+1

And we got moved again... smh. lol

Moderation issues belong here.

Haha check your PMs and note the timestamp.

It seems like that right is being more than generously taken up when the editing of posts would appear to be the more appropriate response given the volume of the content of the post in question that appears on topic rather than the quite small section of the rest of it that could be argued that it relates to "moderation action".

Sometimes we edit, sometimes we delete. Editing is a giant pain in the ass while on a phone, so I'm more likely to delete when reading that way. Sometimes you can tell that someone is purposely violating the rules in a post, I am more likely to delete them as well

At the end of the day, if you don't want your post to be moderated, follow the rules of the forum. You might think you're being witty and subversive with the lolrapini nonsense, but I assure you none of us moderators appreciate it, so don't be surprised when we delete the rest of your post as a result if the post requires moderation.

If you have something of value to say, it's really not difficult to resist acting like a big baby for the length of one post. The mods are not here to edit your idiocy you've snuck within "volume" and "content".

NP .. It was Darvin Moon who famously checked the nuts the year after his 2nd place WSOP ME finish and simply said .. "I wanted to see his cards." GL

It has been a month now. Can someone open a venue thread please?

Yes, the room rep can. He's a paid advertiser, so one of the perks of that is he gets to start the thread. Apologies for not making that clearer the first couple of times you asked us.

Is one of the perks that there be no thread if he doesn't start it?

I never thought of it that way, but that's a good point. Maybe he doesn't want the thread. I PMed him yesterday, so maybe he'll let us know the thought process when he gets back to me.

Someone said he was dealing with a family emergency and was out. I do not know if he has returned.

Perhaps you could allow a temporary thread.

why don't we just unlock the thread. Most other threads were started by random posters, and the MGM thread was started by Rapini.

I don't see why we shouldn't carry over the same information that's already in there and just leave it open.

That decision is above my pay grade. I have to defer to Bobo Fett on that; he's 2+2's advertising director. If Bruce doesn't return by next weekend though, I'll send Bobo Fett a message to see if he minds if we reopen the hype thread while we await his return. Good plan?

yes and take out the word hype from the title

I would just reopen the thread until Bruce returns, with a post indicating that the thread will be closed again once he does and the permanent thread is created. No need to ask Bob or anything.

I would not rename it or give it any other treatment, other than perhaps moving it to the Venues subforum if it's not already, but if you did rename it I wouldn't care.

Bruce Dixon? Are paid advertising reps protected from negative feedback? Because I would love to share my story about him.

Good points. I've reopened it. Enjoy!

Honestly I don't know. But if you were to couch it as suggested improvements to the new room, I don't see how that could be anything but a win for the community.

Directing my comments here per your request.

1. You don't know for sure that no poker rooms don't use machines in a way they aren't supposed to.

2. Whether or not they actually do, a non-zero number of people honestly believe they do.

3. That they believe it is not a conspiracy theory at all. The patent I linked shows its possible; the only question is whether the feature is turned on or not.

4. But if you want to ban discussions of rigtarding (which, to be clear, I'm moderately in favor of), you should put it in the forum guidelines. Because it's not there (or at least not the way you phrased it), and abruptly permabanning people for non-clearly banned topics is overkill.

To clarify, we do not abruptly permaban posters. Posters are given one (or usually multiple) warnings, sometimes in a useful place in a forum post (as Rapini just did), and sometimes via PM. If the warnings go unheeded, we decide from among a range of options, including further warnings, temp banning, exile from just LCP, or banning from all of 2+2.

Perhaps we should add it to the forum FAQ/guidelines as well. I'll see about making some edits.

As to the content itself, I am generally open to having intellectual discussions about just about any topic. I don't think anyone knowledgable disagrees that the technology exists to set the deck in the shuffler. But I also don't think anyone knowledgeable believes that there is any hardware/software programmed to actually do it at a poker table, because:
1- The room doesn't generally care who wins
2- Shufflemaster stands to lose everything if they are ever implicated in a scheme to cheat
3- There is no easy way to accurately determine or set the number of players being dealt in and (more importantly) the location of the button programmatically.

While we as moderators generally support the discussion of any relevant topic, we are also here to ensure that the experience is a positive one for the users, with a high signal-to-noise ratio, and that other relevant forum rules are adhered to. There are some topics that always evolve into having delusional posters spewing nonsense, and this is one of them. There is a reason you don't have intellectual arguments with children or conspiracy theorists, and the rule we have currently around rigtarding is essentially in that vein.

That being said, if anyone wants to argue that the rule is poorly formed or unwanted, this thread is the place to do it.

Personally I think this is a pretty silly rule. Honestly I had never even considered the possibility that any poker room would try to use a shuffle machine to rig the deck and would have likely mocked anyone who suggested it. But the fact that there is someone who doesn't want this possibilty discussed actually makesme think there is a slight chance it could be true.

Which is exactly why the rule exists. Most of the responses would be like this which we would delete since they're noise, so we nip it in the bud. Modding experience gives us the benefit of knowing which topics are just not conducive to high signal-to-noise standards.

It comes down to a semantic argument, akin to discussions about "widespread" "systematic" "voter fraud." Certainly, many people agree it's technically feasible, but many "knowledgable" people additionally believe it has actually happened. And arguably even if it's just a few hundred votes it's "material" given that some important national races were decided by less than a few hundred votes.

I don't disagree with your stance, only Rapini's insinuation that people who post about the topic are going to get banned.

---

In regards to one of your specific points, the most common assertion I've heard is not that the autoshuffler is specifically rigged to benefit one specific person, but generally rigged to create "action flops" to drive the rake up. Putting an ace as the 13th card or so would drive up rake in shorthanded games, for instance.