If you told me where Rapini works I’d be like “Okay...cool” and I’d expect him to be like “Yes, that is correct”. Your line is so desperate and sour grapes it’s unreal. You’re the only one who doesn’t get it.

I’m of course discounting the fact that you withheld your potential bias while accusing someone else of having bias. You got caught and are getting extremely defensive in response.

OK if you think it's fine for personal information about you to be revealed by this site, I'd say that's your prerogative. I think that everyone who is on this site should be worried that their personal information is now available to all at Rapini's whim.

With regards to my bias - I didn't need to disclose it. I was trying to have a discussion. I wasn't deleting anything. I would go as far as to say that I probably would have revealed this information on my own later in the discussion as a basis for understanding how someone should be handled in a poker room.

The fact that I worked at MD Live was part of my reasoning behind thinking Johnny reached out. I know how on top of these threads Poker Directors are from experience. There isn't something posted on here for an hour that matters that we didn't know about at live.

None of that matters. The fact that I had a bias is completely irrelevant when we're talking about someone revealing information like I described in that story I made up.

Since the overarching thought here is "you're a dick and crying for no reason" and the CCP mods have stopped responding, I decided to bother to look at the privacy policy - here's a copy paste of the section about when and with whom our private information can be shared. This is why I'm upset - I absolutely did have an expectation to have that information not shared, unless I chose to make it available.

MAY THE INFORMATION BE SHARED? WITH WHOM?
We will make your personally identifiable information available to other companies or people when:

You have elected to allow us to share that information at the time that you registered with us or provided us the information, or through a subsequent affirmative election through our website.

You volunteer information or create a public profile in the course of your participation in our community features such as forums and user opinions, posts, communications, and reviews.

You use cobranded services (i.e., sites or services that we offer to you in connection with a partner, who is identified on the site). When you use a cobranded service within our site, you grant us permission to pass your registration information back to that service partner. Their use of your information is subject to their applicable privacy policies.
We hire third-party vendors to provide specialized services such as customer support; email message deployment; suppression, merge and de-duplication services; data processing; and special products or services that you have requested. These companies are only allowed to use the information in order to help us fulfill our services to you. We do not provide your information to these companies for their own, permanent use.

You unsubscribe for a mailing that we send to you on behalf of a third party. We may share your removal instruction with the third party so that it may be added to that person's list of people to whom they may not send emails.

You are the winner of a contest or a sweepstakes that is co-sponsored with a third party and that third party needs your information in order to manage the prize fulfillment process.

When required by law, such as when we respond to subpoenas, court orders, or legal process.

We believe that your actions violate applicable laws, Two Plus Two's TOS, or any usage guidelines for specific products or services, or threaten the rights, property, or safety of our company, our users, or others.

https://www.twoplustwo.com/privacy.php#head12

The point is by saying you were affiliated with Maryland Live you were not identified.

But if he said you worked at some place where the pool of people is tiny you might be identified.

I was messaged by people, completely benevolently, that knew exactly who I was based on that post alone, and one that thought they knew who I was and were just off by a very small factor (I look very similar to who they thought I was). So yes, I was identified.

That doesn't actually matter - it's not on Rapini (or me in the fictitious situation) to decide how likely it is that I'll be identified by his post, he's not qualified to make that determination. He probably thought there were more than 16 people in the poker room with e-mail addresses like that. My private information should stay that way.

"I didn't like the way you were talking to me and making baseless accusations" is not one of the reasons that my private information should be shared - specifically according to the website privacy policy.

Maybe they recognized you based not on anything in the post, but instead on being a whiny little *****.

I haven't responded to a single one of these, because what you think of me is not relevant to what happened. I'm pressing an issue on a power tripping moderator. I get how that looks annoying. I'd be annoyed by me in the same position. That doesn't make me wrong.

It's WHY Rapini decided to violate the privacy policy of the site, I get that. It doesn't make it OK.

Look Rapini has obviously done the wrong thing by breaching the site's privacy policy. He needs to come out and apologise and we can all move forward from this.

I don't think this will happen - but I think it's important for the other moderators to at least be willing to say that he did.

Isn't there any moderator here who can boot all these guys who are insulting those who shared their interesting stories?

Yeah, let's create a new thread for criticizing poor poker thinking in people who post about other peoples' poor poker thinking.

If you want posts moderated, use the report post button, don't post in the thread asking why we didn't moderate something. You've been here a long time, you should know this by now.

I consider this thread (most absurd thinking...) to be both low content and pretty worthless in general, so I usually only moderate posts which are over the line uncivil without getting a post report from someone (and sometimes even then).

I did report one as well. No objection to moving the request here, but I didn't think to do that at first because it has been an ongoing issue in that thread, not just a problem with a few posts.

Can we make a thread to point out habitually poor posters?



(Dinesh, sorry if I was responsible for creating more work for you.)

I lean strongly against having a thread to name bad posters. I just don't see how that ends well.

I personally don't even like it when posters in a thread dig up old posts by someone and start listing out all the bad things they've said before. I mean, I get why that might be justified in some cases where a poster's reputation becomes part of (or mostly) the point of the discussion, but this should be a relatively rare thing, not the default. Let the content of the individual post speak for itself in general.

The other mods may feel differently.

I will say that we mods haphazardly keep tabs on bad posters (here, and across 2+2) to make it easier to collectively see when someone needs temp banning, exile, or permaban. But I don't think having that stuff in public leads to a civil discussion.

Well, the content of the individual post does speak for itself. But sometimes having someone bring up other posts or threads by the poster is actually very useful. It's not so much the poster's reputation (although this sometimes can become the point), as it is providing context for the poster's opinions in the current thread. I don't have the time to go back through every post or thread by some contentious poster, but on occasion it has helped a lot when someone else did that.
I also think that, in general, people tend to respond to offensive posts within the thread rather than using the Report button; they should be encouraged to use the latter more.
I would definitely not support a thread to name "bad" posters, though.

I was making a bad joke. It wasn't a serious suggestion. I should probably self ban for a few days. Been in a **** mood recently.

I like your posts.

I'm sorry for making more work for the moderators. I genuinely am. I've moderated forums in the past and I know how thankless and annoying it can be at times.


With that said, why are the same 3 or 4 posters allowed to come in and state the same wrong information over and over again. Every time I see a post where I'm like "what?", it's the same handful of people and it's almost always a discussion that's previously taken place and they've already been shown overwhelming evidence and reasoning as to why their takes are wrong.

Sigh. I'll just bow out for a bit.

I don't know what thread or posts or moderation action you're referring to, but in general I do not moderate "bad info". The antidote to bad info is good info, not moderation. Furthermore, sometimes it is subjective what is good and what is bad.

Having said that, if we feel that someone is just trolling, or is arguing or discussing in bad faith, we will moderate that.

I'm not complaining about my posts getting deleted. I'm sure it was borderline AT BEST. I just feel like there are the same 3 guys that say "That's not how it is. This is how it is." and they're just wrong 99.9% of the time, and it's often after the correct and widely accepted answer is already posted like 4 times right after the opening post. Just venting I guess. Thanks for listening.

OK, well venting is fine, go for it.

But since other people might want to know now that you brought it up, in a quick check I only found 2 recent posts of yours that were moderated here in CCP:
This is a fairly canonical example of a low content post. It's not even clear what you were referring to. Don't do this.

Then, 3 posts later:
Now I'm really confused. If there was anything quoting social media, I'm not seeing it now. Maybe it was redacted prior to moderation and now I just can't tell?

Anyway, this post is talking about prior moderation, which we don't want you to do in thread, do it here instead. But if you were quoting someone else's social media here, I can see why it would have been deleted. We don't allow posting stuff that identifies other posters or cardroom personnel here.

Yes, this is a bit of an edge case, since the OP basically suggested that people could figure out who he was, but I don't mind erring on the side of not allowing you to doxx him here, assuming that is what you did.

I'm not seeing any "same three guys saying that's not how it is, this is how it is" posts, so I really don't know what you're referring to there. But again, my moderation preference is not to moderate posts that are wrong or that I disagree with, those posts are best countered by posting right info. In extreme cases we might do something about, though, particularly if it is bothersome to other posters.

If you see posts like this, please report them, and we will take a look.

The quote was from a news article that quoted his facebook(?) during the case. That was his post to update his friends saying that "It's not loking good" with the spelling error in there. It didn't add anything to the thread and it was pretty obscure. I more than half expected it to be deleted. As I was typing the second part, I figured there was a chance it would be deleted for talking about moderation.


My complaint here was for a post I thought got deleted but I see that it's still in tact. I didn't realize it was still there until just now as I am typing this and went to see which thread it was so I could properly reference it. I made a post in a tone that usually forces your hand for removal, and I thought it was gone.

So now I've wasted even more of your time Bad beat, Dinesh. Sorry. You are the best, though and I appreciate you.

dinesh for president of 2+2!

That is all I had to say.

Any reason that the post Suit is adding to has been deleted? GL