Free Rocco
I have received a few complaints that you are sending threatening emails and this is strongly against the forum rules.
This is supposed to be a place to come and talk about poker, but when people's safety is in question that takes precedence.
For this reason I am banning your account for 2 weeks. If you come back and cool off then we would love to have you back, but right now I, along with many of the members, don't appreciate you threatening anyones physical safety.
I don't have to like the guy to know that Rocco being banned is an injustice.
Graham, I believe that you made a mistake this week when you elected to temporarily ban Rocco but not Prophet22, I would like to see balance. (my first choice is that neither is put in time out, second is that both are.)
************************
The reality is that Rocco is some kid from the states, he's not coming here, his threats are lame...we all know this.
Prophet22 openly repeated "Meet me at Bristol tonight" and actually could have done real harm to another member. Even he admitted that he was not sure what he would have done if 800Over had shown up.
http://www.pokerforum.ca/f6/us-presidential-election-17687/
I'm certain that even if you (Graham) were NOT reading that thread Compuease was.
Consistency is fair to request.
sincerely,
stfu wench/harlot
Comments
As I mentioned to you over MSN I was not aware of the situation with Prophet and 800over as I never received any reports about the posts. I know that myself and the 2 other mods have had limited Internet access over the past few days so these incidents couldn't have come at a worse time. I will look over the posts and let you know.
In future, if you see something like this, please use the report a post feature. It is the little symbol that looks like a yield sign.
As for unbanning Rocco... He has a temporary ban and will be unbanned shortly. Things were getting way too heated up with him, and he sent PMs to several people with quite severe threats. On top of this he was using multiple accounts. Once he cools off a bit he is more than welcome to come back.
Graham
First, Compuease was all over that thread
Second, You're presuming that I want to see EITHER of these guys banned (I don't, I want the skirts who clicked about Rocco to learn to use the 'ignore' feature)
Third, Lots of people have multi-accounts here...in fact I opened another account and used it with the permission of a mod.
For a better explanation of why Rocco was banned, see this post:
http://www.pokerforum.ca/169614-post127.html
I'm saying that your banning Rocco because of the idea that 'personal threats will not be tolerated' is blown to hell.
I can believe that you didn't see the full picture when you banned Rocco, but now that you do...action is necessary.
Good things come in 3's
The person in question has been banned from almost every other forum he's been in. See a pattern?
my .02
I'll tell you this much...I'd like to come to your homes and/or places of business and...
Kristy, if you see my other posts you will see that it was not just the personal threats, though that is the main reason. Rocco did not give me time to handle the situation properly, but decided it was better to start posting irradically accross many sections of the forum (some of these posts have now even been removed) to cause havoc. In these situations I am left to act immediately, but that was not the case here. This situation was isolated to a single thread.
Whether you agree with me or not, I have taken the action that I feel is necessary and I do not feel I have to disclose every detail of these actions to you. Not everyone is going to be happy in every situation. If the people that were actually threatened still feel that there is some kind of danger towards themselves then I will take further action, but for now no further action will be taken.
I don't think putting Prophet in the penalty box is unwarranted in this situation but he has since found his brain (n/c on the size of it) and posted an appropriate apology. The mountain is now a molehill so lets get on with life.
I am sure if Rocco had done the same he would not be banned either. Unfortunately he didn't. Reminds me of another poster who went postal and would not listen to reason. Finally she errrr.... I mean the poster in question got a temp ban and came back after taking a breath.
As for the 800Over/Prophet situation, I asked them to cool it, they did, case closed. Prophets perceived or hinted threat was NO WHERE near what Rocco did.. You may not have received any of his direct PM threats but a number of forumers did. I'm with Graham and Wes on this one, we stand united, lol....
You do know that your points are not ALWAYS clear don't you?
I said I'd quit this forum otherwise...I mean it now, just as surely as I meant it then.
And were you to reread the threads related to this looking for more than the opportunity to fluff Graham, I doubt that you could compare my reaction to EITHER Prophets OR Rocco's..;)
On topic:
Graham posts "We ban if you threaten people..."
Kristy: "umm hai, no you don't..here's proof"
Graham: "oh uhhhh uhhhhh uhhhhhhh"
[three hours later]
Graham: "I don't have to anwer to you, it is my ball and if you don't like it I'll just take it and go home"
Fuck this! Graham, stop trying to defend yourself..you're wrong, be a man, admit it and make it right. I don't even like this Rocco guy, but banning him is a bunch of elitist garbage that you are justifying after the fact, evidenced by the fact that he's off for two weeks not two days..as would be reasonable if you just wanted him to 'cool off' and weren't PUNISHING him for making threats.
Brent made a REAL physical threat
Rocco played e-thug
ignore both, ban both...or deal with the fact that I'm going to point out to the forum what a retarded move was made in lieu.
What exactly are you attempting to accomplish with that sentence Jeff?
It reads as though you are assuming that I'm referring to something besides the responses from the other posters in this thread. (excluding bbc_z)
I assure you...I never, not once, thought of you.
For the folks at home...watch now how they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to tear apart my posts instead of just realizing that they did fuck up, and then taking steps to fix it...or making any real arguments to counter the points I have made.
This will then become an ongoing flame war...when like last time, listening to the fair point that I made AFTER discussing it with three different forumers to ensure that it was so, would save us all hours of hassle.
And six months from now, someone will call ME irrational for being the only person using logic on this fucking site.
You have selective memory.
The ban wasn't about your right to free speech on a privately owned forum.
It was about you acting like a spoiled 10 year old and Graham obliging you by making you go stand in the corner.
There was an error made - Rocco was banned either A: Because of threatening comments / PM's or B: Because he began a propaganda / spam campaign.
In case A:
Rocco being banned, fine, but in that case you also have to ban prophet because regardless of the severity, or reporting of incident, threats are threats
In case B:
Rocco should be banned, and prophet does not necessarily have to be - though a case could be made saying that he hijacked a thread.
However, the reason given for Rocco's ban was situation A: therefore, discrimination* has taken place - most likely due to the fact that Prophet is a long-standing member of CPF.
* Please note, that contrary to last week's heated topic, this discrimination is NOT racism.
Mark
P.S. - What happens if I report a post for double standards?
This is a benign dictatorship, run by Graham. He runs it in a fairly even-handed way, as far as I am concerned. Regardless, it is his to run, for good ($$$) or ill (no $$$).
When Rocco began posting on this Forum, some of us who have had experience with him on other sites sent up flares regarding the inevitable shit-storm that would ensue. Rather than own up and explain, he attempted to play dumb. When this was a clear failure he again failed to own up to the truth (which is all I ever asked him to do). Rather he chose to go ballistic, unleashing a tirade of cursive posts across the Forum and, apparently, sending out threatening pm's. For this, our benevolent despot gave him a temporary ban, with the admonishment that all will be forgiven when he has had a chance to calm down.
Now contrast this with Brent, who has a lengthy track record, both on this site, and with several of the members personally. In his case we have him losing his rag in one thread, and stepping a fair distance beyond the lines of what has been deemed acceptable. He eventually came to this realization as well, after ongoing posts within the aforementioned thread, and apologized for doing so. He has been properly chastened by his friends, and also by our benevolent dictator for his actions. So:
Is there a discrepancy in the treatment of the two "offenders"? Yes
Is there an explanation as to why two people may receive differing punishments for similar actions? Sure, happens all the time in our justice system, so why not here?
Is it relevant? No. Simply put, Graham could throw darts at a board to determine punishment, if he chose to. But, as I said, he seems pretty reasonable to me.
Am I going to lose sleep over it? Probably not, as there are enough other reasons for me to lose sleep lately.
Completed your thought.
This situation is an example of discrimination being used well, imo. Any time a zero-tolerance policy is put in place, that ends up becoming a zero-thought policy. U.S. examples include kids being suspended/expelled because they brought butter knives to school w their lunches. "A knife is a knife!" scream the school officials. Well, yes, a knife IS a knife. But in any situation there is room for judgement.
That Prophet acknowledged his error, apologized, and realized his action were bannable, seems enough of a reason NOT to ban him.
Your point is clear enough. It is, however, not germane.
When a cop pulls me over for speeding, I get a ticket.
When a cop pulls you (just an example) over for speeding, you flirt and get waved on . . .
Is it fair? Nope.
Does it happen? All the time . . .
Should I cry about it? What would be the point?
None of this is meant to imply that Brent has flirted, or will flirt with Graham, now, or in the future . . .
Lotta people were REEEEEEEEAL comfortable having them Negroes out in the field..
Mark
P.S. The idea of Brent flirting with Graham makes me giggle
My work here is done, then."cheers:
Prophet's history...a lot of us know him as an upstanding person, who normally has excellent insight and has been around for a long time. Does this forgive his actions in one thread, absolutely not. BUT he apologized publically and is willing to take whatever punishment if any.
Rocco is obviously a repeat offender, and should be banned. Brent on the other hand has only had this one instance of flaring ill temper, and has requested forgiveness, throwing himself onto the mercy of the CPF court.
Should Graham have him banned? I don't believe so, but that's his call. Weighing everything equally however, I personally see no good coming from it for either him, Brent, or the forum in general.
Was this directed at ME????? I can only assume it was since it was posted right after my response. Chill the fuck down lady...holy christ!! Never seen someone get their panties in a bunch over some moron getting banned.
Now as for your statement of claim....re-read my post:
Understand English? my point is in agreement with yours.
Moron #1 got banned for good reason. If moron #2 hasn't been banned for whatever reason (mod hasn't gotten around to it, didn't see all facts...etc etc) Let the mods handle it.
Sheesh
*Edit*...just read "Str8toAce"'s post. Very eloquently put. Best description of the events I've read. Nicely done.
That had nothing to do with you.
Thanks though
Mark
No? ya sure 'bout that?
Post #1 Kristy makes an accusation
Post # 2 Graham defends it.
....
Post # 6 Kristy re-iterates her claim
Post #7 (irrelevant)
Post #8 My post about Rocco's banning being appropriate
Post #9 Kristy ask if we're all "fucking retarted...how can I make myself more clear..."
Pardon me if I felt her statement of claim had something to do with my post.
I wish I was the person who could stop you from being this stupid.
The right/wrong line is easily definable here, again..this hogwash about Graham's dictatorship is spouted and believed by the most pedestrian of you..if his goal is to rule over people with an iron fist instead of creating a real community of people who can honestly discuss and grow...than I want nothing to do with this site, and I'd suggest the rest of you pull this hypothetical 'Graham's' dick out of your ass and do the same. I don't buy it, I believe that he just fucked up and now doesn't know how to right it and/or save face.
Like I said Caddy, it is a 'bad read you' that turns me into someone frivolous or spoiled, I say what I mean always, but never think that I'm not prepared to fight OR pay for it...and I do. No response is necessary.
Calgary Dave..if I thought you were retarDed I would include your name. Chill the fuck down guy.
And if I believed that Wes was looking into it I would leave it be, but the reality is that Compuease and Graham show me time and time again that they will never act well under pressure.
I love you both...but you should really stick to erasing spam..you're plain old trash at the other stuff.
"Any man that will sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither"
Mark