Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lattimer
that would be allowed IMO if the discussion stayed on point
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinesh
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.
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.
Last edited by browser2920; 09-15-2016 at 01:58 PM.