Misc WizardOfVegas Forum is Dying

who did i specifically pull the tail of...you keep saying that but show no proof of quotes from my final posts on the day I was nuked.

Plus the quote by mission, of how dare you insult the manboy by suggesting he step down......could have been directed at you as well.

As far as favoritism, bias, vindictiveness and retaliation......very fair. Its not an insult if it can be backed with facts and that was not allowed. Well anyone can take anything as an insult. So its not false and shouldnt be taken as an insult..even though it may be uncomfortable to face up to.

If someone says the kj/QFIT situation was treated with bias,favortism...that would be fair
If someone said that suspending boz and then telling him its ok not to return......is vindictive.....I would agree
If someone says bluechow was suspended and baited when asking about KJ....is retaliation and vindictive....I would agree
If someone says I was nuked merely for being on the wrong side of issues, and being on the wrong side one last time created a vindictive, retaliatory response toward me.....I would agree

bb1 WAS DEAD ON,.
So presenting an unfavorable/unpopular side to an issue that has merit..is punishable.

Fair enough....Hence this thread and the loss of member visits to the point where regulars like EB says the site is boring and he doesnt post as much as he used to. Hence Ron C posting that there is a bias in punishment, Hence IBYA also pointing out a bias involving himself..

thats the consequences

 

I just ordered Dirty Poker by Richard Marcus. You can buy a used one on Amazon for 1 cent plus shipping.

 

Dam freddy, you only needed one little H to make it a better insult. I'm disappointed.

 

I wouldnt fuck her with your dick.

but someone out there might,

 

Larry, you pulled the Wiz's tail by questioning his fairness, his moderation, his ability to manage an empire he created.

It's like telling a proud parent "Your kid is ugly and stupid."

No wonder he smacked you out of his cage with his paw.

The only thing that baffles me about it was this exchange between the Wiz and BBB:

Wiz: "LarryS is nuked. I think we all know why."

BBB: "Thank you. The decision had to come from you."

Huh?

Why wouldn't she nuke you on her own say so?

It's not like you were a valued member; most posters seemed not to care for you much at all, due to your confrontational, argumentative style.

Damned strange.

 

So what you're saying is that Shackleford's vanity precludes anyone from criticizing him?

Do you understand how weird it seems to a civilian that anyone with aspirations of being an adult would want to deal with him?

I have to assume, from what's been said, that Shackleford has no real academic position. I can't see him functioning in an environment with actual peers.

 

I have to ask this as a follow-up. How many regulars at WoV have doctorates?

I had a real overblown sense of the cumulative expertise over there until reading this stuff. My sense from the interactions via Mendelson's old forum was that the membership was a competent but somewhat naive math club. Now I don't see the utility in WoV at all.

 

Larry, you say a business person has the right to ban someone from their business. You got banned. Get over it.


redietz, if someone came into my place of business, was talking shit the whole time, starting a ruckus, and complaining how poor my business model is, with nothing positive to contribute -- I think I may kick him out. If someone had a disagreement or good criticism, I think I'd accept it. But if the person goes on and on complaining about everything and being super argumentative -- yup, they gotta go.

Here's a better question: Why should LarryS have not been banned? I don't remember much good coming from LarryS's posts. (Go ahead, ask me who made me the arbitrator of what you can/can't post or what makes them good/bad.....or say how my posts on WOV or here are not good.)

A regular person files a complaint. If it gets denied, he either moves on and goes somewhere else, or files another complaint to a higher-up. He doesn't fixate on getting revenge or "fixing" the problem. If you don't like a business - leave. What's it been now, 2 years? I just hope your wife/girlfriend doesn't break up with you -- you'll have a full plate of work, stalking her and all.

 

Rs
Me "talking shit the whole time"
That is a statement of ignorance . The fact is that over 90 percent of my posts were on other topics...away from the discussion of the suspension list.
don't let facts get in the way of you and Mr v.

of course Beached whale said it would have to come from manboy......because there was nothing for her to base a punishment on. Yes, even she, the one with the itchy trigger finger had nothing to go on. So she told her boss that if there was going to be a nuking for no reason...it had to come from him. And even he could not give a reason. He was just acting as bb1/has described.
Even BBB couldn't point to me as "talking shit"
And all I read are generalizations.so what if Mr v claims that people didn't like me. Plenty people there view Mr v as being a 2 faced coward who lobs insults at wov posters from a distance of GG calling them jackals.munchkins..Kool aid drinkers as well as calling an action of the wiz as being "unmanly". Does he deserve to be nuked when he asked the wiz to step down...just because some people view him as a 2 faced coward? No way. Because as you can see with Mr v and eb..... popularity deficits do not mean permanent suspension.
The board is not a popularity contest. It's for exchange of ideas.and if some ideas are unpopular....so be it. Adults can cope with it.
ADULTS can skip over ideas they don't agree with or block posters that annoy them..
so my case is in line with the biased vindictive behavior that we see in the bluechow...kj.....biz.....Blackhole cases.
It's in line with the behavior that Ron C mentioned before the thread was closed...as he talked about based rule enforcement.
it's in line with IByA/" telling BBB to stand down because of her uneven enforcement of rules.
So no Mr v it's not odd that BBB said what she did to the wiz... because she knew it had to be a unilateral nuking from the boss who has total control and doesn't have to answer to anyone.
and since he gives no reason. ....There u go...doesn't need to be transparent...or give a reason like the mods feel they need to do.

oh yeah...and my 3 previous sys pensions over a 2 year period were just common name calling insults to individuals that were appropruate...and had nothing to do with constantly critiquing n
managenent....as rs and v would contend

 

Forgive spelling errors above as its from a phone..nor anywhere near my computer.....sorry

 

Correction...One of my previous suspensions occurred when I addressed the manboy questiion...If you don't donate money then tell me why.....and I answered the question and got suspended.. I believe Mr v even commented that I was just answering the question...but I served my time and the finger was on the trigger to the point that anything I said from that point on...would be cause for immediate nuking...

And "would all know why " was never questioned by amyone......so why even complain about kj.

It's not like there is a rule that says...no Criticizing management. There could be one if he wanted to .. but it's an unwritten rule like the truce rule or the nonpayment of a bet rule
Or the "we all know why"rule.

 

You keep saying how poorly they run that site considering it's a business. The main focus was meant to be about gambling, casinos and math. Lets compare it to a huge successful industry, the casinos, a main focus of the site.

Casinos make up rules all the time. They they toss people out who don't even break any rules. The rules also change from person to person, they protect valuable customers and rid themselves of undesirables. I never seen a rule about counting cards but it's just known by many. Its fairly well known you shouldn't Insult an employee a manager or the owner and they may ask you to leave. If they find out you stiffed another casino or mess with another customer they might ask you to leave. They oftentimes protect their staff, even if the staff make bad decisions. Just about everything you say WOV dose wrong pertaining to how they run their business is done by successful casinos as well. Whatever you think about Mike it doesn't matter its obvious he did something right and he still is because they let him continue to run it as he sees fit. No doubt they will ask him to stay on if he wishes to do so. I dont think you realize that having less members won't affect their business at all. There will always be enough people contributing to keep new depositors coming. I will say it again. a vast majority of the members are anti-online-gambling they bad mouth it all the time they tell people they should't gamble online, its rigged, they dont pay when you win etc etc. The forum costs probably them money.

Non payment of a bet to another member seems like a legit reason to nuke someone. FYI I dont think Mike was the one who nuke him.

 

RS, certainly a good point, but let me flip it around.

Who, at WoV, is actually and truly allowed to criticize Shackleford? The mods? Certain business partners who post? A subset of the posters who are big contributors? Everybody in good standing? Or none of the above?

And does Shackleford ever say "I was wrong" and publicly reverse a decision? Does he ever publicly criticize or "insult" himself?



If the answer to the question of who criticizes him is " none of the above," or even close to that, there is a real problem.

Shackleford is a gaming math expert. Why he would consider himself an expert at customer relations or PR baffles me. Better to find an credentialed expert for that role.

This thread strongly suggests he should hand off the PR baton.

 

Anyone can sit at a full blackjack table and complain to the dealer 5 percent of the time that they are unhappy with the way management treats them.even 10 percent of the time.

If you are sitting at a blackjack table and someone calls over the pit boss...points at you and says....I had a private bet with him and he didn't pay......I doubt there would be a banning. I have no fucking....idea what you are talking about.
And if I am sitting at a blackjack table at harrahs...and Gary loveman... comes up to me waiving a tin cup.....I would not be banned if I told him how I felt publicly especially if I didn't give him money and he demanded a reason why.

Your logic as usual leaves something to be desired.

 

Redietz
Exactly.....In business...management often has a different skill set than the customer service people that they hire.
Manboy obviously has a skill set for math problem solving.......but not for interaction with people.
That fact is nothing to be ashamed about.....as long as you recognize your limitations and hire competent people to fill in the gaps of your weaknesses.

 

One curious thing about this thread -- when people apologize for or rationalize Shackleford's behavior, it's always (and I mean ALWAYS) in the context of "businesses can do this; it's his business; parallels with other businesses, blah, blah, blah."

Now a non-capitalist finds this strangely amusing. Nothing about whether he should do or say what he does based on other criteria or reference points. Nothing about the validity of what he says or does outside of a business reference point.
Very strange.

You know, guys, there are other perspectives and reference points. In fact, those other reference points may serve professional gamblers better than your auto-default capitalist reference point.

If Shackleford were writing in an academic journal, and his ideas and judgements were vulnerable to peer review and criticism, what would an apologist argument for his behavior look like without the "business reference point?" Ownership of a forum, from the business perspective, provides him carte blanche in many eyes. Do you see how weak that position is in terms of the internal validity of his arguments?

 

LarryS., BBB had ample reason to suspend or nuke you on her own accord.

In relentlessly going after the Wiz, repeatedly arguing that he was mismanaging his site, you crossed the line from valid critic to troll.

You're a troll, LarryS.

But really, "We all knew" that, didn't we?

You've found refuge here to continue your troll fest: bully for you.

 

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Trolling is in your nature, LarryS., and it becomes the focus of your posting once a mod suspends or punishes you.

That's how it went with both JP and the Wiz.

"Retribution is mine!" roars LarryS.

 

The problem with this particular definition of "troll" is its broadness.

If you send a letter to an academic journal that disagrees with both a particular paper and the opinions of the majority of the journal readers, then that is "being a troll" by this definition.

So, okay, that writer is a troll. But that's not a bad thing.

The problem with internet communities is their incestuous cliquishness. Any outside perspective, because it upsets people, is labeled "trolling."

The world could use more trolls.

 

It's a question of intent.

Were his comments meant to promote change, and healing, then great.

But with him it's an attack.