1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice

Feedback The Hypocrisy of Allowing Threads about WOV, VCT, not TP

Discussion in 'Suggestions / Comments / Criticisms / Problems' started by MDawg, Aug 31, 2021.

  1. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    This could have been a simple resolved matter which was settled long ago.
    Screen Shot 2021-08-31 at 8.20.21 AM.jpg
    A year ago I was granted permission to post a link to a site I do not own, and merely post at. After I was granted permission, I did post this URL, just twice, once at the end of my Adventures of MDawg and once at the end of my MDawg's Stock Trading Adventures, threads.

    Sometime later, this URL was somehow mangled and made not to resolve properly to the site, and I stepped in and complained about this. Admin investigated and could not find evidence that the URL had been mangled, but even worse...Admin then reneged on this allowing me to post the URL, by claiming that the permission had been granted by a former Admin.

    Admin then seemed to have compromised by allowing mention of the site by name, the same way that WizardofVegas and VegasCasinoTalk are constantly mentioned by name at this site, including in their long standing threads
    https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/wizardofvegas-forum-is-dying.3391
    and
    https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/the-vct-thread.15744/
    As a result of Admin's reneging on granting me permission to post the URL, instead of posting about this other forum with a full-on URL, I started referencing it occasionally simply as "[removed]" or "[removed] dot com"

    Today, some new Admin, with yet another step further away from good faith, went in and removed any mention of this other forum from my posts here.

    Over all, this is just an example of bullheaded Admin at GamblingForums creating a big stink about something that could have been resolved quietly and fairly. There was just ONE URL to this other forum at the end of my two GamblingForums threads. I had not posted in those threads in months. Admin could have stuck to its original agreement and just left things as they were, and the issue would have been resolved nicely.

    Instead, Admin claimed that whoever had granted permission for the URL no longer worked at Gambling Forums, reneged on their agreement, and removed the URL, but seemed to allow further mention of the site by name. And then today it stepped it to further renege on what was originally agreed, and remove any mention of this other site whatsoever.

    I contend that if there are threads in which WizardofVegas and VegasCasinoTalk are discussed here, and in which URLs and entire copy/paste content from these other sites is allowed, that the same should be allowed with reference to any other established gambling site, which [removed] has been around since I think 2009, and again, is not my site.

    Over all, as stated, this is an example of Admin here making a big deal out of a non issue. If they had just stuck to their original permission and allowed the URL to remain in just two posts this matter would not even have been discussed again. Instead, by beating it into the ground, they have shown their hypocrisy and hysterical need to make a point by creating divisiveness and contention where there need be none.

    In sum, if other gambling sites are discussed with their own threads here at GamblingForums, so should another. At a minimum, occasionally mentioning that site should not be an issue. Or, Admin should go back to honoring its original agreement, and grant permission to post a single URL to the site at the end of my two threads. Why Admin wants and needs to waste so much energy on what should have been a simple one time thing is beyond me.
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  2. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    Admin guys are making a big deal out of nothing. If Admin had just allowed the single URL at the end of my two GF threads to remain, as agreed, this matter would be done and over with.

    This just reinforces that Admin guys can't think about the big picture, and try to create divisiveness and contention over small matters.

    Just go back, allow me to post a single URL to the other site as agreed at the end of each thread, and this will be resolved. I do not own that other site, I merely post at it.

    Or, allow a thread about the other site at GF the same way you allow a thread about VCT and WOV.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
    beachedwhale likes this.
  3. Admin Team

    Admin Team Administrators Admins

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2014
    Likes:
    479
    This was only settled in so far as you acted in good faith regarding the external linking. We feel you were not acting in good faith and were intent on promoting that external site on ours.

    Since you were granted permission you have posted it multiple times all across our site on various threads including threads you yourself did not create. In fact, on your Adventures of MDawg thread, you posted it at least 5 times, leading us to believe you created that thread simply to promote that external site. It is when you continued to post that link repeatedly across various threads of our site that you crossed a line where we began to believe you were no longer acting in good faith and were abusing the permission we gave you in order to flood our site with the promotion of the site in question. We have one of the strictest link policies of any gambling community, and have had this strict policy since our launch, so we act aggressively against links we believe are being posted in bad faith even if permission was granted to link to it. Permission to link to an external site is not permission to flood our site with that link, so this can serve as a reminder to all members regarding just how strict our link policy is.

    This was already addressed here when we were the ones who created a thread about it after you brought it to our attention. Since then, we were unable to find any evidence of what you claimed or if it was indeed done, that it was done maliciously. However, we continue to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding that matter as we are unable to consult with the Admin Team member you dealt with at the time since they are no longer part of our team.

    We have not seen a single member repeatedly posting links to those sites and being the only one to do so across multiple threads on our site. We will generally permit such links (and delink them) as long as it is not abused and we believe the member is acting in good faith. However, the moment we believe a member is intent on repeatedly and actively promoting an external site, then those members' links will be treated in the same way yours have. It is a fine line, but we will not hesitate to err on the side of caution and remove links to external sites since such links. Again, being an uncensored gambling community does not mean members can promote specific sites on ours, it means they can discuss any gambling content on our site without any censorship. One does not need to link to external sites in order to discuss any content related to that external site, and when a member does it repeatedly, then we will naturally assume they are attempting to promote that site. Keep in mind that our automated mod system catches multiple new members every day who come on to our site just to promote an external site. Our members don't see this since we auto-moderate their posts before they are made public.

    Your continued promotion of that site has lead us to believe you are abusing our goodwill, not acting in good faith, and are attempting to use our site to promote that external site. Since we consider this an abuse of our strict link policy, we no longer allow that URL to be posted. If you are intent on promoting that external site, then we encourage you to take advantage of our Advertising feature.

    Any permissions we give should not be taken for granted because if they are abused, then we will revoke them as we have in your case. This goes for everyone.

    We don't feel it is us creating a big stink. We feel it is you creating a big stink about an external site that you have stated you do not own or have any affiliation with. We find it very strange that you are so concerned with us removing links to a site you have no affiliation with.

    We revoked the special permission we gave you because it became clear that you were abusing it by being intent on promoting that external site repeatedly on our site. If you wish to promote it, then you will need to pay for advertisement like all of our advertisers must do.

    If you had not abused the permission afforded to you, then this would not have happened. But when you decided to link to the external site over and over again across different threads of our site is when you abused your privilege and lost it.

    There is a big difference between a site that is being discussed in good faith by multiple members on singular threads versus a site that is being promoted repeatedly across the site in multiple threads by a singular member. The intent is quite different, which is why one is allowed but the other is not. This does not only apply to you. It goes for everyone which is why we are grateful for you allowing us the opportunity to further clarify our strict link policy.

    We cannot grant that permission after you proved to us that you are acting in bad faith. We cannot set a precedent that bad faith actors will get their way with us.

    Another reason we removed it is because you posted your link so often that we started to receive multiple complaints from other members because you were clearly promoting that external site. You posted it so often that it got to the point where we could not longer justify in good faith to our other members why we were continuing to allow you to violate our rules repeatedly.

    It is you who abused your permission that we granted to you, so your special permission was revoked.

    We constantly try to think about the big picture and not about individual members. In your individual case, we simply could not create a precedent that a single member is allowed to flood our site with an external site while we ignored report after report about that clear rule violation that got so egregious we could not longer justify it to our community as an endorsed permission.

    We are afraid that you have lost that privilege. However, you are of course welcome to post on our site without the need to promote the external site. The choice is yours, but you are no longer allowed to promote that external site on ours.

    You are the only member interested in discussing that site. Considering the history of your promotion of that site, we do not believe such a thread would be created in good faith. So you are free to create a thread to discuss whatever happens on that external site, but you any attempts at promoting that external site will be [removed].

    If your intentions are noble, then the mentioning of that external site should not matter and only the content being discussed should matter, and you are completely free to discuss that content here without any need to mention the external site you are attempting to promote on ours.

    If you were only using our site to promote that external site, then we will not be surprised if your participation on our site diminished. But no one here at GF is keeping you from discussing whatever it is you keep linking to on the external site. You are welcome to discuss it here without promoting the external site. If the only thing that matters to you is what you are discussing, then that should not make any difference to you. However, if you are keen on promoting that external site here, then of course you will not be happy with this outcome. We just want to be clear that we are not censoring any of your gambling discussion here, you must simply not promote that external site any longer.

    Folks, if you repeatedly promote a singular external site on ours, then please do not be surprised if your links are [removed]. Our uncensored nature does not allow members to violate our link policy in order to promote external sites. It does, however, allow you to discuss the gambling-related content from those sites openly and freely on our site without any censorship. So please refrain from promoting external sites repeatedly, and if we tell you it's fine to post an external site, please keep in mind that that does not give you permission to post it repeatedly over and over again to promote it across our site.
     
    beachedwhale and Nathan Detroit like this.
  4. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    Again, the fact that you spend so much time on this topic, shows how you guys are poor Admin, and poor administrators in general. Defensively carrying on and on like that over a small issue like that just shows weak diplomacy skills, and poor mediation abilities.

    You should just allow what you granted permission for in the first place, a single URL at the end of each of my threads.

    Don't make a federal case out of it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
    beachedwhale likes this.
  5. Admin Team

    Admin Team Administrators Admins

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2014
    Likes:
    479
    On the contrary, it shows we care deeply about our community because we make sure to answer all threads in our Feedback section, and to be as thorough and as clear as possible when addressing our members.

    I'm afraid we cannot do that since you are clearly intent on promoting that external site. Please don't take this personally, one of the most famous Poker players in history stopped participating on our site after we did something similar with their links. That's how strict our link policy is. We know it may cost us dearly in some ways, but we believe a better community is forged when members are participating here because they actually want to be a part of it and not because they are trying to promote an external site.

    We won't if you won't.
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  6. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    By the way, you are misstating the chronology here. That shows bad faith. I am not surprised now that other members have claimed that Admin here goes back on its word and misstates the facts! I had not noticed this sort of sneaky, lying behavior from admin before, but I have now.

    1. I was granted permission to post a single URL to that site at the end of each of my two threads. I did so.

    2. Some months later, when I complained that the URLs had been mangled so as to direct to nowhere, you then stated that the permission had been granted by another Admin who was no longer with you.

    3. You then removed the URLs entirely! thereby revoking what had been agreed.

    Therefore, the reason the URLs were removed were because you reneged on our agreement. I had made NO FURTHER reference to [removed] subsequent to the two URLs that you permitted me to post.

    4. Afterwards, I occasionally posted a reference to the site, with no URL, and now months later, you have removed even all of those references.

    All of this started as a result of your failure to honor what was agreed.
    Screen Shot 2021-08-31 at 8.20.21 AM.jpg
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
    beachedwhale likes this.
  7. Admin Team

    Admin Team Administrators Admins

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2014
    Likes:
    479
    How so?

    If so, then it was not intentional as different Admin Team members have dealt with your case which spans multiple private conversations, but we don't see how or where we misstated the chronology.

    First you accuse us of taking this matter too seriously, now you are accusing us of acting in bad faith. You are being inconsistent in your accusations of us. We understand that you are upset that we removed your mentions of the site you are clearly promoting here, but don't let that cloud your judgement about us. Remember what you said about us previously:
    We strive to be open and friendly because it makes for a better community, and we are striving to be as open and friendly with you over this matter.

    What sort of sneaky, lying behavior from us are you referring to and what proof do you have of any of that? You haven't provided any and now you just seem to be throwing harsh false accusations at us because you are upset that we removed your links to the site you were clearly promoting here.

    Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting there is some nefarious pattern of abuse by our Admin Team members. If that were true, then surely our Feedback section would be flooded with such complaints. In fact, in your other complaint, no one else came forward with a similar experience. We are human, we certainly aren't perfect, so we are certainly capable of making mistakes and have made mistakes in the past. But we always try to be open and transparent about them (as we did in your cases), even when it's not clear if we did anything wrong.

    You will be hard-pressed to find a more open Admin Team that takes the time to answers all its members' concerns.

    Regarding the chronology, we've just reviewed it:
    Your own screenshot disproves this. You were not granted permission to post the URL to the end of each of your two threads. Let us be clear, on September 17, 2020, you simply asked if you had been a member long enough to be allowed to post links and then posted the URL to that external site and claimed it non-commercial, didn't sell anything, and that it was not your site. We simply replied "Yes, that is fine" on the same day because such links are generally allowed as long as they are not spammed repeatedly on our site. A few minutes later, you posted that link here. You then took it upon yourself to also post it in your Stock thread 2 minutes later here. This should have been our first sign that you were already abusing the permission since you did not waste any time in quickly post the URL in 2 of your threads.

    Then, about 11 hours after you posted the link twice, you wrote to us again saying:

    This should have been a second sign that you were abusing our permissions to clearly promote something you have some kind of interest in. Why would a member care if their links were hyperlinked or not unless they have some vested interest in the external site being linked to?

    Regardless, this was our answer:

    This first action should have been a clear warning to you to not abuse our link policy by posting the link to that external site repeatedly since we were already receiving complaints about it. You made the decision to ignore this warning and continued to post the link to the external site repeatedly even though you were already aware that we had received complaints about it.

    Correct, you alerted us to this on January 13, 2021 and we addressed it here.

    This is not true because we did not remove it all instances until today. For example, until today we had not removed it in this post from September 2020 or this post on the "WizardOfVegas Forum is Dying" is from December 2020. Furthermore, on the same day on January 13, 2021 we informed you that:


    Yet, despite that second warning above, you continued to repeatedly post the site by your own admission:

    Yes, because we received more complaint about it and when we investigated it, we saw that you posted it again today in a thread where it had already appeared, and that you had actually posted it other times since the first and second warning, including 5 times just these past 30 days here, here, here, here, and here.

    So you ignored all our warnings, and continued to post the external site repeatedly on ours. Since you are clearly intent on promoting that external site on ours in clear violation of our rules, we took the action we did today.

    Yet you are acting as if we are the ones acting nefariously which seems to be a projection of your own behavior.

    You say this as if we had a signed contract with us that stipulated you had our full permission to spam that external site anywhere you wanted on our site. Yet from your own screenshot you can see that you simply asked us if you could post a non-commercial site that doesn't sell anything and which is not your site, to which we simply answered "Yes, that is fine.". You then took that as liberty to post the external site here as often as you liked, and ignored all our subsequent warnings about it, and continued to do it repeatedly, including 5 times in the past month alone. So this all started the moment you decided to abuse our goodwill and violate our rules repeatedly to promote that external site here.

    Also, regarding your claim that it is not your site, when your forced us now to double-check the chronology to ensure we were right, we discovered this slip of the tongue on your end:

    As per your owns words, you stated to us that "I'm not trying to re-advertise my site on yours by drawing attention to this issue". This slip contradicts your repeated assertions that it is not your site.

    To any person with common sense, it is clearly your site that you are trying to promote here since every action and reaction you have had in regards to that external site is exactly how someone who owns it would have acted and not at all how someone with no vested interested would have acted.

    But we do not care if it is your site or not. We care about what your intent is, and your intent is clearly to promote that external site on ours, and that clearly violates our rules which is why we cannot allow you to promote it here any longer outside of paid advertising. We must be fair to our other members and we must be fair to our advertisers.

    There is nothing further for us to add as we believe we have exhausted this matter and will not be changing our decision no matter how much you try to pressure or attack us. You know you acted in bad faith, we know you acted in bad faith, and now you know that we know that you acted in bad faith. You also know that you acted in bad faith to try to privately pressure us to acquiesce to your demands. We are not posting it here because we believe it would not reflect positively on you.
     
    beachedwhale and Nathan Detroit like this.

  8. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    See now you guys are writing hysterically, with great hyperbole using insults such as “nefarious,” and writing unprofessionally which just further makes my point that you are not cool headed professionals.

    Above, you wrote that the reason you revoked the permission for me to post the URLs is because I continued to post references to [removed] in my two threads the Adventures of MDawg and MDawg's Stock Trading Adventures. That is not true and a distortion of the chronology. A lie made by Admin.

    I was granted permission to post the URLs. I posted them. The permission was not restricted to just my two threads, but I didn't post the URLs anywhere other than once each in those threads. That should have been the end of this matter, and I did not post any further references to [removed] in those two threads of mine. To say that I did, is a lie that you continue to repeat.

    Months later, and again before I posted any further references to [removed] in my threads (indeed I had posted NOTHING subsequent in my threads whatsoever – not even one post) when I discovered that someone at your Admin had mangled the URLs, I complained. At that time you not only reneged on the agreement but removed the URLs.



    After you did that, remove, the URLs, I started to post further references to [removed] in some posts. Again, you didn’t seem to have any problem with that, but suddenly, again, reared your ugly heads today to complain about it months after the fact.

    So, to imply that the reason that you removed the two URLs was because I kept posting about [removed] is a lie. You removed those URLs solely because you decided to renege on our agreement. I did not post anything more about [removed] in those two threads until after you reneged and removed the URLs that you agreed I could post. Until today, when you fabricated this lie, you never even claimed that the reason you removed the URLs was because I “kept posting” about [removed], you claimed that the reason was due to the Admin who granted me permission no longer working at this forum.

    And to be precise, your permission allowed me to post the URLs anywhere not just in those two threads, so to state that my posting references to [removed] was somehow disallowed after you granted me full permission to do so, in writing, is another distortion of the truth.

    Screen Shot 2021-08-31 at 8.20.21 AM.jpg
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  9. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    Over all what this exercise shows, is that you are not people of your word. You make an agreement and break it. You come up with reasons after the fact to try to justify your reneging.

    I prefer to deal with people who keep their word. Liars who break their word know many truths. I know only one - that you agreed in advance to allow me to post the URLs and then reneged.

    I was thoughtful enough to seek permission before posting, permission was granted, and then on down the line you decided to break your word and create all this hullabaloo.
    Screen Shot 2021-08-31 at 8.20.21 AM.jpg
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
    beachedwhale likes this.
  10. Admin Team

    Admin Team Administrators Admins

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2014
    Likes:
    479
    Since the above is not supported by the facts and evidence we presented earlier, since you have not provided any evidence for any of the above, and since our prior post already disproves several of your assertions above, we will not address this further since there is nothing further for us to add as we mentioned previously.

    Again, this is not supported by your own evidence, nor by the evidence we provided above, so there is nothing further for us to add.

    You asked us if you had been a member long enough to be allowed to post links yet, and provided an example to that external site claiming it was non-commercial, didn't sell anything, and that it was not your site.

    We replied, "Yes, that is fine.".

    You did not ask if you could post that link anywhere you wanted and as often as you liked. We would of course have never agreed to that. So you can attempt to distort the facts as much as you want, but your own evidence does not support the conclusions you are attempting to draw.

    Furthermore, so that we can understand your level of common sense, do you actually believe that our response "Yes, that is fine" meant you could post your external link anywhere on our site and as often as you pleased? We think your answer will help readers understand the crux of the issue.

    Also, if you ask a Police Officer if you can park on a specific spot and they say "Yes, that is fine", do you believe that gives you the right to leave your vehicle in that parking spot for the rest of eternity without repercussions? Again, we think your answer will help readers understand the crux of the issue.

    You do not actually need to answer the 2 questions above, they are rhetorical as we believe readers will already know your answers to them.

    We already disputed this. We said "Yes, that is fine", you conveniently took that to mean "We allow you to do whatever you want with that link and post it wherever you like on our site as often as you wish because you now own this site as far as that link is concerned, and you do not need to use any common sense or common courtesy, because now you have an irrevocable agreement to literally do anything and everything with that link on our site and this agreement is valid for eternity and it can never be revoked, not even if we receive multiple complaints about it or if we issue you multiple warnings about it". If that's what we meant, then we would have written that. If that's what you were asking, then that is what you would have asked. We never said that. You never asked that.

    You know you are egregiously stretching what you said and what we said so much it no longer resembles the actual screenshot you keep posting which for some reason you believe supports your case when it is actually damaging it.

    You do not come off as stupid in your posts, so the fact that you are treating "Yes, that is fine" as if it was carte blanche permission for you to post that link however and whenever you pleased on our site tells us you know exactly what you are trying to do: since you did not get your way, you are pretending to lack common sense and are knowingly creating faux uproar over semantics that any reasonable person with a modicum of common sense knows it does not mean what you pretend to claim it means, and you are doing so in order to attempt to pressure us to reverse our decision because you are desperate to promote your site on ours since your site does not receive anywhere near the amount of traffic and SEO that ours does. It is not going to happen.

    You know a lot more truths than that one but are conveniently choosing to focus on the one you feel best supports your case while conveniently ignoring all the other actual truths that are absolutely detrimental to your case. The fact that the one "truth" you are clinging to is so weak as evidenced by your own screenshot says everything about your case in this matter.

    You created this thread after we encouraged you to after you attempted to privately blackmail us into reversing our decision. You weren't being thoughtful, it is now clear to anyone with common sense that you wanted to know if you had been a member long enough to be able to start spamming your link on our site. You abused our "Yes, that is fine" permission for your own self-serving needs. You are now upset that you cannot freely promote your site on ours. As a result, you have decided to lash out against us. The lesson you have taught us is that we cannot make any more exceptions for you because when someone offers you a hand, you will take their arm, legs, body, family, pet, vehicle, and entire house and then try to beat them with it to try to get your way.

    Had you exercised a modicum of common sense when we answered "Yes, that is fine", your links would still be up. Instead, you attempted to abuse our goodwill to promote your site and then attempted to blackmail us into doing your bidding, and all it did was solidify our conviction that we made the right decision in this case.

    If any other members believe we have made a mistake with our decision in this case or that MDawg is right in this case, please post in this thread as we would like to hear from you so that we can debate this openly. Otherwise, we will give MDawg the last word and will consider this matter closed since MDawg has not added anything new (presumably because there is nothing new to add by either party and this matter is now getting very repetitive and unproductive as we are going in circles).

    MDawg, you have the last word.
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  11. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    The letter that you sent me January 2021, when I complained that the two URLs I had posted had been mangled to make them not resolve, is posted below.

    In your response, you make it clear that the permission for me to post the [removed] URL was granted "unilaterally," but you complain in the letter that this should not have happened. However, the fact that you refer to unilateral permission makes clear that this is what it was. Unilateral.

    In any case, at that time I didn't post the URL all over the place just at the end of my two threads, twice total, once only in each thread.

    You guys are really too much. The below letter makes it clear that you made a mistake or reneged on your word. Own it, and stop with the double talk and subterfuge.

    Now, what are you going to do to restore faith in the community of GF over this mistake of yours? You wrote that "We understand if this issue makes you lose all trust in us" so OBVIOUSLY you realize and know that you are in the wrong here.

    Own your mistake. And make good over it instead of trying to point the finger at the innocent party here.

    Pm_GF.jpg
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
    beachedwhale likes this.
  12. Admin Team

    Admin Team Administrators Admins

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2014
    Likes:
    479
    Since you added new info, we will address the new info.

    You conveniently did not provide your prior messages which that screenshotted message was in reply to.

    In your messages prior to that response from us, you wrote "that you gave me permission in advance to post".

    At the time, we took you at your word in good faith that one of our Admin Team members had actually given you permission to post those links in the ways that you did because we could not find where one of our Admin Team members had given you that permission since there was no record of it in that Conversation thread.

    However, when we re-examined this matter today and looked into it more deeply after we received yet another report about it and you attempted to blackmail us to undo it, we noticed that you never actually received permission from our Admin Team to post those links in the ways that you did and then claimed.

    Your own screenshot with our "Yes, this is fine" answer proves that.

    You can confirm this on your end. The "Yes, this is fine" message happened in the Conversation titled "Welcome to GamblingForums.com!". The latest screenshot you posted happened in an entirely different Conversation titled "Please attach images directly instead of hotlinking them externally".

    Our mistake was taking you at your word and in good faith when you told us we had actually given you permission in advance to post the links the way you were posting them and not delving deeper into that permission to confirm whether it was actually true when we wrote that message in your latest screenshot. If we had done that, nothing would have changed, but this matter would have been resolved much sooner.
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  13. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    You guys delve deeper into subterfuge and red herring tactics. Otherwise, the only other explanation would be that you are severely lacking in reading comprehension.

    I posted my objection to your mangling my URLs in the same conversation thread where you granted me permission to post the URL. Permission was granted, and I posted it. Then, on down the line you reneged and stated that whoever granted the permission should not have granted it.
    End of story.
    Screen Shot 2021-08-31 at 8.20.21 AM.jpg

    The question for the membership here should be:

    GIVEN that GF granted permission to MDawg to post the URL to [removed], should this permission not have been upheld, especially given that all he wanted to do was direct people to where to follow his continuing Adventures once he stopped posting them here.

    And in any case, given that MDawg spent so much time creating so much content at GF, is it really too much to ask that his readership not be notified of where to continue to follow along with his Adventures? with a single post at the end of his two threads?
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  14. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    Indeed, I even followed up in that thread and asked why the two URLs I posted were not appearing as hyperlinks. So, your Admin not only granted me permission to post the two URLs but even knew exactly in which posts I made them.
    Screen Shot 2021-08-31 at 3.09.17 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2021-08-31 at 3.11.58 PM.jpg


    In other words, the permission you granted was specific, and applied to exactly the two posts I made in my threads, and you were even notified by me and made aware of the posts with the [removed] URLs after I made them, and then re-confirmed that the two URLs I posted were okay and would remain because you had agreed to this.

    You guys just get caught deeper in lies and subterfuge the more you dissemble.

    The question for the membership here should be:

    GIVEN that GF granted permission to MDawg to post the URL to [removed], should this permission not have been upheld, especially given that all he wanted to do was direct people to where to follow his continuing Adventures once he stopped posting them here.

    And in any case, given that MDawg spent so much time creating so much content at GF, is it really too much to ask that his readership not be notified of where to continue to follow along with his Adventures? with a single post at the end of his two threads?
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
    beachedwhale likes this.

  15. Admin Team

    Admin Team Administrators Admins

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2014
    Likes:
    479
    So we prove how this whole time you've been lying to us and everyone here about having had permission to spam your link all over our site, and instead of apologizing for it you accuse us of subterfuge and red herrings tactics? Now you must be trolling us as there is no other explanation for your behavior at this point. First the blackmail now this. This is obvious trolling.

    This is patently and provably false. You posted that objection in the "Please attach images directly instead of hotlinking them externally" Conversation thread.

    Proof (click the arrow link):

    But our "Yes, this is fine" response that you falsely claim gave you carte blanch permission happened in the "Welcome to GamblingForums.com" thread as we stated earlier:

    Proof (click the arrow link):


    Post the screenshots of the entire pages with the titles of the threads and they will prove you are wrong. You won't do that because you don't want to admit you have been wrong repeatedly in this thread. You are not engaging in good faith and we believe that is because you are attempting to troll us.

    The first 2 links that we delinked were originally fine which is why they were left there until you started posting the link more times. That's when all your links -- including those initial 2 -- became a problem. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Because you are attempting to troll us.

    We removed those 2 links because you spammed your link several more times after that which told us something was not right since we do not allow that here. In fact, today we realized those first 2 links were not the innocent links you originally claimed to us they were when you first asked us about it, so our instincts were right and we do not regret removing those links when we did, just like how we don't regret removing all instances of the site from all your posts since you have clearly gone out of your way to violate our rules.

    Already addressed and refuted in this post:


    Again, the original 2 links that we delinked were not the problem. It is when you continued to promote the same link over and over again that all your links to your site -- including those initial 2 -- became a problem.

    We did not remove those 2 links until you started spamming those links in more places. Again, why is this so difficult for you to understand? Because you are attempting to troll us. The moment you started spamming your links beyond those 2 made all your links -- including those initial 2 -- fair game. And yet even then we only removed those initial 2 and not all of them, but you had to try and push your luck which ultimately failed.

    This is nonsense, we have refuted every single one of your claims with hard evidence.

    Since you are still pretending not to get it, we will summarize this entire case here for you:

    1) You asked us you had been a member long enough to be allowed to post links and then provided us the URL to that external site and you claimed it was non-commercial, didn't sell anything, and that it was not your site.

    2) We simply replied "Yes, that is fine" to those 2 messages because such links are generally allowed as long as they are not spammed repeatedly on our site. For some very strange reason (trolling?), you mistakenly took that to mean you had carte blance permission to spam the link wherever you pleased on our site.

    3) A few minutes later, you posted that link here. You then took it upon yourself to also post it again in your Stock thread 2 minutes later here.

    4) A few hours later, we received a report about your links since the links were active and appeared in more than 1 thread. So our Admin Team member delinked the URL instead of removing it presumably because they had just told you that you could post it and felt that removing them would have been too harsh. Keep in mind that since you had posted it more than once, our Admin Team member would have been in the right to remove your 2nd link, but they clearly did you a courtesy by leaving the 2nd link up. It should be noted that not all of us would have given you that courtesy. It should also be noted that you were advised that your links were technically not allowed. You ignored this first warning.

    5) A few months later -- in a completely different Conversation thread -- you contacted us claiming that your very first link had been mangled when it was delinked and told us "you gave me permission in advance to post". We took you at your word and were surprised to hear you had been given permission to spam your link repeatedly since by then your link appeared in several places beyond those initial 2. We had no way of contacting the original Admin Team member you had dealt with since they were no longer with us, therefore we believed what you told us since the Conversation thread you wrote in did not contain the original permission you claimed. We then informed you that your links actually violated our rules (because they clearly did, and this was now your second warning that you also ignored) and removed those first 2 but left the other ones. Again, at this point we could have removed all your links, but we felt that would have been too harsh so we decided against it as a courtesy to you. Not all of us would have given you that courtesy. With regards to the mangling which is a separate issue, we addressed that here and gave you the benefit of the doubt despite us not having any evidence of it.

    6) A few months later -- today -- we received yet another report about your links being spammed on our site in violation of our rules. We delved deeper and discovered that you had actually been posting your link repeatedly across multiple threads, including 5 times just these past 30 days here, here, here, here, and here, and that you were doing so even after the 2 warnings you had received from us. At this point it became evident that you were actively promoting a site in clear violating of our rules and that you were spamming your link wherever you pleased, so we decided to not give you any more chances and removed all your links to your site. We then still gave you the courtesy of transparently alerting you of this action without sanctioning you, a screenshot you conveniently left out as it does not fit your narrative about us. Not all of us would have given you that courtesy. Today we also uncovered the fact that you had never actually been given any carte blanche permission to spam your link however you pleased and this fact changed everything.

    7) After we gave you the courtesy of alerting you to the link removals without sanctioning you, you decided to attempt to blackmail us into restoring the links you were promoting to your site, which we refused to do while encouraging you to start this thread, which you did and here we are.


    We do not know how to make it any clearer than the above.


    The 3 issues you seem to be having difficulty grasping (or are pretending to have difficulty grasping while trolling us) are:

    1) You falsely claim you were provided permission to spam your links however you pleased. However, you were never actually provided such permission. Our "Yes, this is fine" in relation to whether you had been a member long enough to post links and in relation to your posting of the non-commercial URL example to the site in question did not actually provide you permission to spam that link wherever you liked as your own screenshot proves.

    2) You falsely claim that our removal of your first 2 links somehow violated any permission you were granted. This is ridiculous because we were of course aware of those 2 links when you made them, and we only removed them months after when you decided to start posting the link in other threads. In other words, if you had not posted the link beyond those initial 2, we would have never removed those first 2. We get that you are upset that we initially removed the most important of your links as those were strategically placed by you in your most relevant threads, but the moment you decided to spam the link made all your links fair game, and that anger is clouding your judgement because you are failing to see that we did not remove the other links to your site that you had at the time. Would you have preferred that we remove all your links at the time? Of course not, and we specifically left the other links because of your claim that you had been given permission to spam them. Permission which we then learned today was never actually granted. But even though we did not know this at the time, we certainly weren't going to leave up your most strategically-placed links to a site you were clearly spamming because they did not pass the smell test and in the end we were right and at the time it did not matter that they were your first 2 links. What mattered is that you were spamming your link repeatedly and those were the 2 most prominent ones and even then we did not remove all of them until today.

    3) You falsely claim that us stating any such permission would have been done unilaterally by one of our Admin Team members and that we would have to investigate how someone on our team did that is all somehow an admittance that the carte blance permission had indeed been granted to you to post the links wherever you wished. This is ridiculous because our expression of shock at your assertion that you were granted this permission you claimed to have and our statement that it would have been done unilaterally are consistent with point 1) above and with the fact that you were never actually granted that permission which is why we were surprised by it and knew it was not a team decision. In the end, it wasn't even a unilateral decision by any individual Admin Team member either since you were never actually given that permission as per point 1) above. We did not learn this until today.


    In short, if you had kept your links to the initial 2, then none of this would have happened and those 2 links would still be up. Instead, you decided to be greedy and push your luck by spamming your link repeatedly across multiple posts in multiple threads and got busted for it and ended up losing all of them.

    Folks, if you start spamming a link, do not be surprised if we remove some or all instances of it. We may remove the first ones, the most recent ones, or all of them. We reserve the right to remove them as we deem most effective and balanced when they violate our rules. And if we give you courtesy after courtesy, then don't be surprised if we remove all of your rule-violating links when you keep pushing your luck by continuing to spam them.

    Once again, if any other members believe we have made a mistake with our decision in this case or that MDawg is right in this case, please post in this thread as we would like to hear from you so that we can debate this openly. You may also answer MDawg's questions.

    We suspect we won't receive any answers from other members since we have yet to meet a member on any of the Forums that we run that like and support spam links.

    Since at this point we believe MDawg is trolling us, this really will be our last post in this thread as we do not want to feed the troll any further.
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  16. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    I am actually bemused that anyone would spend so much time writing such convoluted, hard to follow, irrelevant nonsense.

    As stated, this matter comes down to:

    1. I was granted permission to post the URLs for [removed]. I did so.

    2. At some point later Admin here claimed that whoever granted me that permission was no longer working at GF and that the permission was revoked. I.E. - GF Admin reneged on our agreement.

    Anything beyond that is red herring digression from the cold hard facts of this matter. I am disappointed that anyone who allegedly runs a site would be so puerile with his attempts to provoke an emotional response. Won't work with MDawg. I stick to the facts.


    The question for the membership here should be:

    GIVEN that GF granted permission to MDawg to post the URL to [removed], should this permission not have been upheld, especially given that all he wanted to do was direct people to where to follow his continuing Adventures once he stopped posting them here.

    And in any case, given that MDawg spent so much time creating so much content at GF, is it really too much to ask that his readership not be notified of where to continue to follow along with his Adventures? with a single post at the end of his two threads?


    GF_permission1.jpg
    GF_permission2.jpg
    GF_permission3.jpg



    Pm_GF.jpg


    I would say that GF's apology in the form of "We understand if this issue makes you lose all trust in us" would settle who is at fault in this matter. People who screw up need to offer apologies.
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  17. Punkcity

    Punkcity Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2020
    Likes:
    1,287
    Occupation:
    CEO, manager of sublease my account name.inc
    Location:
    Troll tag team one accounts head , Skipptophia.
    I didn’t want to re type
    Not interested in other forum advertising to read a thread some one chooses not to continue on this forum.
    As previously posted to another poster I’m adverse to advertising.
    Cheers
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  18. Punkcity

    Punkcity Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2020
    Likes:
    1,287
    Occupation:
    CEO, manager of sublease my account name.inc
    Location:
    Troll tag team one accounts head , Skipptophia.
    Maybe admin would like to take over my “mommy and or daddy said no thread”.
    Cheers
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  19. nate

    nate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Likes:
    361
    Location:
    united states
    In the rarity that I even log on here, somehow I ended up on this saga and read back maybe 15 pages. I get the accusation of spamming, I don't follow the dog novels, or anyone's for that matter. Not getting into who's right either. But I had one item that I have a question to admin about. Admin has been stating mcdogs site'''- sorry mdawg. What I see is that it isn't mdawg's site but an unrelated writers blog open to anyone wanting to contribute. mdawg has a couple of blogs or threads on this writers .org blog site. I imagine he did this just so he can continue his bragging or story telling or whatever personal reasons for doing so. I haven't delved into that sites disclaimers or whether one can monetize your own stories. That said, in what way is this mdawgs personal site? And is this members transgression more that GF feels this member is trying to take traffic away from GF? All the other stuff back and forth doesn't concern me, but I've always thought when a member spams a link that a site objects to is because they are trying to sell something from that link. So, that's my observation, what exactly is this member trying to sell that is against GF's policies.
    Thank you.
     
    beachedwhale likes this.
  20. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    Thank you Nate - because, yes, exactly - I am not selling anything here at GF, and I am not selling anything at the other site either. I am not selling anything at any of these gambling sites mentioned in the title of this thread, and I do not own the other site at issue. I am not even a moderator or admin at that other site just a regular member.

    I feel that VegasCasinoTalk and WizardofVegas and [removed] are all on the same level as far as being sites, so why is it okay to discuss, mention or link to two of these but not the third here?

    For whatever reason Admin here feels threatened by any mention of a particular site where I am posting, such that even after granting me permission to link to that site, they reneged on the agreement to allow it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2021
    beachedwhale likes this.

Share This Page