Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
"The comparison to Hitler, Hitler youth, and anything else Nazi related is overused by society but I have to say this is one example of it being a just comparison."

What is the probability Paul Phillips agrees with that statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the probability that the original comment was a Godwin's Law joke that neither of you got?

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

While Paul could have shown some restraint in his reply to the email, I think his original post and sentiments have some validity. The moderation here has gone completely overboard in recent weeks, with each moderator having his or her own standards. Instead of a place of discussion, this site is devolving into a place to cozy up to the moderators to avoid getting banned.

A sad day.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

It was just one moderator: me. What happened here is not about multiple moderators. This forum has one: Dynasty. I am the only other person who might take action here. So people can direct their anger and disappointment at me.

My explanation

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was just one moderator: me. What happened here is not about multiple moderators. This forum has one: Dynasty. I am the only other person who might take action here. So people can direct their anger and disappointment at me.

My explanation

[/ QUOTE ]


Mat made a slight error and owned up to it fully. People should respect that and not look as it being more sinister than it is. And while I am a fan of Paul's - and linked to his blog - and I believe that poker pro's should be more welcomed here than they are by many board members - I don't think it's right for him to insult 2+2 or call Mason names.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

Are cricitisms of 2+2 or the way you or Dynasty moderate the forums acceptable?

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

I rarely post; nobody here will miss me. I won't even pretend that your advertisers will notice that I've stopped clicking through from your web site.

And I'm out of here.

just chop the pot, already
 

I wonder what the probability is of a table full of poker pros dropping their egos.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

Holy [censored], mbraudel, you're [censored] LEAVING MAN???

Wow... never thought I'd see this day.

Holy [censored] it's the JFK assassination all over again.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paul,

Sometimes the person telling you not to post, is not who you'd expect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe Paul was lonely or had too much to drink, I love humor amongst heated arguments, life is short....smile.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

Mason, you forgot "Best Wishes,"

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

Absolutely. In fact they are welcomed. However, if someone presents them in a nasty fashion and then threatens to never post again if any one of their posts is ever deleted, I'm less likely to view the criticism as constructive.

Here's another thing about last night's deletion. I deleted the thread before I looked at the person posting. I didn't realize until after that it was a "celebrity"

When I did, that's when I made the post linked to above.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
"The comparison to Hitler, Hitler youth, and anything else Nazi related is overused by society but I have to say this is one example of it being a just comparison."

What is the probability Paul Phillips agrees with that statement?

[/ QUOTE ]


0%

From his site:

"I like nazi references in contexts like this; they make me laugh. The word has been so abused since WWII that it's not like it's useful for meaningful comparisons anyway."

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

>>Paul, we are considering granting your wish of never allowing you to post here again. You need to appologize, first to us privately, and then to the forum.<<

I wonder what kind of person would abase himself in this way just to remain a 'member' of the 2+2 'community'.

Seems to me there is something deeper going on here.

I'll probably get sitebanned for making this observation. So be it.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]

Here's another thing about last night's deletion. I deleted the thread before I looked at the person posting. I didn't realize until after that it was a "celebrity"

When I did, that's when I made the post linked to above.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call bs on this one. That's utterly impossible.

And I don't see why we can't express our dislike for certain poker players here. They want tv time? Then they should get the stuff that comes with having it, the good and the bad.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

What a joke.

P.S. I just have to ask, why hasn't the original post been deleted yet?

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was just one moderator: me. What happened here is not about multiple moderators. This forum has one: Dynasty. I am the only other person who might take action here. So people can direct their anger and disappointment at me.

My explanation

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't referring speficially to this incident, although I don't think Paul's post was over the top (his reply was, but that was obviously his intention). I am talking more about the climate of the entire site, where each moderator has a different set of rules about what is allowed and what is not.

I am a moderator for another internet site, so I like to think that I have some understanding about how things work. Things like spam and pornography should always be prohibited (and they are), but other than that, it is a crapshoot as to what each forum 'allows'. Oftentimes the denizens of the particular forum encourage or goad the moderators into actions that aren't always fair or equal.

In almost all cases, moderators should be nearly invisible. Some of the newer moderators here (on the site, not the TV poker forum in particular) are treated like rock stars, and they may feel they have to be flamboyant while performing their duties to keep their fans happy. This is where a lot of my unease and disappointment is generated.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was just one moderator: me. What happened here is not about multiple moderators. This forum has one: Dynasty. I am the only other person who might take action here. So people can direct their anger and disappointment at me.

My explanation

[/ QUOTE ]


Mat made a slight error and owned up to it fully. People should respect that and not look as it being more sinister than it is. And while I am a fan of Paul's - and linked to his blog - and I believe that poker pro's should be more welcomed here than they are by many board members - I don't think it's right for him to insult 2+2 or call Mason names.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

The "slight error" admitted to by Mat was deleting the whole thread instead of deleting the OP and some of the replies. For those who believe the OP was undeserving of deletion, there was a larger error.

The criticism in the OP was blunt but not unreasonable, in my opinion. These are always subjective matters, of course. But for Mat to factor in the 'threat' to leave 2+2 if a post or thread is deleted seems to me just spiteful. It may be a bluff, a rhetorical device, or a sincere sentiment. In any of those cases, what makes it so offensive?

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
>>Paul, we are considering granting your wish of never allowing you to post here again. You need to appologize, first to us privately, and then to the forum.<<

I wonder what kind of person would abase himself in this way just to remain a 'member' of the 2+2 'community'.

Seems to me there is something deeper going on here.

I'll probably get sitebanned for making this observation. So be it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly, This seems like an April Fool's joke except it's not even close to April. Plus why would Paul apologize when he can keep on making accounts? Even if you IP ban him, I'm sure he can find a way around that.

Seriously, if Paul wanted to, he'd become a massive troll here and there really wouldn't be anything you can do about it.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

http://members.cscoms.com/~suwat/pos...t_a_causec.jpg

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
In almost all cases, moderators should be nearly invisible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Dynasty should not be making comments like, "Three more suspensions..". The rules should be clearly stated in the forum FAQ/Rules and that is it. A moderator should be deleting posts and contacting the offender individually, not making it a public spectacle, IMHO.

Edit: I moderate on two other, rather large sites, with multiple moderators. If you guys want any tips, feel free to PM me.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

I'm afraid to post anything anymore. Am I still allowed to critique the donkey play on LATB???

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

Some thoughts:

1) too many long threads are being deleted in this and other forums. Can we delete just the offending posts, not the whole thread?

2) medium to long threads should be saved before being deleted. Take screen shots if there is no other way to do it. Have your tech savvy moderators do it for you if you aren't comfortable doing it yourself.

3) long time posters know you are doing a good job. The occasional mistake does not distract from that fact.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

seems like banning someone who said they were leaving is pretty pointless.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In almost all cases, moderators should be nearly invisible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Dynasty should not be making comments like, "Three more suspensions..". The rules should be clearly stated in the forum FAQ/Rules and that is it. A moderator should be deleting posts and contacting the offender individually, not making it a public spectacle, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is merit in letting the membership know what types of posts prompt a banning or suspension, though.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mason's e-mail, if quoted correctly, says that people like Paul are held to a higher standard. The logic of this escapes me. Why shouldn't everyone be held to the same standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to speculate, perhaps they feel some people carry more weight than others. This is not unreasonable to believe since for instance I consider your postings to be generally illinformed so I take them with a grain of salt, therefore when you post garbage little harm is done. Now when a recognized celebrity or selfproclaimed poker authority makes a post many people give them more credence, whether deservedly or not. Therefore they will influence more people and should rightly be held to a higher standard.

Just in case my above explanation is utter nonsense or way off base there is always the fact that the forum is owned by 2+2 Publishing, not you, not me, not Paul and not other poker stars.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In almost all cases, moderators should be nearly invisible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Dynasty should not be making comments like, "Three more suspensions..". The rules should be clearly stated in the forum FAQ/Rules and that is it. A moderator should be deleting posts and contacting the offender individually, not making it a public spectacle, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is merit in letting the membership know what types of posts prompt a banning or suspension, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, "The rules should be clearly stated in the forum FAQ/Rules and that is it".

EDIT:
And I can see the merit in making that clear. Instead of Dynasty saying, "Three more suspensions, when are you people going to get it (paraphrase)", he could have said, "The three people above were suspended for doing X, X, and X."

Anything else is just unprofessional. If we expect our posters to be professional, it's only reasonable to expect the moderators to do the same.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
A moderator should be deleting posts and contacting the offender individually, not making it a public spectacle, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always handled things individually, but the forums I moderate are very small compared to the WPT and OOT forums.

It seems to me that part of the reason mods of big forums make some of these public statements is so it can serve as a more visable warning to those considering posting 'objectionable' content. I don't know that to be true, though. I'm just giving my opinion on why that sort of thing happens in the high noise forums.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A moderator should be deleting posts and contacting the offender individually, not making it a public spectacle, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always handled things individually, but the forums I moderate are very small compared to the WPT and OOT forums.

It seems to me that part of the reason mods of big forums make some of these public statements is so it can serve as a more visable warning to those considering posting 'objectionable' content. I don't know that to be true, though. I'm just giving my opinion on why that sort of thing happens in the high noise forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

I edited above:

"And I can see the merit in making that clear. Instead of Dynasty saying, "Three more suspensions, when are you people going to get it (paraphrase)", he could have said, "The three people above were suspended for doing X, X, and X."

Anything else is just unprofessional. If we expect our posters to be professional, it's only reasonable to expect the moderators to do the same."

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

ILL SAY IT SENSE NONE OF YOU OTHER FAGGGOTS GOT THE SACK TO DO IT. MASON, SKLANSKY AND ALL YOU OTHER FUCIN HOMOSEXUAL MODS [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF

FUC YOU GUYS YOU THINK YOU ARE SUCH THE LITTLE FRANCHISE I PISS ON 2+2 BUT I WOULDNT PISS ON YOU ALL IF YOU WERE ON FIRE [censored] LAME COCSUKIN FAGGGOTS

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't see why we can't express our dislike for certain poker players here. They want tv time? Then they should get the stuff that comes with having it, the good and the bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think the double standard is what's wrong. If this site does have a policy of banning people for bad mouthing T.V. players, then how come there wasn't a dozen or so bannings from the posts in the Tiffany Williamson thread alone.

I think it was just a bunch of ego's clashing or something and someone took something that they think went over the line and finally someone took out a ban stick and "Whack", Game Over, I win.

Hopefully, for the good of everyone, things get ironed out, good sportsmanship comes through, a little I guess I went overboard, I went a little overboard too, hands shake and the forum as a whole benefits.

Edit: Gees. Except for the guy who posted just before me ... Whack!

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
ILL SAY IT SENSE NONE OF YOU OTHER FAGGGOTS GOT THE SACK TO DO IT. MASON, SKLANSKY AND ALL YOU OTHER FUCIN HOMOSEXUAL MODS [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF

FUC YOU GUYS YOU THINK YOU ARE SUCH THE LITTLE FRANCHISE I PISS ON 2+2 BUT I WOULDNT PISS ON YOU ALL IF YOU WERE ON FIRE [censored] LAME COCSUKIN FAGGGOTS

[/ QUOTE ]

Mom? Is that you? I told you not to use the computer when I'm not home.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I don't see why we can't express our dislike for certain poker players here. They want tv time? Then they should get the stuff that comes with having it, the good and the bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this site does have a policy of banning people for bad mouthing T.V. players, then how come there wasn't a dozen or so bannings from the posts in the Tiffany Williamson thread alone.


[/ QUOTE ]

There was.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully, for the good of everyone, things get ironed out, good sportsmanship comes through, a little I guess I went overboard, I went a little overboard too, hands shake and the forum as a whole benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading this post, I have no reason to look at the reg. date under your name. It's got to be pretty recent if you think there is much chance of this scenario playing out.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

The quality of this forum improved when moderation of the trolls was stepped up a while back, and I appreciate the effort Dynasty and Mat have put into it.

That said, Paul Phillips was not a troll, and nothing in his deleted post was moderation-worthy (IMO).

Banning him is an even worse decision than (effectively) banning Abdul was.

2+2 will still be the best poker discussion forum on the 'net even with Paul Phillips gone, at least in the short run and probably for the forseeable future.

Just don't ban Barry Greenstein, Gigabet, Fossilman, and MajorKong next. They are all in the same category as Paul Phillips and Abdul Jalib were -- consistently insightful posters whose thoughts are (were) always worth reading. Axe too many of those guys (and similar posters), and everyone else will start to leave as well.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

Paul Phillips banned but Vince Lepore still posting.

Yeah. That makes sense.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was just one moderator: me. What happened here is not about multiple moderators. This forum has one: Dynasty. I am the only other person who might take action here. So people can direct their anger and disappointment at me .


[/ QUOTE ]

Mat,
What is the point of expressing an opinion either directly in a related thread or via PM to the forum moderator?

I have questioned Dynasty three times and sent him the following PM—since he will not respond in private, I will post it in public. May be you will respond.


The following is my PM to Dnyasty:

Dynasty,

I made the following post (see below) questioning your decisions. I see that you posted a sticky regarding the Terms & Conditions” that I pointed out to you in my post. I have not followed any of the “Tiffany” threads as I have no interest in reading juvenile irrational diatribes. The fact that some members are arguing the motivation of members criticizing her play as being racially motivated is proof enough of the diatribes I am referring to. It seems pretty rare to find any thread that does not contain some flaming or insulting comments (e.g. RGP).

My choice not to read these threads is mine alone and when I come across content I do not care to read, I simply stop reading and move on to another thread. Seems like a mature decision or common sense to me.

These comments do not negate my deep concerns regarding what could be easily misconstrued as hypocritical, irrational, overreaction, and unjustified actions taken by you. I honestly believe you owe us an explanation of the sudden change in your personal policy of ignoring the “Terms and Conditions” to suddenly enforcing them only when it relates to Tiffany. Your integrity is in question and this question must be answered.

I would greatly appreciate a response from you.

Respectfully,

Michael


This is a copy of my post in an active thread that he also ignored:

Help me understand this:

Quoting this portion of the "Terms of Usage"

"Operating Policies"

The operating policies of 2+2 set forth the rules that govern your activity on the 2+2 website. While using 2+2 website, you may not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind; including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international laws.

While you are free to post on the 2+2 website using an alias, you may not post pretending to be someone else.

2+2 and ConJelCo reserve the right to refuse to post or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, that, in its sole discretion, are unacceptable, undesirable, or in violation of this Agreement. Continued abuse will result in your being banned from posting on the 2+2 website."



Exactly how does criticizing a player’s play qualify as an offense that warrants a suspension? Certainly personal attacks would qualify, but strategic differences of opinion do not qualify.

Secondarily, is it the Moderator’s intention to only apply the “policy” to “Tiffany” related posts or will this policy be enforced for all members. I see player after player being referred to as “donks” and worse. Chris Moneymaker, Greg Reymer and Phil Hellmuth have taken their fare share of “abuse” so where are all those member suspensions? Pick any subject and you will consistently find violations of the “Terms of Usage.”

If you expect all the members to follow rules, then the Moderations must follow the rules too—not just when it is convenient for them. The Moderators must be impartial to all disputes and specifically not become emotionally involved.

I believe the Moderators owe the members of this board an explanation of this inconsistent enforcement of the rules. Obviously, the Moderators have made a serious error and a significant injustice followed—they have punished some members, but not others.

It is my opinion that the Moderators owe the membership an apology, and need to make restitution to the members they selectively and emotionally punished. The Moderators need to equally and fairly administer to rules and take responsibility when they make mistakes.

Respectfully,

Michael

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paul:

You have now been permanently banned from this site.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What happened in the Lee Jones thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't find the thread, its in the books forum maybe in the last year. If someone finds it and posts it you might see some parallels.

I must be a bad searcher. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

this one?

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading through this I can only assume that some of the current mods would have to ban some of the peoplein there who were making comments that--in current settings-- woudl EASILY be bannable offenses. And I think it seems obvious who the mods would be banning from that thread...::whistles while minding his own business::

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

I just reread the post by Paul Phillips (which was reproduced on his own website) that led to his permanent banning on 2+2.

I must say that I am absolutely astonished that he would be permanently sitebanned for that post (or more accurately, for refusing to publicly and privately apologize for making that post). Of course, I do acknowledge (as 2+2 is a private, corporate forum) your absolute right to be as unfair, capricious, or draconian as you choose.

I would also like some clarification or guidance, if you would kindly deign to do so, as to whether such comments or observations by myself and/or others are tolerable or at least permitted.

Thank you very much in advance for your considering my humble question.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
ILL SAY IT SENSE NONE OF YOU OTHER FAGGGOTS GOT THE SACK TO DO IT. MASON, SKLANSKY AND ALL YOU OTHER FUCIN HOMOSEXUAL MODS [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF [censored] OFF

FUC YOU GUYS YOU THINK YOU ARE SUCH THE LITTLE FRANCHISE I PISS ON 2+2 BUT I WOULDNT PISS ON YOU ALL IF YOU WERE ON FIRE [censored] LAME COCSUKIN FAGGGOTS

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul?