The problem with the thread these days is that a lot of (for lack of a better term) softer issues are being posted within it. Some recent examples include a live package that was cancelled (with the person giving refunds) and a person who had a post about them because they did not pay an arbitrary amount of "future EV" even though they paid back makeup at 100% to end the stake. As well, the scenario of a person "quitting poker" which often times is not permanent is a bit tricky to fit into that thread.

I am not quite sure who moderates the thread now (Bobo perhaps), as the OPs of the threads have not been here for years and I think Cry Like a River used to moderate it as well, but I was wondering if a new thread for posts of useful information, but not negative feedback level worthy disputes can be created so that these "softer" issues are not lumped in with posts about those who habitually steal $300.

Thanks for the consideration.

The point of the thread is so that others will find posts about people/accounts that they search for. It is not to meant to be and probably is not read as an ongoing thread, per se. It's a catch-all thread and those that search and find will then make up their own minds whether or not they wish to deal with the person/account.

A second thread is unnecessary, imo, and probably would not be used as you suggest. It is not fair to burden a mod with having to monitor it in additional ways, but, as always, readers will Report posts for specific attention by the forum mods and all Admins.

I understand that perspective, but when talking to other backers the problem is that some issues are worthy of reporting but they are not "negative feedback" in the conventional sense. The examples I gave are cases of that. Do I think someone who owes "future EV" should be lumped into a negative feedback thread? No, but if a person signs a contract with a backer, and then does not follow a term of the contract (regardless of how silly it is) - is it fair to alert other backers that this is the type of person that will sign and then regret? Sure. Same thing with people who claim they are quitting poker. Do I think they should have a negative feedback? No, but it is fair to alert the marketplace of this if and when the person decides to come back from retirement.

As to the amount of modding, I am not quite sure what to say on that, because I am still amazed that work is unpaid, but as the market matures and the places where people get information continues to change - forums like this become more and more outdated, so their importance does drop over time. They are still useful, but the volume of posts in that forum is maybe on average 1-2 per day (with some days having bursts if it is a disputed issue) so I am not quite sure how an additional thread would add that much work.

Anyway, that is my feedback. Take it and use it, or politely dismiss it - whichever works with the approach of the management here for the future.

I'm going to move this over to that forum with the hope that more people who use the forum will see it, but I'll leave a long redirect so ATF readers will also be aware of it.

If you want to encourage other backers (and others) to post their opinions as well, that would be great.

I think some stables set up contracts that allow them to use silly clauses to claim a player owes full makeup that are not deserving of being in the same thread but possibly deserve a mention as a warning some where else for other backers that choose to approach the business in the same model.

For example player falls 50 games short of his 400 game month requirement. Is that a breach of contract? i guess if you have it set up that way, but does he deserve a post right below the guy that outright stole the 500 initial bankroll? Imo no. I think some stables use these silly things as a way to get rid of players that didnt work out the way they wanted, and then make a claim he owes full makeup because of that breach. Doing it that way allows that stable to take on players knowing the will be able to exert leverage on the makeup if the player doesnt work out.

This thread is about the function of the negative feedback thread and whether there should be another thread for other issues, not to provide a venue for you to complain about an issue with stables that you've already raised in another thread. The last two posts, which I'm now deleting, had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand - let's keep that stuff out of here, please.

but surely the backers can read the post and evaluate the various feedbacks received, I don't see the benefit

This. IMO negative feedback thread lite edition make no difference.

I guess concern is that there is no rules about posting in thread all info I know except pass/address.
If friend stole 50$ and gambled them, i can post in thread.
If someone cancel on me package for whatever reason i can post in thread.
I have no idea about what should be allowed but right now everything goes (not saying it wrong).

Predatory stakers/contracts is thing what should be addressed but this is not thread for it.

dont think there is really a need for a second thread. i honestly dont see as much of a gray area as op does. i think its lined out pretty well whats supposed to be posted in the neg feedback thread and what shouldnt be. i understand that from a backers perspective any sort of data on a player is extremely valuable and the more there is available for free the better it is. however i think players should also be protected in a way that only if they breach contracts/scam/do stuff that qualifies for a neg feedback post their data/information should be posted. i think moderating the existing thread properly should do the trick. posts that simply dont qualify as neg feedback (such as the examples provided by op) should simply be deleted. again i know that this doesn’t seem like a backer friendly view however there are certainly enough methods to optimize your due dilligence if you want to back people and posting (maybe even sensible info) from people on the internet should generally be avoided.