Discussion about the Suspension List
Quote: Mission146Wizard,
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.
Likewise I was really bothered by the comment on the photo. When I first saw that EvenBob was restricted I figured he deserved a couple days for the personal attack on Dan, but the remark on the photo from the convention is beyond rude and crosses into another territory. We all know Bob is sarcastic and pushes being other things at times, but normally I take it with a grain of salt. I ditto what Mission has said in that I see no room for tolerating anything like that in this or any forum. We are all here to discuss gambling, Las Vegas, life, and whatever else we choose to. At the end of the day I often come on here to relax and enjoy myself whilst chatting with others. Posts that discriminatory have no place here.
Quote: WizardEvenBob has been suspended for this post. After I did it I learned about this one, which is also don't care for. Sentencing has not been decided yet.
I'd suggest perhaps asking him via PM to explain himself on all of this, and as per custom only discuss here what he says is cool to do so. EB is one of the few on the board more cynical and sharp than myself, but like me he has been on forums since the usenet days of the early 1990s. I've seen his posts and he knows where the line is in most cases. To not just cross it but to jump so far across is just not the stuff of so long a veteran of online forums.
Just my $.02, Wiz. Seen this stuff for 20 years now off and PM if you want any further personal input. No bother if you do, not offended if you don't.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: WizardEvenBob has been suspended for this post. After I did it I learned about this one, which is also don't care for. Sentencing has not been decided yet.
but like me he has been on forums since the usenet days of the early 1990s. I've seen his posts and he knows where the line is in most cases. To not just cross it but to jump so far across is just not the stuff of so long a veteran of online forums.
Just my $.02, Wiz. Seen this stuff for 20 years now off and PM if you want any further personal input. No bother if you do, not offended if you don't.
I would bet a fair share of us have been "online" since the early 90's. So not sure the relevance of that.
Quote: WizardEvenBob has been suspended for this post. After I did it I learned about this one, which is also don't care for. Sentencing has not been decided yet.
I think this decision will be the Wiz's toughest yet. I would dare say that whatever suspension the Wiz doles out will NOT change EvenBob, and his posts will have the same flavor as before the suspension, always straddling that 'line'. It comes down to whether the Wiz thinks the forum is better off without EvenBob or not. Just like a casino can ban an AP, as it is not good for their business, the Wiz has that same hammer......
When he talks about Nareed's looks, was he really out of line? Nareed had mentioned in one of her posts about her Vegas trip, that at one point, some guy looked at her, then commented to his buddy, "That's a dude." Certainly that comment was more harmful than what Bob said about her looks in the photo. Or at least it proves that, by repeating it, Nareed's got a thicker skin than you might think. So is making the comparison to Bill Murray's reaction in Tootsie so outrageous?
Bob also talked about everyone else in the picture as a "motley crew," and "Middle Age Crisis Anonymous." Sure, that's somewhat insulting to those in the picture, except that he followed it up by stating that he would have fit right in being a part of that group.
On the other hand, Bob (whose real name is NOT Bob) has got some serious personal vandettas against several members, and, obviously, the casino industry and all those in it. Individual posts generally do not tell the story. But add them up, and he is deserving of whatever suspension the Wiz dishes out.
Mission -Quote: Mission146I know I haven't been here very long ...
I actually happen to be a Moderator at ...
... receive an immediate lifetime ban dished out by yours truly.
I can understand your position. For what it's worth, you probably haven't been here long enough to see posts in which the Wiz talks about himself as a "benevolent dictator" or something along those lines. I.E. He tends to be more forgiving than someone who has been a moderator or forum owner for a long time.
It's one thing to show a general concern for someone not posting to the forum for an extended period of time; this was not such an inquiry. This was a blatant attempt to get Dan riled up about something that was provoked ONLY for the sake of riling him up. I don't blame him for sitting off the forum when he's being made the victim of a witch hunt.
As far as the photo comment, I was in the picture and met everybody there. I did not feel anything said on that was offensive. Poor taste, absolutely, but unless someone specific in the picture said it was offensive I wouldn't dole out a punishment. Now that I think about it, the Wizard was also in the picture...
Anyways, the attack on Paigowdan should not be taken lightly, but for me, the picture isn't anything to worry about.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhen he talks about Nareed's looks, was he really out of line?
Well, gee. Was this about Nareed? I thought Bob was suspended for referring to me as "motley". I had forgiven that myself, because he also complimented me as "middle aged" instead of simply a geezer.
For the record, I don't think there is anything anyone could say about me on here that would make me hurt. But that's because I haven't met anyone. Maybe since y'all have met, it's a little more personal...
Do some members just not get it??
Why does anyone have to put up with sh-t from anyone on this site?
I thought we were all here to exchange ideas, suggestions, invitations etc. etc.
My first go around with this site I just got fed up with a lot of the bu-lsh-t that contaminated this site. and I went away.
But then I thought I enjoy reading the threads from the decent members and I will just ignore the tripe.
It seems like some people are on this site for a different reason.
I think we need to ask Mr. Shackleford to reiterate what is the purpose of this site.
There is no place on the WOV for fu----g as-h---s and I beg Mr. Shackleford to use due diligence to rid this site of this vermin.
Quote: Mission146Wizard,
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.
For someone who is here under multiple identities you are being bold. Violating forum rule #11 is cause for immediate expulsion.
Quote: 1BBFor someone who is here under multiple identities you are being bold. Violating forum rule #11 is cause for immediate expulsion.
Posting mobile, sorry for short post.
I have already fully addressed this issue. I explicitly told JB what i was doing when I did it and why. I also specifically said that account could be deleted after I had quoted the posts with this one.
You may also peruse the profile of that account where you will notice that I have not logged into it since the day it was created.
Apologies if the reply seems terse. I`m typing at a fraction of my normal...already slow...speed, so trying to keep it short.
Have a pleasant day, 1BB.
Quote: Mission146Posting mobile, sorry for short post.
I have already fully addressed this issue. I explicitly told JB what i was doing when I did it and why. I also specifically said that account could be deleted after I had quoted the posts with this one.
You may also peruse the profile of that account where you will notice that I have not logged into it since the day it was created.
Apologies if the reply seems terse. I`m typing at a fraction of my normal...already slow...speed, so trying to keep it short.
Have a pleasant day, 1BB.
Did JB explicitly give you permission to violate this rule the second day you joined? Telling JB and getting permission are two very different things.
I have no beef with you, Mission146. I would just like to see everyone treated equally here but I'm not holding my breath.
But it looks like honest opinions are sometimes not welcome. Not saying Bob's actions do not warrant a suspension, but
with a lifetime ban, this forum would lose more than it gains.
I would think that most forum members would welcome the opportunity to defend their positions.
And while DJteddybears comments about the picture co-incide with mine, I can certainly understand Nareed feeling hurt.
Here is my suggestion on the length of Bob's suspension.
LET NAREED MAKE THE FINAL DECISION>>> I TRUST HER TO BE FAIR.
What do you say Mike? Not asking you to be Pontius Pilate and wash your hands, but rather let the offended party
make the final decision !!!
And let's not forget that Bob's comment about the photo was two-fold. Part was specifically about Nareed. The other part was about everybody in the photo, which included Mike. Althogh not in the photo, he included himself in that comment.
Quote: buzzpaffLET NAREED MAKE THE FINAL DECISION>>> I TRUST HER TO BE FAIR.
That would be improper on many levels. In the second place, I'm not part of the board's Admin team.
Quote: 1BBDid JB explicitly give you permission to violate this rule the second day you joined? Telling JB and getting permission are two very different things.
I have no beef with you, Mission146. I would just like to see everyone treated equally here but I'm not holding my breath.
No, but the posting limit settings were changed pursuant to my request to be able to post more in the first thirty days...hence the other account.
The way it was set up, I'd have only had one post/day at that point. I could not even respond to people in a timely manner in that one thread under those conditions.
In short, being a Moderator elsewhere I know the reasons for Rule 11. I wasn't actually acting outside the rule for any reason for which the rule exists...for what that is worth.
I've no problems with you either. My assumption was just that the matter was res judicata at this point.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhile I would certainly welcome Nareed's input on the suspension issue, I'd also like her input on the photo comment, as well as my own thoughts about the photo comment.
Seriously, I haven't seen it. I've Bob blocked for a reason. I won't say I'm heart-broken to see him suspended, but I figure I'm better off not even looking as his trolling bait.
I posted this a short time ago, but it bears repeting: as far as I'm concerned, Bob has no presence on this board (and neither do a few others).
On a related note, I wonder if I am one of the few that has no presence on Nareed's version of this board? We did have a little spat a few months ago.
Quote: avargovOn a related note, I wonder if I am one of the few that has no presence on Nareed's version of this board? We did have a little spat a few months ago.
Only the time you were self-banned.
Quote: DJTeddyBearFor the record, I do not find anything in the post about the photo that warrants a suspension of any kind. Oh, sure, he may have ruffled some feathers, but was it really that bad?
When he talks about Nareed's looks, was he really out of line? Nareed had mentioned in one of her posts about her Vegas trip, that at one point, some guy looked at her, then commented to his buddy, "That's a dude." Certainly that comment was more harmful than what Bob said about her looks in the photo. Or at least it proves that, by repeating it, Nareed's got a thicker skin than you might think. So is making the comparison to Bill Murray's reaction in Tootsie so outrageous?
Bob also talked about everyone else in the picture as a "motley crew," and "Middle Age Crisis Anonymous." Sure, that's somewhat insulting to those in the picture, except that he followed it up by stating that he would have fit right in being a part of that group.
On the other hand, Bob (whose real name is NOT Bob) has got some serious personal vandettas against several members, and, obviously, the casino industry and all those in it. Individual posts generally do not tell the story. But add them up, and he is deserving of whatever suspension the Wiz dishes out.
Mission -
I can understand your position. For what it's worth, you probably haven't been here long enough to see posts in which the Wiz talks about himself as a "benevolent dictator" or something along those lines. I.E. He tends to be more forgiving than someone who has been a moderator or forum owner for a long time.
"I do not find anything in the post about the photo that warrants a suspension of any kind" >>> I agree. There has to be dozens (maybe hundreds) of SIMILAR (or worse) posts here and THAT seems to be fine. I dont need the speach regarding....its the Wizard's board, he can do as he pleases. I am aware of that, I'm just throwing in my two cents.
Ken
Quote: buzzpaff" I thought we were all here to exchange ideas, suggestions, invitations etc. etc."
But it looks like honest opinions are sometimes not welcome. Not saying Bob's actions do not warrant a suspension, but
with a lifetime ban, this forum would lose more than it gains.
I would think that most forum members would welcome the opportunity to defend their positions.
And while DJteddybears comments about the picture co-incide with mine, I can certainly understand Nareed feeling hurt.
Here is my suggestion on the length of Bob's suspension.
LET NAREED MAKE THE FINAL DECISION>>> I TRUST HER TO BE FAIR.
What do you say Mike? Not asking you to be Pontius Pilate and wash your hands, but rather let the offended party
make the final decision !!!
Do you want someone on a site you pay for bashing your profession, your industry, your employers and sponsors? Why would you pay good money to let someone voice how shitty you are.This is not just about the photo. EB not only has made his point he hates casinos but comes back daily to reiterate it.
This is how Mike puts food on the table for his family. Why does EB want to f that up?
Bob failed to realize that this board's loyalty to casinos and casino personnel trumps players opinions. His comments hurt the feelings of casino owners and personnel.
-Keyser
Quote: KeyserBasically, Bob was suspended for not being politically correct.
More like shitting in the hand that fed him.
Quote: KeyserBasically, Bob was suspended for not being politically correct.
??? Clearly not, or Politically Correct doesn't mean what I think it means...
Quote: KeyserBasically, Bob was suspended for not being politically correct.
I agree.
Ken
In other words, you have to pretend to agree to keep things running smooth.
In short, Bob slipped up, and spoke his mind.
Quote: thecesspit??? Clearly not, or Politically Correct doesn't mean what I think it means...
It means what you think it means. There are a few comments that Bob made that I dare not bring up that were not considered to be politically correct.
Quote: KeyserWhen you are in someone else's domain, you are not free to express your true feelings or opinions. You have to take into account that person's emotional state and point of view, and then attempt to water down or temper your comments.
In other times this was the etiquette expected of a guest. If you're invited to someone's home, do you have to tell him "That's the most god-awful painting I ever saw. How's your son doing at ambulance-chasing school? And your daughter the slut? Has she slept with over a hundred men yet?"
Quote:In short, Bob slipped up, and spoke his mind.
I went to see what he said about Dan. That was a personal insult, trolling, and a slap at the Wizard and other valued members who make a living in the gaming industry.
Quote: KeyserBasically, Bob was suspended for not being politically correct. Message boards are not a free speech zone where posters are allowed to freely express their opinions. They must take into account the views and opinions of the moderator/ owner before posting. They should attempt to make sure that they largely agree with the administrator's views and opinions before posting. Especially on a heavily moderated or censored board. Otherwise they should express their opinions elsewhere. When you are in someone else's domain, you are not free to express your true feelings or opinions.
Bob failed to realize that this board's loyalty to casinos and casino personnel trumps players opinions. His comments hurt the feelings of casino owners and personnel.
-Keyser
Come on if you don't the the comment on the picture from the WOV Convention, particularly the part about Nareed, was completely innapropriate that's rediculous. His comments in the Where is Dan thread probably didn't offend many, but the comments on the picture are unwarranted and not needed on this forum.
Quote: NareedAnd your daughter the slut? Has she slept with over a hundred men yet?"
.
83 but we hope in the 3rd quarter we can round the bend.
Short post, still mobile.
If you go to someone's house, then you respect their house by behaving with the civility and decorum expected in that house, whatever it be.
If an individual does not like the expectations, then that individual may erect his/her own house (i.e. start their own gambling forum) where that person is the sole arbiter of what is appropriate.
I will say this:
I am a peaceable and amiable man in real life as well as on the Internet, but if someone came into my house in real life and said that about my, or anyone else's wife in their presence; we would go outside and I would bust that person in the mouth.
The only reason ANYONE thinks that the Internet is a forum for such classlesd comments is because the potential consequences are far less severe than in real life.
Would a man say that to a woman's face in the presence of her husband? I seriously doubt it.
Quote: NareedIn other times this was the etiquette expected of a guest. If you're invited to someone's home, do you have to tell him "That's the most god-awful painting I ever saw. How's your son doing at ambulance-chasing school? And your daughter the slut? Has she slept with over a hundred men yet?"
Bob has no etiquette. He's genuinely a miserable acting poster. He's negative and bitter, 24/7. No doubt about it. I'm NOT defending his actions. I'm simply stating the obvious.
I didn't care for his comments on the religous threads, but at the time, others, I suppose, felt that was in bounds. Go figure.
Of course this is a benevolent dictatorship, so it all falls on the Wizard to decide. I hope he doesn't burn too many calories making this rather insignificant decision (in the grand scheme of things, considering he doesn't make the lion's share of his income from this site [I'm assuming I guess...]).
I just wish he'd stop typing in columns.
Quote: Wavy70EB not only has made his point he hates casinos but comes back daily to reiterate it.
This is how Mike puts food on the table for his family. Why does EB want to f that up?
Does he?
I disagree with the tone and the sentiment, but it's not like casinos are built on cute white bunnies and perfect strategy players respecting their stop-loss.
Now, creating a thread about why one casino employee didn't post for a whole week and putting it all on him personally - that was over the top. It may even warrant a short suspension, since there's no formal warning system here. Or perhaps not, considering that Dan is just as outspoken in deliberately and wrongly (and should I add maliciously, or does he stop a bit short?) trying to associate all and any APs with criminals. In either case it doesn't warrant any stronger reaction than that.
If anything, the post against Nareed was a bigger issue really.
Quote: KeyserBob has no etiquette. He's genuinely a miserable acting poster. He's negative and bitter, 24/7. No doubt about it. I'm not defending his actions. I'm simply stating the obvious.
No, you're saying the members here had better act like they are and like to be the casino's lackeys or else!
That's not true at all. There are plenty of complaints and criticism about specific casinos, including Bodog, and of general casino practices. There has been criticism of the gaming industry aplenty. There are sig lines mocking the making of bets, and even of the Wizard's good bet aphorism. Your Bob even messed up the Shufflemaster focus group event, from what I could tell of that sorry flame war's quotes.
So don't get all over-sensitive about what's allowed here. Most times everything is, if you're not levelling insults at other users or trolling the baord.
And Dan Lubin hates counters and repeat his opinion at every chance also.
I respect both EB and Dan Lubin. I will often ask sometime for a person to defend their position, but never deny
them the right to have a position opposed to mine.
And I actually believe the casino industry will survive EB's assaults.
I also believe Mike would have taken the same stance before switching income streams. He seems a little
hard headed in his beliefs, a quality I greatly admire.
Quote: Wavy70Do you want someone on a site you pay for bashing your profession, your industry, your employers and sponsors? EB not only has made his point he hates casinos but comes back daily to reiterate it.
And that's the crux. He just became TOO annoying to accomodate. I think 'bashing the profession' is acceptable given a specific set of facts, but the reiterative, over and over, repetitive, ad nauseum, duplicative, posts made it hard to read. Like this post.
TSK TSK
his taste and manually hitting the enter key whenever
the post was just about wide enough. Seems like a lot
of effort for little pay off, but whatever. People have
quirks. And we are talking like EvenBob is dead and
gone. He's merely outside right now, possibly looking
in.
in. "
That's why I just closed my curtains.
Quote: mrjjj"I do not find anything in the post about the photo that warrants a suspension of any kind" >>> I agree. There has to be dozens (maybe hundreds) of SIMILAR (or worse) posts here and THAT seems to be fine. I dont need the speach regarding....its the Wizard's board, he can do as he pleases. I am aware of that, I'm just throwing in my two cents.
Ken
I also agree. The comment about the photo was made three weeks ago. Did anyone complain then? Perhaps the midlife crisis comment was the problem. Then again those in that situation are usually the last to know.
Bob has been insulted many times and no one has ever been suspended in those cases.
Quote: thecesspitAnd we are talking like EvenBob is dead and
gone. He's merely outside right now, possibly looking
in.
I think of it more as "The Phantom Zone"
Quote:The inmates of the Phantom Zone reside in a featureless state of existence from which they can observe, but cannot interact with, the regular universe. Inmates do not age or require sustenance in the Phantom Zone; furthermore, they are telepathic and mutually insubstantial. As such, they are able to survive the destruction of Krypton and focus their attention on Earth, as most of the surviving Kryptonians now reside there. Most have a particular grudge against Superman because his father created the method of their damnation. When they manage to escape, they usually engage in random destruction, particularly easy to them since, on Earth, each has the same powers of Superman. Nevertheless, Superman periodically released Phantom Zone prisoners whose original sentences had been completed, and these fortunately tended to be relatively repentant criminals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Zone
Quote: rainmanFree Bob!
Still overpriced.
Quote: TIMSPEEDI was just always annoyed with how he formatted his posts, LOL (and I always wondered HOW he did that??)
Probably by typing them into notepad, editing, then cut/paste.
