COACH CHALLENGE RULING APPEAL

As any forum member can suddenly be thrust into a coach challenge under penalty of not participating, I believe everyone has an interest in the outcome of this appeal.

To wit, It is put forth that the Wizard erred by not separating the two issues of A) misquoting of MDawg and B) the subsequent Coach's Challenge. Proof will be presented that Wizard should have kept these as two mutually separate issues. Wizard has already assigned guilt for misquoting (while I still maintain my innocence there really isn't any proof I can provide, if the Wizard believes I am guilty so be it.) This appeal is not challenging that ruling and time was served. It is my opinion Wizard has not yet given sentence on the matter of the Coach Challenge itself, that DarkOz was victorious and this ruling appeal is requesting the court to make good on a sentence for MDawg.

It is imperative that all forum members agree an agreement, contract or challenge be put in writing and that all the aspects of said challenge, etc, be put clearly and concisely in the letter of the challenge. If something is not written in the Challenge, it cannot and should not be magically brought up after the fact and enforced.

The Coach Challenge to DarkOz was written a number of times including twice by Wizard and in all iterations, was substantially the same showing there can be no excuse for not including details of the challenge. It was AS WRITTEN a challenge for DarkOz to show any forum member (or anyone period) had made a claim to beat Baccarat every day for years and that said claim was debunked. THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE WRITTEN CHALLENGE! Nowhere in writing was it mentioned DarkOz must also prove where he first saw these claims, nor what he was thinking at the time of the misquote (something that would be impossible short of a time-stamped contemporaneous reply to the post).

The challenge AS WRITTEN was performed by DarkOz.

EXHIBIT A: The challenge in MDawgs own words.

Quote: MDawg

Where did I (or anyone else) claim to beat Baccarat every day of every week of every year?

Where was this claim "to beat Baccarat every day of every week of every year" debunked.

I challenge you to produce your proof, I believe that you are not being truthful here. If it turns out that you are being untruthful, what is the penalty?
link to original post

Above MDawg asks for A) proof someone claimed to beat Baccarat every day for years and B) it was debunked. Nowhere does he ask for proof other than that.

The Wizard repeated in writing the parameters of the challenge and they were prima facie the same.

EXHIBIT B:

Quote: Wizard

That said, the ball is in your court to prove both Mdawg, or any forum member, claimed "to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year " and furthermore that said claim was debunked.

You are not using exact quotes, but saying these events happened. Prove it.

Wizard has added that I am free to show evidence without having to make a direct quote however the parameters of the challenge AS WRITTEN are extremely clear and unambiguous. Two things are asked only, that Darkoz A) prove said statement was made and B) debunked. Absolutely nothing else is in that challenge.

(I would argue the Wizards words "...the ball is in your court...prove it" also implicitly command me to find the evidence forthwith. They certainly don't suggest "And you better have the evidence already and be able to show you had it for weeks". Regardless, nothing in the Challenge is mentioned beyond A)prove comments were made and B) prove they were debunked.

EXHIBIT C: The challenge again said in the WIzards own words. While on its face, completely the same, egregiously the Wizard added a prerequisite of punishment.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: darkoz

There was a gambler who claimed to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year

Eventually that claim was debunked.

MDawg doesn't get it. Apparently never will.
link to original post

A challenge was filed about this claim. Per forum rules, darkoz is requested to submit evidence that both said claim was made as well as debunked. Punishment will be given for failure to do so. However, if sufficient evidence is provided, the complainant will serve the punishment.
link to original post

Here not only does Wizard clearly state the Challenge is only to A} provide evidence said quote was made and B)debunked but also states unequivocally that if sufficient evidence to these TWO requests are made then MDawg will serve the punishment.

With most contracts, agreements or challenges, terms are a meeting of the minds with both parties negotiating until they are satisfied in the carrying out of the clauses. A Coach Challenge is totally different. It is an inequitable contract or an agreement where one side enforces the other or holds power to enjoin the opposing party. In this case MDawg had the total power in enforcement (there is clear evidence I didn't even want to take part that the court is aware of) and MDawg was 100% in control of the wording of the challenge and the creation of it's requirements. With zero input from DarkOz, the onus of wording the Challenge properly is 100% on MDawg. If pertinent items were left out, that cannot be laid at the feet of DarkOz who followed the letter of the WRITTEN CHALLENGE under duress.

There can be no doubt what the challenge AS WRITTEN requested. The only question left is did DarkOz win the challenge AS WRITTEN.

There was nothing that stated the parameters of the quote, whether it had to be serious or sarcastic in nature, nor how it was debunked. A post by Redietz where he claimed for years to beat Baccarat "playing every night" satisfies (indirectly quoted per Wizards written challenge above) every day for years. (Every week is redundant obviously if beating it every day for years)

Furthermore as even MDawg pointed out, Redietz himself admitted this claim was in jest. That was precisely the evidence I submitted to the Wizard. What else is admitting a claim was made in jest but debunking one's own claim. Again, nothing was mentioned quantifying that the claim could not be self-debunked . Only that it was debunked period.

EXHIBIT D: The Wizards final judgement.

Quote: Wizard

darkoz submitted his evidence via PM, which was this post of Feb 3, 2021.

In the view of this judge, both those posts were sarcastic in nature in response to claims by EvenBob. Given the context of the darkoz post and going by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, I do not believe darkoz was referring to those posts at the time of his post and was instead misquoting MDawg.

My judgement is in favor of the complainant. darkoz is sentenced to a seven-day suspension for false quoting.
link to original post

The Wizards judgement does NOT A) mention I failed to show the quote was made NOR B) that I failed to show it was debunked.

It is clear these two aspects of the challenge were met to the Wizards satisfaction and that instead, the judgement was in err by then combining the judgment for misquoting MDawg.

It is asked of the court that DarkOz be officially announced the winner of the Coach's Challenge by MDawg and that sentence on MDawg be pronounced.

This concludes this appeal

However I would like to state that some forum members may be inclined to claim DarkOz is just being a sore loser. Let me squash that right now. I believe I am the only forum member to take part in a financial challenge with MDawg. Even as other members decried this as a bad decision, I never expressed any regrets or challenged the outcome at cost of $2,000. This isn't the actions of a sore loser. If losing $2,000 elicits nothing more than a shoulder shrug, then understand being robbed of a decision that should rightfully be mine is more important to me and I am standing on principle.

Comments are always welcome.

I understand the Wizard hasn't returned yet so this won't come under official review for awhile yet.

I thank the court, the forum and the Wizard for their attention in this matter.

Quote: darkoz

As any forum member can suddenly be thrust into a coach challenge under penalty of not participating, I believe everyone has an interest in the outcome of this appeal.

To wit, It is put forth that the Wizard erred by not separating the two issues of A) misquoting of MDawg and B) the subsequent Coach's Challenge. Proof will be presented that Wizard should have kept these as two mutually separate issues. Wizard has already assigned guilt for misquoting (while I still maintain my innocence there really isn't any proof I can provide, if the Wizard believes I am guilty so be it.) This appeal is not challenging that ruling and time was served. It is my opinion Wizard has not yet given sentence on the matter of the Coach Challenge itself, that DarkOz was victorious and this ruling appeal is requesting the court to make good on a sentence for MDawg.

It is imperative that all forum members agree an agreement, contract or challenge be put in writing and that all the aspects of said challenge, etc, be put clearly and concisely in the letter of the challenge. If something is not written in the Challenge, it cannot and should not be magically brought up after the fact and enforced.

The Coach Challenge to DarkOz was written a number of times including twice by Wizard and in all iterations, was substantially the same showing there can be no excuse for not including details of the challenge. It was AS WRITTEN a challenge for DarkOz to show any forum member (or anyone period) had made a claim to beat Baccarat every day for years and that said claim was debunked. THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE WRITTEN CHALLENGE! Nowhere in writing was it mentioned DarkOz must also prove where he first saw these claims, nor what he was thinking at the time of the misquote (something that would be impossible short of a time-stamped contemporaneous reply to the post).

The challenge AS WRITTEN was performed by DarkOz.

EXHIBIT A: The challenge in MDawgs own words.

Quote: MDawg

Where did I (or anyone else) claim to beat Baccarat every day of every week of every year?

Where was this claim "to beat Baccarat every day of every week of every year" debunked.

I challenge you to produce your proof, I believe that you are not being truthful here. If it turns out that you are being untruthful, what is the penalty?
link to original post

Above MDawg asks for A) proof someone claimed to beat Baccarat every day for years and B) it was debunked. Nowhere does he ask for proof other than that.

The Wizard repeated in writing the parameters of the challenge and they were prima facie the same.

EXHIBIT B:

Quote: Wizard

That said, the ball is in your court to prove both Mdawg, or any forum member, claimed "to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year " and furthermore that said claim was debunked.

You are not using exact quotes, but saying these events happened. Prove it.

Wizard has added that I am free to show evidence without having to make a direct quote however the parameters of the challenge AS WRITTEN are extremely clear and unambiguous. Two things are asked only, that Darkoz A) prove said statement was made and B) debunked. Absolutely nothing else is in that challenge.

(I would argue the Wizards words "...the ball is in your court...prove it" also implicitly command me to find the evidence forthwith. They certainly don't suggest "And you better have the evidence already and be able to show you had it for weeks". Regardless, nothing in the Challenge is mentioned beyond A)prove comments were made and B) prove they were debunked.

EXHIBIT C: The challenge again said in the WIzards own words. While on its face, completely the same, egregiously the Wizard added a prerequisite of punishment.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: darkoz

There was a gambler who claimed to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year

Eventually that claim was debunked.

MDawg doesn't get it. Apparently never will.
link to original post

A challenge was filed about this claim. Per forum rules, darkoz is requested to submit evidence that both said claim was made as well as debunked. Punishment will be given for failure to do so. However, if sufficient evidence is provided, the complainant will serve the punishment.
link to original post

Here not only does Wizard clearly state the Challenge is only to A} provide evidence said quote was made and B)debunked but also states unequivocally that if sufficient evidence to these TWO requests are made then MDawg will serve the punishment.

With most contracts, agreements or challenges, terms are a meeting of the minds with both parties negotiating until they are satisfied in the carrying out of the clauses. A Coach Challenge is totally different. It is an inequitable contract or an agreement where one side enforces the other or holds power to enjoin the opposing party. In this case MDawg had the total power in enforcement (there is clear evidence I didn't even want to take part that the court is aware of) and MDawg was 100% in control of the wording of the challenge and the creation of it's requirements. With zero input from DarkOz, the onus of wording the Challenge properly is 100% on MDawg. If pertinent items were left out, that cannot be laid at the feet of DarkOz who followed the letter of the WRITTEN CHALLENGE under duress.

There can be no doubt what the challenge AS WRITTEN requested. The only question left is did DarkOz win the challenge AS WRITTEN.

There was nothing that stated the parameters of the quote, whether it had to be serious or sarcastic in nature, nor how it was debunked. A post by Redietz where he claimed for years to beat Baccarat "playing every night" satisfies (indirectly quoted per Wizards written challenge above) every day for years. (Every week is redundant obviously if beating it every day for years)

Furthermore as even MDawg pointed out, Redietz himself admitted this claim was in jest. That was precisely the evidence I submitted to the Wizard. What else is admitting a claim was made in jest but debunking one's own claim. Again, nothing was mentioned quantifying that the claim could not be self-debunked . Only that it was debunked period.

EXHIBIT D: The Wizards final judgement.

Quote: Wizard

darkoz submitted his evidence via PM, which was this post of Feb 3, 2021.

In the view of this judge, both those posts were sarcastic in nature in response to claims by EvenBob. Given the context of the darkoz post and going by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, I do not believe darkoz was referring to those posts at the time of his post and was instead misquoting MDawg.

My judgement is in favor of the complainant. darkoz is sentenced to a seven-day suspension for false quoting.
link to original post

The Wizards judgement does NOT A) mention I failed to show the quote was made NOR B) that it was debunked.

It is clear these two aspects of the challenge were met to the Wizards satisfaction and that instead, the judgement was in err by then combining the judgment for misquoting MDawg.

It is asked of the court that DarkOz be officially announced the winner of the Coach's Challenge by MDawg and that sentence on MDawg be pronounced.

This concludes this appeal

However I would like to state that some forum members may be inclined to claim DarkOz is just being a sore loser. Let me squash that right now. I believe I am the only forum member to take part in a financial challenge with MDawg. Even as other members decried this as a bad decision, I never expressed any regrets or challenged the outcome at cost of $2,000. This isn't the actions of a sore loser. If losing $2,000 elicits nothing more than a shoulder shrug, then understand being robbed of a decision that should rightfully be mine is more important to me and I am standing on principle.

Comments are always welcome.

I understand the Wizard hasn't returned yet so this won't come under official review for awhile yet.

I thank the court, the forum and the Wizard for their attention in this matter.
link to original post

I fell asleep after the second paragraph. Don't tell me the ending, don't spoil it for me. I'll read the rest of it when I have absolutely positively nothing else to do. Snicker..

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: darkoz

As any forum member can suddenly be thrust into a coach challenge under penalty of not participating, I believe everyone has an interest in the outcome of this appeal.

To wit, It is put forth that the Wizard erred by not separating the two issues of A) misquoting of MDawg and B) the subsequent Coach's Challenge. Proof will be presented that Wizard should have kept these as two mutually separate issues. Wizard has already assigned guilt for misquoting (while I still maintain my innocence there really isn't any proof I can provide, if the Wizard believes I am guilty so be it.) This appeal is not challenging that ruling and time was served. It is my opinion Wizard has not yet given sentence on the matter of the Coach Challenge itself, that DarkOz was victorious and this ruling appeal is requesting the court to make good on a sentence for MDawg.

It is imperative that all forum members agree an agreement, contract or challenge be put in writing and that all the aspects of said challenge, etc, be put clearly and concisely in the letter of the challenge. If something is not written in the Challenge, it cannot and should not be magically brought up after the fact and enforced.

The Coach Challenge to DarkOz was written a number of times including twice by Wizard and in all iterations, was substantially the same showing there can be no excuse for not including details of the challenge. It was AS WRITTEN a challenge for DarkOz to show any forum member (or anyone period) had made a claim to beat Baccarat every day for years and that said claim was debunked. THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE WRITTEN CHALLENGE! Nowhere in writing was it mentioned DarkOz must also prove where he first saw these claims, nor what he was thinking at the time of the misquote (something that would be impossible short of a time-stamped contemporaneous reply to the post).

The challenge AS WRITTEN was performed by DarkOz.

EXHIBIT A: The challenge in MDawgs own words.

Quote: MDawg

Where did I (or anyone else) claim to beat Baccarat every day of every week of every year?

Where was this claim "to beat Baccarat every day of every week of every year" debunked.

I challenge you to produce your proof, I believe that you are not being truthful here. If it turns out that you are being untruthful, what is the penalty?
link to original post

Above MDawg asks for A) proof someone claimed to beat Baccarat every day for years and B) it was debunked. Nowhere does he ask for proof other than that.

The Wizard repeated in writing the parameters of the challenge and they were prima facie the same.

EXHIBIT B:

Quote: Wizard

That said, the ball is in your court to prove both Mdawg, or any forum member, claimed "to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year " and furthermore that said claim was debunked.

You are not using exact quotes, but saying these events happened. Prove it.

Wizard has added that I am free to show evidence without having to make a direct quote however the parameters of the challenge AS WRITTEN are extremely clear and unambiguous. Two things are asked only, that Darkoz A) prove said statement was made and B) debunked. Absolutely nothing else is in that challenge.

(I would argue the Wizards words "...the ball is in your court...prove it" also implicitly command me to find the evidence forthwith. They certainly don't suggest "And you better have the evidence already and be able to show you had it for weeks". Regardless, nothing in the Challenge is mentioned beyond A)prove comments were made and B) prove they were debunked.

EXHIBIT C: The challenge again said in the WIzards own words. While on its face, completely the same, egregiously the Wizard added a prerequisite of punishment.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: darkoz

There was a gambler who claimed to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year

Eventually that claim was debunked.

MDawg doesn't get it. Apparently never will.
link to original post

A challenge was filed about this claim. Per forum rules, darkoz is requested to submit evidence that both said claim was made as well as debunked. Punishment will be given for failure to do so. However, if sufficient evidence is provided, the complainant will serve the punishment.
link to original post

Here not only does Wizard clearly state the Challenge is only to A} provide evidence said quote was made and B)debunked but also states unequivocally that if sufficient evidence to these TWO requests are made then MDawg will serve the punishment.

With most contracts, agreements or challenges, terms are a meeting of the minds with both parties negotiating until they are satisfied in the carrying out of the clauses. A Coach Challenge is totally different. It is an inequitable contract or an agreement where one side enforces the other or holds power to enjoin the opposing party. In this case MDawg had the total power in enforcement (there is clear evidence I didn't even want to take part that the court is aware of) and MDawg was 100% in control of the wording of the challenge and the creation of it's requirements. With zero input from DarkOz, the onus of wording the Challenge properly is 100% on MDawg. If pertinent items were left out, that cannot be laid at the feet of DarkOz who followed the letter of the WRITTEN CHALLENGE under duress.

There can be no doubt what the challenge AS WRITTEN requested. The only question left is did DarkOz win the challenge AS WRITTEN.

There was nothing that stated the parameters of the quote, whether it had to be serious or sarcastic in nature, nor how it was debunked. A post by Redietz where he claimed for years to beat Baccarat "playing every night" satisfies (indirectly quoted per Wizards written challenge above) every day for years. (Every week is redundant obviously if beating it every day for years)

Furthermore as even MDawg pointed out, Redietz himself admitted this claim was in jest. That was precisely the evidence I submitted to the Wizard. What else is admitting a claim was made in jest but debunking one's own claim. Again, nothing was mentioned quantifying that the claim could not be self-debunked . Only that it was debunked period.

EXHIBIT D: The Wizards final judgement.

Quote: Wizard

darkoz submitted his evidence via PM, which was this post of Feb 3, 2021.

In the view of this judge, both those posts were sarcastic in nature in response to claims by EvenBob. Given the context of the darkoz post and going by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, I do not believe darkoz was referring to those posts at the time of his post and was instead misquoting MDawg.

My judgement is in favor of the complainant. darkoz is sentenced to a seven-day suspension for false quoting.
link to original post

The Wizards judgement does NOT A) mention I failed to show the quote was made NOR B) that it was debunked.

It is clear these two aspects of the challenge were met to the Wizards satisfaction and that instead, the judgement was in err by then combining the judgment for misquoting MDawg.

It is asked of the court that DarkOz be officially announced the winner of the Coach's Challenge by MDawg and that sentence on MDawg be pronounced.

This concludes this appeal

However I would like to state that some forum members may be inclined to claim DarkOz is just being a sore loser. Let me squash that right now. I believe I am the only forum member to take part in a financial challenge with MDawg. Even as other members decried this as a bad decision, I never expressed any regrets or challenged the outcome at cost of $2,000. This isn't the actions of a sore loser. If losing $2,000 elicits nothing more than a shoulder shrug, then understand being robbed of a decision that should rightfully be mine is more important to me and I am standing on principle.

Comments are always welcome.

I understand the Wizard hasn't returned yet so this won't come under official review for awhile yet.

I thank the court, the forum and the Wizard for their attention in this matter.
link to original post

I fell asleep after the second paragraph. Don't tell me the ending, don't spoil it for me. I'll read the rest of it when I have absolutely positively nothing else to do. Snicker..
link to original post

In summary, DarkOz. ……TLDR.

I saw the length of the first post and thought, "Life is too short for this."

Looks like not the first time he has done this sort of thing, "appealed."

Dark Oz Suspension

Can you imagine too - the poor judge in any lawsuit where DarkOz represented himself?

In the end there is only one person who needs to read the appeal and make judgment on it.

No one else's opinion matters although all are welcome to comment.

BTW I don't consider comments that they can't take time to read to be valid comments on the validity of the argument.

Awaiting the Wizards review.

Quote: darkoz

In the end there is only one person who needs to read the appeal and make judgment on it.

No one else's opinion matters although all are welcome to comment.

BTW I don't consider comments that they can't take time to read to be valid comments on the validity of the argument.

Awaiting the Wizards review.
link to original post

Brevity is a valuable asset. You don't really think Mike's going to read all that, LOL.

Quote: darkoz

In the end there is only one person who needs to read the appeal and make judgment on it.

No one else's opinion matters although all are welcome to comment.

BTW I don't consider comments that they can't take time to read to be valid comments on the validity of the argument.

Awaiting the Wizards review.
link to original post

Dude, you got screwed, it's obvious you won the stated challenge, that's clear as day.

I suggest a poll and I you should ask Mike to recuse himself and have three 3rd party people who know nothing about it decide.

Of course you must needs have actually read (not glanced at not skimmed) all of the relevant posts to even understand what any of this is about - so that right there disqualifies A.Wolf’s opinion on this matter - in my opinion.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: darkoz

In the end there is only one person who needs to read the appeal and make judgment on it.

No one else's opinion matters although all are welcome to comment.

BTW I don't consider comments that they can't take time to read to be valid comments on the validity of the argument.

Awaiting the Wizards review.
link to original post

Dude, you got screwed, it's obvious you won the stated challenge, that's clear as day.

I suggest a poll and I you should ask Mike to recuse himself and have three 3rd party people who know nothing about it decide.
link to original post

I think that is a valid suggestion but I won't insist on it.

And thanks. You aren't the only one who has expressed this.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: darkoz

In the end there is only one person who needs to read the appeal and make judgment on it.

No one else's opinion matters although all are welcome to comment.

BTW I don't consider comments that they can't take time to read to be valid comments on the validity of the argument.

Awaiting the Wizards review.
link to original post

Brevity is a valuable asset. You don't really think Mike's going to read all that, LOL.
link to original post

I was forced to do a stupid challenge (there are so many reasons why it was stupid. )

It's the least he can do.

Besides half of the post is the evidence in his own words.

I think someone as smart as the Wizard knows how to skim wisely. He has testified at trials in real courts. I imagine he knows how to read long evidence filled paperwork.

EDIT: The Wizard can always request a shorter version of the appeal. I hope ("It's too long to consider-case closed") is not the answer he gives. I have more faith in him than that.

This new thread should just be rolled into the original Baccarat Coach's Challenge thread, but anyway, here is why DarkOz's appeal fails:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/38836-baccarat-coachs-challenge/2/#post914753

Quote: MDawg

In re: COACH CHALLENGE RULING APPEAL

DarkOz could have just as easily been convicted on "both those posts were sarcastic in nature in response to claims by EvenBob" (i.e. that they didn't fit the bill of whatever you were trying to claim whatsoever), as well as "Given the context of the darkoz post and going by a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, I do not believe darkoz was referring to those posts at the time of his post and was instead misquoting MDawg."
link to original post

Here's why:

This is the challenged post:

Quote: darkoz

There was a gambler who claimed to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year

Eventually that claim was debunked.

MDawg doesn't get it. Apparently never will.
link to original post

The elements of DarkOz's claim are
(1) There was a gambler who claimed to beat baccarat
(2) every day of every week of every year
3) whose claim was eventually debunked

The post DarkOz offered to support what he claimed from REDietz was as follows (and REDietz also quoted a post from JoeMan too, so let's just include the JoeMan post too in what the Wizard considered when he wrote

Quote: Wizard

both those posts were sarcastic in nature
link to original post

):

Quote: redietz

Quote: Joeman

I have been going to casinos for almost 30 years, and I have yet to have a single losing baccarat session! ;)

I got you beat by a mile. I spent a hundred days each year in casinos for decades, and have been going to casinos since the early 80's. I have yet to lose a single session to the casinos in all that time.

Some people say I don't play enough to have reached "the long term." Hogwash! I'm sitting at the baccarat tables every night, especially between 2 AM and 4 AM. I do have a system, though.

I only sit at those tables that are closed. The casinos say it's okay as long as I pay them an hourly rate and bring my own chips. One drawback -- they are a little tight on my comps.
link to original post

1) The Joeman post fails to fit the bill, because it refers to that he has been going to casinos for 30 years (not every day of every week of every year),
2) and he winds it up with a wink ; that further emphasizes that the post was not meant to be taken seriously.
3) The post was not debunked, was not even taken seriously, no one even commented on it, other than REDietz, who took the satire further, with HIS post ("I got you beat by a mile").

1) The REDietz post fails to fit the bill, because it refers to having "spent a hundred days each year in casinos" - which again does not translate to every day of every week of every year,
2) and is clearly meant in jest because he states that "I only sit at those tables that are closed" meaning that he doesn't even play, just sits there pretending to play.
3) This satirical, joking post too, was never debunked, because it was never meant to be taken seriously.

DarkOz, your evidence provided was nothing short of a joke, really bad, you had no prayer of getting out of this one offering that off the wall nonsense, and I repeat:

Quote: mdawg

you came up with some irrelevant comic post from REDietz that had nothing to do with whatever you were claiming and was not on your mind when you made that original post.
link to original post

The forum software does not provide for combining threads.

Quote: MDawg

This new thread should just be rolled into the original Baccarat Coach's Challenge thread, but anyway, here is why DarkOz's appeal fails:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/38836-baccarat-coachs-challenge/2/#post914753
link to original post

The whole existence of this ‘Coach’s Challenge’ is just silly.

This is WoV, not a real court. Wizard has looked past the possible technicality that DarkOz is correct, to the clear and unambiguous implication in DarkOz’s posts that he was jabbing at MDawg.

I consider DarkOz an honest man. He hs never made a post in which I think he is trying to deceive us.

DarkOz, please just answer this….. when you made the post about ‘someone’ beating baccarat every day, were you referring to MDawg? I am over 99% sure your honest answer is yes.

Listen guys, DarkOz is here to tell me about backrooming, multi-carding, disguises, etc…. MDawg is here to tell me about high stakes gambling, Rolexes, luxury comps, etc…. I implore both of you to go back to what makes both of you interesting and not this (beneath BOTH of you) childish spat.

Quote: Dieter

The forum software does not provide for combining threads.
link to original post

Well then, please consider my above post as a duplicate copy of my Amicus Brief for the judge.

And as far as this whole matter, I did advise DarkOz

to just withdraw the claim and I'd drop it, but he just laughed stubbornly. Well, he doesn't seem to be laughing so loud now? Or just throw himself at the mercy of the court early on. Fighting and losing he probably ended up with a longer sentence. And opened himself up to looking ridiculous by presenting really bad evidence or, as SooPoo is implying...less than forthright.

Meantime, for SooPoo:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/36647-the-adventures-of-mdawg-ii/88/#post914769

Quote: MDawg

Quote: Dieter

The forum software does not provide for combining threads.
link to original post

Well then, please consider my above post as a duplicate copy of my Amicus Brief for the judge.

And as far as this whole matter, I did advise DarkOz

to just withdraw the claim and I'd drop it, but he just laughed stubbornly. Well, he doesn't seem to be laughing so loud now? Or just throw himself at the mercy of the court early on. Fighting and losing he probably ended up with a longer sentence. And opened himself up to looking ridiculous by presenting really bad evidence or, as SooPoo is implying...less than forthright.

Meantime, for SooPoo:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/36647-the-adventures-of-mdawg-ii/88/#post914769
link to original post

I am not the one worried considering how much you are posting.

There are enough other posters that disagree with your assessment that I was unable to win the challenge so let's see what the Wizard rules.

You should just drop this unless you want it to be said that

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: MDawg

This new thread should just be rolled into the original Baccarat Coach's Challenge thread, but anyway, here is why DarkOz's appeal fails:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/38836-baccarat-coachs-challenge/2/#post914753
link to original post

The whole existence of this ‘Coach’s Challenge’ is just silly.

This is WoV, not a real court. Wizard has looked past the possible technicality that DarkOz is correct, to the clear and unambiguous implication in DarkOz’s posts that he was jabbing at MDawg.

I consider DarkOz an honest man. He hs never made a post in which I think he is trying to deceive us.

DarkOz, please just answer this….. when you made the post about ‘someone’ beating baccarat every day, were you referring to MDawg? I am over 99% sure your honest answer is yes.

Listen guys, DarkOz is here to tell me about backrooming, multi-carding, disguises, etc…. MDawg is here to tell me about high stakes gambling, Rolexes, luxury comps, etc…. I implore both of you to go back to what makes both of you interesting and not this (beneath BOTH of you) childish spat.
link to original post

My HONEST ANSWER?

It went like this.

MDawg once again challenged my weekly claim ad nauseum AND said I believe when it came to my claim it wasn't real or it was meaningless because "Darkoz doesn't get it"

I can't find that specific post. I think it got lost in the thread split.

Anyway I intended to echo MDawg by saying something that was ACTUALLY nonsensical for real. "Winning baccarat every day of every week of every year" was ridiculous to me (the irony is most people agreed it was ridiculous but the problem with this forum is they assumed I had to be serious) anyway that was the point of saying MDawg doesn't get it and never will (he still has failed to get it but apparently so did everyone else)

I specifically worded it "There was a gambler...) because I wasn't quoting MDawg. In my neck of the woods you have to actually attribute the quote to someone to misquote. So this whole thing seems ridiculous to me.

Just to be clear if it was so clear I had been referring to MDawg there would have been no need for me to prove it one way or the other. The very ambiguity of whether I quoted him or not makes such a claim ridiculous. "MDawg said..." is a quote or misquote. "There was a gambler who said..." is not quoting anyone in particular.

Anyway then came a challenge I tried to not take part in. I was challenged to find such a post. I did. No one said I had to prove when I knew about it. By the written rules of the challenge I believe I won. Evidence has been posted.

Anyway the initial accusation that I was referring to MDawg (which I always denied and never claimed he said) was believed by Wizard so there you go.

And as complicated an answer as that is that's why I didn't bother explaining earlier.

Finally I should point out the irony of this is that if anyone was misquoted it was Darkoz.

Darkoz: "There was a gambler..."
MDawg: "Darkoz is referring to me"

Like literally that's the definition of a misquote. When someone (MDAWG) claims someone else (Darkoz) said something they didn't. I never said MDawg made that claim but he sure misquoted me that I did.

Quote: MDawg

This new thread should just be rolled into the original Baccarat Coach's Challenge thread, but anyway, here is why DarkOz's appeal fails:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/38836-baccarat-coachs-challenge/2/#post914753

Quote: MDawg

In re: COACH CHALLENGE RULING APPEAL

DarkOz could have just as easily been convicted on "both those posts were sarcastic in nature in response to claims by EvenBob" (i.e. that they didn't fit the bill of whatever you were trying to claim whatsoever), as well as "Given the context of the darkoz post and going by a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, I do not believe darkoz was referring to those posts at the time of his post and was instead misquoting MDawg."
link to original post

Here's why:

This is the challenged post:

Quote: darkoz

There was a gambler who claimed to beat baccarat every day of every week of every year

Eventually that claim was debunked.

MDawg doesn't get it. Apparently never will.
link to original post

The elements of DarkOz's claim are
(1) There was a gambler who claimed to beat baccarat
(2) every day of every week of every year
3) whose claim was eventually debunked

The post DarkOz offered to support what he claimed from REDietz was as follows (and REDietz also quoted a post from JoeMan too, so let's just include the JoeMan post too in what the Wizard considered when he wrote

Quote: Wizard

both those posts were sarcastic in nature
link to original post

):

Quote: redietz

Quote: Joeman

I have been going to casinos for almost 30 years, and I have yet to have a single losing baccarat session! ;)

I got you beat by a mile. I spent a hundred days each year in casinos for decades, and have been going to casinos since the early 80's. I have yet to lose a single session to the casinos in all that time.

Some people say I don't play enough to have reached "the long term." Hogwash! I'm sitting at the baccarat tables every night, especially between 2 AM and 4 AM. I do have a system, though.

I only sit at those tables that are closed. The casinos say it's okay as long as I pay them an hourly rate and bring my own chips. One drawback -- they are a little tight on my comps.
link to original post

1) The Joeman post fails to fit the bill, because it refers to that he has been going to casinos for 30 years (not every day of every week of every year),
2) and he winds it up with a wink ; that further emphasizes that the post was not meant to be taken seriously.
3) The post was not debunked, was not even taken seriously, no one even commented on it, other than REDietz, who took the satire further, with HIS post ("I got you beat by a mile").

1) The REDietz post fails to fit the bill, because it refers to having "spent a hundred days each year in casinos" - which again does not translate to every day of every week of every year,
2) and is clearly meant in jest because he states that "I only sit at those tables that are closed" meaning that he doesn't even play, just sits there pretending to play.
3) This satirical, joking post too, was never debunked, because it was never meant to be taken seriously.

DarkOz, your evidence provided was nothing short of a joke, really bad, you had no prayer of getting out of this one offering that off the wall nonsense, and I repeat:

Quote: mdawg

you came up with some irrelevant comic post from REDietz that had nothing to do with whatever you were claiming and was not on your mind when you made that original post.
link to original post

link to original post

You literally left out Redietz saying "He plays Baccarat every night".

And his then claiming how he beats it is itself him debunking his own claim.

TEST (This post will be edited)

Quote: Mission146

TEST (This post will be edited)
link to original post

I see it. Is that the test?

First of all, I want to make it clear that my opinion is of no consequence on this matter.

However, it seems that DarkOz is claiming that he stated an (unspecified) player claimed to win every day, at Baccarat. MDawg took this claim as being in reference to himself, ergo, Coach's Challenge. The Challenge seemed to stipulate, as far as I understand, that Darkoz need only prove that someone here has made this claim. Again, that's DarkOz' interpretation, so I'm not going to opine on how the rules for this are interpreted (or what might have been meant to be implied in the rules) as I am not able to read peoples' thoughts.

Of course, that's also why terms should be made clear, explicit and leave as little room for interpretation as possible.

If someone had asked me to make an assumption as to whether or not someone, at some point claimed to always beat Baccarat, on this forum, I would absolutely assume that. Of course, Darkoz presented his statement as fact that someone had said that.

In defense of Darkoz, allow me to present Varmenti:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/15264-i-have-a-winning-system-but-i-dont-know-how-to-properly-prove-it-any-suggestions/

Quote: Varmenti

after reading the comments, i'm afraid not, It's pointless. I make money everyday at the Casino (yes, I say that in Confidence) but I am unable to Prove myself to this forum. Like you said, It can't be done. so why waste his time. I will have an enjoyable vacation though in Vegas.

(Bold added)

In the same thread, Varmenti elaborates:

Quote: Varmenti

Yes, as a run develops the runner will compliment the partner with one winning chip after every win and increasing your running bet by at least 100% the first win and 30-50% each additional win and never having to play a full Baccarat shoe.
having low income goals increases the chances of profit margin for every session played.

example: 10 tables played for 20 hands each show a very good win rate when simply trying for a small 200.00 win or a limited streak of 6 or better. making $100.00 per table is even easier showing a loss only 20% of the time.

so 200.00 or after streak ends, whatever comes first.

Thus, we have established the following:

A.) Varmenti claimed to win every day.

B.) Varmenti himself would elaborate that the game in question was Baccarat.

Anyway, I would argue that there was a person who claimed to win every day at Baccarat is objectively true.

That brings us to the question of recency. Is it likely that DarkOz was referring to a Member who has been banned for several years, specifically? Probably not. I'd argue almost certainly not. That goes against DarkOz.

However, that someone has made this claim here is undeniable. It also wasn't a claim made in sarcasm.

My decision (and if we want to do a best of three people, feel free to count me in and this can be taken as what I have to say) is that this is a, 'No fault,' issue.

I would find in favor of neither party. DarkOz' literal statement is objectively true; MDawg could reasonably assume that he was the one to whom Darkoz referred, though strictly speaking, Darkoz did no such thing.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

TEST (This post will be edited)
link to original post

I see it. Is that the test?
link to original post

I meant to replace it with what I just posted above. I forgot to do the edit thing and hit submit.

Without getting into that whatever Varmenti claimed (I wish you would include the URLs), was never debunked, DarkOz presented his evidence and asked the Wizard to make his decision. In other words, he "rested his case" and Wizard rendered judgment.

That you've now found some random post that seems to (but does not) "fit" DarkOz's post better than what he pulled out of a hat, is just evidence that DarkOz had something entirely different in mind (different from the REDietz post) when he made the offending post. And in any case, the case stands on the evidence that DarkOz presented.

This is a case, if you want to look at it that way, where the defendant hung himself. He presented such a glaringly inapposite post to try to prove his point, that he made it clear that he did not have that REDietz post anywhere in his mind when he made the offending post. Losing credibility like that all in one go, makes anything he has to say on the subject, subject. A judge may certainly, in deciding a case, take into account that the defendant has contradicted himself or rendered himself no longer credible, during his testimony. (Hence the "preponderance of evidence" standard the Wizard used to adjudge that DarkOz was referring to MDawg in his post.)

Once it became clear that DarkOz was just grasping at straws (putting his finger in the dyke and praying, so to speak), it was no stretch at all for the Wizard to then impugn anything DarkOz had to say by way of trying to imply that he wasn't referring to MDawg in the first place.

Quote: MDawg

Without getting into that whatever Varmenti claimed (I wish you would include the URLs), was never debunked, DarkOz presented his evidence and asked the Wizard to make his decision. In other words, he "rested his case" and Wizard rendered judgment.

That you've now found some random post that seems to (but does not) "fit" DarkOz's post better than what he pulled out of a hat, is just evidence that DarkOz had something entirely different in mind (different from the REDietz post) when he made the offending post. And in any case, the case stands on the evidence that DarkOz presented.

This is a case, if you want to look at it that way, where the defendant hung himself. He presented such an glaringly inapposite post to try to prove his point, that he made it clear that he did not have that REDietz post anywhere in his mind when he made the offending post. Losing credibility like that all in one go, makes anything he has to say on the subject, subject. A judge may certainly, in deciding a case, take into account that the defendant has contradicted himself or rendered himself no longer credible, during his testimony.

Once it became clear that DarkOz was just grasping at straws (putting his finger in the dyke and praying, so to speak), it was no stretch at all for the Wizard to then impugn anything he had to say by way of trying to imply that he wasn't referring to MDawg in the first place.
link to original post

You are still conflating two separate issues.

The misquote judgement correct or not has been rendered and served.

The current appeal doesn't challenge that. It challenges that the coach challenge as written was a separate event to be judged and based on the wording was accomplished.

That you keep insisting proof of when the post was known to me or being referred to shows you don't understand how you even worded your own challenge.

You had the opportunity to come up with something that backed up what you claimed. You could not. On that basis alone, you lost the Coach's Challenge.

Additionally, Wizard ruled that by a preponderance of evidence you were talking about MDawg - and misquoting him because I have never claimed to play Baccarat every day nor have I claimed to win every day.

This is the sort of appeal where the drum roll at the end always ends with AFFIRMED because whether the convoluted argument passes muster or not, the conviction is still sustained, one way or another.

Quote: MDawg

Without getting into that whatever Varmenti claimed (I wish you would include the URLs), was never debunked, DarkOz presented his evidence and asked the Wizard to make his decision. In other words, he "rested his case" and Wizard rendered judgment.

That you've now found some random post that seems to (but does not) "fit" DarkOz's post better than what he pulled out of a hat, is just evidence that DarkOz had something entirely different in mind (different from the REDietz post) when he made the offending post. And in any case, the case stands on the evidence that DarkOz presented.

This is a case, if you want to look at it that way, where the defendant hung himself. He presented such an glaringly inapposite post to try to prove his point, that he made it clear that he did not have that REDietz post anywhere in his mind when he made the offending post. Losing credibility like that all in one go, makes anything he has to say on the subject, subject. A judge may certainly, in deciding a case, take into account that the defendant has contradicted himself or rendered himself no longer credible, during his testimony.

Once it became clear that DarkOz was just grasping at straws (putting his finger in the dyke and praying, so to speak), it was no stretch at all for the Wizard to then impugn anything he had to say by way of trying to imply that he wasn't referring to MDawg in the first place.
link to original post

I added the URL to the thread in question. I'll save you the time searching Varmenti's entire post history and let you know that he would later contradict his earlier statement, but that doesn't mean that he didn't say what I quoted; I also don't believe he contradicted himself in that very thread; I saw a contradiction of his claim in a different thread wherein he stated that there are losing days.

My counterargument to you is that it might perhaps have been better for Darkoz to have appointed/sought counsel to help defend him. A good candidate would be someone who had moderated this Forum for several years and who could immediately recollect a handful of posters (my second try found one) who might have made such a statement. That may have been Darkoz' fault, but can an appeal not be filed when new evidence is found that would totally exonerate the defendant? You'd know better than I would. This is the discovery of new evidence that we're talking about; not a failure to submit the evidence (for preservation on appeal) in the first place.

With that, I would argue that Darkoz should not have acted as his own counsel, and consequently, lost the case. However, the original claim against him is also false, at least, in terms of a literal interpretation of what he said. I have found new evidence demonstrating that his original claim, that someone said such a thing, is true.

Once again, I also defend your position that you could reasonably assume that DarkOz was referring to you, but that's still an assumption. Can any poster assume (and have action taken) that they are the one being talked about anytime a general negative statement is made? I'd prefer we not do that, otherwise, moderation of this Forum will become unnecessarily litigious.

And, again, I think you can make a reasonable assumption that Darkoz was referring to you---I don't think the evidence that he was is overwhelming, however.

Quote: MDawg

You had the opportunity to come up with something that backed up what you claimed. You could not. On that basis alone, you lost the Coach's Challenge.

Additionally, Wizard ruled that by a preponderance of evidence you were talking about MDawg - and misquoting him because I have never claimed to play Baccarat every day nor have I claimed to win every day.
link to original post

It is my opinion and others that I did indeed succeed in the challenge.

As for your second paragraph there are plenty of innocent people convicted.

Like I said, he lost the case on two grounds, one that the evidence he submitted which he claimed was in his mind when he made the post, was so bad that it didn't even fit the offending post whatsoever. Much worse than a square peg in a round hole.

Secondly, partly through failure to substantiate that he was thinking of REDietz when he made the post, a preponderance of evidence supported that he was referring to MDawg (even mentioned my name in the post! and made the post in response to something I said, even quoted me within the offending post itself), and as such, was guilty of misquoting.

Quote: MDawg

Like I said, he lost the case on two grounds, one that the evidence he submitted which he claimed was in his mind when he made the post, was so bad that it didn't even fit the offending post whatsoever. Much worse than a square peg in a round hole.

Secondly, partly through failure to substantiate that he was thinking of REDietz when he made the post, a preponderance of evidence supported that he was referring to MDawg (even mentioned my name in the post! and made the post in response to something I said, even quoted me within the offending post itself), and as such, was guilty of misquoting.
link to original post

Lost the misquoting ruling.

Not the challenge.

Redietz claimed he beat baccarat "every night". Then he debunked his own claim. Sarcastic or not, nothing in the Challenge said it couldn't be.

You really want to go in circles on this until the Wizard rules?

DarkOz where is the thread / posts you created where you discussed the case where you brought the Wizard to NYC to testify. Examining your arguments there might shed some light on the way your legal mind works, as further evidenced in this matter.

In any case, separated into two pieces so as to avoid the Forbidden: server error, here is what I have to say (over all) on this sujet:

Pre conviction:

Quote: darkoz

What's the matter, you are worried?
link to original post

Quote: darkoz

Quote: MDawg

You had the opportunity to come up with something that backed up what you claimed. You could not. On that basis alone, you lost the Coach's Challenge.

Additionally, Wizard ruled that by a preponderance of evidence you were talking about MDawg - and misquoting him because I have never claimed to play Baccarat every day nor have I claimed to win every day.
link to original post

It is my opinion and others that I did indeed succeed in the challenge.

As for your second paragraph there are plenty of innocent people convicted.
link to original post

What anyone else thinks is irrelevant. The Judge is the only voice that matters, and all the mealy mouthing and excuses doesn't change that. I might think you are innocent, just like I think OJ is quilty. It just doesn't matter.

Post conviction:

Quote: darkoz

I am not the one worried considering how much you are posting. .
link to original post

You used that word "worried" twice. If you really think that, you're more off base in your thinking about this whole matter than anyone realized.

Quote: billryan

The Eddie Haskells of the world always think they are more clever than everyone, and never get why their schemes often backfire. Blackjack Pershing referred to them as often mistaken, but never in doubt.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

Like I said, he lost the case on two grounds, one that the evidence he submitted which he claimed was in his mind when he made the post, was so bad that it didn't even fit the offending post whatsoever. Much worse than a square peg in a round hole.

Secondly, partly through failure to substantiate that he was thinking of REDietz when he made the post, a preponderance of evidence supported that he was referring to MDawg (even mentioned my name in the post! and made the post in response to something I said, even quoted me within the offending post itself), and as such, was guilty of misquoting.
link to original post

I grant that your first point is difficult to overcome. I return to my argument that there has been a discovery of new evidence that totally exonerates him vis-a-vis the original challenge that nobody has ever said such a thing.

What makes your first point difficult to overcome is that I have to admit that Darkoz was speaking for Darkoz when he pointed to a post made by Redietz. That's really why it would have been better for Darkoz not to represent himself in this matter. Even though this isn't a court of law, had I been representing Darkoz', I would have presented Varmenti's post as a substantially similar statement that could be taken as the one to which Darkoz was referring. Given that Darkoz would be represented (by me), even though this is not a court of law, I would argue that we should take the spirit of the Fifth Amendment such that Darkoz doesn't need to explain himself on anything as that would be my job.

With that, I am left with my argument that I am presenting new evidence that exonerates the original statement. The challenge is that Darkoz' original statement was patently false and his statement is demonstrably true. In terms of justice, I think that's what matters. Why should actual truth and fact be wholly disregarded, on appeal, simply because Darkoz did a poor job defending his case? Also, was the opportunity to secure counsel ever made clear to Darkoz?

EDIT: There was another paragraph, but I now see that Darkoz is contesting that the misquoting is irrelevant. That's fine with me. I'm not even sure what the original post is and also don't care. I'm just defending to the extent that there was a person who said what DarkOz claims a person has said.

Quote: MDawg

DarkOz where is the thread / posts you created where you discussed the case where you brought the Wizard to NYC to testify. Examining your arguments there might shed some light on the way your legal mind works, as further evidenced in this matter.
link to original post

This is just plain insulting.

I didn't represent myself in the case. A professional attorney handled the case from the get go.

That also implies the Wizard was misled since he also believed I was righteous in that case.

As a lawyer you should know cases are won and lost every day of the week.

As far as I know, the only legal advice he got was from me.



Obviously, I had a conflict of interest.  🤓

But, especially given the outcome, was my advice not sound?

Quote: MDawg

Fighting and losing he probably ended up with a longer sentence.
link to original post

It didn't really take tea leaves to see where this one was headed.

Quote: SOOPOO

(My money is on MDawg…)
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

As far as I know, the only legal advice he got was from me.



Obviously, I had a conflict of interest.  🤓

But, especially given the outcome, was my advice not sound?

Quote: MDawg

Fighting and losing he probably ended up with a longer sentence.
link to original post

It didn't really take tea leaves to see where this one was headed.

Quote: SOOPOO

(My money is on MDawg…)
link to original post

link to original post

And now you are posting PM's you sent to me while I was suspended?

This is in violation of rule 14 that PMs must be mutually agreed can be disclosed

Quote: Mission146

Quote: MDawg

Like I said, he lost the case on two grounds, one that the evidence he submitted which he claimed was in his mind when he made the post, was so bad that it didn't even fit the offending post whatsoever. Much worse than a square peg in a round hole.

Secondly, partly through failure to substantiate that he was thinking of REDietz when he made the post, a preponderance of evidence supported that he was referring to MDawg (even mentioned my name in the post! and made the post in response to something I said, even quoted me within the offending post itself), and as such, was guilty of misquoting.
link to original post

I grant that your first point is difficult to overcome. I return to my argument that there has been a discovery of new evidence that totally exonerates him vis-a-vis the original challenge that nobody has ever said such a thing.

What makes your first point difficult to overcome is that I have to admit that Darkoz was speaking for Darkoz when he pointed to a post made by Redietz. That's really why it would have been better for Darkoz not to represent himself in this matter. Even though this isn't a court of law, had I been representing Darkoz', I would have presented Varmenti's post as a substantially similar statement that could be taken as the one to which Darkoz was referring. Given that Darkoz would be represented (by me), even though this is not a court of law, I would argue that we should take the spirit of the Fifth Amendment such that Darkoz doesn't need to explain himself on anything as that would be my job.

With that, I am left with my argument that I am presenting new evidence that exonerates the original statement. The challenge is that Darkoz' original statement was patently false and his statement is demonstrably true. In terms of justice, I think that's what matters. Why should actual truth and fact be wholly disregarded, on appeal, simply because Darkoz did a poor job defending his case? Also, was the opportunity to secure counsel ever made clear to Darkoz?

EDIT: There was another paragraph, but I now see that Darkoz is contesting that the misquoting is irrelevant. That's fine with me. I'm not even sure what the original post is and also don't care. I'm just defending to the extent that there was a person who said what DarkOz claims a person has said.
link to original post

The type of "new evidence" that is allowed after conviction is generally narrowed to evidence that supports that the defendant was factually innocent. In this case, D.Oz was convicted of misquoting MDawg. Unless you may get to that that conviction itself should be reversed, you can't get to that evidence that has nothing to do with whether or not he misquoted MDawg, may be admitted in a bid for a new trial.

Also, as you allow, "I grant that your first point is difficult to overcome." The mere introduction of the REDietz post supports the MDawg misquoting conviction because, as it seems you and I agree, the faultiness of that proffered evidence actually supports that he did not have REDietz in mind when he made the post, which in turn implies that he did have MDawg in mind because he can't even come up with a plausible alternate explanation for the post.

To get around that first point he'd have to make some kind of ineffective counsel argument but the problem is that he defended himself. So he'd practically have to argue that he was incompetent and didn't know what he was doing, to get a new trial, with legal representation.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: MDawg

As far as I know, the only legal advice he got was from me.

[post truncated]

Obviously, I had a conflict of interest.  🤓

But, especially given the outcome, was my advice not sound?

Quote: MDawg

Fighting and losing he probably ended up with a longer sentence.
link to original post

It didn't really take tea leaves to see where this one was headed.

Quote: SOOPOO

(My money is on MDawg…)
link to original post

link to original post

And now you are posting PM's you sent to me while I was suspended?

This is in violation of rule 14 that PMs must be mutually agreed can be disclosed
link to original post

I may post my end of the conversation anytime I wish. And that PM was sent before you were suspended, look at the date.

AxelWolf recently did the same to support his claim that he "predicted" the outcome of this matter.

Seriously though, if you can't see something as simple as that a person may post what he said one-way via PM at his discretion versus the other side's response, or versus the entire conversation, then Mission146 is right that you should not have defended yourself here.

Quote: darkoz

This is in violation of rule 14 that PMs must be mutually agreed can be disclosed
link to original post

(snip)

That doesn't match my understanding of the rule.
I will paraphrase my understanding as "I may not divulge your confidences without your consent."

If I tell you something in PM, there is no rule against me later telling someone else publicly or privately.

Mutual consent is required if I am to disclose something I heard from you in private. (Obviously, if I don't consent, I won't post it... so it's really just that I need your consent to post your secrets.)

I'm happy to hear a clarification on this rule.

To Darkoz:

I have to disagree on that. Unless the standard has changed, I believe you can share PM's that you've sent to others as long as nothing about what has been shared compromises something that they said to you.

In this case, it would appear that MDawg is sharing a PM that he sent to you (which also appears to be a new PM chain) and doesn't reveal any information conveyed to him privately, anything that you said or anything about you.

Obviously, I'm not an Admin. However, I'd argue that Rule 14 doesn't apply. MDawg is only revealing that he sent you a PM and what MDawg said in it. I think the only argument, vis-a-vis Rule 14, that could be made is if it could somehow be considered compromising that MDawg's picture also shows both that and when you opened the PM he sent. I'll leave that to the Admins.

Quote: Mission146

To Darkoz:

I have to disagree on that. Unless the standard has changed, I believe you can share PM's that you've sent to others as long as nothing about what has been shared compromises something that they said to you.

In this case, it would appear that MDawg is sharing a PM that he sent to you (which also appears to be a new PM chain) and doesn't reveal any information conveyed to him privately, anything that you said or anything about you.

Obviously, I'm not an Admin. However, I'd argue that Rule 14 doesn't apply. MDawg is only revealing that he sent you a PM and what MDawg said in it. I think the only argument, vis-a-vis Rule 14, that could be made is if it could somehow be considered compromising that MDawg's picture also shows both that and when you opened the PM he sent. I'll leave that to the Admins.
link to original post

Well once again posted rules aren't clear on that. It is starting to appear no one knows how to write clearly.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: Mission146

Quote: MDawg

Like I said, he lost the case on two grounds, one that the evidence he submitted which he claimed was in his mind when he made the post, was so bad that it didn't even fit the offending post whatsoever. Much worse than a square peg in a round hole.

Secondly, partly through failure to substantiate that he was thinking of REDietz when he made the post, a preponderance of evidence supported that he was referring to MDawg (even mentioned my name in the post! and made the post in response to something I said, even quoted me within the offending post itself), and as such, was guilty of misquoting.
link to original post

I grant that your first point is difficult to overcome. I return to my argument that there has been a discovery of new evidence that totally exonerates him vis-a-vis the original challenge that nobody has ever said such a thing.

What makes your first point difficult to overcome is that I have to admit that Darkoz was speaking for Darkoz when he pointed to a post made by Redietz. That's really why it would have been better for Darkoz not to represent himself in this matter. Even though this isn't a court of law, had I been representing Darkoz', I would have presented Varmenti's post as a substantially similar statement that could be taken as the one to which Darkoz was referring. Given that Darkoz would be represented (by me), even though this is not a court of law, I would argue that we should take the spirit of the Fifth Amendment such that Darkoz doesn't need to explain himself on anything as that would be my job.

With that, I am left with my argument that I am presenting new evidence that exonerates the original statement. The challenge is that Darkoz' original statement was patently false and his statement is demonstrably true. In terms of justice, I think that's what matters. Why should actual truth and fact be wholly disregarded, on appeal, simply because Darkoz did a poor job defending his case? Also, was the opportunity to secure counsel ever made clear to Darkoz?

EDIT: There was another paragraph, but I now see that Darkoz is contesting that the misquoting is irrelevant. That's fine with me. I'm not even sure what the original post is and also don't care. I'm just defending to the extent that there was a person who said what DarkOz claims a person has said.
link to original post

The type of "new evidence" that is allowed after conviction is generally narrowed to evidence that supports that the defendant was factually innocent. In this case, D.Oz was convicted of misquoting MDawg. Unless you may get to that that conviction itself should be reversed, you can't get to that evidence that has nothing to do with whether or not he misquoted MDawg, may be admitted in a bid for a new trial.

Also, as you allow, "I grant that your first point is difficult to overcome." The mere introduction of the REDietz post supports the MDawg misquoting conviction because, as it seems you and I agree, the faultiness of that proffered evidence actually supports that he did not have REDietz in mind when he made the post, which in turn implies that he did have MDawg in mind because he can't even come up with a plausible alternate explanation for the post.

To get around that first point he'd have to make some kind of ineffective counsel argument but the problem is that he defended himself. So he'd practically have to argue that he was incompetent and didn't know what he was doing, to get a new trial, with legal representation.
link to original post

I'd then argue that the evidence I have provided demonstrates that the defendant is factually innocent as to one aspect of the charges against him. That aspect being that there was not a poster who said what Darkoz claimed a poster has said; this new evidence is that there was someone who said something substantially similar enough to qualify.

To your last point, I'd argue that it was never made known to him that counsel was available.

More than anything else, I just think this whole process is unnecessarily litigious. I really don't understand this whole game of people trying to get each other banned for no good reason and I also don't understand why more people around here don't just leave each other alone. My opinion is that, on the whole, it makes the Forum less enjoyable and inviting. In terms of Administration, if I was going to hold up a complaint of anything (relative to his post that I have since seen) I'd say an argument could maybe be made for trolling (in the context of other posts), but not misquoting.

I reiterate that my opinion on this doesn't really matter, but even if Darkoz was taking a poke at you in the offending post, I simply don't think it's flagrant enough to take action against someone with Darkoz' tenure and contributions to the forum, but that's just me.

Either way, I continue to maintain that his statement that someone has said something similar enough to what he claimed is absolutely true.

Not really unclear, disallowing someone from revealing what he said to someone unilaterally would lead to absurd consequences. For example, then anything I said to a person via PM I couldn't turn around and just post publicly. The intent of the rule is actually quite clear.

Publicly I told D.Oz that I would drop the matter if he would withdraw the claim. So it's not like I was out for blood I gave him an out, but he just laughed thereby doubling down, and seemed to insist that the Wizard must rule on the matter.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

To Darkoz:

I have to disagree on that. Unless the standard has changed, I believe you can share PM's that you've sent to others as long as nothing about what has been shared compromises something that they said to you.

In this case, it would appear that MDawg is sharing a PM that he sent to you (which also appears to be a new PM chain) and doesn't reveal any information conveyed to him privately, anything that you said or anything about you.

Obviously, I'm not an Admin. However, I'd argue that Rule 14 doesn't apply. MDawg is only revealing that he sent you a PM and what MDawg said in it. I think the only argument, vis-a-vis Rule 14, that could be made is if it could somehow be considered compromising that MDawg's picture also shows both that and when you opened the PM he sent. I'll leave that to the Admins.
link to original post

Well once again posted rules aren't clear on that. It is starting to appear no one knows how to write clearly.


link to original post

I understand that the posted rules aren't clear on that, but it seems like a common sense thing (to me) that you're allowed to say that:

A.) You sent someone a PM.

And:

B.) What your own PM contained.

As long as it doesn't hint to anything that person might have said to you. Why would mutual consent be required for you to quote yourself? Am I also guilty of Rule 14 violations, many times over, when I post that I sent the reminder PM's in the WoV Picks Game?

If you had an actionable position at all, then, if I were you, I'd base my argument around the fact that MDawg's picture included both the fact that, and also the time that, you opened the PM. That's the only conveyance that arguably only you and he would otherwise know and could be argued to even require mutual consent.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: darkoz

This is in violation of rule 14 that PMs must be mutually agreed can be disclosed
link to original post

(snip)

That doesn't match my understanding of the rule.
I will paraphrase my understanding as "I may not divulge your confidences without your consent."

If I tell you something in PM, there is no rule against me later telling someone else publicly or privately.

Mutual consent is required if I am to disclose something I heard from you in private. (Obviously, if I don't consent, I won't post it... so it's really just that I need your consent to post your secrets.)

I'm happy to hear a clarification on this rule.
link to original post

The Rule as written is PM's are meant to be private and can only e disclosed by mutual agreement. Nothing else is implicit or explicit in that.

In this case MDawg did something no attorney in a real case would ever do (send a PM to opposing party period much less in a taunting manner as in "as your attorney " etc with memes attached. Let's face it that's very unprofessional of anyone much less an attorney).

As it's was taunting in nature there is no reason to feel I would want a PM showing MDAWGS supposed intelligence in taunting me made public. And the rules are clear and state Nothing about chain of origin.

Quote: Mission146

If you had an actionable position at all, then, if I were you, I'd base my argument around the fact that MDawg's picture included both the fact that, and also the time that, you opened the PM. That's the only conveyance that arguably only you and he would otherwise know and could be argued to even require mutual consent.
link to original post

Wouldn't making a far fetched argument like that erode DarkOz's credibility before the judge who is about to decide his appeal? We wouldn't want him to come across as the type who won't admit when he's wrong, would we?

Quote: darkoz

I am 100% confident my appeal is sound.
link to original post

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

To Darkoz:

I have to disagree on that. Unless the standard has changed, I believe you can share PM's that you've sent to others as long as nothing about what has been shared compromises something that they said to you.

In this case, it would appear that MDawg is sharing a PM that he sent to you (which also appears to be a new PM chain) and doesn't reveal any information conveyed to him privately, anything that you said or anything about you.

Obviously, I'm not an Admin. However, I'd argue that Rule 14 doesn't apply. MDawg is only revealing that he sent you a PM and what MDawg said in it. I think the only argument, vis-a-vis Rule 14, that could be made is if it could somehow be considered compromising that MDawg's picture also shows both that and when you opened the PM he sent. I'll leave that to the Admins.
link to original post

Well once again posted rules aren't clear on that. It is starting to appear no one knows how to write clearly.


link to original post

I understand that the posted rules aren't clear on that, but it seems like a common sense thing (to me) that you're allowed to say that:

A.) You sent someone a PM.

And:

B.) What your own PM contained.

As long as it doesn't hint to anything that person might have said to you. Why would mutual consent be required for you to quote yourself? Am I also guilty of Rule 14 violations, many times over, when I post that I sent the reminder PM's in the WoV Picks Game?

If you had an actionable position at all, then, if I were you, I'd base my argument around the fact that MDawg's picture included both the fact that, and also the time that, you opened the PM. That's the only conveyance that arguably only you and he would otherwise know and could be argued to even require mutual consent.
link to original post

See above my reply

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Dieter

Quote: darkoz

This is in violation of rule 14 that PMs must be mutually agreed can be disclosed
link to original post

(snip)

That doesn't match my understanding of the rule.
I will paraphrase my understanding as "I may not divulge your confidences without your consent."

If I tell you something in PM, there is no rule against me later telling someone else publicly or privately.

Mutual consent is required if I am to disclose something I heard from you in private. (Obviously, if I don't consent, I won't post it... so it's really just that I need your consent to post your secrets.)

I'm happy to hear a clarification on this rule.
link to original post

The Rule as written is PM's are meant to be private and can only e disclosed by mutual agreement. Nothing else is implicit or explicit in that.

In this case MDawg did something no attorney in a real case would ever do (send a PM to opposing party period much less in a taunting manner as in "as your attorney " etc with memes attached. Let's face it that's very unprofessional of anyone much less an attorney).

As it's was taunting in nature there is no reason to feel I would want a PM showing MDAWGS supposed intelligence in taunting me made public. And the rules are clear and state Nothing about chain of origin.
link to original post

People certainly aren't permitted to use the PM feature to troll one another, if that's what you're suggesting. Per Rule 14, the proper thing to do there would be to report the alleged trolling PM itself to an Administrator. Of course, MDawg has revealed the PM himself, so there's really no need of that and I think an Administrator could now take action if MDawg's PM to you is to be considered trolling. I'll not comment on how I would consider it...because while I'm not an Administrator, I do work for the sites and used to be an Administrator for long enough that I probably shouldn't comment on an action to (potentially) be taken.

We're talking about two totally different things, now. Whether or not MDawg is permitted to reveal something that he himself said to you (without revealing anything that you said) is one question and whether or not MDawg trolled/bullied you, via PM, is a totally separate question.