I may be blind but I don't see it. I even used IE for the first time in months to make sure it wasn't browser related. (I got to see all the ads I wasn't really missing.)

Anyone got a screenshot?

It's gone now. Didn't live long. Seems to have been an accidental inclusion in the most recent server restart, according to one of the admins in an ATF thread.

Sure did cause a lot of people to have to refresh their pages, because it semi-broke the site. Also caused a huge amount of discussion in the ATF forum.

Lee

This sounds like a really good suggestion. I have something like 12 or 14 cardrooms within 2 hours and travel a bit as well so I read a lot of the casino threads for the purposes of "casino information," and all of the chat can get unwieldy.

Just to point out an example of a thread I just read, Delaware Park is reachable for me but both the SE PA and AC casinos are closer, so I would only go to Delaware Park if I happened to be in the area unless Del Park had something interesting going on, so I try to keep up with that thread. The posts from the last few days in that thread include people talking about the bad beats they took in a tournament there and today there was a debate about men playing in ladies' tournaments. Bad beats are of no interest to me and I've been around since the time the Tiltboys played the ladies' tournament in drag, so none of that is of any interest to me but I had to scroll past all of it. But I certainly think the Del Park regs who want to share their bad beat stories or debate the guys in the ladies' tournaments there should have a place to do that, so forum #3 suggested above would give them, and the regs from other casinos, a place to do so.

all i know is I used to come to brick and mortar for CAZ updates, and now they are few and far between. the over-moderation is ridiculous, get a grip on yourself rapini

This has never been the way on 2+2, and probably never will be. It sounds great at first blush; the same rules across all forums means there is no confusion about the rules. But every forum here has its own "personality" that has evolved over time with the posters and mods of each one. I think most 2+2ers like it that way.

Avatars are always a tricky subject. What one person considers NSFW is fine for another. Of course there are plenty of avatars that are easy to say are on one side of the line or another, but it's those ones in the middle that are tricky. And it's not like the admins are going to make up a list of rules that say what percentage of cleavage and but cheeks are OK to show, etc. This is one that is pretty much up to the mods' discretion as to what they think is appropriate and what isn't, and will undoubtedly lead to some degree of inconsistency. FWIW, I think most action on avatars stems from posters' complaints. I don't think there are any mods on "avatar patrol".

+1



Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I think they'd be more useful with some actual suggestions.

my suggestion is to moderate by removing off topic posts, racist posts, and flame wars. otherwise leave it alone...

This is great and all, but this is really exactly what Rapini is doing. It's just that he has a very strict definition of what "off topic" is.

I think many of us (although I don't know if its a majority) would argue that a thread should have some leeway and doesn't need to stay strictly on the topic that the OP laid out.

no he's not, i didn't include "low-content" posts. i'm all for low content posts as long as they pertain to the subject matter. he's being ridiculous and it's made this forum a ghost town imo. and i don't know nosup4u from adam so i'm not biased.

1) No. I think there is some content in "+1" or "this" even without further discussion. Often, such posts help to highlight the better posts in threads that are crowded out by less helpful posts.

2) No, although if the derail has anything at all to do with the thread it should be allowed. In other words, something must be completely unrelated to anything even remotely connected to the thread to be considered "off topic."

3) Yes.

+1.

The problem, and the reason Rapini started this thread, is that he has wide discretion in assigning infraction points. LC gives him an almost arbitrarily ability to infract posters. In practice he ignores the vast majority of LC posts but in the case of NoSup4U he pounced on anything he could find, and we lost a valuable poster as the result.

Now, Rapini wouldn't agree with what I wrote above. He believes that NoSup4U clearly violated the rules, and doesn't seem to grasp the idea that he lets many other posters skate for similar offenses (posters who didn't insult him like NoSup4U did).

But my advice for Rapini is that he make his job much easier, and less subject to claims of bias, by no longer issuing ANY infraction points for LC posts. If LC posts were ever infracted consistently, we'd run out of B&M posters very quickly. He can send private warnings, he can delete LC posts, etc, and he could even come up with a way to exile posters from B&M who create too much work for him and don't respond to warnings.

But it's a shame if we lose posters because they type "+1" once too many times, esp. since other forums train them it's okay, and it's easy to forget about prior infractions when you visit this forum once a week or so.

And I'd also like to propose that using the first name of on duty casino personnel in a post should be fine, as long as you don't unfairly criticize or impugn them. The very idea that I can write a post saying "I talked to the head floor man Bob at Casino XXX's room wednesday, and he cautioned that players should beware that under their rules, you cannot do YYY", and get infracted is extremely counter-productive.

Casino personnel wear badges for a reason. They are a public face of the room, and when floorman Bob shares some information about the standard practices and rulings of his room with a player, it should be fine to share it with others.

I understand that members should not post things like "floorman Bob is a big jerk who poops his pants". But having a 100% draconian rule against ANY names is ******ed. And again, I believe this mod has used it in very biased manner, where he infracted NoSup4U for using a floorman's name while discussing a ruling, while not even giving a warning to posters who did the exact same thing two posts away in the same thread.

I'd like to add on that blocking/censoring the first names of badge-wearing customer-facing casino staff seems crazy.

"Oh, I had a problem at the Tuscaloosa Harrah's last night."
"No problem, just talk to [censored], he'll fix it."

A much simpler rule would be a stricter one about employee bashing.

Mark got Banned?!?!

WTF?!?

Far worse than when the Cat was Banned IMO. Heck, even though I was vocal about getting the Cat back, I've had him on Ignore for months because I got tired of his shtick.

But NoSup?!?

I'm stunned.

On the +1, I don't think it is that big of a deal and also think that in threads of considerable interest it can save the reader a lot of time trying to collect all opinions. If it is required to re-post the reasons another member has posted that just adds clutter, since nothing new is being added to the discussion. You could say +1 is clutter as well, but at least it is much briefer.

I am also in favor of having separate threads/forums for chat vs. information.

As for the inconsistency in moderating, I feel I should weigh in with an example. A while back I opened a thread about a MA cardroom. This thread was subsequently moved to the Legislation forum, with the thread title changed to include "Cardroom of Questionable Legality". When this was done I message Rapini for an explanation to make sure I didn't make the same mistake again. The answer I got was there are unanswered questions about the legality of poker in MA, so the thread was moved. This would seem to make the case for the change in thread title, not the move. While the thread was derailed a few times with discussion of the legal aspect, it was created to discuss the room, it's policies, players, events, etc. When I replied to Rapini pointing this out and asking why my thread was different from other threads for MA rooms (such as the South Shore Poker Club thread), since they are kept in B&M I received no reply. Also, threads for the same room I was posting about started by others have been closed. Judging by other posts I would assume this inconsistency isn't restricted to my one example, and would appreciate it if more effort could be made to keep things consistent within each forum.

I understand different forums have different styles, so I'm not advocating making a set of rules to be strictly followed across all forums. Any slip-ups members make in one forum that are kosher in another are probably easily resolved with a simple private warning, which (I assume) is why there are warnings in the first place rather than pouncing on someone the first time they make a mistake.

The above was cut and pasted from another thread.

Wouldn't a name have been a more appropriate descriptor of the employee?

If short and cute are acceptable, are less flattering terms ok to use?

I think there is a real problem with attempts to talk about employees, but I am not sure there is a good solution. I do believe first names should be allowed in certain situations and clearly not in others.

"Pounced on" ? You got an infraction?

And doesn't this forum have a long-standing ban on discussing NYC clubs, for the same reasons as you mention above? Or has that changed?

I apologize if I implied I felt "pounced on", I meant that out of context of the prior paragraph and in context with the last paragraph dealing with the issue of different forums being moderated differently. The point I intended to get across in that last paragraph was that it is ok for different forums to be moderated differently, and when a person makes a mistake in one forum typically allowed in another the warning system is like a learning curve, rather than banning them or issuing infraction points outright.

As for whether my post was in violation or not, I was willing to accept that it belonged elsewhere. I didn't know then (nor do I now) know of a rule banning discussion of rooms in certain states. That was the whole point of my asking Rapini for clarification, to avoid breaking a forum rule in the future. My issue, with consistency, comes in when I see threads for other MA rooms allowed to continue while for some reason the only room I enjoy playing at is constantly shut down, regardless of who opens it. But I don't want to rant on it, like I said I would just appreciate a closer watch on consistency. I've moderated message boards and given the high traffic of this one I don't envy any moderator.

Not knowing the facts behind this, on first blush it does seem a bit strange.
GL.

Not really. A few users will spank you 'wtf? gtfo live donks suck donkey balls', then a mod will just move you here.

The standard should be that anything that al says is gospel

Seconded!

With the surge of online players we're going to get in this forum, we need subforums now more than ever.

for the 3 new potential posters?

An online -> live transition subforum appears to be warranted at this time.

Why? Seriously. A thread, yes. Absolutely, and more than one such has been started. But an entire sub-forum? Just how much is there to discuss?

Lee

Yeah I guess there isn't a need for one now. Lots of new threads were popping up all weekend, many of them redundant. But the mods are finally locking them up this morning, so we're good.