Okay dude, you had it explained to you and you just don't get it. Time to take the L and move on.

I've been the target of more than a couple personal attacks and character assassinations in the past as well. This is also why I rarely contribute to a discussion in this forum anymore.

mod: DT, appreciate the response. Normally I would point you to the moderation thread for discussion, but in this case I'll respond here for you.

Obviously, I disagree that it should have been done earlier; that's why I did it when I did it, and not before. The previous posts were edging closer and closer to the line, but the offending post (which I deleted, which you may not have even seen) crossed the line, which is why I deleted it and made my mod post above. It's possible I missed one, or perhaps might make a different decision if I thought about it again today - it is subjective at times, and I sometimes make mistakes.

I want for this forum to be welcoming to posters both new and old. This should be obvious from the rules we have here, particularly as compared to some of the other more rough and tumble forums here on 2p2.

Having said that, I do not want or intend to be the arbiter of truth here. I may occasionally appear in these threads, posting my opinion, and disagreeing with others. Those are my personal opinions, and I hope and trust I am treated just like any other participant. People are allowed to disagree, and have debates and discussions, I just ask them to do so politely and constructively.

All of which is to say, I'm not going to delete posts just because I disagree with them, either in content or in format or in approach. Plenty of people here seem to think that your history as a poster is very relevant to the assessment of your questions and claims in this or other posts. I am not going to tell this forum what is or isn't appropriate to consider when responding to your posts or questions, within reason. Saying that you are unreasonable, or have a history of complaining, or that you present a one-sided version of events, is not a violation of the rules, whether or not you (or I) agree with them. As long as they treat you with the baseline amount of respect, I am generally going to allow them to do so, and allow you to respond in kind.

Personally, I find the sort of piling on that happens here responding to your posts pretty distasteful. I don't necessarily disagree with the assessments, mind you, but the joy people seem to take in talking about you makes me think less of them. But that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee. I am not generally going to moderate someone's posts unless it is violating the rules.

I can't really say anything about the other forums here or your strat posts. I do hope you stick around here, because you help give this forum life, and because I think you are asking honest questions and hoping for honest answers. That is exactly what this forum is for.

Having said that, we have a set of rules, and I try to moderate to those rules. If you think a rule should be changed to make CCP more welcoming, please feel free to propose it in the moderation thread. If you think a post should be moderated, please feel free to report it. If you think my choices or discretion in what or how to moderate is lacking, please feel free to raise the issue in the moderation thread, or to take it to Lattimer or ATF or to Max directly.

Thanks.

Could have been action offered and accepted. More likely floor had a brain fart and was thinking NL game for a sec.

I agree if the floor was trying to make a point by increasing the penalty due to history, that was wrong. But history will always be part of the analysis of the facts because it impacts credibility. If two conflicting fact patterns are shared, you have to look at credibility.

Yeah I just think the problem with this approach is that it rewards rules nits and angle shooters. Having some leeway in enforcing the rules has the positive effect of giving the floors a tool to protect less savvy players.

That being said my position will always be to err on the side of not punishing a player for having a total brainfart if it’s within the bounds of the rules to do so. It would also be to err on the side of not making predatory rulings where a player is obviously put in a really punitive position if possible. So I definitely would not go out of my way to debate a floor that thought it was better to let him fold. I also would hope that I would have the integrity to not allow the floor to make him go all in when it’s a pot limit game.

I do think joke all ins are really bad form and would make me side eye anyone that does it. I have seen players say “all in” without any cards and caused people to act behind and it’s never funny, certainly not as funny as the person saying it thinks it is. I think certainly the floor did not have his best moment but I can see a salty old tough guy floorman say something like that with the idea of sending a message and nip such behavior in the bud. OP may have also just gotten on the bad side of someone with a grudge.

I have already posted my concerns in the moderation forum.

Just as we have all seen in court portrayals .. Some witnesses are limited to black/white answers (yes/no). When you have a history of black/white opinions on the Rules of Poker then you probably should expect a black/white result of any spots you are involved with.


"For the good of the game" Short term or long term? Did the Floor get the whole story? Is this a good/bad, new/experienced Floor?

Perhaps the Floor thought that "For the good of the game" it was wise to rule this way in this spot whereas they may have ruled differently in a seemingly similar spot the other way. GL

Black and White rules are what angle shooters thrive on.

*Chuckle*...DT, I hope you put your concerns "All In" the moderation forum....*Chuckle*

In all honestly, we know saying dangerous phrases like Call, Fold, Raise, All In around a poker table can be binding, regardless if you say them when action is on you or not. That's what was supposed to make it a good joke towards the guy on the rail. Someone called it out, and it turned into a sour joke.

Whether it makes it a good joke is very subjective.

Buh bye now