Bad members

[suzecat]

Whilst your opinion is valid, it is my opinion that you are proposing the very apathy that I believe Rusty spoke of when he said "Goodbye".

Dang that Rusty! He really started it didn't he?

Seriously, what you see as apathy, I see as free will (and I didn't develop that concept).

 

[Pinababy69]

Dang that Rusty! He really started it didn't he?

Seriously, what you see as apathy, I see as free will (and I didn't develop that concept).

He sure did...then he takes off, lol.

Isn't that funny Suzecat? That JHV (and myself actually) see it as apathy, and yet you (and probably many others) don't view it like that at all. I guess perception really is everthing isn't it?

 

[jetset]

And this is probably why you'll never see that forum referred to by MSNBC, US News & World Report, LA Times, or any other main stream news publication like this one has. I'll chose my way - not a juvenile approach to shock and awe

/derail

And one of the reasons that Casinomeister is as influential as it is, although I have to say that although I am a strong supporter of this site I think JHV is somewhat overstating the case by asserting rather melodramatically that Casinomeister is the 'last line of defence' in a relatively large industry.

The essence of Casinomeister has always been the diversity of its membership and the more balanced approach to issues that this generates.

Sometimes it provokes accusations of siding with one sector or group or another - or of being mercenary - and at times it slides into personal attack, but a culture of extending the courtesy of self-discipline to the other members has developed strongly here, and I think that's a good thing - whether you're a pokerhead or not.

When you believe strongly in an issue or concept and you are adamant about what should be done about it, it can understandably be frustrating if you meet apathy or opposing views, but that comes with the territory if you elect to set up your soapbox on a message board such as this, where there is a range of informed opinion on just about everything.

Regarding the rather negative commentary on moderation. IMO Max does a great job on both the PAB and moderator front here, and he's clearly a busy guy.

Despite this he retains a great sense of humour....but he can be very direct when he feels it is justified.

In the nine years that I have known him as a skilled industry writer and fair moderator I have rarely seen him go the directly critical route without good reason - and on the few occasions where he has been wrong he is always the first to step forward and redress the issue.

This forum is fortunate to have a moderator of his experience and balance.

Should membership of Casinomeister be confined only to players? In my opinion we would be the worse for it (and btw I am not an affiliate). We need that interaction with other perspectives and the concrete solutions that a mixed membership can bring to bear on problems.

Doing something as petty as banning signatures will irritate those few posters who abuse Bryan's hospitality for their own advantage, either through bad judgement on where to draw the line or a 'the-hell-with-it" attitude. But these are very much in the minority here imo.

Bottom line is that we are hopefully all responsible adults - the need for active and frequent moderator interventions should therefore be correspondingly low.

And the reactions and opinions of other members deserve to be respected, even if they don't always sit well.

 

[JHV]

I think JHV is somewhat overstating the case by asserting rather melodramatically that Casinomeister is the 'last line of defence' in a relatively large industry.

100% genuine question: If someone didn't find the redress they felt they deserved here, to whom / where would they turn?

In the nine years that I have known [Max] as a skilled industry writer and fair moderator I have rarely seen him go the directly critical route without good reason - and on the few occasions where he has been wrong he is always the first to step forward and redress the issue.

Then I must be in the wrong, or my memory of the development of events is flawed. Can I outline them as I remember them, and corrected by Max / Bryan / anyone else where I'm wrong?

1. Max assists me with converting my username back to JHV for which I was grateful.

2. Next interaction I remember, Max has locked the Rome thread when I'm aghast and furious at the blatant lies being flung at me by Rome representative Josh Cantu (which have since been proven to be lies - however, I accept Max and no one else could have known this for certain at the time). I react in shock at the locking of the thread (I was thinking to myself at the time: "This guy must be personal friends with Josh and is protecting him!" - obviously I was totally wrong there, but I couldn't understand locking the thread at that point, when the Rome rep was just inventing lies so laughable, I could expose some of them instantly if required).

The reason given later I *think* was my tone used? Which I understood, for all an objective spectator knew, I could have a fraudster as Josh was claiming, although it was pretty obvious Josh's information was littered with contradictions and errors for any savvy reader who'd read the whole thread.

I tried to calm down, but I'm a drama queen - I've never come across that before on a forum (someone just ruthlessly writing fiction sentence after sentence accusing me of this, that and the other).

It was only later, via private email, it was suggested that it was my InterCasino thread posting which caused Max's adverse reaction towards me, rather than my tone requiring the locking of the Rome thread. Note: this was merely suggested by others, I am still clueless (in before Alicia Silverstone jokes...).

3. I didn't pay those suggestions much heed and was laughing and joking in a jovial manner with other posters in the InterCasino thread when a player suggested I submit a PAB - Max was in there quick as a flash ridiculing the PAB idea - which I didn't mind, and I held no animosity towards him as I made (what I thought - obv fail) was a humourous post about Ninjas stealing my virginity or god knows what. I think I also cheekily used a play on words regarding something Max said about PAB not being a place for bitching and moaning - I was mucking around and it VERY CHEEKY at best and bordering on disrespectful at worst, but I meant no harm by it.

4. I was then temp banned and apologised and accepted the ban.

5. And I don't think Max and I have interacted since except when I went on an anti-organised religion rant (as I am liable to do occasionally, which usually offends a lot of people who are religious) - and I think Max gave me a month for that. I actually genuinely somehow misread "The Attic" to be like an "Anything Goes", even though it *clearly* states (as Bryan pointed out) "this is NOT a place to go apeshit". Reading comprehension: FAIL

6. However, and I don't want to get into a big deal about it, but I mean guys threatened me with violence in that thread - were they banned? And whilst I was obviously incredibly insulting to posters in that thread, I firmly believe I targeted not one single poster who didn't attack me first - if I'm wrong, please point out so. I gave a little better than I got, but if someone can find an example of me attacking someone randomly out of the blue, I'd be interested in assessing it - I'm simply not a troll and that would be trollish behaviour. I feel very strongly about serious issues that are controversial like religion, but I'm not trolling with those posts, I'm giving my viewpoints in an inappropriate tone (for this forum).

7. So I guess, whilst I obviously got off on the wrong foot with Max - maybe I'm just blind - but I'm not totally sure why. I could understand his dislike for me after my cheeky ninja post, but he clearly had very anti-JHV views before then - and it's there where I'm *lost*, I guess (perhaps stupidly so).

Am I missing the forest for the trees here? Have I left something obvious out? Please correct me if so - because as the current situation stands, I can count 10 attacks EASILY (all unprovoked) against me which have sailed through the goal-keeper - but I'm walking on eggshells here! And, frankly, I'm getting older and not as nimble as I used to be....

And the reactions and opinions of other members deserve to be respected, even if they don't always sit well.

I hear this a lot, and I know it's coming from a good place when Bryan and you say it - but I guess my issue is: What if it's the reactions and opinions of other members which I believe are unethical? How can I respect their opinion when I so strongly disagree with it, but where to disagree would be to say "I think, mate, you're acting in an unethical manner here" or "You're clearly showing a lack of objectivity by supporting this yet staying silent on that, and I suspect it's due to your reliance on affiliate revenue from xxx casino" or a statement like that?

It seems like a paradox to me.

 

[Casinomeister]

I think it's time to get over the "they banned me but not them" thing. It reminds me of the story of a guy speeding on the freeway, along with everybody else, when he gets pulled over. The cop writes him a ticket. The guy accepts this and as the cop begins to walk away the guy asks, "Say, why me? Why'd you pull me over and not the others?" The cop says, "Do you ever go fishing?" They guy replies, "Yes." The cop says, "Do you ever catch all the fish?"

So sorry we didn't ban everyone in the thread that responded to your response. Apparently, you stood out more than the others - like the guy speeding. But again, like I've stated before, your suspension was lifted - no problem. So let's move on and quit worrying about it, okay? Thanks!

 

[catrina m]

I have read both threads dealing with this issue.

Rusty was indeed a valuable member. Not just for his insights but his involvement. ( sheep quiz was time consuming I would imagine). There can be no replacement for him.

JHV, You have stated you want to be considered as a valuable member, and indeed you are.

Infighting and insinuations should not be a part of this community. I am guilty myself of taking defense if I do not feel the post's take my side.


I am but one of many that make this the BEST message board on the internet. Good or bad.

Bryan is the reason it is here and deserves respect for dedicating a great deal of his life to this. The mods here also deserve the same respect.

Members come and members go but this message board will always be here until the casinomeister says goodbye.

 

[JHV]

I think it's time to get over the "they banned me but not them" thing. It reminds me of the story of a guy speeding on the freeway, along with everybody else, when he gets pulled over. The cop writes him a ticket. The guy accepts this and as the cop begins to walk away the guy asks, "Say, why me? Why'd you pull me over and not the others?" The cop says, "Do you ever go fishing?" They guy replies, "Yes." The cop says, "Do you ever catch all the fish?"

So sorry we didn't ban everyone in the thread that responded to your response. Apparently, you stood out more than the others - like the guy speeding. But again, like I've stated before, your suspension was lifted - no problem. So let's move on and quit worrying about it, okay? Thanks!

Point taken.

Genuinely wasn't trying to stir the pot, more look for where I went wrong. But point taken and great analogy...!

-------

I try to get my friends to ask occasional policemen if he's "that guy from the Village People" but haven't found a friend foolish enough yet. Am not giving up hope though...


(Edit: I try often to Multi-Quote and never able to - yet somehow fluke it that time unintentionally.)

 

[KasinoKing]

(Edit: I try often to Multi-Quote and never able to - yet somehow fluke it that time unintentionally.)

I suspect I know what the problem is there;
Say you want to "Multi-Quote" 4 posts - what you have to do is hit the "Multi-Quote" button on the first 3, and then the "Quote" button on the last one.

KK

 

[maxd]

[ot]
Selecting the posts via "Multi-Quote" and then hitting the "Post Reply" button works too. I think that's the way I usually do it.
[/ot]

 

[jetset]

JHV - my perception - and I could obviously be quite wrong - is that you tend to play the victim to some extent in your exchanges and occasional jokey back-offs, whereas I know Max personally as a pretty grounded character.

Anyway, that's all water under the bridge and here you are posting again - testimony to the reasonable approach taken by the guys running the show here.

Regarding alternative routes, I have productively (not always so, I admit) used direct interaction with the operator; communicating with reputable affiliates associated with the operator; 'some' of the better licensing jurisdictions; media pressure and discussion with the better software providers.

All can be successful avenues in attempting to solve individual player disputes without the complexities of expensive litigation or public chest thumping.

Trying to change corporate practices and cultures for the better is definitely commendable but probably a longer term project requiring considerably more coordination, participation and effort than voluminous posts on forums and berating other members for not sharing your activism.

The influence of this site and the direct and personal intervention of its respected webmaster alone has probably solved more issues than you are likely to encounter.

There is almost certainly common purpose with your ideals, but perhaps other members have reasons for staying within their own comfort zones and handling their own issues....and they have that personal right as members here.

I believe that people visit forums in pursuit of knowledge, social contact, perhaps to seek revenge or air a grievance, or find advice and assistance relevant to what is for most a leisure activity, and that may be why you perceive different viewpoints or a lack of response as 'apathy'.

Forums are valuable vehicles and can make a difference, and there is no doubt that timely warnings at sites like this have alerted many a player about the bad buggers in this industry and hopefully steered them away from same. That in itself is a major attribute.

But members are here voluntarily and have the right to make their own decisions and decide their own courses of action based on the information which other members and the site provides.

Persuasion often works better than zealotry.

Regarding your dilemma with upbraiding other members you perceive to be acting unethically, as a first step there is always the PM system, but a polite debate is not impossible even on such thorny issues - it's the way you present your argument that counts.