My Reason and Phillips Poll

[vegasvegas]

Those who think that the Nazi comment was meant serious might want to look at a posting on Paul's board from last month making fun of invoking Hitler / Nazis:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/extempore/119347.html

[zipo]

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

It's worth a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]


No it is not worth a shot. And it is not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have read the initial post for which Phillips was banned (and honestly, banning someone for *that* post? Really...), and the response - a demand for both a private and public apology...

In other words, Phillips was given an ultimatum to abase himself and publicly grovel for the 'privilege' of posting here.

To spell it out, my comment was just highlighting the absurdity of making a demand that a grown man grovel in order to remain a part of this 'community'.

[Krazy Dan]

I've been an administrator of an internet forum, and as a member of the management team, we held ourselves to a higher standard than we held the general membership to. If both the administration and the member acted inappropriately, we as the administration assumed fault and did not pursue any action, either temporary or permanent, against the violating member.

I understand that you hold people like Paul to a higher standard than general members like me, but as an administrator you <u>must</u> hold yourself to a higher standard than Paul. Even though his post was immature, the administration made numerous mistakes in their handling of the "situation."

We all make mistakes. Voted unbanning.

[adios]

Hi Mason,

Having a post deleted is no big deal. I've had at least one or two deleted but as you know I think very highly of you so it's easy for me to accept a decision like that. It's certainly not something to get bent out of shape over. Ok it was a whole thread but Matt explained the situation well. I think he owes you an apology for his name calling which I feel was disgraceful. I'm fairly certain that similar deragatory statements directed at him would not be received by him very well. I remember one particular thread where Phillips was criticised for some comments he made in a NL cash game. I felt this criticism was constructive in nature. Let's put it this way , he didn't give me the impression that he "suffers fools gladly" from his reactions to this criticism. I voted to ban him and if it was me I wouldn't let him post until he does apologize. Twoplustwo has put a significant amount of money in my pocket playing poker and I've really enjoyed this site for a long time. Paul has some great insight but so do a lot of posters here.

Tom

First of all, I hate moderation. I think it inhibits free and open discussion. Moderation seems particularly pointless on a forum such as WPT that consists mostly of gossip and speculation.

Second of all, I think this poll is taking the coward's way out. Either admit that you were wrong in banning Paul, personally and publicly apologize to him, and invite him back or stand by your decision to ban him. This poll is just pathetic.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I agree. I read a thread a few days ago when a mod was planning to ban one person a day until his birthday. How is that making this board better? Good moderators work should go unnoticed, but it seems as those entrusted with the power view banning as a trophy of sorts.

[/ QUOTE ]


OOT is an entirely different animal, and the 'bannings' talked about there, are just from OOT, not from the all of 2+2.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I hate moderation. I think it inhibits free and open discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]


They don't moderate posts they disagree with. For example, if I posted:

I don't think David Sklansky should've moved all-in in last night's episode of Poker Superstars II because he should've known blah blah blah.

In the made-up example above, I don't think Mat Sklansky should (or would) delete it. I am "free" to say something like that, even if it is against one of the 2+2 team.

However, moderation is good, as it prevents not only spam, but nonsensical attacks that add nothing.

Yes, sometimes there are accidents (which Mat, again, admitted that he made) but ultimately it's the price we pay in order to have the best possible community.

I'd far prefer to have occasional accidents where a post gets clipped or a thread deleted then to have spam all over creation and even more personal attacks and flame wars than we currently already have.

(If anything, they could UP the moderation.)

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]


(If anything, they could UP the moderation.)

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Moderators: "We've upped our Moderation...Now--up yours!!"


(Blantantly stealing material from the Tortuga Twins)
--Zetack

[wayabvpar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This moderator in particular abuses his 'powers' and takes them far too seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the point of being a moderator if you don't take your position seriously?

Let's cut these guys some slack and appreciate them for making thing better overall and doubt our own infallibiliy a little more. If we weren't all a bunch of crybabies we wouldn't need these guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but there is a limit. I know OOT is a free-for-all (or should be), but come on...do you call this "taking moderation seriously?"

Linky

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Thanks for providing the link to a perfect example of moderation run wild.

[MicroBob]

I don't like over-moderation either...but I'm not in favor of letting everything just stay there just in the name of 'free speech'.


We had Annie Duke posting on here for a little while...but after about the 9-zillionth vulgar post about 'doing her' she stopped trying to participate in discussions here.

It's too bad of course because her opinions on some of the discussions here would be quite interesting.
(for example, her explanation/apology for her anger at the 2004 WSOP and the interview afterwards).


But Paul Phillips was even more valuable as a poster here even though his fame is not as great as Annie's.
He provided some great opinions on some of the discussions here and I learned quite a bit from some of his posts.
So much so, in fact, that I have decided that I really need to read his blog in hopes that I can gain further insight (need to read Barry Greenstein's blog too for the same reason).


We have Barry and Raymer posting here occasionally...we HAD Paul Phillips....I would love to see Harrington post here occasionally (why doesn't he??) but in order for that to happen I think the moderators need to take a strict line on the drunken-troll/morons who just want to say "you suck" or "you're ugly and so is your wife/GF/husband" or whatever vulgar idea strikes them.


'free speech'.
Bah!!
there is no reason to tolerate that stuff.


obviously I didn't think Paul crossed the line with his previous post and didn't deserve to be banned...but a lot of that other stuff is obviously worthy of deletion and I have no problem with a moderator taking a hard-line about it.