Correct. My fault for my intentional vagueness.

Or perhaps not. Seriously dude, I said EXACTLY what I wanted to say. All due respect, please don't tell me what to "stand behind" thank you very much. No it wasn't a "cheap shot" just because The Palimax has so decreed it to be. I presented a DIRECT quote from Wikipedia and what I thought was an interesting Archived Thread. I haven't painted anyone as anything. I didn't present any of my conclusions. Believe it or not, many posts don't attempt to include ALL possible conclusions nor lack of conclusions. If you think it is a cheap shot it says as much about your biases as what you are perceiving mine to be.

I just read this thread because someone linked to it from B&M, but wanted to voice my support for pfapfap in case someone wants to go through and count.

Douchebag or not, helpful or not, self-righteous or not - these things are kind of irrelevant - it seems like it's pretty counterproductive for a 10,000+ post poster to be banned like that. If anyone had a problem with what he posted, there should be plenty of 10-point infraction posts that he should have accumulated; the banning message should read, "pfapfap, per our discussions on PM you have not held up your end of the bargain and you're now banned" or "pfapfap, you've accumulated 565 points in infractions and you're now banned." Not, "Oh, by the way, some group of us had wanted you banned for a long time now so good riddance."

Banning high-profile people without a clear reason is the quickest way to destroy any discussion and scare away anyone who doesn't fall in step with marching orders. If this board is meant to be a place (as has been claimed) for players to interact and to present the pro-player view, it seems pretty laughable the last straw for pfapfap was criticism of corporate sponsorship.

Unban pfapfap. If he's such a terrible poster (which I neither confirm nor deny) just give him 10 point infractions for each offending post and permaban him when he accumulates a certain number of points.

It takes a lot to make me laugh.

That did it.

Congratulations.

I guess part of my whole discomfort around the whole ordeal is that I feel that the ambiguity really makes me feel unsure of my own status. Are my comments in this thread going to be held against me in future "borderline" scenarios where I have a dispute? The whole thing feels like a All Decisions by the Floor are Final" situation where the Floor has a bias and rules against someone for reasons not "in the best interests of the Game"

I still have not been able to figure out why he was banned

Without opposition how would anyone know who is right to make things clearer. Pfap from what I've seen has never been out of line. Clear case of someone in power not agreeing or liking someone so better off banning him. Sticl to the real rules of trolling and other nonsubjective areas for reasing of banning. He's been here forever and been very positively insightful. Just because he disagrees doesn't mean its out of line.

Very raw ruling imo.

Maybe ill be banned for saying so.

The overlords certainly have the right to do as they please, ban randomly and on a whim, it's their site and their rules.

That said...

This is by far the most cowardly banning I've ever seen, on this or any other of the forums (poker and non-poker related) that I frequent.

Typically I stay out of internal political matters like this, as there is often a bigger picture and issues going on that I don't know about.

But in this case, even from a casual lurker/infrequent poster's point of view, the poster pfapfap clearly is NOT the problem.

Shaun Deeb was a douche and a tool on that episode of WSOPE, regardless of what was going on before or after the hand, or in his life for that matter.

The fact that one of the smartest and prolific posters here merely gave his perspective only adds to this fundamental truth.

What a bunch of cry babies.

He embarrassed a mod.

Actually, paging through it, I didn't see ANY current mod-types that I thought were over the line... including TT's PMs that Lego posted.

But, since this is pretty far removed from the subject, let's drop that line from this as too off-topic to count.


I did find this quote from the linked thread important:
"People seriously care this much about their name? "

Yes, they do...which is part of the problem here, imo.

Sure he has.... as many of us have been, at one time or another, I suspect. The question of whether he should have been banned for whatever is still the open one.

WASH OUT that filthy mouth, boyo- I would never! I finally did get around to expanding them to see.... and responded again, based on that.

HOW he went about it was the big fail, not fighting it. But, no point in going off-point with something tangental.

No doubt the mods are arguing about this banning backstage. Like some other poster in this thread I also used to moderate a forum and drama like this is what makes moderation so tremendously rewarding. You live for these backstage arguments. Someone unilaterally bans a poster he doesn't like, and there's a thread running 100 replies per hour going back and forth.

I don't know what 2+2's hierarchy is like, and what sort of pull each moderator has. TT may be second in command to Malmuth and the Sklanskys so his word is basically law, and he just might never want pfap to return. End of the day pfap is just an individual poster in a relatively unpopular forum.

I'd wager regardless that pfap's ban is eventually lifted.

I did (before finding this thread)

petition to unban pfapfap

unsurprisingly, it was closed, and the link i put to it in the 'pound it back' thread was deleted

unsurprising, and yet very disppointing

I'm not sure it served a purpose, that quote, in this thread however.... but, of course I failed Schmed's IQ test again (or yours? I'm getting mixed up now) when I thought Palimax's "low blow" post was a joke.


Anyway, let's all stick to the topic, shall we?

Take your meds, please.

Your definition of heaven is my definition of hell.

I want pfap back. The 2+2 forums are better with him than without him. And I have read nothing on any public forum from pfap which struck me as ban-worthy.

But if TT has proclaimed "it's him or me", pfap loses. There's obviously a lot that has gone on in PM's and in previous posts that annoyed TT, and at some point it may really come down to a simple "pfap isn't liked by the people in power, so he isn't welcome". I'm smart enough to know that if I mouth off to the boss' boss' boss' boss I may not be employed tomorrow and I won't have a lot of recourse. It's the price ya pay, sometimes, for being vocal.

But I sure hope TT relents. And whichever way it goes, a little more explanation would be helpful, even if it comes down to "TT doesn't like him".

Okay, now we're even... .so, now you're both DONE.


Got it?

Thank you

Agreed.

I find it kinda odd that this thread could be open this long and not get more a response from people in power about what happened. Most likely case is no one knows about it yet?

FWIW, while your thread was closed the link someone posted in there to this thread serves the purpose of making this thread the de facto Free Pfap thread. Counter productive to have more than 1 active "Free whoever" threads (although that wasn't the reason given for locking that one, still a good lock, imo).

This situation brings me to what may sound like a silly question: Can 2+2ers be banned from certain forums but kept alive in rest of 2+2? In this case, could TT just have banned pfap from B&M?

No worries my brother.

as far as im concerned pfap was the best poster in this section. i'll be switching my avatar.

i read through the first page of this and skipped to page 4; has TT or whoever actually banned him made any response itt yet?

Not yet.

It's funny, today I was reading a thread and found myself thinking "Well, pfapfap will be weighing in on this any time now." Then the reality of it hit me again.