I was thinking about it more, and I would also be open to just having a containment thread for it. That would also make things a little more streamlined, rulewise.

I don't really enjoy being the guy who decides what topics can and cannot be discussed. But I also don't enjoy providing a platform for people who need mental help to engage in their paranoid delusions instead.

We could reopen the previous rigtarding thread if you want. If you can't find it I'll have a look before the end of the weekend.

I'd rather wait and hear more feedback first

I don't think there's any reason to reopen old threads, especially ones that contain idiocy.

Rapini you really are aids deleting my post in the Twin River thread that had to do with [removed].

Shameful. I see nothing has changed with you. A mod no less, with no PM.

Good god are you [censored].

Rapini I have given a green light to mention Silky in a light-hearted manner. He was a reg at the local rooms who passed away from cancer recently and was beloved by just about everybody.

Good to know.

Keep strangling your dead forum bro.

Thank you for your valuable contributions to the forum.

I would like to suggest that this forum should allow discussion of putatively legal card rooms, even if the "loophole" that allows them to operate is likely quite shaky. I don't know where the idea that rooms must be "confidently legal" comes from. I think it is a leftover from Brick and Mortar, as it certainly doesn't appear in the LCP forum guidelines, which say simply I understand that 2+2 doesn't want to be in the business of being seen as promoting illegal underground rooms. I think that those operating openly and at least claiming to have a legal standing should be fair ground for discussion. 2+2 should not be attempting to determine whether those claims have sufficient merit. For example, Detroit "charity" rooms and Portland "social gaming" rooms both face legal attack, yet are considered fair game for discussion. On the other hand, the new Texas "membership-fee social gaming" rooms have not (AFAIK) faced any legal test yet, abut we've been told we can't discuss them ITF. I think making the distinction that one set of "grey area" rooms is "legal enough" and another is not is not in 2+2's interest. Further, I think that this forum is the right place to discuss them, because people who find these games advertising openly and wanting to know the deal on them would come to this forum. Unless/until they are shut down, we'd be discussing conditions, with maybe a bit of status sidelines. If they are shut-down, then it makes since to discuss in Poker Legislation and/or NVG, but until then, this seems the logical place.

Cliffs: I think rooms operating openly and claiming legal status should be fine to discuss ITF. It fits the Posting Guidelines and it's not our job to evaluate legal claims.

While I don't object to opening the forum to discussion of illegal games. I think your comparison of the Texas illegal rooms to the Detroit and Portland situations is not a valid comparison.

In those cases the rooms are operating under regulation. The challenges to their legality are essentially challenges to the regulators permitting them to operate in a manner which may not be consistent with state law.

In the case of the Texas rooms they do not appear to be operating under the auspices of any regulatory bodies.

So essentially the Detroit charity rooms and the Portland Social clubs are licensed. It may turn out that at some point they lose their licenses because they never should have had them or that they may have to change their operating models.

As far as I can tell the Texas rooms are not licensed .... they simply have declared themselves to not be illegal. But those claims can be made by anybody .... when i used to play underground games I often heard the operators making all kinds of claims about why there game was legal (of course they actually weren't legal)

But Hey I think anyone should legally be able to operate a casino without getting the permission of the state. But that isn't the way it works here in the US.

Well, I'm definitely not saying that they are, or aren't, legal. Frankly, I don't think the Portland poker rooms are legal, though I love them and hope they don't get shut down, as I'm hoping to move to Portland when I retire from the military.

I just don't think that the shakiness of a claim to legality should keep us from discussing a room/set of rooms ITF. I don't see any "must be licensed, even if that license is likely invalid" requirement for discussing rooms ITF, and I don't think that there should be. As I said above, I think that assumed requirement is a relic of the B&M days, and even that just said something like "for discussion of live, legal poker rooms."

1) That restriction seems to be gone in LCP's guidelines, even though the mods are still acting as though it is there. Maybe that was just an oversight when writing the new guidelines and they should be updated to include that, but I don't see value-added in that.

2) I think us trying to parse what is and isn't legal is fraught with peril. By allowing discussion of some "grey area" poker rooms and not others, we are implicitly supporting the claims of those we allow. If we allow discussions of all openly operating rooms, we are in a better position to stay out of it. "We make no judgement on the validity of legal claims. We are simply a venue for discussion." is a much better policy, imo.

Shouldn't there be a separate directory for rules discussion with one thread for each rule and quasi-rule? I think threads get buried too easily in a more general forum.

Maybe if we can come to consensus on some changes, we here can work toward effecting those changes and maybe work toward international standards for both cash games and tournaments.

I would like to consider:

1) the "chop chop" practice

2) Mississippi straddle

3) order of action at showdown

among many others.

A sticky should contain a link to the rule sets already in existence for reference.

I don't think we want containment threads for these discussions. Containment threads are generally for things that suck the life out of, or derail, threads on other topics. (It would also generate a LOT of work for us to be constantly closing/cleaning these threads up.)

I am in favor of adding these questions to the (or maybe a new) FAQ thread, though. I've been meaning to do it myself for a while, but need to find the time, and find the right thread(s) to link to for each. If you want to help do the legwork for that, I'm all for it.

Did Kelvis get temp banned just for debating this issue? What?

No, not to my knowledge. I believe it was earned elsewhere.

Asides:
* Moderation questions in this thread please.
* In general, we are not going to tell you why moderation actions were taken against people who were not you, if it's not something public in this forum.
* I responded to this, rather than just deleting the post, to make sure people know it wasn't for the reason you suggested. We are not going to ban anyone for civilly debating an issue, unless it violates one of the forum rules, or we've asked one directly not to do something and one continues to do it.

Thanks dude. You guys seem pretty chill.

Can we get the AK v 99 thread moved to the Live Low Stakes No Limit forum so we can show that all-in > call once and for all?

edit: ... patience ...

It wasn't a purely strategy question so it's not appropriate for LLNLHE, but it was derailed into a strategy discussion so it needed to be closed.

Please feel free to repost the question in LLNLHE as a pure strategy question.

Attempt made. Sad attemp that is. Very sad.

You did your best and that's all that anyone can ask of you.

link

Seriously? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...low-stakes-nl/

Click on the corner to view the OP.