Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87

It has nothing to do with being a "fan" but is everything to do with fairness and being seen to be fair and without prejudice.
In this instance casinomeister appear to be the antipathy of fairness.
And I used the word Vag in a post in response to Playford. Why have I not been given an infraction?
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with to do with being a "fan" but is everything to do with fairness and being seen to be fair and without prejudice.
In this instance casinomeister appear to be the antipathy of fairness.
And I used the word Vag in a post in response to Playford. Why have I not been given an infraction?

Where do I start? Obviously some people are fans of Ben, others aren't. So be it.

"fair and without predjudice"? We're not the courts or any such thing. Sure, we strive to be fair but we have no obligation to be "without prejudice". Obviously we do have our prejudices -- like the importance of being decent and not hate-mongering on our forums for instance, not to mention our prejudice against scammers and cheating casinos -- and so do you. Surely this comes as no surprise.

"the antipathy of fairness"? Nice accusation, prove it. And don't forget to include his endless Warnings and 2nd chances while you are at it.

"And I used the word Vag in a post in response to Playford. Why have I not been given an infraction?"
I have no idea but I can say that it may have gone unnoticed, and we -- like anyone -- have to pick our battles. Pragmatism may be the simplest answer.
 
Come on - they’ve been more than fair with him. He’s been banned so many times since I started reading this forum, I’ve lost count. Most people get banned and don’t get another chance.

How many chances should anyone get? Whatever the rights and wrongs of that particular post, it was enough for the site owner to decide enough is enough. No need to debate further. His gaff, his rules.
 
yeah ok, so no transparency, and as usual you take any comment against you as a personal attack, what is wrong with you that you cannot just have a conversation with someone without accusing them of attacking you? I'm not a liar, I asked questions that you could quite easily answer, but you haven't, making people feel the ban was unjust.
I'm done here.
[/QUOT}
Edited
 
Still judging on the past ? He was banned for the post in this thread I thought. Nothing else should matter. I keep seeing what he did in the past. It brings me back to why let him back in if his past was going to keep biting him. If his comment was the reason he was banned then why do i keep seeing what he did in the past. He had no chance IMO .
 
Where do I start? Obviously some people are fans of Ben, others aren't. So be it.

"fair and without predjudice"? We're not the courts or any such thing. Sure, we strive to be fair but we have no obligation to be "without prejudice". Obviously we do have our prejudices -- like the importance of being decent and not hate-mongering on our forums for instance, not to mention our prejudice against scammers and cheating casinos -- and so do you. Surely this comes as no surprise.

"the antipathy of fairness"? Nice accusation, prove it. And don't forget to include his endless Warnings and 2nd chances while you are at it.

"And I used the word Vag in a post in response to Playford. Why have I not been given an infraction?"
I have no idea but I can say that it may have gone unnoticed, and we -- like anyone -- have to pick our battles. Pragmatism may be the simplest answer.
The only proof I need is the responses to casinomeisters banning of a member for no good reason and the inability to justify it on the grounds of the post they where banned for.
Advocate of fair play for over 20 years has not helped much in this instance
 
Last edited:
For clarity I am not a 'fan' of anyone on this forum!

Admittedly I have my preference as to who I converse with as we all do in everyday life but not being a sheep I would stick my head above the parapit for anyone I thought had been treated with bias and a closed mind!
 
Come on - they’ve been more than fair with him. He’s been banned so many times since I started reading this forum, I’ve lost count. Most people get banned and don’t get another chance.

How many chances should anyone get? Whatever the rights and wrongs of that particular post, it was enough for the site owner to decide enough is enough. No need to debate further. His gaff, his rules.

I can agree with you in that he had been given loads of chances.

And if he had posted an offensive comment against a member or had made a racist mark etc. then getting banned would have been his own fault.

But in this case he has made a remark that is in no way offensive and against noone. So why the ban.

As Geordie said he used the same word and in fact commented more than Ben about the subject. Yet he never got as much as a warning.

As Max said it was probably because noone had noticed his use of the word.

Which is the whole point. People have been reporting anything Ben said. If they were that offended by the word how come they never reported Colin as well.

Because it was not the word or any offence. It was because it was any excuse to report Ben.

And like Greylady i do not particularly have friends on here. I say what i think and if someone doesn't like it no skin of my nose.

But if people are going to use the fair play bit then do it right. If you are going to say oh well Ben has had plenty chances and he has stepped out of line so we need to Ban him. Fair enough but to let another member use the same word and not as much as say that word is offensive please do not use it is wrong. That in itself shows that it was any excuse to take action against Ben as it could not have been serious if other members did the same with nothing said.

And no way do i want Colin in trouble. Merely stating what he said himself. After all there was nothing offensive in the first place.
 
It's interesting to note who has posted in this thread and didn't 'report' Ben. Food for thought as there are not that many prolific posters remaining who have not commented - if they found it so offensive, why have they not commented to explain themselves? :cool:

I for one wouldn't condemn them and I would stand my ground with anyone who did as I would have more respect for their transparency opposed to hiding behind a mod - community spirit, what a joke!
 
It's interesting to note who has posted in this thread and didn't 'report' Ben. Food for thought as there are not that many prolific posters remaining who have not commented - if they found it so offensive, why have they not commented to explain themselves? :cool:

I for one wouldn't condemn them and I would stand my ground with anyone who did as I would have more respect for their transparency opposed to hiding behind a mod - community spirit, what a joke!

Of course you are free to ask and are welcome to your opinions on this but ...
no one who reported here or anywhere else should ever feel compelled to explain themselves to you or anyone else.

A Report is a private communication between the person and the forum management. If they want to discuss it later in public that's their business.

As to your disparaging comment on community spirit, well, it's obvious that you have contempt for many if not most here so I hope anyone reading your post and is feeling the slightest amount of pressure takes that into consideration before they proceed. Haters gonna hate, readers should take what they say/request/demand in context.
 
Of course you are free to ask and are welcome to your opinions on this but ...
no one who reported here or anywhere else should ever feel compelled to explain themselves to you or anyone else.

A Report is a private communication between the person and the forum management. If they want to discuss it later in public that's their business.

As to your disparaging comment on community spirit, well, it's obvious that you have contempt for many if not most here so I hope anyone reading your post and is feeling the slightest amount of pressure takes that into consideration before they proceed. Haters gonna hate, readers should take what they say/request/demand in context.

You assume a lot but know very little!
 
I think with written text a lot can get confused. In this case, as a standalone word it's not wholly offensive, given what alternatives could have been used instead.

In fact it's just about the only polite way of phrasing that word bar 'vagina', so perhaps the shortened slang version is what looked crude to some?

I also believe that someone mistook the context of that comment as an affront to women/ or women getting into positions of power, rather than just the word, hence the outrage.

So clearly it matters little as to exact details of a word, the fact remains someone is looking to nail Playford to the mast at every opportunity given his chequered past on CM, so if it wasn't going to be this week it would have just been in a couple of days or a week or whatever. This is the situation he's found himself in, and to be honest, I'm not even sure he'd want to even carry on posting with that weighing over him.

Just to state he's his own man and can take account for his own actions, no one's his keeper. But the 'power' of expression now lies in the hands of anonymous reporters, and the whole thing has shifted towards that. Because any other given day, that comment would not be 'fine' as such, but would have been largely ignored, and readers would have moved swiftly on
 
It's still not about that one single post. It would be ridiculous to think that.

I did report him for his post about sinking a refugee ship. Pretty sure none of you Ben's defenders said anything about it. Some of you thought it was funny even. You really love to remain silent when he says something that's actually offensive and now you're somehow victims of anonymous people who reported Ben. Maybe you're silent 'cause you actually think like Ben, but just don't want to say it. Maybe you want this forum to be only for white old men...I don't.

I'm pretty sure it went somehow like this: Ben gets tons of reports from some of his actually offensive posts ---> gets banned ---> gets back to forum and promises to not do those things again. Then that repeats couple more times. And now he probably got many reports from that refugee ship post. Probably not many reports from the last post but mods/CM just decided that they don't want to deal with the same situation over and over again. It's been proven that Ben won't change his behaviour. How many 2nd chances he should get? Endless?
 
It's still not about that one single post. It would be ridiculous to think that.

I did report him for his post about sinking a refugee ship. Pretty sure none of you Ben's defenders said anything about it. Some of you thought it was funny even. You really love to remain silent when he says something that's actually offensive and now you're somehow victims of anonymous people who reported Ben. Maybe you're silent 'cause you actually think like Ben, but just don't want to say it. Maybe you want this forum to be only for white old men...I don't.

I'm pretty sure it went somehow like this: Ben gets tons of reports from some of his actually offensive posts ---> gets banned ---> gets back to forum and promises to not do those things again. Then that repeats couple more times. And now he probably got many reports from that refugee ship post. Probably not many reports from the last post but mods/CM just decided that they don't want to deal with the same situation over and over again. It's been proven that Ben won't change his behaviour. How many 2nd chances he should get? Endless?
You're doing that thing again where you claim to speak for everyone and paint everyone the same. This isn't the Trump thread

No one mentioned anything about white men, and if you bothered to take some time out and read, it's been stated he's his own man and accountable for his own actions? Giving a possible reason for something happening isn't being an automatic Playford fanboy

Wow :laugh:
 
The word 'vag' is clearly a truncated version of 'vagina'. The word isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise. Then the suggestion that the same alleged positive bias could be used for the replacement appointment, i.e. another female or ethnic minority, or both, depending on whether Trump or his possible successor got to nominate the said judge.

The post did get a few reports, they were carefully examined and then passed to Bryan due to the extensive history involved here. Was the post itself ban-worthy? IMO, in isolation, no. The ban was done under a totting-up decision - think points on your driving license. There comes a point where a straw breaks the camel's back, or in this case Bryans.
 
judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit,I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise.
Actually, she held her position because she was quite accomplished and made HUGE strides for women's equality in the male-dominated US

ruth.jpg

edited for clarity - see further down
 
Last edited:
This has escaleted beyond just being about Ben.

Yes, some of his comments have shown poor judgement. I've called him about to comments in the past myself.

But I don't think I've never reported a single post here (other than obvious newbie spammers). I believe it's better to discuss these kinds of things either in public or via private messages. Some may feel no need to do so, and rather use the report function (whatever their reasons for doing so may be).

Is the forum a better place now? That's up for a debate. If anything, this has shown a somewhat nastier side of the membership. And that's excluding Ben here.
 
Last edited:
The word 'vag' is clearly a truncated version of 'vagina'. The word isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise. Then the suggestion that the same alleged positive bias could be used for the replacement appointment, i.e. another female or ethnic minority, or both, depending on whether Trump or his possible successor got to nominate the said judge.

The post did get a few reports, they were carefully examined and then passed to Bryan due to the extensive history involved here. Was the post itself ban-worthy? IMO, in isolation, no. The ban was done under a totting-up decision - think points on your driving license. There comes a point where a straw breaks the camel's back, or in this case Bryans.
I actually think he tried his best to tow the line. You could clearly see the effort he was making.

From PMs with him he clearly valued his membership here and I have to repeat, it was blatantly obvious he is a thoroughly decent guy.

I'm no 'fanboy' but I live my life trying to see the best in people rather than jumping to spurious assumptions about their character. This being said, some people are outright wronguns but Ben is not in that category.

I'm of the opinion that if you own a forum then you have a duty to accommodate personalities of all varieties...apart from ones that are there just to blatantly troll and cause mither (otherwise what's the point in even having the forum?). Again, I don't think this was Ben's intention.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top