I'm very sorry

[mmcd]

[ 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"

I think it is only fair to tell you that you are coming close to what we would consider an objectionable post. Cross that line and your posts will be deleted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice work. One of the funniest posts I've ever read on here.

[Slacker13]

[ QUOTE ]
Call your boss a Nazi, and see if you get fired.

[/ QUOTE ]
I own my own business so I can call whomever I like a Nazi.

I think we have touched this subject before. It seems as though your the backup voice for this forum when the owners choose to avoid the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
*shrug* This is the way the world works.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the 2+2 world, Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Paulp compared the owner of the website to a Nazi

[/ QUOTE ]

No soup for you.

[IronUnkind]

This isn't about ground rules. Of course Mason is within his rights. But he's also being petty. The right to oppose stupid rules, with drama, if necessary, belongs to the respondants here. Paul Phillips can't engage in that on this forum, but I can and will (as long as I am not banned).

Here is your logic applied to civil rights:

"KKK members exercise their constitutional right to spew hatred. Black people don't like this and get all dramatic. They should shut up and take it because the law is the law."

[WhiskyRiver]

[ 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"

I think it is only fair to tell you that you are coming close to what we would consider an objectionable post. Cross that line and your posts will be deleted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky, you won my heart with this post.

[Ulysses]

Mat,

A suggestion. Just in case, you might want to offer up your left arm or something instead of your testicles. Just in case.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Digging up things Mason has said is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the confusion here? I was responding specifically to Mat's post, in which he implicitly assigned moral superiority to Mason due to Paul's posting of the private email. An example of Mason doing the same renders Mat's point moot. I shouldn't have even responded to this, though, as it was a blazingly obvious evasion of the real issue.

As for my options:

[ QUOTE ]
1. Put up with it, and accept that good things often have flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do that when I can...

[ QUOTE ]
2. Write a constructive criticism. Don't use inflamatory terms or resort to namecalling. Instead, enumerate your gripe and offer positive suggestions about ways to remedy the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you cleverly phrased this in order to exclude Paul's original post from fulfilling the criteria. This was close enough to his intent, though.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Stop participating. You can say something nasty on your way out if you want to, but that will lose you some respect with at least a few people. (Though apparently it will gain you respect with a different group, so eh.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the Paul Phillips case study, I'd say that this option is +ev if respect is the currency. The most avid defenders of Mason seem to be the people who are in his employ. The rest of the reactions to Mason's response seem to range from qualified agreement to violent disapproval.

There is, of course, a fourth option, which is:

4. Point out the patent inefficiencies of 2+2's forums without mincing words.

This is the course of action Paul took, and from what I can gather, you, Mat, and perhaps Mason think the following:

"If the criticism isn't diplomatic, then the problem doesn't exist."

This position has proven very attractive to those who wield the power to make their critics disappear.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Digging up posts or calling people names isn't going to change that. Mason runs things the way he wants to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody thinks otherwise. I only dig up posts to refocus the discussion. It is, of course, Mason's prerogative to throw his weight around.

[ QUOTE ]
If I were interested in being diplomatic, I might not state things in quite this way. But I'm not. And lest anyone think I'm "power tripping," I have no power on this forum beyond having Mason's ear.

[/ QUOTE ]

More diplomacy is required for those who don't have Mason's ear. But if the gloves were taken off, he would really get the Duk Koo Kim treatment (merely a metaphor, wise and just moderators, merely a metaphor).

[Smoothcall]

???? Mason complimented him and basically said he was a good poker player(which is up for debate). Hardly baiting him to act obnoxiously like he did.

[Dan Mezick]

I notice you are applying my property rights argument to a different area of concern-- rights of free speech and assembly granted to US citizens.

This is an apples to oranges comparision.

2+2 has one and only one owner. The owner sets ground rules and optionally chooses to enforce them. The visitors use 2+2 property for free at the pleasure of the 2+2 owner.

The 2+2 owner provides a service to the public at great expense of time, effort and money.

I notice 2+2 does not charge for this service nor require that visitors purchase a 2+2 product, etc.

I notice that visitors must honor ground rules for use.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
???? Mason complimented him and basically said he was a good poker player

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes. David also, if memory serves, listed him as one of the 10 Smartest People in Poker.


[ QUOTE ]

(which is up for debate).

[/ QUOTE ]



Not really.


[ QUOTE ]

Hardly baiting him to act obnoxiously like he did.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very true. This mainly boils down to Mat making an honest mistake. Mat then stood up and apologized. And Paul ended up taking it too far ... and definitely shouldn't've called Mason names OR started dropping the N-word.

Regardless, Paul, when he posts, I believe is one of the better posters on 2+2 (I likewise enjoy his blog) and I hope he learns from Mat's quality example, as it certainly isn't easy to publicly apologize for a mistake.

We'll see, I guess...

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com