It is absolutely our business as poker players how cardroom managers want to run their rooms so we make informed decisions where to play. I'm not sure why you would think it isn't.



I have no doubt you enforce those rules fairly and consistently. That's actually the problem. Any rules that promote censorship should be reviewed IMO. At least those rules stop just short of assigning a scarlet "D" undertitle...

A dealer really can't speak out about unfair treatment, shady floor rulings, poor company policies, etc... And that seems right???

I think you're confused. What makes you think I would disagree with your statement that poker players should be concerned with how managers run their rooms?

I personally think that anyone should be able to say anything about any poker room as long as they're 100% honest about their connection to the room (e.g., if you're a dealer, you have to tell the community that you're a dealer). But that's not the way things work here. The powers that be have decided that only authorized representatives can answer questions about their rooms and only paying advertisers can actively promote their rooms, so those are the rules we as moderators enforce. If you want that policy changed, you have to talk to the site administrators/owners, not the B&M moderators.

I think that Anonymous bitching is often chicken **** passive aggressive behavior. I don't like when players hide on the Internet to take shots at other players, dealers, or floor. I don't think it is any better when a dealer will come and do the same thing.

We are in complete agreement.

I thought that was what I was doing? Bobo Fett is involved in this discussion. I didn't move the discussion here. I assumed it was moved here because ATF is too busy with the signature mutiny.

The mods are following the rules. I'm not complaining about mods. I agree with all the rules except the rules overly restrictive towards dealers. For dealers that are not allowed to post by oppressive management, what good options does that leave?

I agree with you 100% also. That's why I don't like this rule. It encourages gimmick accounts and anonymous bs.

Is that really a common problem? I have no idea either way, but I hadn't heard of this being an issue until you mentioned it.

First of all, dealers are welcome to post here; where we run into issues is if someone wants to jump into a thread about Room XYZ and say "Hi, I work at Room XYZ and this is the way things are". First of all, how do we know they really work at Room XYZ? But granting for a moment that they do, if they have oppressive management, why would they want to post anything to help them out anyway? Which brings us to another issue - perhaps the dealer doesn't want to/isn't allowed to rep for the room because he's not happy there, and instead is out to sabotage the room. Or he works for the competition and is looking to do the same. And what if the room is OK with someone repping them here, but not Joe, as he doesn't come across very well in the forums, even though he's a great dealer.

I'm not suggesting that any of these things are common, but they are a few examples of the problems that can crop up when we allow someone to post on behalf of a poker room without any verification. It's really better for all parties concerned if we don't go down that road. If oppressive management not allowing people to post for them is a major issue, I'd like to hear about it, though.

A lot of these problems would be solved if players were allowed to comment/criticize on dealers and staff in detail.

I don't think I would go as far to say that it is a common problem, but I have seen multiple informative posts deleted over several B&M threads. (I'm in the middle between the CT casinos and AC so it's not one specific room.)

After bitchi..er, I mean making this post, more than one dealer has reached out to me telling me things are even worse than I know. One response was to the effect of, "Wait, you are just realizing how anti-dealer these forums are now?"

I'm suggesting loosening the restrictions, not simply letting anyone claim to be X or Y without verification. And not for floors and management, just dealers, cage, runners, etc...

And I'm not suggesting no verification. I'm just requesting dealers be able to get "verified" without getting their management involved. (Even if "oppressive" was an exaggeration, management can still make their lives miserable for airing dirty laundry. Bringing issues to light can help get them resolved and improve the room. That's better than bad/shady decisions being kept quiet.)

And this may not work for very small rooms with a small forum presence or with "Lurker" dealers, but active rooms where multiple posters (And maybe even some mods) know for a fact that poster x is a dealer, shouldn't that be enough to "verify" said dealer and allow him or her to post opinions?

Same problems.

You got barred (legitimately) from casino X. You want to be able to come here and bash the Manager, Barack Romney, by name.

Dealer Y dealt you a couple of bad beats and then stopped one of your favorite angles. You want to be able to come here and bash her by ename?

Dealer Z is your girlfriend. You want to be able to come here and proclaim her the best in Vegas and should be toked heavily and

And then there is the issue of liability. 2+2 is responsible for what is posted and allowed to remain here. So you are going to have debates "why is post A allowed but not post B?"

I would advise dealers not to publicly identify where they work. Forget moderation rules .... it just limits what you can freely say.

I have friends who have had problems because someone complained to their management about posts they made.

While there are people here who know me and where I work ... they are people I trust.

There is one member of the management at my room who knows my username. That is only because he knew it before I worked in the room. I certainly would not want my posts to be under the scrutiny of my manager. Even though I rarely get involved in posts about my room ..... there are issues which I do post about where my posts may be critical of rules or policies that my room uses.

If you are a dealer on this forum I would strongly urge you not to identify the place you work.

Following what psandman said, most if not all casinos have language in their handbook that would forbid dealers from posting about the casino. If you work in a casino, just don't reveal who you are or where you work.

Some of your other suggestions were good and, as we've already established, you and I are on the same page w/r/t people being able to say whatever they want as long as they're honest about their affiliations.

However, the portion of your post I quoted above is absolutely LOLtastic. Whoever said that this forum is anti-dealer couldn't have been an active poster on this forum when *TT* was in charge. I'm confident that dealers who posted during that time -and- since then would say that B&M is much more dealer-friendly now.

I'd bet that the dealer who reached out to you tried to promote his/her place of business in violation of the forum guidelines before he/she contacted 2+2 advertising to be authorized. The time to discuss the rules and attempt to change them is before you break them, not after.

That's good practical advice. I would hate to hear about a dealer who was disciplined in the workplace for participating in this community.

I'm not sure if this counts as "oppressive management", or if it is really a major issue, but a number of poker rooms/corporations (CET comes to mind as a prime example) have strict rules against their employees - even the poker room managers - from making posts. Which is sad, IHMO, because the poker rooms lose out on a valuable marketing tool this way.

However, that is the corporate policy and unless/until it changes I don't see what can be done.

Here's the problem, as I see it (and pretty much echoing what Angus posted already): How does one "verify" that what the dealer is saying is really the case? What happens when the poker room management and/or higher corporate authorities find out about the posts?

Sure, some valuable and usefull information can be gotten out by allowing poker room employees to post without corporate authority - but the problems, both potential and real, remain.

As it is, if a poker room manager or dealer really wants to get information onto these boards, all that they have to do is ask someone who plays in the room to make the post. Nothing against the rules in my posting, for example:

"The 4 CET properties in Atlantic City are running monthly $75,000 freerolls! Play a minimum of 50 hours in April to earn your way into the May 30th freeroll. 10,000 starting chips. If you play at least 80 hours, then you start with 12,000 in chips, with a minimum of 100 hours played earning you a 15,000 chip starting stack."

But if a dealer at one of those rooms (Showboat, Bally's, Caesars, and Harrah's) makes the same exact post, it violates the rules of 2+2 as well as CET corporate policy. Silly? Maybe - but them's the rules and they really aren't hard to understand and follow.

Lee

In regards to B&M in general, I think everyone will agree it is far less strict now than even a year ago. Let's not get hung up on semantics. I said "anti-dealer." They (More than one dealer) were just telling me about the high number of their informative posts that were deleted.

I am not saying mods or the site itself dislikes dealers, but the rules make it prohibitive for dealers to share information.

And no, it had absolutely nothing to do with promoting their room. The post that was deleted (that sparked my post) was something to the effect of:

"There is a problem with the Bravo system and it should be resolved and back online by the weekend."

It was deleted because the poster was a dealer. There is no good reason that a post like that shouldn't be allowed IMO.

The same way one "verifies" what any poster says.

Like the following statements:

"The BBJ is quad jacks beaten"
"The Bravo system is up and running"
"All our tables have automatic shufflers"
"The BBJ is $300,000"
"There's a 5/10 NL game running"

They can be confirmed or disproved. It doesn't matter if it's a dealer or player who says something. They are right or wrong, it's that simple.

If they see a post like the above examples, they would have no issue assuming the info is correct. And if the post is an opinion and/or negative about the room, all the better that management sees it and can hopefully address the issue. This is all the more reason management shouldn't be involved in the verifying poster x is an employee so there is no retaliation.

Any verification that poster x is actually a dealer should be handled internally within the forum IMO.

That freeroll "post" is absolutely the type of post I am NOT defending. Any discussion of promotions and attempts to increase traffic should be done by authorized room reps, confirmed between 2+2 and the poker room management. Also possibly subject to ad fees because 2+2 is obviously a business first.

I will use an example of a room in California. I won't name the room since I have not played there and have no firsthand knowledge but have read multiple complaints regarding the room. There are claims of floors with questionable ethics. The floor pressures players into tipping them and provides favorable treatment to those who tip generously (at the expense of other who do not tip).

A dealer cannot speak out against something shady they see without lying and saying they are a player, creating a gimmick account, or risking losing their job if they followed the current verification process and the management knows poster x = John Doe.

It would be surprising if I'm the only one that takes issue with this.

The admins want the forum to comply with a casino's rules. If management doesn't want their dealers posting, 2+2 wants to comply with their wishes and not allow them to post. Just as players discussing anything that violates a casino's rules or policies is prohibited.

Rather than individually check with the countless poker rooms on what their policies are regarding this, they created a catch-all rule for it, and make exceptions as warranted (re: authorized room rep). Instead of "employees can post, unless prohibited", it's "employees can't post, unless authorized".

This is exactly why a dealer should not identify themselves officially or not. But it would be stupid for a dealer to publicly make this kind of post anyway. Driving away business is not good for your tokes.

If this is true, it seems completely misguided to me. Why should 2+2 be concerned about following possibly arbitrary rules the casino would like to impose on dealers or players, in a (mostly) public forum not run by the casino?

What if casino X contacts 2+2 and says they do not want players discussing anything about their casino on the forums. Will moderators then remove the casino thread? Delete any posts made anywhere mentioning that casino?

Right. Business and profits before honesty.

You can't see the difference between:

I am a dealer at Trey's Wild Cardroom and my club is ...

I play at Trey's Wild Cardroom and the club is ...

The first gives the appearance of an "official" statement. The casino might have a claim to control what is posted in that manner.

The second is an opinion. The casino has no claim to control the content (as long as not libelous, etc. Then 2+2 will take it down because they will be held responsible).

No. Why would they? Players talking about a casino in general isn't against that casino's rules. Discussing why a poker room sucks is allowed. Discussing ways to sneak into the players lounges wouldn't be tolerated. Do you see the difference?

I seriously don't understand how this reply has anything to do with my post.
I didn't even mention dealers, only players. Of course I see the difference, I am talking only about rules for players.

You seemed to be linking 2+2's following a casino's request that no identified employees post about their club to a casino's request that nothing (or maybe just nothing negative) be posted.

Yes I see the difference, but I was responding to your post, where you did not mention any difference. You said: "Just as players discussing anything that violates a casino's rules or policies is prohibited." How do you know that "Players talking about a casino in general isn't against that casino's rules"?

I certainly would understand if a casino would not want anything bad about them mentioned on the internet, wouldn't you? So Casino X informs 2+2 that they do not want any posts about their casino on 2+2, or at least any negative ones.
Then if someone says why they don't like Casino X, would you delete that? Your post certainly implied that it would, though maybe that was not your intention.

OK I now understand what you meant, but I did not link the two, Lattimer did:

"If management doesn't want their dealers posting, 2+2 wants to comply with their wishes and not allow them to post. Just as players discussing anything that violates a casino's rules or policies is prohibited."

I am just saying that a casino's rules about anyone posting are arbitrary and could be over restrictive. I see no reason 2+2 should follow the wishes of the casino with regards to what either dealers or players should be allowed to post.

I think it is clear that when he said "anything that violates a casino's rules or policies" he meant things like underage play, sleeping in your car, etc, not "Players are not allowed to talk about the club". We aren't talking about the Fight Club. Or underground rooms.

Because the casino has no jurisdiction over what a patron says. Let's be realistic and not discuss extreme hypotheticals. Such a thing is not against any casino's rules.

If the admins received such a request, decided to grant it, and informed us of it, then yes, we would have to delete such posts. But to my knowledge, they've never received such a request. And it's extremely doubtful that they'd ever grant it.