may be so bold, my recommendation would be an irrevocable and unappealable lifetime ban.
Thanks for your comments. I did not know about the post about the picture until this evening, when another member brought it to my attention.
