Paul Phillips post on his website about 2+2

[odellthurman]

Here is a post from Paul Phillips' website - extempore.livejournal.com - -

"This looks like a fun situation to dissect a little ways.

First, a summary of the salient facts. I began a thread on 2+2 which grew to 50+ posts before the entire thread was summarily deleted by mat sklansky. I was then contacted via private message by mason malmuth, who pronounced that if I did not apology both privately and publicly I would no longer be allowed to post at 2+2. After I posted a less than completely sincere apology that included a reference to the hitler youth, mason "permanently" banned me. When the situation attracted sufficient negative attention they decided to hold a poll about whether or not I should be reinstated. The voters called for unbanning by about an 80/20 margin, so unbanned I was. My original post and mason's message are included in this earlier entry. Also of historical interest are the 300+ post apology thread and the poll regarding reinstatement. There are numerous other threads that touch on the banning that you can read if you are possessed of sufficient masochism. Most or all of these threads have been locked; the moderator says the issue is resolved so it must be true.

I have some thoughts.

1) It has always been a condition of my participation at 2+2 that none of my posts be deleted. I have asserted this several times publicly and privately, and I had reiterated it again in the post that began the deleted thread. The charming crowd that looks to infer the ugliest possible motivation for everything I do viewed that assertion as some kind of self-aggrandizing "look how important I am" threat. In reality it was born solely of a sincere desire to avoid this exact situation. I knew without uncertainty that if one of my posts was ever deleted I would be done with 2+2: there would be no second chances. Given that, I thought it worthwhile to at least try to make the moderator think a little harder before hitting the big red button. No such luck, but it's hard to claim I didn't make the effort.

I put some effort into my writing. It may not always be brilliant but that doesn't mean I don't value it all. At 2+2 the value of my writing is so low that it can be capriciously deleted without warning or explanation at any time. As long as that was only hypothetical I was willing to fade it, but no longer. It'd be like voluntarily resuming an abusive relationship. And let's not forget about the 50+ other posts that were deleted along with my opening post, posts whose only crime was proximity. Look at how casually they irreversibly deleted posts from a couple dozen different people. Either they don't mind losing a couple dozen posters all at once, or they don't think people care if their posts are deleted for no reason. In either case they prove themselves completely unfit to operate a forum. It's hard to imagine how mason thought that my participation there was so valuable to me that I'd grovel before him. Who does he think gets more out of the deal when I post there, them or me?

2) The younger sklansky explains his reasoning here. I don't see any reason to disbelieve his version, which is damning enough unvarnished. What kind of person is mason malmuth? He's the sort to send a demand for apologies both public and private based on a post he had never seen. When the actual content of the offending post comes to light and it is obvious that they wildly overreacted, rather than simply unban me he hides behind a poll whose outcome was never in doubt. And he's the sort of person who despite being quick to demand apologies for an imagined wrong, offers none himself for a genuine one.

I wonder how this situation would have played out if someone had not saved a copy of my original post. Just imagine how mason would have behaved had I not been able to produce it. He'd be authoritatively assuring everyone that I was banned deservedly, based on the content of a post he had never seen.

3) As I predicted privately, certain 2+2 revisionists wasted no time in acting like I was banned because I made a nazi reference. When I started mentioning nazis my days at 2+2 were already over and I was just having some fun with my last couple comments. The thing is, nazis are funny. If you can watch "springtime for hitler" in the producers and not piss yourself laughing then I question the development of your sense of humor. Anyone who has been around the net for more than a day or two should know what nazi comparisons mean: nothing. It was quite hilarious seeing people deconstruct my comment as if I were a prosecutor at nuremberg trying mason malmuth for war crimes. Addressing a ridiculous nazi comparison in earnest makes you look like you just opened your AOL account yesterday.

Also, I should mention that "and the rest of the hitler youth" is a movie reference. I guess it's asking too much to expect everyone to recognize it as such but happily at least one person did. Kids these days! That movie should be on the mandatory memorization list.

4) I have never made any secret of the fact that I delete comments and ban people from my blog, so naturally people who wander through life contextually challenged claim this makes me a hypocrite. Let's see how many differences I can think of:

* I don't make any pretense of (or at all aspire to) running a forum. This is my personal blog. If a comment in my blog isn't valuable to me personally then I might delete it and ban the poster. The fact that others might find the posted comments of interest is purely incidental. I've been clear about this from day one.
* When I delete posts and ban people you don't hear about it. I just remove the noise and move on. I feel safe in saying nobody misses the people I've banned. The only impact is a less noisy blog.
* I take deletion seriously. I don't do it figuring if I'm overzealous I can claim a mistake and everything will be better. I know what a burned bridge looks like.
* I don't at all begrudge 2+2 the right to delete posts and ban users. I do think people have a right to know what rules (or lack thereof) apply there so they can make their own decisions about whether to patronize 2+2. Remember that they make money by selling advertising that piggybacks on your words. As a poster there you provide them with free content to sell. Do you think they deserve it?

5) Here is a good summary of what you can expect at 2+2.

Mason: It is our policy at Two Plus Two to hold other writers to higher standards, that policy is now extended to well known public figures in poker such as yourself.
Mat: 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.

It is nice to simultaneously be held to both a higher and a lower standard than everyone else. Such well-thought out policy means fair-minded, unobtrusive moderation is a given."

[gulebjorn]

let me be the first to say: tl;dr

[PsYcHo-ScHnAuZeR]

This confirms that Paul essentially banned himself, and his banning was inevitable given his irrational self-proclaimed conditions on his being a poster here.

[B Dids]

I like Paul, but he's coming off like a 100% infant here.

He made a trolling post and refuses to admit it.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
I like Paul, but he's coming off like a 100% infant here.

He made a trolling post and refuses to admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]


What is really funny is that he has banned me from his site, even though I have only posted 2 or 3 times in the last year, and those posts were not controversial and are still up.

Maybe because I posted here that he didn't really add anything to the site and was arrogant?

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
he has banned me from his site

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. And for the life of me I don't know why. We were such good buddies. Broke my heart.

Vince

[Fallen Hero]

[ QUOTE ]
I like Paul, but he's coming off like a 100% infant here.

He made a trolling post and refuses to admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"When I started mentioning nazis my days at 2+2 were already over and I was just having some fun with my last couple comments"

[toots]

I'm with paul. I'm finding the cult of personality around here to be a bit onerous, and it has worn a bit thin.

For now, perhaps I'll join up with PP's cult of personality until I get tired of that one, too.

I'm not saying that PP conducted himself maturely or wisely here, but I am saying that the cult here has managed to do a fairly effective job of deflecting what would have been a discussion of hypocrisy and moderation gone awry to be all about PP's choice of words.

I'll take someone's personal blog, where he has the guts to admit that he'll capriciously ban someone for pissing him off, over this place where thin skinned behavior is blamed on the victim and all criticism is deflected behind a smokescreen of presumed, yet nonexistent "objectivity."

[Autocratic]

Paul clearly wishes to be thought of as someone far more significant than the average poster here. Perhaps he is/was in the sense that most people are going to pay more attention to what he says, but the conditions he sets on his posting here, as if he's doing us a great priviledge with his 300 or so posts, are ridiculous.

[benkahuna]

toots, nicely put. It sounds rather righteous of me to say, but what it really comes down to is honesty in moderation.

As for Paul, like most people that produce worthwhile content, he's honest. He even admits to heckling on his way out the door.

It's clear that Paul wasn't a good fit for this forum. It's too bad.