From what I skimmed of Mat's responses, I don't think he was that out of line (he reacted, I don't have a problem with that).

I couldn't even read the stuff that Lego posted, supposedly from the mod, and I didn't waste the time trying to make it legible.

FWIW "getting pfap'ed" is a common expression in his game. Its most commonly uttered while pfapfap is stacking a mountain of chips, and is synonymous with "bad beat".

This whole thing is too asinine and surreal for me to comprehend right now.

i always thought pfapfap was a know-it-all douche who's posts were tl;dr, but never considered him a troll and was surprised when i saw this thread.

however, having read the whole thing with an open mind, i've come to the conclusion that even if there are emotional arguments on both sides, his banning was logical.

pfapfap claimed to represent 2+2, when in fact he did not. that is substantially different than stating his personal opinion.

The thread with Mat and *TT* is pretty meh to me.

Doesn't really say much about anyone imo and it was on April 1 neway so I was immediately skeptical it wasn't just a level.

Even if it wasn't I don't think it shows *TT* being rude, just possibly dealing with a situation he did not create and getting annoyed by it.

You're actually asking for a tl;dr? Wow.

Basically, *TT* told Lego05 (via PM) that his screen name was in violation of the T&C because it was too similar to Leggo Poker, and gave him until the next morning to choose a new name or it would be chosen for him. Lego05 repeatedly asked what part of the T&C he was violating, and simply got "change it or it will be changed for you" in response.

Lego screwed up by posting the PMs in a public thread (which is why Mat got involved), but I think he was justified in fighting the seemingly arbitrary name change. Ultimately they reached some agreement in private, since Lego05 is still Lego05.

Whilke I disagree with him, he was not going out to people claiming to be a representative of 2+2.

His claim was more along the line of saying we are all representatives of the 2+2 community. (I disagree with this but clearly it is not ground for exile)

Whether I agreed with his opinion's or not pfapfap was thoughtful, thorough, generally polite (especially by 2+2 standards), and his contributions were one of the reasons I looked forward to reading this forum.

If "the powers that be" are reading this I kindly suggest that they reconsider their ban if they want 2+2 to be the kind of place that attracts intelligent and enthusiastic contributors.

[Also: the 2+2 "shirt patch" is fairly amateurish... hire a designer to do it right.]

No, I don't think your logic works out. Pfap did not claim to represent 2+2. He claimed to be a person affected indirectly by 2+2.

Deeb made a stupid statement. That seems rather obvious. "I hate live poker" is not helping anyone. I don't fault Deeb, Dan Negreanu just forcefed him crow on national TV, and he's not a professional politician trained to stay inoffensive under pressure. But Even if Pfap is overstating his point, it is essentially valid. "All of us" does not imply ownership of 2+2, rather simply claiming to be someone interested in poker.

I don't think anyone is questioning Mat's responses in that thread, just the ludicrous nature of demanding a name change from Lego05 since a site years later was named Leggopoker or somesuch. Like anyone here with tilt or star in their name here would be asked to change...

I am.

I thought he came across as a bit draconian and trollish.

At least one good thing has come about for me in this whole ordeal. I decided to look up Mat S. and see who he was other than the obvious. Didn't really find anything indicating he was anything other than the obvious, but did find a gread old drama involving poker player Paul Phillips and also this entry in David Sklansky's Wikipedia Entry:

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...99&an=0&page=6

ok my bad.

bring back the pfap!

I mainly read and post in B&M, with some forays into BBV4L when I'm in the mood for what they do over there.

Home Poker mainly IS Larry and Pfap; no offense to others but their posts are what keep me occassionally coming back to Home Poker.

Strange thing is, TT and Pfap are 2 of the posters I tend to agree with most when reading B&M.

And, I, too am of the opinion that criticizing S Deeb or implying TT might be a bit too involved to give an objective opinion is NOT a reason for a permaban. You wanna ban him for 24 hours and explain why anything he said is inappropriate in the mod's opinion, fine.

Now, I know 2+2 is a private business entity, so any decisions are purely business decisions. But, like that insurance company in California recently, some business decisions are really not in the best long-term interests of said enterprise and should be re-examined. Banning Pfap should be reconsidered.

Yes, Pfap can be repetitive, and he can be repetitive, and sometimes he is even REPETITIVE in his effort to make a point, but on the plus he's one of the best posters I've come across.

Once I make sure and save my current avatar I, too, will be sporting a "free pfap" 'tar.

Chris

Full disclosure, I'm a friend of Ray's out here in the real world, but...

Ray is being objective here. No matter what we may think of the "final straw," it may merely be the tip of the iceberg, and may or may not include things we simply aren't privy to.

As I said repeatedly, we don't even know one side of the story, let alone both, and the management here isn't under any obligation to provide it.

Of course we can petition them for transparency in this issue, but it doesn't much matter.

Implying that Ray is somehow dumb because as a result of him saying pretty much the same thing is a low blow.

But I do have personal experience with the heavy handed and irrational treatment by TT. Thisd experience lets me make my judgments with confidence

Others here may have had similar experiences.

This is one of those things where I don't understand. Deciding what we can and can't have as screen names, what does and doesn't go in the word-filter, etc. are all the sorts of "freedoms" we don't have here; and everyone gets riled up about.

I've had a few run-ins with the moderation staff, and my general answer has been to (a) comply, and (b) tell them why I think compliance isn't the only option.

The staff here might have been 100% wrong, but it's like those rule sheets we have that start with "(1) All floor decisions are final." Suck it up and move on.

[I know this doesn't deal directly with pfapfap, but it's part of things like this work. It's like being married. There's this person you're married to that has all sorts or arbitrary rules and who makes capricious decisions. To keep the relationship positive, you learn to deal with those things, even if they aren't "fair."]

I should have included this in my last post, but I'm going through this morning's replies in order.

I disagree.

2+2 has to maintain business relationships with these companies. They want to be able to offer ads for and make deals with FOO-Poker if they need to. Policing the user namespace is exactly the sort of thing they need to do. A global sweep of usernames to remove anything with "Tilt" or "Star" in it would be exactly the sort of thing they could and perhaps should do.

The particular case seems a bit capricious, but it doesn't matter. He didn't pay for the name, and 2+2 isn't obligated to provide it to him.

Am I suggesting in my last few posts that we all need to kowtow to the mods? To an extent, yeah. Express your displeasure, vote with your feet, and comply. If, as a result, this becomes your second or third stop for poker forums, then at least you provided your feedback by complying. Fighting a name-change or something doesn't help anyone. It just makes people dig their heels in deeper.

Conflict resolution generally doesn't resolve conflict

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I didn't think that Ray was the "colored name" that PORAC was talking about...

This is a low blow.

I admitted to cheating at poker - in a strict sense - in a thread once, but now we're just name calling.

Perhaps; and if so, I apologize in advance.

...although, I suppose what I say stands. I still find Ray's post to be objective

And ultimately that's all we can do. Comply and complain, or leave. But if enough people explain why they think the ban is wrong (both openly and perhaps via PM to the management), we might convince someone who can fix it to do so.

Or we might not. But sitting quietly will definitely accomplish nothing.

Ok.

This is TWICE you've accused me of a "low blow" while you defend the management and your friends.

First. Yeah. "the management here isn't under any obligation to provide" transparency. That is a fact. But if they choose to hide behind the curtain, then we (the "Me" part of "We" anyway) are forced to speculate to fill in the gaps. And given the lack of facts they are choosing to present, yes, I am going to reach conclusions. Ultimately my conclusion leads me to a low opinion of a mod.

As far as the second "low blow" I am not name calling anyone. I was searching on Mat S. and just stumbled upon those items, including the Quoted Segement DIRECTLY from the Wikipedia Page for David S as well as the 2+2 link where he discusses the incidents. I found it interesting and shared it. I have several of David S' books and think he has a great poker mind. I wasn't trying to denigrate him. Actually I find his stories very interesting and refreshing that he decided to share them.

So if you want to accuse me of low blows fine, dude.

I spoke my peace on the matter already. If it's this one incident, I think the reaction is too strong; and I hope they reverse the decision. If it's the tip of an iceberg I don't understand, then, I suppose it's none of my business, and I should get back to arguing about the subtleties of ordering chips for homegames.

I'm pretty sure there's a link to this thread on some mod forum already.

Let me summarize it for anyone on the administrative staff who missed it:

Pfapfap, although commonly confrontational in his style, is a 10k poster who routinely provides timely, informative, and thought provoking information to several 2+2 sub-forums. It would be a mistake to ban him for his posting style or isolated comments in a single thread. [Posters who disagree with his style are under no obligation to engage him in discussion.]

Additionally, since the issue is so visible (and despite them being under no obligation to do so) it would be a good idea for the administrative staff to issue a simple statement on the banning - even if that statement was "The situation is under review," or "The ruling is final, thank you."

Hey, thanks for letting me make my own opinion! We spent way too much effort dodging the misdirections. What you just said is probably not exactly what I'd prefer, but it IS what I said in my first post. Again, if I could rewrite it, it'd match Ray's thoughts on my first post. I think it's fair to laugh a little while recognizing what pfapfap offers to B&M and other forums.

Edit: Or what Palimax just said.

Then perhaps that could have been in your summary of him...

If you want to paint him as a cheat, stand behind your comment. If you don't want to paint him as a cheat, provide the information in context. It was a cheap shot.

This is the classic Glenn Beck raped and killed a woman in 1990 argument...