RESULT: rec.gambling.poker.moderated moderated fails 228:148
David E. Smith
moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
There were 228 YES votes and 148 NO votes, for a total of 376 valid votes.
There were 11 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted.
Unless serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the group may
not be voted on again for six months.
Newsgroups line:
rec.gambling.poker.moderated Poker discussion group. (Moderated)
Voting closed at 23:59:59 UTC, 18 May 2004.
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Rich McComas <ri...@holdemsecrets.com>
Votetaker: David E. Smith <da...@technopagan.org>
RATIONALE: rec.gambling.poker.moderated
This group is proposed as a moderated global forum for the discussion of
poker-related topics, such as but not limited to, strategies, news,
events, personalities, resources, venues, culture, education and
information. The group is a moderated subgroup of rec.gambling.poker
(RGP), which has averaged more than 750 posts per day so far in 2004,
and was, in February 2004, the third largest highest volume newsgroup in
the entire Big 8 newsgroup hierarchy.
A moderated group is required as RGP is at risk of losing the interest
of participants who cannot afford to wade through more than 20,000 posts
per month, much of which are repetitive, off-topic or
advertising-oriented. The new moderated group will be open to all
levels of poker players, but is expected to be more attractive to
experienced players who tend to use and understand poker-specific
vocabulary and who have limited time to participate in newsgroups.
The growth of RGP is explosive, averaging 288 posts/day in 2002, 456
posts/day in 2003, and 757 posts/day through March of 2004. Due to the
strong loyalties of many RGP posters, and the availability of numerous
RGP web front-ends, it is unlikely that the new moderated group would
become the primary poker newsgroup. If the moderated group attracts
5-10% of the RGP audience, then the group would receive about 40-80
submissions per day.
CHARTER: rec.gambling.poker.moderated
rec.gambling.poker.moderated is a moderated newsgroup for discussion
of poker strategies, news, events, personalities, resources, venues,
culture, education and information.
POSTING GUIDELINES:
1) Posts must be on poker-related topics such as, but not limited to,
strategies, news, events, personalities, resources, culture, venues,
education and information.
2) Posts which obviously have the primary intent of trolling or flaming
or stalking or attacking the character of another poster will be
rejected. Posters must not include private information (like phone
numbers, private email addresses, SSN, place of employment, User ID,
confidential emails, etc) of other parties. Flooding or bombing the
newsgroup or any other form of net abuse will result in the poster being
immediately suspended.
3) Posts may include clearly described links to websites or personal
pages that contain relevant and on-topic information. Signatures may be
up to four lines long and of customary width. Posts that are, in the
opinion of the moderator, primarily intended to solicit business, sell a
product, or further some commercial purpose, will be rejected.
4) Posting of binary file attachments is restricted. When possible,
very large lists and databases and extensive articles should be archived
elsewhere, and a link to the download site included in the post.
5) Some crossposting may be allowed, at the discretion of the
moderators.
6) No specific opinions, strategies, or contributors will be given
preferential treatment, nor will serious posts that adhere to these
guidelines be arbitrarily rejected.
7) Posters are asked to post their comments on thread if a thread exists
on their topic within the past week. Posts may be rejected if they do
not contribute any new discussion to an ongoing thread, including "me
too" posts, posts with excessive quoted text, repetitive posts, or posts
addressing a single reader that could be sent via email. Posts may also
be rejected because they ask questions that were answered recently in
the group or which have answers available in FAQs or other on-line
resources.
MODERATION POLICY:
A. The moderators have a non-legal but nevertheless good-faith duty to
approve submissions that are within the charter and the posting
guidelines, and may use whatever scripts or procedures they believe are
necessary to best achieve that goal.
B. Submissions from moderators go through the same approval process as
submissions from non-moderators. Moderators cannot approve their own
posts or add themselves to the express posting list.
C. The moderators will post the posting guidelines plus any changes to
the moderation procedure on the group FAQ and make them available upon
request.
D. New and replacement moderators shall be approved by a majority vote
of the current moderators, and may be added whenever the moderators feel
it is in the best interest of the group. Moderators may resign at any
time; they may also be removed by a 2/3 majority vote of the other
moderators.
E. In cases where a poster using the "express posting" mechanism
violates the posting guidelines, the moderators will respond in a manner
that seems appropriate to the level of offense: they may send a warning
to the poster, issue a public disavowal that the article does not meet
posting guidelines, and/or revoke express posting status for an
appropriate probationary period. Posters given express posting status
agree to this provision, along with the group's other posting
guidelines, as a condition of becoming an express poster.
F. Individuals who believe a moderator has unfairly rejected a post can
appeal to the entire team of moderators. The moderators will then make
a majority decision as to whether it will be allowed to be re-posted.
G. The moderators will use the following initial moderation procedure,
which incorporates robo-moderation. These procedures are subject to
change by majority vote of the moderators.
* Initial robo-moderation (pre-screening)
All submissions will be initially checked by the robo-moderation script,
which will take the following actions, in the specified order:
1. Articles that fail automated spam tests or keyword filters will be
held or rejected.
2. Articles which include binaries will be stripped of their
attachments and held for human moderation.
3. Articles which are cross-posted to more than three groups will be
rejected.
4. Articles from posters who are not on the express posting list
(including anonymous posters) will be forwarded for human moderation.
5. Articles submitted by posters on the express posting list will be
automatically approved and posted.
* Express Posting
1. Posters who are not on the watch-list or the block-list may be added
to the express posting list by any moderator, generally after the poster
has submitted at least two consecutive posts within the posting
guidelines.
2. Anonymous and generic email addresses which are shared by multiple
posters are not eligible for express posting.
3. Any poster who submits inappropriate posts may be temporarily removed
from express posting by any moderator who judges that the poster is not
following the posting guidelines. A different moderator will be
required to manually reject the posts, and make a determination to
either keep the poster on the watch-list or reinstate the poster. Once
removed from express posting, a poster can request reinstatement after
five more posts which are within the posting guidelines. Reinstatement
to express posting requires acceptance by two of the moderators.
4. A poster may be moved to a block-list after three consecutive posts
fail to meet the posting guidelines. Once put on a block-list, poster
can ask to be reinstated after a 30 day period.
5. If possible and if the poster has a valid email address, the
moderators shall attempt to inform posters when their list status is
changed.
* Human moderation
1. Submissions which are designated for human moderation shall be
forwarded to the moderators, who shall approve or reject them in
accordance with the charter. A single vote is enough to accept. Two
votes are required to reject.
2. When possible, any article which is rejected under this provision
shall be returned to the submitter with an appropriate rejection message
which may include suggestions for how the post could be modified in a
way which is likely to increase the chance of approval in the future.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: rec.gambling.poker.moderated
Moderator: Patti Beadles <pattib AT gammon.com>
Moderator: Andy Bloch <abloch AT alum.mit.edu>
Moderator: Steve Brecher <steve AT brecher.reno.nv.us>
Moderator: Randy Collack <rmitchcoll AT aol.com>
Moderator: Russell Fox <rcfox AT claytonservices.com>
Moderator: Michael Hunter <mph AT acm.org>
Moderator: Ken Kubey <kubey AT engr.sgi.com>
Moderator: Matt Matros <mattmatros AT hotmail.com>
Moderator: Michael Maurer <mjmaurer AT yahoo.com>
Moderator: Peter Secor <peter AT scfrey.com>
Moderator: Brian Edmonds <brian AT gweep.ca>
Administrative contact address: rec-gambling-poker-...@gweep.ca
Article submission address: rec-gambling-p...@gweep.ca
END MODERATOR INFO.
DISTRIBUTION:
The CFV was posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.vacation.las-vegas
rec.gambling.poker
rec.gambling.blackjack
Pointers to the CFV were posted to the following newsgroups:
alt.gambling
alt.gambling.poker
alt.las-vegas.gambling
rec.gambling.misc
rec.gambling.other-games
rec.gambling.racing
rec.gambling.sports
rec.gambling.poker.moderated Final Vote Ack
Voted Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a-jameso~microsoft.com James D. Olson
achiang~nyx.net Alex Chiang
adam.bachrach~hp.com Adam Bachrach
admin~ackbleh.com Steve Day
aelyn~bellsouth.net Brian Hall
amd~panix.com Adam Dinwiddie
amy~txbarnes.com Amy Barnes
andy.latto~pobox.com Andrew Latto
ArkhamRB~aol.com Brian Elzy
aroth~brplasticsurgery.com Andrew G. Roth
artfulasian~yahoo.com Artfulasian (usenet handle)
asmith~amscalc.com Anson Smith
asya~bayarea.net Asya Kamsky
bdivine~mail.com Brian Divine
beandoggerel~yahoo.com Bennett Niizawa
benfrisch~mn.rr.com Ben Frisch
benjaminmorris03~yahoo.com Ben Morris
bert_west~alliancetitle.com Bert
beth~txbarnes.com Bethany Barnes
billones~radix.net Jeremy Billones
bilvanek~Softcom.net Bill Vanek
bkw~graffiticontrol.com BARRY K. WOODS
blueflintcat~yahoo.com Samuel C. Croy
bob~bobmaher.com Bob Maher (MrBob)
bomb~fragism.com bomb
bouvin~daimi.au.dk Niels Olof Bouvin
bruce~onecallpchelp.com Bruce Kramer
btatting~hotmail.com Brian Tatting
busyba~yahoo.com Bob
buzman~netzero.net Buzman
C06777~aol.com P.J. Blessing
calahan~thefianna.org Calahan~thefianna.org, Calahan MacCool
CecilBDMil~aol.com Cecil D. Mill
cfarmer~san.rr.com Chris Farmer
chase~ISI.EDU Dale Chase
chet4830~merr.com Chet Frederick
chris~txbarnes.com Chris Barnes
coloradoharv~netscape.net ColoradoHarv
coreyi~sonic.net Corey Imsdahl
craigswhomes~tca.net OneOut
d-works~comcast.net D
dagon~dagon.net Mark Rafn
dalene~txbarnes.com Dalene Barnes
danc~daneindustries.com Daniel Contreras
dantodd~yahoo.com Daniel Todd
dave~sebastian9.com David Wallace
dave_mcvay~hotmail.com Dave McVay
David.Zeiger~motorola.com Dave Zeiger (usenet handle zeig)
david~farrar.com David Farrar
davidbath1~bigfoot.com David E. Bath
desj~Math.Berkeley.EDU David desJardins
devin~thecabal.org Devin L. Ganger
devnull~vianet.ca Trevor Tymchuk
DGRadose~uwyo.edu Dan
dhorwitz~cisco.com David Horwitz
dmoss69~earthlink.net Devin Moss
dnm_pr~swbell.net David Messina
don~theriecks.com Don Rieck
dwaters44~hotmail.com Dean Waters
dwhittemore~rsbroadband.net Dale Whittemore
dwidder~earthlink.net David Widder
EBaker~Kronos.com Ed Baker
efalcao~ics.uci.edu Eric Falcao
ehlist~mail.ev1.net Edmund Hack
Ehutchison~aol.com Edward Hutchison
ejh~ericholtman.com Eric J. Holtman
Ekkehard~Uthke.de Ekkehard Uthke
elvis08822~hotmail.com The Insidious Dr. Fu Man Chu (established rgp handle
emptyone~wi.rr.com Empty_One
eric.marillier~wanadoo.fr Eric Marillier
eric~hardmancompany.com Eric Hardman
erich_schulte~hotmail.com Erich Schulte
erikstoner~aol.com Erik Stoner
fern.ch~verizon.net Fern Chamberlain
fleckyf~yahoo.com FleckyF
gbacon~hiwaay.net Greg Bacon
gmr1957~yahoo.com Gar Robertson
GoldmanS~CollectionSoftware.com goldiefish
graham.drabble~lineone.net Graham Drabble
grantpeacock~yahoo.com Grant Peacock
harder~myrealbox.com Jesper Harder
Imalefty~aol.com A. Player
ime~panix.com Randy Hudson
irwin~stat.ohio-state.edu Mark Irwin
iteag~nwlink.com Itea
jasond~eskimo.com Jason Davis
jaygee~netaxs.com Jim Geary
jdg~diogenes.sacramento.ca.us John David Galt
jeff~deltacomm.com Jeff Woods
jeff~yoak.com Jeff Yoak
jeremy~kraybill.net Jeremy Kraybill
jharkness~sympatico.ca John Harkness
jhartz~adelphia.net John L. Hartzell
jim~sokoloff.com Jim Sokoloff
jimi_tubman~blueyonder.co.uk Jimi Tubman
jim_hayter~hotmail.com Jim Hayter
jjreeves_90277~yahoo.com John Reeves
jloyless~att.net Jane Loyless
jmprice~calweb.com John M Price PhD
john.pickels~direcway.com John
john~saer.net John B. Saer
johnmoser~charter.net John Moser
jon~jonthomson.freeserve.co.uk Jon Thomson
JonesLeeH~aol.com Lee Jones
jpc~suespammers.org J. Porter Clark
jrankin~msh.org Jim Rankin
jrc3~cox.net Joe Claffey
juhop~suomi24.fi Juho Pennanen
jwatson~xnet.com Jim Watson
k1gvq~comcast.net D. Comeau
kerndtr~kerndt.com rickie kerndt
kimberly~txbarnes.com Kimberly Barnes
kims~panix.com Kim Scheinberg
kowallek~iglou.com D. Kowallek
kpoleary~copper.net Kevin O'Leary
krmin~aol.com Kenneth Minear
ktroell~io.com phat mack
kunda~execpc.com Mike Kunda
Lance.Schmidt~extendedsystems.com DeLance Schmidt
lanceyhoward~aol.com Lancey Howard
lech.zakrzewski~post.pl Lech 'obatal' Zakrzewski
loholewild~yahoo.com schwartzy
lstone19~stonejongleux.com Larry Stone
margaret~blueflintcat.us Margaret M. Croy
Matthew_Ivester~comcast.net Matt Ivester
mattmatros~hotmail.com Matt Matros
mcbride1231~attbi.com Mike McBride
michaelhinckley~maxxel.net maxxel
mike~klaas.ca Klaas
miliff~QNET.COM Mary Shafer
milvets~bellsouth.net Louis R. Ogus (bob O
mjmaurer~yahoo.com Michael Maurer
mpaden~emory.edu Matthew Paden
mph~acm.org Michael Hunter
mtpins~nndev.org Michael T Pins
nancy~tennisbooks.com Nancy Hughes
nfitz~sentex.net Nicholas Fitzpatrick
nodata~online.no Gunnar Haugestaul
npc~gangofone.com Nick Christenson
pan~syix.com Pan
patrick~texier.info Patrick Texier
pattib~gammon.com Patti Beadles
pattist~earthlink.net Barbara Pattist
Paul-Ebermann~gmx.de Paul Ebermann
Paul.McMullin~solipsys.com Paul McMullin
paul~gerg.tamu.edu Paul Stine
pblaer~panix.com Paul Blaer
PegSmithNow~aol.com Peg Smith
peter~scfrey.com Peter Secor
phil~panix.com Phil Gustafson
picciond~msoe.edu Dominick Piccione
pickels~bayou.com da pickle
pltrgyst~xhost.org Larry Larson
poker~chicago2600.net Poker
pokeral~comcast.net ruylopez
poodlehead~ricochet.com Paul Lord
psander1~nycap.rr.com Peter Sanders
psmyth~gmx.net Peter Smyth
radioguy~cableone.net DaVoice (Rick Charles)
ramsey~sjrindex.demon.co.uk Ramsey
RAnthony~physicianspractice.com Rob Anthony
rcalbears~comcast.net Rich Kalahele
rcfox~claytonservices.com Russell Fox
rgpm-vote~spamwhore.com Noam Freedman
rgpmvote~btrb.com Dave Tall
rgpmvote~dwolff.users.panix.com David Wolff
rhiannon~britspicks.com Rhiannon Adams
rich~holdemsecrets.com Rich M
richard~brodietech.com Richard Brodie
rick~bcm.tmc.edu Richard Miller
ricklee90~hotmail.com Howard Treesong
rmill~hotmail.com Bill Buckley
rmitchcoll~aol.com RMITCHCOLL
rotering~animalcules.com Paul Rotering
RUSTYBLKJK~aol.com Rusty Martin
rydunn~yahoo.com Ryan Dunn
s711onit~webtv.net tino
sabyljnk~sonic.net Sabyl Cohen
sbrecher~newsguy.com Steve Brecher
scott~scottro.com Scott "scottro" Harker
sdcohen~tampabay.rr.com Stephen D. Cohen
shermw~msn.com Sherman L. Willden
sikorski~snet.net Paul Sikorski
siltyclay~earthlink.net scott thompson
simonwong~hotmail.com Simon Wong
siona~siona.org Siona
skip_via~hotmail.com Predictor
slandrumlhs~yahoo.com Stephen H. Landrum
smith_~bellsouth.net Judy Smith
sneal~dssolutions.com Stuart Neal
srniwas~yahoo.com n8str8
Stephen.Erickson~ascl.state.ar.us STEPHEN ERICKSON
stephen~adamsemail.net Stephen M. Adams
steve.watanabe~netapp.com Steve Watanabe
stopthekicking~yahoo.com StopTheKicking
tedmayett~despammed.com Ted Mayett
thelawoffives~yahoo.com Bill Henderson
thewhiffleboy~comcast.net Brett White
thunderfleas~yahoo.com Daniel Wakabayashi
tiger123~aol.com alan tiger
tjs~psaux.com Tim Showalter
tlclouse~comcast.net Tim Clouse
tomas_granath~hotmail.com Tomas Granath
TomESims~West-Point.org Tom Sims
tomkracinovich~hotmail.com Tom Kracinovich
toni.tamminen~24.fi Toni Tamminen
TritonRider~aol.com Bill Crowther
tval~ametro.net Tom Valentino
txzonacat~hotmail.com Scott Pischer
tyler~nlper.org Tyler Sperry
un~mkrd.com Rick Duggan
valerieromano~msn.com valerie ramano
varbgae04~cis.upenn.edu Kristofor Varhus
vbannigan~carolina.rr.com V.W.
vincente~colostate.edu Vincente Vigil
WadeC~primetech.net WADE COODY
warnold~vipnet.org Billy Arnold
warren.sander~hp.com Warren Sander
wbeach~cisco.com William Beach
wbrowni2~csc.com William Browning
wdavis~du.edu Davy Davis
Whigdon2~aol.com Bill Higdon
wiz~verinet.com Wiz
Wlewis~hcrhs.k12.nj.us Bill Lewis
ymer~mulakaj.com Ymer MULAKAJ
yosarian812~att.net David Anderson
zorak~ninthbit.com Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
zrobokd~yahoo.ca Dan Zrobok
Voted No
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abrucec~knology.net Bruce Cunningham
ace_aceking~yahoo.com Jack King
adam~dealerbuttons.com Adam Hicks
annieadlin~yahoo.com Annie Adlin
anonymous~paranoid.org Rich
arlo_payne~hotmail.com Arlo Payne
asma61~dsl.pipex.com D.Monaghan
backgammon~speednet.com.au Mark Driver
baphomet_37~hotmail.com Twelve Twenty
beetman~splot.org The Beet Man
bhaller480~hotmail.com B Aller
billmccollam~rogers.com bill mccollam
Bjgkaraoke~aol.com Barbara Gallamore
bobis~rogers.com Bob Masternak
bpatterson~logicspark.com Bill Patterson
BretONNN~aol.com Bret Roth
byoon~erols.com Barbara Yoon
Calistri~mail.utexas.edu Amy Calistri
cehjr43~gambling-law-us.com CHUCK HUMPHREY
Chris.Miller~abc.com Miller, Chris
chris.powers~mail.warpdriveonline.com Christopher Powers
clydeball~hotmail.com Clyde Ball
condit~jps.net Don Condit
Crnerblitz~aol.com Kevin McBride
cromag3000~hotmail.com Gary Barnett
dan~dtsteele.net Dan Steele
DEglseder~CanterburyPark.com David Eglseder
DennyLynch~aol.com Dennis Lynch
dhuberma~arin.net David R Huberman
DivParalgl~aol.com Stan Burman
dlilie~cox.net Dave L
donperry~optonline.net Donald Perry
doubting_t~hotmail.com Fred Johannasberg
doyles~mountaincable.net Sheldon Doyle
dpglow~msn.com Don Glowinski
Dugan~OregonPokerTour.com Tim Dugan
EAEven~aol.com Elizabeth A. Even
EdGerth~aol.com Ed Gerth
ejklein~hotmail.com Ed Klein
ellis~spinics.net Rick Ellis
erogers429~yahoo.com Evan Rogers
fbowen~nctv.com Frank Bowen
feedback~bigslicksoftware.com Stephanie Henegar
fnlosers~hotmail.com Variable
frankbrabec~ameritech.net Frank Brabec
garycarson1~wmconnect.com Gary Carson
ggw~wolves.durham.nc.us Gregory Woodbury
googleposter~yahoo.com googleposter
gprrspw~mindspring.com G.P. Ryan
helpthecutekitties~yahoo.com Gina Sorrento
holdemzorro~icqmail.com Zorro Williams
hotdawgs~mchsi.com Susan Johnson
hpestes~hotmail.com Henry Estes
info~bigslicksoftware.com Jeff Leitman
ingellis~comcast.net Jon Ingellis
j.swick~verizon.net Josh Swickard
james.rogers~teradyne.com jimpepper
james~sixtwofour.com James Shanta
jamescam7~hotmail.com James Campbell
janellcorsun~e-garfield.com Janell Corsun
janetdean88~hotmail.com Janet Bilinski
jat~io.rune.org Jason Tatem
jayjerome~earthlink.net Jay Jerome
jcdean~ameritech.net joseph dean
Jeff.Shumaker~invitrogen.com Shumaker, Jeff
jeffsalmans~yahoo.com Jeff Salmans
jerrodankenman~yahoo.com Jerrod Ankenman
jerry_smith65~hotmail.com Jerry Smith
jh~coylelaw.com JAMES L. HANKINS
jlong~rnbw.com Joe Long
jmanpokerking~yahoo.com Jesse Hollander
JMike~alum.mit.edu J. Michael Hammond
johnklein~usa.net John Klein
jolmstead1~charter.net Jeremy Olmstead
jonesj2205~yahoo.com John Jones
kellis~ksu.edu Keith Ellis
kevin.cline~verizon.com Kevin Cline
Kevmath~twcny.rr.com Kevin Mathers
klp~tc.umn.edu Kevin Prigge
kurtis_araki~yahoo.com Kurtis Araki
linker500~yahoo.co.uk william browning
linsherman~tampabay.rr.com Linda K Sherman
longinespoker~hotmail.com Longines
loukrieger~dc.rr.com Lou Krieger
lucasford_~hotmail.com Lucas Ford
lvdlrs~midsouth.rr.com Gary Philips
lvspartan~yahoo.com Randy Rostad
marc2000~verizon.net Marc Paolella
mark.james_2003~ntlworld.com Mark James
mark~fogle.com Mark Fogle
markw~comp.leeds.ac.uk Mark Walkley
martinb~myrealbox.com Martini
Matt.Anthony~shaw.ca Matthew
mauicop~hawaii-politics.com MauiCop
mellinlv~cox.net Jerry
mercycpa~hotmail.com Mercy G. Bandy
mfaulk~attglobal.net Mark Faulkner
mich_lancaster~msn.com Michelle Lancaster
mikebandy47~hotmail.com Michael M. (Mike) Bandy
mike_lipsey~hotmail.com Mike Lipsey
mrankin~ncable.net.au Matthew Rankin
mrglich~optonline.net Charles Jainchill
murray_logan~telus.net Murray Logan
mventolo~aol.com Michael Ventolo
nevadaj1313~yahoo.com James Monroe
nine510~webtv.net Travel
norabrown456~excite.com Nora Brown
nposts~yahoo.com John Herbst
ntao~excite.com LuckyDraw
ohkanada~hotmail.com Ken Poklitar
Oldfelt~aol.com Jack Fox
pigdog~ncable.net.au Troy Robertson
pinhigh~canada.com North Shore Mike
prock~cs.wisc.edu Andrew Prock
pwestley~pacbell.net greatbrit
raidersgotscrewed~yahoo.com Raider Fan
randy89129~yahoo.com Randy Refeld
ratfab~cox.net Ratfab
Redjann~aol.com Jan Phillips
ringo~ringosoft.com Ringo
rmasecchia~verizon.net Stocks
RobertA928674~netscape.net BobA928674
Robertguthm~aol.com GrannyMae
Russ~FishProducts.com RUSS WALLING
samwalker~samwalker.cjb.net Sam Walker
seacoastsurplus~hotmail.com FRED UPHAMS
Sergio.Iglesias~etas.us Sergio Iglesias
shoffmann~xitron.com Scott Hoffmann
slickmv~newsguy.com Martin Veneroso
software~aphasia.cjb.net Jim Wilson
SPANKXecutioner~aol.com Mike Conners
Spehcialk~aol.com Kimberly Shaffer
srvenable~earthlink.net Stu Venable
stainles~realtime.net Dwight Brown
Steven-Markowitz~deshaw.com Steven C. Markowitz
thebigrabbit44~yahoo.com Michele Wilson
Tolgar.Sirvanci~Prudential.com Tolgar Sirvanci
tomp~st.net.au Tom Perrett
trumbore~mindspring.com Chris Trumbore
turbine72~yahoo.com turbine
van.ette~inter.nl.net Robert-Jan van Ette
victorias~centralpets.com Victoria S
Vodkaputtputt~aol.com Mark Rogow
wagstaff~kerndt.com Zbigniew
wchen_8369~yahoo.com William Chen
web~floydcountytimes.com Ralph B. Davis
wgbradley~shaw.ca William Bradley
yavapaicountyal~juno.com Al Vasquez
Abstained
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aahz~pobox.com Aahz
AJohn808~aol.com ajohn808
bmailman~sfo.com Brian Mailman
brian~gweep.ca Brian Edmonds
ceri~submonkey.net Ceri Davies
fungus~OCF.Berkeley.EDU Hank Fung
fwbrown~bellsouth.net Wayne Brown
kmorgan~spamcop.net Kathy I Morgan
michal~rosa.id.au Michal Rosa
paulp~improving.org Paul Phillips
rwpikul~sympatico.ca Rick Pikul
Votes in error
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
achiausa~bellatlantic.net Augie Chiausa
! No ballot
chipreaper~earthlink.net Jonathan Fayard
! Ack bounced
ContactGSW~sbcglobal.net Stephen Erickson
! No ballot
Group~maui.net mauicop
! Ack bounced
justaguy891232003~nospamyahoo.com Gerald Mellinger
! Ack bounced
kelvinpryse~yahoo.com Kelvin Pryse
! No ballot
PepitaNnikita~aol.com
! No ballot
Pokergrannymae~aol.com GrannyMae
! Apparent duplicate vote
scalletd~yahoo.com Daniel Scallet
! Conflicting votes
spareace~sbcglobal.net Spare Ace
! Ack bounced
tadperry~comcast.net Tad Perry
! Vote received after close of voting
lvdlrs
> RESULT
> moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
>
> There were 228 YES votes and 148 NO votes, for a total of 376 valid votes.
> There were 11 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
>
> For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
> votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
Wow. 22 yes votes shy of passing 2/3(376)= 250. I do agree about one
thing, rgp has become better. The more active posters as a whole are
more aware of not contributing to the problems that beset us. Then too
there seem to be more who publicly point out the posting mistakes.
Poker is a game where the players do most of the policing. I don't
think too many people can argue with that. If we do the same here,
how can rgp not be better? Below is a reposting of five things one
can do to make rgp better:
Number one is, don't feed the trolls. The number of posts
cut down from just that would be terrific. They get no attention,
they will eventually go away.
Number two is, trim down to the spot, paragraph, whatever,
of the poster's message you want to reply.
Number three, be brief and to the point.
Number four, shoot for two, at the most three responses back and
forth. If you can't communicate your point by then you're just
wasting yours and everybody else's time.
Number five, your posting attitude will generally be reflected
back at you by the people responding. Courtesy and kindness usually
begets courtesy and kindness. So does abusiveness and nastiness.
Gary (...) Philips
Mean Green Dancing Machine
lvdlrs <lvd...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>David E. Smith wrote:
>>
>> RESULT
>> moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
>>
>> votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
>
>Wow. 22 yes votes shy of passing 2/3(376)= 250.
<raised eyebrow> A poker player who can't do math? How amazing. (You
needed 296 YES votes with 148 NO votes -- your equation only works if you
*convert* NO votes to YES votes.)
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2004 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
A vote for Bush is a vote against the US Constitution
The Beet Man
Machine) wrote:
>In article <xeOqc.1815$%C....@fe1.columbus.rr.com>,
>lvdlrs <lvd...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>>David E. Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> RESULT
>>> moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
>>>
>>> For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
>>> votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
>>
>>Wow. 22 yes votes shy of passing 2/3(376)= 250.
>
><raised eyebrow> A poker player who can't do math? How amazing.
Actually he's a poker dealer, so the lack of math skills shouldn't
surprise you.
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!
Mike Garcia
>> RESULT
>> moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
>>
>> There were 228 YES votes and 148 NO votes, for a total of 376 valid votes.
>> There were 11 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
>>
>> For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
>> votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
>
>Wow. 22 yes votes shy of passing 2/3(376)= 250.
That would be 68 YES votes too few. 68 more YES votes would give you 296 YES
to 148 NO votes which is what you would need to pass.
Mike G
Kathy Morgan
David E. Smith <da...@technopagan.org> wrote:
> RESULT
> moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
>
> There were 228 YES votes and 148 NO votes, for a total of 376 valid votes.
> There were 11 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
>
> For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
> votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
>
> There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted.
> Unless serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the group may
> not be voted on again for six months.
There appears to have been much discussion of the vote and proposal
posted in rgp (400+ messages not crossposted to news.groups) and
improper solicitation for NO votes--or maybe it was just a joke in poor
taste. See <news:5hbv801cnu2nojn5i...@4ax.com>, subject
"VOTE NO, RGPM and RECEIVE FREE MONEY PARTY POKER," in which "Raoul"
posted:
YES
That's right
VOTE NO
on R.G.P.M
and receive FREE money when you sign up for new account at Party
Poker WWW.PARTYPOKER.COM
Just Enter code VOTENORGPM
And receive 25% Deposit bonus UPTO $100.00 )WOW
PLUS 25% of your rake back.
REMEMBER VOTE NO
The world is counting on you.
You CAN make a Difference
RGP Loves You!
Can anyone confirm one way or the other if the offer was genuine?
--
Kathy
gicalif
> In article <xeOqc.1815$%C....@fe1.columbus.rr.com>, lvdlrs <lvd...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
> >David E. Smith wrote:
> >> RESULT
> >> moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
> >>
>
set up the mechanics are obviously very computer literate but dont
appreciate that many other people are not--probably expecially poker
players. All that stuff about deleting text which for some reason my
computer would not do, pasting, etc, was way beyond my skill. I have
an MBA, not a science degree. Why couldnt a site have been designated
for everyone to send an e-mail to w a yes or no and then count the
results manually?
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>players. All that stuff about deleting text which for some reason my
>computer would not do, pasting, etc, was way beyond my skill. I have
>an MBA, not a science degree. Why couldnt a site have been designated
>for everyone to send an e-mail to w a yes or no and then count the
>results manually?
Actually, that's pretty much how you were supposed to vote.
Most of the operations the ballot demanded of a voter should
be standard with anyone that uses e-mail or basic text editing,
including e-mailing it in. If you could make the above posting,
you had enough skill to vote. Further, the idea of going to a
newsgroup to get the ballot rather than a web site is one means
to try to see if the voter actually has the intention of using
newsgroups rather than allowing just anyone who can click on a
web site to vote.
ru
--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Richard Henry
"lvdlrs" <lvd...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xeOqc.1815$%C....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> David E. Smith wrote:
> > RESULT
> > moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
> >
> > There were 228 YES votes and 148 NO votes, for a total of 376 valid
votes.
> > There were 11 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
> >
> > For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and
NO)
> > votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
>
> Wow. 22 yes votes shy of passing 2/3(376)= 250.
Technically 68 votes shy (2 x 148 = 296).
Unless you know some way to make no votes disappear.
Raider Fan
>
> Abstained
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> paulp~improving.org Paul
Phillips
Why the hell would Paul go to the trouble of abstaining when he has
decided he can't deal with RGP? This guy is a flake!
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Nuts4daNuts
> RESULT
> moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
>
> There were 228 YES votes and 148 NO votes, for a total of 376 valid votes.
> There were 11 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
Now you know how Al Gore feels.
OneOut
"Nuts4daNuts" <anon...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Y6Lqc.4833320$iA2.5...@news.easynews.com...
GrouchySmurf1002
> On May 19 2004 10:54AM, David E. Smith wrote:
>
> > RESULT
> > moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
> >
> > There were 228 YES votes and 148 NO votes, for a total of 376 valid votes.
> > There were 11 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
>
> Now you know how Al Gore feels.
Its just more proof online newsgroup voting is rigged.
A. Prock
>On May 19 2004 9:54AM, David E. Smith wrote:
>> Abstained
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Why the hell would Paul go to the trouble of abstaining when he has
>decided he can't deal with RGP? This guy is a flake!
Most likely because he had some concern about someone highjacking
his name for their own purposes.
- Andrew
James L. Hankins
"Nuts4daNuts" <anon...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Y6Lqc.4833320$iA2.5...@news.easynews.com...
> On May 19 2004 10:54AM, David E. Smith wrote:
>
> > RESULT
> > moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
> >
> > There were 228 YES votes and 148 NO votes, for a total of 376 valid
votes.
> > There were 11 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
>
> Now you know how Al Gore feels.
No kidding. I voted NO, but with those numbers, the result just doesn't
seem right. But I guess dems da rules.
ChuckJ
>
> > RESULT
> > moderated group rec.gambling.poker.moderated fails 228:148
> >
> > There were 228 YES votes and 148 NO votes, for a total of 376 valid votes.
> > There were 11 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
>
> Now you know how Al Gore feels.
Actually, the system used by Usenet (2/3, 100 vote margin) makes a lot of
sense. When a new forum is proposed on a brand new topic, I would suspect
that there are not going to be a whole lot of folks opposed to it and the
need for certain margins in the vote are moot.
However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was
here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which
has existed for many years -- is altered. The result here is a good
result. Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated
and/or segregated by topic. RGP is a unique entity in the poker community
and there needed to be overwhelming support for an action that had the
potential of destroying it. The overwhelming support was not there (and I
still believe there was some considerable ballot stuffing on the Yes
side). Here, the proposal had many flaws and was poorly conceived. I
suspect there will be other poker-related newsgroups created in the future
-- but this one was the wrong one.
Kingfisher
We just had a new taxing authority pass locally by a non-whopping
56%-44% margin.
KF
HAPPY DANCE
Rich M
>However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was
>here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which
>has existed for many years -- is altered.
I was told that these rules were created at a time when it was
possible to change an existing group's status to moderated. It would
seem reasonable under those circumstances to require a supermajority.
I have no problem with the rules. It's not the first time that the
short stack has ended up winning.
>Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated
>and/or segregated by topic.
Ouch! Enough good posters have left Usenet in favor of the web-based
forums. Why would you send those who are interested in RGPM away?
Why not clean up RGP instead?
>The overwhelming support was not there...
I agree. Many other groups one-tenth the volume of RGP produced more
than the 300 votes that would have been needed to pass this proposal.
RGP is the largest newsgroup in the rec.* hierarchy. Below is a list
of moderated groups that managed to produce 300+ YES votes:
RESULT: rec.arts.drwho.moderated moderated passes 318:148
RESULT: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated moderated passes 2241.109
RESULT: rec.food.veg.cooking moderated passes 634:64
RESULT: misc.news.bosnia moderated passes 862:49
RESULT: rec.arts.ascii moderated passes 453:74
RESULT: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info moderated passes 691:37
RESULT: soc.politics.marxism moderated passes 355:106
RESULT: rec.humor.jewish moderated passes 395:27
RESULT: sci.med.obgyn moderated passes 375:24
RESULT: soc.religion.vaishnava moderated passes 395:121
RESULT: humanities.philosophy.objectivism moderated passes 362:46
RESULT: rec.photo.moderated moderated passes 341:40
RESULT: comp.os.os2.moderated moderated passes 563:19
RESULT: soc.religion.paganism moderated passes 429:61
RESULT: comp.lang.c.moderated moderated passes 330:14
RESULT: soc.sexuality.spanking moderated passes 521:67
RESULT: soc.personals moderated passes 385:55
RESULT: rec.humor.funny.reruns moderated passes 390:19
RESULT: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated passes 330:107
RESULT: comp.windows.x.announce moderated passes 602:18
RESULT: soc.religion.mormon moderated passes 325:127
RESULT: sci.astro.research moderated passes 466:15
RESULT: misc.legal.moderated moderated passes 305:20
RESULT: soc.religion.sikhism moderated passes 501:44
RESULT: comp.binaries.psion moderated passes 302:32
RESULT: comp.infosystems.www.announce moderated passes 602:19
RESULT: soc.religion.christian.youth-work moderated passes 381:86
RESULT: soc.culture.galiza moderated passes 380:22
RESULT: rec.sport.pro-wrestling.info moderated passes 314:51
RESULT: rec.sport.pro-wrestling.info moderated passes 332:50
RESULT: comp.os.plan9 moderated passes 449:14
RESULT: soc.women.lesbian-and-bi moderated passes 458:56
RESULT: sci.crypt.research moderated passes 348:23
RESULT: sci.archaeology.moderated moderated passes 481:44
RESULT: soc.history.moderated passes 306:23
RESULT: misc.entrepreneurs.moderated moderated passes 350:28
RESULT: comp.infosystems.announce moderated passes 574:2
RESULT: soc.culture.jewish.holocaust moderated passes 430:42
RESULT: rec.arts.ascii moderated passes 453:74
Rich M
HAPPY DANCE
On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:55:56 -0700, Rich M <ri...@holdemsecrets.com>
wrote:
DennyLynch
>short stack has ended up winning.
>
No, and it's not the first time a group has responded negatively to an outsider
showing up and telling them he knows what's best for them.
Say, but at least your response finally had some poker content--sort of!
AJohn808
>Voted Yes
>amy~txbarnes.com Amy>Barnes
>beth~txbarnes.com Bethany>Barnes
>chris~txbarnes.com Chris>Barnes
>dalene~txbarnes.com Dalene>Barnes
lol. so here we have a guy who recruited his whole family to vote "yes". Amy
and Beth are his 10 yr old and 12 yr old kids! and this guy Chris Barnes is a
moderator at rec.hunting. nice. real nice.
MVentolo
>
>No, and it's not the first time a group has responded negatively to an
>outsider
>showing up and telling them he knows what's best for them.
Exactly, it's as if Rich M doesn't realize he's really the sole reason this
"lost". If six months from now, someone from inside the group modifies some
of the problems with the charter and leaves it somewhat open for discussion,
it'll probably pass.
Raider Fan
Do the news.groupies have any control over established groups? It seems
like this Chris Barnes clown shouldn't be in a moderator position if he so
blatantly abuses the voting process.
Peg Smith
>lol. so here we have a guy who recruited his whole family to vote "yes". Amy
>and Beth are his 10 yr old and 12 yr old kids! and this guy Chris Barnes is a
>moderator at rec.hunting. nice. real nice.
I'm surprised that a moderator would do this. I guess we know how
unbiased he is, huh? No wonder the group at rec.hunting is on his
case.
Peg
Irish Mike
Unfortunately, this can't be done and will never happen. Fortunately there
are kill files and plenty of alternatives when you feel like a serious poker
discussion.
Irish Mike
"Rich M" <ri...@holdemsecrets.com> wrote in message
news:342na0pfcfjb2h29s...@4ax.com...
Irish Mike
Irish Mike
"HAPPY DANCE" <HAPPY...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9j4na0h8gnbsmbrce...@4ax.com...
James Campbell
In 6 months. Maybe if RichM or whomever writes the guidelines is a little
more open minded and listens to input instead of stuborningly defending
their points next time it may pass.
"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:vpOqc.9372$eH1.5...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
OneOut
"Peg Smith" <PegSmith...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cbcna0tdqk9fo8tgp...@4ax.com...
You know Peg, I didn't even know that rec.hunting dogs was moderated the
first time I went to it after reading a post here by Chris Barnes.
The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for Bush
Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food.
I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
Itea
news:uCLqc.15689604$Id.26...@news.easynews.com...
> Actually, the system used by Usenet (2/3, 100 vote margin) makes a lot of
> sense. When a new forum is proposed on a brand new topic, I would suspect
> that there are not going to be a whole lot of folks opposed to it and the
> need for certain margins in the vote are moot.
In this particular situation, the system worked against the creation of
RGPM. RGP is one of the few groups (perhaps the only one) that people
access using a customized web interface (as in recpoker.com). Those people
were more predisposed to vote NO, because they would not be able to access
RGPM using the same method.
> However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was
> here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which
> has existed for many years -- is altered. The result here is a good
> result. Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated
> and/or segregated by topic. RGP is a unique entity in the poker community
> and there needed to be overwhelming support for an action that had the
> potential of destroying it.
That's just an idiotic thing to say. If anything at all was proved by the
vote, it's that so few people voted that anyone who thought that RGPM had
the potential to destroy RGP was deluding himself.
> The overwhelming support was not there (and I
> still believe there was some considerable ballot stuffing on the Yes
> side). Here, the proposal had many flaws and was poorly conceived. I
> suspect there will be other poker-related newsgroups created in the future
> -- but this one was the wrong one.
The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent
amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker. It's
too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper town.
The arguments against RGPM were selfish and paranoid. They were also
hypocritical ("free speech"...). A true advocate of free speech would vote
for soc.nazi.skinheads.arethebest.moderated no matter how distasteful they
thought the subject was.
As is so often the case, the uneducated public was too worried about losing
what they had (needlessly) to understand the potential good of what could
have been created.
It's also a shining example of exactly how ignorant of Usenet all the RGP
readers are. To the point where I must have read a thousand times that
such-and-such coverup would never have been revealed in an RGPM - when it
was irrelevant, because RGP WOULD STILL HAVE EXISTED.
Let's stop pretending to be high and mighty. The people against RGPM fell
into a few very basic categories:
- "I'm a frequent poster who people respond to and I'm scared of losing my
audience"
- "I'm ignorant and worried that if RGPM passes it will mean that RGP will
disappear"
- "I'm misguided and believe that the principle of 'free speech' means that
nobody should be allowed to discuss things without a constant background
drone of marketing and insults"
- "I like to spam my affiliate codes and personal poker sites, and I
wouldn't be able to do it there"
RGP was created out of RG many years ago, when the (much more intelligent)
readership of RG realized that conversations could be more focused in a more
narrowly defined newsgroup.
RGPM should have been created yesterday, to create a place where people who
prefer to converse without insults or marketing could have slightly
higher-level conversations about poker.
Oh well. The people have spoken, and they screwed it up. It's not the
first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.
- Itea
A. Prock
>The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent
>amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker. It's
>too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper town.
This doesn't quite properly characterize why many people
voted NO. Skimming the list of NO votes, I saw over a
dozen who I'm sure voted for very different reasons. Many
were for a moderated poker newsgroup, but felt that the
charter was fundamentally flawed in one way or another.
That is why *I* voted no.
>Let's stop pretending to be high and mighty. The people against RGPM fell
>into a few very basic categories:
>
>- "I'm a frequent poster who people respond to and I'm scared of losing my
>audience"
>
>- "I'm ignorant and worried that if RGPM passes it will mean that RGP will
>disappear"
>
>- "I'm misguided and believe that the principle of 'free speech' means that
>nobody should be allowed to discuss things without a constant background
>drone of marketing and insults"
>
>- "I like to spam my affiliate codes and personal poker sites, and I
>wouldn't be able to do it there"
You're just making this up, right?
Maybe some posters voted no for those reasons. Some voted for
different reasons.
What about:
- "Spam is not a problem."
- "I don't trust the moderator."
- "Moderation won't sovle the volume problem."
- "Poker isn't about being nice, neither should poker discussion."
- "I like RGP just the way it is."
- "I know how to use a kill file."
- "I enjoy the off-topic threads."
- "I'm more interested in a split."
- "I don't trust RichM, even if he's not a moderator."
My favorite though is the *alternate* reasons people voted
for/against RGPM
- "I'm married to someone who voted for/against RGPM."
- "I'm a child of someone who voted for/against RGPM."
Gary Carson
>access using a customized web interface (as in recpoker.com). Those people
>were more predisposed to vote NO, because they would not be able to access
>RGPM using the
Yes, they would. recpoker.com and other websites could, and would, point to
rgpm.
You could argue that those using website access are more likely to vote YES
because they can't filter out spam. If you look at the votes there are more NO
votes I recognize as regular posters than YES votes.
>The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent
>amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker.
Effort does not equate to quality.
There is no reason to opt for a half-assed solution to problems that don't
exist.
>It's
>too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper town.
Most of us are in favor of splitting. We just weren't in favor of rgpm.
--
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com
Nuts4daNuts
> RGPM should have been created yesterday, to create a place where people who
> prefer to converse without insults or marketing could have slightly
> higher-level conversations about poker.
I agree. A moderated group would actually INCREASE free speech because
people would no longer worry about their posts being flamed by some
asshole if they are at all controversial (or not). There would still be
the "say what you want" RGP and the "civilized discussion" RGPM. Those
(like me) who like forums full of trolls and want to be able to say what
they want can still have their newsgroup, while those who don't like such
a forum would have their own playground.
Personally I think if there are some folks who want a moderated group they
should get it without begging for votes in a stupid rigged election.
Itea
here...
"A. Prock" <proc...@pokerstove.com> wrote in message
news:40abbb7e$0$1454$8026...@spool.cs.wisc.edu...
> Maybe some posters voted no for those reasons. Some voted for
> different reasons.
>
> What about:
>
> - "Spam is not a problem."
Irrelevant. Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I don't trust the moderator."
I never saw that listed, but it's not a good reason to deny other people a
moderated newsgroup.
> - "Moderation won't sovle the volume problem."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "Poker isn't about being nice, neither should poker discussion."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I like RGP just the way it is."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I know how to use a kill file."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I enjoy the off-topic threads."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> - "I'm more interested in a split."
The only good reason you listed. And in your particular case, since you
advocated a split many times, I can appreciate that you voted against RGPM
because you felt it would hurt future chances of a split. As I posted at
least once, I'd find a split more ideal also - but since nobody has bothered
to try to do one in many years, I thought it was smarter to take advantage
of the RGPM effort being made.
> - "I don't trust RichM, even if he's not a moderator."
Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
> My favorite though is the *alternate* reasons people voted
> for/against RGPM
>
> - "I'm married to someone who voted for/against RGPM."
> - "I'm a child of someone who voted for/against RGPM."
Whatever. Clearly, vote fraud is lame. Lumping all the YES voters with one
person who may or may not have committed fraud is as reasonable as saying
you're at the same level of cluelessness as arlo payne because you both
voted NO.
> - Andrew
- Itea
Rich M
>The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for Bush
>Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food.
>I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
Your assumption about any moderator approving one of the Nadar posts
is ill-informed. I have seen these posts in many moderated groups.
They appeared because they had forged approve headers.
Rich M
The Beet Man
I support the concept of some sort of split or moderated poker groups,
but a lot of things about the RGPM RFD just rubbed me the wrong way.
The final straw was the cliquish behavior of some of the moderators
(the worst part being that moderators were starting off topic threads
themselves! Great idea, shit over RGP so that people want to join
your moderated group...) I will certainly consider voting yes on a
re-org if it's proposed in a better fashion.
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!
AlwaysAware
about this and that wouldn't happen in a moderated group, never mentioning this
little tidbit.
Joan
who didn't vote. would have voted "abstain" but decided not to be added to a
list that will most likely soon be harvested for spam.
ChuckJ
> So when do we get to vote again?
>
> Irish Mike
>
Didn't you mean to say:
"So when do we get to vote again, bucko?"
James Campbell
INCREASE free speech..." sounds? In a FREE speech society does a person
posting a flame have less rights than a person posting "civilized
discussion"?
"Nuts4daNuts" <anon...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:z6Pqc.4846283$iA2.5...@news.easynews.com...
ChuckJ
> news:uCLqc.15689604$Id.26...@news.easynews.com...
>
>
> > However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was
> > here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo -- which
> > has existed for many years -- is altered. The result here is a good
> > result. Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are moderated
> > and/or segregated by topic. RGP is a unique entity in the poker community
> > and there needed to be overwhelming support for an action that had the
> > potential of destroying it.
>
> That's just an idiotic thing to say. If anything at all was proved by the
> vote, it's that so few people voted that anyone who thought that RGPM had
> the potential to destroy RGP was deluding himself.
>
You are really the king of the non sequiturs. I don't know how to respond
to a statement so devoid of logic. The threat to RGP was stated many
times. The creation of the newsgroup as proposed would basically split a
relatively healthy online community for no good reason.
> > The overwhelming support was not there (and I
> > still believe there was some considerable ballot stuffing on the Yes
> > side). Here, the proposal had many flaws and was poorly conceived. I
> > suspect there will be other poker-related newsgroups created in the future
> > -- but this one was the wrong one.
>
> The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent
> amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker. It's
> too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper town.
You are completely off-base. Many of the people voting no -- including
myself -- have said that they would support one or more new poker
newsgroups -- just not the one that was proposed here.
> The arguments against RGPM were selfish and paranoid.
> [snip]
Boy are you pissed -- you just keep characterizing people that disagree
with you in negative ways.
> Oh well. The people have spoken, and they screwed it up. It's not the
> first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.
No screw up. The results was appropriate.
Quit your whining.
Chuck
A. Prock
>Andrew, you're usually a pretty smart guy, but you're proving my points
>here...
>
>"A. Prock" <proc...@pokerstove.com> wrote in message
>news:40abbb7e$0$1454$8026...@spool.cs.wisc.edu...
>
>> Maybe some posters voted no for those reasons. Some voted for
>> different reasons.
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> - "Spam is not a problem."
>
>Irrelevant. Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated newsgroup.
Who so ever thinks that people need good reasons to
vote one way or another should seriously consider
meritocracy as the solution to all their problems.
Who defines "good"? You?
You seem to be under some kind of illusions about
the way the world works.
OneOut
Perhaps it's your assumption that is ill-informed. Did you bother to go and
check to see if the headers were forged?
I do not remember the *Nadar* post as being forged with an approved header.
In fact *impeach Bush* is what caught my attention.
The multiple Iams post headers were not misleading.
Why do you feel the need to take up for someone who has been caught
*stuffing* the ballot box with YES votes?
Chris Barnes
> The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for
> Bush Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food.
>
> I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
Look at other newsgroups - that person was spoofing the moderator
approval.
I certainly do NOT support Nader - and even if I did, I wouldn't after
the spoofing...
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay.
Itea
"ChuckJ" <anon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ACPqc.4847516$iA2.5...@news.easynews.com...
> On May 19 2004 3:37PM, Itea wrote:
> > "ChuckJ" <anon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:uCLqc.15689604$Id.26...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > However, when there is reason for significant opposition (as there was
> > > here), there is need for a super-majority before the status quo --
which
> > > has existed for many years -- is altered. The result here is a good
> > > result. Clearly there are many forums to discuss poker that are
moderated
> > > and/or segregated by topic. RGP is a unique entity in the poker
community
> > > and there needed to be overwhelming support for an action that had the
> > > potential of destroying it.
> >
> > That's just an idiotic thing to say. If anything at all was proved by
the
> > vote, it's that so few people voted that anyone who thought that RGPM
had
> > the potential to destroy RGP was deluding himself.
> >
>
> You are really the king of the non sequiturs. I don't know how to respond
> to a statement so devoid of logic. The threat to RGP was stated many
> times. The creation of the newsgroup as proposed would basically split a
> relatively healthy online community for no good reason.
OK, I'll explain it in simpler terms. As only 228 people voted yes on the
proposal, and there are tens of thousands that read this group, quite
clearly it was a relatively tiny percentage who wanted to participate in
RGPM. As in, so small a percentage that it would be very unlikely that RGP
content would change more than slightly.
You say "split a relatively healthy online community". RGP is the third
most active newsgroup in the Big Eight. That's out of tens of thousands of
newsgroups. It could have handled losing a couple thousand members who
wanted to participate in a moderated version (and that's ignoring the fact
that many of them would have stayed in RGP as well).
> > > The overwhelming support was not there (and I
> > > still believe there was some considerable ballot stuffing on the Yes
> > > side). Here, the proposal had many flaws and was poorly conceived. I
> > > suspect there will be other poker-related newsgroups created in the
future
> > > -- but this one was the wrong one.
> >
> > The RGPM proposal wasn't a perfect solution. However, it was a decent
> > amount of effort put forth to create a quality newsgroup about poker.
It's
> > too bad that a few scared people wanted to keep this a one-newspaper
town.
>
>
> You are completely off-base. Many of the people voting no -- including
> myself -- have said that they would support one or more new poker
> newsgroups -- just not the one that was proposed here.
>
> > The arguments against RGPM were selfish and paranoid.
> > [snip]
>
> Boy are you pissed -- you just keep characterizing people that disagree
> with you in negative ways.
I appreciate that you misread my sentence. I said that the ARGUMENTS
against RGPM were selfish and paranoid. I chose those words intentionally.
I did not say that everyone who voted NO was selfish and paranoid.
> > Oh well. The people have spoken, and they screwed it up. It's not the
> > first time that's happened, and it won't be the last.
>
> No screw up. The results was appropriate.
Your opinion is noted.
> Quit your whining.
Ah, sophisticated riposte. I fear I am wounded.
> Chuck
Thanks for the feedback. I'm actually rather confident that at some point,
most of the "NO" voters will realize that they made a mistake. Most of them
voted in the sense of "would you be a member of a newsgroup with this
charter", as opposed to "if somebody else wants to have a newsgroup with
this charter, is that OK?". See, I don't care if you are a member of RGPM,
or rec.fan.pearljam, or talk.kids or anything else. Because I believe that
you have the right to hang out in any newsgroup you want, even if it's in a
subject I care nothing about, or even if it's in a subject I do care about
but I dislike/ignore a newsgroup associated with it.
What offends me so much is how close-minded the NO voters were. It's not
like I'm a prolific poker writer with a personal beef against RGP. I have
no idea whether I ever would have posted in an RGPM. What I did and do
understand is that denying other people something they want when it hardly
affects oneself at all is a very selfish thing to do. I don't think the
majority of the NO voters were consciously trying to exercise a form of
schadenfreude, I just think that they were associating the idea of "am I in
favor of creating RGPM" with the idea of "am I in favor of using RGPM".
YMMV.
- Itea
Gary Carson
not, the people who voted no had a wide range of reasons.
Your judgmental attitude is pretty much the kind of thinking I expected from
the moderators and is a big reason I voted no.
Itea
Aha. So your reasoning is devolving into "everyone has their own opinions
and so we can't find a common base from which to ever discuss anything"?
I don't want to put words in your mouth. Here is my question:
If there is a known community of a couple thousand people who would like to
have a moderated newsgroup in which they can discuss poker, why do you think
they should not be allowed to have it? Its possible effects on you are very
small, the people are not conspiring to commit acts of violence or
criminality, and it costs you nothing monetarily.
> - Andrew
- Itea
James Campbell
> and so we can't find a common base from which to ever discuss anything"?
>
> I don't want to put words in your mouth. Here is my question:
>
> If there is a known community of a couple thousand people who would like
to
> have a moderated newsgroup in which they can discuss poker, why do you
think
> they should not be allowed to have it? Its possible effects on you are
very
> small, the people are not conspiring to commit acts of violence or
> criminality, and it costs you nothing monetarily.
>
> > - Andrew
>
> - Itea
A couple thousand? Isn't that a stretch from 228? If you want a moderated
forum for poker there are always web based solutions.
OneOut
"Chris Barnes" <ch...@txbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:c8ggvj$nrd$1...@news.tamu.edu...
> OneOut <craigswhomes(nospam)@tca.net> wrote:
> > The first time I looked at it there was a couple of "Nadar calls for
> > Bush Impechment" post and numerous post about Iams dog food.
> >
> > I guess Chris feels like it is his personal playground.
>
> Look at other newsgroups - that person was spoofing the moderator
> approval.
>
> I certainly do NOT support Nader - and even if I did, I wouldn't after
> the spoofing...
I don't care to look at the other newsgroups. I looked at the one you
moderate, and I saw a header (IIRC) talking about impeaching Bush. That is
what caught my attention. When I first looked at rec.hunting.dogs I wasn't
aware at first that it was moderated.
Here is the first page that Google pulls up when I looked at rec.hunting.
dogs.
Please explain to me how the last two threads are *spoofed* to get past a
moderator?
Threads 1-25 of about 36,800 in rec.hunting.dogs Next 25 threads >>
Date Thread Subject Most Recent Poster
May 18, 2004 Hunting Pigeons For Meat (7 articles) Greg Harbaugh
May 15, 2004 More IAMS and HSUS Amy Dahl
May 14, 2004 "See you in the Sky" (1 article) sparkplug
May 14, 2004 Diabetes caused by dog food? (3 articles) Jo Wolf
May 14, 2004 Walker hound (or foxhound) for adoption (1 article)
flick
May 11, 2004 Eating grass Allan Ashton
May 10, 2004 AKC Gundog Championships . . . (8 articles) Rugerheim
May 10, 2004 Castration - Amy (1 article) cb
May 10, 2004 Tri-tronics sprot 50 collar?? Greg Harbaugh
May 6, 2004 Free Dog Stand/Platform Directions (1 article) Kevin
Fitz-Gerald
May 3, 2004 Brittany Breeders - Northeast (4 articles) ppost
May 1, 2004 Does harvesting doves affect the population from yea...
(8 articles) David's World News Service
May 1, 2004 HSUS/IAMS flap- NEWS April 20, 2004 (1 article) Amy Dahl
Apr 29, 2004 the reply I received from IAMS (1 article) gz
Apr 29, 2004 Iams sees the light? (1 article) Rock
Apr 29, 2004 Free Pointing and Retrieving Dog Training Clinics (1
article) Outdoors Magazine
Apr 29, 2004 Fw: Hello from Marti @ Iams! (1 article) Matthew R.
Lawrence
Apr 29, 2004 New GSP and assorted other stuff (1 article) Glenn
Apr 29, 2004 Iams Pulls Sponsorship of Animal Rights Events (11
articles) Outdoors Magazine
Apr 26, 2004 dove hunting is a blast! (14 articles) Neil Weinder
Apr 23, 2004 dove hunting (6 articles) Dawg
Apr 23, 2004 IAMS/HSUS flap - update? (1 article) Bear Tooth
Apr 21, 2004 as lovingly as Haron lifts, you can walk the jug muc...
(1 article) Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
Apr 17, 2004 Call for an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney (2
articles) Stewart Connor
Apr 17, 2004 Call for an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney
Graybags
Next 25 threads >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Google Home - Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google
©2004 Google
Would you support Nader if he got caught stuffing a ballot box like you did?
James Campbell
"Itea" <it...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10aniv4...@corp.supernews.com...
OneOut
Oh really? Then take a look at the first page of rec.hunting.dogs and please
explain to me how the last two threads were *spoofed*.
James Campbell
"Chris Barnes" <ch...@txbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:c8ggvj$nrd$1...@news.tamu.edu...
Nuts4daNuts
> Do you realize how ignorant your statement "A moderated group would actually
> INCREASE free speech..." sounds? In a FREE speech society does a person
> posting a flame have less rights than a person posting "civilized
> discussion"?
YOUR statement is the IGNORANT one because of one simple fact: IF RGPM
PASSED THAT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT RGP WOULD BE SHUT DOWN. RGP would still be
available for the flamers and these posters would still have their full
right to post whatever they want. The only difference is that there would
be another newsgroup for those who wish to post without being trolled or
ridiculed (thus increasing THEIR free speech).
Rich M
>Unfortunately, this can't be done and will never happen. Fortunately there
>are kill files and plenty of alternatives when you feel like a serious poker
>discussion.
Actually, when I participate in other newsgroups, I used watch filters
instead of kill filters, which is what I am now setting up for RGP.
With watch filters, I pop to the top any thread where a poster I
respect gets involved. Since they almost never respond to OT stuff or
spam, I hardly ever see this gargage. Then, I use a kill-file to get
rid of the most objectionable posters, those who have something
negative or stupid to say in even the most valuable of threads.
As to cleaning up RGP, it can never be perfect, but it can be much
better. In my opinion, most RGPers are myopic. I would guess that
less than five percent of RGP posters have ever posted to another
Usenet group, maybe less than one percent.
There are dozens of specific actions that other groups have taken to
clean up their newsgroups that RGPers may not be aware of. Some
groups have almost no OT posts, simply because the active posters do
not want them there. OT posters are usually ignorant about the
history and purpose of Usenet hierarchies, and so the best way to fix
the OT problem is to politely but firmly direct OT posters to
netiquette FAQ's.
Also, in some groups, the FAQ is the heart of the group, and newbie
questions are answered almost universally with pointers to a FAQ.
After a visit to the FAQ, a newbie will also come back with knowledge
about netiquette, how to deal with spam, etc., killing several birds
with one stone.
In quite a few groups, there are several FAQ's, maybe one dealing with
strategy, another with terminology and history, and a few more with
very specific topics. It seems to me that discussion of all poker
variations need not be lumped into the same FAQ. I would love to see
Ashley and a few other stud people create a Stud FAQ, and then have
someone else work on an Omaha FAQ.
There are also very effective ways of dealing with trolls, dousing
flame wars, getting threads back on track, reducing spam, etc. One
of the best approaches I have seen to dealing with spammers is to deal
with them quietly by talking to their ISP's or partners, and then post
the results once they are dealt with. You won't be able to get all of
them, but you will be able to scare off the non-pros. If someone
posts an eBay link, forward it quietly to eBay, and they will be
warned by eBay and stop. If they post an affiliate link, send an
email to the affiliate manager threatening them with the loss of your
business if they do not at least "warn" the spammer. Other affiliate
partners who do not stoop so low as to spam the Usenet are best
positioned to have some leverage here, but so is anyone with an
account on the site. To me, it seems that if RGPers really cared
about the spam issue, they would *only* participate in and recommend
poker sites that disallowed Usenet spamming in their affiliate
agreements.
I will not be investing a great deal of energy into cleaning up RGP
and will instead return to using my watch filter to watch the threads
involving a few posters that I respect. However, for those who care
about the survival of RGP, there are many ways to minimize the
problems.
Rich M
Itea
news:oeQqc.25454$gr.2231165@attbi_s52...
> > If there is a known community of a couple thousand people who would like
> to
> > have a moderated newsgroup in which they can discuss poker, why do you
> think
> > they should not be allowed to have it? Its possible effects on you are
> very
> > small, the people are not conspiring to commit acts of violence or
> > criminality, and it costs you nothing monetarily.
> > - Itea
>
> A couple thousand? Isn't that a stretch from 228? If you want a
moderated
> forum for poker there are always web based solutions.
I was using as high an estimate as possible to help Andrew make his case;
i.e., the loss of those people would negatively impact RGP.
I have no problem with saying a few hundred people. Which would give the NO
voters even less of a reason.
- Itea
arlo payne
> If there is a known community of a couple thousand people who would like to
> have a moderated newsgroup in which they can discuss poker,
Well it is pretty clear form the vote there is not a couple of thousand
people that want a moderated poker newsgroup.
You really need to move forward or get back on your meds!
arlo payne
You just don't seem to get it!
People voted no for different reasons just like people voted yes for
different reasons.
I for one saw RGPM doing more harm then good. THat was my main reason for
voting no.
Linda K Sherman
> Let's stop pretending to be high and mighty. The people against RGPM fell
> into a few very basic categories:
>
> - "I'm a frequent poster who people respond to and I'm scared of losing my
> audience"
>
> - "I'm ignorant and worried that if RGPM passes it will mean that RGP will
> disappear"
>
> - "I'm misguided and believe that the principle of 'free speech' means that
> nobody should be allowed to discuss things without a constant background
> drone of marketing and insults"
>
> - "I like to spam my affiliate codes and personal poker sites, and I
> wouldn't be able to do it there"
I don't see myself in this list, sorry. I voted against RGPM mainly
because I felt it was a fundamentally flawed idea that would simply
increase the number of newsgroups I'd have to read without adding any
measurable value to the experience. I also felt the moderation policies
went well beyond what was necessary to have a readable newsgroup.
Those of you who want a moderated or monitored forum have other options.
There are all the web forums (2+2, UPF, etc.), or someone could start
a mailing list or an off-Usenet newsgroup.
--
Linda K. Sherman
linsherman [atsign] tampabay [stop] rr [stop] com
John Kerry for President.
Itea
news:oGQqc.1049$ZZ1....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> I don't see myself in this list, sorry. I voted against RGPM mainly
> because I felt it was a fundamentally flawed idea that would simply
> increase the number of newsgroups I'd have to read without adding any
> measurable value to the experience. I also felt the moderation policies
> went well beyond what was necessary to have a readable newsgroup.
In all seriousness, why would you have to read it?
> Linda K. Sherman
- Itea
James Campbell
free speech means increasing ALL parties ability to express their views. In
the current environment ALL parties can speak freely, if one group chooses
not to speak they are giving up their free speech rights..
Both Group 1 & Group 2 are allowed to post on RGP.
Only Group 2 is allowed to post on RGPM.
"Nuts4daNuts" <anon...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:noQqc.15704441$Id.26...@news.easynews.com...
A. Prock
>> >> different reasons.
>> >
>>
>
>Aha. So your reasoning is devolving into "everyone has their own opinions
>and so we can't find a common base from which to ever discuss anything"?
[Major snippage above, but I hope the spirit is maintained, if not
go back in the thread to get full context.]
Um...
You had pigeonholed those who didn't support RGPM into
some very narrow holes. I was only trying to point out
that there were a lot of holes for all the pigeons to
roost in.
I never claimed that any of the holes were devoid of
pigeon shit. On the contrary, I'm sure many of them
are full of shit.
Regardless, there are *many* reasons that people voted
NO, despite your orignal assertion. You might not agree
with their reasons. That's not a problem.
Nuts4daNuts
> Increasing ONE groups speech is not an increase in free speech. Increasing
> free speech means increasing ALL parties ability to express their views. In
> the current environment ALL parties can speak freely, if one group chooses
> not to speak they are giving up their free speech rights..
>
> Both Group 1 & Group 2 are allowed to post on RGP.
And would still be allowed to post if there was a RGPM.
> Only Group 2 is allowed to post on RGPM.
Both "groups" would still be allowed to post at RGPM. The ones who would
not be allowed to post at RGPM are the spammers and trolls. And, as I
stated before, there could be posters who do not post on RGP currently
because of the "free speech" aspect of RGP which allows posters to be
ridiculed for their views. Paul Phillips comes immediately to mind.
Itea
> >> >Irrelevant. Not a good reason to deny other people a moderated
newsgroup.
> >>
> >> Who defines "good"? You?
> >
> >Aha. So your reasoning is devolving into "everyone has their own
opinions
> >and so we can't find a common base from which to ever discuss anything"?
>
> [Major snippage above, but I hope the spirit is maintained, if not
> go back in the thread to get full context.]
>
> Um...
>
> You had pigeonholed those who didn't support RGPM into
> some very narrow holes. I was only trying to point out
> that there were a lot of holes for all the pigeons to
> roost in.
>
> I never claimed that any of the holes were devoid of
> pigeon shit. On the contrary, I'm sure many of them
> are full of shit.
>
> Regardless, there are *many* reasons that people voted
> NO, despite your orignal assertion. You might not agree
> with their reasons. That's not a problem.
I don't want to argue semantics. I will try to be very clear. I think that
your reasons to vote NO are related to why you are currently satisfied with
RGP, or why you thought the proposed RGPM would not be a group you would
like. And I don't think that is why one should vote on the subject. I
think that someone should vote YES if they feel the group would have a
positive benefit for them, and NO if they thought it would affect them
negatively to a degree that outweighed the enjoyment/entertainment/education
it would give to the people who patronized the group.
Very few people specifically gave reasons that concerned why they should
keep people who want RGPM from having it (other than theories about Rich M
that never seemed to have any evidence behind them).
I would typify your reasons as reasons why you would not patronize RGPM. I
could similarly give reasons about why I don't read any number of newsgroups
ranging on topic from politics to sports to psychology to travel etc. But
they are not reasons that would make me vote NO on the creation of such a
group. Why is it that you feel RGPM has a negative enough impact on you
that you would deny it to others? Seriously, I don't understand? Is it all
related to a potential future split?
Is it your opinion that if you would not like a group, then you should vote
against it, even if others would like it and it would not affect you?
This is not like voting against a civic project costing millions in public
funds. The incremental cost of adding another newsgroup to a set of tens of
thousands is microscopic on an individual level.
> - Andrew
- Itea
James Campbell
He obviously didn't care about RGPM as he Abstained from voting.
arlo payne
In my view RGPM would of done more harm then good.
Thus I voted no.
You seem to have a very small window you are looking out of and refuse to
even try and understand how others viewed the issue.
There are just as many reasons for people to vote no as there are for
people to vote yes. I can understand why someone voted yes why can't you
understand why someone voted no?
Bill Chen
he felt it was important to go on record as abstaining rather than
simply not voting.
Bill
proc...@pokerstove.com (A. Prock) wrote in message news:<40ab81f7$0$1455$8026...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
> According to Raider Fan <anon...@hotmail.com>:
> >On May 19 2004 9:54AM, David E. Smith wrote:
> >> Abstained
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> paulp~improving.org Paul Phillips
> >
> >
> >Why the hell would Paul go to the trouble of abstaining when he has
> >decided he can't deal with RGP? This guy is a flake!
>
> Most likely because he had some concern about someone highjacking
> his name for their own purposes.
>
> - Andrew
ChuckJ
> In all seriousness, why would you have to read it?
I am sure Linda can explain as well, but I am going to give it a try:
At the very least, a portion of what currently goes to RGP would be sent
RGPM. Since cross-posting will only be done on a whim, to get the current
RGP experience you would have to spend time going through both groups.
This exercise would likely cost far more in time wasted then any doubtful
benefits from RGPM.
Jerrod Ankenman
> > Abstained
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------> > paulp~improving.org Paul Phillips
>
>
> Why the hell would Paul go to the trouble of abstaining when he has
> decided he can't deal with RGP? This guy is a flake!
Perhaps he wanted interested parties to know that he knew about the
RGPM inititaive and didn't care?
Jerrod Ankenman
Dave R
wrote:
>There appears to have been much discussion of the vote and proposal
>posted in rgp (400+ messages not crossposted to news.groups) and
>improper solicitation for NO votes--or maybe it was just a joke in poor
>taste. See <news:5hbv801cnu2nojn5i...@4ax.com>, subject
>"VOTE NO, RGPM and RECEIVE FREE MONEY PARTY POKER," in which "Raoul"
>posted:
>
> YES
> That's right
> VOTE NO
> on R.G.P.M
> and receive FREE money when you sign up for new account at Party
> Poker WWW.PARTYPOKER.COM
> Just Enter code VOTENORGPM
> And receive 25% Deposit bonus UPTO $100.00 )WOW
> PLUS 25% of your rake back.
>
> REMEMBER VOTE NO
> The world is counting on you.
> You CAN make a Difference
> RGP Loves You!
>
>Can anyone confirm one way or the other if the offer was genuine?
This "offer" is repeated at least 20 times a day by all Party Poker
affiliates. It's not even as good as many of them. Many other
spammers offer additional benefits, including merchandise, rake
kickbacks, or extra cash. This "offer" was a joke.
Gary Carson
>have a moderated newsgroup in which they can discuss poker, why do you think
>they should not be allowed to have it?
Because 90% of them thought it was too much trouble to say they wanted it?
Gary Carson
>positive benefit for them, and NO if they thought it would affect them
>negatively to a degree that outweighed the enjoyment/entertainment/education
>it would give to the peopl
So people should vote Yes based purely on self interest, but you should
subjagate your interest to those of others before you vote No?
Is that the way moderation works?
Lou Krieger
RGP is the third most active newsgroup in the Big Eight. That's out of
tens of thousands of newsgroups. It could have handled losing a couple
thousand members who wanted to participate in a moderated version (and
that's ignoring the fact that many of them would have stayed in RGP as
well). <<
But with so few people voting for RGPM, it's hard to say with any degree of
certainty that "...a couple of thaousand members" would particpate. This
entire thing, in retrospect, seems all a big yawn. No one really wants RGPM,
so give it a rest and let it go.
_____
Lou Krieger
Raise your game with Lou Krieger, author of "Internet Poker: How to Play and
Beat Online Poker Games" at Royal Vegas Poker.
http://www.royalvegaspoker.com/lou
Art Class
> From: denny...@aol.comnojunk (DennyLynch)
>
> >
> >No, and it's not the first time a group has responded negatively to an
> >outsider
> >showing up and telling them he knows what's best for them.
>
> Exactly, it's as if Rich M doesn't realize he's really the sole reason this
> "lost".
Bullshit. The idea of a moderated poker usenet group was not born
with Rich M.
Rich M is the reason the RFD, Charter, Moderation method and CFV
happened. He did a lot of fantastic work and put up with untold
number of personal attacks to make the CFV happen.
The reason it didnt pass is because "No" votes count more than "Yes"
votes.
> If six months from now, someone from inside the group modifies some
> of the problems with the charter and leaves it somewhat open for discussion,
> it'll probably pass.
It will never pass as long as enough people are hell-bent on
preventing others from creating a Big 8 moderated poker forum.
"I don't like change that I don't control" - RGPM "No" Voter
Bjgkaraoke
>Joan
>who didn't vote. would have voted "abstain" but decided not to be added to a
>list that will most likely soon be harvested for spam.
Joan, I get lots of spam every day, but it goes in a separate folder and I
delete all of it with one click.
Barbara Gallamore
Gary Carson
>PASSED THAT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT RGP WOULD BE SHUT DOWN.
No, but if rgpm was successful it would empty rgp of it's content and change
the nature of rgp and change the nature of the content it took.
The potential for permenant, irreperable harm was more than I thought any
potential benefit was worth.
Gary Carson
>because of the "free speech" aspect of RGP which allows posters to be
>ridiculed for their views. Paul Phillips comes immediately to mind.
Great example. He didn't vote for rgpm.
Ted Mayett
Prime time there could be what, 45,000 people logged onto poker
rooms? Maybe more. And not even 500 Yes votes.
A proposal to 'raise the rake we pay' should have gotten 500 Yes
votes. Anything at all should get hundreds of votes.
276 total votes. There had to have been an easy 4 times as many posts
on this subject, then there were votes on this subject.
5000 posts a week to this ng, and only 276 total votes. What does
this mean really? If all you knew were these facts, what would it
tell you? Would you think that maybe it was a ng full of spammers
mainly? Maybe a few people that just make 100's of posts between
them?
The 276 might very well represent the number of real people that
participate in this ng. Which is interesting.
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/links.htm
Marc
> I will not be investing a great deal of energy into cleaning up RGP
> and will instead return to using my watch filter to watch the threads
> involving a few posters that I respect. However, for those who care
> about the survival of RGP, there are many ways to minimize the
> problems.
>
> Rich M
Excellent. Kill files and watch filters are precisely how to deal with the
problem. RGPM wan never needed and will never be needed if people take the
minimal amount of time necessary to setup their newsreader to reject what
they don't want to see.
-Marc
"Pay him... pay that man his money"
MVentolo
>Bullshit. The idea of a moderated poker usenet group was not born
>with Rich M.
But, he was the one who organized everything. And he has even less to do with
this NG than *I* do! Would anyone take seriously a proposal I brought forth?
>Rich M is the reason the RFD, Charter, Moderation method and CFV
>happened. He did a lot of fantastic work and put up with untold
>number of personal attacks to make the CFV happen.
>
And if someone from *inside* the NG had put this up and allowed more input,
guess what, it would have passed.
I'm not going to wander into NG's where I'm a lurker, at best, and start a
process to make a moderated twin. He puts in alot of work, great. But you
know what, it makes little sense.
>
>The reason it didnt pass is because "No" votes count more than "Yes"
>votes.
Yeah, especially when the whole Barnes family gets involved.
>It will never pass as long as enough people are hell-bent on
>preventing others from creating a Big 8 moderated poker forum.
Let them actually be from the *unmoderated* poker forum first. This just
looks like a netcop mission, considering how many places get the vote
crossposted to them. This is the first vote I've ever seen in a newsgroup, so
I'm unfamiliar with the process. But, if every process is started by
carpetbaggers, I'm shocked that *any* pass. Unless the case is that most of
these NG's are barren and/or ignorant and just don't care.
>
>"I don't like change that I don't control" - RGPM "No" Voter
"I like change that I do control"
RGPM founders
Rich M
>Excellent. Kill files and watch filters are precisely how to deal with the
>problem.
I am glad *you* think that watch filtering is "excellent" and the
"precisely how to deal with the problem." I do not. I think it is a
shotgun approach, but I am left without an effective alternative.
Those who employ watch-filtering do nothing to enhance or improve the
group, and do not fully participate in the community. For them, the
group is a private old boys (and girls) club. The most experienced
posters never see or answer posts from 99% of the other posters, and
they don't really care if the group declines into a wasteland, because
they are not part of it.
At least a few of the people on my respected poster list also seem to
be employing watch filters, as judged by the fact that they tend to
perk up only in concert with a few others. Therefore, I am really not
sure who is left to actually skim a good portion of RGP subjects and
identify interesting conversations for the rest.
Not only does watch filtering kill the trolls and the spammers -- it
kills everyone but a elite few. I consider this solution throwing the
baby out with the bath water, a sad state of affairs, and I hate doing
it. But, I have done it before with other high-noise newsgroups, and
I think it is necessary in RGP.
Rich M
Travel
ajoh...@aol.com (AJohn808)
yes, the vote was close. but here's some evidence of ballot stuffing.
Voted Yes
amy~txbarnes.com
Amy>Barnes
beth~txbarnes.com
Bethany>Barnes
chris~txbarnes.com
Chris>Barnes
dalene~txbarnes.com
Dalene>Barnes
"lol. so here we have a guy who recruited his whole family to vote
"yes". Amy and Beth are his 10 yr old and 12 yr old kids! and this guy
Chris Barnes is a moderator at rec.hunting. nice. real nice."
............................................................
Yes, excellent if not, glaring point.
And, ya know, it seems to me, after just skimming over the results, that
you may have missed a Barnes or two lol!
Also, the vote taker, listed the groups where the CFV (Call For Votes)
was posted to solicit "yes" votes.
And guess what, the vote taker didn't list rec.hunting, or
rec.hunting.dogs.
And can you believe it, Barnes is the moderator of these groups. Yes,
the same, of "Barnes Family Ballot Stuffing ...inc." hummm.....
Barnes was caught soliciting on his own groups. He subsequently had to
admit it.
...but it wasn't listed by the vote taker...why.
On how many other groups were "yes" votes solicited and then, not
listed?
Why is it, that besides the moderators' votes and a couple of other
votes, i didn't recognize any of the names among the "yes" votes.
But, i recognized literally -most- of the names for "no" votes.
Well, that's enough for now. Let's cut the bullshit shall we. The truth
of the matter is, the opposition to this fraud "process" is so
overwhelming that they couldn't even steal it!
(note: i wrote this before reading the entire thread. If this is
repeated in various ways, well, i didn't see it yet.)
Bjgkaraoke
>>Joan, I get lots of spam every day, but it goes in a separate folder and I
>>delete all of it with one click.
>>Barbara Gallamore
>
>Are you talking about e-mail or newsgroups?
Email. I assumed Joan meant email. Newsgroup spam is easy to ignore.
Barbara Gallamore
A. Prock
>Not only does watch filtering kill the trolls and the spammers -- it
>kills everyone but a elite few. I consider this solution throwing the
>baby out with the bath water,
Relying soley on author watch lists/filters will indeed throw out
the baby. However, there are other things you can look for which
indicate interesting content. You can watch for specific subject
words, and check out the larger threads which, almost by definition,
are interesting.
I also check out the newest 20-30 threads whenever I log in as well.
Rich M
>Prime time there could be what, 45,000 people logged onto poker
>rooms? Maybe more. And not even 500 Yes votes.
Also, count the number of people who watch poker on television (1.5
million if I recall correctly), or the number of unique hits to
websites, etc. The number of people interested in poker is huge.
>Would you think that maybe it was a ng full of spammers
>mainly? Maybe a few people that just make 100's of posts between
>them?
Here is a link that will answer your question:
http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/reportcard.asp?searchfor=rec.gambling.poker
There were 26,000 posts to RGP in March from 3214 unique addresses.
The top 32 (top 1%) most consistently involved posters averaged 171
posts each during the month, and the remaining 99% of the posters
averaged 6.5 posts during the month. The top one percent post 26
times as much as the rest.
>The 276 might very well represent the number of real people that
>participate in this ng. Which is interesting.
I do not have the exact data on the top 276, but I do know that 1445
of the posters (or 45% of the total posters) posted only once during
the month. I would guess that below the top 276 posters, it is down
to 2 posts per month on average.
FYI, here is the top 40 poster list for March 2004, with number of
days posted followed by number of posts.
31d 507p garycarson1-AT-wmconnect.comtrash
31d 223p mjostar-AT-ameritech.net
30d 280p PegSmithNowNOSPAM-AT-aol.com
30d 198p jhXaYrknessZ-AT-sympatico.ca
30d 170p dimsbam-AT-pwy.com
29d 60p "chipreapr"<anonymous-AT-earthlink.net>
29d 194p radioguy-AT-cableone.net
29d 172p acesfullremove-AT-mchsi.com
29d 160p prock_rgp-AT-pokerstove.com
28d 189p willreich_77-AT-yahoo.com
28d 168p donthreetens-AT-cox.com
28d 117p EGK<me-AT-privacy.net>
28d 111p "Iceman"<anonymous-AT-yahoo.com>
27d 84p jayjerome-AT-earthlink.net
27d 222p c06777-AT-aol.com
27d 196p dlilie-AT-cox.rr.com
26d 99p dennylynch-AT-aol.comnojunk
26d 94p "Martini"<martinb
26d 70p krmin-AT-aol.comnospam
26d 60p "ruylopez"<anonymous-AT-comcast.net>
26d 245p alwaysaware-AT-aol.com(AlwaysAware)
26d 103p pa-AT-comcast.net
25d 79p vodkaputtputt-AT-aol.com
25d 69p Calahan-AT-thefianna.org
25d 67p thisisntmyreal-AT-ddress.com
25d 127p "jimpepper"<anonymous-AT-attbi.com>
25d 112p "OrangeSFO"<anonymous-AT-aol.com>
24d 82p kala_for_me-AT-yahoo.com
24d 81p nine510-AT-webtv.net
24d 79p FL Turbo
24d 59p lvdlrs-AT-midsouth.rr.com
24d 168p anonymous-AT-winholdem.net
24d 162p "Nuts4daNuts"<anonymous-AT-msn.com>
23d 76p ajohn808-AT-aol.com
23d 55p pb9610-AT-hotmail.com(King
23d 210p rich-AT-holdemsecrets.com
23d 156p Mr.Pope
22d 51p peter-AT-scfrey.com
22d 160p anonymous-AT-msoe.edu
22d 139p see-AT-my.signature.at.end
Rich M
A. Prock
>days posted followed by number of posts.
>
Clearly, I need a life.
Deep Throat
> I don't want to argue semantics. I will try to be very clear. I think that
> your reasons to vote NO are related to why you are currently satisfied with
> RGP, or why you thought the proposed RGPM would not be a group you would
> like. And I don't think that is why one should vote on the subject. I
> think that someone should vote YES if they feel the group would have a
> positive benefit for them, and NO if they thought it would affect them
> negatively to a degree that outweighed the enjoyment/entertainment/education
> it would give to the people who patronized the group.
You're trying to be very clear? Keep trying, you almost got it. That was
about the biggest load of crap I've ever seen.
You lost, quit whining about your bad beat, your hand was never the
favorite.
Bill Vanek
<raidersg...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>This "offer" is repeated at least 20 times a day by all Party Poker
>affiliates. It's not even as good as many of them. Many other
>spammers offer additional benefits, including merchandise, rake
>kickbacks, or extra cash. This "offer" was a joke.
It might have been a joke, but that doesn't answer the original
question of whether it was a genuine offer. You seem to be saying it
was.
--
email to bilvanek at softcom dot net
Itea
news:gfUqc.14169$q_1....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> >> "Itea" <it...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:10aniv4...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> RGP is the third most active newsgroup in the Big Eight. That's out of
> tens of thousands of newsgroups. It could have handled losing a couple
> thousand members who wanted to participate in a moderated version (and
> that's ignoring the fact that many of them would have stayed in RGP as
> well). <<
>
> But with so few people voting for RGPM, it's hard to say with any degree
of
> certainty that "...a couple of thaousand members" would particpate. This
> entire thing, in retrospect, seems all a big yawn. No one really wants
RGPM,
> so give it a rest and let it go.
> _____
> Lou Krieger
Again. What is wrong with creating something that only a few people enjoy?
It required no effort from you. It required no maintenance from you. It
required no input from you.
Let's say only 150 people would have frequented the group. So what? There
are many, many Usenet groups where there are less than 20 frequent
contributors, and some of those groups are astounding in their knowledge of
the related subject.
Evaluating RGPM as a business decision is the wrong thing to do. There was
no associated cost with it, except for by people who had already volunteered
to do the work (the moderators).
Have you ever looked around the Usenet universe? RGP is not typical; it's
very exceptional in its size. Many people think that smaller, more focused
newsgroups tend to be far more interesting in their content.
Perhaps this will offend Andrew Prock, but I would describe your:
"But with so few people voting for RGPM, it's hard to say with any degree of
certainty that "...a couple of thaousand members" would particpate. This
entire thing, in retrospect, seems all a big yawn. No one really wants RGPM,
so give it a rest and let it go."
comment as another non-argument.
What if someone told you "Lou, you shouldn't discuss poker with anyone,
because after all, it's only the two of you. And you shouldn't even have
group discussions, because after all, it's only a few of you. In fact,
unless you are talking to at least 1000 people, I won't allow you to talk
about poker at all."
Would that make any sense at all?
- Itea
Rich M
>And if someone from *inside* the NG had put this up and allowed more input,
>guess what, it would have passed.
I give RGPers more credit than this. I believe that the group idea
was supported by 228 people with high hopes, and voted down by 148
people with truly unresolved fears. But, I am a full-steam-ahead kind
of guy, and massaging fears has never been my strong suit. I am
certainly no politician, and maybe a politician would have done a
better job. Maybe a committee needed to be formed, and maybe some
very loud no voters needed to be courted. Then again, anything with a
committee might have looked like it was an elitist club creating an
elitist group.
In any case, I think the charter was excellent, and I doubt it would
change much even after being discussed in committee for months, except
to make it a bit more restrictive (i.e. specifically ban presto and
bad beat posts, etc).
RGPM wasn't my idea, but I believe it is an idea who's time has come.
I filed a formal Request for Discussion, and I felt that it was fully
challenged and discussed, every nuance, every word, every idea. It
also came to a vote, and many group ideas never make it that far. In
spite of the outcome, I am satisfied with the process and accept the
results.
As the posting volume and noise continues to climb in RGP, maybe those
who feared RGPM harming RGP will consider a moderated Usenet group to
be the lesser of two evils, and maybe a political-type long-time RGPer
will emerge to make a stab at it.
Frankly, for all the YES voters who are disappointed right now, I
think there are probably more apathetic posters who wish they voted,
and more NO voters who will one day question exactly why they
inhibited the creation of this group.
Rich M
arlo payne
Many have tryed to explain to you why they voted no. You just can't
understand any view point other then the small minded one you are focused
on!
arlo payne
You still dont get it do you?
Rich you were blind to input that was a key problem!
Rich M
>Many have tryed to explain to you why they voted no. You just can't
>understand any view point other then the small minded one you are focused
>on!
Arlo, you remind me of my ADD-afflicted nephew. He complains long and
loud, but rarely wins any points because he resorts too often to
insults and puerile name-calling.
Itea made a very well-reasoned reply to an articulate post. Both of
their positions were true from their perspectives, even though they
expressed radically different points of view.
Frankly, I only wish I could have articulated my feelings as well as
Itea did. At the same time, I agree with Lou that RGPM should have
generated more YES votes based upon the size of RGP.
Rich M
ringo
> I give RGPers more credit than this. I believe that the group idea
> was supported by 228 people with high hopes, and voted down by 148
> people with truly unresolved fears.
I voted no because I'm in support of the status quo. This newsgroup is
just fine the way it is IMO. It takes all kinds. I come here because
I am learning how to play poker, and just like at the poker table,
I firmly believe it takes all kinds... the cocky, the desperate, the
lucky, the newbie, the confused, the arrogant, the shameless, the
stupid, the brilliant, the misguided, the good, the bad, the ugly,
the drunk, the righteous, the angler, the stoic, the smug, the stoned,
the gambler, the vitriolic, the comedic, the inspired, the humbled,
the stifled, the oppressed, the foolish, the educated, the poker
community... to teach me. And so it continues.
Rich M, though I was your adversary, I do have respect for your efforts.
I wish you good luck in your future endeavors, and I sincerely hope you
can manage the bad luck you may encounter as well as a good poker player
can.
-Ringo
Travel
it...@hotmail.com (Itea)
Itea Wrote:
"Very few people specifically gave reasons that concerned why they
should keep people who want RGPM from having it (other than theories
about Rich M that never seemed to have any evidence behind them)."
............................................................
Blame your heros, RichM and the moderators. -They're- depriving you of
your moderated newsgroup.
-They- blew it.
They don't deserve to control a newsgroup.
The entire proposal is flawed. It's tainted with deceit.
It's a non starter, a deal killer.
RGPM, as presented, dosen't deserve to progress, even to the point of
serious discussion on the merits of a moderated news group.
Try it again with people that don't deceptively try to set up themselves
and their like minded friends, as some kind of usenet dictatorship.
arlo payne
And Rich you still remind me of a snake oil vendor!
RGPM did not have the support you had wanted because you forgot to keep an
open mind and pay attention to the ideas of others!
Travel
ru.ig...@usask.ca
In news.groups gicalif <gic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
players.
All that stuff about deleting text which for some reason my computer
would not do, pasting, etc, was way beyond my skill. I have an MBA, not
a science degree. Why couldnt a site have been designated for everyone
to send an e-mail to w a yes or no and then count the results manually?
.....
Ru responded:
".......Further, the idea of going to a newsgroup to get the ballot
rather than a web site is one means to try to see if the voter actually
has the intention of using newsgroups rather than allowing just anyone
who can click on a web site to vote."
.............................................................
And you feel that soliciting votes and posting the CFV on rec.blackjack,
rec.hunting.dogs etc. etc.
would, as you put it:
".....try to see if the voter actually has the intention of using the
newsgroups....."
Plus, there's plenty of people that access RGP from out side of
usenet....really, what's your point.
Unlike yourself, the poster you responded to, makes a lot of sense.
There are plenty of people who have never even heard of "Copy, Cut and
Paste"
Travel
...........................................................
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Wed, May 19, 2004, 8:59pm (EDT-3) From:
ri...@holdemsecrets.com (Rich M)
Travel
bilv...@invalid.invalid (Bill Vanek)
<raidersg...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
"This "offer" is repeated at least 20 times a day by all Party Poker
affiliates. It's not even as good as many of them. Many other spammers
offer additional benefits, including merchandise, rake kickbacks, or
extra cash. This "offer" was a joke."
...........
Bill Vanek responded:
"It might have been a joke, but that doesn't answer the original
question of whether it was a genuine offer. You seem to be saying it
was."
.........................................................
It also dosen't answer the question of why Kathy Morgan of (the
"unbiased" lol!) news.goups (who originally posted this subject on this
thread) is hopping up and down about this. But dosen't even mention
-"The Barnes Family"-.....etc,etc....rec.hunting.dogs ... etc.,
etc......
William Browning
"Rich M" <ri...@holdemsecrets.com> wrote in message
news:c7gna09qa83edf5ev...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:36 GMT, "Irish Mike" wrote:
>
> I will not be investing a great deal of energy into cleaning up RGP
> and will instead return to using my watch filter to watch the threads
> involving a few posters that I respect. However, for those who care
> about the survival of RGP, there are many ways to minimize the
> problems.
If you owned RGPM it would have taken up a great deal of your time and
energy but your not prepared to invest the same time and energy in a
community owned newsgroup? Feeling bitter?
Rich M
>If you owned RGPM it would have taken up a great deal of your time and
>energy but your not prepared to invest the same time and energy in a
>community owned newsgroup?
I never sought to *own* RGPM, and I certainly never set out to fix
RGP, not then and not now. If the people who say they love RGP have
given up on fixing her problems, why in the world should I care? For
me, RGP is just a Usenet poker community. I don't love poker and I
don't love Usenet. I *love* my wife and kids, and I have two
birthdays coming up in June.
I am easily willing to lead and take risks and invest in new ideas.
But, I do not save sinking ships -- not that it can't be done -- it's
just not my forte.
>Feeling bitter?
No bitterness, or regrets. I did my best. I was a change proponent.
The proposal failed because people feared that it would be *too*
successful. I suppose that I can live with that.
And tonight, I'm feeling particularly gooooood. I placed in 11 out of
14 SNG's online today. That may not sound like a lot to some people,
but it's enough to put a big smile on my face.
Rich M
lowrance
> On 20 May 2004 03:36:10 GMT, (MVentolo) wrote:
>
> >And if someone from *inside* the NG had put this up and allowed more
input,
> >guess what, it would have passed.
>
> I give RGPers more credit than this. I believe that the group idea
> was supported by 228 people with high hopes, and voted down by 148
> people with truly unresolved fears.
RGPM WILL NEVER PASS AS LONG AS THIS ASSHOLE IS INVOLVED IN ANY WAY - Thank
You.