Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Live Casino Poker Discussions of the activities, rules and etiquette of Live Casino and Cardroom Poker Venues.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-27-2017, 11:46 AM   #376
dinesh
veteran
 
dinesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,470
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

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.
dinesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 12:46 PM   #377
Rapini
Monte Crisco
 
Rapini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 10,915
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinesh View Post
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.
Rapini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 01:08 PM   #378
dinesh
veteran
 
dinesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,470
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

I'd rather wait and hear more feedback first
dinesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 04:27 PM   #379
callipygian
slowrolled by tpiranha!
 
callipygian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: but I don't know which
Posts: 17,830
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

I don't think there's any reason to reopen old threads, especially ones that contain idiocy.
callipygian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 11:23 PM   #380
27offsuit
actions have consequences!
 
27offsuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet ass inya face
Posts: 26,495
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

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.

Last edited by Rapini; 05-02-2017 at 09:05 AM.
27offsuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2017, 11:36 AM   #381
27offsuit
actions have consequences!
 
27offsuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet ass inya face
Posts: 26,495
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

Good god are you [censored].

Last edited by Rapini; 05-02-2017 at 12:01 PM.
27offsuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2017, 11:51 AM   #382
Lattimer
I are smart
 
Lattimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 11,347
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

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.
Lattimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2017, 12:02 PM   #383
Rapini
Monte Crisco
 
Rapini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 10,915
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

Good to know.
Rapini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2017, 12:11 PM   #384
27offsuit
actions have consequences!
 
27offsuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet ass inya face
Posts: 26,495
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

Keep strangling your dead forum bro.
27offsuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2017, 12:21 PM   #385
Rapini
Monte Crisco
 
Rapini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 10,915
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 27offsuit View Post
Keep strangling your dead forum bro.
Thank you for your valuable contributions to the forum.
Rapini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2017, 10:01 PM   #386
Garick
Oberbiergenie▀er
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 15,195
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

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
Quote:
LCP is a place to discuss all aspects of poker (except hand playing strategy which is discussed in the strategy forums) as it is played in casino poker rooms or other live venues such as dog track poker rooms or stand alone card rooms.
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.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 01:06 PM   #387
psandman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
psandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vegas
Posts: 14,719
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
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.
psandman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 01:21 PM   #388
Garick
Oberbiergenie▀er
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 15,195
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

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.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 05:50 AM   #389
zica
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 432
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

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.
zica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 06:57 AM   #390
dinesh
veteran
 
dinesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,470
Re: The LCP Moderation Discussion Thread (please read OP before posting)

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.
dinesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 02:49 PM   #391
ss1
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 204
Re: $26 tip- should I have said something?

Did Kelvis get temp banned just for debating this issue? What?
ss1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 03:53 PM   #392
dinesh
veteran
 
dinesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,470
Re: $26 tip- should I have said something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ss1 View Post
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.
dinesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2017, 09:58 PM   #393
ss1
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 204
Re: $26 tip- should I have said something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinesh View Post
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.
ss1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online