COACH CHALLENGE RULING APPEAL

I actually made the exact same post in public earlier, that I advised him to throw himself at the mercy of the court. And as mentioned, before the Wizard ruled I offered him the chance to withdraw the claim and he just laughed scornfully. Both were sound advice and not meant to be taunting.

Interestingly, the very piece of evidence you mention that supposedly means something (that the date the PM was sent is evident from the screenshot), is the very proof that the PM was sent before the Wizard had rendered judgment.

At this point, DarkOz's Theatre of the Absurd is rather complete. Or we might just view this as an amusing or entertaining way to argue legal theory on a Sunday via something that happened at an internet forum. At least, I hope D.Oz views this as entertainment, I'd be concerned if he takes any of this to heart.

Over all, I just think D.Oz hates to be wrong, and will throw everything he can come up with at the wall, whether it makes sense or not, to see if anything sticks.

Quote: Mission146

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.
link to original post

Well apparently forum rules need to be rewritten.

As I pointed out at the outset of the coaches challenge, there was nothing written in the forum rules that covered this situation only to be told the rules would be stretched to cover what isn't there.

Now a separate and clearly unambiguous rules has yet something else unwritten to understand.

And the entire coaches challenge was written wrong as well.

Ironically this all came about because people expected exact wording to be proved in a post. So ironic!

This entire thread appeal nonsense is proof that DarkOz doesn't consider any of this to be trolling or antagonistic, or else he wouldn't keep bringing it up. He just wants to have the last word, win or lose. At this point he's on the verge of questioning the very fundamentals of the forum.

Rolling in the muck is not the best way of getting clean.

Prior to this very post, who made the most recent post in this thread?

I think we should just let this die and wait for Wizard, assuming Wizard is even inclined to address this. For reasons that I won't share, if Wizard addresses this at all, then I'd assume it's going to be a few days and would ask that nobody bother him about it.

Quote: MDawg

This entire thread appeal nonsense is proof that DarkOz doesn't consider any of this to be trolling or antagonistic, or else he wouldn't keep bringing it up. He just wants to have the last word, win or lose.

Rolling in the muck is not the best way of getting clean.
link to original post

Kettle meet Pot!

I need to ask Wizard whether we can charge court fees for hosting this thread and obligating moderators to at least scan it.

This thread was almost as bad as Today's Gaming News.

DarkOz, i tried to read your answer to me but couldn’t really figure out what you were trying to say.

Can you please answer this simply. It really is a straightforward yes or no question.

Were you talking about MDawg specifically when you mentioned ‘someone’ claims to win at baccarat every day?

Thanks ( if I get a yes or no!)

Quote: gordonm888

I need to ask Wizard whether we can charge court fees for hosting this thread and obligating moderators to at least scan it.

This thread was almost as bad as Today's Gaming News.
link to original post

Once I was forced to take part in that coaches challenge that's what moderators asked for IMHO

Get rid of coach challenges completely or stop complaining

At some point, you need to stop arguing and let the other person be wrong.

Quote: billryan

At some point, you need to stop arguing and let the other person be wrong.
link to original post

You are right. MDawg is wrong.

I will have to stop arguing

Quote: SOOPOO

DarkOz, i tried to read your answer to me but couldn’t really figure out what you were trying to say.

Can you please answer this simply. It really is a straightforward yes or no question.

Were you talking about MDawg specifically when you mentioned ‘someone’ claims to win at baccarat every day?

Thanks ( if I get a yes or no!)
link to original post

No.

By answering No, he loses credibility. Would have been better for him to just say that I can't comment on a matter under appeal.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

DarkOz, i tried to read your answer to me but couldn’t really figure out what you were trying to say.

Can you please answer this simply. It really is a straightforward yes or no question.

Were you talking about MDawg specifically when you mentioned ‘someone’ claims to win at baccarat every day?

Thanks ( if I get a yes or no!)
link to original post

No.
link to original post

Thank you. As someone who believes DarkOz, if I was the Wiz I’d rescind the suspension. There was a jerk who said they win everyday at baccarat (Varmenti apparently).

For fun, I’m going to Martingale baccarat every day trying to win $. The lowest amount the WoV site will allow. I hope to be able to say I win at baccarat every day!

Quote: billryan

At some point, you need to stop arguing and let the other person be wrong.
link to original post

He's coming from the point of view of someone who has already been adjudged wrong, which is why he keeps arguing.

But I agree, if I say nothing, it leaves in place the fact that he's wrong.

Quote: billryan

Don't write a check that you can't cover. You said something. It was obvious who you were referring to. Back it up or accept the consequences. I'm not sure why that is difficult.
link to original post

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

DarkOz, i tried to read your answer to me but couldn’t really figure out what you were trying to say.

Can you please answer this simply. It really is a straightforward yes or no question.

Were you talking about MDawg specifically when you mentioned ‘someone’ claims to win at baccarat every day?

Thanks ( if I get a yes or no!)
link to original post

No.
link to original post

Thank you. As someone who believes DarkOz, if I was the Wiz I’d rescind the suspension. There was a jerk who said they win everyday at baccarat (Varmenti apparently).

For fun, I’m going to Martingale baccarat every day trying to win $. The lowest amount the WoV site will allow. I hope to be able to say I win at baccarat every day!
link to original post

Thank you SooPoo.

I always denied the quote was about MDawg from the moment MDawg said it was about him.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

DarkOz, i tried to read your answer to me but couldn’t really figure out what you were trying to say.

Can you please answer this simply. It really is a straightforward yes or no question.

Were you talking about MDawg specifically when you mentioned ‘someone’ claims to win at baccarat every day?

Thanks ( if I get a yes or no!)
link to original post

No.
link to original post

Thank you. As someone who believes DarkOz, if I was the Wiz I’d rescind the suspension. There was a jerk who said they win everyday at baccarat (Varmenti apparently).

For fun, I’m going to Martingale baccarat every day trying to win $. The lowest amount the WoV site will allow. I hope to be able to say I win at baccarat every day!
link to original post

Thank you SooPoo.

I always denied the quote was about MDawg from the moment MDawg said it was about him.
link to original post

I’m frankly surprised.

Anyway. I just started my ‘I win at baccarat every day’ attempt. I’m using the WoO site. It lets me start with $10k and bet as little as $5. After 1 hand I’m up $4.75. I’ll repeat tomorrow. I was hoping it would let me bet $1 but it doesn’t.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

DarkOz, i tried to read your answer to me but couldn’t really figure out what you were trying to say.

Can you please answer this simply. It really is a straightforward yes or no question.

Were you talking about MDawg specifically when you mentioned ‘someone’ claims to win at baccarat every day?

Thanks ( if I get a yes or no!)
link to original post

No.
link to original post

Thank you. As someone who believes DarkOz, if I was the Wiz I’d rescind the suspension. There was a jerk who said they win everyday at baccarat (Varmenti apparently).

For fun, I’m going to Martingale baccarat every day trying to win $. The lowest amount the WoV site will allow. I hope to be able to say I win at baccarat every day!
link to original post

Thank you SooPoo.

I always denied the quote was about MDawg from the moment MDawg said it was about him.
link to original post

Did you think that MDawg or others would think it was about him? Not that it would change anything.

I look at this coach's challenge like a silly Barbet. I.E. I'll bet you $1 that I can get that coin into the bottle without touching it, the toothpicks, the bottle or without blowing on it.

I would ask Mike if he made a silly $1 bar bet with someone claiming they can't do something, however, they accomplished the task, just not in the way he was thinking. Would he pay up or claim he knew what that person was thinking, therefore he isn't going to pay?

Mike set the rules for the coach's challenge. Mike "forced" DO to take the challeng. DO played along and won the challenge. DO only lost because Mike assumes he knows what/who DarkOz meant.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: darkoz

Quote: SOOPOO

DarkOz, i tried to read your answer to me but couldn’t really figure out what you were trying to say.

Can you please answer this simply. It really is a straightforward yes or no question.

Were you talking about MDawg specifically when you mentioned ‘someone’ claims to win at baccarat every day?

Thanks ( if I get a yes or no!)
link to original post

No.
link to original post

Thank you. As someone who believes DarkOz, if I was the Wiz I’d rescind the suspension. There was a jerk who said they win everyday at baccarat (Varmenti apparently).

For fun, I’m going to Martingale baccarat every day trying to win $. The lowest amount the WoV site will allow. I hope to be able to say I win at baccarat every day!
link to original post

Thank you SooPoo.

I always denied the quote was about MDawg from the moment MDawg said it was about him.
link to original post

Did you think that MDawg or others would think it was about him? Not that it would change anything.
link to original post

I wasn't thinking about what other people assumed. To.me it was an unattributed quote so no one should have assumed anyone was meant. In addition it was so Over the top I thought no one would take it seriously as a quote.

I suppose if someone wrote "there is a gambler who claims to make a million dollars a week but not every week" There would be some thoughts that I was being referred to.

However in no way would I consider that a misquote. It's so obviously not me. I definitely wouldn't have degraded myself by demanding a coaches challenge for the person to show someone actually Said it or insist they were quoting me. Personally I would have just commented something like "I wish!"

I'm back from a week of mountain climbing and adventuring in Mexico. I was not checking the forum while I was gone, so yesterday was the first I heard of this.

To address the appeal, let me say that ultimately this forum is a dictatorship. I like to play that card as little as possible, but ultimately I can do what I want. The new owners can ultimately overrule me, but I doubt they would ever wish to waste their time with such drama.

In this case, a complaint was made of false quoting, which is against the rules. Since no rule at the time existed about how to handle this situation where there was not a direct quote but a general inference, I decided to handle it like rule 14 coach's challenge on abuse via PM. I did this hoping MDawg would drop the complaint, knowing he had something to risk by making it, but he chose to press on.

This is not without precedent. Fairly recently, at DT, what I'll call party A said that party B had posted previously in favor of forced microchipping of everybody in the US. Party B denied making such a statement and demanded justice. I handled it in the same way as I did here. Party A refused to back off the statement, but said he wasn't going to go through thousands of posts to find the claim by party B. In that case, I found in favor of party B and sentenced party A to 30 days. I might add that party A served his time, respected my decision, although he disagreed with it, and didn't stir up drama about it after the fact. Thank you for that, party A.

However, I do not expect anyone here to keep up with precedents at DT, so I admit this is not something that weighs in my favor. I just mention it as background information.

If it is of any consolation to DO, this did bring about a change in the official forum rules. We can unofficially call it the darkoz amendment.

Quote: Rule 17

Misquoting: If you quote another member, do not remove, add, or change any wording within the portion quoted. If you wish to emphasize a particular part of the quote, any formatting by the one quoting should be disclosed immediately after the quote. (Added 6/8/2018). If you paraphrase another member without attribution, be prepared to quote original posts if requested. If a member feels he was misquoted, he may file a challenge with a moderator in the same manor as for rule 14. The loser of the challenge will face a suspension (Added 1/5/24).

However, since I have been accused of abusing my own rules, I am open to a third party reviewing the situation and will comply with his/her judgment. If I am found to be negligent, I will serve up to an equal sentence of seven days. Plus give darkoz credit for time served for any future suspension. The appeals judge must be agreeable to both parties. Also, the verdict of the appeals judge will be final and not subject by an even higher appeal.

Here are three names I will throw out to get the ball rolling. I'm open to entertaining other names.

• Mission 146
• MichaelBluejay
• Zuga

I will admit to being friends with the first two. Should either be agreeable to darkoz and accept the task, I will have no hard feelings if they rule against me. If you haven't heard of Zuga, he is a part owner of the site and ultimately above me.

With that, I hit the ball to darkoz.

Quote: Wizard

I'm back from a week of mountain climbing and adventuring in Mexico. I was not checking the forum while I was gone, so yesterday was the first I heard of this.

To address the appeal, let me say that ultimately this forum is a dictatorship. I like to play that card as little as possible, but ultimately I can do what I want. The new owners can ultimately overrule me, but I doubt they would ever wish to waste their time with such drama.

In this case, a complaint was made of false quoting, which is against the rules. Since no rule at the time existed about how to handle this situation where there was not a direct quote but a general inference, I decided to handle it like rule 14 coach's challenge on abuse via PM. I did this hoping MDawg would drop the complaint, knowing he had something to risk by making it, but he chose to press on.

This is not without precedent. Fairly recently, at DT, what I'll call party A said that party B had posted previously in favor of forced microchipping of everybody in the US. Party B denied making such a statement and demanded justice. I handled it in the same way as I did here. Party A refused to back off the statement, but said he wasn't going to go through thousands of posts to find the claim by party B. In that case, I found in favor of party B and sentenced party A to 30 days. I might add that party A served his time, respected my decision, although he disagreed with it, and didn't stir up drama about it after the fact. Thank you for that, party A.

However, I do not expect anyone here to keep up with precedents at DT, so I admit this is not something that weighs in my favor. I just mention it as background information.

If it is of any consolation to DO, this did bring about a change in the official forum rules. We can unofficially call it the darkoz amendment.

Quote: Rule 17

Misquoting: If you quote another member, do not remove, add, or change any wording within the portion quoted. If you wish to emphasize a particular part of the quote, any formatting by the one quoting should be disclosed immediately after the quote. (Added 6/8/2018). If you paraphrase another member without attribution, be prepared to quote original posts if requested. If a member feels he was misquoted, he may file a challenge with a moderator in the same manor as for rule 14. The loser of the challenge will face a suspension (Added 1/5/24).

However, since I have been accused of abusing my own rules, I am open to a third party reviewing the situation and will comply with his/her judgment. If I am found to be negligent, I will serve up to an equal sentence of seven days. The appeals judge must be agreeable to both parties.

Here are three names I will throw out to get the ball rolling. I'm open to entertaining other names.

• Mission 146
• MichaelBluejay
• Zuga

I will admit to being friends with the first two. Should either be agreeable to darkoz and accept the task, I will have no hard feelings if they rule against me. If you haven't heard of Zuga, he is a part owner of the site and ultimately above me.

With that, I hit the ball to darkoz.
link to original post

It will have to be Zuga. I have had no contact with him period.

Mission and I are friendly enough. However we have just been discussing this issue right here in the thread so that might be considered contamination by MDawg.

As for Michael Bluejay he has posted that I am a blocked member to him for some slight years ago which I don't recall even. So again that leaves Zuga.

How is the evidence going to be presented? The Original Post above? The only challenge here is that the coach challenge is separate from the misquote ruling and that under the written rules of the challenge I won. In other words, the misquote at this point is moot.

Thanks

EDIT: I will also add that since I am claiming the Coach Challenge is a separate issue if the opinion of Zuga is I failed the challenge then I still face punishment for losing the challenge. I don't feel I lost it but obviously if my claim is its a separate matter that means my loss (if judged so) is not covered by the misquote judgement (which is now moot)

EDIT EDIT: I also was not calling for the Wizard to serve punishment but for MDawg to serve for losing the challenge just to be clear.

Quote: darkoz

It will have to be Zuga. I have had no contact with him period.

Mission and I are friendly enough. However we have just been discussing this issue right here in the thread so that might be considered contamination by MDawg.

As for Michael Bluejay he has posted that I am a blocked member to him for some slight years ago which I don't recall even. So again that leaves Zuga.

How is the evidence going to be presented? The Original Post above? The only challenge here is that the coach challenge is separate from the misquote ruling and that under the written rules of the challenge I won. In other words, the misquote at this point is moot.

Thanks
link to original post

I would prefer you to PM Zuga. If he accepts the task, I suggest you write up your appeal and submit it to him via PM. I too will submit my defense by PM, which will largely be what I just posted. I don't want him to be expected to go through some 100 posts on this matter, unless he wants to. I'd prefer his time spent on the matter to be kept as minimal as possible, as his time is valuable.

Again, you're welcome to submit any other name you wish.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: darkoz

It will have to be Zuga. I have had no contact with him period.

Mission and I are friendly enough. However we have just been discussing this issue right here in the thread so that might be considered contamination by MDawg.

As for Michael Bluejay he has posted that I am a blocked member to him for some slight years ago which I don't recall even. So again that leaves Zuga.

How is the evidence going to be presented? The Original Post above? The only challenge here is that the coach challenge is separate from the misquote ruling and that under the written rules of the challenge I won. In other words, the misquote at this point is moot.

Thanks
link to original post

I would prefer you to PM Zuga. If he accepts the task, I suggest you write up your appeal and submit it to him via PM. I too will submit my defense by PM, which will largely be what I just posted. I don't want him to be expected to go through some 100 posts on this matter, unless he wants to. I'd prefer his time spent on the matter to be kept as minimal as possible, as his time is valuable.

Again, you're welcome to submit any other name you wish.
link to original post

I am not challenging you as far as abuse of the rules. Just that you erred in combining the misquote with the challenge.

I believe I beat MDawg's coach challenge.

I have no interest in having you serve 7 days.

If this is an independent review by Zuga it's just to adjudged the winner of the Coach Challenge. Which will be for my part simply one post written by you of the challenge and the link to my post with pretty much the same explanation I gave you.

Not interested in trying to pursue abuse of power charges against you.

Quote: darkoz

I am not challenging you as far as abuse of the rules. Just that you erred in combining the misquote with the challenge.

I believe I beat MDawg's coach challenge.

I have no interest in having you serve 7 days.

If this is an independent review by Zuga it's just to adjudged the winner of the Coach Challenge. Which will be for my part simply one post written by you of the challenge and the link to my post with pretty much the same explanation I gave you.

Not interested in trying to pursue abuse of power charges against you.
link to original post

I don't really get why you are stirring up all this drama. My verdicts on suspensions are not up to appeal. I am not going to ask him to review that matter just because you disagree with my decision. My verdict that you lost the coach's challenge absolutely stands and I make no apologies for it.

However, I take seriously the accusation that I abused my own rules and for that I am willing to face justice. If I am found to be guilty of that, then I fully expect to be and want to be punished.

So, I'm only willing to bother Zuga with this if the nature of the complaint is abuse of power by me.

This makes sense because in a situation like this, pretty much only abuse of discretion would be grounds for reversal. Which, I don't think the Wizard abused his discretion at all - we have ample precedent for Coach's Challenges in the past. When someone posts something like what you posted DarkOz, at this forum he has to be willing to back it up at risk of suspension.

That REDietz post you offered DarkOz, was so blatantly misaligned with your post, that to argue that it fit the bill and was what you had in mind when you wrote what you wrote would never pass muster.

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.
link to original post

Anyway, so now you're arguing that Wizard abused his own forum rules? I didn't even realize that was what you were arguing (then again, not one of us waded through that entire mountain of text you posted to kick off this thread, so it's no wonder that we didn't even quite realize what you were getting at). That's way out! You're standing alone if you're trying to make that argument, even your few friendlies who seemed to support you would I assume run for cover if they knew what you were up to.  😁

Is having a Coachs Challenge worth the drama? How many challenges does one get?

Quote: Wizard

Quote: darkoz

I am not challenging you as far as abuse of the rules. Just that you erred in combining the misquote with the challenge.

I believe I beat MDawg's coach challenge.

I have no interest in having you serve 7 days.

If this is an independent review by Zuga it's just to adjudged the winner of the Coach Challenge. Which will be for my part simply one post written by you of the challenge and the link to my post with pretty much the same explanation I gave you.

Not interested in trying to pursue abuse of power charges against you.
link to original post

I don't really get why you are stirring up all this drama. My verdicts on suspensions are not up to appeal. I am not going to ask him to review that matter just because you disagree with my decision. My verdict that you lost the coach's challenge absolutely stands and I make no apologies for it.

However, I take seriously the accusation that I abused my own rules and for that I am willing to face justice. If I am found to be guilty of that, then I fully expect to be and want to be punished.

So, I'm only willing to bother Zuga with this if the nature of the complaint is abuse of power by me.
link to original post

I never Said and certainly didn't use the words "Abuse of power " That is now a misquote on your part as well now on MDawgs part.

And now for the second time I am being asked to.prove something I never claimed.

Apparently people enjoy misquoting others while hypocritically accusing others of doing it while rendering poor judgements.

And yes that WAS about both Wizard and MDawg. Quote me!

I just tried to read your original post in this thread. It is virtually indecipherable.

Then I looked at its top sheet, and there was the name - A C L O C K W O R K
O R A N G E - and I said: "That's a fair gloopy title. Who ever heard of a clockwork orange?" Then I read a malenky bit out loud in a sort of very high type preaching goloss: " - The attempt to impose upon man, a creature of growth and capable of sweetness, to ooze juicily at the last round the bearded lips of God, to attempt to impose, I say, laws and conditions appropriate to a mechanical creation, against this I raise my sword-pen - " Dim made the old lip-music at that and I had to smeck myself.

All I got out of this is that you don't agree with the Wizard's decision. It would appear that is all anyone got out of this.

Quote: darkoz

I never Said and certainly didn't use the words "Abuse of power " That is now a misquote on your part as well now on MDawgs part.

Apparently people enjoy misquoting others while hypocritically accusing others of doing it while rendering poor judgements.

And yes that WAS about both Wizard and MDawg. Quote me!
link to original post

I don't claim you used those exact words. Perhaps I misinterpreted the nature of your complaint.

Again, my verdict is not subject to appeal. I am the Supreme Court around here.

Anyone may PM Zuga for any reason they wish, if you wish to take further action. However, I am getting sick of this matter. I recommend that you get past the fact that you lost and move on.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: darkoz

I never Said and certainly didn't use the words "Abuse of power " That is now a misquote on your part as well now on MDawgs part.

Apparently people enjoy misquoting others while hypocritically accusing others of doing it while rendering poor judgements.

And yes that WAS about both Wizard and MDawg. Quote me!
link to original post

I don't claim you used those exact words. Perhaps I misinterpreted the nature of your complaint.

Again, my verdict is not subject to appeal. I am the Supreme Court around here.

Anyone may PM Zuga for any reason they wish, if you wish to take further action. However, I am getting sick of this matter. I recommend that you get past the fact that you lost and move on.
link to original post

Clearly nothing is going be done about the ridiculous judgement that was made.

Time to move on.

The other members of WOV will be wary of accepting or agreeing to ridiculous challenges no one on here even signed up for.

Quote: darkoz

Apparently people enjoy misquoting others while hypocritically accusing others of doing it while rendering poor judgements.

And yes that WAS about both Wizard and MDawg. Quote me!
link to original post

Quote: darkoz

Clearly nothing is going be done about the ridiculous judgement that was made.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

You're standing alone if you're trying to make that argument, even your few friendlies who seemed to support you would I assume run for cover if they knew what you were up to.  😁
link to original post

Strangest thing to come out of this whole charade is that Mr. Wizard somehow considers Michael Bluejay as a voice of reason.

Quote: darkoz

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

As has been previously ruled, your request to press charges is denied.

Policy is that you may not publish, forward or quote a PM sent to you, unless permission is granted from the sender. You may publish a PM you sent yourself as long as no personal information is revealed or it somehow violates another rule.

I think you need to move on.

Does the new DO rule prohibit us playing the old FYP game?

For example, member A posts "I love this game;" his nemesis responds "You said 'I love this game" but really, isn't it "I lose at this game?'---FYP."

There are of course variations on this theme: is it a suspendable offense?

note{ FYP = "Fixed Your Post."

Quote: MrV

Does the new DO rule prohibit us playing the old FYP game?

For example, member A posts "I love this game;" his nemesis responds "You said 'I love this game" but really, isn't it "I lose at this game?'---FYP."

There are of course variations on this theme: is it a suspendable offense?

note{ FYP = "Fixed Your Post."
link to original post

That would probably be interpreted as an insult. Context and prior history play a big role. I'm not big on hypothetical situations, but will cross each bridge as I get to it.

Understood, but what if the change wasn't insulting, but was intended to be humorous?

While that wouldn't be grounds for a suspension for insulting someone, might it not be construed as a violoation of the new rule anyway?

For example: A says "I'm all ears."

B then posts : "Don't you mean I'm in tears?' --- FYP."

Quote: MrV

Understood, but what if the change wasn't insulting, but was intended to be humorous?

While that wouldn't be grounds for a suspension for insulting someone, might it not be construed as a violoation of the new rule anyway?

For example: A says "I'm all ears."

B then posts : "Don't you mean I'm in tears?' --- FYP."
link to original post

Did you actually post this in response to someone (Wiz) saying he does not like to respond to hypotheticals?

MrV…. You have too much time on your hands! (As do I….)

Quote: billryan

Strangest thing to come out of this
link to original post

Did DarkOz really push for prosecution based on that I posted my own PM? That's like saying that once you have said something to someone in a PM, you may not say it again to anyone else!

Talk about grasping at straws!

Then again, both his proffered evidence, and appeal, in this matter were in mah opinion as weak as may be. Wizard's opinions in dispatching both seemed quite sound to me.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: billryan

Strangest thing to come out of this
link to original post

Did DarkOz really push for prosecution based on that I posted my own PM? That's like saying that once you have said something to someone in a PM, you may not say it again to anyone else!

Talk about grasping at straws!

Then again, both his proffered evidence, and appeal, in this matter were in mah opinion as weak as may be. Wizard's opinions in dispatching both seemed quite sound to me.
link to original post

Prisons are filled with any number of innocent people.

And this thread was filled with any number of times your legal and other analyses fell flat.

It sounds like there might have been some issues with the analyses shared in this thread. It's important to review and verify legal and other analyses carefully, as inaccuracies can impact the overall discussion. If there are specific points where the analyses fell short, it would be helpful to address those issues directly so we can improve our understanding and move forward constructively.

Quote: Luckyace

If there are specific points where the analyses fell short, it would be helpful to address those issues directly so we can improve our understanding and move forward constructively.

You must not understand how internet forums work.

Quote: MDawg

And this thread was filled with any number of times your legal and other analyses fell flat.
link to original post

First off I understand you have Wizards phone number and was in contact with him this week?

As an attorney (any attorney would know this), any judgement rendered by someone who has a personal connection to one of the participants is a judge that automatically should recuse himself for obvious reasons.

Therefore any such judgement in this coaches challenge was in any courts opinion an invalid one.

That's an obvious legal perspective that any lawyer who actually practices law would know.

Huh? I have to hand it to you for trying, even if your notions are quaintly erroneous. How is my being in contact with Wizard this week have anything to do with your having lost the Coach's Challenge, its appeal, and the desperate attempt to get me suspended over quoting my own PM? nine months ago.

Quote: Luckyace

It sounds like there might have been some issues with the analyses shared in this thread. It's important to review and verify legal and other analyses carefully, as inaccuracies can impact the overall discussion. If there are specific points where the analyses fell short, it would be helpful to address those issues directly so we can improve our understanding and move forward constructively.
link to original post

Even AI agrees with me!

Quote: MDawg

Huh? I have to hand it to you for trying, even if your notions are quaintly erroneous. How is my being in contact with Wizard this week have anything to do with your having lost the Coach's Challenge, its appeal, and the desperate attempt to get me suspended over quoting my own PM? nine months ago.

Quote: Luckyace

It sounds like there might have been some issues with the analyses shared in this thread. It's important to review and verify legal and other analyses carefully, as inaccuracies can impact the overall discussion. If there are specific points where the analyses fell short, it would be helpful to address those issues directly so we can improve our understanding and move forward constructively.
link to original post

Even AI agrees with me!
link to original post

As I said, a true attorney will recognize that judges and plaintiffs should not have personal connections.

Except where the connections have nothing to do with the rulings. I've played golf with judges. I've seen one or more at my gym before. We just don't talk about cases is all.

Anyway you were the convicted defendant in this thread, prosecuting an "appeal." Not me. I just submitted amicus sort of briefs.

You're the one who paid Wizard to testify for you once, and paid him to judge my Baccarat session contest, and yet he has ruled against you in WOV matters. Repeatedly.

Hence the assumption is that he is unbiased or at least impartial. Or are you suggesting otherwise?

Quote: MDawg

Except where the connections have nothing to do with the rulings. I've played golf with judges. I've seen one or more at my gym before. We just don't talk about cases is all.

Anyway you were the convicted defendant in this thread, prosecuting an appeal. Not me. I just submitted amicus sort of briefs.

You're the one who paid Wizard to testify for you once, and paid him to judge my Baccarat session contest, and yet he has ruled against you in WOV matters. Repeatedly.

Hence the assumption is that he is unbiased or at least impartial. Or are you suggesting otherwise?
link to original post

I'm stating what I am stating.

If I was on trial for anything and I found out the Plaintiff was playing golf with the judge are you as an attorney seriously suggesting I wouldn't have grounds for an appeal? Regardless of "but we don't discuss cases" nonsense

Quote: darkoz

Quote: MDawg

Except where the connections have nothing to do with the rulings. I've played golf with judges. I've seen one or more at my gym before. We just don't talk about cases is all.

Anyway you were the convicted defendant in this thread, prosecuting an appeal. Not me. I just submitted amicus sort of briefs.

You're the one who paid Wizard to testify for you once, and paid him to judge my Baccarat session contest, and yet he has ruled against you in WOV matters. Repeatedly.

Hence the assumption is that he is unbiased or at least impartial. Or are you suggesting otherwise?
link to original post

I'm stating what I am stating.

If I was on trial for anything and I found out the Plaintiff was playing golf with the judge are you as an attorney seriously suggesting I wouldn't have grounds for an appeal? Regardless of "but we don't discuss cases" nonsense
link to original post

You are unaware of how the real world works. I’ve been at political fundraisers with all sorts of judges playing with all sorts of lawyers. Charity events as well.
You don’t think the membership list at exclusive country clubs are not rife with these judges/lawyers/anesthesiologists?

I probably know Mike better than either of you. He’d rule against me IN A SECOND if he felt I was in the wrong. No reason to imply his ‘friendship’ with MDawg had ANYTHING to do with a ‘ruling’. (Which I don’t even remember!)

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: darkoz

Quote: MDawg

Except where the connections have nothing to do with the rulings. I've played golf with judges. I've seen one or more at my gym before. We just don't talk about cases is all.

Anyway you were the convicted defendant in this thread, prosecuting an appeal. Not me. I just submitted amicus sort of briefs.

You're the one who paid Wizard to testify for you once, and paid him to judge my Baccarat session contest, and yet he has ruled against you in WOV matters. Repeatedly.

Hence the assumption is that he is unbiased or at least impartial. Or are you suggesting otherwise?
link to original post

I'm stating what I am stating.

If I was on trial for anything and I found out the Plaintiff was playing golf with the judge are you as an attorney seriously suggesting I wouldn't have grounds for an appeal? Regardless of "but we don't discuss cases" nonsense
link to original post

You are unaware of how the real world works. I’ve been at political fundraisers with all sorts of judges playing with all sorts of lawyers. Charity events as well.
You don’t think the membership list at exclusive country clubs are not rife with these judges/lawyers/anesthesiologists?

I probably know Mike better than either of you. He’d rule against me IN A SECOND if he felt I was in the wrong. No reason to imply his ‘friendship’ with MDawg had ANYTHING to do with a ‘ruling’. (Which I don’t even remember!)
link to original post

And I was literally just in court for a friend with a simple misdemeanor battery and the judge saw he knew one of the witnesses and instantly recused himself.

Sure judges play golf with attorneys but they don't play golf with the PLAINTIFFS!!!

If you can't see that distinction I can't help you.

D.Oz was the defendant here in a criminal type appeal. There was no plaintiff. Actually, it was more of a sort of administrative action with the WOV being the adjudicating body. But, since there was a custodial sentence imposed, let's liken it to a criminal matter.

His appeal was patently absurd, poorly reasoned and dismissed out of hand by the Wizard, and rightly so. If you dare to wade through this thread there are references to other times in the WOV past he has tried to "appeal" and been shot down.

He is also in the wrong with his interpretations of the fake video that has nothing to do with Caesars.

The real question is how to correlate how he has been so frequently wrong about these sorts of things and been so intent on presenting absurdly wrong conclusions and analysis, with his claimed ability to get over on casinos. What he does have going for him is dogged determination and refusal to back down even when pointedly in the wrong, so maybe the point is that anyone who tries enough times and doesn't give up may get something accomplished.