#1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc

Roulette-focused => General Discussion => Topic started by: catalyst on Nov 17, 05:21 AM 2011

Title: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: catalyst on Nov 17, 05:21 AM 2011
Dear Moderators

Forum is becoming the battle field for David and Goliath. If you examine few threads, you will be noticing that Goliaths are becoming stronger day by day and we â€"Davidsâ€"are at bay with the presence of  ‘stronger’ Moderators. Recently I have received an email from one of the few best posters explaining his discontinuation with this forum. Here is the excerpt:

I just want to tell all of you that I've enjoyed interacting with you for the last few years.  You're a great bunch of people.  I feel that the moderators allow too much negative attacks by some of the posters, specifically GARNabby.  He is allowed to belittle members in a really obnoxious way and I think I'll take my ball and go home.

The need for enforcing ethics and standard by Moderators should  be continuous and bottom line. Now I find in another thread that the great Tomla021 is discontinuing post. Winkel is already gone. If it becomes sensitive to other great members such as Ego, Chrisbis, F_LAT_INO, Hermes, Fripper,  etc and the cessation from the forum continues, then the forum will be left to a bunch of mud-slinging low-moral Goliaths.

thanks
Catalyst
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: superman on Nov 17, 05:33 AM 2011
Well, like the man said don't feed who you don't like, I ignore many replies, posts and threads from certain members, and theres a lot of them, most comments are totally useless other than to get their post count up. Just read past it, if it's your thread, delete the response without telling them why, there are many ways to mindf$%^ them.

Most gambling forums are the same, there's plenty of pi$$ed off gamblers in the world.

EDIT: I don't think its fair to blame the mods, most of them anyway, they do a good job, let's take our indian friends a few days ago, total BS and totally believed by a few, mods stepped up and banned the lot, excellent work, they saved some members a lot of money.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Proofreaders2000 on Nov 17, 05:37 AM 2011
Noting the more productive members are leaving could be due to casino agents acting as disruptors.
Title: Re: David and Goliath
Post by: Bayes on Nov 17, 05:39 AM 2011
Hi catalyst,

Don't worry, the mods are on the case.  :thumbsup:

I know from experience that if certain members are allowed to belittle and intimidate, it's the beginning of the end for that forum. As far as I'm concerned, spammers, trolls and other forum 'low life' can expect zero tolerance from the mods from now on. Steve has made that perfectly clear.

Actually, your post is a little confusing:

QuoteGoliaths are becoming stronger day by day and we â€"Davidsâ€"are at bay with the presence of  ‘stronger’ Moderators.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you have more and better moderation to 'take out the trash' or you have more trash!

Sometimes it's a fine line and a matter of judgement as to whether a member is overstepping the mark; it would be just as bad if the mods were too draconian and deleted threads and members for no apparent reason, but usually it's fairly clear to distinguish between an honest disagreement or difference of opinion, and behaviour which goes beyond it.

We can only do our best.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Bayes on Nov 17, 05:48 AM 2011
Quote from: superman on Nov 17, 05:33 AM 2011
Most gambling forums are the same, there's plenty of pi$$ed off gamblers in the world.

Yep.  ;D

The problem is that for many, roulette isn't just a hobby like playing the banjo or basket-weaving, (you don't see many negative vibes on forums for musicians or basket weavers!) it's a desperate search for the 'holy grail' or 'free money'. Money is an emotive issue, so you tend to get a lot of bickering, and all the other less desirable characteristics of human nature.

As Ego said in another thread, it would be much better for all if people DID consider roulette to be 'merely' a hobby.
Title: A New Moderator Is Born.-
Post by: Chrisbis on Nov 17, 12:36 PM 2011
May I add a personal caveat here.

Some members may not be aware, I was asked if I would like to join the Staff here at Roulette Forum.cc, and become a global Moderator.

I have accepted, so with effect as of last night, You have addition weight behind the existing Staff Moderators.
Chrisbis is a Mod.  :thumbsup:

I will be assisting the likes of:-
Bayes- UK/Europe time Zone
Iggiv-   Euro time Zone
Thomas Grant- Australia/NZ time Zone
MrJ-     U.S.A time Zone
VLS-    U.S.A./SouthAmerica time Zone
Steve- In a time warp of his own, encased in a computer program somewhere in the Universe.

So...............if U need help, advice or want to alert any of the Mods for ANYTHING, U now have an addition face/avatar to pester.

Just shout.

by the way, my posts on systems, play, techniques will stay exactly the same!

Cheers all.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: kingsroulette on Nov 17, 01:02 PM 2011
Actors may come and go but the show must go on.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: 6th-sense on Nov 17, 03:26 PM 2011
congrats chris this should be intersting   8)
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Chrisbis on Nov 17, 04:04 PM 2011
Hold on to Ur chicks, chips and betting slips!! :)
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: catalyst on Nov 18, 06:38 PM 2011
Quote from: 6th-sense on Nov 17, 03:26 PM 2011
congrats chris this should be interesting   8)

wish you mud-slinging from Goliaths!  :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :twisted: :twisted:
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: iggiv on Nov 18, 08:50 PM 2011
Chris welcome aboard bud


guys, i think some people are oversensitive. my opinion is that mods should not take sides taking one member as good and other as bad, based on their opinions. Direct insult is not allowed, calling names not allowed. but i think it is ok to express opinion that your opponent is not good at roulette. even that it can be wrong.

i admit i may be a reason why GLC left. well, i do respect him. but sorry, i can't take sides when he is arguing to someone who thinks that he loses in casino. i can't see this as an insult. even that this someone may be wrong, and GLC is very good at roulette. I am really sorry GLC left, but i can't forbid anyone's opinion if this is not a direct insult with calling names and stuff like that. I would love to see George back, and i know that he is a good man, but i can't take sides just because he is a good man and thinks that his opponent is bad. His opponent DID NOT INSULT him, what can i do?
if we mods are taking sides in those arguments then it is not fair. We are here not to take sides, but prevent attacking personalities. But we can't and shouldn't prevent attacking each other views on roulette. this is what this forum is about, isn't it?

i was attacked personally myself, i warned the guy which attacked me, and that's how it was over. we (me and him) still exchange opinions on roulette, and i do not try to "settle an account" or commit some kind of vendettas just because i am mod. even that i think it was not fair.

we mods should be able to take personal likes or dislikes apart. we should prevent personal fights but we should not interfere on opinions on success of these or those methods of roulette.

that's my opinion
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: iggiv on Nov 18, 09:18 PM 2011
if my opponent thinks that i lose at roulette with my methods, this is his right. this is a freedom of speech, as simple as that.

we are not a mutual admiration society here.  criticizing methods of roulette is normal.

But for example if someone calls his opponent just a loser (with no regard to winning roulette) i do find this as a personal attack. some things depend on context. I found Garnabby criticizing George on his handling roulette in casino and expressing belief that George consistently loses this game.

i can't call this a personal attack. i just CAN'T, i am being honest
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: amk on Nov 18, 09:30 PM 2011
I would like to apologize to Bayes...........

It seems that I can no longer pm you.............

Sorry if I have been a burden with my questions from time to time. You have the best mathematical insight of all and value your insights............

If I may discuss your very observant comment concerning the pursuit  of the Holy Grail I agree. I don't believe there is a Holy Grail as people define it to be. I do believe there are methods of winning with roulette but they demand a lot of time and work, perhaps if you have a bot you maybe lucky :)

Personally I really like thinking about roulette and coming up with methods. I am realistic though and only try to generate enough funds to help with the bills and perhaps a vacation here and there :)



Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Chrisbis on Nov 19, 12:57 AM 2011
Quote from: amk
........ but they demand a lot of time and work,......
your not wrong here amk...! ;)

Can be very hard work.

Amk- if You have a look at this (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7879.msg71696#msg71696) link, it might help answer your "Blocked Pm" question.

Hope that helps U.

Cheers.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: catalyst on Nov 20, 05:52 PM 2011
Quote from: iggiv on Nov 18, 09:18 PM 2011

But for example if someone calls his opponent just a loser (with no regard to winning roulette) i do find this as a personal attack. some things depend on context. I found Garnabby criticizing George on his handling roulette in casino and expressing belief that George consistently loses this game.


hope Garnabby come forward and further support his acts of innocence.
thanks
catalyst
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Bayes on Nov 21, 03:56 AM 2011
Quote from: iggiv on Nov 18, 09:18 PM 2011
if my opponent thinks that i lose at roulette with my methods, this is his right. this is a freedom of speech, as simple as that.

we are not a mutual admiration society here.  criticizing methods of roulette is normal.

But for example if someone calls his opponent just a loser (with no regard to winning roulette) i do find this as a personal attack. some things depend on context. I found Garnabby criticizing George on his handling roulette in casino and expressing belief that George consistently loses this game.

i can't call this a personal attack. i just CAN'T, i am being honest

iggiv,

I disagree, it isn't as cut and dried as that. Sure, free speech is important (although I'm not sure how relevant that is to an internet forum which is owned by a private individual) but even then there are exceptions.

And being entitled to your opinion is also irrelevant; of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but they don't have a "right" for their opinions to be true!

Some opinions are far better supported and justified than others; if you can't provide any evidence that your opinion is true, then doesn't that amount to a personal attack, if your post is intended to "put down" or belittle another member? and you don't have to be overly sensitive to take offence at such a post, it's a natural response.

I don't know exactly what the exchange was between George and Garnabby, but in any case, why should anyone "express the belief" that someone is a loser at roulette if they don't have any particular reason for it? it's not good enough merely to say that "most people lose", therefore you are a loser. If you believe that, why single out a particular member when there is no specific evidence that he is a loser?

Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: GLC on Nov 21, 10:27 AM 2011
I want to point out that I've never known GARNabby to offer anything constructive on this forum.  All his comments are negative in nature.  He doesn't offer suggestions for improving a method nor does he offer any kind of encouragement.  What value does he contribute?  Why should he be allowed to interfere with topics just to tell us how silly we are or what losers we are.  I remember once that he even made a comment to another member about having "penis envy".  How can that be acceptable on a public forum with both male and female participation.

Bayes is right.  He doesn't know squat about me.  His statements are based on his own imaginations and they contribute nothing except vitriol to the forum.  It's not just me he offends.  He's tried to belittle other member, even Bayes himself.  I was upset more over that than what he said about me.  I know Bayes can defend himself or as he chose in this case to just ignore GARNabby's remarks.  (Although I did find the "Troll" post enlightening).  So I made a restrained, indirect comment and it gets edited because it alluded in a negative way to another forum member. :o Duh?? :o ???   

I consider it a privilege to contribute to this forum, not a right.  If I have a different opinion than another poster about something, I present it in a polite way.  Friend to friend.  Not in a way that tries to make the poster look unintelligent.

If GARNabby has something to contribute, let him start his own topic and have at it.  Then anyone who's interested in interacting with him can do so.  Those of us who find his comments to be more about putting us down than challenging our ideas won't have to endure him.

Of course there's another way.  Stop posting!  I notice that many already have.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Bayes on Nov 21, 12:11 PM 2011
George,

Nice to see you posting again, I hope you'll continue.  :)

Not sure whether GARNabby posted in a thread you started? just remember that anyone who starts a thread is a "local" moderator - you have the option to remove any posts you don't like, regardless of whether anyone finds your action fair or not. Of course, this is open to abuse like anything else, but the global mods will make sure it doesn't get out of hand (and to date, it never has).

I think it's important to take each case on its merits. As I said in an earlier post, it can be difficult sometimes to determine whether someone is trolling or not, but in this case there's no doubt - GARNabby is a troll.

Mods have differing views on what constitutes an "attack", but I don't think you were being too sensitive on this occasion. Unfortunately, it's often the more sensitive members who have the most to contribute. I know many people who would never post on a forum because there's a tendency for some people to be thoroughly nasty; unfortunately the internet seems to be a magnet for such people (who would never dream of talking to you in that way face to face).

3000 members and how many regular contributors? let's not put off our best (and potential) posters by sacrificing them in the name of some kind of political correctness or reducing standards to the lowest common denominator (if someone calls you a f*ck%(g ^ss#le he's warned or censored, othewise, it's all good).


Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Chrisbis on Nov 21, 12:56 PM 2011
Hello George.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: iggiv on Nov 21, 06:54 PM 2011
George, welcome back!

well, that's how i see things. it is hard for me to say what are someone's opinions based on. i did not follow up your and Garnabby's discussion. U understand, i see something, i see no attack, i see someone tells somebody else he (the opponent) is losing in casino. What the statement is  based  on? i don't know. Should i investigate the matter, check what he said before and if i did not find the evidence, then delete his negative messages? Due all respect, it is something i don't usually do. i am just a mod, not an investigator. I can clearly see a direct attack,  bullying, trolling, and stuff like that -- i react. when i am not sure i don't react.

I did not see Garnabby as a troll. If Bayes can see him as a troll let him react, i don't mind. I do what i can see as a  right thing. It is not that i take his side  against u. It is how i can see things. You can reply to Garnabby saying what u told me, You can ignore him. If some other mod can see him as an attacker let him do what he thinks is right.

but guess what? we mods had some talk about him and nobody so far clearly said he saw him as a troll and bully. i am not alone in my conclusions.

so i am sorry, George. i don't agree with u, and i am sorry about it. I wish u stay in this forum and ignore those who u don't like or reply to them saying what  u think is right. Without attacking them personally but rather show them that they are wrong
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: iggiv on Nov 21, 07:29 PM 2011
again i read Garnabby's message

link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7739.msg70342#msg70342 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7739.msg70342#msg70342)


with all my desire to FIND SOMETHING i could not see trolling, bullying, or attacking. all i can see is just a guy telling another guy that another guy does not have a winning method to defeat casino. That's all i can see.

gentlemen, if i deleted this message it would be wrong, unfair and unjustified. that's sincerely my opinion. i can't help it and can't do that. if some mod can see it it as trolling let him act, but not me please.

honestly i think those pretty innocent messages can't be a reason for someone to get upset.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Moderation.
Post by: Chrisbis on Nov 22, 02:17 AM 2011
Actually, on this particular point of LAW, I agree with Nick .

And I think George said it all in a later post in that Topic:-
QuoteI over-reacted a little to Garnabby's post, but our friend Ken brought me back to a more balanced perspective.  I was able to modify my post before the time for that option passed and all h&!! broke lose.  So, all's well that ends well!

What I will do for my part, and I believe so too will other mods, is watch and review the situation from now on, and if evidence of 'Trolling' is found, then we will act on it.

For now, I think everyone has pretty much had their say.

Lets all move on shall we.

(Until now, I thought 'Trolling was something U did at the Supermarket, after U picked one up from the front doors!)
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: iggiv on Nov 22, 07:28 PM 2011
before i met a word "troll" online, i knew trolls only as evil creatures in Andersen's fairy tales. and that is a memory from childhood.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Skakus on Nov 22, 07:55 PM 2011
Trolling is dragging a fishing bait along behind your boat to entice fish to bite. This way a lot of territory is covered and your chances of success are increased.

Internet trolls similarly cover a lot of territory and try to bait people to bite.

If you bite, you're hooked!

Troll 1 - You 0

Have a nice day.  :)
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Steve on Nov 22, 10:51 PM 2011
Regarding the referenced post from garnaby, I too didnt see a serious issue with it. It is his opinion. It is not quite an attack to call someone self deluded, but at the same time its not a nice thing to say. If he had called someone a "dumb ****er", well that's clearly over the line.

In the end, people wont always agree on forums. All disagreeing members should do is state their case in a civil and respectful way, present the facts as they see them, and the other side responds in a similar way. Discussions can and do get emotional and heated, but it doesnt mean everyone cant still be respectful. If no agreement is made, so what? Each can go their separate way. We dont need to live with each other.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: catalyst on Nov 24, 04:51 AM 2011
Quote from: GLC on Nov 21, 10:27 AM 2011

I consider it a privilege to contribute to this forum, not a right.  If I have a different opinion than another poster about something, I present it in a polite way.  Friend to friend.  Not in a way that tries to make the poster look unintelligent.

Of course there's another way.  Stop posting!  I notice that many already have.


Quote from: iggiv on Nov 21, 06:54 PM 2011
George, welcome back!

so i am sorry, George. i don't agree with u, and i am sorry about it. I wish u stay in this forum and ignore those who u don't like or reply to them saying what  u think is right. Without attacking them personally but rather show them that they are wrong

George, come back! We miss your posts!
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Bayes on Nov 24, 07:42 AM 2011
Quote from: amk on Nov 18, 09:30 PM 2011
I would like to apologize to Bayes...........

It seems that I can no longer pm you.............

Sorry if I have been a burden with my questions from time to time. You have the best mathematical insight of all and value your insights............

No worries, amk.  ;)

If you would like to post your query in the PROBABILITY Q & A thread in the math section, I'll try to answer it, and thanks for the compliments.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: GARNabby on Apr 20, 09:18 AM 2012
Quote from: Bayes on Nov 21, 12:11 PM 2011
As I said in an earlier post, it can be difficult sometimes to determine whether someone is trolling or not, but in this case there's no doubt - GARNabby is a troll.
Wow, just came across this thread while googling something else about "Garnabby".  Would love to get into this later today, or tomorrow, when i get back from some appointments in Hamilton.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: GARNabby on Apr 20, 09:25 AM 2012
Quote from: Steve on Nov 22, 10:51 PM 2011
If he had called someone a "dumb ****er", well that's clearly over the line.
Yes, don't openly call all persons inherently  s*t*u*p*i*d, or "ploppies".  But if the specifics IN ONE AREA OF ACTIVITY even very-much seem to fit, e.g., call a "sucker" what it is.  And, certainly the facts speak for thoseselves.

Also, it's helpful to point out the in situ dynamics of self-delusion, etc.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Robeenhuut on Apr 20, 10:56 AM 2012
Quote from: GARNabby on Apr 20, 09:18 AM 2012
Wow, just came across this thread while googling something else about "Garnabby".  Would love to get into this later today, or tomorrow, when i get back from some appointments in Hamilton.

i think we waste our time here on not important issues.  silly should not be banned word here if applied properly and not meant personally. Difficult to qualify though. hehe  s....d  i meant
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: GARNabby on Apr 21, 09:08 PM 2012
Okay, Moderator Bayes,

Again, everything seems to be obvious to only yourself?  And that you're the only one who's allowed to formulate something complex but useful?

You write a lot, but give few examples.  No, i'm not referring to the Wikipedia SD math stuff, which anyone can reproduce and rehash ad nauseum, possibly in a vain attempt to "appear" to be authoritative and useful, most prominently to yourself.   (As i wrote before, gambling math was passed over from the Ancients, because they had no use or interest in it, to the modern times of life-insurance, taxation, quantum science, the popularization of casinos, etc.)  But to this so-called "obvious trolling" of mine.  Maybe if you weren't so-quick to summarily delete, and advise others to, what is "obviously trolling", then you'd have some salient references for the most of the others who didn't have the opportunity to size things up for themselves the first time around.  Save those having been saved somewhere, the Nazi practice of "book burning" comes to mind?  (But of course you're no Nazi, i'm not calling you one... doubt they'd take you in, lol.)

Until you can PROVE, however, that you consistently win at roullete as you have repeatedly directly, or indirectly, claimed, then i will continue to write that i completely don't agree with you.  Certainly not with the DBL stuff, and no less with a computerized version of it.  None of that has anything to do with complexity, unless you're hinting at only an "overactive imagination" coupled with a "strong will to win" a very-bad toss-up.  (Not quite what Einstein meant when he loosely openly conjectured about the power of the imagination.)  Plain silliness, not to be rebutted by silliness, of course, like let's "pit random against random".

There's no registration rule here that says every member must contribute something; or that truisms can't be relied on here.  People come and go.  No one is just right, or wrong.  You can't please everyone all the time in every way.  There will always be economic realities.

How many died?  How many went broke enough times to learn that "object lesson"?   Or for the first time, and couldn't bear the shame here?  Maybe they came to realize that losing wasn't their fault, that they have every right to "get mad" about it, and properly quit?  And how many played the ball-and-go-home "card", after their "demands" weren't met?  How many never came, not even to meet like-minded people?  Or wanted only to reassure themselves that they will never make anything at a casino?  How many went away to the world of PM's, you know, that place they "threaten" to go to expose the "secrets of the universe" to each other, but which never, in all likelihood, materializes?  Maybe paranoia set in, in the form of an unrelenting fear via "casino agents" in pursuit?  Ironically, how many were "trolled" away by the internet-bullies, even in the name of "trolling"?  (That's the problem with the "greater good" stuff... nobody knows what the "greater good" really is.)  And on, and on.  I mean, if i did all of that all on my own with a relative-handful of posts/replies, Geezies, maybe i'm pretty-hot stuff after all.  Like when i "apologized" to the Wizard for having not really really offended anyone there, after they had insidiously tried just about everything, including having its webmaster compose some counterfeit "contributions" under my username, to get me to write something out-of-character.  His final "argument" for banning me was, loosely, "Garnabby's a bad guy, so he must be bad."

No, "... the forum will [NOT] be left to a bunch of mud-slinging low-moral Goliaths."  And that IS truly a mass personal insult to they who chose to remain, or to visit for the first time.

In almost-four years at this sort of site, i have met up with only one text-book, obvious 'internet troll'.  That would be johno of the Gamblers' Glen, and at least a 100 different aliases EVERYwhere else.  That fellow is hard-core, and runs the gamut.  So, you have to "fight fire with fire" when left to your own devices against someone like that.  You have no idea, right?



Okay, GLC,

Perhaps you would grace us with an encore appearance here, please defend the paragraph, "I want to point out that I've never known GARNabby to offer anything constructive on this forum.  All his comments are negative in nature.  He doesn't offer suggestions for improving a method nor does he offer any kind of encouragement.  What value does he contribute?  Why should he be allowed to interfere with topics just to tell us how silly we are or what losers we are.  I remember once that he even made a comment to another member about having "penis envy".  How can that be acceptable on a public forum with both male and female participation."

At the least, 'penis envy' (taken out of context) is accepted psychological notation which has trickled down to common usage.  Don't know about you, but were i a women, i would ask you to "remove your hands from my eyes", or "let me out of your closet".

As to the remainder of your stereotypical generalizations, again without any contextual examples, let alone the exhaustive evidence of each and every contribution from myself, here, required to make such a lame case... hahahahahahaha.  Grow up.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: albertojonas on Apr 21, 09:36 PM 2012
Quote from: GARNabby on Apr 21, 09:08 PM 2012
Okay, Moderator Bayes,

Until you can PROVE, however, that you consistently win at roulette as you have repeatedly directly, or indirectly, claimed, then i will continue to write that i completely don't agree with you.  Certainly not with the DBL stuff, and no less with a computerized version of it.


Obviously you know what you are talking about. You have been there, you saw it and you don't want it anymore.
If you are willing to try, you can speak after.
How many sessions of 100 spins do you want to throw at it, so it stands Prove to you?
I happen to have 3 million Wiesbaden spins, if you're interested into.


@GarNabby - I am learning to win consistently with Gizmotron. It is free.

Cheers
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Bayes on Apr 22, 05:31 AM 2012
Quote from: GARNabby on Apr 21, 09:08 PM 2012
Okay, Moderator Bayes,

I'm no longer a moderator, so you can troll away, I can't stop you unless it's in my thread or in the math reference section.

QuoteYou write a lot, but give few examples.  No, i'm not referring to the Wikipedia SD math stuff, which anyone can reproduce and rehash ad nauseum, possibly in a vain attempt to "appear" to be authoritative and useful, most prominently to yourself.

Yes, it's available from Wiki, but not in a particularly user-friendly format. I just tried to make it more easily understandable for those who don't like math. That requires some effort, and judging from the feedback I received, I did a pretty good job. Pot calling kettle black I think - I don't know whether it's deliberate (in an attempt to make yourself look smart) but your posts are obscure to the point of being unreadable, which is one of the reasons why hardly anyone ever responds to them. As I said before, YOU are the one who seems to be concerned with trying to impress people - you even posted your math degree certificates here - who cares?

QuoteUntil you can PROVE, however, that you consistently win at roulette as you have repeatedly directly, or indirectly, claimed, then i will continue to write that i completely don't agree with you.  Certainly not with the DBL stuff, and no less with a computerized version of it.  None of that has anything to do with complexity, unless you're hinting at only an "overactive imagination" coupled with a "strong will to win" a very-bad toss-up.

We both know that no-one can PROVE that they consistently win at roulette. The only thing that can be proved is a mathematical theorem, and since roulette has already been proved mathematically impossible to beat, the only thing I can prove is that I CAN'T consistently win. I think that guys like you secretly hope that there's a way to win and try to goad members (by their negativity) into revealing how they do it. Why continue to post here otherwise unless you're just interested in provoking members or massaging your ego with gobbledegook?

"A troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous (link:://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective), or off-topic (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic) messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion) response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

QuoteThere's no registration rule here that says every member must contribute something; or that truisms can't be relied on here.  People come and go.  No one is just right, or wrong.  You can't please everyone all the time in every way.  There will always be economic realities.

I didn't say you don't contribute anything, just nothing much of any value. That's my opinion and I'm far from alone in holding it.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: bikemotorman on Apr 22, 08:59 AM 2012
People have made fun of my ideas, I just keep tinkering and have a little fun.

Keep your head up sun comes up in the morning.


                                                         Stuart


:.987power.com (link:://:.987power.com)
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Steve on Apr 22, 06:37 PM 2012
I had a brief read of this thread. I dont have time to read it all, as often disputes are bickering. Ultimately if there is a member or other issue causing problems and nothing is done about it by the mods, contact me directly and give actual examples of what the problem is. I dont have time to fish for information for myself - you need to be specific so I can deal with it.

The only way to guarantee a message to me is read is to directly PM me. I dont read every thread
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: GARNabby on Apr 22, 11:58 PM 2012
Quote from: Bayes on Apr 22, 05:31 AM 2012
I'm no longer a moderator, so you can troll away, I can't stop you unless it's in my thread or in the math reference section.
Thanks for the "official" update, as guess i wasn't enough into "trolling away" to have noticed.

Quote from: Bayes on Apr 22, 05:31 AM 2012
Pot calling kettle black I think -  As I said before, YOU are the one who seems to be concerned with trying to impress people - you even posted your math degree certificates here - who cares?
No. I wrote, "... POSSIBLY in a vain effort to."  (Because i, myself, can't really see the point of going into all of that detail on a public gambling message-board, where the idea would seem to be to discuss the casino-games in general, and the best ways to play those in specific.)  Perhaps, misreading the thing is one of the "reasons" that you feel i'm trying for some sort of showdown.  I'm allowed to speculate, as are you.  Ie, with your follow-up remark to that, which is more in reference to something simply documented without anything winded, or open to dialogue.  How is that 'internet trolling'?  I could've posted much-more impressive degrees than a Bachelor of Mathematics with a minor in Mechanical Engineering.  A minimum standard, if you will, to help avoid these very sorts of problems.  However, i do post to impress myself, to try to better myself when i have something to expound upon.   

Quote from: Bayes on Apr 22, 05:31 AM 2012
We both know that no-one can PROVE that they consistently win at roulette. The only thing that can be proved is a mathematical theorem, and since roulette has already been proved mathematically impossible to beat, the only thing I can prove is that I CAN'T consistently win.?
I try to not limit myself mathematically, or be so-limited by others.  Anyway, it's you who stray off my point that such "claims" of winning "spring eternal" here, and that my counter claims can't then be considered to be 'trolling'.

Quote from: Bayes on Apr 22, 05:31 AM 2012
I think that guys like you secretly hope that there's a way to win and try to goad members (by their negativity) into revealing how they do it. Why continue to post here otherwise unless you're just interested in provoking members or massaging your ego with gobbledegook?
So what?  Is there another rule here somewhere that says every one must always be complimentary, and in agreement with all others?  Sometimes we have to "push" ourselves to strive for something better.  You know that the word s*t*u*p*i*d would seem to have a lot to do with the word stupor?  So, unless you truly believe that i'm in a stupor, mentally as well as physically it would seem, that far out of it, then please don't merely assume yours to be the only alternative, which isn't really an alternative to the former after all... that i'm "provoking" others, or myself, in that sort of unreasonable manner. 

Yes, the definition of an 'internet troll' is available on the internet.  My point there was that dropping such links, or the contents thereof, doesn't substantiate any of your serious allegations against myself in this regard.  For example, had any of my replies much(?) strayed from the exactly-worded topic at-hand, then so did those of they, you for one, who went before me.  But you didn't seem too-fixated on those, did you?

Quote from: Bayes on Apr 22, 05:31 AM 2012
I don't know whether it's deliberate (in an attempt to make yourself look smart) but your posts are obscure to the point of being unreadable, which is one of the reasons why hardly anyone ever responds to them. ---> I didn't say you don't contribute anything, just nothing much of any value. That's my opinion and I'm far from alone in holding it.
Well, you can't judge, for one reason or another, what you admittingly can't, or won't admit that you, understand.  You seem to drop out of the good discussions when those leave the realm of something quick from Wikipedia; certainly, you don't ask for clarification then.  Again, the "book burning" thing... so sure of yourself, there would be no good reason to burn, or potentially shut out a possible explanation of, the evidence.

Anyway, if only Steve has the say on who to ban, you ought to flag such posts/replies in real time, and as requested by him above.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Steve on Apr 23, 12:49 AM 2012
As I've said before, for me or any moderator to decide on banning, we need actual examples. I myself dont bother reading he-said she-said complaints in threads. All I would look at is who said what and whether or not it was out of line.

If someone has a complaint against someone else, you will get nowhere by explaining your case on a thread - your message gets lost in a mess of bickering. You need to contact me directly and be very clear about your complaint, with examples.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Bayes on Apr 23, 04:49 AM 2012
Quote from: GARNabby on Apr 22, 11:58 PM 2012
I could've posted much-more impressive degrees than a Bachelor of Mathematics with a minor in Mechanical Engineering.  A minimum standard, if you will, to help avoid these very sorts of problems.

I've no idea what you mean by that last sentence, are you saying that a degree is a "minimum standard" to be able to participate in this forum without "problems". That's just silly. You seem to be overly impressed by credentials, but they aren't nearly as important as you seem to think they are. Many of the greatest minds in all fields were entirely self-educated - James Clerk Maxwell, Darwin, Edison, Michael Faraday, George Boole, to name just a few in science. It isn't necessary to jump through hoops and get a piece of paper in order to be successful and/or knowledgeable (and it certainly isn't sufficient), unless you're working in academia. Still, some people are impressed by letters after your name, so if prestige is your thing, then go for it. Especially in science, evidence trumps eminence every time (or it should, but sadly it doesn't always).
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: GARNabby on Apr 23, 08:11 AM 2012
Quote from: Bayes on Apr 23, 04:49 AM 2012
I've no idea what you mean by that last sentence, are you saying that a degree is a "minimum standard" to be able to participate in this forum without "problems".
Only the sort of "problems" which you're trying to fabricate.  That University of Waterloo degree which i posted on line came in one reply to johno's pretense to owning driver's licences from three separate countries, etc, etc.  I posted up also a quick-and-dirty picture of a large sum of CAD petty cash on hand at my residence, a "passport" to any casino; and my real driver's licence.  To which he appeared unable to post up even one of those licences of his, (of which only one would nicely suffice in any free country that you could safely venture.)

Quote from: Bayes on Apr 23, 04:49 AM 2012
That's just silly.
That WOULD BE silly wouldn't it!

Quote from: Bayes on Apr 23, 04:49 AM 2012
Many of the greatest minds in all fields were entirely self-educated - James Clerk Maxwell, Darwin, Edison, Michael Faraday, George Boole, to name just a few in science. It isn't necessary to jump through hoops and get a piece of paper in order to be successful and/or knowledgeable (and it certainly isn't sufficient), unless you're working in academia. Still, some people are impressed by letters after your name, so if prestige is your thing, then go for it. Especially in science, evidence trumps eminence every time (or it should, but sadly it doesn't always).
Another hypothetical seque into something you want to bring up and answer on your own.

Why are you compelled to qualify everything, go round and round?  To see things as obvious, but not obvious; complex, but not complex; playable, but not playable, as some of my replies on this board.

Somehow, a username says so much, doesn't it?   
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Bayes on Apr 23, 09:25 AM 2012
GARNabby,

Your cryptic and ambiguous mode of writing (together with some other traits) betrays passive-aggression. You obviously get your kicks from making other people feel insecure, so have fun with that.  Alternatively, you could try getting a life.


Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: iggiv on Apr 23, 11:10 AM 2012
hey guys let's take easy. It's about roulette only, not about each other life and writing styles
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: GARNabby on Apr 25, 08:29 PM 2012
Quote from: Bayes on Apr 23, 09:25 AM 2012
Your cryptic and ambiguous mode of writing...
A good way to allow others the freedom to say what's really on their minds.  To not start off with "leading questions", and to not end with being judgemental.  Generally, a good mindset with which to approach new ideas; or to know when to retreat from dangerous situations, e.g., a casino about to "eject" you from a game.  So, as long as something forms words, and sentences, but doesn't contradict itself...  you know you're getting somewhere good.

Quote from: Bayes on Apr 23, 09:25 AM 2012
... (together with some other traits) betrays passive-aggression. You obviously get your kicks from making other people feel insecure, so have fun with that.
Well apparently, lacking evidence of your serious claims against myself, it doesn't surprise me that you would resort to that statement.  The malicious anger, which will be found in NONE of my posts anywhere, must, according to my "haters", be somewhere, right?  Again, such witch-hunt "tactics" permit little opportunity of defence.  So, deal in evidence which is always avaliable to, and for, everyone.  (The basis of Game Theory.) 

Quote from: Bayes on Apr 23, 09:25 AM 2012Alternatively, you could try getting a life.
I sometimes admonish others from not growing up (improving), or not bettering themselves, but you'd have to catch me on a really bad "hair day" to say what you did.

Every one "has a life", is someone... no one is ever a "nothing".

"Have a nice life, Bayes!" would be my choice, that allows for a polite exit.

Quote from: iggiv on Apr 23, 11:10 AM 2012
... not about each other's life and writing styles.
In general.  But, if you can, there's something good to be learned from every one you meet.  A good sort of entropy, if you will.
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: catalyst on Apr 26, 02:37 AM 2012
Quote from: GARNabby on Apr 23, 08:11 AM 2012
Somehow, a username says so much, doesn't it?   

you have initiated personal vendetta against some members. you look satisfied. stay happily ever after in fools' paradise! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Title: Re: David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators
Post by: Steve on Apr 26, 07:33 AM 2012
holy shite this is so damn cute!

Two cute white bunnies :) (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=WLkww2D7z-Q#)