[Mat Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't type very fast, otherwise I'd start over, but I don't know if most people expressing strong opinions on this matter really feel that way, or if this is just a little bit of entertainment. If Paul or anyone else who feels super-strongly about this issue want to call me, feel free.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had the software abduct a post or two of mine as well; that sucks. But I don't intend to call you -- and judging by the volume of readers in this thread, getting through might be unrealistic anyway. I'm hoping you can find the time to offer the response you were working on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I'll try again. We have at least three issues here.

First off, I want to start with Dynasty, the sole volunteer moderator of this forum. It has been his goal (he can correct me if I'm wrong) to make this forum a place where poker celebrities (like Paul Phillips) would feel free to post without a plethora of juvenille insults. I like that goal, and I believe most people reading and contributing here do as well. In an effort to make this a place where poker celebrities might like to post, Dynasty has taken to suspending people who insult them in a rude fashion. Despite the fact that this has been a controversial method, I have been supportive, because I fully support his intentions. Even those of you who fully disagree with our methodology, would probably agree that it would be pretty cool to routinely come to this forum and interact with the well known poker personalities (such as Paul Phillips). That's one issue: the moderation of this particular forum. I know that many have issues with the moderation of all our forums, but let's keep this simple.

So now, knowing that I am supporting Dynasty's experiment of suspending posters who take pleasure in calling well known poker pros silly names. we'll address the thread by Paul Phillips which I deleted.

Some random poster sent a moderator notification about that thread. It was late. I was tired. I read the thread which seemed to undermine what Dynasty is trying to accomplish (keep in mind that I am going with the belief that what Dynasty is trying to accomplish is the participation of celebrity poker players) I read a few flame-type responses, I glance at the post count of the op. and see the innocuous and common name: Paul Phillips. I swear on my testicles, that I did not equate the poster with the name, ie. precisely the kind of person I believe Dynasty is making huge efforts to encourage to post here. I deleted the thread.

Shortly after, Dynasty contacts me wanting to know if it was possible that he could have mistakenly deleted the post. I looked into it and realized that, yes, I had deleted "the Paul Phillips". My initial reaction was that I had made a definite mistake. However, when I did further research on Paul's prior posts, and thought more about whether or not his original post was appropriate, I decided that while the deletion of the entire thread was clearly a mistake, the deletion of Paul's post, had I deleted that only, would not have been. Here's why: Dynasty has been busting his ass for us, the Two Plus Two forums, and for all the Poker pros out there like Paul Phillips who may or may not have an interest in posting hereand all the people wanting celebrities to post here. It seemed to me that if Paul wanted to be so acerbic in his criticisms, that it would have behooved him to know that the same moderator he was denouncing, was to a large degree acting on his behalf, and not merely "swinging his [censored] around." So I did not feel all that bad deleting this post. Keep in mind, however, that had I realized before I deleted the post that I was deleting "THE Paul Phillips", I would not have. I would have edited the post and then responded. Therefore, I am admitting that even the original deletion of the post was an error. What I am not admitting is that the post was wholly acceptable in it's tone. It wasn't. It was inflammatory for its own sake and it was based on a lack of information regarding moderation in the WPT forum.

Issue number three: Mason Bans Paul

After I deleted the thread and was communicating with Dynasty and posting my explanation in another thread, Mason called me. He wanted to know why I deleted the thread. Since I had deleted the original post and thread, i could only summarize the post in the way that I perceived it. I had perceived it as a post in which it's primary purpose was to denegrate Two Plus Two and to personally attack Dynasty.


Mason responded by sending Paul the pm which has now been made public. Was Mason wrong? Maybe. If he made his decision based on my words alone and I did an inadequate job of communicating, maybe not. Nonetheless, in his pm, Mason did not explicitly ban Paul. And I maintain that if Paul had responded to Mason privately, to what appears to be the result of miscommunication (almost exclusively my fault), that things would have been cleared up without all the drama.

Was Paul justified in responding to Mason's private message publicly, calling him lame and myself and all the other moderators Hitler's youth? Given the early results of Mason's poll, it appears that many of you think so. I don't, and this is why I supported the banning of Paul even as I was willing to admit that my deletions were an error.

This is by far the longest message I have ever typed on these boards, and I hope that it explains things properly.

I freely extend apologies to anyone who feels that they are owed one by me. That includes Paul Phillips, and especially Mason who is ferociously loyal to his allies even if it may make him look bad in the process. I say this based on all the criticism he has received in this thread. But I can assure you, I'll even lay my testicles on the line again, that there does not exist a man with greater honesty and integrity than Mason Malmuth.

I think that sums this up pretty well, but if not, you still have my number.