My "Sklansky Cheated" post unnecesarily locked

[tuq]

Dids,

My apologies if I am wrong. However, I read this thread and replied, and before this reply read the NVG thread. Isn't the whole point of the Sklansky forum to be 100% Sklansky-centric? As in, address him but parallel discussions are not welcome? That makes NVG the most apropos forum for the discussion.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really sure what you mean by the quoted part but no biggie. I don't take this stuff too seriously, e.g. even though you voted to toss me out of OOT I am happy for your continued weight loss. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[thedorf]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

been here longer than Dids, but that shouldn´t matter. just some gossip i thought i´d throw out.

[thedorf]

[ QUOTE ]
So David says he cheated. What conversation can you have about that beyond "GOSH AND LOL" if there's nothing further to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diablo posted a picture of some hot poker chick a while ago and just simply said that she needed a thread. What possible response could that get? "wow, she´s hot...yeah, i played with her once...i doinked her."

Well, i didn´t read it but i know it got a lot of traffic. Also, some people mentioned that good, high stakes players will do anything for money. That seems like baloney to me but would definitely lead to a discussion deeper than the hypothetical one you suggest.

[thedorf]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

I´ve tried to address this problem with the DS forum in this forum before but was shot down. the problem is that a lot of david´s threads are essentially forums. If, for instance, david had a "yes no questions" sub heading in his forum along with some other, deeper discussion forums, this problem might not have come up. By the way, I didn´t put up a stink when my suggestions were shot down because the forum was young at the time and i don´t want to irritate DS into giving up on his own forum. He should keep it whatever way he wants. But, I think some restructuring would actually make his life easier. Until such a thing happens, I think it´s silly to ban outside, deeper discussions of SHORT topics in his forums.

[ZeTurd]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've not been here for long, so the chances that I'm speaking out of my ass are reasonably high, but this seems to me like an unwise move if the only motivation for locking the thread was you didn't think it'll generate interesting discussion.

Literally hundreds of these kinds of threads are started every day in every subforum of 2+2 without getting locked.

What makes this special, is that locking that particular thread sure seems a lot like nepotism. What's worse? Pointless discussion, or speculation about why the thread was locked and possible distrust to the powers that be and ultimately the products of 2+2?

[thedorf]

[ QUOTE ]
been here longer than Dids

[/ QUOTE ]

oops, misread my reg. date. he´s got me by a few months.

[thedorf]

[ QUOTE ]
Pointless discussion, or speculation about why the thread was locked and possible distrust to the powers that be and ultimately the products of 2+2?


[/ QUOTE ]

Right. All he´s got to do his hit that little itty bitty unlock button and all of this will go away. The only reason I can imagine why he hasn´t yet is that he´s got some foolish pride invested in it now or he´s a power tripping mod. The fact that my post was at least as trivial as 50% of all the other posts in that forum is pretty readily apparent. cross posting is something to be avoided but i think we´ve successfully shown why certain sklansky forum topics are different until that forum is restructured.

[MicroBob]

You're tone about this isn't really helping your cause.
This isn't that big a deal.

Dids already explained his logic behind his decision.
I don't necessarily agree with it.
But calling him a power-tripping mod who just has foolish-priexplaining his logicde about this when I think he's being pretty reasonable to you is probably not the right approach.

[El Diablo]

Dibs,

No reason to lock that post. It is about as gossip-worthy a piece of information as it gets on this site, and as has been pointed out here, the place where it came up was not an appropriate place to comment on it.

"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."

Ridiculous. Plenty of people on this forum, including David of course, can further that conversation.

If the thread isn't created, how do you know people with details about it don't exist on the forum?

[Shoe]

I find it very interesting that the thread where he has admitted cheating has now been deleted off the site, and replaced with a new yes or no thread.

I also think that since he has admitted it, the 2+2 community deserves to know how, when, and why he did cheat. Especially since we seem to pride ourselves on not cheating, and running those out of town who do. Maybe it was something insignificant that happened 20+ years ago, maybe not. But it seems like everyone just wants to pretend they didn't hear that Sklansky admitted he has cheated at poker in the past and everyone is trying to push this under the rug and forget about it.