Hi Everyone:

Due to some issues we’ve been having on this forum lately, I wanted to take a few moments to discuss what our posting policies are on Two Plus Two. As many of you know, and this is something we’ve stated many times, on these forums our goal is to have vigorous debate and a little fun. This formula has worked well for over 20 years and has helped this website to grow and be highly influential in the world of poker, and I believe that most everyone who plays poker has benefitted from this philosophy.

But there is also another side to this formula which at times some posters have gotten away from, and it’s the idea that we need to keep insults to a minimum. In fact, this aspect of our formula is probably every bit as important as vigorous debate and a little fun.

It turns out that when discussing poker strategy, whether the game is limit or no-limit, stud, hold ’em, or some form of draw poker, there can be many different approaches to what the correct strategy for a specific situation can be. Part of the reason for this is that numerous aspects of poker, and this is typical of many games that are governed by probability, can be counter-intuitive for many players. Thus strategies that appear to be obviously wrong to most players can actually at times be the best strategies due to certain factors that can bring out the counter-intuitiveness of the situation. In addition, some strategies, especially in limit hold ’em, can have a “two-edged sword effect.” This means that these strategies can help your long term bottom line in some ways while at the same time hurt it in other ways, and thus to figure out when they’re right to apply can require you to balance many concepts which can be tricky to do well.

Of course, this is part of the beauty of poker and limit hold ’em in particular, and when addressed properly this type of conflict can produce all sorts of ideas that we can all learn from and enjoy. But unfortunately, some people will feel so strongly about their positions that instead of participating in the debate and posting in a professional manner, the insults will start and then no one will benefit, and this is something we all need to guard against.

As for feeling strongly about a particular position, this can also sometimes apply to myself, especially when unusual statistical concepts come into play which also played a role in my professional background when I worked as a statistician. So like many of you, I'll stand by my arguments but also try to make sure that I don't write anything that my adversary (in the discussion) will take personally. But sometimes just sticking to your guns, even when you're trying to be professional in your answer, will still irritate the other person.

One of the reasons that this website was established was that I have a long history of talking about poker with other serious and sometimes great players. Not only has this produced much material for our books, but these discussions greatly improved my understanding of what I like to call "all things poker," and look forward to continuing these type of discussions, which should includ more good debates with all of you.

Also, relative to this, there are a few other things I want to specifically address. They are:

1. Each forum on our website is a little different, and to account for this our moderators, who volunteer their time to help make Two Plus Two top notch in all ways, are given discretion in making their moderating decisions. So what may be allowed on one forum may not be allowed on a different one.

2. As stated, we want to keep insults to a minimum, and consistent with this, we feel that it’s very important that insults directed towards those of us in Two Plus Two Management be taken very seriously. If some posters on Two Plus Two don’t respect our management, and this includes myself, who will they respect? And this can easily lead to a degrading of the quality of this website and is something which we've had much discussion internally and insist on enforcing.

3. We understand that when disagreeing with a poster as part of a vigorous debate, it’s often necessary to restate their position and then to explain why you disagree as well as to give the advice that you think is correct. However, when doing this, it’s important to make sure that what you restate is completely accurate relative to what the opposing poster actually said. Changing a few things, and then discrediting what someone else has stated based on these changes, is in my opinion one of the worst offenses and is simply another way of not only insulting someone but is frequently done with the purpose of damaging that person’s reputation. We also take this indiscretion very seriously and have a low tolerance for it.

Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify where we stand on this subject, and all comments are welcome.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason, I am glad you posted this. Just recently in another forum a poster clearly engaged in this activity:

in fact, he did not even bother to change a few things, rather he just made up a blatant lie about not only my postings, but about my nature as a man.

I will admit his slanderous posting has me quite heated to start this day.

Really good to hear. I'm amazed the insults and personal attacks towards 2+2ers has been allowed to get as bad as it has.

Can I ask you to consider a related issue. Exiles are more common than they used to be. It seems only decent, and better for the site in general, that if a 2+2er is exiled and so has no right of reply in a forum, then the rule against insults and attacks on them in that forum should be strictly enforced.

Mason-

I certainly agree with your premise that insults and personal attacks really have no place when discussing strategy or other things poker related. And while it is true that folks often have strong opinions on what they believe to be the correct play of a hand, they do need to show some sensitivity in the manner in which criticism is rendered. You're also right about not mischaracterizing what someone says, then attacking that misstated position. I think we can all agree that being overtly rude or deliberately misleading would constitute what you've dubbed an insult.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of variance in what folks perceive to be an insult. What I might see as constructive criticism, you may feel that same comment to be harsh or unwarranted. Some people just have thin skins or easy-hurt feelings. I mean no offense, Mason, but I suspect you may be one of those folks predicated on your responses to Jon in the other thread.

Most people reading that thread, myself included, did not feel as though Jon was grossly mischaracterizing, then attacking, your position. Yes, he took some liberties in characterizing your play because he knew what your opponent had. But he did not say anything that was factually incorrect and he certainly was not trolling you. In the interest of full disclosure, Jon and I have been friends for a number of years. I think I know him well enough to tell you with certainty that he was not trying to besmirch your reputation. That's not the stuff he's made of.

My point in commenting on the interaction between you and Jon is that your notion of having been insulted and intimating that Jon may have been engaging in character assaination is unfounded in the minds of the majority of forum members- save the sycophant, chill rob. While I appreciate your above reminder that we need to play nice and refrain from hurling personal insults, I am concerned that some of the banter between posters could easily be misconstrued as insulting when, in fact, it may not be. It's often difficult to ascertain someone's intent and few of us are accomplished in doing so. It would appear that you and the forum mods will be the arbiters of what constitutes an insult and I think that's fine. I hope that this committee approach is transparent and fair and doesn't result in unjust treatment of posters that make meaningful contributions to your forums.

It is also possible that Jon did not understand that you wanted to focus on whether or not to 3 bet pre-flop. I read the article and thought that you were advocating that the initial limp was a correct play, rather than you limped pre-flop because of the discussions we were having. I read it that way myself the first go round.

With the acknowledgement that this is your website and you can run it however you want, I'm going to point out that if you want more respect, you're going to have to separate your role as an administrator from your role as a poster.

I - and anyone who agrees can sign on and make it a we - have a lot of respect for you as an administrator. The site works way more often than other sites and problems are minimal, the moderation in the strategy forums is fine and management is generally responsive to the posters. I appreciate that this site does not appear to be a huge money grab and every once in a while, I go out of my way to click the ads in support.

My respect for you as a poster is significantly different. Frequently, you state a high likelihood of various scenarios, and present them as a good general rule, when other players say they are more like the exceptions. I find my personal experience in line with your critics'.

You also frequently cite your own books as reference, such as HEPFAP, rather than the more modern SSHE or WITHG, both of which are also published by 2+2. The poker world has changed considerably since WITHG, which was the latest of those to be published (2008?).

I believe you are afforded the exact same respect that any other poster in MSLHE (SSLHE is intentionally friendlier due to inexperience of many posters) is afforded, but no extra respect as a result of your administrator status. As a matter of fact, if anyone receives extra respect, due or undue, it's probably the "named" pros (people whose real names are public knowledge) rather than administrators or even moderators (those of us on the legacy app can't even tell who is a moderator or administrator because there are no colors!).

Jon Locke is one of the few named pros who will tell people a hand is played well (that is, he's not always critical of a posted hand). DeathDonkey is one of the few named pros I've seen admit they've changed their minds in a strategy thread (that is, if he feels he's wrong he will say so). Leo doc actively builds community with his get togethers (that is, he cares for the people above his personal agenda). They are the people you want to be posting a lot on a thriving strategy site, and all three have posted their opinions on this matter specifically so I think you should give their opinions high weight.

Mason,

I think the main issue people are having is that you have treated Jon differently from other posters simply because the target of his criticism was you. When virtually every single poster, including several mods, post that you were wrong in banning someone, you need to do some Bayesian updating and at least admit that you might have made a bad decision.

If you want take a heavy handed approach to moderation, that is your prerogative, but you should at least do so consistently. Mischaracterizing someone's view should not be a ban-worthy offense. If it were, half the posters on these forums would be banned.

That said, I actually think that 2+2 should do more to encourage more civil norms of interaction. I think both the owners and the moderators could do a lot more (short of banning people), to push the dialogue in a more harmonious direction. 2+2 used to be a place where people could have mature, respectful discussions about poker and other issues. Part of the change has likely been due to the changing demographics of the forum; the average poster is a lot younger than he used to be. But I do think the moderators and owners could do more to encourage posters to respond to each other more constructively.

Mason,

Banning Jon was wrong. This is the internet. If you classify that post as insulting, you're in the wrong place. Disagreeing and getting slightly hyperbolic shouldn't be grounds for a ban. The posts that followed have shown that to be the overwhelming sentiment.

+1 free jon

on a separate note, dang that's a lot of fun drama from just one hand that mason posted

mason should post more hands

Some of the limit threads were turning too uncivil and/or getting hijacked. Long-term this can have a very negative effect on traffic.

Also without having closely followed the recent conflict, I do hope to see jon locke posting again after some period. I think his insights on poker strategy are valuable and it would be a shame to drive him away.

When 90% of the users of this sub-forum think the decision to ban Jon was wrong, then from a strictly neutral point of view, there is a 90% chance that decision was wrong.

That's just probability and statistics.

People have told me my play in a hand was awful. At the time I thought it was a personal attack, but saying someone's strategy decision is bad is not a personal attack, it's actually factual.

If someone told me that I should've bet on McGregor in his fight against Mayweather, I would tell him that is a terrible play. That's not an attack on him, that's a factual statement on the quality of the bet. Those are adjectives describing the quality of a bet/strategy decision. It doesn't mean you are terrible, it doesn't mean you're a bad person, it doesn't even mean that person doesn't like you it. It just means your strategy decision was very wrong.

It's certainly not true that jon only got banned because he insulted Mason and no one gets banned for insulting anyone else. I got temp banned (for the first time in 10 years or so of posting on the forum) because I insulted jon, even though it was only after and about his violating forum rules by circumventing the ban of his duplicate account.

I also don't appeciate being insulted right in this thread by being called a sycophant, which anyone who knows me in person would know is the farthest thing from the truth. It seems to me that this forum has an awful lot of sycophants of jon, in that they keep complaining about how he was banned just for disagreeing with Mason, which is so clearly untrue it is laughable.

Mason himself said it was for a specific post. Said post absolutely didn't deserve a ban. I'm inclined to think anyone who thinks that it did is a sycophant or perhaps worse, which of course I wouldn't say, lest I get banned as well since everyone apparently has unreasonably thin skin these days.

Mason said that post was objectionable not because of the disagreement with his strategy, but because of the twisting of his words.

If that had been the only objectionable post, I would agree that banning would be going overboard. However, I figured that what really happened was that post was the last straw that pushed him to the ban, after the many objectionable posts jon had made, mostly under his secondary account.

cool, i learned a new word today !
leo doc, phd in literature too ?

Which word?

sycophant

Cliffs:

It wasn't a permanent ban. MM points out that his words were twisted, and cites that as the reason for the ban. JL is very popular in the forum for posting, and has his own customer loyalty. Backlash has ensued.

Hi leaves:

To be a little more specific, if you look at this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...-spot-1691623/

You'll see in Post #1 dead..money wrote:

In Post #11 dead..money wrote:

In Post #14 dead..money wrote:

The in Post #1344 of the "2017! NC/LC THREAD! let us gogogogo" thread Jon_Locke writes:

Now I understand that dead..money (and this account is now peramently banned) and jon_locke are the same person. I also find the above quite insulting.

In addition, again in Post #1344 of the "2017! NC/LC THREAD! let us gogogogo" jon_locke wrote:

What I wrote in the article isn't even close to this twisted language, and you can read the "Hand to Talk About" article here:

https://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/...talk-about.php

Best wishes,
Mason