What you really mean is,

"In NVG I don't care who dates who."

You are not representative of EVERYONE.

But you impose your views on EVERYONE.

And kill discussion by stopping EVERYONE from being able to express their different thinking to yours.

There are tons of tv dating shows, papers are full of stories about people dating, so clearly people, including poker aficionados, are interested in who dates who, even if you don't care.

But unsubstantiated gossip about Ivey's mental health is apparently ok.

Ok tkanks bro, didnt know about the buttons and features as I am new here.

I derailed a bit I admit and accept the temp ban.

But I had a really bad feeling when I got banned after I called out a poster that used the word "mongoloid" It is the same as a n word. You cannot use it anymore.

And they didnt ban the guy who posted it to my knowledge. That was very unfair and cruel.

I was thinking the same. RR you might be a good guy, but appear to moderate like a dictator sometimes.

And I am pretty sure you banned me right after I went after the guy who used the word mongoloid. You can say all you want, that my posts were garbage, crazy whatever. But this...

The post from him is still up and me instantly banned after mentioning the wrong/offensive use of a no more socially accepted word.

I think a lot of people have had a very negative experience because of that and will never come back!

Dont you want a good poker community here? Or anywhere?

I thought the Jay Why thing was already dealt with. Old news?

Other that that I have no recollection of why I banned you. I actually think it was a different account you had. How many accounts have you posted from in the Postle thread? I rarely ban people so there must have been something going on with that account.

I'm not even going to answer your last question which is pretty ridiculous.

Maybe I'll change my undertitle to The Great Dictator. I've always been a fan of Charlie Chaplin.

No, it wasn't dealt with at all. Someone else pointed out you say "we" when in fact it is just you, and you did not reply to that.

The same point is made a second time, and you inaccurately say it has already been responded to.

You are using your prejudices to stop people from freely expressing themselves, and then pretending you do it because other people agree with you. But they don't, you just make them up to justify your censorship of alternate views that other more even minded moderators are happy to leave, as they understand the importance of a varied discussion, rather than one person controlling and limiting a discussion.

It is a shame trigger happy reactionary moderators who exploit their editorial capacity cant be moderated.

Really? R*R's all on his own here, and there's no one that agrees that they don't want threads about who is dating who?

There's a whole lot of assumptions being made in your post. Also a pretty hostile tone, from the outset - maybe your experience has been different than mine, but I don't usually find such a tone is all that conducive to changing people's minds.

Hi Bobo, let's have a look at R*R's tone in one of his replies, to see he standards he is setting,

"I am not going to write a detailed response to the banning of that moron. As far as I'm concerned that would be a complete waste of time. I apologize for not appeasing you.

I'll give the short answer now. He's a moron. He's banned. But, by all means, you go ahead and plead his case. But I would have preferred you didn't use the sanctimonious make the forum better bull**** on me."

Which breaks the sites own guidelines

"Updated NVG Rules made simple: Don't be ignorant, don't be rude, don't troll, don't flame, don't insult people."

And then to have someone like that who breaks the forum rules making judgements on others breaking forum rules is phreaky.

And it does stop genuine debate, he closed a totally valid thread I had started about Maurice Hawkins, R*R's using the same sort of approach that JFK used to shut Veronica up in the Postle case, and so try to silence the consideration and then possible substantiation of possible wrong doing. But if you block people even talking about it, you block substantiation. So not good to see moderation that prevents discussion, rather than supporting it.

I periodically make the following post that may be somewhat relevant or informative at times like this:

NVG is moderated by a small group of moderators, super-moderators, and 2+2 admin that work as a team to keep NVG running smoothly with a minimum of consternation.

While it is impractical to discuss every post deletion or minor points infraction decision, most of the larger mod decisions/issues are discussed in the NVG mod thread over in the (private) 2+2 mod forum.

Sometimes prospective mod actions are raised ("I am thinking of closing thread X for the following reasons, what do you think?") and sometimes mod actions are reported after the fact for feedback ("I just closed thread X for the following reasons, any objections?").

Not every decision receives unanimous agreement as to the single best course of action, but disagreements are rare and everybody on the mod team supports the ultimate decision reached.

Accordingly, it is often best to think of NVG mod decisions as coming from the NVG mod team as a whole. People are encouraged to post in this thread or PM any of the NVG mods if you disagree with a mod action and want to get an explanation for it.

But there are clearly times when it is not best to consider a decision as coming from the NVG mod team as a whole, such as when an individual moderator says

"I am not going to write a detailed response to the banning of that moron. As far as I'm concerned that would be a complete waste of time. I apologize for not appeasing you.

I'll give the short answer now. He's a moron. He's banned. But, by all means, you go ahead and plead his case. But I would have preferred you didn't use the sanctimonious make the forum better bull**** on me."

Why? What does that have to do with anything? Even if he's a complete and utter ******* to everyone he deals with (which he isn't), why does that make it any more productive for you to jump on a post he made 8 weeks ago and start in with hostility? I'm not saying you can't - but what is it you're trying to accomplish? If it's just to take him to task, well mission accomplished I guess. But if it's to suggest he change his approach, I can't see how that's a productive way to start things off.

This quote seems important to you, since you posted it twice. It would be nice to know where it's from, because I can't find it.

LOL. Seriously?

Yes, there are rules against being rude and insulting. Are they enforced on every single post? Would anyone want them to be? Let's try to have this discussion with a little more sincerity than that. I think some of your points have merit, or at least are being argued from a good place - don't cloud that with silliness like the suggestion that because a mod has made rude or insulting posts, it's "phreaky" that they be a mod.

I don't think bringing up that thread really helps you a whole lot. If you genuinely believed Hawkins was the next Postle, there are plenty of Hawkins threads you could have reposted that in, and where the post probably should have gone in the first place. I find it really, really hard to believe that if you felt so strongly about Hawkins cheating in the same way, you would just drop it after that thread was locked, never to bring it up again until now.

Now, back to my original question that got no response - "R*R's all on his own here, and there's no one that agrees that they don't want threads about who is dating who?"

Jay Why, I don't have time to get back to you tonight but I will respond to you as soon as I can.

My recollection of the situation had me thinking it was dealt with (but maybe it wasn't). I'll take some time and do a bit of research on this.

What did I want to accomplish? Consideration of whether he was doing the things that he was trying to prevent others doing.

And if he was being trigger happy in stopping differing views.

So not just about the dating thread, but his general moderating.

And making an environment for where a discussion on Hawkins were possible, as other Hawkins threads would have been pre-Postle, so a specific one on possible Postle - like behaviour (Hawkins looking down at his crotch before playing a hand in a streamed game) seemed reasonable. Yes, one could say my suggestion was unsubstantiated, but if the thread had been left open others may have found evidence, and it would then have been substantiated, or no evidence could have been found, and it would have been unsubstantiated. Others may have found more evidence I haven't so far. But to prevent the discussion from happening was poor decision making in my eyes. The thread had 3,000 views, so others were interested in it as well.

I hadn't followed up on this earlier as I was following the Postle case, to see what he had done, so then I could look for similar behaviour from Hawkins.

The quote was taken from one of his posts between pages 70 - 73 of this thread.

I am sure you have better things to do than defending a moderator who goes around calling people he disagrees with morons. I have better things to do than get engaged in talk about that silly behaviour. I have said what I think, and that for me is the end of the matter.

No one has ever prevented that discussion. The only thing that was prevented was you doing it in a brand new thread.

Thanks. Not sure why search was letting me down before, but I found it now.

Actually, I've done very little defending of him to this point. But it does seem rather pointless discussing him with you, as you appear to have little interest in doing so in a rational manner, when you characterize him as someone who "goes around calling people he disagrees with morons", as if that's what he does with everyone who disagrees with him. Congrats on finding his post from 9 months ago where he did that. Just for fun, I did a search. He also called someone a moron in 2016, and in 2013. Yup, sure sounds like he "goes around calling people he disagrees with morons".

Hmm...apparently I no longer have anything better to do with my time.

Cool. Then I guess I'll assume that I know the answer to my question:

"R*R's all on his own here, and there's no one that agrees that they don't want threads about who is dating who?"

Which is that you have no idea, of course. How could you? Because just like R*R wasn't speaking for everyone, neither were you.

I hope to respond to all of this on the weekend. Anyhow....

Jay Why

You posted quotes from me in other forums, some of which weren't even my posts. The post has been deleted. I am not going to defend myself for posts in forums I don't mod. Different types of posting and banter are allowed in different forums.

This is an NVG modding thread so if you choose to reference my posts stick to the ones you want to search down in NVG, not elsewhere. I rarely post derogatory comments in this forum and over my several years of modding there have been very few issues herein.

In the deleted post, you stated "don't bother responding".
You can't tell me not to bother to respond. You don't have the right. At this point I have every right to make a comment on all of what you have written. I'm not going to end the discussion with you having your say and I saying nothing

I see this making up your own rules just to suit yourself is carrying on here again.

The rude comments you made to posters were copied from the two plus two site, and were posted by you, whether it was NVG does not matter, as the point is the unnecessarily rude tone taken to posters on this site, by someone in authority who is supposed to be setting a good example.

I made my point on the thread, and it feels a not good use of time to carry on talking about this bad behaviour, as you don't seem the type to see what you say is wrong, (you just delete the evidence so it then gets ignored) and you set up rules to suit yourself, so it is no point talking any more about it, as I don't like rude, deceptive people who attack people, and then use their authority to try to cover it up .

Of course one has the right to say to someone "I don't want to talk with you."

Why, Jay. Why?

I'm not going to get into this discussion as it relates to the participants in question because I don't know enough about it. In reply to the quoted and nothing else about this matter, I want to say that people who are posting with green and other coloured names set the tone for the forum as a whole by their posts, including those made in subforums they don't mod.

I don't know what the solution is, maybe they should have another account for posting in other subforums if they don't want that burden.

It does when you're making it an issue about...

...because he has no authority in OOT, where I believe most of those posts are from.

Nope.

Maybe that's the way you think it should be, and you're not alone in that, but there is no requirement for mods to post a certain way - especially in forums they aren't modding.

Sounds like a great idea, as you've made this point numerous times now. You think R*R is a terrible person. Let's move on.

I don't entirely agree with this, but I don't think it's really the issue here anyway. I tried searching for some of the quotes Jay posted, which wasn't easy since he doesn't appear to know how to use the quote feature from other threads (that's not a knock, many people have trouble with this), but what I found were posts in OOT, where his posting was very much in line with other peoples' posts. In other words, it didn't appear to be a case of R*R going around randomly trashing people who disagreed with him - it looks to me more like a combination of banter, and some posters abusing each other in a fashion that's pretty standard in that forum. That's the impression I got, anyway. And that's not surprising either, as it lines up with the results I found when I did a search in reply to Jay's assertion that R*R is "a moderator who goes around calling people he disagrees with morons." - I discovered that he also called someone a moron once in 2016, and once in 2013. 3 or 4 times in 6 years.

I have no idea why Jay has such a beef with R*R, but I think the way he's colouring R*R as some kind of lunatic that's going around attacking people continuously is ridiculous.

Edit to add: Just as an example, 3 of the 5 or 6 posts Jay cut-and-pasted were from a thread called "Ask me anything about being a criminal". Someone who claims to be a criminal, appears to be unrepentant, and I believe is still active, started an AMA thread. R*R went off on him. This is the kind of thing Jay's using to make R*R seem like some kind of nasty guy.

Just strange the distorted view R*R and Bobo have, if they worked in any other business and spoke to customers like the quotes I have given they would be sacked.

So it is fine, they show their colours by deleting the evidence I have shown, and avoid the issues by making ludicrously inaccurate statements like "he's colouring R*R as some kind of lunatic that's going around attacking people continuously" as I have said nothing like that, and if someone calls people a moron several times over a number of years it is entirely accurate to say R*R is "a moderator who goes around calling people he disagrees with morons." And R*R denying he had said things, when his posting history clearly shows he had said them, just shows the real character at work, so if Bobo wants to defend him, well that is Bobo's misjudgment.

They are really just doing what Postle did in the interview with Matusow, or Torelli's defence video, by avoiding talking about the complaints made against them and talking about other things instead, and trying to deflect attention from themselves by attacking the person pointing out problems.

Jay, I'm not going to argue with you about this any more. You've obviously got a major bone to pick with R*R, and I'm never going to get you to agree that using posts R*R has made in OOT as evidence of him being unfit to be a moderator was silly. If you think calling an unrepentant criminal names is a character flaw, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I think you're blowing a few posts way out of proportion, you disagree, I'm not wasting any more time on it.

There is one paragraph I'll respond to, though:

I've avoided nothing, I don't recall any complaints about me in this discussion, I've not deflected any attention from myself, and there's no way in hell I've come even remotely close to attacking you. And comparing my four posts about this to Postle or Torelli is a pretty shitty thing to do. But at this point, I'm not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.

Sorry to give you headaches. I think you do a great job here honestly.

My posts were off and I can even understand the ban u gave me.

But not right after I called the guy out for using the word "mongoloid"

I have researched and we all have used the word in the past. However same as the n word. It can't be used anymore.

I will give you the explanation so you don't have to research it. The m words was based on racist misinformation by a lunatic doctor.
It has been been debunked as the race of the Mongols has nothing to do with the chromosome disorder.

It was simply used wrongly and to this day is racist and wrong. So for you to ban me after I cussed the guy out, felt very wrong just at the moment. And that could have led me to tilt. Which fortunately it didn't do.

can you see why I was upset?

No harsh feeling as I think u do an excellent job other than that instance.

Yes my posts could have been garbage before the instance. But the timing was off I think of the ban.

I don't think I ever banned the account you have called washoe. It must have been another account you were on. If it was the other account which I'm thinking of, but don't quite remember the name, my recollection for banning the account was because of the continuous stream of troll and "garbage" posting when the Postle thread first started up.

This could possibly best explained if you PM'd me the account name that received the ban. I would could then check the posting, ban reason, and other sources to further explain the ban.

I also have no harsh feeling towards you.

As for the timing comment, that sounds more like my golf swing.

I did find an inappropriate "mongoloid" post early on in the Postle thread and it has been removed.

I also saw a post warning that your washoe account may be temp banned for your posting on the washoe account so possibly you did receive a temp ban from a mod other than me. I do see that you were warned, at the very least, within the thread and that some of your posts were deleted. I cannot determine if you were in fact temp banned and I am presuming if you were a note would have been made and there is no note on your account regarding a temp ban.

Instead of shutting down a whole thread (Yang), can't you just timeout/ban the 2-3 people derailing it? The precedent set here is that I can theoretically nuke any thread I want just by starting an argument about Donald Trump.