Copy of letter sent to multiple casinos

[Mission146]

The thing that I always like about The Boz is that you can express an opinion contrary to what he thinks and, if you're friends with him, that usually won't have a negative effect as long as you don't disrespect him.

That being said, I disagree with this action completely and for quite a few reasons:

1.) This creates a slippery slope that is detrimental both to open gambling discussions, and specifically, gambling discussions on message boards.

As Redietz points out, nobody is truly anonymous on the internet, but I don't see that as a justification for this sort of thing in and of itself. When we get on here and post, we do it kind of under the assumption that everyone is going to respect anonymity to whatever extent that a person wishes to remain anonymous. It is necessarily this way because it enables us to say things (outside of bragging and general trash-talking) that we might not otherwise say via these channels if going after someone outside of the forums were to become, 'Normalized,' in any way.

The slippery slope already exists with this action. It seems that everyone (at least, here) is roughly split on whether or not MDawg has this coming...and I personally think he certainly does not.

What did MDawg do that should justify this, can anyone explain it? He brags in a bunch of posts? Easily ignored.

Someone is annoyed by what someone else says on the Internet, so they take actions that might be detrimental to him outside of the Internet? I think there's a term for that and that term is, "Cancel culture."

2.) Reasons for Anonymity

We also have different reasons for anonymity. Many people on the various forums know my real name. They know I've filed bankruptcy in the past. They might know that I'm not the best person to make a loan to because, while I will pay you back eventually, it will only rarely be on time. I'm subject to depressive bouts where I will do almost nothing for long periods of time---sometimes weeks.

And, I don't care who knows any of that stuff. Doesn't bother me. I started writing under a pseudonym because my association with what some entities consider, "Professional gambling," resulted in losing offers I had extended to me at one physical casino (Google Search) and also getting no paid at an online casino---I assume also Google search, or the like. I don't name the online casino because being a, "Professional," violates their terms, so I knew I was violating their terms if they decided to consider me a professional which, given that I write about gambling, I guess you could make the argument.

So, it would seem that if MDawg's claims are all, or mostly, true (assuming) that he almost must be embarked on some sort of advantage play.

That would mean that we now directly attempt to out advantage players directly to casinos. Fantastic.

3.) Wizard

It seems like this is as much about Wizard's involvement (judging from the letter) as anything else. I don't know if you, The Boz, were one of the people all but demanding that Wizard interject himself in this situation to look into these claims, but certainly lots of people were doing that. Wizard has now looked into them and people do not like what Wizard found, or at least, what Wizard was willing to disclose.

Two birds, one stone. Two vendettas, one letter.

Anyway, people either want Wizard to get involved or they don't---pick one. Why does his report need to be to everyone's liking? Why does anyone even care about this MDawg thing enough to give a shit what Wizard's report on it said? I certainly don't.

From the beginning, I predicted that any such meetup with MDawg would come out with MDawg looking better (win or lose) just by virtue of actually being a person, having access to the credit line, etc...

You guys could have just ignored him.

Anyway, I seriously doubt this will matter much to Wizard as he is a well-known public figure in the realm of gambling anyway.

4.) Low Standard

If there's ever a situation in which a person should be doxxed, which is itself only debatable from my perspective, this is a really low standard for doing it. He's being doxxed because, why? Bragging on a message board? Seems like we'll dox anyone for anything if that's where the bar is at.

CONCLUSION

My conclusion is that this action was taken not only against MDawg, but also taken as intentionally detrimental to the WoV Forum, and gambling message boards, on the whole. This makes people less likely to post on WoV, as well as other message boards, because there is no longer any reason to believe that anonymity will be respected.

I also disagree with Redietz' perspective on this matter because he is a sports bettor. You could ban Redietz from every casino on Earth (land and online) and he'd just have to find someone he could trust to get the bets down for him. Other types of advantage players must sometimes physically be in casinos.

Anyway, those are my opinions and it's quite possible I won't have much more to say about this particular matter.

[AndrewG]

So The Boz wants to be known as the one who killed gambling forums....

[monet]

The thing that I always like about The Boz is that you can express an opinion contrary to what he thinks and, if you're friends with him, that usually won't have a negative effect as long as you don't disrespect him.

That being said, I disagree with this action completely and for quite a few reasons:

1.) This creates a slippery slope that is detrimental both to open gambling discussions, and specifically, gambling discussions on message boards.

As Redietz points out, nobody is truly anonymous on the internet, but I don't see that as a justification for this sort of thing in and of itself. When we get on here and post, we do it kind of under the assumption that everyone is going to respect anonymity to whatever extent that a person wishes to remain anonymous. It is necessarily this way because it enables us to say things (outside of bragging and general trash-talking) that we might not otherwise say via these channels if going after someone outside of the forums were to become, 'Normalized,' in any way.

The slippery slope already exists with this action. It seems that everyone (at least, here) is roughly split on whether or not MDawg has this coming...and I personally think he certainly does not.

What did MDawg do that should justify this, can anyone explain it? He brags in a bunch of posts? Easily ignored.

Someone is annoyed by what someone else says on the Internet, so they take actions that might be detrimental to him outside of the Internet? I think there's a term for that and that term is, "Cancel culture."

2.) Reasons for Anonymity

We also have different reasons for anonymity. Many people on the various forums know my real name. They know I've filed bankruptcy in the past. They might know that I'm not the best person to make a loan to because, while I will pay you back eventually, it will only rarely be on time. I'm subject to depressive bouts where I will do almost nothing for long periods of time---sometimes weeks.

And, I don't care who knows any of that stuff. Doesn't bother me. I started writing under a pseudonym because my association with what some entities consider, "Professional gambling," resulted in losing offers I had extended to me at one physical casino (Google Search) and also getting no paid at an online casino---I assume also Google search, or the like. I don't name the online casino because being a, "Professional," violates their terms, so I knew I was violating their terms if they decided to consider me a professional which, given that I write about gambling, I guess you could make the argument.

So, it would seem that if MDawg's claims are all, or mostly, true (assuming) that he almost must be embarked on some sort of advantage play.

That would mean that we now directly attempt to out advantage players directly to casinos. Fantastic.

3.) Wizard

It seems like this is as much about Wizard's involvement (judging from the letter) as anything else. I don't know if you, The Boz, were one of the people all but demanding that Wizard interject himself in this situation to look into these claims, but certainly lots of people were doing that. Wizard has now looked into them and people do not like what Wizard found, or at least, what Wizard was willing to disclose.

Two birds, one stone. Two vendettas, one letter.

Anyway, people either want Wizard to get involved or they don't---pick one. Why does his report need to be to everyone's liking? Why does anyone even care about this MDawg thing enough to give a shit what Wizard's report on it said? I certainly don't.

From the beginning, I predicted that any such meetup with MDawg would come out with MDawg looking better (win or lose) just by virtue of actually being a person, having access to the credit line, etc...

You guys could have just ignored him.

Anyway, I seriously doubt this will matter much to Wizard as he is a well-known public figure in the realm of gambling anyway.

4.) Low Standard

If there's ever a situation in which a person should be doxxed, which is itself only debatable from my perspective, this is a really low standard for doing it. He's being doxxed because, why? Bragging on a message board? Seems like we'll dox anyone for anything if that's where the bar is at.

CONCLUSION

My conclusion is that this action was taken not only against MDawg, but also taken as intentionally detrimental to the WoV Forum, and gambling message boards, on the whole. This makes people less likely to post on WoV, as well as other message boards, because there is no longer any reason to believe that anonymity will be respected.

I also disagree with Redietz' perspective on this matter because he is a sports bettor. You could ban Redietz from every casino on Earth (land and online) and he'd just have to find someone he could trust to get the bets down for him. Other types of advantage players must sometimes physically be in casinos.

Anyway, those are my opinions and it's quite possible I won't have much more to say about this particular matter.

This shit doesn't do anything good or bad to MDawg.
MDawg is a story teller and everyone can either listen to the story or change the channel.
What this shit has shown is more about Boz and his style or character.
How could you ever trust a guy like that after this bullshit?
And who wants to read anything he posts after this?
That is why he gave the disclaimer a few weeks ago that he will be withdrawing from these forums and not posting in the future after he releases his BIG REVEAL.
He knows that after posting this kind of shit he loses all respect and street cred.

Personally, I don't think his "letter" will do anything or that anyone cares.
But that doesn't change the fact that Boz is the type of person who writes these kind of letters.
Pure and Simple Tattle-Tale Bullshit.

People on here take these Gambling Forums way too seriously.
News Flash... Nobody and I mean Nobody gives a Fuck about these Gambling Forums and what we type.
Alan and AndrewG not included in that last statement.
They Care.
But only because they believe this Forum costs them money in some odd way.

[kewlJ]

Wrong Mission (as usual ).

Whether or not Mdawg is an advantage player, makes ALL the difference in the world to me. I would never support the outing of an AP, and just for the record, I never said I supported Boz's action, just don't have a problem with it. So lets see Mdawg was asked many times, including multiple times by me personally, if he was doing something that gave him an advantage. Each and every time he responded "no". So now Mission says we are suppose to "assume" that he is. Why would I "assume he is, when he answered the direct question "no" multiple times? He, or Mission on his behalf, doesn't get to come back now and use the "I am an AP" defense. Mdawg forfeited that.

So taking Mdawg at his word, if he is not an AP (playing with an advantage) and he wins every time as he describes, he is either cheating (collusion), which would be criminal by the way, or the luckiest person alive. So if the Boz is outing a cheater/criminal, so be it. I wouldn't do it, but have no problem with someone who does. And if Mdawg is not cheating and not lying about his results and is just in fact the luckiest person alive, winning nearly 200k, in 2 months, while the casinos comp him their best suites, then no one is being outed. You think the casinos aren't aware of him and looking into the situation already?

Because Mdawg himself repeatedly said he wasn't playing with an advantage, those are the 2 choices. Boz either outed a criminal/cheater, or the luckiest player alive, who the casinos damn well should already know about. No harm no foul.

Mission mentioned "the slippery slope" regarding these forums and this kind of behavior. We are not at the beginning or top of this slippery slope! I have been arguing for years that the hate and nastiness allowed at this forum was over the line. And that leads to just this kind of thing, this kind of retaliation. So halfway down the slope is a little late to be thinking maybe we shouldn't head down this slope.

[kewlJ]

This shit doesn't do anything good or bad to MDawg.
MDawg is a story teller and everyone can either listen to the story or change the channel.

Yep....this! Porkchop got something right!

[Mission146]

Wrong Mission (as usual ).

Whether or not Mdawg is an advantage player, makes ALL the difference in the world to me. I would never support the outing of an AP, and just for the record, I never said I supported Boz's action, just don't have a problem with it. So lets see Mdawg was asked many times, including multiple times by me personally, if he was doing something that gave him an advantage. Each and every time he responded "no". So now Mission says we are suppose to "assume" that he is. Why would I "assume he is, when he answered the direct question "no" multiple times? He, or Mission on his behalf, doesn't get to come back now and use the "I am an AP" defense. Mdawg forfeited that.

So taking Mdawg at his word, if he is not an AP (playing with an advantage) and he wins every time as he describes, he is either cheating (collusion), which would be criminal by the way, or the luckiest person alive. So if the Boz is outing a cheater/criminal, so be it. I wouldn't do it, but have no problem with someone who does. And if Mdawg is not cheating and not lying about his results and is just in fact the luckiest person alive, winning nearly 200k, in 2 months, while the casinos comp him their best suites, then no one is being outed. You think the casinos aren't aware of him and looking into the situation already?

Because Mdawg himself repeatedly said he wasn't playing with an advantage, those are the 2 choices. Boz either outed a criminal/cheater, or the luckiest player alive, who the casinos damn well should already know about. No harm no foul.

Mission mentioned "the slippery slope" regarding these forums and this kind of behavior. We are not at the beginning or top of this slippery slope! I have been arguing for years that the hate and nastiness allowed at this forum was over the line. And that leads to just this kind of thing, this kind of retaliation. So halfway down the slope is a little late to be thinking maybe we shouldn't head down this slope.

I would assume that he is because Wizard basically said as much in his report. He said something to the effect of there being more that MDawg was doing.

Why would Wizard say that? If I am to assume what Wizard said is true, then how could that statement possibly be true?

1.) MDawg is doing something that would change the overall proposition of his play. (Advantage Play)

2.) Mathematics and the generally accepted rules of Baccarat have both chosen to suspend themselves for MDawg's personal benefit.

Given the two possibilities, and again accepting MDawg's reporting as at least somewhat true, I have to go with Option #1.

Also, MDawg alluded to a loss rebate which, true or not, does change the math of the overall proposition of his play.

I agree that collusion would be criminal, but I don't think that what Wizard said supports the conclusion of collusion with dealer/host/casino.

I also don't know if Nevada is a state with mandatory reporting (of felonies that one has personal knowledge of), but some states are and the mandatory reporting requirement would supersede any NDA when it comes to reporting a felony. Could you imagine if someone was being charged as an accessory to murder and their defense of not going to police was, "Well, I signed an NDA with the accused murderer that I wouldn't talk about anything that happened that day."

Even if not, my tendency is to think that Wizard would have reported illegal collusion himself, one way or the other.

That leaves either AP, or discounting AP as a possibility, your notion that MDawg is simply the luckiest person alive. Okay, so you're telling me (as one of the people to most vociferously challenge his claims in the first place) that you believe it is more likely that he is the luckiest person to ever live than it is that he is engaged in some form of advantage play that would change the underlying mathematical proposition?

Let's see: I have to assume you're not stupid, because my experiences with you would generally suggest the opposite---which means you don't think MDawg is the luckiest person alive.

Finally, what does, 'Hate and nastiness,' have to do with Doxxing? Because mostly random people say mean things to each other sometimes? Who gives a shit?

Usually, if someone trashes me, I just agree with them. LOL

[kewlJ]

I would assume that he is because Wizard basically said as much in his report. He said something to the effect of there being more that MDawg was doing.

Why would Wizard say that? If I am to assume what Wizard said is true, then how could that statement possibly be true?

More "assuming"? Twice in your first two sentences. I am not assuming anything. I asked the guy (Mdawg) flat out multiple times and he responded no. I am going by that.

You also are "assuming" or reading things into what Wizard said, that I don't know if he said or meant or what. And that is on Shackleford. He was supposed to witness Mdawgs play and report back exactly what he thought was going on (in his expert opinion) so people like you and me wouldn't have to assume or be guessing at anything. Shackleford simply failed to do this, instead, issuing a bizarre statement that he has agreed not to talk about the very thing he was supposed to give his expert opinion about, leaving everyone guessing or in your case assuming what the hell he is talking about.

[Mission146]

More "assuming"? Twice in your first two sentences. I am not assuming anything. I asked the guy (Mdawg) flat out multiple times and he responded no. I am going by that.

You also are "assuming" or reading things into what Wizard said, that I don't know if he said or meant or what. And that is on Shackleford. He was supposed to witness Mdawgs play and report back exactly what he thought was going on (in his expert opinion) so people like you and me wouldn't have to assume or be guessing at anything. Shackleford simply failed to do this, instead, issuing a bizarre statement that he has agreed not to talk about the very thing he was supposed to give his expert opinion about, leaving everyone guessing or in your case assuming what the hell he is talking about.

Okay, so you're assuming that MDawg was telling the truth.

Wizard wasn't, "Supposed," to do anything that you suggest. Anything Wizard was, "Supposed," to do was between the parties---Wizard, DarkOz, MDawg. From what I can tell, all three parties are satisfied with the outcome, so that would lead me to believe that Wizard did what he was, "Supposed," to do.

Anyway, people like you are left to guess. People like me don't care either way and never did. I'm just talking about outing people to casinos and Doxxing people.

[Mission146]

Also, for your assumption that what MDawg posts is the truth to remain consistent, then shouldn't you have believed all of his claims in the first place?

[coach belly]

Also, for your assumption that what MDawg posts is the truth to remain consistent, then shouldn't you have believed all of his claims in the first place?

According to tewlj, everything MDawg has posted is a "fictitious fairytale".

Except for when MDawg posted that he's not doing something that gives him an advantage,
which tewlj believes is truthful...even though that MDawg never actually posted that.

[kewlJ]

I'm just talking about outing people to casinos and Doxxing people.

If Mdawg is NOT an AP, which is something he claims, then all Boz did was inform the casinos of a player who claims to be winning every session, something they should already be aware of. I don't see any big deal. Remember this is a guy who posts pictures of of his high denomination chips, and high end suites as part of his "tales". It isn't like he has been all that concerned. So someone notified the casinos that "hey there is a guy claiming to win ever time he plays". If this is true, they ought to damn well already know about it as they are comping him the suites (according to Mdog).

Look, you just can't have it both ways. Mdawg is either an AP, winning by legitimate AP methods, and being comped high end on top, which pretty hard to believe, or he is a lucky player just winning at which case telling the casino there is a lucky player winning is nothing. No harm, no foul. And if it is the first, well that is on Mdawg for lying over and over.

Now if Mdawg had answered or stated that he was an AP, hole carding or something like that and Boz, did what he did, I would be critical. Your argument on behalf of Mdog is trying to have it both ways. The way it stands, somebody wrote a letter to several casinos informing them of a player who claims to win by luck. Big deal.

Look if there is a big megajackpot winner at xxxx casino and I write a letter to xxxx casino informing them there was a big jackpot winner have I exposed anything they didn't know? According to Mdawgs story and pictures, that is what Boz did. No harm, no foul.

[redietz]

I think the twin "black holes" of WoV and Shackleford gravity have distorted Mission's arguments to the point that they are real event-horizon distortions that have little relation to reality.

For example, choosing to frame the problem with MDawg as just " he brags in a bunch of posts" is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst. Mission's word choices here boggle my mind. Another example, Mission claims that since MDawg is "just bragging," that MDawg is "easily ignored."

I don't have much experience over at WoV, but I did occasionally read stuff there before I ever posted there. So my questions to Mission:

1) Has anyone ever made the years-long, end-of-the-bell-curve (LOL -- three times hit by lightning) claims being made by MDawg at WoV without being chastised and shut down, either by mods or Shackleford?

2) Has anyone ever done what MDawg does in a way that makes them the flagship poster on the site?

3) How is a new reader or poster at WoV supposed to "easily ignore" the most prolific poster on the site with the threads with the most views? MDawg is the flagship poster and has the flagship threads. If what generates the most reads at WoV and contains the biggest written volume is MDawg, how does anyone visiting there for gambling information "easily ignore" that?

4) Sidestepping what anywhere and anywhen else would be labeled obvious sock puppets, let's for a moment say that Marcus Clark and Wellbush, two super-pro MDawg posters are just friends and family who MDawg recruited for the purpose of cheerleading. Nothing wrong with cheerleading, eh? So my question is, do you, as a former WoV mod, recall any situations when such obvious cheerleading was ignored and, in fact, protected by Shackleford?

5) Do you recall any past situations at WoV where such cheerleading for a specific poster, who was claiming to have won 50 out of 51 times, was allowed at WoV? Do you recall any instances when such cheerleading was, in fact, protected?

These are not rhetorical questions. I do not know the answers. So if Shackleford was bending over backwards for hokum in the past, please tell me. That at least would frame the current hijacking of WoV in a historical light and make MDawg less of a one-off situation. I rarely scanned WoV in my gambling career, but I did peek in on occasion. Had I ever seen anything remotely resembling MDawg, I would have had something to say at WoV. Same as the guys who claimed they were 96-4 in the ad pages of USA Today on Fridays when it began. I don't ignore that stuff. But, as I said, I don't have some great historical knowledge of what was allowed at WoV. Maybe there's precedent for Shackleford protecting the thrice-lightning Dawg.

[monet]

I think the twin "black holes" of WoV and Shackleford gravity have distorted Mission's arguments to the point that they are real event-horizon distortions that have little relation to reality.

For example, choosing to frame the problem with MDawg as just " he brags in a bunch of posts" is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst. Mission's word choices here boggle my mind. Another example, Mission claims that since MDawg is "just bragging," that MDawg is "easily ignored."

I don't have much experience over at WoV, but I did occasionally read stuff there before I ever posted there. So my questions to Mission:

1) Has anyone ever made the years-long, end-of-the-bell-curve (LOL -- three times hit by lightning) claims being made by MDawg at WoV without being chastised and shut down, either by mods or Shackleford?

2) Has anyone ever done what MDawg does in a way that makes them the flagship poster on the site?

3) How is a new reader or poster at WoV supposed to "easily ignore" the most prolific poster on the site with the threads with the most views? MDawg is the flagship poster and has the flagship threads. If what generates the most reads at WoV and contains the biggest written volume is MDawg, how does anyone visiting there for gambling information "easily ignore" that?

4) Sidestepping what anywhere and anywhen else would be labeled obvious sock puppets, let's for a moment say that Marcus Clark and Wellbush, two super-pro MDawg posters are just friends and family who MDawg recruited for the purpose of cheerleading. Nothing wrong with cheerleading, eh? So my question is, do you, as a former WoV mod, recall any situations when such obvious cheerleading was ignored and, in fact, protected by Shackleford?

5) Do you recall any past situations at WoV where such cheerleading for a specific poster, who was claiming to have won 50 out of 51 times, was allowed at WoV? Do you recall any instances when such cheerleading was, in fact, protected?

These are not rhetorical questions. I do not know the answers. So if Shackleford was bending over backwards for hokum in the past, please tell me. That at least would frame the current hijacking of WoV in a historical light and make MDawg less of a one-off situation. Maybe there's precedent for Shackleford protecting the thrice-lightning Dawg.

I believe that you are a Hate Site Contributor, who recently threatened the whole VCT Forum and its members, that you will blow up their vehicle, because of something they typed, that offended you or you didn't like.
PUNK!

[redietz]

Monet, I have never legally threatened anyone in my life. I told you many times -- 17 arrests, no convictions. Get off my case...pretty please.

[monet]

Monet, I have never threatened anyone in my life. I told you many times -- 17 arrests, no convictions. Get off my case...pretty please.

This is what you said PUNK...

I don't know what response MDawg could have expected other than this, and I think this is overall on the mild end of inevitable responses.

I have never understood the fairy tale in people's minds regarding their online anonymity. And I have never understood the way people mouth off to other people online, as if there will never be real world consequences, like it's all some isolated video game cordoned off from your family and friends and public persona.

Guess what? You're anonymous as long as nobody cares about your anonymity. As soon as you motivate somebody to care, it's just a matter of time. My late wife's brother-in-law was a private investigator. My nephew's major is Digital Forensics. If you think you can maintain anonymity versus somebody out to out you, you better be Lex fucking Luthor.

Which leads to my second observation. Everybody thinks they can prattle on and say whatever they want and nobody is going to blow up your vehicle a week later.

Online privacy and real-world bulletproof-ness are illusions, folks.

[AndrewG]

Monet, I have never legally threatened anyone in my life. I told you many times -- 17 arrests, no convictions. Get off my case...pretty please.

17 arrests. This is a joke, right?

[Mission146]

Monet, I have never legally threatened anyone in my life. I told you many times -- 17 arrests, no convictions. Get off my case...pretty please.

Damn, you must have a hell of a lawyer.

I mean, you could be completely innocent every time, and getting off seventeen times would still be one hell of an impressive feat.

[Mission146]

I think the twin "black holes" of WoV and Shackleford gravity have distorted Mission's arguments to the point that they are real event-horizon distortions that have little relation to reality.

For example, choosing to frame the problem with MDawg as just " he brags in a bunch of posts" is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst. Mission's word choices here boggle my mind. Another example, Mission claims that since MDawg is "just bragging," that MDawg is "easily ignored."

MDawg is easily ignored. A couple of days ago I said I would no longer be opening/posting in the WoV iteration of, "The Adventures of MDawg," thread...It's been tough, really tough, but I've managed to see something that I don't want to click on anymore and not click on it accordingly.

You can not imagine how difficult it has been to not post in a thread that I do not care about and largely consider a waste of my time, but somehow, against all odds, I have found a way. That's mainly because Wellbush annoys me and is not worth dealing with.

I don't have much experience over at WoV, but I did occasionally read stuff there before I ever posted there. So my questions to Mission:

1) Has anyone ever made the years-long, end-of-the-bell-curve (LOL -- three times hit by lightning) claims being made by MDawg at WoV without being chastised and shut down, either by mods or Shackleford?

MDawg is a unique case because, as far as I can tell, he mostly follows Forum Rules. When it comes to system players, or people of that nature, they tend not to like being confronted and usually respond by breaking one rule or another. I have not read every post MDawg has ever written, so I'm not saying that he follows the rules 100% of the time, just that he seems to in any post I have read.

That would make Nuking him totally discretionary---and there's only one person there (at least, when I was an Admin) who can do bans that are totally discretionary without any need to be able to cite the rules to defend the ban.

Anyway, I think I've been asked about this before and stated, as I recall, that if I were an Admin, I wouldn't have anything on MDawg as far as the rules go.

2) Has anyone ever done what MDawg does in a way that makes them the flagship poster on the site?

"Flagship Poster," is debatable. Why? Because his thread is on the Recent Threads list almost always? There are only something like five or six people (as of a few days ago) who even regularly post in it. It's mostly them who keep the thread up there seemingly at all times.

Even if MDawg were the flagship poster, that would only be because the forum is not nearly as active as it used to be. There simply aren't as many people posting there anymore, much less with his frequency.

3) How is a new reader or poster at WoV supposed to "easily ignore" the most prolific poster on the site with the threads with the most views? MDawg is the flagship poster and has the flagship threads. If what generates the most reads at WoV and contains the biggest written volume is MDawg, how does anyone visiting there for gambling information "easily ignore" that?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say by not reading it. If someone wants to read it, then they can decide whether or not it has sufficient value for them to want to continue reading.

4) Sidestepping what anywhere and anywhen else would be labeled obvious sock puppets, let's for a moment say that Marcus Clark and Wellbush, two super-pro MDawg posters are just friends and family who MDawg recruited for the purpose of cheerleading. Nothing wrong with cheerleading, eh? So my question is, do you, as a former WoV mod, recall any situations when such obvious cheerleading was ignored and, in fact, protected by Shackleford?

People can post what they want to post as long as it is within the rules. It would border on flat out negligence if nobody has verified, to the best extent readily available (which, admittedly, isn't much) that all indications are the three are different people. Besides, wasn't MarcusClark banned at some point?

Anyway, yeah, people have been cheerleaders for others in the past and have not been banned for that in and of itself.

Honestly, look at the ridiculousness that MarcusClark ends his posts with. If nothing else, MarcusClark posting in MDawg's thread takes credibility AWAY from MDawg's posts, not lends credibility to them. MarcusClark's posts are flat out absurd. Recent Threads list aside, MarcusClark's presence hurts that thread overall.

5) Do you recall any past situations at WoV where such cheerleading for a specific poster, who was claiming to have won 50 out of 51 times, was allowed at WoV? Do you recall any instances when such cheerleading was, in fact, protected?

These are not rhetorical questions. I do not know the answers. So if Shackleford was bending over backwards for hokum in the past, please tell me. That at least would frame the current hijacking of WoV in a historical light and make MDawg less of a one-off situation. I rarely scanned WoV in my gambling career, but I did peek in on occasion. Had I ever seen anything remotely resembling MDawg, I would have had something to say at WoV. Same as the guys who claimed they were 96-4 in the ad pages of USA Today on Fridays when it began. I don't ignore that stuff. But, as I said, I don't have some great historical knowledge of what was allowed at WoV. Maybe there's precedent for Shackleford protecting the thrice-lightning Dawg.

I don't recall anything about 50 out of 51 times, or anything like that. I assume that RobSinger had his defenders on there prior to getting banned for other reasons. I think there was someone called Baccaratfrom79, or something like that, who would make a bunch of posts about his results, but it might have been someone else. You're either breaking the Forum Rules or you're not, mostly.

[monet]

Just for the record... the Earth is Flat!
Surrounded by an Ice Wall.

[Mission146]

I'm just talking about outing people to casinos and Doxxing people.

If Mdawg is NOT an AP, which is something he claims, then all Boz did was inform the casinos of a player who claims to be winning every session, something they should already be aware of. I don't see any big deal. Remember this is a guy who posts pictures of of his high denomination chips, and high end suites as part of his "tales". It isn't like he has been all that concerned. So someone notified the casinos that "hey there is a guy claiming to win ever time he plays". If this is true, they ought to damn well already know about it as they are comping him the suites (according to Mdog).

Look, you just can't have it both ways. Mdawg is either an AP, winning by legitimate AP methods, and being comped high end on top, which pretty hard to believe, or he is a lucky player just winning at which case telling the casino there is a lucky player winning is nothing. No harm, no foul. And if it is the first, well that is on Mdawg for lying over and over.

Now if Mdawg had answered or stated that he was an AP, hole carding or something like that and Boz, did what he did, I would be critical. Your argument on behalf of Mdog is trying to have it both ways. The way it stands, somebody wrote a letter to several casinos informing them of a player who claims to win by luck. Big deal.

Look if there is a big megajackpot winner at xxxx casino and I write a letter to xxxx casino informing them there was a big jackpot winner have I exposed anything they didn't know? According to Mdawgs story and pictures, that is what Boz did. No harm, no foul.

I'd have to put actual thought into arguing this post, so I'm just going to concede this position to you instead. I have stated my opinion on the general notion of, "Outing," people who even might be AP'ing to casinos and I stand by my opinion, but I don't care enough about this specific line of discussion to devote much more time to it.

The other posts prior to this one were Swiss cheese. You can't say that there is zero that would point to him being an AP because more than zero of MDawg's own posts and also what Wizard said are to the contrary. You also can't selectively choose to take MDawg at his word when you have always maintained that he is a liar and that the whole thing is fantasy. It's intellectually inconsistent.

As to the finer points made in the above quote, you can have them. I concede. It's just going to turn into a long back-and-forth that I don't have time for.