I don't see anything wrong with you making a post like "hey guys FYI some of the players at the 3/5 game may be trying to go north. Just something to keep a look out for." But we weren't gonna let that guy's question stay.

I think being a Local Legend should exclude him from being "non-famous."

Is it really not supposed to be allowed to discuss an employee of a card room, without even giving the employee's name or any identifying features other than his job description?

People knew who you were talking about. Some chimed in saying he was a friend, etc. It got personal, so absolutely not allowed.

People were just discussing whether the behavior of a cardroom employee was appropriate or not.

I participated in the discussion, but even I didn't even know who I was talking about!

Would it be allowed to make a comment such as this?

"The cardroom manager at X casino does Y behavior, which I consider inappropriate".

You may not have known, but others clearly did. In a parallel dimension, I can imagine having a conversation about the issue (should a host be able to XXX and YYY) that would be acceptable. But all involved would have to steer clear of talking about who he is, how long they've been friends, etc.

I would consider the CRM to be fair game for identification in the forums, but no one below him or her. Having said that, Y behavior should be card room related, not personal or otherwise, or it would still not be appropriate or allowed.

Yup. If it were a simple "is the game host allowed to choose the game/set the blinds?" like the latest post, that's fine since it's a generic question that applies regardless of who the actual host is. But the original question was basically "why is he allowed to be rude, etc" which prompted replies of "hey he's actually a nice guy, etc", which is not fine because now you're gossiping about the guy.

Well, I definitely meant card-room related behavior, which is what was being discussed.

So, to be more specific, a comment like "the evening shift manager at X casino has been moving his friends' names above those of people he doesn't like on the waiting list" would not be allowed? Because to me that seems like a legitimate gripe and something that should be allowed to discuss.

that would be allowed IMO if the discussion stayed on point

I dunno, that's a fuzzier area for me. In that specific case, the benefit of highlighting and stopping the unethical behavior might outweigh the need to protect privacy. If you took pains to be only as specific as you had to be to outline the problem, I might allow it, but it would be on a short leash.

On the flip side, if the CRM or other room rep were active in the forums, a PM to that person would be better.

To elaborate, sometimes the OP is innocent enough, but after the fact it can be made clear that the resulting discussion simply can't remain impersonal. In that case the OP gets deleted even though in a vacuum there wasn't necessarily anything wrong with it. It's a judgement call we have to make.

OK, I know I stretched it a bit from the discussion which was actually deleted, but I thought it was similar.

Players at a card room were discussing the behavior of one of the hosts / prop players which some considered to be inappropriate, and I could see why that could possibly be the case.

I don't think anything was said to identify said host, although apparently the room has very few people in that position and in those games (maybe only a single employee), so others figured out who he was. I thought most of the discussion was legitimate, and the host was not identified in any way. If the only problem was the comments saying "host is a nice guy, don't beat up on him", then it seems like only those few comments could have been removed.

I understand you have to use your judgement, but why does it have to be all or nothing? Why not delete the inappropriate comments while leaving the OP and any others that are acceptable?

We can, and often do. It's a judgment call of whichever one of us ends up doing it.

I can't really see the difference between identifying an employee as "the evening shift manager at X casino" (assuming there is likely just 1 or 2) and saying "the 500 pound shift manager" which also identifies him. Either way, people will know exactly who he is.

I thought part of the anonymity rule was that we can't know whether the accusations are true or not. So in the example about moving people on a list, no mod could make that determination. Yet anyone playing at that casino reading that accusation would likely assume it is and carry that impression into said card room.

IMHO, problems like that should be handled by the player reporting the transgression to the person's supervisor. That's the only thing that would cause the action to stop anyway. You can't expect that the supervisor would see it in a forum.

So if you aren't willing to make the accusation in person to the guy's boss, I don't think we should allow posters here to post accusations here instead. The accusations may well be true, but many could also be a case of a disgruntled player seeking revenge on someone or passing on gossip.

So IMO, any description that allows players to know who is being talked about should not be allowed under the "no naming employee" rule currently in effect.

Edit: to be clear, I didn't see the original discussion that was deleted, so I'm not commenting on that specifically. Just my thoughts on the example given.

There isn't one. It is whether the mods think the level of criticism directed at him is appropriate. This is the particularly obvious on grave shift at CAZ where like 3 people have been in charge for the last 5 years.

Hi Leo,

Thank you for your input. While I agree that that would make it a closer case, it's still not a situation that is exempted under the rule. If the person in questions happens to post here on 2+2 and was alerted to the posts, I'd be OK with leaving them up if we had his permission to do so.

My post was in jest. I'm also pretty sure that he'd welcome the opportunity to refute the ridiculous assertions by some random in the thread- much the same way that his (and mine) friends did.

My bad, I thought you were being genuine. Sorry about that.

If he does want to come aboard and dispute them, have him shoot me a message and I can undelete the related posts.

EDIT to add: We have had someone make the "locally famous" argument before, which probably contributed to me think that you meant it.

What is wrong With bringing up the issue of game integrity and the potential that a chip thief is being permitted to play in the casino?

I'm glad this was finally brought up here. In a vacuum, there was nothing wrong with your post IMO. But, it lead to the inevitable privacy violating posts. None of us were at a computer at the time, only on phones, so the course of action there was to delete first (to stop the violations) and explain later (when practicality allows).

I eventually did repost the summary of your post (the alleged thief was back), but also was able to explain not to violate this person's privacy (quoting Rapini's original response when you first broke this story a month ago).

Now, the big questions seem to be - "why are we protecting this person?" "although there is a privacy guideline in this forum, should this be an exception?". Well, maybe. This is an "alleged" thief. What if it's not true, or the wrong person is identified? We'd be slandering a person unfounded. This person is not here to refute or defend this. We're going to need some concrete proof or something public to cite if we're going to consider allowing it.

That's how things stand at the moment. FWIW, Rapini, dinesh and I have been discussing this issue all day and are deciding if we need to make any alterations to our privacy guideline.

I would have left your post up if another poster hadn't responded to it with a post that violated the privacy guideline, but once that happened I felt that I had to remove yours as well because it was only a matter of time before someone else violated that same guideline.

It's pretty telling that this thread even exists/is the top sticky in this sub-forum. I read the OP because the 2p2 sub-forums I frequent don't have 'moderation discussion' threads... That the OP (for this thread!) was edited by a mod is just a perfect metaphor for the ridiculous amount of censorship and power-tripping that goes on by the powers that be in 'Live Casino Poker'.

'LCP' is much more a controlled groupthink than an open discussion board (because of the moderating), and it is not in line with the rest of 2p2.

IMO.

Thank you for your input.

The edit in the OP was the addition of the link to the forum guidelines.

The edit in the OP of this thread was to add more detail (including the link), it didn't change the context of it in anyway.

I'm assuming this is related to the thread you started that got some mod activity. I wasn't involved in it, but based on the post report on it and reading the last few posts, it seems it was delving heavily into a tipping-related discussion. Tipping discussions are not allowed outside of the tipping containment thread. The reasons for that have been discussed ad nauseam.