Cipher Banned

[Casinomeister]

Just a heads up that long time poster “Cipher” was banned indefinitely from the forum today. The reason: he has become an abusive poster. If anyone disagrees with him, he loses all sense of control and tact, and this will not be tolerated in the forum. In a forum such as this, there will be disagreements, but when they occur, you must maintain a sense of cool/calm/collectiveness. A slip up here or there happens, we’re only human, but when it is consistent and habitual, then it’s time to leave.

As the forum rules state: Abusive behavior will not be tolerated and your account may be suspended.

Cipher’s posts are (IMO) abusive (loud, aggressive, and insulting) and he lacks the ability to maintain a sense of self-control and tact when dealing with subjects he feels strongly about; he seems to thrive off of adversity and confrontation. Last September, he was warned about this aggressiveness, and his account was suspended for several days. I agreed to let him back in under a gentleman’s agreement that we would remain civil and maintain a sense of control. But he has breached this, not only here, but privately. He even scoffs that there even was an agreement between us. Whatever.

I do not approve of members using my forum as a platform to pound their chests and attack me in the same breath. All I ask for is the same respect that I would give to you if you were running this place. Apparently this is not possible for Cipher.

[maxlevine]

Some may think that it is not my place to post a reply here but I am a member of this community and felt the need to post my personal opinion in the hopes that it will generate positive feedback as opposed to adding fuel to the fire.

Although I am a novice in this industry, I have been online since 1998 and I regard this message board as one of the most informative forums on gambling, mainly because of Casinomeister's knowledge but also from the cooperation of some strong posters who share their expertise. The Jetset, Spearmaster, Grandmaster, Caruso, Dominique, Clayman, Jyde, to name a few, bring a lot more to this community by expressing their opinion than any Google search. As a player and webmaster, I have a lot of gratitude for these people and other posters who participate in communicating their views, sources and findings.

I know this issue was about respect, or the lack of it, but I hope fog will clear up and that Cipher's postings will be welcome again as his contribution to this forum, as far as I'm concerned, was far more significant than the negativity that could come out from some of his disparaging words. After all, we ARE only human and some things you just won't change.

Max

[universexf6]

Originally Posted by casinomeister

Just a heads up that long time poster “Cipher” was banned indefinitely from the forum today. The reason: he has become an abusive poster. If anyone disagrees with him, he loses all sense of control and tact, and this will not be tolerated in the forum. In a forum such as this, there will be disagreements, but when they occur, you must maintain a sense of cool/calm/collectiveness. A slip up here or there happens, we’re only human, but when it is consistent and habitual, then it’s time to leave.

As the forum rules state: Abusive behavior will not be tolerated and your account may be suspended.

Cipher’s posts are (IMO) abusive (loud, aggressive, and insulting) and he lacks the ability to maintain a sense of self-control and tact when dealing with subjects he feels strongly about; he seems to thrive off of adversity and confrontation. Last September, he was warned about this aggressiveness, and his account was suspended for several days. I agreed to let him back in under a gentleman’s agreement that we would remain civil and maintain a sense of control. But he has breached this, not only here, but privately. He even scoffs that there even was an agreement between us. Whatever.

I do not approve of members using my forum as a platform to pound their chests and attack me in the same breath. All I ask for is the same respect that I would give to you if you were running this place. Apparently this is not possible for Cipher.

Hmmmm... I have no idea why you are so strict. While I must admit I have been here for shorter time than any other people but he didn't look so agressive enough to ba banned forever??At least he looked a very sensible man. I know I must be more reserved since I don't know what happened between you and him but I think it is a bit too much. I am sorry if this makes you angry, please ban me too.

[kmartinusa]

I have mixed emotions regarding Cipher.

On an exchange that I had with him over a year ago, he proved to be quite the jerk to me...I ended up being right and he never apologised for his behavior. I tried my best to be as respectful and helpful in posting as was possible, including to him personally. His contact in the end was the same person to whom I referred to in my post, but he wasn't satisfied until he had personal contact with the same individual. If anyone reading this needs clarification, just look at my posting history related to "vegas red". That will tell the tale."David" was my contact a long time before Cipher found him and personally legitimised the casinos in question. "Cipher" pissed me off, and good.

Putting that aside, I have mostly found his posts to be helpful and insightful. He seems to be pretty much a player's advocate who acts only on the facts that he has personal knowledge of. I have found this to be reassuring. I have not yet looked into what upset Bryan, but I have no doubt of Bryan's patience and his judgement.

I haven't taken the time to research or understand his "Cypher Strands" but I understand the intent and purpose of his analysis. I have also found this reassuring as a player as we all need some truly independant analysys done on an ongoing basis in order to continually reassure us that we are being treated fairly. I have been gambling online for a long time and I often wonder whether the software providers or casinos have decided to tilt things now and then....would be easy to do without someone watching.

I guess that the point of me posting is in no means to question Bryan's decision. I am inconsequential in his world and don't pretend to have any reason to question the boss. It's his home, after all.

The point of this message, I guess, is to give credit to Cipher for his contribution to all of us as players. I also want to let Bryan know that I (maybe we?) appreciate his judgement as I've been a recipient of Cipher's vitriol.

Thanks to both of you for what you do for us,

Kevin

[chuchu59]

universexf6,

No need to be so uptight. If your post renders you being banned,half of the posters will disappear. However,i do agree with you that from the look of things ie Cipher's posts,it did not warrant a banning. In fact,since joining this forum,I did have a certain respect for Cipher as he seemed to go all out for the players. True,his wording may be aggressive but not nearly as offensive as hahacasino or bethug. At Bryan's final reply to cipher,he used cipher's line 'have a good one' and being a very sensitive person,I smelt a rat. And here you are,Cipher's banning. Still,we dont know what actually transpired between the 2 of them in private but based on the posts alone,I must say that I really dont feel the need for banning him. Have a good one.

[eek]

It a pity that these things happen and the 'gene pool' is reduced as a result.
There may come a time that a truly independent messageboard is needed for players and webmasters/industry people.
WOL did well for years until a recent change in policy seemed to alienate some members.
They had a huge spread and breadth of experience and people, like in here, who squabbled like ferrets in a sack sometimes but the underlying pool of talent and information was pretty unbeatable.

Somewhere where no conflict of interest can arise, and you get banned for spamming and serious abuse only.

[jonevegas]

I do think Cipher had some good points but I also believe when people think they are bigger than life, they act that way and sometimes we just need to be reminded.

[jetset]

Originally Posted by jonevegas

I do think Cipher had some good points but I also believe when people think they are bigger than life, they act that way and sometimes we just need to be reminded.

IMO that is one of the most relevant posts in this thread.

Bannings are never pleasant or desirable, and there is a natural resistance in all of us to this ultimate sanction, especially when it involves experienced members who have commanded respect. It is also true that banning tends to bring out some with a buried agenda that is at times based on a personal dislike of the webmaster concerned, or a relationship with the banee.

In my experience the 'Meister is among the slowest to take this course of action, and he was upfront about why in his public announcement last Friday.

I'm not going to defend BB's integrity because I shouldn't have to - his record speaks for itself and he has considerable influence and respect in this industry, yet he is currently being imv unreasonably maligned outside this board for being *anti-player* and *pro casino*. Sorry, but imo that is sheer BS. His is a balanced and fair approach and that's what gets results far superior to those achieved by any other player advocate, and faster too.

The suggestion that there should be a "truly independent" forum has been raised just about every time a webmaster bans someone, yet this never materialises. Why? Because those suggesting it talk the talk but don't take the initiative and try and realise their concept? I don't personally see it working, because someone has to be in charge and do the work, and fora provide more than just a place to exchange ideas and information or indulge in personal profile building. They are venues where a diversity of contacts and talents that reside not only in players can be deployed for the common good.

This particular forum is but one facet of a content-rich portal. It has a really effective diversity of opinion from a broad cross section of the online gambling activity, and it continues to expand with new members and their experiences and opinions. In return they get a wealth of advice, expertise and assistance from other members and practical, effective support when they have a legitimate problem.

The cost for all this is an obligation to retain personal control of your conduct and extend the courtesy of basic respect to the host.

I think that's a bargain.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by maxlevine

Some may think that it is not my place to post a reply here but I am a member of this community and felt the need to post my personal opinion in the hopes that it will generate positive feedback as opposed to adding fuel to the fire.

Although I am a novice in this industry, I have been online since 1998 and I regard this message board as one of the most informative forums on gambling, mainly because of Casinomeister's knowledge but also from the cooperation of some strong posters who share their expertise. The Jetset, Spearmaster, Grandmaster, Caruso, Dominique, Clayman, Jyde, to name a few, bring a lot more to this community by expressing their opinion than any Google search. As a player and webmaster, I have a lot of gratitude for these people and other posters who participate in communicating their views, sources and findings.

I know this issue was about respect, or the lack of it, but I hope fog will clear up and that Cipher's postings will be welcome again as his contribution to this forum, as far as I'm concerned, was far more significant than the negativity that could come out from some of his disparaging words. After all, we ARE only human and some things you just won't change.

Max

Hi Max - and everyone else,

This issue was more than just respect, it was his behavior that caused his banning. Believe me, I have pretty thick skin and I can handle the personal dig here or there, but when personal digs cross the border into being malicious - and then abusive. I put an end to it. On the other hand, I'm a very forgiving person - and have changed my mind about these sort of things more than once, regrettably this situation is a bit different.

I'm not going to get into a public slinging match with Cipher - I find this both unprofessional and needless. Unfortunately, I don't see him being let back into this board, and I'll tell you why.

I rely on trust dealing with anything in this business. Sometimes trust is all we have in this industry - and it is a very fragile thing. This goes from dealing with player complaints to dealing with casino operators. When you trust someone and that person breaches that trust, you feel violated.

I can no longer trust Cipher - and I have solid reasons not to. He can trash me all he wants in public, it doesn't concern me since I believe most people can see through this "trashing" and realize where this anger is coming from. What should be a concern is that I do not trust the man. And that should speak for itself.

Cipher has enough platforms to market his wares or push his agenda - so it's not like he's not out there. He even has his own website. And I'm sure if you miss any prolific Cipherisms you'll be able to find him at your local Casinomeister hate-fest.

This is a very dynamic forum. It's been around longer than most, and its main focus, purpose, and administration has remained virtually unchanged in the past six years. My philosophy: I run this place just like inviting people into my living room. I expect people to behave themselves - you would too if this were your place. True - discussions will at times get emotional or heated, but if you lose self control and punch me in the face, you're going to be thrown out. I don't care how good a friend you might think you are; I doubt you will be invited back in again.

That's all I have to say about the matter. I really don't want to waste any more time on this. Thanks!

[caruso]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I rely on trust dealing with anything in this business. Sometimes trust is all we have in this industry - and it is a very fragile thing. This goes from dealing with player complaints to dealing with casino operators.

I would probably react in similar vein if I took a bashing in my own backyard. This "trust" thing may or may not be misplaced, however, and it may be that which ends up riling people into counter-productive comments. You don't trust players, you look at the proof: the three complaints I've personally submitted - Angelciti plus two little Microgaming niggles that were never made public - have been stone-cold certs; all the documentation was there as proof that the player was in the right. I'll take a guess that most all other successful mediations are based on the same evidence requirement: screenshots, emails...the lot. Are the same criteria required at the other end, or is it more a matter of trust, trust to a degree based on the personal touch, having met a lot of people in the industry - a courtesy which clearly cannot be extended to players, each of whom is an individual Joe Bloggs? While the latter is right and proper, is "that" trust extended to the casino side fitting, and is it not open to abuse? Are the same stone-cold-cert requirements that players are held to in place at the casino side? For example, the recent Crystal Palace complaint: Do we know that 1) the information supplied by Cloud is genuine and that he hasn't passed spurious information to RTG, or 2) that RTG are not party to a little "nepotism" on behalf of Cloud, their biggest licensee and good buddy of Staw, and are feeding you a line of BS? You doubt this - but do you KNOW? Cloud has a documented history as a fraudster - why take him at his word? Are the requirements that the player is held to the same for the casino? In the case that led to Cipher's barring, do we take on oath that the player has six accounts? Is the fact that the casino invoked "robot play" (LOL) not an indicator that they're not exactly squeaky-clean? Are we sure that his Neteller cheques bounced, or is there something we're missing (I haven't followed the ins and outs of that case so can't comment too much)?

My point is that there may be a perception that the word "fraudster" is too glibly used, that the judgement criteria is softer for the casino than it is for the player. Bryan IS generally a "trusting" and otherwise decent sort of person - that comes across in his writing style generally and from meeting him - he's a mild-mannered and modest fellow who puts a lot of store in the personal touch, for all I'm sure he gets off on the reputation of being the ball-busting Casinomeister (hell, I would too). It follows that, all good intentions aside, a degree of leniancy may end up being demonstrated on the casino side, all other things being equal, as a result of that "personal touch" experience - coupled of course to the fact that he has met a lot of genuine player fraud. Where a player's word is insufficient, it MAY be that the casino is on occasion taken at theirs, or something along those lines.

That, I think, is what lay behind this.