In defense of Mason...

Let's first understand that Mason put this board together for the discussion of poker, and not to be insulted or slandered. Criticism of play and information is always relevant, insults are not.

What happened between Abdul and Mason is between them, and the fact that Mason is a public figure in the poker world makes him vulnerable to gossip and slander that could be detrimental to his livelihood. Would Abdul have said anything on this board about an unknown? Probably not, because it wouldn't have the same affect, and nobody would really care. Does Mason have the right to decide not to do business with Abdul? Yes he does. As would I or anyone else, that felt that someone was trying to tarnish their reputation or hurt their livelihood.

For those that choose to leave the board, I ask you to think about that, and ask yourselves what you would do if you were in Masons shoes?

Does Mason have a right to ban anyone he wants from his forums? Yes. Does that mean his decision to ban Abdul was a good decision? No.


Mason's decision protects his reputation, but it hurts the quality of discussion on this forum. Mason wins. We lose. Mason is happy, but forgive me if I am not.

Mason is a bought off crook. Everyone knows this to be true.

"Mason wins. We lose. Mason is happy, but forgive me if I am not."


First of all, I don't think I won, and I'm not happy about the situation. But after warning someone that they had to stop violating our rules, it gets to a point that you either take appropriate action or the rules are out the window. I view it as a decision that we had no choice but to make.

I'm just curious, but who bought me off?

People have got to know whether or not their idol is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got.


MM

It's very simple. Discuss poker, not hurtful gossip. If you can't do this, your out.

I love Abdul's posts, but I'm not going to side with him because he thought he was above the rules. Tough business decision, but you need to be consistant, and you were.

"But after warning someone that they had to stop violating our rules, it gets to a point that you either take appropriate action or the rules are out the window."


Why don't you take appropriate action when you violate your own rules?


"I view it as a decision that we had no choice but to make."


Of course you had a choice. Sometimes you ignore your rules, and sometimes you impose them. You seem to impose them more often on posters who regularly disagree with you.

"Why don't you take appropriate action when you violate your own rules?"


Despite your claims, I don't violate our rules.

"Despite your claims, I don't violate our rules."


Despite your claims, you do violate your rules...unless you interpret them differently when you apply them to yourself.