Is Zeno prepared to change or not?

All my life I have tried to change when I'm wrong. Like science.

elaborate.

To use the sinking ship metaphor, if your boat is headed at an iceberg but you’re afraid to change course because there might be other icebergs out there, then going straight at the iceberg directly in front of you will definitely sink your ship.

that doesn't help me. i actually might want want to have a private conversation with you about this.

but in keeping this thread on topic, do you think getting rid of zeno and/ or augie would have any meaningful impact, financially speaking? and i think you would have to have more information on the finances of this place before answering.

I can't say one way or the other, and I wish I had any financial background that I could offer to be of assistance, as I would in a heartbeat. All I can do is point out that it might be affecting things. How?

Consider your current user base. If it's mostly straight white men in the US, Canada, Mexico, the UK, etc., would it make sense to try to broaden that user base? What would that even mean? Getting more women, persons of color, etc., involved in poker? Is that feasible?

I wish I had good answers to all of these. But since I don't...



My PM box is always open, to literally anyone itt or on the site. I love talking philosophical direction issues and whatnot.

My post really had nothing to do with Zeno. I was talking about OP and ACEG's approach towards 2+2:

While making my second post, I went back and reread the thread and realized I hadn't been very clear with my rant, and that it might have sounded like a defense of Zeno, which it wasn't - thus my addition to the end of my second post.

What is there to respond to? It's just more of the same. Like this:

What response are you looking for from me? I think I made it pretty clear that I think this approach is counter-productive. I can't see how that couldn't be obvious to you already. Does "I think you should do something about X, but you didn't do what I wanted you to about Y, so I know you don't care" really seem like it's more likely to get you somewhere than civilly presenting your case for why X should be done? Do you think telling someone they don't care about something is more or less likely to build an understanding?

Yes, racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice are a big problem. But when we ask people to be understanding, tolerant, and above all, accepting of others, perhaps we need to be more welcoming ourselves. And I don't mean welcoming prejudice, but understanding that not everyone is at exactly the same place when it comes to accepting others, and not everyone agrees on the best way to handle those who are less accepting. Are we not able to disagree respectfully and hopefully move towards a better understanding without so much negativity and hostility?

OF COURSE IT MAKES SENSE TO BROADEN THAT BASE, you ****ing dildo!!!

what we have on this site (a site that's supposed to be about poker) is a bunch of ****ing rich white guys telling me and mason and zeno, etc.. that we're old cocskucking bigots.

I promised not to take any stupid powertripping admin actions in this thread, but i can still say **** you!

Well since what is cared about is clear, I would suggest that generally, having an inclusive space free from hatred is more profitable than having a cesspool of hatred. More people are going to go places they deem inclusive.

As far as the long term financial stability of twoplustwo, this is of course directly correlated with the popularity of poker, both live but especially online. There's speculation that Trump's class warfare against the poor, er uh I mean "tax reform", might do away with deductions that gamblers, both professional and recreational, rely on to make poker profitable. Perhaps Mason could openly lobby against this class warfare against the poor, er uh I mean "tax reform." It surely would not change the course of a ship that is on path to collide with an iceberg, but it would maybe have some positive impact.

Even if the relevant deductions weren't scrapped, the class warfare against the poor that Trump is wanting is going to be bad for poker, because the poor and middle class will end up paying significantly more taxes so the super rich can get all the help that they desperately need, and they will therefor have less disposable income.

And of course if the last Republican president's tax cuts to the wealthy are any indication, Trump is going to destroy the economy leading to fewer jobs, and also less disposable income for Americans.

Ultimately I think it will probably take another poker boom, spurred by positive legislation at the Federal level, to save twoplustwo. I'm sure Donald Trump will get right on that, because he listens to the best people ... like Sheldon Adelson, who we know is totally for online poker ...

agreed. you think giving augie a different colored name will make some difference?

Well you could disagree that mods are in effect public representatives of twoplustwo, and could disagree that having a bigoted public representative is not good for twoplustwo's brand. You could have outlined what specifically you care about in terms of this discussion, but Mat cleared that up.

I understand that what really matters is what is and is not profitable for twoplustwo, everything else takes a back seat. Just say it. This is a business, and I understand that. But having public representatives who say things like India and Pakistan should nuke each other because it would be the greatest cleansing the world has ever seen is only going to profitable among the storm front type customer base, not the general public.

the world is a frustrating place. for me and for everyone. thanks for letting me rant and rant away, yourselves.

i feel ya!

I think demodding bigots and changing the culture of the forums that they mod from cesspools of hate to inclusive areas where the average person would feel more welcome would be better financially for twoplustwo.

Does profit matter? Of course. Does everything else take a back seat? Nope.

In some cases profit takes a priority, in other cases, decisions are made that cost the site money, but are the right thing to do. And a lot of the time, decisions don't impact profit significantly, or they do impact profit but not much else, or a decision that helps the bottom line is also good for our members.

However, I don't think profit would even be a factor in any decision on whether Zeno should or shouldn't be a mod.

Bobo I'd like to understand where you're coming from a bit better with this.

Scenario: I'm sitting at a poker table in a casino or a bar and an older white man starts talking about how he hates ******s and they should be shipped to the moon. Or starts talking about how women need to get out of the work force and get back into the kitchens where they belong. Or starts talking about how gay people should be hung, or every Muslim country needs to be nuked, or something similar.

I should respond how?

How do you think you should respond? You're sitting at a poker table, trying to take food out of someone else's mouth. I would think your response should be related to that on some level?

I would probably sarcastically mock them in a way that points out their white male privilege.

That sounds very reasonable to me. That also means, I infer, that you would not call the owner of the casino to ask that player be executed.

No, I wouldn't ask the owner of the property to kill the racist. If the racist was a public representative of the company, I would raise issue with the owner if it was a place I frequented.

I'm pretty sure I haven't asked for anyone to be executed. In fact, I'm very much against the death penalty. Why? Because it is for poor black men, and it is not for rich white men. It is unequal, unjust, racist and classist in its application.

Well, I think that really depends on a few things. I'm not going to tell you how you *should* respond because I don't think there's always one right answer. But how I would respond - depending on the situation, I think my response to this is going to vary from directly confronting the guy about it, to talking to the dealer or the floor about it, to leaving the table and playing elsewhere (and reporting it to the floor). I have to confess I'm not as strong at direct confrontation as I probably should be sometimes, so while sitting here in the safe comfort of my home I like to think I'd usually take the first road, but I know when I'm there in the situation I might be taking the second or third option when I could do better. Not that those are necessarily terrible ways to go, but I'd hope that I could show the courage when appropriate.

Edit to add: Having seen your post about sarcastic mocking, yes, I'd probably go a similar route. Sometimes that may shut the guy up, especially if similar sentiments are echoed around the table. But when that has little to no effect, what I've said above applies - now we're getting into uncharted waters where drunk bigot boy may be just as inclined to try to turn this into a physical confrontation as anything else, so there's likely going to be a point where I'm taking a different road.

But this really doesn't directly relate to my post. This isn't someone that just isn't "at exactly the same place when it comes to accepting others", this guy is an out and out bigot. And if I'm at all in doubt about this, it's easy to find out with a few minutes of observation and/or discussion - not nearly so easy to see where someone's coming from in an online discussion, or to make others fully understand your own perspective the way you intend. I'm unlikely to make much impact on how a guy like this thinks, especially while sitting with him at a poker table. And how I deal with him isn't likely to last more than a short time, or be seen by more than a handful of people, as opposed to being part of a discussion that will go on for days, weeks, or months, and be seen and taken part in by hundreds of people.

So do you think augie_ and Zeno just aren't at exactly the same place when it comes to accepting others? They are clearly bigots from the posts I've seen.

This is where I know I differ from many others. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt more than others do, perhaps to my detriment. Posters have probably seen it when they want someone they see as a troll banned, and I'm slow to pull the trigger, as I'm reluctant to assume intent of an anonymous screen name typing words on a computer. So if you ask me if Zeno is a bigot, I'm going to tell you I'm not sure. Are the posts quoted in the OP bigoted? Yes, of course. Does that mean he's a bigot? He certainly could be. But I'd need more than 10-12 posts quoted from a variety of different threads/times to have a strong opinion. I'd probably want to have a conversation with him, or at the very least have had a fair bit of experience with him in different forums and threads; my only interactions or experiences with Zeno have been in the Mod or History forums, so I don't have a lot to go on.

I think unequivocally declaring someone to be a bigot is a big deal, so I don't do so lightly. And I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else is, as I don't know your level of interaction with him.

So there haven't been any refutations of my point that mods are in effect public representatives of the twoplustwo brand, which leads me to believe that you and Mat agree with this. Are there plans to discuss the relevant posts with Zeno?

And how about augie_ same question here, and in post 170.

that's what she said.

http://instantrimshot.com

I've always maintained that mods are simply posters who have volunteered to help out with the forums, and they shouldn't be expected to post differently than others. But at the same time, yes, they are viewed by many as public representatives of the site, and therefore there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.

As for what is or isn't to be done about or discussed with Zeno, if anything, that's entirely up to Mat.

This thread isn't about augie, but the answer would be the same as in my last post, except that I have even less to base an opinion of him on.