this thread kinda...

This is a good attempt to parse the language. Considering one of your mods, who denied the post, and pretty much every mod that has posted in this thread, interprets and calls it as No Charities Allowed, simple policy right?!?!?!?

Not to mention that the original posts never solicited money, or provided a direct process to ask for donations from your users (to the best of knowledge). They referred to a charity podcast, its guest list and so on. It is possible to listen to the podcast without giving money.

What you're suggesting is the OP's posted here saying "this is a great cause you can donate at HERE.com" which is not the case at all.

If you can't be bothered to look into an event of this sort just say so. It strikes me as odd that someone will take the time to pull up tax records on a charity but won't check out the actual link to the event. And then the notion that these are just volunteer mods who can't be expected to look into these things is thrown around.

And to the person who thinks only 11-12 people in the entire world think the policy could possibly be changed; you know there are other outlets besides 2+2, from what I have seen there is a good percentage of people who think it's a little overzealous.

I get the policy; I get the reasoning behind it. I also get the school policy of not bringing weapons, but don't quite grasp suspending a 9 year-old kid for bringing a cake knife to school with a cake they were asked to bring. Sometimes common sense and discretion trump policy.

I wasn't very clear in my post but what I really had in mind wasn't your response but ProfessionalPoker's reported response.

I don't think that you responded to the gist of my post though. I think that at 2+2 there has been a blurring of what constitutes advertising. If for example I were to write an article in the Sacramento Bee about a new Vet opening up, it is an advertisement for the Vet; yet it isn't a paid advertising for the newspaper. They are two separate things. The Vet got some free advertising because it was a newsworthy story.

When someone makes a post in News, Views and Gossip I believe that the newsworthiness (or gossip worthiness) of the post needs to be taken into consideration in deciding whether to give the poster a free pass in that particular thread. I don't think that that has been happening and has consequently caused some unnecessary problems including that of the rift between you and Negreanu.

Wow, if they were a passive agressive forum at 2+2, you sir would def be sticky there

No language is being parsed. In almost every request we get to solicit money it is a charity. But I'll give you an example that goes back to 2006. Someone named Michael Bolcerek (and I'm not sure I have the spelling right) came on our site to solicit money for an organization called The Poker Player's Alliance, and at that time we had never heard of it. So we threw him off 2+2, and I think you'll agree that the PPA is not a charity.

I never saw the original posts.

I did just say no. As I posted previously, my response to the PM I received was:

"I'm sorry but it's 2+2 policy not to support any charities.

Mason"

The issue with the moderator looking up the tax return was done on his own volition. No instructions from 2+2 management were involved. However, my best guess as in why this was done was that in the UCare thread something similar was done and many felt that it shed useful information in that situation.

Okay.

MM

For someone who supposedly writes for a living, you really don't parse very well, do you?

What I said was:

a.) There are only 11 - 12 people in this thread requesting a change. Count 'em yourself. Far more people in posting in the thread support the policy. And that ignores the silent majority who don't appear to feel strongly one way or another.

Would I change a policy that worked for my site on the basis of 11 or 12 whiners -- a couple of who, like Negreanu and yourself -- don't even read or post here? Not a chance.

b.) If this site doesn't meet your needs, find one that does.

So yes, of course I know there are other outlets. Not sure why you're not posting there rather than here?

Actually, I am sure. 2+2 is the big fish in the pond. It gets significantly more traffic than any of the other sites. Consequently, what they're doing is working. People want to utilize that traffic that someone else has built, in order to promote their own projects for free.

If a charity is that important to you, put your hand in your own pocket and pay for an advertisement. As it is, what you're seeking to do is force somebody else (2+2 -- and by extension, Mason) to donate *their* time and resources to save you having to donate your own.

That's hardly my idea of a charitable act. More like the action of a self-centred narcissist, to my mind.

This is a poker website. Not an advertise yourself/charity/business for free website. There is obviously a huge difference.

That's not to say 2p2 doesn't care about poker sites potentially being an issue as well. The mods of this forum have led the charge on several of the investigations into poker site shenanigans in the past. In fact lots of times it's threads like those that turn out the best posters which eventually lead to someone becoming a mod.

I believe 2p2 in general is even helping for promotion of the UB Cheating Video that's coming out for free or really cheap.

This

And this is the crux of the matter. There have been numerous threads on 2+2 about other podcasts. When BF hit, QuadJacks got lots of links on 2+2 because there was news going on and even notice about future speakers was permitted. I won't speak for the mods who made those decisions, but I believe it was because there was value to the readers in being made aware of the events going on. Therefore, the mere fact that it is a podcast doesn't preclude it from being a thread. In addition, the fact that it hadn't taken place doesn't preclude it.

In this case, the main purpose of the podcast to to raise money, much like the Jerry Lewis marathon. In reading the various posts, nowhere have I seen anything that indicated that any subject of interest was going to be discussed outside of raising money. You yourself couldn't avoid combining "charity" with "podcast." Now if someone had posted, "DN is coming on this podcast with Jennifer Harmon and Erick Lindgren to discuss what it was like to be part of the top team on FTP and how they felt about taking all the money," it would be newsworthy and people would want to listen to it.

I, being a complete outsider to the management of 2+2, believe that the fund raising rules are in part based on 2+2's experience with the coaching forum. Despite an actual warning that is put on the screen each time you go on the forum that 2+2 does not endorse or guarantee any coach's value, people continually complain that 2+2 doesn't vet the coaches. Even though they have to click an "I accept" button to continue. As a businessman, it is a rational decision to decide to err on the side of caution. It leaves a sour taste in many posters' mouths about 2+2 when they feel they were mislead, even though they said they knew exactly what is going on. It hurts the 2+2 brand when this happens.

Finally I'm sure Mason Malmuth cringes at times about what Mods post on 2+2 and he wishes they would be more professional. However, mods do not have an agency relationship with 2+2. It is a independent contractor relationship. Mods don't represent 2+2 and 2+2 doesn't not control their behavior. 2+2 gives them an assignment and each does it according to their own norms. 2+2 can and does get rid of them at times and mods also can quit. But it is a category mistake in wondering why there isn't a uniform standard of behavior for mods.

Its not polite to name urself first Daniel

fyp

This is sort of an aside., but I think it makes sense to post in this thread. We (Mason, me, the moderators) make changes to our policies all the time based on user feedback. Someone might start a thread, for instance, saying something like "Twoplustwo should change their policy on xyz."

If we see that a significant number of users agree that we should reevaluate a policy or specific decision, we give it a lot of thought and discussion and frequently comply.

Personally, I think that's just stupid. The only time I will ever consider changing my mind about anything is if somebody calls me a scumbag. Then I'll just roll right over and do whatever that person wants me to do.

I only ever saw one thread in the proper forum (ATF) complaining about the decision, and the OP of that thread has admitted he made a couple of mistakes with how that thread was started. We've had numerous threads in ATF complaining about moderation, administration, and other site issues, and it's pretty rare that they're deleted. Same goes for threads with issues about advertisers. That was PA's point, and it's one of the things that makes me proud to be associated with 2+2 - lots of people may not agree with certain decisions or policies, but discussion and criticism of those decisions or policies is permitted fairly liberally, if it's done in a reasonable and respectful manner.

Speaking to the bigger issue of whether we should just have a charities subforum, let anyone post in it, and let the buyer beware - while this sounds like a simple solution, and certainly would be from a moderation point of view, I believe it's a terrible idea. It isn't just about whether posters can separate the scams from the legitimate on their own - what do you think a forum like that would look like? I'd expect it to be at least 50% full of shams and scams, and I can't see any reason why we'd want to give them a venue like that.

OK, change to what, and why?

You mean the person who said that 11-12 people in this thread thought the policy should be changed?

No one is disagreeing that there will be other people outside these forums that think the policy should be changed, but when reading responses to articles about 2+2 on other forums, in blogs, etc., it's always good to remember that the whole story often isn't told, either intentionally or unintentionally, and often the rationale behind decisions isn't known or understood without a discussion like this. That's not to say that some people still wouldn't disagree with the policy after having read this thread, but I suspect there are many that would change their minds.

LOL.

While this doesn't necessarily apply to this particular case, it is amazing how many people think the best approach to getting administration to change their minds is to berate and insult them.

It should be noted that the thread about 2+2 and charities in ATF was nuked as the person who started the thread has vanished.

Who cares.

A majority of regular posters in NVG should be locked in padded cells and not be allowed to express their opinions ever.

Considering the person you are referring to has just apparently been banned and all of his posts have been deleted; and he has essentially been wiped out of existence here at 2plus2, I'm not so sure you are correct.

So the policy is basically "No charities or solicitations for money unless it benefits 2+2, because then it is worth the time and energy to research your charity or solicitation. We do not want to give our resources away for no reason."

It sounds perfectly tough but fair. You're not a greedy scumbag for trying to profit in a for profit company, and not a hypocritical loser for having exceptions that only benefit the owner(s) and company. Nitpicking at omg no charities is so lol when it's obviously just a polite way of saying we only support certain causes, most of which must benefit us in some way.

Not quite. The policy is No solicitation for money allowed except under special circumstances. Notice the "unless it benefits 2+2" is not part of this statement. And if you want an example, go to the "Books and Publications Forum" and look at the different discussions of the non-2+2 books. We do not benefit from many of these, yet they are welcome on our website.

I think a better way of putting this is that we believe strongly in capitalism and free markets, and of course we are a for profit company. And by this we do accept ads that some posters are critical of, partly because we don't have the ability, nor the inclination, to check-out every company that approaches us for advertising.

However, when it comes to our attention, and this has happened a number of times, that there is a problem with either the company or specific product, and we are unable to get a satisfactory response from the purchaser of the advertising, we stop the ad and refund all money for ads not yet run. So this makes us a little less inclined towards always making and maximizing a profit than some of you may think.

Best wishes,
Mason

/thread

Mason likes to bring up his charity as if having a one makes him a good guy. Who benefits from MM's charity?

Tennis lessons anyone?

DN obv has a grudge and we all know he holds those. I mean he is still mad because someone poked a little fun at him for chewing on a cup. It could have been handled better but at the end of the day that's for 2+2 to handle.

DN has a site let him promote it if he wants. In my eyes he is just jealous because his forum is supposed to be the big one because he is DN! He takes pictures with people and doesn't eat animals!

Phil Hellmuth, Erick Lindgrin, and plenty of others are all cool in his eyes but 2+2 is a bunch of scumbags because they wont let a charity advertise for free. He needs to get over himself

No. I only bring up our foundation to show that the policy we enforce on these forums also applies to me. I think that should be obvious.

By the way, my days teaching tennis ended approximately 40 years ago.

MM

Having been a mod myself on another site this really is /thread

Why not have a 2+2 subforum for charities, charity events, etc .

It would obviously be a low traffic subforum, and have a giant 2+2 notice that says we are not responsible for yada yada yada nor do we endorse yada yada yada.

And you would still be able to move those 2% of charity opportunites (as you see fit) into NVG or whatever for the better traffic.

Obviously it would be the smartest decision but I think we all know it is not about finding the best solution. Not anymore, anyways.