Why is Rob allowed to post here?

[kewlJ]

I'm still wondering why Rob Stringer is allowed to post here...

You and me both RS. I get that some people want a forum where people are free to post whatever is on there mind, free of censorship. In theory, that is great. But there is a difference in people having differing opinions (good), and someone who's only intention is to be disruptive and as nasty as they can possible be (bad), Allowing these types of troll and there is no other word for these bitter old men, only diminishes any site and discourages growth and new members. Every site seems to have a couple of these bitter old guys lately.

It confuses me as to what this site is supposed to be? Dan Druff seems like a reasonable guy. He explained the history of the site, that it started as Alan's site related to his infomercial business, but most of the conversation turned to gambling topics. I guess Alan had an anything goes policy. But when Someone else takes over and renames the site "Vegas Casino Talk", it would seem like the intent was to turn the page and have a legitimate site about gambling and AP topics. But that doesn't seem to be the intent. There doesn't seem to be any turning the page or interest in growth. Just a few bitter old trolls doing their thing....being nasty and disruptive and discouraging any kind of possible growth and/or new members.

[redietz]

Alan was a journalist, so he was a free speech advocate. I'm an old journalism major, and I'm big on free speech. One problem with Rob is that he fixates on individuals and attacks them in a way that is not related to whatever the argument is. That's usually a tip-off that the argument he's making just isn't standing on its own. Another problem is that he just makes things up and tosses them out there in a public space, which becomes an issue when people posting under their real names (such Alan and me) are the targets. For example, Rob has in the past decided Alan's a gambling addict and that is the reason for his multiple marriages. With me, who he knows less about, he decided I'm not me or I'm making things up. He's also said that I was a drug addict, which is so off the beaten path, I can't even get really upset.

I think Rob viewed Alan as a credibility lifeline after virtually every other site had shut him down and his GT tenure was truncated. Then Alan sold the site, and I believe Rob's just being nasty so he can get himself banned. Dan's actually hurt Rob by allowing him to keep posting because it's gets more and more clear that Rob's grasping at straws for credibility and is just being downright obnoxious so he can wave a flag that says he was banned for being politically incorrect and telling the truth (that's big these days).

Rob's not a bad writer, and he has some valuable things to say about Las Vegas and how it works. But he's basically decided to tout his "world's greatest vp player" schtick and verbally abuse people instead of warning about possible rigged machines, and Native American gaming, and tipping, and slot club addictions. He has his narrative, and he's sticking to it, no matter how loony a martingale vp system looks to anyone who can do simple math. I mean, my God, the man has 5000 posts. Go back and try to find one with some math in it, or even one with some kind of accounting of his own play. Sometimes it's the things that don't get written that tell you all you need to know.

There's no question Rob is a drag on people posting. He may be a boost for viewership, but he's definitely a drag on turning people from lurkers to posters.

[Dan Druff]

I have been considering what to do about this.

Originally I wanted to run the forum mostly in the "spirit" of the original Alanbestbuys forum, and that included allowing Rob to continue to exist here.

But if he's just going to ruin every thread with pointless trolling, I might have to revisit that.

[quahaug]

The problem is there is no context to Robs insulting posts. Since no one is really engaging him on his level it's taken the wind out of his sails. If you go back a ways he was entertaining in a way when Arci and him were going back and forth for instance. The last thing I chuckled at was Micky's drunken responses to him but Micky's now on the wagon (good for you) so that's the end of that.I think he's finally run his course.

[Alan Mendelson]

I believe in positive reinforcement. I think we should react to Rob when he contributes something worthwhile and just ignore everything else. Rob could make some positive contributions.

[quahaug]

Don't hold your breath waiting for something worthwhile.

[redietz]

If Rob does get banned from threads, I have to say I will miss Biloxi Bill's comebacks. Biloxi has saved me much wear and tear, as I have rarely felt it necessary to get down in Rob's mud. Biloxi has gotten into the mud, told some jokes, and out-wrestled the pig, so to speak.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rather than an outright ban how about just deleting the bs?

[redietz]

Rather than an outright ban how about just deleting the bs?

That would be like editing Dolly Parton's chest out of her photos. Sorry, sexist, but it's the first thing that came to mind.

[bocce ball]

But if he's just going to ruin every thread with pointless trolling, I might have to revisit that.

I think we should react to Rob when he contributes something worthwhile and just ignore everything else.

Alan is correct.

I don't see anything ban-worthy about Rob's behavior. His post volume is frequent but not excessive. Usually he makes his points concisely. His personal insults are sometimes amusing, and always harmless.

Rather than an outright ban how about just deleting the bs?

Or move to a containment thread if it's considered intolerable in the place where it was posted. But it's not desirable to completely eliminate the BS. Perhaps a warning could be added, advising people not to wear their good shoes inside the forum.

[redietz]

Alan is correct.

I don't see anything ban-worthy about Rob's behavior. His post volume is frequent but not excessive. Usually he makes his points concisely. His personal insults are sometimes amusing, and always harmless.

Rather than an outright ban how about just deleting the bs?

Or move to a containment thread if it's considered intolerable in the place where it was posted. But it's not desirable to completely eliminate the BS. Perhaps a warning could be added, advising people not to wear their good shoes inside the forum.

Bocce, really, if you were posting under your real name and Rob said your gambling addiction had ruined your marriages (without data or examples or evidence), or that you were guilty of identity theft and/or you were a drug addict, would you consider that "harmless?"

[bocce ball]

Bocce, really, if you were posting under your real name and Rob said your gambling addiction had ruined your marriages (without data or examples or evidence), or that you were guilty of identity theft and/or you were a drug addict, would you consider that "harmless?"

Pretty much. If there's no evidence, it's obviously not a credible accusation. If there is evidence, someone else would have mentioned it eventually.

[RS__]

I believe in positive reinforcement. I think we should react to Rob when he contributes something worthwhile and just ignore everything else. Rob could make some positive contributions.

The problem is that Rob does not make positive contributions (perhaps once in a blue moon he will). I've put Rob on my ignore list, but his bullshit still shows up, as I can see what he wrote in quotes. Even if he isn't quoted but someone responds, it's still changing the subject the thread, derailing it. This is every single thread where Rob posts.

Your suggestion is like saying a dog owner should ignore it when the dog shits in the house and praise him when he does a backflip. You're going to end up with a house full of shit and a dog that doesn't do backflips.

Rather than an outright ban how about just deleting the bs?

These are essentially the same thing, as everything he writes would be deleted.

Alan is correct.

I don't see anything ban-worthy about Rob's behavior. His post volume is frequent but not excessive. Usually he makes his points concisely. His personal insults are sometimes amusing, and always harmless.

Rather than an outright ban how about just deleting the bs?

Or move to a containment thread if it's considered intolerable in the place where it was posted. But it's not desirable to completely eliminate the BS. Perhaps a warning could be added, advising people not to wear their good shoes inside the forum.

Rob tries to derail every thread he posts in. I mean come on, wtf is this bullshit:

Alan, we know how special this story is, how it relates to what's really important in life, and what memories it surely holds for you. But do you really think it has any meaning whatsoever to most of the slug gamblers and "ap" bsers here, who can't even show respect for their own lives most of the time? And guess how much a lowlife like mickey, who continually ignores personal hygiene and health by drinking and smoking (and as we can see, poor eating habits also) would appreciate what you've gone thru.

The world is better because you're still here. That's all that's important.

Bocce, really, if you were posting under your real name and Rob said your gambling addiction had ruined your marriages (without data or examples or evidence), or that you were guilty of identity theft and/or you were a drug addict, would you consider that "harmless?"

Pretty much. If there's no evidence, it's obviously not a credible accusation. If there is evidence, someone else would have mentioned it eventually.

We don't live in a world where people care about evidence or credibility.

[bocce ball]

We don't live in a world where people care about evidence or credibility.

True, but silencing Rob doesn't eliminate the problem of stupid people believing stupid things. They'll simply seek out something else stupid to believe.

Free exchange of ideas with vigorous debate encourages people to think for themselves instead of mindlessly following along with the crowd.

[kewlJ]

Free exchange of ideas with vigorous debate encourages people to think for themselves instead of mindlessly following along with the crowd.

vig·or·ous. [ˈviɡ(ə)rəs],
ADJECTIVE
strong, healthy, and full of energy
synonyms: robust · healthy

If what we were really talking about was 'vigorous debate' relating to a specific, on topic discussion, that would be a good argument. But that is NOT what we are talking about. The gay references and insults, including references of HIV against me, the constant drunk references against mickey and so many other frequent offensive attacks by Rob to other members, are not only mostly not on topic, but they clearly show beyond any reasonable doubt two things. (1) that this person has no robust, healthy, reasonable argument to make so he resorts to personal attacks and (2) that his sole intent is to be disruptive, argumentative, combative and offensive.

His agenda is not to add anything to the site, but to troll and be obnoxious...plain and simple. Some may enjoy that drama. Maybe a few of the lurkers that lurk everyday only read for that drama. If that is the purpose of the site, so be it. But if the purpose is responsible healthy discussion involving gambling, and Vegas related topics allowing this obvious trolling to continue only serves to discourage legitimate members from participating and will forever limit this site and any possibility of real robust, healthy and vigorous discussions.

[slingshot]

The way I remember it.
1. There was a period of time when his strategy was discussed-and the posts are on this forum.
2. Then there was a period where "math" and derogatory remarks were used to downplay and "disprove" the strategy.
3. Now when the tables turn, no one wants to hear what they once were guilty of- filthy, stupid, senseless remarks.

[redietz]

The way I remember it.
1. There was a period of time when his strategy was discussed-and the posts are on this forum.
2. Then there was a period where "math" and derogatory remarks were used to downplay and "disprove" the strategy.
3. Now when the tables turn, no one wants to hear what they once were guilty of- filthy, stupid, senseless remarks.

Just wondering why math and disprove are in quotation marks, as opposed, say, to "strategy."

[slingshot]

The way I remember it.
1. There was a period of time when his strategy was discussed-and the posts are on this forum.
2. Then there was a period where "math" and derogatory remarks were used to downplay and "disprove" the strategy.
3. Now when the tables turn, no one wants to hear what they once were guilty of- filthy, stupid, senseless remarks.

Just wondering why math and disprove are in quotation marks, as opposed, say, to "strategy."

Simple. No one tried any of the strategies or met with Rob to actually post results but instead used theoretical formulas and percentages that "proved" their rebuttal. And dollar amounts are no excuse as they can be tried at any denomination(s). Even Alan, who sometimes watched his play never sat for a learning session.
Actually, it doesn't matter anymore as I grew weary of checking in so often and left feeling I was in a prison of homos, drunks, and murderers. To wit, my respect for Arci grew because of his silence and restraint.

[Biloxi Bill]

The way I remember it.
1. There was a period of time when his strategy was discussed-and the posts are on this forum.
2. Then there was a period where "math" and derogatory remarks were used to downplay and "disprove" the strategy.
3. Now when the tables turn, no one wants to hear what they once were guilty of- filthy, stupid, senseless remarks.

Just wondering why math and disprove are in quotation marks, as opposed, say, to "strategy."

Simple. No one tried any of the strategies or met with Rob to actually post results but instead used theoretical formulas and percentages that "proved" their rebuttal. And dollar amounts are no excuse as they can be tried at any denomination(s). Even Alan, who sometimes watched his play never sat for a learning session.
Actually, it doesn't matter anymore as I grew weary of checking in so often and left feeling I was in a prison of homos, drunks, and murderers. To wit, my respect for Arci grew because of his silence and restraint.

He went bankrupt...that`s all anyone needs to know

[Biloxi Bill]

The way I remember it.
1. There was a period of time when his strategy was discussed-and the posts are on this forum.
2. Then there was a period where "math" and derogatory remarks were used to downplay and "disprove" the strategy.
3. Now when the tables turn, no one wants to hear what they once were guilty of- filthy, stupid, senseless remarks.

Just wondering why math and disprove are in quotation marks, as opposed, say, to "strategy."

Simple. No one tried any of the strategies or met with Rob to actually post results but instead used theoretical formulas and percentages that "proved" their rebuttal. And dollar amounts are no excuse as they can be tried at any denomination(s). Even Alan, who sometimes watched his play never sat for a learning session.
Actually, it doesn't matter anymore as I grew weary of checking in so often and left feeling I was in a prison of homos, drunks, and murderers. To wit, my respect for Arci grew because of his silence and restraint.

He went bankrupt...that`s all anyone needs to know.....that, and he looks like a poor man`s version of Kramer, and his significant other looks like Francis the Talking Mule