You do realize by my post count that I don't post here right???

I think he means generally speaking, not you in particular.

THIS

Charities here should be "let the buyer beware" and the mods shouldn't censor posts about them, unless they are either clearly a scam or some form of backdoor spam.

An intelligent person can usually quickly deduce whether a charity is legitimate or shady.

If you are going to take the stance of "2+2 doesn't support or allow any charities", then you are going to look like a hypocrite when you allow any thread that raises money for any cause or person.

This 22Q foundation is clearly legitimate, and Mason should have just allowed it.

Tony G (Poker Pro, Olympic Basketball) hahaha

Really?? You are an idiot...

Got any money on FTP? Cause it was clearly legitimate.

Did you spend any time playing Epic Poker League events because of the freeroll? Because about a hundred of the best poker players in the world did, because it was clearly legitimate.

Ever play on Ultimate Bet? It looked clearly legitimate too.

Acting as if VERY intelligent people can decipher scams is ridiculous. Acting as if every single person can decipher a scam is borderline ******ed. Tons of really smart people would have no idea where to even start, and that's before we discuss that we shouldn't be making policies to protect the smartest posters on here. We have lots of international people with language barriers, we have less internet savvy users who wouldn't know where to look things up, etc etc.

And before someone says "well that's their own fault!" Well of course it is. But that doesn't mean we should just setup a forum for scammers to come in and take advantage of them.

I also find it pretty hilarious that people want to come into this thread and proclaim that 2p2's reputation is going to be somehow harmed because of it's almost universal no spamming/charity policy.

Do you think 2p2's reputation is going to be helped when some scam artist creates a fake charity and scams the poker community out of a bunch of money that we let him advertise for free?

It should be a requirement to read the entire UCARE thread before posting in this one.

2+2 prefers to convict ten innocent men then to let one guilty one go free.

I'm growing tired of Daniel's calling everyone "scumbags" for doing something he disagrees with (even though many on that list I whole heartedly agree are scumbags). It may be a silly thread deletion, and the rule probably could take a looking at, but DN needs to get off the rag a little and realize the entire poker world doesn't need his personal play-by-play.

This coming from a guy who had met/had drinks/dinner with DN a few times and find him to be a great, laid back dude.

/opinion

Doesnt that count as bringing up a charity. I call for a tempban of Mason immediately or at minimum deletion of the comment and a 20pt infraction.

I wouldn't expect a vegan to get this butt hurt about a temp ban.

Using your reasoning, no pokersite, business entity or charity should ever be referred to in these forums because you just never know.

And yet those sites were allowed to advertise on 2+2, and you continue to accept advertising revenue from US facing sites, despite the possibility that they may have funds seized at any time and are 'licensed' under some questionable authorities.

You also carry quite a number of clearly dodgy adverts through network advertising - assorted asian dating and 'mom's weird secret' to name but two.

Of course, these people pay....

I am sure DN would have more of a case if he was actually a part of the 2p2 community rather than someone who occasionally posts when he wants to promote something.

And there we have our answer.

If the 22Q Foundation wanted to pay to advertise their podcast here, does anyone believe Mason would have turned down their money?

Bottom line is that Mason is such a greedy and ruthless businessman that he freaks out whenever he believes anyone or anything is using 2+2 to promote something without giving him a piece.

It doesn't matter if it's for a good cause. Mason still wants his piece.

Daniel Negreanu's ridiculous ban for "spam" also was a result of this policy, which is probably why DN was so heated when he saw it happening to someone else.

If you guys want to defend Mason's right to be a greedy a-hole on his own site, go right ahead. However, don't delude yourselves into thinking that he's refusing to allow charities to post here in order to protect his precious users.

Right here is another great post.

I am so sick of the black-and-white, all-or-nothing mentality that exists with some of the mods here.

You can try using your best judgment and common sense as to what is best for the site.

Wait, what is that you say? Mason won't let you?

Okay, carry on...

Well the cool guys like DN dont hangaround with Slimy Nerdy 2+2 micro donks. He rather hang around with cool guys like Jason Somerville.

FYP.

2+2 is a for profit business. We certainly do accept paid advertisements.

We also have supported a number of causes where we did not charge. An example is the PPA and all the great work that Rich Muny does where we do not charge them for a sponsored forum or banner ads. Another example is we have allowed poster Eleven Grover to run a thread designed to help raise money for his Ultimate Bet documentary.

We have a no self-promotion policy. There are many reasons for this and it applies to everyone.

But I don't allow the Mason and Charmaine Malmuth Foundation to post here even though it was set up to accept donations from others. And I guarantee that if our policy was different, this would be the first charity to go up, and it's been in existence since the beginning of 2007. So in this regard, you might want to read post #49 in this thread.

Also, thanks for the insult.

MM

But this site wasn't advertising the podcast. Someone unrelated to it had simply pointed out its existence just as you've pointed out the existence of your charity twice now in this thread. The podcast is essentially a telethon with many celebrities, and as such stands on its own as a newsworthy event irrespective of the legitimacy of the charity itself.

Also, I don't think that you should ignore the heavy handed way such a sensitive endeavor was dealt with.

It's pretty sick to see people insisting so much to get free advertising. Do you guys go to the New York Times and insult the owner if they do not want to publish your story? Do you do the same with CNN? And what about bullying your way in a movie despite the director's will?

Also, the fact that a charity is putting so much presure is pretty tilting. Is it not suppose to work for the public good? Then how come insisting on spamming a website that does not want it would do any good? Quite weird, and quite far from what I would expect from a charity.

There's a misconception here that I want to correct. Our policy isn't "no charities allowed." It's actually, "no solicitation for money allowed except under special circumstances." However, in probably 98 percent of the requests or more, it's some sort of charity, so it appears as "no charities allowed."

Part of the reason why "no charities" has gotten so much publicity is that there has unfortunately been some concerns in this area. Three that quickly come to mind are Ante Up for Africa, The CEO Poker Tour Charity, and more recently Ucare. And all of these have had extensive threads.

Also, when you say heavy handed, this was my response when I replied to the charity/radio show request:

I don't think that's heavy handed. But we at 2+2 do agree that while all correspondence in matters such as this can be short and direct, they also need to be polite, and we'll get the word out to all our moderators that this is our policy.

One last thought. This site is successful because of all the work that our moderators do, and they are all volunteer moderators. So please keep that in mind.

Mason

2+2 heads in charge

lighten up francis

really

time to change

change is good

Don't sell yourself short, kind sir. It's successful because of the very select few at the top, not keyboard cowboys.