David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators

[Bayes]

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?

[GLC]

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. Duh??    

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.

[Bayes]

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).

[Chrisbis]

Hello George. 

[iggiv]

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

[iggiv]

again i read Garnabby's message

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.

[Chrisbis]

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:-

I 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!)

[iggiv]

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.

[Skakus]

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. 

[Steve]

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.

[catalyst]

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.

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!

[Bayes]

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.

[GARNabby]

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.

[GARNabby]

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.

[Robeenhuut]

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