Again, I think that precisely and exhaustively specifying everything that is bad and everything that is not bad is a fool’s errand, and that mods, whoever they may be, should be trusted to use their judgment, and even granted the benefit of the doubt when there is some disagreement. That is the only workable way of doing things when the meaning and intent of written word is so flexible, and even weaponizable by those who would act in bad faith.
1 Like
I can dig that, but what I mean to point out is that there’s a huge gulf between “exhaustive detail” and “the broadest, most vague thing imaginable”.
1 Like
You guys are fine wordsmiths.
4 Likes
Well, if you are dissatisfied with the status quo, there is an established process to create and/or clarify rules. Have at it. You’re welcome to convince the community that greater granularity is necessary.
This is all disingenuous nonsense anyway. I didn’t warn you because you referenced Jman’s legal work in a vacuum. I warned you because you went out of your way to repeatedly imply that he was a deliberately racist child-imprisoner. And of course you know this.
2 Likes
Lol stop lying.
Nah, I’m totally sincere. In fact, that’s precisely why you’re reacting the way you are.
Do you want to take each word one by one or how do you want to do this? Even MrWookie acknowledged I raised a point, he just disagreed with it, and he presented that disagreement in a manner consistent with his current beliefs. I don’t know what you’re doing.
Lol.
I’m not going to bat for David Fucking Sklansky though. Idgaf, ban him. If you think that’s what I was doing then this is probably above your paygrade.
Granularity is what makes a rule a rule. Otherwise, the word you’re looking for is “whim”.
Which, is fine I guess. You at least have been mostly forthright that these are your beliefs, and I’m sure you can see how others might find that suboptimal even if you disagree.
I get that you think this is some kind of logically-inconsistent dunk, but DS went out of his way to destroy someone’s life and then defended his actions, on this forum, as recently as a few months ago. Should I see him as someone who is looking to “change and grow in really positive ways?”
2 Likes
It’s not a dunk attempt, it’s just bringing up a point in a discussion. The fact that I’m replying right now should show that.
But, and I am sorry, considering you just lied about me, intentionally or unintentionally, I actually don’t trust that you’re relaying an accurate version of events concerning DS defending himself and not showing remorse and not looking to change and grow in really positive ways. I’d have to see it for myself and make an assessment.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, you’re probably right based on what I know of DS not even related to that email, but, you know. That’s why you shouldn’t lie. It just creates a bunch of busywork.
I mean I guess this is one of those situations where our experience of an event was so different that we both think the other party was lying. From my perspective, I warned you because your repeated allusions to disproportionately putting black teens in jail was exactly what I described above - and I know I wasn’t the only one with that read. If your intent was different, fine. But my my perception is also that you have a taste for insulting people in plausibly-vague and convoluted ways so that you can afterward blame the aggrieved for supposedly misunderstanding you.
Look, I’ll apologize upfront because I actually do feel like I’m trolling now, based on the fact that I don’t really care.
Note though, this is different than not being sincere. I’m 110% sincere. Of course banning DS is ridiculous based on the “rules” we have, and based on the fact that all this has been public knowledge, even posted on this forum before. And we’ll never know the whole story because Brandi, God rest her soul, can’t share it, although I’m on record as being on her side before (toxic ass 2p2 called her a con-woman for getting staked in games above her level by using her charm and charisma, and I’m like, men who do that are a dime-a-dozen you deplorable fucks) and after she passed so I couldn’t see that changing.
But, it’s still ridiculous. The difference is I’m fine with admitting to being ridiculous and banning him. People have the right to be occasionally ridiculous, and the problem only occurs when people want to be occasionally ridiculous whilst being seen as never being ridiculous. MrWookie comes really close to squaring this circle with his mod-discretion takes but doesn’t quite get there. It’s fine to just say, we’re gonna occasionally govern by whims, and occasionally those whims will be ridiculous.
“Why are we banning DS?”
“Because fuck him, that’s why.”
“Tough but fair.”
2 Likes
Sorry, that wasn’t a direct reply to the post you just made. I hate lollygagging whilst typing something and then seeing a post pop up in the interim.
Yeah wtf does “gaming” have to do with a dying message board though? Like, video games are still really popular, Have you seen the IGN boards lately? Some of the big fantasy football boards I posted on ~15 years ago are similarly virtual ghost towns nowadays, and fantasy sports, particularly DFS, seem to be going strong. 
You’re conflating “gaming” generally with that site in particular; we’re talking about two different things here I think?
Even if Mason’s promised Trump Poker Boom™ does finally materialize (and Mason himself seems so thoroughly convinced of its inevitability that he {checks notes} sold his Web site devoted to poker) that in no way guarantees that toopluztogotcomm is going to ever achieve anything approaching its heyday. And if it doesn’t, how could anyone justify paying more than a few bones for that site? I mean these guys aren’t Google or Gavin Belson or whatever. The only reason I would personally pay anything for that site would be because I had a better idea and I wanted to make it go away to help attract more people to my Better Idea.
In fact, I think they’d have been much better served taking the money they lit on fire when they handed it to Mason and the Sklanskys and just started a brand new site that doesn’t have the previous owners’ stink on it. At least the people here might give such a venture a look.
If it takes off and becomes what it was before c. 2010, I’ll come back here and eat my words (or maybe even do it there, provided Mason and David and Mat aren’t red admins there by then). But I don’t think that will be necessary. Once message boards die, historically, they tend to stay dead.
Gaming is an industry white washed name for gambling. I’m not confusing anytning, it’s literally my job for over two decades. I put the “” to make sure no one will post whatever it is you posted.
It is mind blowing how opinionated people are about stuff they don’t understand. While it’s pefectly reasonable to guess that these guys will do poorly, 2p2 is still worth obscene amount of money if handled properly.
Your entire post is missing the point because if it “takes off” and becomes what it was in 2010 it will be worth 200m at least. We were discussing a 6 figs deal. I can make that in the first month simply by affilating sports betting sites, which pay absurd amont of money for users now and the 2p2 database correlates great with sports betting clients.
1 Like
I guess maybe they will beat the odds and become i dunno the first(?) to make a site that was once successful but then died successful again . That one is pretty tainted though. I look forward to learning more from you though for sure, dickhead.
So you didn’t know what gaming is. You are talking about something that isn’t your expertise. You are talking to someone that this is his expertise. You make irrelevant claims (site is “dead”, they need to bring it “back to its glory days” to make a profit), you have no idea what profit avenues there are for them and you end your post with some cussing.
good job, you are a white male.
1 Like
It seems like discussion of the original proposal has run its course, so I’m going to propose that we move to the next step of creating a poll to vote on the wording of the proposal.
Please vote to approve (or not) the wording of the following proposed rule:
Proposed Rule: David Sklansky should be banned from posting on this site.
Relevant link with more context for the proposed rule: Two Plus Two Poker Forums - View Single Post - This website has been purchased by us. What is the future of 2+2?
Do you approve of the wording for this proposed rule?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
Poll closes 8/24/2021. If a majority votes in favor of the wording, the proposed rule will be put to a forum-wide vote.
Assuming that this is a yes, what is the threshold for the actual vote to ban?
Based on Sabo’s ban, it’s not more than 59%
1 Like