free Nate

[El Diablo]

UM,

The simple takeaway is this: when correcting someone in a snarky manner, you look like a complete idiot if you're wrong.

[UpstateMatt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOW,I seem to be the only one that thinks Nate went to far, other than Mason obviously.

I must live in my own little world or maybe if Nate had been saying those things about YOUR life's work, the opinions might differ.


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



Serious question here - do you think that Nate deserved to be perma-banned for the thread? Or do you agree that, regardless of his having gone too far, the banning is out of line?

My feeling is that Mason took away any legitimacy in the argument that Nate went too far by his serious over-reaction to it.

Here's my analogy - if somebody comes up and starts pushing me, and I pull out a gun and shoot them, while they may have been completely in the wrong to begin with, my over-reaction trumps the 'bad' that started the altercation.

OT

ps - my analogy is a bad one in that it assumes that Nate "sucker punched" Mason. In fact, I believe what happened is that Nate was passionate in his debating an issue - in a forum designed for debate.


[/ QUOTE ]

El D also, I run my own little real estae brokerage and if anyone called me up on the phone and talked about me/my company like Nate talked about 2+2 and WTHG (Winning in Tough Holdem Games? is my anagram right?) I would save their phone number on my phone and never answer their telephone call again. If it was an email, instant junk mail filter, they could kiss my ass.

I would definetely ban them from speaking to me again.

Businessis tough enough and life is too short to have to accept that type of crap from people.

The part of this that I don't understand is why you all think Nate was so nice. That is the part that makes me think I live in a different world from most of you. Are you so surrounded by [censored] that Nate's continual jabs at Mason seem to be normal conversation?

I looked through the thread again because sometimes my reading comprehension isn't the greatest and I am beginning to believe that I am not as smart as I once thought, but I just can't find all that warm fuzzy helpfullness that most of you seem to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the wrong analogy. This is not Mason's "place of business" in the sense that he is forced to look at Nate's posts in order to conduct his livelyhood, the way you are forced to answer the phone. It's much more like seeing something that bothers you in the newspaper, on the radio, or on TV. You just turn it off and ignore it. This isn't a business transaction; Nate's demeanor in the thread was above-par, IMO, than most controversial discussions on this board. Any other interlocuter, any other book series in question, any other topic, this ban doesn't happen.

If Mason was upset because Nate's comments were distracting him from doing his business, any number of remedies would have worked: stop reading, or lock the thread, or publically warn Nate that any more discussion would lead to a ban.

What actually happened is Mason got pissed off at someone, and used his power to punish them. Plain and simple. There's no justice to it that can be defended on an impartial basis. He took his ball and went home.

[El Diablo]

UM,

"He took his ball and went home."

Exactly.

[tuq]

steamboatin,

Judging by your posts in this thread and the fact that you recently wrote in B&M that you think ATF is the meanest forum on 2+2 (paraphrasing), I think you are WAY too sensitive for your own good, and have to wonder how you've made it this far in life without killing yourself and/or several others in some sort of snap rage against your perceived impoliteness of others.

Hmmmmmm, that is intended to be constructive criticism but didn't come out too good. Anyway, don't take it personally.

[8Adam8]

Mason,

I agree with Nate's viewpoint on the grammar demonstrated in 2+2 books. I also do not think that the 2+2 books are very good, strategy-wise. In addition, I do not think that some of the authors (such as David Sklansky) are excellent NLHE players.

With that said, I have no hidden agenda to damage 2+2 in any way. I am very grateful for the forums, seeing as 2+2 has provided wonderful academic situations and discussions that have helped progress many motivated poker players.

I think it is silly to ban such a valuable and good-hearted poster for simply offering his opinion on a subject which you (and your fellow 2+2 colleagues) have allowed open for discussion and criticism. I think it especially silly to ban Nate in the sense that he was only trying to help and improve things for future 2+2 publications.

If you did not wish to continue the discussion that had arisen between you and Nate, there are other ways to end it that do not include simply banning Nate.

Hoping not to be perma-banned,
Adam

[Clayton]

Mason,

LOL

Also hoping not to be perma-banned,
Clayton

[steamboatin]

Cliff Notes at bottom.

I don't think ATF is mean, I think the noise to signal ratio is really high for a forum that is suposed to be a constructive place to discuss issues regarding the forums. That is why I often refer to ATF as the new Zoo.

I backed off and thought about this for awhile and I think I know why we have such different opinions in this matter. I don't perceive 2+2 as a random Internet forum where I should be allowed to say whatever I want. I perceive this as the "face" of 2+2 publishing and I would bet that Mason & company feel the same way.

I am open to discussion in this matter but I believe 2+2.com is an important place for 2+2 publishing to interact with their customers. The bookshelf at the bookstore is probably more important but I don't think we should underestimate the impact the discussions on this forum, especially the books & publications forum, have on the sales of 2+2 products.

To me, posting here is just like being in the front lobby of 2+2, this isn't some random Internet Forum, this is Mason's dining room table.

How long would you be able to stand in the lobby of a business, bank, hotel, etc. and say their products weren't very good or as good as they should be before you were asked to leave?

What happens if someone thinking about purchasing WTHG Googles and the first thing they see is Nate saying the editing is bad? I haven't Googled it, but 2+2 ranks high in search engines so posters need to remember that we aren't working in a vacumn.

Cliff Notes: I think posting in these forums are just like being in the lobby of 2+2 and if you talk bad about their products and business practices, you should be asked to leave.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Cliff Notes: I think posting in these forums are just like being in the lobby of 2+2 and if you talk bad about their products and business practices, you should be asked to leave.

[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is, what you consider "talking bad" almost everyone else in this thread considers "constructive criticism". To me this is how I define these things:

Talking bad: LOLZ 2+2 books suck, Mason couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted him the "c" and the "a".

Constructive criticism: what Nate wrote.

[kipin]

Hey guys, steamboatin is the same guy who thanked the admins, and tech guys for implementing a failed forum upgrade over a holiday weekend.

Obviously his sense of reality is a little far off from the rest of the world.

He also seems to really like sucking up to the forum owners, which is fine I guess, but makes him in my mind, a little less credible.

[Greg P]

[ QUOTE ]
posting in these forums are just like being in the lobby of 2+2

[/ QUOTE ]

How are these two things anything alike? One is a forum for discussion and the other is a place of business not designed specifically for the purpose of discussing ideas.