My Reason and Phillips Poll

[zipo]

I think if you privately apologized to Phillips, then publicly apoligized to him in this forum he might return.

It's worth a shot.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why are we all acting like Paul Phillips begged someone to be unbanned? He left of his own free will, when he got banned he had already decided not to post again.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is not whether or not Phillips ever posts here again. The point is whether or not the hosts of this forum respect the desires of the people that participate in the forum. They obviously do. As I said Phillips is not the issue, the 2 + 2 forum is the issue. Phillips is the loser if he choses not to post here. He returned and posted here on a few occaisions, I believe, because he knows that this is the most widely read poker forum anywhere. If you want to be heard by the most people in the poker world this is the place where it can happen. Phillips knows that. That's why he posted here.

Mason banned Phillips for ...well being rude among other things. Mason then decided to let the forum members decide how to deal with the situation. He yielded to our desires. I think that he acted fairly despite his own ovious misgivings. We should now thank him and move on. Phillips can do as he pleases.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]


Very nicely put Vince. I concur.

[Masquerade]

PP has stated that if any of his posts here were ever deleted he'd leave. Therefore this poll seems completely pointless.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
PP has stated that if any of his posts here were ever deleted he'd leave. Therefore this poll seems completely pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not pointless. Whenever people complain that PP was banned, Mason will be able to reply, "He wasn't banned. He is welcome to post here anytime he wants as long as he minds the terms and conditions." This will be a major rhetorical coup.

[roundest]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason,

I hope the results of the poll have made you aware of the degree of schmuckiness inherent to the banning and moderation practices around here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was definitely pretty schmucky. You guys know Paul and you already knew what the result would be when you asked him to apologize. I don't think it matters one way or the other at this point, but banning him was ridiculous.

[Awesemo]

I criticized him in his livejournal and he banned me from that. So, I don't really see that he could think that was right, and this was wrong. No harm done.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PP has stated that if any of his posts here were ever deleted he'd leave. Therefore this poll seems completely pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not pointless. Whenever people complain that PP was banned, Mason will be able to reply, "He wasn't banned. He is welcome to post here anytime he wants as long as he minds the terms and conditions." This will be a major rhetorical coup.

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows great maturity and bigger picture judgment on Mason’s part. Sooner or later, Paul will hopefully reach the same conclusion and I’ll bet he’ll be back when doing so suits his purposes. I’ll also bet suiting his purposes will benefit the forum.

-g

[rforman13]

FWIW, I thing it was ridiculous what Paul was banned for...then again, I also think it was ridiculous that he banned me from his site for merely saying that he will be just like Gary Carson in 20 years....

[Victor]

sweet. so can we bring vehn back too? dude contributed way more than philips and was far better at insulting.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
schmuckiness inherent to the banning and moderation practices around here.

[/ QUOTE ]


not that I invented it or anything....but I had posted several times that we should make a few reliable posters mods around here.
I have seen it work on other forums where the troll-factor was significant.

We had the jesus-freak guy everywhere....along with other various spam and it was only getting worse.
But I had made the suggestion a few times almost 2 years ago.

So I was happy when some of the long-time posters around here were actually made mods.

However, when I made the suggestion that 2+2 should try that out...I also specifically stated something to the effect that "Mat can also monitor these mods. So there's no need to worry about a specific mod getting out of hand. The mods would just take care of the most outrageous and obvious stuff, and send the borderline stuff to Mat.
Additionally, if a specific mod got out of hand then Mat (or whoever) could simply have a chat with them or could flat-out take their moderating privileges away.
It's not like being made a 'mod' has to be a lifetime thing. There shouldn't be any risk of the new mods somehow 'abusing' their power."


I think Mat and Mason need to consider the possibility that the moderation (and the tone of that moderation) in some of the forums is a bit over the line.

If there are a lot of people critisizing the moderation...and some of those people are long-time respected posters (not just a bunch of borderline-trolls with nothing better to do than rip on mods) then shouldn't their opinion that some matters aren't being handled very well at least be considered?