Debates between moderators and forum members

[Casinomeister]

...

Get the drift of what I am saying here?

LH

Yep, I get the drift of what you're sayin'.

 

[Diane]

Whoa. That seems crazy from the way I think.

I wouldn't slink away at all either. I would actually go somewhere that I thought would help me though . Obviously if you are kicked out of the forum and cannot log in and you are told that CM will not help you, then you would be best served to go somewhere that actually would help you.
Why would you keep asking someone that is calling you a liar if you know that you are not? You would be wasting your time and you should go somewhere else for that help.

I guess because I usually feel that when I know I am right ---- that if I just keep talking and explaining, or re-explaining that common sense will prevail and the person I am talking too will finally understand.

Diane

 

[anniemac]

Amen to that, LH! I am getting way tired of reading an interesting thread just to have it go south because some folks don't like some folks, be it what they said or just who they are.

If ya'll want to fight and be snippy and snarky to one another, do it on your own time. I don't want to hear it anymore and you are wasting my time by going at each other over and over about the same stuff.

I've been a member here a pretty long time and have seen alot of stuff go on here but I don't believe I have ever seen such uncalled for attitudes as I have lately. It is so not nice!

 

[chuchu59]

Yup, it's...



Bang on

Bang on .....not. I might treat myself to a luxurious vacation but not others.

 

[jod5413]

A reasonable point in overall a reasonable post. I think though some people are going to get treated differently whether we want to, realise it or not, simply because you build up opinions of people and react accordingly. We all do it, mods included, because we are human and that's our nature.

I'd reiterate that for me personally, most of the issues faced are with how people post rather than what they post. As pointed out elsewhere, a good post often won't get fully appreciated if it's posted in a way that riles other people.

I just wish more posters would read back their own posts as if they were the recipient of the comments and see how they would react to it. They'd perhaps realize how it is going to rile/upset/antagonise and annoy people, not to mention damaging their own rep with those that just don't care about petty squables and bruised egos.

Simmo, as usual you are calm, rational and just plain nice when stating your opinions. And I know that I am one of the people that would benefit from your wish. It is hard when people get passionate about their feelings and ideas and run into what seems like walls. However, I believe you are right and will try to be more thoughtful when I post. You just can not totally change your personality and your way of thinking when you post so I am sure I will occasionally fall short!

 

[bryand]

I couldn't agree more...and I'm surprised that a respected and together member like Bryand would believe that agreement with the mods is a prerequisite here for a peaceful and productive posting life. I have personally seen many interesting exchanges where members and mods differ in perspective and opinion...without unpleasant consequences.

If I may offer my own perspective, I would suggest that the real trick here is to be reasonable and civil in discussing issues, even when you may have a conflicting view on a topic.

First, I totally agree that flaming and personal insults should not be tolerated.

Jet, I believe you participated in a 'spirited' thread I started about global warming? Although I remember your comments as being respectful and open-minded (and not challenged by the mods), I was branded ignorant and even willful although my posts were reasonable and civil.

But when I posted to greasemonkey I was really referring to his political ideology. Leading up to the 2008 presidential election Bryan made it crystal crear that he believed Obama's party was the saving grace for online gaming. At the time, most of us FISCAL conservatives were treated with disrespect by mods and mod cronies alike. (Backhanded dig: I wonder how Pokerstars feels about Obama now?)

All do respect, Jet, I stand by my post.

 

[maxd]

Guys, with all due respect, every single criticism here is met with dismissal and minimization.

Perhaps you overlook the possibility that who is offering the criticism and how it is offered often has considerable influence on how it is received.

If someone has a history of telling us how much we suck/are going down the toilet/are fools/(insert whatever general negativity you prefer here) then yes, any given bit of criticism from such a person will be met with some skepticism, possibly even dismissal especially if it's more of the same-old-same-o from that individual. On the other hand if someone has a history of being a contributing and generally respectful member then I'd say it's pretty unlikely they'll get the same reception.

In general I think it's true that Bryan and us mods are all fairly aware that we are trying to serve a community of people and (largely) because of this we're generally pretty sensitive to honest criticism respectfully given.

What it boils down to is this: your statement is far too much of a sweeping generalization to be very meaningful. It ignores the many, many examples of exactly the opposite of what you claim and it assumes that we are either unaware or ignorant of the CM history of the person giving the criticism. In the vast majority of cases this is simply not true. In other words a person's history and habits here at CM become the context in which their criticism will be heard, generally speaking. The point being that if you're a habitual bitch-and-moan, "you suck" kind of person on our forums then you shouldn't really expect to be heard as if you were someone without that kind of history here. What you do here, past and present, matters. And so it should.

 

[Simmo!]

At the time, most of us FISCAL conservatives were treated with disrespect by mods and mod cronies alike.

I wasn't party to that thread but when it comes to politics (and religion) - neither of which grab me personally - you are talking about two subjects where it's almost impossible to change another person's opinions and beliefs. Consequently those topics will almost always boil over because two opposing parties will never see eye to eye and for reasoanble debate to ensue, both parties need to be aware of the concept of "tact" more than ever.

IMO if you get involved in political or religious debates you HAVE to be able to take direct and perhaps even personal criticism. It goes with the territory.

That said I am undecided on the Moderator's role here. If it were a political forum then you'd expect the mod to remain detached. On a gambling forum....not sure.

In other words a person's history and habits here at CM become the context in which their criticism will be heard, generally speaking.

That's a very good observation. Whether we mean to or not, most posters here will have a pre-determined opinion on a poster they know which is likely to subconciously affect any response. I know that, personally, I read some posters posts simply because of my respect for their opinions based on their history here, while other posters I might just skim over with my Mod hat on

I also think an individual's "outlook" on life has a bearing on this too. I tend to gravitate towwards happy, optimistic or positive posters and find posters who display constant negativity hard to understand. I understand cynicism and that some people have issues - both personal and to do with gambling experiences - and I have absolutely no problem with gripes and groans when they are put sensibly.

Where I have a problem is where posters constantly gripe and groan, either to ram a point home or just as a general attitude. That definitely affects how I regard posters but generally, I choose not to engage them in conversation rather than to take them on. That's just me.... IMO life's too short to spend it bitchng and moaning about stuff and I'm not confrontational. Never saw the point. I'd rather go and do something else. But...without people that do, some things wouldn't change for the better so there has to be a balance in all walks of life.

That takes us back to the point GM made about treating posters differently. The answer has to be "yes" (speaking for myself) I must treat some posters differently because of what I stated above. I'd like to remain "moderate" in all situations but I don't think I could.

 

[jetset]

First, I totally agree that flaming and personal insults should not be tolerated.

Jet, I believe you participated in a 'spirited' thread I started about global warming? Although I remember your comments as being respectful and open-minded (and not challenged by the mods), I was branded ignorant and even willful although my posts were reasonable and civil.

But when I posted to greasemonkey I was really referring to his political ideology. Leading up to the 2008 presidential election Bryan made it crystal crear that he believed Obama's party was the saving grace for online gaming. At the time, most of us FISCAL conservatives were treated with disrespect by mods and mod cronies alike. (Backhanded dig: I wonder how Pokerstars feels about Obama now?)

All do respect, Jet, I stand by my post.

And it's your right to do so - therefore we can agree to differ. Nothing wrong with that.

Political and religious arguments are always especially touchy ground, and demand even more care and discipline among participants in a debate. But imo the same rule of thumb applies - differ, but with courtesy and control.

Edited to add as a sidebar that I tend toward the conservative in economics, too - I believe that governments should not be spending what they cannot afford (put very fundamentally.) But I have never seen that as a trigger for the mods to persecute me

 

[felicie]

You might want to have a closer look at the criticisms GM has received here at CM. Being a "conservative" is not among them, AFAIK, nor are any "conservative" policies or views he may hold.

The idea that "you punished that guy, that guy wears cowboy boots, you are picking on people who wear cowboy boots!" is (a) exceedingly weak logic and (b) is pointing you in a completely bogus direction if you are actually looking for the truth.

I'll agree with you there Maxd because I didn't say it right. My statement actually had nothing to do with 'mods' but only members in general. Sorry man.

 

[Casinomeister]

...Leading up to the 2008 presidential election Bryan made it crystal crear that he believed Obama's party was the saving grace for online gaming. At the time, most of us FISCAL conservatives were treated with disrespect by mods and mod cronies alike...

I think you are mistaken here. I don't believe I have ever made anything "crystal clear" concerning Obama and his administration's stance on online poker. I may have mentioned somewhere (you'd have to show me) that banning internet gambling was on the Republican's to-do list in 2008

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

. But for the most part, I normally don't participate in the Political Rants section except to tell people to cool it. The mods are non-US persons and I'm and ex-pat, the rants section is mostly US focused, so I don't see how any conservatives were being treated with disrespect by mods.

We have no cronies by the way.

@ everyone - if you are ever made to feel uncomfortable with how other members or mods are treating you (myself included), please use the "Report a Post" function. You would not believe how many misunderstandings or minor meltdowns go unchecked.

Imagine the forum as a big comfy room with lots of chairs here and there, and people all around you can chit chat with. The thing is, most of these people wear masks and you don't know who they are. That may be creepy, but then, they don't know who you are either. That's why we have the Meister Meeting every year in London. We take our masks off there

Once you meet a person face to face, your attitude changes when dealing with them online. You still see the person and hear his or her voice when reading their posts. I don't think I've ever had a confrontational cyber argument with someone I've met in person. Too bad not everyone is in the the UK

 

[Diane]

I think you are mistaken here. I don't believe I have ever made anything "crystal clear" concerning Obama and his administration's stance on online poker. I may have mentioned somewhere (you'd have to show me) that banning internet gambling was on the Republican's to-do list in 2008

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

. But for the most part, I normally don't participate in the Political Rants section except to tell people to cool it. The mods are non-US persons and I'm and ex-pat, the rants section is mostly US focused, so I don't see how any conservatives were being treated with disrespect by mods.

We have no cronies by the way.

@ everyone - if you are ever made to feel uncomfortable with how other members or mods are treating you (myself included), please use the "Report a Post" function. You would not believe how many misunderstandings or minor meltdowns go unchecked.

Imagine the forum as a big comfy room with lots of chairs here and there, and people all around you can chit chat with. The thing is, most of these people wear masks and you don't know who they are. That may be creepy, but then, they don't know who you are either. That's why we have the Meister Meeting every year in London. We take our masks off there

Once you meet a person face to face, your attitude changes when dealing with them online. You still see the person and hear his or her voice when reading their posts. I don't think I've ever had a confrontational cyber argument with someone I've met in person. Too bad not everyone is in the the UK

How about a US location for a Meister Meeting some time? I would travel domestically to participate in a fun spot? CA, Phoenix, Vegas, -- as long as it has a casino near by -- many others might come also??

Diane

 

[Seventh777]

How about a US location for a Meister Meeting some time? I would travel domestically to participate in a fun spot? CA, Phoenix, Vegas, -- as long as it has a casino near by -- many others might come also??

Diane

Noooes, come to the U.K. so you can sample the awesomeness of 32Red etc (would that be allowed?).

 

[greasemonkey]

There is a bunch of "human nature" involved here. Everyone is human and everyone has likes and dislikes. Who says that anyone has to like me or anyone else for that matter? Certainly not everyone will agree. With that being said of course there is differential treatment but it probably isn't a concerted effort, it is probably reaction. I appreciate those that "came to my defense". I am glad that there are others of like mind out there. There is a bunch of people I really like in this forum (lib,mm,gd....etc)
Do I think Bryan "likes" me personally? No I don't. I don't think that having a beer with me is on his to do list. Does that make him bad? No it doesn't. In other words we can't ask that everyone be non human. We all have likes and dislikes and there isn't much we can do about it. The fact that I am not kicked out says enough about Bryan's fairness. He probably disagrees with me most of the time yet hasn't kicked me out. We got off on the wrong foot and first impressions are big. We are both just humans and not enemies (that I know of )
The main thing that is worrisome is who gets moderated and who doesn't in regards to casinos. For example, I was hot and heavy on finding out about the inetbet lies. I thought that they were cornered and needed to explain why they lied. Bryan, in his moderator/owner hat, quickly stepped in and admonished me for "badgering" when I simply wanted answers to honest questions. After that the thread was locked and I was given an infraction for asking about the lies. I honestly feel (my opinion only) that if I were going after answers about lies to Cherry Red that he would not have ran interference so fervently. That left a bad taste in my mouth and I didn't bother posting about anything for a while.... but I don't think it makes Bryan a bad person or a bad moderator for that matter. I think it makes him human. As are we all and we are all prone to favoritism and dislikes. It is how we act on them that probably most matters and I am not always the best at it obviously. For all the criticism I think Max does pretty good and so do all the mods. If we were always in agreement it would be a pretty boring place wouldn't it?

 

[Cleveland]

How about a US location for a Meister Meeting some time? I would travel domestically to participate in a fun spot? CA, Phoenix, Vegas, -- as long as it has a casino near by -- many others might come also??

Diane

I would come.....

 

[Casinomeister]

...I don't think that having a beer with me is on his to do list...

It sure is. If you make it out to London 24 January at Waxy O'Conners, I'll square you away for as many pints as you like.

 

[Simmo!]

I honestly feel (my opinion only) that if I were going after answers about lies to Cherry Red that he would not have ran interference so fervently.

Actually, speaking for myself, I don't think that is 100% off the mark for the same reasons as we talked about posters earlier. A casino or a poster: each builds up a reputation and everyone here forms an opinion. Every casino, every poster, makes mistakes or says the wrong thing once in a while. Might just be a CSR rep, might not.

That doesn't excuse it of course, but I for one certainly take in an "overall" impression of a casino into account when I am making judgements about individual issues and I certainly talk more favourably and give a bit more slack to both casinos and posters who I generally feel are safe and trustworthy. Again, it's largely subconscious but I know I do it.

Take Betfair or iNetbet, both of whom have had recent issues. I'll leave my opinons on each issue out of the equation to avoid a derail but when I analyse them I can't help but think that both casinos are "safe" places for players. Why should I think that after what's happened? Two reasons: the casinos' prior history and because I have strong feelings that the whole enticement bonus ethos damages the industry on a much wider scale than we have ever realised.

So yes, you are right where I am concerned: if the thread had been about a casino with a less than exmplorary track record I would probably have been less forgiving.

It sure is. If you make it out to London 24 January at Waxy O'Conners, I'll square you away for as many pints as you like.

I'd take him up on that

As CM says, forums are fine 'n all, but you can't underestimate the value of a face-to-face.

 

[Steve Russo]

Gambling grumbles has their own agenda from what I've read...one of them being the attraction of players to the site. Just have a look at some of the sites they advertise:

Cool Cat
Prism
Cirrus
Palace of Chance

Getting the picture?

Casinomeisters PAB may not be 100% right 100% of the time, but they are 100% thorough and 100% honest. I'll take their judgement over rogue-promoters any day.

Nifty, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for proving what I have long said -- advertising considerations play absolutely no role in determing how Gambling Grumbles handles (or reports) a dispute.

Of the four casinos you mentioned, we have received a complaint about only one of them. That resulted in awarding them a "Skull & Crossbones" and the following report:

Cool Cat Casino is very good at promising to pay, but nowhere as good at actually doing so -- that, at least, has been the experience of Sue M of Fargo, North Dakota.

"I have an approved withdrawal of $932 with Cool Cat Casino" she told Gambling Grumbles. "I requested a withdrawal of $1000 on 6/30/2010. They approved $1000 minus $68 for a bonus coupon, leaving $932 which was approved on 7/9/2010."

It was supposed to come by overnight check, but that "overnight", so far, has taken 6 weeks and there still is no check in sight.

She has been repeatedly told that she will be paid, and even given exact dates of when, but each time the day came the check did not.

"I think I am getting the run around, please help," she asked us.

We tried. We wrote to Cool Cat, saying "if there are other factors of which I am unaware, please let me know. If not, can you send her the check immediately and tell me that it is being mailed out?"

Well, Cool Cat certainly didn't make any false promises to Gambling Grumbles. In fact, it made no promises at all. It simply ignored the e-mail which we sent it.

It did, however, send Sue some more letters promising to pay by a particular date and, again, failed to send the check.

As the beatniks used to say, "That is not cool, cat."

If you are thinking of playing at this casino, you might want to think again -- unless, of course, you like getting a lot of empty promises.

As Gambling Grumbles has been accused on this forum (by posters, not by management) of being both "pro-player" and favoring casinos, I will plead guilty to both charges. Where the player is right, we are pro-player. Where the casino is right, we are pro-casino.

One last point on which there seems to be some confusion. We do not demand that a casino allow us to show how they managed to find out that someone is a fraudster. (Although, to tell the truth, if the police can detail in open court how they caught a crook without making it impossible for them to capture future ones, it would seem that a casino can do the same thing.)

What we do require is that a casino say, specifically, what the person did -- and say so "on the record". There is no other way for someone who is accused to defend himself. We have had more than one case where the casino did, in fact, allow us to post the specific charges and the player was able to refute them to the casino's satisfaction -- resulting in the player being paid.

 

[chuchu59]

Steve,
I visited the Gambling Grumbles site and I must say I sorta liked what I saw. Most issues were handled professional and practical approach and the facts of each case were presented in a way that is palatable to the common gambler. Here at casinomeister members are more sophisticated and more wary of dubious sites who might send the unawares to rogues for slaughtering. Advertising sites such as Cool Cat does seem to indicate that their feeling is correct and personally I dont think Idont think its right either. The Virtual group is a rogue outfit and they had been given many opportunities to redeem themselves.

I am happy you have pursued the legacy of Julie and you have done an excellent job of it.

 

[Steve Russo]

Chuchu,

Perhaps an explanation is in order. By profession, I am a journalist -- and have been one for over 4 decades. Both Graeme Levin and I decided many years ago that the only way we would run Gambling Grumbles is by following strict journalistic standards.

Chief among these is that the advertising (which Graeme handles) and the editorial content (which is completely my responsibility) can not, and should not, overlap. This works in both directions. The New York Times, for example, has a liberal editorial policy and generally endorses Democratic candidates. It does not, however, restrict conservative organizations from buying advertising space nor does it refuse advertising from Republican candidates.

Any decent newspaper carried, in 2009 and 2010, scathing reports about Toyota and the safety faults in the cars. At the same time, they also ran advertisements from Toyota dealers.

When Julie first came to Gambling Grumbles, she did so as my assistant. The first thing I insisted upon was that she never, ever, even give a thought as to whether a casino advertises with us or not. She agreed with that and also followed that policy. When I decided to move on to other things, I had no reservations about handing over the editorial responsibilties to Julie and never found a reason to regret that decision.

Advertisements tell you what the advertiser wants you to know about itself. A journalist tells you what he has learned about someone, whether he be an advertiser or not. In the end, of course, it is up to the customer to decide (in the case of on line casinos) where he wants to play. I see nothing wrong in his taking an advertisement into consideration but I think he would be wise to see what other players, and sites like Casinomeister and Gambling Grumbles, have reported about the casino.

 

[swampwitch]

Riiiiight.
So if The Advocate allowed Westboro Baptist to buy ad space, that would be peachy since there wouldn't be any articles that are pro-Fred and his merry band of inbreds.

Nice try, but I'd be very surprised if anybody buys this nonsense. You know Virtual ilk is evil. You're not new. The old excuse, "Well, none of OUR players have complained." is utter crap.

 

[Steve Russo]

Riiiiight.
So if The Advocate allowed Westboro Baptist to buy ad space, that would be peachy since there wouldn't be any articles that are pro-bigoted whackos.

I would certainly hope that the Advocate would follow the spirit of the First Amendment and allow Westboro Baptist to buy ad space -- and, at the same time, publish articles showing that the church is both bigoted and wacko.

 

[jetset]

I think that Steve makes a reasoned argument above, but imo we're not talking about an industry where there is easy legal recourse, consumer laws, bona fide regulatory restraints and bodies and a limited number of rogues.

In this cross-border business, we're talking about some operators who have proved over time that they are more than happy to repeatedly disadvantage and screw players with arrogance and malice aforethought, lying to mediators and hiding behind ineffectual licensing jurisdictions.

That means that players lose money and belief in a fair experience, and imo that calls for a stronger approach to who a site advertises in this close-knit industry. The danger is both to player and publication, because I know I will skirt any site that I see advertising really bad and well known rogues.

In doing this I have the benefit of knowledge gleaned from this and other sites and experience....but novices entering the arena do not and are therefore terribly vulnerable.

IMO it is therefore important that those advertising and promoting operators be demanding and selective in regard to that operator's overall reputation.

Both Steve and Graeme have been in this business for a long time; I'm sure they both know who the really bad buggers are. It therefore surprises me that they promote the casinos listed by Nifty29.

 

[Nifty29]

Nifty, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for proving what I have long said -- advertising considerations play absolutely no role in determing how Gambling Grumbles handles (or reports) a dispute.

Of the four casinos you mentioned, we have received a complaint about only one of them. That resulted in awarding them a "Skull & Crossbones" and the following report:




As Gambling Grumbles has been accused on this forum (by posters, not by management) of being both "pro-player" and favoring casinos, I will plead guilty to both charges. Where the player is right, we are pro-player. Where the casino is right, we are pro-casino.

One last point on which there seems to be some confusion. We do not demand that a casino allow us to show how they managed to find out that someone is a fraudster. (Although, to tell the truth, if the police can detail in open court how they caught a crook without making it impossible for them to capture future ones, it would seem that a casino can do the same thing.)

What we do require is that a casino say, specifically, what the person did -- and say so "on the record". There is no other way for someone who is accused to defend himself. We have had more than one case where the casino did, in fact, allow us to post the specific charges and the player was able to refute them to the casino's satisfaction -- resulting in the player being paid.

Wow. Sorry Steve, but you're not talking to gormless newbs who just came down with the last shower.

If you are thinking of playing at this casino, you might want to think again -- unless, of course, you like getting a lot of empty promises.

....but hey.....you'll promote them right? I mean, who gives a stuff about whether a legitimate player was denied their winnings, or whether the casino totally ignored you ? Sod that. The advertising is far more valuable than some joe who didn't get his money huh Steve?

You see Steve, here at Casinomeister, a casino that refuses to pay a legitimate winner and who fails to communicate about it, ends up in the Rogue Pit. It doesn't matter whether they were accredited at the time or an advertiser or whatever......this kind of behaviour is reprehensible and Bryan refuses to sacrifice his integrity for a few advertising dollars. It matters to him if players are being, or have been, screwed over.....the same cannot be said for your site.

If you had one ounce of integrity you would remove these casinos from your entire site.....just having them there with aff links is tacitly supporting their awful treatment of players over several years, and speaks volumes about the real philosophy behind your site.....MONEY.

AFAIC your attempts to portray yourselves as the "player's friend", whilst taking cash from the biggest screwers in the industry, is pathetic and makes me physically ill.

 

[bb28]

Chuchu,

Perhaps an explanation is in order. By profession, I am a journalist -- and have been one for over 4 decades. Both Graeme Levin and I decided many years ago that the only way we would run Gambling Grumbles is by following strict journalistic standards.

Chief among these is that the advertising (which Graeme handles) and the editorial content (which is completely my responsibility) can not, and should not, overlap. This works in both directions. The New York Times, for example, has a liberal editorial policy and generally endorses Democratic candidates. It does not, however, restrict conservative organizations from buying advertising space nor does it refuse advertising from Republican candidates.

Any decent newspaper carried, in 2009 and 2010, scathing reports about Toyota and the safety faults in the cars. At the same time, they also ran advertisements from Toyota dealers.

When Julie first came to Gambling Grumbles, she did so as my assistant. The first thing I insisted upon was that she never, ever, even give a thought as to whether a casino advertises with us or not. She agreed with that and also followed that policy. When I decided to move on to other things, I had no reservations about handing over the editorial responsibilties to Julie and never found a reason to regret that decision.

Advertisements tell you what the advertiser wants you to know about itself. A journalist tells you what he has learned about someone, whether he be an advertiser or not. In the end, of course, it is up to the customer to decide (in the case of on line casinos) where he wants to play. I see nothing wrong in his taking an advertisement into consideration but I think he would be wise to see what other players, and sites like Casinomeister and Gambling Grumbles, have reported about the casino.

Irregardless if it's accurate or not a site such as yours that allows advertising from a rogue group implies a level of approval and also it's a given that you are making money off of the ads. However I'm not saying that you can't be non biased but yet I'm not buying that it can be so simply separated.

I'm sorry but comparing your site with a journalistic site such as the NY Times and the ads that run on such is not at all the same thing.