Discussion about the Suspension List
Quote: texasplumrSo, what is the ruling?
Can I start the same exact thread on DT and WOV?
If I'm banned here, can I post there?
They are two independent sites now. Same admins but different owners. Seems like they should operate as truly independent.
+1
Quote: aceofspadesI was told by a higher power that posting a Trip Report on DT would be very much frowned upon
Indeed you were, I do remember it. But that doesn't appear to be a blurred line; it looks quite black and white. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but from here it doesn't look like you're confused about the rule, rather you just don't like it. If I am way off base, I apologize. I'm not trying to point fingers, just showing you what things look like from here.
If that is the case, and I know there are a handful who don't like the DT / WoV rules, your only recourse is to provide a proper argument to those who control the rules (although in this case, it appears that has already been done and struck down). I would love to help you out, but this is a lot like arguing a cop about speeding. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them, ya know?
Quote: texasplumrSo, what is the ruling?
Can I start the same exact thread on DT and WOV?
If I'm banned here, can I post there?
They are two independent sites now. Same admins but different owners. Seems like they should operate as truly independent.
The current rules are no cross posting, and a ban here equals a ban there. Some of the rules under question have been addressed; No gambling on DT because Wiz doesn't want to compete with his employer, dual bannings to prevent people ousted from here turning DT into a complaint pit. Both of these rules were challenged, and the above was the response from the people who matter.
Cross posting? I don't recall a challenge. If you see a valuable reason cross posting should be allowed, and can convey that value in words, then plead your case. Just remember, telling me why it's so great, again, is like telling the cop why weed should be legal. No matter how good your case or how much I agree, I have no power to do anything but slap you in the clink.
Quote: Face
The current rules are no cross posting, and a ban here equals a ban there. Some of the rules under question have been addressed; No gambling on DT because Wiz doesn't want to compete with his employer, dual bannings to prevent people ousted from here turning DT into a complaint pit. Both of these rules were challenged, and the above was the response from the people who matter.
So where is your self-imposed ban—you admitted in this thread to posting about gambling on the DT boards…?
The seal is not as meaningful to me as it was before the sale.
The sites are under different ownership since the sale and should operate as such. Reasonable rules can help avoid cross-contamination, but they shouldn't be too restrictive.
I look up to the Wizard as an authority on gaming, but his pedestal is not quite as high now as it was before...
I've got no pedestal, I own nothing here, and I have opinions that can easily be ignored...but I am still allowed to have them and express them here (until further notice, which may happen any time)...
Quote: aceofspadesSo where is your self-imposed ban—you admitted in this thread to posting about gambling on the DT boards…?
I don't like self-imposed bans, so I won't engage in them. However, if you would like to be arbiter, I have no problem with it.
At DT, look for my thread "St Ignace, Michigan". That is the thread in which I wrote about my hockey trip, part of which includes a few hours at Kewadin casino. Now that I think about it, my British Virgin Islands trip report also contains just a touch, as EB participated in the thread and asked about local gambling. Granted, Paco and I just listed what islands had gambling and which didn't, but I suppose it was still "gambling talk".
I included the gambling in Michigan as it was part of the trip, I talked about it in BVI because it was asked. I didn't feel it a violation as it was sort of an aside and not the focus of the report. Perhaps I have erred.
Read them. If you feel as I do, we'll carry on. If you think it was a violation, then let me know and I'll see everyone on Thursday.
Quote: FaceI don't like self-imposed bans, so I won't engage in them. However, if you would like to be arbiter, I have no problem with it.
At DT, look for my thread "St Ignace, Michigan". That is the thread in which I wrote about my hockey trip, part of which includes a few hours at Kewadin casino. Now that I think about it, my British Virgin Islands trip report also contains just a touch, as EB participated in the thread and asked about local gambling. Granted, Paco and I just listed what islands had gambling and which didn't, but I suppose it was still "gambling talk".
I included the gambling in Michigan as it was part of the trip, I talked about it in BVI because it was asked. I didn't feel it a violation as it was sort of an aside and not the focus of the report. Perhaps I have erred.
Read them. If you feel as I do, we'll carry on. If you think it was a violation, then let me know and I'll see everyone on Thursday.
I am not trying to have people banned but, if I am told I will be banned if I post about gambling on DT, then it should hold for everyone. This is exactly why these two sites need to be treated as independent sites with separate admins.
Fun.
That said, most of us understand without Mike still around to offer a seal of approval on possibly illegal money laundering sites promoted by the new owners, the sale would not have been worth as much. Wait, I think it was explained to me. It is not illegal to operate the sites and it is not illegal for us Americans to use the sites. It is only illegal for the person who processes our credit cards used to play on the sites that may or may not pay us if we win, but Mike will help work on any issues between players who may or may not have used an illegal credit card processor to get funds to play on the sites, that we have an issue with.
I still cant figure out why none of the sites is offering a $1,000,000 matching bonus with the type of rules that would never allow anyone to have any even slight advantage. Why stop at $3000 or $5000? Go for the big splash in advertising! Or maybe that would draw main stream attention to a business that may be using illegal money transfers and shady banks that make it look like you purchased anything other than gambling credits on your card. And who says America is still a business leader when people in places all over the world are making millions of Americans and using the money possibly in ways against this country. The Russians may be years behind in just stealing Credit Card numbers when the other Eastern Bloc countries have people spending millions for the right to advertised "approved" sites that Americans are willing to just hand their CC numbers over to. Somehow I don't think they give a damn if their fellow countrymen have free HC or a decent minimum wage, they take the bull by the horn and find ways to make money, legal or not. Somewhere many Americans lost that drive and instead are concerned about a poster on a forum advising on ways to cut your taxes.
As for DT it sounds like the same old, "You don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out". Why fight the power?
Quote: aceofspades... if I am told I will be banned if I post about gambling on DT, then it should hold for everyone.
I believe it does.
I think there's a big difference in what I did and what you do. Sometimes a casino trip is just an aside, merely a step in a much longer journey. In order to tell the journey, you have to include it. That's what I did. Yours are comprehensive breakdowns focused completely on gambling. Every detail is recorded and transferred. It is a pure gambling post. Posts such as that have value here, so here is where they go.
Should someone make a pure gambling post such as yours, I'd have to address it. If someone, I dunno, wrote of their snow storm experience and mentioned they had to sleep at Casino Niagara because they were snowed in, I'd not bat an eye. It's part of the story, not the story. That's how I interpret the rule's intention, and I think that's reasonable.
And now we're about to go round and round, because we're back to "concern".
Your comprehensive gambling posts were banned from DT. You don't have to worry about being banned yourself, because you are aware of this rule and can just post them here. If a new member happened to join and make a gambling post there, I think our track record would leave one to assume, and rightly so, that we would greet them and advise them of the rule in question to correct the issue, as opposed to doling out banhammers out of hand.
So it seems there are no blurred lines or concern, rather just a dislike for the rule/s. A shared dislike, even, as many have voiced their opposition.
Unfortunately, that still leaves us unsatisfied. The rule has already been challenged, and said challenge was denied. I can't help with that. But I hope I at least cleared up the concern and/or blurry lines. If I missed the mark, I'll keep trying.
Let's not encourage that. The last few times didn't end well. let sleeping dogs lie.Quote: aceofspadesCan we hear from the actual owner?
If someone is permanently banned perhaps they can swallow their pride and contact Zuga personally (use LCB or one of the many fake accounts) and ask for mercy and a 2nd( 3rd, 4th, 5th) chance.
Boz I like you, normally I agree with you and enjoy your posts. You seem to be very down on the online gambling since the sale. I don't see the difference between then and now other than more casinos.Quote: BozI kind of understand, but not seeing the contract and how it is written, I don't think any of us can say what is in it.
That said, most of us understand without Mike still around to offer a seal of approval on possibly illegal money laundering sites promoted by the new owners, the sale would not have been worth as much. Wait, I think it was explained to me. It is not illegal to operate the sites and it is not illegal for us Americans to use the sites. It is only illegal for the person who processes our credit cards used to play on the sites that may or may not pay us if we win, but Mike will help work on any issues between players who may or may not have used an illegal credit card processor to get funds to play on the sites, that we have an issue with.
I still cant figure out why none of the sites is offering a $1,000,000 matching bonus with the type of rules that would never allow anyone to have any even slight advantage. Why stop at $3000 or $5000? Go for the big splash in advertising! Or maybe that would draw main stream attention to a business that may be using illegal money transfers and shady banks that make it look like you purchased anything other than gambling credits on your card. And who says America is still a business leader when people in places all over the world are making millions of Americans and using the money possibly in ways against this country. The Russians may be years behind in just stealing Credit Card numbers when the other Eastern Bloc countries have people spending millions for the right to advertised "approved" sites that Americans are willing to just hand their CC numbers over to. Somehow I don't think they give a damn if their fellow countrymen have free HC or a decent minimum wage, they take the bull by the horn and find ways to make money, legal or not. Somewhere many Americans lost that drive and instead are concerned about a poster on a forum advising on ways to cut your taxes.
As for DT it sounds like the same old, "You don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out". Why fight the power?
No one complained like this when Mike added Slots.lv, Lucky Red and a few others.
Have you played any of the new places ? Are you sure there's no advantage?
Quote: 1BBGuess what thread is now number one. Pass the chips - of the day.
Yep, this is the thread where people get banned/suspended for arguing over the top about the way someone else got banned/suspended for arguing over the top, etc. The other one is where there has never been a serious argument, just a lot of discussion about one particular aspect of casinos and gaming. Two very different threads.
Quote: FaceI believe it does.
I think there's a big difference in what I did and what you do. Sometimes a casino trip is just an aside, merely a step in a much longer journey. In order to tell the journey, you have to include it. That's what I did. Yours are comprehensive breakdowns focused completely on gambling. Every detail is recorded and transferred. It is a pure gambling post. Posts such as that have value here, so here is where they go.
Should someone make a pure gambling post such as yours, I'd have to address it. If someone, I dunno, wrote of their snow storm experience and mentioned they had to sleep at Casino Niagara because they were snowed in, I'd not bat an eye. It's part of the story, not the story. That's how I interpret the rule's intention, and I think that's reasonable.
And now we're about to go round and round, because we're back to "concern".
Your comprehensive gambling posts were banned from DT. You don't have to worry about being banned yourself, because you are aware of this rule and can just post them here. If a new member happened to join and make a gambling post there, I think our track record would leave one to assume, and rightly so, that we would greet them and advise them of the rule in question to correct the issue, as opposed to doling out banhammers out of hand.
So it seems there are no blurred lines or concern, rather just a dislike for the rule/s. A shared dislike, even, as many have voiced their opposition.
Unfortunately, that still leaves us unsatisfied. The rule has already been challenged, and said challenge was denied. I can't help with that. But I hope I at least cleared up the concern and/or blurry lines. If I missed the mark, I'll keep trying.
Face - I haven't done anything. I merely posed a question to spark debate…
Moreover, the only reason I can see that we are not allowed to post about gambling on DT ( even though it is not stated in the DT Rules ) is a non-compete clause in the contract of sale.
Posting about gambling at DT is frowned upon. If a topic touches on gambling, that is fine, but it shouldn't be the focus.
A ban here also applies to DT, but not the other way. It is possible for a nuked member here to apply for an exception at DT, after a 30-day cooling off period.
I want to be clear that DT is not trying to poach traffic from this forum. It is just a friendly little place to talk about anything except gambling.
On another topic, I ran into ahigh last week. We didn't have a chance to talk much but he looked fine.
Lets just pretend for a moment that I am the owner of one online forum and an admin and maybe even an employee of another. How can something somebody posts on one of these forums have any effect on the other? I have a relationship with both because I'm either the owner or an admin of them. But what you may say on the forum that I'm an admin of doesn't have anything to do with what you say on the forum that I own. if so, how does it? They are two separate entities. Or maybe I am missing something?
I know it isn't quite this cut and dry. But if somebody is banned here there isn't anything to keep them from posting to other forums. Just because Mike has a relationship with both doesn't make sense to me. What is being said is that Zuga is actually controlling both forums. At least, that's the way it looks.
What am I missing?
Just because "Mike said so" isn't really an answer to my question. Well, it's an answer, but not a good answer. And not an explanation.
I like Mike and have no beef with any admin. Ace wanted to Start a debate and it got me thinking. And as a side note, I have an account at DT but it isn't with this user name. Is that some kind of violation? Hell, I guess since the forums seem to be connected somehow then I must be in violation of multiple accounts.
I could understand the suspension rule and the duplicate post rule when he owned them both. Made sense then. Not so much anymore. At least, not to me.
It's the rules. I'll abide. I'd just like an explanation for the rule today. It doesn't seem necessary.
Quote: texasplumrI'd just like an explanation for the rule today. It doesn't seem necessary.
If we're going by what rules different members don't think is necessary we'd have quite a list I suspect. I have one in mind already.
If that is going to be a factor let's have a vote on all of them, not just one.
(for what's it's worth, and I don't know that it's worth much)
Quote: texasplumrI am a member of many online forums. This is the only one that I check almost daily. But since my interests are many, I sometimes need advice on something else I'm interested in. This is also the only forum I've ever been suspended from. :-)
Lets just pretend for a moment that I am the owner of one online forum and an admin and maybe even an employee of another. How can something somebody posts on one of these forums have any effect on the other? I have a relationship with both because I'm either the owner or an admin of them. But what you may say on the forum that I'm an admin of doesn't have anything to do with what you say on the forum that I own. if so, how does it? They are two separate entities. Or maybe I am missing something?
I know it isn't quite this cut and dry. But if somebody is banned here there isn't anything to keep them from posting to other forums. Just because Mike has a relationship with both doesn't make sense to me. What is being said is that Zuga is actually controlling both forums. At least, that's the way it looks.
What am I missing?
Just because "Mike said so" isn't really an answer to my question. Well, it's an answer, but not a good answer. And not an explanation.
I like Mike and have no beef with any admin. Ace wanted to Start a debate and it got me thinking. And as a side note, I have an account at DT but it isn't with this user name. Is that some kind of violation? Hell, I guess since the forums seem to be connected somehow then I must be in violation of multiple accounts.
I could understand the suspension rule and the duplicate post rule when he owned them both. Made sense then. Not so much anymore. At least, not to me.
It's the rules. I'll abide. I'd just like an explanation for the rule today. It doesn't seem necessary.
Exactly — it is a great topic for debate and it seems that many people here (save the admins) disagree with the rule as stated
Quote: aceofspadesExactly — it is a great topic for debate and it seems that many people here (save the admins) disagree with the rule as stated
My (I daresay our - of the 3 lower admins) personal opinion doesn't enter into the debate. Like Face, I agreed to enforce the rules in place. So please don't characterize me as either supporting or refuting your position.
Really you don't understand why?Quote: texasplumrI am a member of many online forums. This is the only one that I check almost daily. But since my interests are many, I sometimes need advice on something else I'm interested in. This is also the only forum I've ever been suspended from. :-)
Lets just pretend for a moment that I am the owner of one online forum and an admin and maybe even an employee of another. How can something somebody posts on one of these forums have any effect on the other? I have a relationship with both because I'm either the owner or an admin of them. But what you may say on the forum that I'm an admin of doesn't have anything to do with what you say on the forum that I own. if so, how does it? They are two separate entities. Or maybe I am missing something?
I know it isn't quite this cut and dry. But if somebody is banned here there isn't anything to keep them from posting to other forums. Just because Mike has a relationship with both doesn't make sense to me. What is being said is that Zuga is actually controlling both forums. At least, that's the way it looks.
What am I missing?
Just because "Mike said so" isn't really an answer to my question. Well, it's an answer, but not a good answer. And not an explanation.
I like Mike and have no beef with any admin. Ace wanted to Start a debate and it got me thinking. And as a side note, I have an account at DT but it isn't with this user name. Is that some kind of violation? Hell, I guess since the forums seem to be connected somehow then I must be in violation of multiple accounts.
I could understand the suspension rule and the duplicate post rule when he owned them both. Made sense then. Not so much anymore. At least, not to me.
It's the rules. I'll abide. I'd just like an explanation for the rule today. It doesn't seem necessary.
Assume you spend a long time building 3 houses yourself next to each other. You decide to sell the 2 you really liked most to a friend. He asks you to watch them for him as part of the sale. You have a neighborhood party and some of the guests start trashing your house and being disrespectful. Do you invite them terrible guest to the other houses?
Quote: AxelWolfReally you don't understand why?
Assume you spend a long time building 3 houses yourself next to each other. You decide to sell the 2 you really liked most to a friend. He asks you to watch them for him as part of the sale. You have a neighborhood party and some of the guests start trashing your house and being disrespectful. Do you invite them terrible guest to the other houses?
How would posting about gambling on DT be akin to "trashing" a house you used to own?
Quote: aceofspadesHow would posting about gambling on DT be akin to "trashing" a house you used to own?
Are you planning on making duplicate posts, or completely different posts? I can at least understand the second.
Mike doesn't want to compete with his old site as far as gambling subjects. I don't think that part is about trashing. Makes sense to me.
Quote: rxwineAre you planning on making duplicate posts, or completely different posts? I can at least understand the second.
Mike doesn't want to compete with his old site as far as gambling subjects. I don't think that part is about trashing. Makes sense to me.
I wasn't planning any posts. But, I like Mike and want DT to be a success. Based on past history, my TR's attract a lot of views…thought that would be great to have over on DT
Quote: Wizard
Posting about gambling at DT is frowned upon. .
And about unicycles, no uni talk. There's
a thread I can't block and it grows daily.
It's starting to frighten me..
"But if somebody is banned"Quote: aceofspadesHow would posting about gambling on DT be akin to "trashing" a house you used to own?
I was referring to that. Not about any particular topics.
If Mike a allowed gambling talk at DT Everybody(most) would migrate over there simply because they don't like or know the new owners.
The smartest thing they did was keep Mike on.
If It was me, I would of made a PRIVATE deal having Mike keep 20% for 20% less cash and only announcing he has taken on new PARTNERS.
No one would have cared if he simply took on partners and kept the details private.
Ps. If someone is banned, its for a reason. Sometimes for doing something minor sometimes for being like Larrys. its causes to much controversy to decide who or what is worst.
Quote: aceofspades
Face - I haven't done anything. I merely posed a question to spark debate.
No, you haven't, and I didn't mean to imply you were. I merely used your trip reports as an example to make a point. It was my attempt to both unblur those lines, as well as answer your wish that the rules should hold for everyone. Using your posts as an example allowed me to explain both.
And again, debate is fine, if that's what your after. But when you post unhappiness about something, I try to fix it. Posts about not liking the rule I mostly ignore it, as it's been asked, answered, and there's nothing for me to do. But complaints about blurred lines and stuff makes me want to help, if I can. That all this was; trying to find the root of the problem.
If I had a poker game at my house and you wanted to play in it; do I deny you that opportunity because you started a fight in somebody else's poker game? I don't think so. I might tell you that you're on a very short leash but I wouldn't keep you out.
And I do want to be clear. I have no beef with anybody here. From the owners on down. And I haven't even logged into DT in over a year. But in my mind the new owners now have some sort of control over all three houses that Mike built. And I asked the duplicate post question because I don't participate at DT. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one. Perhaps it is an off topic post that I haven't blocked yet. And perhaps there are people who participate here regularly but not there who might really want to read that thread. And might even benefit from that thread. But duplicates are still not allowed.If these are now two separate forums I think that we should be allowed.
And, as I said before. I'll abide by the rules even if they don't quite make sense to me. I just see this as something that made sense when he still owned the houses that he built. He doesn't own all three anymore.
If you run your own poker game at home on the weekends and manage for someone else on weekdays. Let's say you ban a guy for 2 weeks at your poker game, but the very next night he shows up at the other game your managing. Why would you allow that person to play?Quote: texasplumrYou have, in essence, given control of all three to the owner of the two that you sold. Banning someone, or denying entrance to my house because of some unacceptable behavior elsewhere is giving some sort of control to a person who never sets foot in the house that I still own.
If I had a poker game at my house and you wanted to play in it; do I deny you that opportunity because you started a fight in somebody else's poker game? I don't think so. I might tell you that you're on a very short leash but I wouldn't keep you out.
And I do want to be clear. I have no beef with anybody here. From the owners on down. And I haven't even logged into DT in over a year. But in my mind the new owners now have some sort of control over all three houses that Mike built. And I asked the duplicate post question because I don't participate at DT. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one. Perhaps it is an off topic post that I haven't blocked yet. And perhaps there are people who participate here regularly but not there who might really want to read that thread. And might even benefit from that thread. But duplicates are still not allowed.If these are now two separate forums I think that we should be allowed.
And, as I said before. I'll abide by the rules even if they don't quite make sense to me. I just see this as something that made sense when he still owned the houses that he built. He doesn't own all three anymore.
A ban at my game shouldn't bring an automatic ban at any game I may have an association with.
If it is hard to understand the separation rules, just think of it as a divorce settlement. I sense a light coming on?
Pretend the guy [Mike] built a nice house [WOO] and lived there happily, at least he thought. In his spare time, he built another place for the kids [WOV], and things were going along splendid. So well he thought, he built a guest cabin [DT]. Seeing as how there were some mutual friends, after the divorce they can still come over to the cabin and hang out. But seeing as how he put a lot of soul and hard work into building those houses, which he lost in the [sale] property settlement, when he is hanging out with his buds, he don't want to have all the crap that goes on in the place he use to own coming up in his face all the time, when he is hangin out with his buds. Simple.
Similarly the wife [who now owns the houses and everything in them] doesn't mind some of his old friends coming over on her property, or so she says, as long as there is something in it for her. She and her new boyfriend [who has some cash] are rolling in money now that they are "an item". They are all dressed up in their spawning colors with the stench of lust in the air. The new boyfriend exudes power and wealth and is arm candy for the ex. As long as she lets some of his old friends come over the new guy thinks she is civil and level headed. But when she gets her hooks in him, you will be surprised at how fast his old friends aren't welcome any more.
As each "old" friend gets booted, she can say it was Mikes fault. At this point the new guy still wants to get along, she is establishing the rules. The new guy hasn't really figured it out yet. But he will, eventually. Meanwhile, the few guys [mostly emasculated already] can still hang out at the cabin as long as they don't touch any of "her" stuff. They can't safely talk about what a **** she is, and mostly it isn't a big deal to them. They got no where else to go, and its warm and dry in there. Mikes still paying for the heat and lights. Once in a while the guys can slip in a zinger, but try not to get to rowdy, life's lessons learned.
So, its pretty easy for Petro to unnerstan that there are rules. He likes Mike, and he unnerstans the ex's need to display her power. Petro also knows about living in the back of cars and out in the cold and wet. Just cuz petro doesn't feel the need to tell the bitch off don't mean he don't know what's going on, but he likes warm and dry compared to cold and wet. Pain is an excellent teacher. Hope this helps.
Quote: texasplumrYou have, in essence, given control of all three to the owner of the two that you sold. Banning someone, or denying entrance to my house because of some unacceptable behavior elsewhere is giving some sort of control to a person who never sets foot in the house that I still own.
I would say consider it like "universal default" on your credit cards. Default on one and the bank of the other may raise your rate because you are a known higher risk.
If I had a poker game at my house and you wanted to play in it; do I deny you that opportunity because you started a fight in somebody else's poker game? I don't think so. I might tell you that you're on a very short leash but I wouldn't keep you out.
Uh, yes, I would absolutely deny a person entry. As to backroom games you can be sure word will travel and if you are a known problem you will be firmly told you cannot play. Heck, this was even mentioned in "Rounders." Now, you could keep someone who started a fight away, but when 2-3 people who were at the other game see said person and leave you will learn that it matters how you behave elsewhere.
Universal suspension is the way it is, why so many people want a "reason" I do not know.
I understand that universal suspension is the way that it is. And I'm not actively trying to change that today. But I would hope that one day it will change. If they are truly independent then they should operate independently. That's just my opinion and I realize it carries no weight here.
I also realize that there are people here and everywhere who just agree because the people in charge say so. And sometimes I'm that guy. That's not me on this issue. Had I not been challenged to think about it I probably would have just carried on as usual. However, I was challenged to think about it. And I have to say that I agree with the initial challenger. Independent should mean independent. Unless we are redefining words, a la Bill Clinton.
And Petro's story was very good. I enjoyed it. I didn't have the epiphany but did enjoy the story.
Mike and Zuga will continue to operate as they see fit. I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can change anything. I just wanted to talk about these two rules. And maybe point out that they don't really apply today like they did before the sale. Or, in my mind, shouldn't apply. They obviously still do.
It's not a democracy and if I don't like it I can always leave. I know. I'm not mad or even upset. I just wanted some clarification. Obviously the clarification is; "because he said so".
Oh well. Maybe some people at least thought about it in light of todays ownership. And, maybe not. Either way, I thought about it.
Quote: texasplumrI never saw "Rounders" but have played in more backroom games than I have casinos. Unless you are caught cheating you can be banned from one game and still play in the others. At least you can here and in Houston. There is a game here pretty much every night of the week and even a couple of tournaments as well.
That will depend on who is running the games, if they know each other, and their general management style. Some games you are going to have to get vouched into and some will advertise on craigslist. So yes, you *can* play in other games but you also *can* be banned based on behavior from one to another. If you are banned you are surely not going to argue the point with the brush at the door when they say you cannot sit.
Quote:Mike and Zuga will continue to operate as they see fit. I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can change anything. I just wanted to talk about these two rules. And maybe point out that they don't really apply today like they did before the sale. Or, in my mind, shouldn't apply. They obviously still do.
I think McDonald's should switch from Coke to Pepsi. It matters not so why care?
Quote: AZDuffman
I think McDonald's should switch from Coke to Pepsi. It matters not so why care?
The coyote does not lose sleep over the opinions of the rabbit.
I think Mickey D's should have to list the ingredients in their buns and "meat". I think they were the ones that were sued by the dairy assoc. for calling they're shakes, "milkshakes" as there was absolutely no dairy product in them.
Quote: petroglyphThe coyote does not lose sleep over the opinions of the rabbit.
I think Mickey D's should have to list the ingredients in their buns and "meat". I think they were the ones that were sued by the dairy assoc. for calling they're shakes, "milkshakes" as there was absolutely no dairy product in them.
Hmmm, that sounds not quite right as a company founded by a guy who knew the dairy business would not easily let this happen. Just a guess, though. MCD converted in the mid 1960s so before my time by a few years.
Quote: AZDuffmanHmmm, that sounds not quite right as a company founded by a guy who knew the dairy business would not easily let this happen. Just a guess, though. MCD converted in the mid 1960s so before my time by a few years.
http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/ingredientslist.pdf
"CONTAINS: MAY CONTAIN: SOY, WHEAT..
ICE CREAM CONE:
Ingredients: Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Tapioca Starch, Sugar, Shortening (Soybean Oil, Palm
Oil, Soy Lecithin [Emulsifier]), Leavening (Baking Soda, Ammonium Bicarbonate), Salt, Natural Flavor (Plant Source), Annatto (Color), Caramel Color, Corn Syrup
(Processing Aid).
CONTAINS: WHEAT, SOY LECITHIN
I glossed through their menu. There does appear to be some type of milk product now in their shakes. I gave it a little effort, there is a long list of lawsuits over contents.
To find ingredients takes a food dictionary to understand what some things are, and without an internet connection a random traveler doesn't know what they are eating. I see either now or in the past some people with celiac disease who were unaware of milk or wheat gluten in the fries suffered. I don't think it deserves millions of dollars in punitive damages unless severe distress is actual, but I think we have a right to know what we are consuming.
The ingredients for the chocolate shake syrup was long. I am a chocolate flavor fan but prefer it come from cacao. I understand mostly the risks I take eating fast food and try not to. I get caught out sometimes, starved and in need of sustenance. I really like their coffee. In and out burger by the way has real milkshakes as DQ at least did?
Quote: petroglyph
I glossed through their menu. There does appear to be some type of milk product now in their shakes. I gave it a little effort, there is a long list of lawsuits over contents.
They changed the shakes a few times the last few years. First they went back to "triple thick" moniker but now they actually mix them, thought not with the classic Multi-Mixer.
Story was back in the day Kroc was more than happy to stick it to the dairies when he went to pre-made mix. Ironic all around with MCD and shakes.
Quote: petroglyphSometimes I have epiphany's.
If it is hard to understand the separation rules, just think of it as a divorce settlement. I sense a light coming on?
Pretend the guy [Mike] built a nice house [WOO] and lived there happily, at least he thought. In his spare time, he built another place for the kids [WOV], and things were going along splendid. So well he thought, he built a guest cabin [DT]. Seeing as how there were some mutual friends, after the divorce they can still come over to the cabin and hang out. But seeing as how he put a lot of soul and hard work into building those houses, which he lost in the [sale] property settlement, when he is hanging out with his buds, he don't want to have all the crap that goes on in the place he use to own coming up in his face all the time, when he is hangin out with his buds. Simple.
Similarly the wife [who now owns the houses and everything in them] doesn't mind some of his old friends coming over on her property, or so she says, as long as there is something in it for her. She and her new boyfriend [who has some cash] are rolling in money now that they are "an item". They are all dressed up in their spawning colors with the stench of lust in the air. The new boyfriend exudes power and wealth and is arm candy for the ex. As long as she lets some of his old friends come over the new guy thinks she is civil and level headed. But when she gets her hooks in him, you will be surprised at how fast his old friends aren't welcome any more.
As each "old" friend gets booted, she can say it was Mikes fault. At this point the new guy still wants to get along, she is establishing the rules. The new guy hasn't really figured it out yet. But he will, eventually. Meanwhile, the few guys [mostly emasculated already] can still hang out at the cabin as long as they don't touch any of "her" stuff. They can't safely talk about what a **** she is, and mostly it isn't a big deal to them. They got no where else to go, and its warm and dry in there. Mikes still paying for the heat and lights. Once in a while the guys can slip in a zinger, but try not to get to rowdy, life's lessons learned.
So, its pretty easy for Petro to unnerstan that there are rules. He likes Mike, and he unnerstans the ex's need to display her power. Petro also knows about living in the back of cars and out in the cold and wet. Just cuz petro doesn't feel the need to tell the bitch off don't mean he don't know what's going on, but he likes warm and dry compared to cold and wet. Pain is an excellent teacher. Hope this helps.
It seems pretty simple sir. Mike owns a site and runs others and chooses to keep them under one umbrella of management enforcement for consistancy of product. So if one person is viewed as bad for one site then they are bad for all sites. Does it have to be that way or is there some law that states it couldnt be otherwise???...of course not. But the guy chooses to run things that way and thats the way it is. Hell, he even suggested he might override Zuga and let someone that was Nuked to come back in 30 days. If that doesnt tell you who is really in charge..I dont know what else you need to see. Its all arbitrary. Its the way the new owners want things done. The goings on is not a negative relection of Mike as he is just doing what he always arbitrarily did. If you try to make sense of it all you will get a headache. Just let it go. Crying about a guy that gets 14 days for a 5th offense, while other people get a doubling each time is silly. Just view it as unequal and arbitrary....and then worry about solving ebola outbreaks
just vote with your feet. Companies that treat me or others in an arbitrary uneven manner get none of my business.
I dont moan about it. I dont get mad.
Joy
Quote: vailedJOYJust let it go. Crying about a guy that gets 14 days for a 5th offense,
You just joined and are an expert on
this already? Oddly suspicious.
Quote: vailedJOYQuote: petroglyphSometimes I have epiphany's.
If it is hard to understand the separation rules, just think of it as a divorce settlement. I sense a light coming on?
Pretend the guy [Mike] built a nice house [WOO] and lived there happily, at least he thought. In his spare time, he built another place for the kids [WOV], and things were going along splendid. So well he thought, he built a guest cabin [DT]. Seeing as how there were some mutual friends, after the divorce they can still come over to the cabin and hang out. But seeing as how he put a lot of soul and hard work into building those houses, which he lost in the [sale] property settlement, when he is hanging out with his buds, he don't want to have all the crap that goes on in the place he use to own coming up in his face all the time, when he is hangin out with his buds. Simple.
Similarly the wife [who now owns the houses and everything in them] doesn't mind some of his old friends coming over on her property, or so she says, as long as there is something in it for her. She and her new boyfriend [who has some cash] are rolling in money now that they are "an item". They are all dressed up in their spawning colors with the stench of lust in the air. The new boyfriend exudes power and wealth and is arm candy for the ex. As long as she lets some of his old friends come over the new guy thinks she is civil and level headed. But when she gets her hooks in him, you will be surprised at how fast his old friends aren't welcome any more.
As each "old" friend gets booted, she can say it was Mikes fault. At this point the new guy still wants to get along, she is establishing the rules. The new guy hasn't really figured it out yet. But he will, eventually. Meanwhile, the few guys [mostly emasculated already] can still hang out at the cabin as long as they don't touch any of "her" stuff. They can't safely talk about what a **** she is, and mostly it isn't a big deal to them. They got no where else to go, and its warm and dry in there. Mikes still paying for the heat and lights. Once in a while the guys can slip in a zinger, but try not to get to rowdy, life's lessons learned.
So, its pretty easy for Petro to unnerstan that there are rules. He likes Mike, and he unnerstans the ex's need to display her power. Petro also knows about living in the back of cars and out in the cold and wet. Just cuz petro doesn't feel the need to tell the bitch off don't mean he don't know what's going on, but he likes warm and dry compared to cold and wet. Pain is an excellent teacher. Hope this helps.
It seems pretty simple sir. Mike owns a site and runs others and chooses to keep them under one umbrella of management enforcement for consistancy of product. So if one person is viewed as bad for one site then they are bad for all sites. Does it have to be that way or is there some law that states it couldnt be otherwise???...of course not. But the guy chooses to run things that way and thats the way it is. Hell, he even suggested he might override Zuga and let someone that was Nuked to come back in 30 days. If that doesnt tell you who is really in charge..I dont know what else you need to see. Its all arbitrary. Its the way the new owners want things done. The goings on is not a negative relection of Mike as he is just doing what he always arbitrarily did. If you try to make sense of it all you will get a headache. Just let it go. Crying about a guy that gets 14 days for a 5th offense, while other people get a doubling each time is silly. Just view it as unequal and arbitrary....and then worry about solving ebola outbreaks
just vote with your feet. Companies that treat me or others in an arbitrary uneven manner get none of my business.
I dont moan about it. I dont get mad.
Joy
Quite an interesting post for your first day. Welcome back!
Quote: EvenBobYou just joined and are an expert on
this already? Oddly suspicious.
My exact thoughts.
Quote: SOOPOO
Quite an interesting post for your first day. Welcome back!
Welcome back? Who were they before,
you can't have two user accounts here.
Quote:Quote: vailedJOYIt seems pretty simple sir. Mike owns a site and runs others and chooses to keep them under one umbrella of management enforcement for consistency of product. So if one person is viewed as bad for one site then they are bad for all sites. Does it have to be that way or is there some law that states it couldn't be otherwise???...of course not. But the guy chooses to run things that way and that's the way it is. Hell, he even suggested he might override Zuga and let someone that was Nuked to come back in 30 days. If that doesnt tell you who is really in charge..I dont know what else you need to see. Its all arbitrary. Its the way the new owners want things done. The goings on is not a negative relection of Mike as he is just doing what he always arbitrarily did. If you try to make sense of it all you will get a headache. Just let it go. Crying about a guy that gets 14 days for a 5th offense, while other people get a doubling each time is silly. Just view it as unequal and arbitrary....and then worry about solving ebola outbreaks
just vote with your feet. Companies that treat me or others in an arbitrary uneven manner get none of my business.
I dont moan about it. I dont get mad.
I think you mis understood me. I like the way these sites are run, and administered. I also find the new guy interesting but he doesn't come around much. I think he being a history buff would have some pretty good understanding of Europe, and the current issues in the Ukraine. I think he is mostly too busy or has other stuff to do. I was trying to help others who seemed to be displeased. I get an incredible value out of what it costs me to visit this site.
No problem on my part, just trying to help. I understand the new owners take on these complaints way better than I understand the complaints themselves. To me it is not unlike Vladimirs reaction to Obama. Actually Zuga's restraint is pretty impressive. I can't help who I like, so I just shoot from the hip and hope for the best.
Welcome to the forum VJ
Quote: vailedJOYQuote: petroglyphSometimes I have epiphany's.
If it is hard to understand the separation rules, just think of it as a divorce settlement. I sense a light coming on?
Pretend the guy [Mike] built a nice house [WOO] and lived there happily, at least he thought. In his spare time, he built another place for the kids [WOV], and things were going along splendid. So well he thought, he built a guest cabin [DT]. Seeing as how there were some mutual friends, after the divorce they can still come over to the cabin and hang out. But seeing as how he put a lot of soul and hard work into building those houses, which he lost in the [sale] property settlement, when he is hanging out with his buds, he don't want to have all the crap that goes on in the place he use to own coming up in his face all the time, when he is hangin out with his buds. Simple.
Similarly the wife [who now owns the houses and everything in them] doesn't mind some of his old friends coming over on her property, or so she says, as long as there is something in it for her. She and her new boyfriend [who has some cash] are rolling in money now that they are "an item". They are all dressed up in their spawning colors with the stench of lust in the air. The new boyfriend exudes power and wealth and is arm candy for the ex. As long as she lets some of his old friends come over the new guy thinks she is civil and level headed. But when she gets her hooks in him, you will be surprised at how fast his old friends aren't welcome any more.
As each "old" friend gets booted, she can say it was Mikes fault. At this point the new guy still wants to get along, she is establishing the rules. The new guy hasn't really figured it out yet. But he will, eventually. Meanwhile, the few guys [mostly emasculated already] can still hang out at the cabin as long as they don't touch any of "her" stuff. They can't safely talk about what a **** she is, and mostly it isn't a big deal to them. They got no where else to go, and its warm and dry in there. Mikes still paying for the heat and lights. Once in a while the guys can slip in a zinger, but try not to get to rowdy, life's lessons learned.
So, its pretty easy for Petro to unnerstan that there are rules. He likes Mike, and he unnerstans the ex's need to display her power. Petro also knows about living in the back of cars and out in the cold and wet. Just cuz petro doesn't feel the need to tell the bitch off don't mean he don't know what's going on, but he likes warm and dry compared to cold and wet. Pain is an excellent teacher. Hope this helps.
It seems pretty simple sir. Mike owns a site and runs others and chooses to keep them under one umbrella of management enforcement for consistancy of product. So if one person is viewed as bad for one site then they are bad for all sites. Does it have to be that way or is there some law that states it couldnt be otherwise???...of course not. But the guy chooses to run things that way and thats the way it is. Hell, he even suggested he might override Zuga and let someone that was Nuked to come back in 30 days. If that doesnt tell you who is really in charge..I dont know what else you need to see. Its all arbitrary. Its the way the new owners want things done. The goings on is not a negative relection of Mike as he is just doing what he always arbitrarily did. If you try to make sense of it all you will get a headache. Just let it go. Crying about a guy that gets 14 days for a 5th offense, while other people get a doubling each time is silly. Just view it as unequal and arbitrary....and then worry about solving ebola outbreaks
just vote with your feet. Companies that treat me or others in an arbitrary uneven manner get none of my business.
I dont moan about it. I dont get mad.
Joy
You don't get the facts right either. Mike never suggested that he would override Zuga. The thirty day thing was for DT not WOV. Zuga is not affiliated with DT. Nobody is crying. People are discussing the suspension list on a thread titled Discussion about the Suspension List which I might add is the top thread of the forum.
Quote: vailedJOYIf you try to make sense of it all you will get a headache. Just let it go. Crying about a guy that gets 14 days for a 5th offense, while other people get a doubling each time is silly. Just view it as unequal and arbitrary....
Perhaps the new owners could add a small software app to the site. Wheel of Fortune (or perhaps Misfortune)
If you think your ban is unfair you can take a spin at the wheel. You could do better or much worse. All in the rng. 1-30 days each slotted.
Of course, if they made it a spectator sport for the rest of us to watch in real time, all the better.
Quote: rxwinePerhaps the new owners could add a small software app to the site. Wheel of Fortune (or perhaps Misfortune)
If you think your ban is unfair you can take a spin at the wheel. You could do better or much worse. All in the rng. 1-30 days each slotted.
Of course, if they made it a spectator sport for the rest of us to watch in real time, all the better.
And maybe get Tina Turner to make the call.
