It was deem by several posters who reported it to be objectionable. A mod (Rapini in this case) agree with the reports and it was deleted. If Rapini just decided it on his own, you might have a case that it was truly "subjective."

Temp band without warning was what we posters wanted back then. Everyone was complaining about receiving infraction points and warnings were being totally ignored. It was decided temp bans were better as the offender would pay attention to it. Again, it was temporary and in the past so who cares? New guidelines and punishments are being put in place. You won. So drop the past and wait for the new changes.

Just a guess, but it probably affects people that make a living playing poker more than it does someone that just considers this another internet forum. If you make a living playing poker, do you need to come to twoplustwo? No. Most full-time players i know do not come here. However, for those of us that do and spend a substantial amount of time here, I'd say being temp-banned is a pretty big deal.

I am not the one who brought it up here. Nor did I post about it elsewhere on the site after it happened. My only knowledge of this "Rapini" before the incident was that it is part of the broccoli family (and I do not mean the Albert R. Broccoli family of James Bond film fame). I did not post here for many months after the incident. The changes in moderation were touted (changes which had nothing to do with me) and I hoped for the best. In another thread in another forum on the site someone asked to have more poker room fight videos posted: I responded that I knew of one but would not be posting the link because of what had happened to me. Users from that thread came here to ask what was what.

And no, Didace, I don't want to appeal to anyone. The appellate process here is seriously flawed and it's a known flaw (read the thread about how to appeal -- which I could not read at the time because I could not read anything on the site). I have now learned that the reported issues with Rapini are numerous, going back years. If site admins wanted to do something about it, they have had ample time, reason, and opportunity to do so. I have no delusions that my incident will sway them to action.

You're right, because actions have already been taken and Mat has stated that he doesn't want to hear about it anymore. Can we move on now?

Maybe I missed something tucked away in the semantics argument, but are we saying that an incident that happens in a live casino poker room is not acceptable to be posted in the live casino forum?

Posting a graphic video of a brutal fight seems to be the question.

There are extreme limits, yeah. If someone whipped it out and started masturbating at the table and it happened to be caught on video, do you think it'd be OK to post it here just because it happened in a poker room? My point being, there are limits.

The discussion was about what level of violence is permitted to be in a video/imgage before it reaches the point of being objectionable to many readers. For example, to use an extreme case to illustrate the point, if someone had a video of a person getting decapitated in a live poker room, the fact that it happened in a live poker room wouldn't justify its posting just because our forum is about things that happen in Live poker rooms. The objectionable nature of the material trumps the location of the event.

edit: I'm a slow pony, and see that Lattimer beat me to it with his masturbation example. It also shows how different people have different ideas of what is objectionable.

A video which was shown on the evening news (that's how I became aware of it) and in which (as I recall) no blood can be seen. The compelling part of the video is that NO ONE does anything until the "target" is under the table. Certainly information I would want if I was deciding what poker room I wanted to play in while in the area. So the bottom line is: if you're in B&M don't watch the news unless Rapini okays it first.

I don't think anyone has answered my question about whether the video was embedded in a post or linked to. I think a case can be made that directly posting the video is punishable but that linking to a news site that has a story with the video should be permitted. It would be myopic to see no difference between the two cases.

I strongly urge people not to use the same standard as your local TV show when deciding what is appropriate to post or show on any forum.

In fact I find it less offensive posted on an internet forum about poker rooms then showing it one the tV news. That is not newsworthy, showing it on the evening news is ridiculous.

As for the claim that it is informational about the relative safety of one poker room over another that is just BS. The video wasn;t long enough to for you to reasonably feel security didn't respond in a timely manner. unless you have some knowledge that security guards were standing by just outside of camera range and did nothing I have no idea how you can reach any judgment about the reaction of the staff.

It was embedded.

But if I could again ask that we let this topic rest. Here is a summary of some of what I have taken out of this discussion in terms of topics for review:

-should the wording in the 2+2 T&C and/or LCP guidelines add wording to specifically address the issue of violent images/video or is the general wording of "otherwise objectionable" sufficient.

-even if given that a certain level of violent images is allowed, should there be restrictions such as NSFW; or a "Graphic Images" warning with a spoiler cover over the image/video so that individual readers can be alerted to material they may possibly find objectionable. Is there a different standard for embedded videos vs links to other sites.

-the sequence of issuing deletions/warnings/temp bans will be clarified so people have a better feel for what to expect in regards to when each action is inititated

-the process for how appeal a ban will be surfaced with 2+2 admins to see if there is a better way to dessiminate the information about procedures given the contraints banned users have in terms of site access/PM availability

I'm sure more will come from this. But what we will not solve or agree on today or tomorrow or forever is whether Queen of No's particular video was or was not violent enough to be considered objectionable and should or should not have resulted in the action it did 6 months ago. That really is beyond the scope of where we are now.

I appreciate everyones comments. I think I've got the message and the issues identified. But it won't all be solved overnight. So please let's all move on and quit trying to get the definitive last word in.

Thanks.

A headless man rubbing one out is far from a fistfight.

Unless you play poker in Westeros, you are unlikely to see decapitations in the poker room and unless you play at TBC's tables you are unlikely to see someone masturbating at the tables.

Those are freak things. Like if a car drove through a wall into a poker room. There would be no benefit to post a vid of the accident.

But there is a lot of poor behavior exhibited in the poker room that is "common"

Angle shooting, cheating, collusion, verbal and physical abuse against dealers, verbal/physical abuse against players, favoritism in floor rulings, etc... all have some bearing on how a room is run and the experience a patron receives.

It would be tough to capture all of those scenarios on video but any of the above captured should be shared IMO.

Sure the fight was violent, but it is what happened in the poker room.

No one who clicked those links were unaware what they were clicking so lol at them getting offended.

Where do we draw the line? If a few Vegans are offended by meat should we lock and ban posters of any thread where someone mentions a steakhouse???

I'm not a Rapini hater. Lots of people he bans or trolls deserves it.

In this case I don't think a banning or deletion are warranted.

Just my unsolicited $0.02 USD

Everyone wishes you would stop. Go away.

You rate yourself by your post count (which says 2,270) and not the quality of your posts (which is ****).

I'm biased of course, but NLAP is darn fine poster in the NLHE 4rums.

Why are you gathering posts from other subforums and posting them here? How does this have anything to do with moderation? Is this sort of off-topic bullying acceptable in this forum? Did this warrant a bump of this thread? If he has a problem with me shouldn't he be starting a separate topic or PM'ing moderators directly?!?

Moderators, please advise.

NLAP has been fine IMO. Yes the latest thread drama was initiated by his question, but it was a fair question. Lay off.

I think a discussion of the tempban vs. infraction policy might be useful, especially now that you've added a new member to the modding team.

For those who don't know, B&M made a change some time ago based on feedback. Basically, infractions were replaced with tempbans - I believe that since that change, Lattimer and Rapini have only used tempbans and never infractions for posts that were deemed to be actionable. Please correct me if I'm wrong. IIRC, part of the reason for this change is that there had been some discussion (in the mod forum and ATF?) that many posters would prefer a tempan to an infraction - I believe the rationale being that a tempban is over in a short time, while an infraction stays with you much longer.

I'm curious to know how B&M posters feel about this. I have a very strong opinion on the subject, but will hold off on giving it for now as I don't want to colour the discussion.

Bobo that's correct. I also know your opinion and won't share my own

Really?

I would have thought that the many posters in ATF that you cite would rather infractions than temp bans.

The new LCP forum guidelines have now been posted. The old guideline thread has been deleted. I encourage everyone to read the new guidelines soon.

As we complete the transition from the "old B&M" to the "new LCP" several actions have taken place to depict a clean break from the past, and a focus on moving forward. The "aka Brick and Mortar" was removed from the Forum name. The new guidelines have been established and posted, which include a description of the moderation process we will use going forward.

In order to complete that transition and leave the past in the past, I am creating a new LCP Moderation Discussion thread. This current thread will be locked. The issues raised in this thread have been heard, and have been valuable in informing the new guidelines. But it's time to move on.

I encourage everyone to read the new guidelines, and if you have any comments or recommendations please post them in the LCP Moderation Discussion Thread. In post #1 of that thread, you will find guidelines for posting there. As with all the threads throughout LCP, personal insults and demeaning or disparaging comments in either direction will not be permitted. Keep your posts focused on the issue to be considered/resolved, and not on any personal slights or attacks.

I want the LCP Moderation Thread to be a valuable tool to raise issues, discuss pros and cons, and when appropriate modify policy. I will not allow it to become a venue for personal attacks or trolling. The goal is to continue to improve our forum, to make it as welcoming and enjoyable a place as we can. I ask you to help me in achieving this goal.

Thanks.
Browser