Is Rizen editting threads to cast lock in a better light?

[MicroBob]

Yeah, I was confusing the two threads together. Good call.


But I do think the rest of my counter-argument is still appropriate. If the thread is about "Lock is kinda the same as FT it feels like" then the subject-line should be also.

There is a bit of a conflict of interest in you changing that subject line that would be best left for other mods to decide. And I think it was just a flat-out bad choice for a new subject-line.

For example, if this topic was made in the internet forum and Mike Haven changed the subject-line exactly as you had done my reaction would be the same (except for the conflict of interest part), "Mike, you misinterpreted that thread I think. Maybe you just skimmed the first paragraph? It has nothing to do with "frequent account verify" stuff. OP put a decent effort into that discussion starter and the inaccurate subject-line does a disservice here, etc etc."


But anyway, the first post (which was left mostly/entirely untouched I believe) had to do with relating current Lock stuff with past FT stuff....including other things that were not at all even remotely related to "frequent account verification."

I mean, here are the second and third paragraphs of the very first post:

Lock has been hemorrhaging money on payment processing, marketing, acquiring a network that was universally understood to be in debt by industry insiders. They can't staff the support, development team, or even their own forum on 2p2

It's also worth noting that a major drain on FTP was the constant signing of pro's

No, the thread is NOT about "hey, why are you making everyone verify their account so many times? Are there any others out there that are being told to do this?" I thought that's what it was and I didn't care so I didn't open it.

I assumed the subject of the thread was the OP's choice and that he accurately conveyed the content in the thread.

now with this second thread about it I finally know what the first thread really was about. I had no idea before. I think it is a very interesting thread by the way.

The thread IS about speculating. So the subject-line should be also. And if you aren't going to allow even that then I think the discussion may be best held in another forum where the other mods who don't work for Lock can make their own determinations on the appropriateness of the subject-line.

[LockRizen]

I was just trying to edit the subject line as little as possible. I'm certainly open to other suggestions that I would edit it to, as long as said title doesn't questions Lock's solvency. If FatalError would like me to change it to 'Lock looks like it's going through similar issues to FT' then I'll gladly change it to that.

You're probably right in that if there is a discussion that needs to happen that questions Lock's solvency and it HAS to have said question in the subject of the thread, then it might be better off outside of this forum.

Thanks

-Rizen

Originally Posted by MicroBob

Yeah, I was confusing the two threads together. Good call.


But I do think the rest of my counter-argument is still appropriate. If the thread is about "Lock is kinda the same as FT it feels like" then the subject-line should be also.

There is a bit of a conflict of interest in you changing that subject line that would be best left for other mods to decide. And I think it was just a flat-out bad choice for a new subject-line.

For example, if this topic was made in the internet forum and Mike Haven changed the subject-line exactly as you had done my reaction would be the same (except for the conflict of interest part), "Mike, you misinterpreted that thread I think. Maybe you just skimmed the first paragraph? It has nothing to do with "frequent account verify" stuff. OP put a decent effort into that discussion starter and the inaccurate subject-line does a disservice here, etc etc."


But anyway, the first post (which was left mostly/entirely untouched I believe) had to do with relating current Lock stuff with past FT stuff....including other things that were not at all even remotely related to "frequent account verification."

I mean, here are the second and third paragraphs of the very first post:




No, the thread is NOT about "hey, why are you making everyone verify their account so many times? Are there any others out there that are being told to do this?" I thought that's what it was and I didn't care so I didn't open it.

I assumed the subject of the thread was the OP's choice and that he accurately conveyed the content in the thread.

now with this second thread about it I finally know what the first thread really was about. I had no idea before. I think it is a very interesting thread by the way.

The thread IS about speculating. So the subject-line should be also. And if you aren't going to allow even that then I think the discussion may be best held in another forum where the other mods who don't work for Lock can make their own determinations on the appropriateness of the subject-line.

[MicroBob]

Why is it wrong to question Lock's solvency in the subject line if you are allowing that exact same question in the thread anyway? What is the difference?

If that's what the thread is about...questioning Lock's solvency....then just allow it in the subject too. Big deal. You do the exact same thing....enter the thread and say, "ummm, this part is ridiculous...so is this..." etc etc.

Do you really want that discussion and subject line to be had in a higher traffic forum such as NVG? And further away from your watchful eye?

You've got a pretty good thing going with your own forum here in that you kind of get the negative stuff corralled into one place where there isn't very much traffic. NVG has gigantic traffic compared with the Lock forum.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by MicroBob

Why is it wrong to question Lock's solvency in the subject line if you are allowing that exact same question in the thread anyway? What is the difference?

If that's what the thread is about...questioning Lock's solvency....then just allow it in the subject too. Big deal. You do the exact same thing....enter the thread and say, "ummm, this part is ridiculous...so is this..." etc etc.

Do you really want that discussion and subject line to be had in a higher traffic forum such as NVG? And further away from your watchful eye?

You've got a pretty good thing going with your own forum here in that you kind of get the negative stuff corralled into one place where there isn't very much traffic. NVG has gigantic traffic compared with the Lock forum.

I can see why if someone doesn't open it but sticks in their mind that last time they saw any mention of Lock Poker that they might be having solvency issues. The subject line might say it but the thread posts might mean something completely different. If untrue, it wouldn't be fair. You have probably heard questions that would make you screwed anyway you answer it. "SO when did you stop hitting your wife?" "What did your Mom say when you told her you were gay?" "When did you stop stealing money from online customers?" Those are hard to explain even if they are untrue.

I have my experience with Lock and will be posting it on the cashout thread. Reason why I made sure I came back to the forum today.

[Pokerzhard]

What is Rizen's real name? Would like to see the play w/ Jamie Gold

[MicroBob]

bronco - Yeah, I get that.

"Are these signs of Lock insolvency?" still seems fair to me though.

And that to me is pretty much the same as "(another) sign of lock insolvency?" which is what was edited/changed.

What about simply, "Is Lock insolvent?" And then an OP saying, "Look, you and I can't tell from where we are sitting. But here are some similarities that I see between Lock and FT..." etc etc.

I mean, it's a quick subject-line with not a lot of room so you can't go:
"I'm not really sure but is it possible that some of these things could maybe be related to insolvency?"

Again, if they aren't going to allow that here then perhaps it will end up in a different forum on 2+2, with higher traffic, where more will see it and potentially come away with a bad impression.

They actually DO allow the discussion though. They just don't like the subject-line apparently (customers doing google searches?)

Also note that the different subject-line examples that you reference are not quite the same as this topic here. Lots of people have already been discussing the aspect of whether they think Lock is having financial issues. It's not some crazy accusation out of nowhere done to purposefully make them look bad.

And also again, it's not like he's saying, "The Surest Signs Lock DEFINITELY is insolvent" or anything like that. He kept it completely reasonable and respectful...especially with the question mark. And when that is done...the completely reasonable and respetful part...I think it should be allowed to remain untouched.

My opinion on all that anyway.

[MicroBob]

In the very least, it is my hunch that they may exercise a bit more discretion on such editing decisions in the future simply so as not to ruffle the feathers of the masses. I hope that's the case.

Rizen seems to do a good job of not jumping in there except when it is absolutely necessary and something COMPLETELY uncalled for is posted. In fact, I think he may have been a bit too lenient in a couple of situations. Letting things stay that had me going, "Whoa. That needs to go."

So generally I trust him to be cool about all this stuff and his own balancing act he's trying to pull off...and not go overboard. He nuked a joke-post of mine a few months ago and I wasn't thrilled about it. And he changed the title of this thread and I disagree with that. But overall I think his head is in the right place and they clearly DO allow some pretty open and critical chats in here.

[92Cadillac]

With all the relevant and important threads in this sub-forum, I find this one to be petty and undeserving of this community.

[FatalError]

Originally Posted by LockRizen

You may or may not have anything to gain, I won't pretend to know your personal situations nor your reasons behind your actions, but you've had a bone to pick with Lock Poker since 2009 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...ns-7-a-555112/).

-Rizen

well that was when lock was having cake players lie to the original cake poker and tell them they needed to move to lock to play on their mac client for higher rakeback. One day we all got moved back to cake and suddenly those of us that were affiliates but could no longer play on lock started getting a fraction of the rakeback from our referrals and payouts shown as credited but never received. after pressing lock and being referred to a potentially non existent CTO who eventually replied with this

"We traced it down to a recently introduced bug that was affecting a limited number of users. The bug has now been fixed and the accounts have been reprocessed."

damn, they were using that one back in 2009 too!

pretty nice bone to pick IMO

[MsBartz]

This hack of a site is capable of anything. I did notice a couple of weeks ago that ALL the positive comments about Lock were from new users. While yes I am a new user, my comments are not positive in relation to this piss poor operation.

[MicroBob]

I have made positive comments about this site...including recently.

[MsBartz]

Originally Posted by MicroBob

I have made positive comments about this site...including recently.

Such as?

[BrianRx74]

There have been many positives from established players. A little searching will get you a long way.

[zgfjsh]

So far most of my experience with lock (transition from merge to revolution is not smooth but that is understandable) are positive. My only complaint is that the software needs a lot of improvements.

Having said that, it is never a bad idea to be cautious in current environment.

[MicroBob]

Originally Posted by MsBartz

Such as?

Extremely good promotions/value.

Lots of improvement with customer-support (but still a long ways to go).

Good to get an advance announce of Ronin returning in August.

Finally getting some of the payment and double-billing stuff sorted out and rectified.

I noticed recently that apparently the 6/21 check nonsense is apparently finally being corrected. I did not specifically post about that situation but I will do so now if it matters. Because I think that as well as the other things I mentioned are all very positive signs.

I was pretty down about this site a couple of weeks ago. I'm extremely happy they seem to be (mostly) getting their act together and turning it around.

Certainly disappointing that it has taken them this long and it's quite clear they still aren't where they need to be. But you are asking for a few examples of a positive posts which I have definitely given quite a few of imo.