> vpFREE Administrator wrote:
>> If the outing of an attractive play on vpFREE hastens its demise,
>> so be it. Protecting a play for the exclusive benefit of a very
>> limited number of participants is contrary to the best interests
>> of all non-participants.
Harry Porter replied:
> There are fine lines with this subject, and certainly no absolutes.
> While I'm not in agreement with the full extent of the "Sunshine"
> policy, I respect it.
> I'll offer the following considerations:
> -- Any act that aspires to expand participation but instead
> promptly kills it for all concerned isn't desirable.
> -- There is some information that's best shared via the grapevine
> rather than generally broadcast.
vpFREE Administrator wrote:
If your "considerations" are from the perspective of individual
members who are protecting a non-public play, then we're
on the same page.
Individual members are expected to be guided by what they
perceive to be their own best interests when deciding to
share, or not share, non-public information.
OTOH, vpFREE is guided by what it perceives to be the best
interests of the video poker community as a whole, and
publicizes ALL available information about better video poker
games.
On the whole I find vpFREE admin (VPA) approach to plays reasonable.
But there are exceptional circumstances in which it's ill-conceived.
An example is a play that's reasonably identifiable as a management
mistake -- whrere it's a safe presumption that were it brought to mgt
attention, it would be killed. In such an instance, there's strong
reason in insert discretion ... including avoiding open discussion in
favor of avenues such as the "grapevine" of members who interact
privately in some form. (The rationale for this goes well beyond
averting casino "eavesdropping".)
Re "eavesdropping", a post occasionally aruges management knows
exactly what's on the floor. Experienced players here can cite ample
occasions that show this to be mistaken.
Admittedly, it can be difficult to distinguish an unintentional
offering on the casino floor. But there are flags. One is where
benefits on the game (cb, comps, or other) are distinctly out of line
from casino normal practice. Given such a flag, discussion should be
restrained. And if you don't know for sure from observation whether
benefits are in line, it's best to hold off until it's been ascertained.
I'm not necessarily talking about situations where the casino is
"giving away the house". It applies to strong "recreational" plays
(weak negative expectation) that exist in an otherwise dearth of such
machines.
···
------
I don't mean to lecture here ... I just want to be explicitly clear.
I'll offer up that I can be seen as bordering on sanctimonious,
self-righteous, etc on this subject. I acknowledge some will disagree
with what I suggest and they're within their rights. But I find I
make a strong case and it merits strong expression.
------
Having said this much, my take on VPA role in this is that the
Sunshine Policy (in essence: "all better vp games of which it is aware
will be shared" with an implicit addition that members are
encouraged/expected to share such plays with the group/VPA as well) is
ill-advised.
A measure of filtering and restraint should be introduced when there's
reason to suspect a game isn't intentionally offered, or benefits have
been set stronger than intended. And it's to be recognized that there
are more discrete alternatives by which members can keep themselves
abreast (notably "grapevine"), that are readily accessible via the
group when a member exerts something more than passive participation,
so that it's inappropriate to view this as suppression or censorship
-- merely appropriate redirection.
It would be helpful for the VPA to occasionally advise members on how
they can more effectively avail themselves of existing grapevine
opportunities. (I've suggested some in a previous post.)
- Harry
