vpFREE2 Forums

mroejacks

#1

On 10 SEP "mroejacks" posted on the Winpoker forum that he
won't post on vpFREE until I apologize for having insulted him.

···

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted the following response on Winpoker:

I don't have anything to apologize for. The "insult" apparently
consisted of a private request I made to "mroejacks" asking him
to agree to comply with vpFREE posting guidelines in the future.

He refused to give any assurance that he would observe the rules,
and said that he would no longer post on vpFREE until I
apologized to him for my "childish behavior".

See the discussion on the FREEvpFREE forum for additional
details.

vpFREE Administrator

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"mroejacks" replied that he never broke any vpFREE rules and that
my actions had been vindictive.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted the following response on Winpoker:

1. Polite, objective, impersonal disagreement with other members
or their posts is fine on vpFREE.

2. Ridiculing or belittling other members or their posts isn't
allowed.

3. I decided to revoke the posting privileges of a few habitual
ridiculers and belittlers, rather than continually correcting
their disruptive behavior.

4. "mroejacks" had a long history of ridiculing and belittling
Bob Dancer and his posts.

5. After "mroejacks" made a ridiculing and belittling post about
Bob Dancer (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/85793),
I sent him a private email to put him on notice that those type of
posts wouldn't be tolerated in the future.

6. Subsequent posts by "mroejacks" on FREEvpFREE indicated that
he didn't intend to observe the rules, so I told him that his
posting privileges on all vpFREE forums would be revoked if he
didn't agree to comply with the rules.

7. He wouldn't agree to comply with the rules and instead responded
that effective immediately he would no longer post on vpFREE
until I apologized to him for my "childish behavior".

8. Members who intentionally disregard the rules aren't allowed
to post on any vpFREE forum.

9. I revoked the posting privileges for "mroejacks" on all vpFREE
forums.

10. I'm sorry to air this dirty laundry on the Winpoker forum, but I
felt it was necessary to post a reply to the "insult" comment. I don't
intend to respond any further on Winpoker.

vpFREE Administrator

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"mroejacks" responded to my post, point by point, saying that he never
broke any vpFREE rules and he said that I was a vindictive liar.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted the facts on Winpoker about mroejacks' "insult" comment,
and won't rebut his inaccurate allegations on that forum.

I will give "mroejacks" temporary posting access, and will respond to his
allegations, here on FREEvpFREE, if he wishes. If he declines, I will
reply on FREEvpFREE to a summarized version of his allegations.

vpFREE Administrator

#2

The vpFREE Administrator owes mroejacks an apology.

I read the post in question
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/85793)
and then re-read the entire thread.

Bob Dancer's post (to which mroejacks replied)
ridiculed 25c players and belittled those members of
vpFREE who play at lower denominations. mroejacks
was, rightfully, calling Bob on the carpet for his remarks.

After reading the thread, I see that mroejacks was not
alone in his feelings about Bob's post. In that thread,
Bob even made a half-assed "clarification" of the intent
of his message, without ever really apologizing for
insulting lower denomination players.

Once again, The vpFREE Administrator is allowing Bob
Dancer to post anything he wants, including ridiculing
and belittling messages....while banning others members.

The vpFREE Administrator has a long history of allowing
Bob Dancer to spew anything Bob Dancer wants....while
banning others.

Curtis

···

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@yahoo.com>wrote:

On 10 SEP "mroejacks" posted on the Winpoker forum that he
won't post on vpFREE until I apologize for having insulted him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted the following response on Winpoker:

<SNIP>

5. After "mroejacks" made a ridiculing and belittling post about
Bob Dancer (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/85793),
I sent him a private email to put him on notice that those type of
posts wouldn't be tolerated in the future.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

I see the admin caved in by allowing this information on freevpfree.
Kind of tough for him to defend himself after he chose to ban me from
the so-called free speech forum. I assume he thinks this recitfies
that action. Hardly. However, it does demonstrate he knew he was
wrong. Now if only he takes a little time to look in a mirror, we
won't have to go any further.

One piece of advice, Tom. All you have to do is make one RULE ...
(The administrator decides what is appropriate behavior). Then, if
you don't like a note then publicly respond to that note immediately
and state it violates this one rule. That will take care of 99.9% of
the problems. No secrecy ... no personal emails ... no problem. The
problem with the current rules is interpretation. I followed a strict
interpretation of rules and you didn't. But even if you think you did
you can't deny that people may interpret them differently. This opens
up a can of worms and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has disagreed
with you. That should tell you something.

Second piece of advice. Get some modern software. You can create
multiple topics. This allows any topics that might get edgy to be
isolated from the rest of the forums. It also allows you to kill the
threads or lock them. This level of support almost eliminates the
need to ban anyone. Makes the job much easier. Here's one free
product.

http://www.simplemachines.org/

You can thank me later.

So, here's the facts ...

Dick

--- In winpoker@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@...>
wrote:

1. Polite, objective, impersonal disagreement with other members
or their posts is fine on vpFREE.

No problem. I always followed these rules.

2. Ridiculing or belittling other members or their posts isn't
allowed.

The vpfree policy as stated was to respond to the message and not
attack the poster. I always directed my criticism to the message. If
a message was ridiculous then I indicated as such. Interestingly,
others have also responded in an identical manner. This will always
be the case in forums with adult participation.

3. I decided to revoke the posting privileges of a few habitual
ridiculers and belittlers, rather than continually correcting
their disruptive behavior.

This is where I disagreed with the administrator. He kept this action
secretive. He clearly did not want his actions held up to close
scrutiny. I think that speaks volumes. Keep in mind, I never did this
on vpfree as I thought that would be disruptive.

4. "mroejacks" had a long history of ridiculing and belittling
Bob Dancer and his posts.

That is a lie. I called out Bob Dancer on many of his "ridiculing and
belittling" posts and several members agreed with my comments.
However, it is interesting that after Bob made "ridiculing and
belittling" posts about me, nothing was said or done. A double
standard no doubt, but one that showed without a doubt that the
Vpfree Adminstrator has some kind of personal vendetta against me. I
think his actions here also make that pretty obvious.

5. After "mroejacks" made a ridiculing and belittling post about
Bob Dancer (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/85793),
I sent him a private email to put him on notice that those type of
posts wouldn't be tolerated in the future.

I followed VPfree rules exactly and criticized the MESSAGE. That is
perfectly clear. I even tried to educate him a little as other
members had mentioned the ego problem and notes like the one I
responded to were the reason. Note that the admin did not send me
the "private email" until weeks after this note and ONLY after I
commented on his handling of banning other members. As I said before,
this makes it clear he did not find the post "ridiculing and
belittling" until later on. It's really kind of hilarious to see the
admin attempting to defend this behavior when it was clear as a bell
exactly what he was doing.

6. Subsequent posts by "mroejacks" on FREEvpFREE indicated that
he didn't intend to observe the rules, so I told him that his
posting privileges on all vpFREE forums would be revoked if he
didn't agree to comply with the rules.

No reference to such a post??? That's because there was none. This
is another lie. I stated many times that I followed the rules as
written and would continue to do so. I also pointed out several times
on freevpfree the admins attempts to twist the rules in whatever
manner he chose. It was amazing. I had clearly criticized a paragraph
in a note and even used the words "paragraph" and "analogy" to make
it clear I was responding only to the message. The admin claimed this
was a personal attack (weeks later). Like I said, amazing.

7. He wouldn't agree to comply with the rules and instead responded
that effective immediately he would no longer post on vpFREE
until I apologized to him for my "childish behavior".

I agreed to comply to the rules by making a post the next day (as
stated in the vpfree rules and as I previously mentioned).

Now, I will not post on vpfree until I receive an apology. However,
note that the admin banned me from the so-called free speech forum,
freeVPfree. The reason was obvious. He did not want his lies and
actions documented for others to see. This followed the pattern he
established earlier with his secretive bannings.

8. Members who intentionally disregard the rules aren't allowed
to post on any vpFREE forum.

Yes they are. Last time I checked Bob Dancer is still posting. And, I
was banned even though I never disregarded the rules.

Note this careful use of "any vpfree forums" so the admin can keep
people from airing their side of the story on the so-called free
speech forum. This is no accident. There never has been nor ever will
be a free speech forum associated with vpfree. Yup, another lie.

9. I revoked the posting privileges for "mroejacks" on all vpFREE
forums.

And the reason is BEYOND obvious.

10. I'm sorry to air this dirty laundry on the Winpoker forum, but

I

felt it was necessary to post a reply to the "insult" comment. I

don't

intend to respond any further on Winpoker.

No, you're not sorry. You jumped right in to add more lies to your
ever growing list. You also lie every time you post as vpfae and have
been lying ever since you claimed to bring in a new administrator.
Just another notch in that secretive belt.

I really had no intent on bringing this up on this forum. All I
intended to do is provide the reason I wasn't posting this
information on vpfree. That reason still holds. However, I am not
going to let Tom jump in and continue to spread these lies. That's
not in my nature.

I do apologize for this disruption to the winpoker forum.

Dick

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@...>
wrote:

···

On 10 SEP "mroejacks" posted on the Winpoker forum that he
won't post on vpFREE until I apologize for having insulted him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

--

I posted the following response on Winpoker:

I don't have anything to apologize for. The "insult" apparently
consisted of a private request I made to "mroejacks" asking him
to agree to comply with vpFREE posting guidelines in the future.

He refused to give any assurance that he would observe the rules,
and said that he would no longer post on vpFREE until I
apologized to him for my "childish behavior".

See the discussion on the FREEvpFREE forum for additional
details.

vpFREE Administrator

-------------- snip

I will give "mroejacks" temporary posting access, and will respond

to his

allegations, here on FREEvpFREE, if he wishes. If he declines, I

will

reply on FREEvpFREE to a summarized version of his allegations.

vpFREE Administrator

#4

Curtis, I believe this is where the administrator has created problems
for himself. He may very well have reprimanded Dancer for his posts.
However, by doing these things secretly he provides the impression,
rightly or wrongly, that he has no problem with these posts. Now, had
the administrator came right out and publicly reprimanded Bob for this
post I would not have felt the need to reply and the subject would have
ended right there. This approach is simple and direct. Like I said
earlier this approach will eliminate 99.9% of the problems.

This is how adults interact. The administator currently uses a
student/teacher approach. This doesn't work well when the students
consider themselves educated adults. I hope the administrator "gets it"
eventually.

Dick

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Curtis Rich" <LGTVegas@...> wrote:

Once again, The vpFREE Administrator is allowing Bob
Dancer to post anything he wants, including ridiculing
and belittling messages....while banning others members.

The vpFREE Administrator has a long history of allowing
Bob Dancer to spew anything Bob Dancer wants....while
banning others.

#5

Curtis Rich wrote:

The vpFREE Administrator owes mroejacks an apology.

I read the post in question
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/85793)
and then re-read the entire thread.

Bob Dancer's post (to which mroejacks replied)
ridiculed 25c players and belittled those members of
vpFREE who play at lower denominations. mroejacks
was, rightfully, calling Bob on the carpet for his remarks.

Let's parse things a little:

The thread, at heart, dealt with commentary on vpFREE's "sunshine"
policy. At the time that policy was essentially that anything
attractive under the sun merited reporting and members had a
responsibility to do so.

Bob discussed why this wasn't so -- notably that the "dynamics" of
high denom play differed from those of lower denom play. Now, Bob
wasn't particularly explicit about those "dynamics", but it was clear
that he wasn't talking about card hold strategy. He points out that
there's a fair presumption that any play presenting a $50+/hr EV to
the player is a mistake. The reasonable extension of that statement
is that there's good reason to exercise due care in drawing attention
to these plays. This is a key "dynamic" that distinguishes high denom
from low denom play.

Dick states that he has no problem at all with this reasoning. What
Dick drew sharp exception to was Bob's closing statement. I don't
question that Bob closed his argument with an incredibly clumsy
analogy. But in the context of that discussion, there isn't a bit of
ridicule to be found:

Bob wrote:

But with today's Internet, you get all sorts of 25¢ players who
start loudly proclaiming, IN CAPITAL LETTERS, what $5 players
"should" do --- and they really don't understand the dynamics of
these games.

Would you expect NFL coaches to actively seek the advice of high
school football players on how to win? The difference between 25¢
and $10 games is almost that large.

Dick replied:

Bob, you were doing fine until this idiotic last paragraph. This
analogy is ridiculous at best. Just because .25 plays are more
prevalent does(n't) change the approach a good VP player takes. It
makes no difference what denom one is playing since the math is
EXACTLY the same. Not surprising people think you're ego is tad bit
too large.

In referring to "math", it's entirely apparent that Dick sidestepped
most everything about Bob's discussion, as well as the broad subject
of the thread as a whole. I find that Dick missed the mark entirely.

Furthermore, in doing so, Dick resorted to a characterization that by
all means can be regarded as "attacking the poster, not the post".
Call Bob's statement in error, unreasonable, insupportable, or
whatever. But if you ever see me call a statement "idiotic", I'm not
mincing words ... I think the author is an idiot for letting the words
fall out of their mouth. The person needn't reply to me -- it's very
unlikely that I have any hearing for anything else they might say in
defense.

And then there's gratuitous lob at Bob's ego. Hell, I don't think Bob
would deny that his ego ranks at head of the class in size. (Of
course, he'd note that his track record gives good cause for the
strength of his convictions :wink:

But I'm hard pressed to see where Bob was slapping anyone one down
here ... just making observations that to me are patently obvious. To
toss out a throw away statement like Dick's, that doesn't add anything
compelling to an argument, lends a strong presumption that it was
intended merely to offend. (That's my take; I grasp others disagree).

···

------

So all that said, let's take a look at what Bob wrote in reply:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/85804

I wasn't referring to the proficiency of the players. There are very
competent 25¢ and $1 players. I was discussing the surviveability
dynamics of a quarter play versus a $10 play.

Most analogies are somewhat flawed --- and this <reference to the
HS/NFL statement> seems to have more than its share. For that I
apologize. But I certain do NOT back down from my overall theme
that players who play 25¢ games do not understand the high-limit
dynamics as they don't experience them in their own game.

I can't think of a more graceful comeback to Dick's statement. If
Bob's behavior in this thread is to be faulted, then I have to suspect
that my own behavior on vpFREE exposes me as one of its most piss poor
contributors.

------

I fail to conceive how things couldn't have been resolved amicably
between the admin and Dick. Obviously, I don't know everything about
the discussion between them. But the bottom fell out somewhere, and I
don't think Bob had anything to do with it.

- Harry

#6

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

Bob wrote:

> But with today's Internet, you get all sorts of 25¢ players who
> start loudly proclaiming, IN CAPITAL LETTERS, what $5 players
> "should" do --- and they really don't understand the dynamics of
> these games.
>
> Would you expect NFL coaches to actively seek the advice of high
> school football players on how to win? The difference between 25¢
> and $10 games is almost that large.

Dick replied:

> Bob, you were doing fine until this idiotic last paragraph. This
> analogy is ridiculous at best. Just because .25 plays are more
> prevalent does(n't) change the approach a good VP player takes.

It

> makes no difference what denom one is playing since the math is
> EXACTLY the same. Not surprising people think you're ego is tad

bit

> too large.

In referring to "math", it's entirely apparent that Dick sidestepped
most everything about Bob's discussion, as well as the broad subject
of the thread as a whole. I find that Dick missed the mark

entirely.

Furthermore, in doing so, Dick resorted to a characterization that

by

all means can be regarded as "attacking the poster, not the post".
Call Bob's statement in error, unreasonable, insupportable, or
whatever. But if you ever see me call a statement "idiotic", I'm

not

mincing words ... I think the author is an idiot for letting the

words

fall out of their mouth.

Sorry Harry but you are simply WRONG. I choose the words very
carefully. That why I used the word "paragraph". If you cannot see
this then you are looking for something that isn't there. Look at the
words you just used ... you had to come out with an entire new
sentence which I DID NOT WRITE to make it a personal attack. If I had
intended a personal attack I wouldn't have minced words. I know Bob
is not an idiot. I think he's a very smart fellow. I have no idea why
you would think I thought otherwise.

The person needn't reply to me -- it's very
unlikely that I have any hearing for anything else they might say in
defense.

And then there's gratuitous lob at Bob's ego. Hell, I don't think

Bob

would deny that his ego ranks at head of the class in size. (Of
course, he'd note that his track record gives good cause for the
strength of his convictions :wink:

Harry, if you can't see the condescending nature of Bob's words then
I can't help you. I was stating THE FACT others have brought up Bob's
ego in other posts. Like it not, that is simply a FACT. Had Bob not
displayed his ego in this post I wouldn't have stated this FACT. Once
again Harry you're trying to read something into my post that does
not exist. I expected more from you.

But I'm hard pressed to see where Bob was slapping anyone one down
here ... just making observations that to me are patently obvious.

To

toss out a throw away statement like Dick's, that doesn't add

anything

compelling to an argument, lends a strong presumption that it was
intended merely to offend. (That's my take; I grasp others

disagree).

Do you? If you can't see how Bob had put himself up on a pedestal and
claimed that quarter players aren't as smart as he is, then I guess
you are right ... we disagree. I would have had no problem with Bob's
post if the distinction was not based on an arbitrary difference ...
that is, denomination. However, that really has little to do with
whether a player displays the abilities Bob was alluding to. It may
not be NECESSARY for a lower denom player but that doesn't mean there
aren't many out there doing the same things.

That is why Bob's analogy was ridiculous and the entire last
paragraph idiotic. Bob generalized against an entire group of
players. You know as well as I do that generalizations are generally
silly. :wink: His later "apology" attempted to downplay the distinction
although he couldn't quite do that right either.

------

So all that said, let's take a look at what Bob wrote in reply:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/85804

> I wasn't referring to the proficiency of the players. There are

very

> competent 25¢ and $1 players. I was discussing the surviveability
> dynamics of a quarter play versus a $10 play.

> Most analogies are somewhat flawed --- and this <reference to the
> HS/NFL statement> seems to have more than its share. For that I
> apologize. But I certain do NOT back down from my overall theme
> that players who play 25¢ games do not understand the high-limit
> dynamics as they don't experience them in their own game.

I can't think of a more graceful comeback to Dick's statement. If
Bob's behavior in this thread is to be faulted, then I have to

suspect

that my own behavior on vpFREE exposes me as one of its most piss

poor

contributors.

It was a bit of false apology but at least Bob tried. However, there
is not that much different about playing at higher denoms. Heck, even
the machine is running the same program. The biggest differences are
the payback is usually less than 100% so the player must look for
other ways to make the play profitable (which is also true for
quarter players in many parts of the country) and they need to be a
little more cautious advertising they are APs (not unlike BJ card
counters). However, many quarter players look to maximize there edge
as well. Many look for every edge they can get. I play denoms
from .25 to $2 and I use the same methodology in every case. I look
for the highest hourly return with the least risk. I'm know there are
many others just like me. There are some casinos that I rank as a
high roller and others where I am not on the radar.

Bob had no need to bring up other players at all in his post. All he
needed to do was state his own techniques. The analogy was unneeded
(and hence gratuitous) for the points he was making.

------

I fail to conceive how things couldn't have been resolved amicably
between the admin and Dick. Obviously, I don't know everything

about

the discussion between them. But the bottom fell out somewhere,

and I

don't think Bob had anything to do with it.

That is right Harry as I stated previously. This note had nothing to
do with the problem. Nothing was said to me about this UNTIL I posted
a note on freevpfree expressing my opinion on secretive bannings.
Immediately, after I did that, yet weeks after I posted this note, I
was sent an email by the admin. I also suspect my opinion on the
sunshine policy that I stated in this same timeframe was a factor.

I still think the sunshine policy is outdated. Initially, it was fine
as casinos knew nothing of vpfree. That is not the case today. I
don't want the policy discarded, I just think it needs some updating
to reflect this change.

Dick

#7

An addendum to my previous note.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

In referring to "math", it's entirely apparent that Dick sidestepped
most everything about Bob's discussion, as well as the broad subject
of the thread as a whole. I find that Dick missed the mark entirely.

Harry, according to your logic I am a person who misses the mark
entirely and sidesteps everything. I wish you'd quit these negative
personal attacks.

Furthermore, in doing so, Dick resorted to a characterization that by
all means can be regarded as "attacking the poster, not the post".
Call Bob's statement in error, unreasonable, insupportable, or
whatever. But if you ever see me call a statement "idiotic", I'm not
mincing words ... I think the author is an idiot for letting the words
fall out of their mouth. The person needn't reply to me -- it's very
unlikely that I have any hearing for anything else they might say in
defense.

Now you are stating I am a person who characterizes others. Gee, Harry,
another personal attack.

I hope you can now see the error in your logic. By using the approach
you used above one can change the meaning of anyone's statement to be a
personal attack. Just read my note as it was written, Harry, there are
no hidden meanings.

Also, I think it would be helpful if you knew a little history. This
was not the first time administrator sent me a note where he stated I
made a personal attack. In that case I knew I was responding to the
message but I could see where it was ambiguous. As a result of that
exchange I chose the words very carefully. In fact, it is why I
SPCIFICALLY referred to the "paragraph" and the "analogy". I wanted no
confusion and there is no confusion unless the reader attempts to read
something into the note that is not stated.

Dick