My "Sklansky Cheated" post unnecesarily locked

[thedorf]

In his special forum, sklansky admitted to having cheated in poker in this post . I then recounted this information in a News Views Gossip post . Dids then locked the NVG thread and I assume he did so because it was a cross post.

Here´s why I object to his locking the thread. First of all, I do not object at all to the practice of deleting cross-posted threads. In fact, most of the time it´s the right thing to do. However, the reason i cross posted this is because sklansky is not providing a forum for discussion of this topic. he was merely answering a yes-no question in a thread that he entitled "yes-no questions for me." If i can´t start a thread to discuss his past cheating in NVG, please either tell me where i can start such a discussion or unlock the nvg thread. thanks.

dorf

[Dids]

As I just told somebody in PM, until somebody attempts to further that discussion in that thread and gets stopped, I think it should stay there.

[thedorf]

Dids, the name of the thread in the sklansky forum is yes or no questions. the thread was not started to generate any discussion at all. DS started it with the sole intention of either answering people´s questions with a yes or a no. people won´t even have any idea that cheating is even mentioned somewhere by looking at the thread title. Also, I think the fact that his admission has generated zero discussion in the original thread (mainly because it´s not supposed to) and has garnered 19 responses in nvg is a reason to keep it in nvg. this was obviously not a typical annoying cross post and i don´t see what reason you would have to be so picky about it.

[Dids]

Dorf,

"people won´t even have any idea that cheating is even mentioned somewhere by looking at the thread title."

If the goal of your post is to alert people to the vile evil of David having cheated once, absent any context what soever, I'm not down with that post. There's nothing to talk about beyond the fact that David made that post. He could be talking about a $10 home game for all we know.

If the goal of your post is just to discuss this with David, I'm asking you to try that forum first before taking this elsewhere. The only way the discussion is anything but retarded is if David is involved.

[MicroBob]

In the Sklansky forum you are not allowed to start new threads.

So you are essentially asking him to hijack David's own thread for his own topic.

Normally I would agree with the lock and I thought Dids had a good point about the x-post thing.

But in SSN it wasn't a thread about Sklansky cheating. It's just Sklansky's own Yes/No thread.

If there's an interesting side-topic to be discussed from that thread then it should be reasonable to start a new thread about it. And this is not possible over there.

I also thought the thread that was going on about this in NVG was somewhat interesting and most people were in agreement that it might have been a $10 home-game and that it was probably much more likely back in the day.


I was going to add to that thread that I think I have technically cheated once or twice.
One time I can think of was accidentally seeing someone's hole-cards which I think is technically cheating but I'm not sure.

[thedorf]

[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing to talk about beyond the fact that David made that post. He could be talking about a $10 home game for all we know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me that the moderator of News, Views and FREAKING GOSSIP didn´t just suggest that I made a trivial post. If he did, I think he should, in all good faith, swiftly tell the penniless daniel negreanu, the latest american idol, and brandi hawbaker´s jugs about their impending ousting from his forum. Unless, of course, he can tell us how the discussions regarding those subjects are so much richer than that of sklansky´s cheating.

[ QUOTE ]
If the goal of your post is to alert people to the vile evil of David having cheated once, absent any context what soever, I'm not down with that post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say anything about evil vile. Would you consider it evil vile for him to have cheated in a $10 home game? What about a 300-600 game? Boy, maybe this is something that would have been discussed if you hadn´t locked the thread so prematurely.

Correct me if i´m wrong, but my guess is that your job as a moderator is not to simply lock threads whose subject matter you find boring or worthless.

Honestly, why are you doing this? The original thread in the sklansky forum was not meant for discussion. Also, I generated an NVG thread in the past about sklansky that he himself participated in to deny its veracity. He did so after the thread got a lot of traffic. The same could happen with this thread. But not if you keep it locked.

[odellthurman]

Locking that thread in NVG is ridiculous. David Sklansky saying that he cheated in poker is gossip-worthy on the 2+2 website. It's hard to imagine that David didn't anticipate further discussion of his response when he posted it.

[Dids]

dorf,

You miss the point, as does odell.

So David says he cheated. What conversation can you have about that beyond "GOSH AND LOL" if there's nothing further to say. That's far different from other threads you mentioned, which contained lots of detail.

And again, it isnt locked forever, I just want to give the conversation a chance to take place in a forum where there's the best chance of David responding. If that doesn't happen, I'll gleefully unlock and let the nonsense happen.

[tuq]

Without reading either the SSF thread or the NVG thread but knowing Dids' history it's pretty easy to figure out what happened. Dids always sticks up for his boyz and assigns undue weight to reg date.

Not that I care and I may be a douche, but he repeatedly calls me to the carpet for daring to take issue with the stupidity of posters who have been around for years, who he probably has met IRL. It's horrendously subjective, particularly so for someone modding a forum about gossip.

Cliff's Notes: dorf hasn't been around long enough. He loses.

[Dids]

Tuq,

If you're trying to imply that I'm sticking up for David because I like him, you're wrong. I'm not fond of David at all frankly.

This had nothing to do with who started the post and everything to do with where I feel it belongs (or should attempt to belong) and how pointless the following discussion will be.

I've explained my issue with what you do in OOT before, and it has nothing to do with what's going on here.