Thread Rating:

kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 4299
Thanks for this post from:
Expectedvalue
April 9th, 2021 at 8:36:21 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

An agreement has been negotiated between MDawg and Kewlj. Here are the terms, which both parties have agreed to.

1. This thread has been moved to the "Betting Systems" category.
2. Kewlj will stay out of this thread. He may not comment on it in other threads. If Mdawg posts in another thread, Kewlj may address that post only wherever it may be located.

I will be enforcing this agreement. However, I trust both parties to be men of their words and go their separate ways.



Last week I agreed to these terms. I am now asking for a re-consideration. Since there is another thread started on the same or related topic, the meetup, I could skirt the rule by continuing to participate in that thread and frequent bumping. I am choosing not to do that, instead, I hope you will allow me to make my case, followed by a fair re-consideration

First, was this really "negotiated"? You suggested I accept or be suspended.

The thread in question represents, the top thread on this forum by volume BY FAR. Would you tell a new member he can join the forum, but not participate in the most active thread? Of course not. If I say something that violates rules, I should receive a suspension, just like everyone else, not be censored from the most active thread on the forum, a thread of which the topic, a player misleading members happens to be of paramount importance to me. My comments aren't personal to the poster, it is the content of his posts that I wish to express my opinion about. Since he CONTINUES to post these misleading comments, I should be able to CONTINUE to express my doubt, just like every other member.

We all know this arrangement came because you were contacted privately and asked to remove me from his thread. But as Axelwolf so rightly stated today, this is not "his" thread. He started the thread. After that it is a general discussion thread open to everyone....or SHOULD BE.

If the poster that started the thread requires a place where he has control, over who says what, don't you provide for that in the 'Blog section'? You (Wizard) should not be protecting him by silencing people at his request. Members should be allowed to fairly express their opinions, including doubts and since he adds to or makes new claims almost every day, we should be able to repeatedly do the same

Again, I am not asking for any special treatment. I am asking for the same treatment as anyone else, to express my opinion and doubts about a topic important to me. And if I say something worthy of suspension, I accept that. Although that too should be real and not somebody, continually PMing you requesting anyone and everyone that expresses a negative opinion be suspended. He is making the claims that 20 some members have expressed doubt about. The onus is on him to make his case, and shouldn't be about limiting anyone's right to express their doubt.
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 105
  • Posts: 3707
Thanks for this post from:
Expectedvaluekewlj
April 9th, 2021 at 8:57:49 PM permalink
In all fairness to Kewlj, how many times does someone bring up my witnessing a random roller throwing 18 yos in a row? No one has ever been told not to bring it up. No one had ever been told to keep those comments to one particular thread. And even Wizard has made mention of 18 yos as a choice in some of his polls.

If Kewlj is going to be limited to one thread in this subject, then please limit the conversation about my seeing a random shooter throw 18 yos in a row to one thread.

Thank you.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
April 9th, 2021 at 9:02:26 PM permalink
This seems like something that should be discussed privately and not with a thread (especially if it involved prior private messages).

(Also, how many threads about said thread are there going to be now? I honestly don't know, but it seems the answer is at least more than several...)
Expectedvalue
Expectedvalue
Joined: Apr 23, 2020
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 186
Thanks for this post from:
kewlj
April 9th, 2021 at 9:06:43 PM permalink
Kewlj should be allowed to post. He is one of the few that debunks and shows the mathematical improbAbility . Or maybe a better suggestion. . Move mdawg stories to a blog section,
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 4299
April 9th, 2021 at 9:17:47 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

This seems like something that should be discussed privately and not with a thread (especially if it involved prior private messages).



Gandler, I thought long and hard (that's what she said....michael scott) about whether to make this post public or private with Wizard. Honestly, I don't approve of all the backroom deals, and private messaging taking place requesting this and that. There has been way too much of that. So I opted for transparency. The intent isn't to embarrass Wizard or put him on the spot. We all know he is in charge and makes the rules. Just asking for a honest consideration and to be honest, I usually have found Mike very capable of that.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
April 9th, 2021 at 9:49:13 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

Gandler, I thought long and hard (that's what she said....michael scott) about whether to make this post public or private with Wizard. Honestly, I don't approve of all the backroom deals, and private messaging taking place requesting this and that. There has been way too much of that. So I opted for transparency. The intent isn't to embarrass Wizard or put him on the spot. We all know he is in charge and makes the rules. Just asking for a honest consideration and to be honest, I usually have found Mike very capable of that.




That seems fair. I have nothing against what you posted. My only point of dissent was if it involved private correspondence its often best to keep it private.

And, if said thread is so inherently troubling, why not just avoid it? I can't claim to have followed closely, but if you have severe issues with the nature of a thread, isn't it best to just ignore it? A primary point of contention in your opening post seems to be how popular (by metrics) said thread is, if you post in such a thread and get into back and forths, are you not just furthering this?
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 105
  • Posts: 3707
April 9th, 2021 at 10:02:30 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

That seems fair. I have nothing against what you posted. My only point of dissent was if it involved private correspondence its often best to keep it private.

And, if said thread is so inherently troubling, why not just avoid it? I can't claim to have followed closely, but if you have severe issues with the nature of a thread, isn't it best to just ignore it? A primary point of contention in your opening post seems to be how popular (by metrics) said thread is, if you post in such a thread and get into back and forths, are you not just furthering this?



The question is, do you want to give controversial posts a pass?

Suppose someone posted about a casino using loaded dice. Would you give that post a pass because you questioned the authenticity of the claim?

When you block a thread because you dont like the content, or you block a poster because you think they're not telling the truth, you aren't hurting the posters who are responsible for the misinformation. You are hurting the innocents who may not know the posts contain misinformation.
sabre
sabre
Joined: Aug 16, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1134
April 9th, 2021 at 10:08:33 PM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

In all fairness to Kewlj, how many times does someone bring up my witnessing a random roller throwing 18 yos in a row?



In all fairness, if we peg MDawg's claims at a billion to one, yours would still be 13 orders of magnitude more unlikely. So it's unfair to think that the treatment of comments on your claims should be treated as or more restrictively as comments on his.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
April 9th, 2021 at 10:20:42 PM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

The question is, do you want to give controversial posts a pass?

Suppose someone posted about a casino using loaded dice. Would you give that post a pass because you questioned the authenticity of the claim?

When you block a thread because you dont like the content, or you block a poster because you think they're not telling the truth, you aren't hurting the posters who are responsible for the misinformation. You are hurting the innocents who may not know the posts contain misinformation.



I am not sure that is fair, because a casino using loaded dice or any other aspect that is illegal or unfair is a factor that effects every player.

People making personal claims about their constant wins by luck does not effect anything other than personal ego. And, if you have issues with an ego in question that have not been solved already, returning to post in their thread after apparently agreeing via a deal to stop will probably not resolve whatever the issue is and will just cause further attention to such a thread (which is something that is a stated point of contention in the opening post).
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 4299
April 9th, 2021 at 10:25:30 PM permalink
Quote: sabre

In all fairness, if we peg MDawg's claims at a billion to one, yours would still be 13 orders of magnitude more unlikely. So it's unfair to think that the treatment of comments on your claims should be treated as or more restrictively as comments on his.



I don't think it is fair to compare Alan's claim, a claim of a one time event, of what he believes he saw with that of this other situation which involves claims that are growing and added to each and every day.

I believe selective memory is at play with Alan and that is a really common thing to remember details of an incident differently than they may have really occurred, if you could go back and watch a replay. And I know Alan will fight that he knows what he saw. That's fine and not the point. Alan's recall of events is not an intentional intent to deceive or mislead.

  • Jump to: