I'm very sorry

[davehwm]

[ QUOTE ]
It was deleted, and Paul was told he had to apologize to Mason *and* to the forum for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apologize for what?

[mosch]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not quite the point. Mason banned Paul, not me. However, isn't it likely that the reason Paul was banned was a result of this violation of expected privacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try.

The letter to Paul made very clear that if he didn't apologize to everyone for his original post (which correctly stated that UBB is crappy software, and that moderators should not brag about bans) that he would be banned.

You guys need to stop lying about the timeline and the reasons for the ban. It's pathetic.

[Voltron87]

don't all of you feel pretty stupid for arguing about all this stuff? i mean who cares?

[davehwm]

[ QUOTE ]
don't all of you feel pretty stupid for arguing about all this stuff? i mean who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of your 6000+ posts, I'm sure you've had your fair share of "stupid" posts. I hope you didn't read the thread if you care so little.

[AceHigh]

I'm shocked, shocked to see a pro poker player whine about a decision made by a person/company in position of authority.

I think these pros have been out of the "real world" to long and forget the type of constraints most people operate under everyday in there workplace.

I find this thread very amusing. Going back to the original issue and all the fallout I note two things.

Everyone made themselves look bad from Harrah's to the players who complained to the banning threat to the response to the banning.

Aint none of y'all covered yourselves in glory here.

[Mat Sklansky]

I find being called a liar to be the most offensive accusation a person can throw at me. I have lied about nothing regarding these events. Had Mason's message stayed private and turned into a private conversation between paul and mason, it is likely that things would have turned out differently. You may disagree with my hypothesis, you may tell me I am ugly and incompetent, but you are very much out of line in calling me a liar.

[el kang]

[ QUOTE ]
Aint none of y'all covered yourselves in glory here.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. But, the issue is more complicated than that. I would say that once again the poker scene loses as the scene continues to grow and change, outside of the control of any poker notables.

I'm meeting with a Pepsi rep next week and I'm betting they are as powerless as all the "powerful" posters here.

[SunOfBeach]

[ QUOTE ]
He was asked to make an apology

[/ QUOTE ]

who is he... terrell freakin' owens?!?!?!

Pathetic. No matter what Paul's original post said this response from Mason is truly disappointing. It smacks of the proverbial ten-year-old who threatens to take his ball and go home unless others promise to like him. Worse, it reflects an attitude that certain people/subjects/issues/facts are above question or discussion.

Mason's reaction seems like nothing but censorship. Since when is there a rule that no-one is allowed to criticize the site or its moderators? Are you really so thin-skinned? Act like men. If you believe you were characterized unfairly then respond by explaining how and why. Ban his post if you really think it was so outrageously offesive that no-one else should read it. But the hoops you've asked him to jump through evidence a fundamental lack of understanding, perspective, maturity, and, most troubling, candor to the forum.

Further to the subject of candor, in response to the question asked in one of Mat's posts: I have absolutely no expectation of privacy in anything I send anywhere in electronic format -- e-mail, PM, whatever. And neither should anyone else (from a purely practical, not necessarily ethical or moral perspective). But, more importantly, the implication from Mat's outrage is that what Mason did should not be disclosed to the forum. Now THAT is something that I find offensive. Mat, Mason, and each of the rest of us should take responsibility for -- and be judged by -- our actions. Mason's e-mail is no exception. If Mason believed that what he did was justified then there should be no concern that it was made "public." As far as I'm concerned Paul was completely justified in revealing to us how one aspect of the management of this forum -- to which many of us contribute significant time, thought, and effort -- operates. Transparency is almost always a good thing. Sadly, Mat's reaction is perfectly consistent with the thrust of Mason's PM and only serves to underscore, rather than refute, Paul's inappropriate analogy. I wouldn't call Mason's e-mail and Mat's reaction fascist like Paul did, but it sure ain't free and open discourse.

Paul is one of the best posters to this forum and adds invaluable insight to issues that few of us have any experience with. Mason and Mat: Please apologize to Paul and invite him to continue to post.