Permanent Punishment

kollegedave

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
169
From
St. Louis, MO
I posed this question in Wayne's thread about his AZ post to no one in particular, and no one answered it despite their willingness to offer ideas on a number of other things.

I posed this question to Steve on AZ, and he did not answer it.

So, to the forum:

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Lou and SJD were justly banned, why is it in keeping with principles of fairness to make their bans permanent?

kollegedave
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,530
From
monett missouri
I posed this question in Wayne's thread about his AZ post to no one in particular, and no one answered it despite their willingness to offer ideas on a number of other things.

I posed this question to Steve on AZ, and he did not answer it.

So, to the forum:

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Lou and SJD were justly banned, why is it in keeping with principles of fairness to make their bans permanent?

kollegedave

I haven't seen reason to believe that the bans you are talking about are necessarily permanent. If not, I would think reinstatement criteria would include believing that assurances offered regarding future behavior were sincere.

My general principle -- without reference to the present case -- is that forgiveness is appropriate only after becoming more-or-less convinced that the act or acts to be forgiven won't be repeated by the offender. I'd have to believe there was contrition, but I wouldn't necessarily demand that it be expressed.

In Steve's position, he might personally prefer that both were here, but he may feel a responsibility to consider more than his own preferences.
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
3,317
From
Houston, Texas
The only power resides in the hands of Steve Booth... He is the sole commander in chief of onepocket.org and he is the only person who can pardon or ban members from the site, as I understand it... He should be the one you PM...

Asking members to respond would only become another campaign platform for reinstatement or continued banishment IMO, with people choosing sides and arguing back and forth as to the fairness of it all... Not productive, when the verdict rests with the founder, just more noise... :sorry Jmho.
 

TomRoden

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
180
I vote to rescind the ban.

I vote to rescind the ban.

They're OK by me. Good guys, both.
 

Nick B

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
1,025
From
Vancouver, Canada
Sometimes good guys get entrenched and heated in their own perspective. This I believe has happened this time. Given a cool off in the penalty box can for the good owns provide calming moment of reflection.

For the clowns nothing helps.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
I posed this question in Wayne's thread about his AZ post to no one in particular, and no one answered it despite their willingness to offer ideas on a number of other things.

I posed this question to Steve on AZ, and he did not answer it.

So, to the forum:

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Lou and SJD were justly banned, why is it in keeping with principles of fairness to make their bans permanent?

kollegedave
If you asked in a thread over there I probably missed it. I am certain I responded to one of your posts on AZ though -- with a multiparagraph reply. Here is my reply, in case you missed it:
Dave, like they say in legal circles, in full disclosure (do they really say that, lol), aren't you and Lou basically both from St. Louis, so you're sticking up for a long time pool bud that you know well from real life, as opposed to the internet? I probably would too if I were in your shoes.

Making a decision to ban someone is not easy -- especially in a small kind of tight knit community like One Pocket players, who have always been a minority among pool players. Anyone who has followed onepocket.org knows I have a long leash for members, and very, very few banned members over the 12 years we have been up. Also, I have NO corporate sponsorship so I don't have to worry about them getting turned off, so that makes it even easier for me to be extra lenient, which I am in comparison to most forums.

But what happens eventually if certain trouble generating posters persist hard enough, is that I get way too many other regular members telling me that they're out of there unless the tenor changes. And I'm not even talking about the victims of the digs and "fun" that are often the source of the conflicts -- you expect victims to complain lol. I'm talking about just average unaligned readers who get turned off by the bickering and attacks and counterattacks when they get too bad. And you know that for every person I get a PM or a phone call from, there are a bunch of others that don't like what they are reading but they aren't the type to speak up. And then there are the lurkers and perspective new members -- yes, I care about them too.

The recurrent perpetrators presumably have fairly thick skins or they wouldn't stomach flame wars they way they obviously do. But most readers at least by my anecdotal reckoning, do not. But thankfully, genuine cyber bullies -- as opposed to posters who are simply passionate, opinionated, misguided, impulsive or over reactive in the heat of an argument -- are few and far between.

I agree with you that both Lou and Dick actually have a lot to offer. It's just that unfortunately they often seem to prefer a good flame war over sharing interesting information. So I guess it's a mistake I will have to live with rather than living with the stress of the trail of flames that they bring with them. But I agree with you, it's a damn shame.

If it was another question from you then I probably missed it. I have a hard enough time keeping up over here do I definitely don't always keep up over there.

Then there is the question of whether they want back in or not.
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
steve has shown a lot more restraint than most owners would have shown.

its like an old car you want to keep. but you have to let it go as it needs too much fixing. and that isnt how you want to spend your life.
 

kollegedave

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
169
From
St. Louis, MO
steve has shown a lot more restraint than most owners would have shown.

its like an old car you want to keep. but you have to let it go as it needs too much fixing. and that isnt how you want to spend your life.

Could be. I do not participate in the forum near as much as many others, so I am not in a position to judge level of restraint shown (or not shown) to either Lou or SJD.
 

kollegedave

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
169
From
St. Louis, MO
If you asked in a thread over there I probably missed it. I am certain I responded to one of your posts on AZ though -- with a multiparagraph reply. Here is my reply, in case you missed it:

Dave, like they say in legal circles, in full disclosure (do they really say that, lol), aren't you and Lou basically both from St. Louis, so you're sticking up for a long time pool bud that you know well from real life, as opposed to the internet? I probably would too if I were in your shoes.

Making a decision to ban someone is not easy -- especially in a small kind of tight knit community like One Pocket players, who have always been a minority among pool players. Anyone who has followed onepocket.org knows I have a long leash for members, and very, very few banned members over the 12 years we have been up. Also, I have NO corporate sponsorship so I don't have to worry about them getting turned off, so that makes it even easier for me to be extra lenient, which I am in comparison to most forums.

But what happens eventually if certain trouble generating posters persist hard enough, is that I get way too many other regular members telling me that they're out of there unless the tenor changes. And I'm not even talking about the victims of the digs and "fun" that are often the source of the conflicts -- you expect victims to complain lol. I'm talking about just average unaligned readers who get turned off by the bickering and attacks and counterattacks when they get too bad. And you know that for every person I get a PM or a phone call from, there are a bunch of others that don't like what they are reading but they aren't the type to speak up. And then there are the lurkers and perspective new members -- yes, I care about them too.

The recurrent perpetrators presumably have fairly thick skins or they wouldn't stomach flame wars they way they obviously do. But most readers at least by my anecdotal reckoning, do not. But thankfully, genuine cyber bullies -- as opposed to posters who are simply passionate, opinionated, misguided, impulsive or over reactive in the heat of an argument -- are few and far between.

I agree with you that both Lou and Dick actually have a lot to offer. It's just that unfortunately they often seem to prefer a good flame war over sharing interesting information. So I guess it's a mistake I will have to live with rather than living with the stress of the trail of flames that they bring with them. But I agree with you, it's a damn shame.


If it was another question from you then I probably missed it. I have a hard enough time keeping up over here do I definitely don't always keep up over there.

Then there is the question of whether they want back in or not.

Steve, I did not mean to communicate that you made no reply. I am sorry if you took it that way. What I meant to communicate, is that I did not see your reply address the issue of why it is fair that SJD and Lou should be banned permanently. Perhaps that was an over sight, or perhaps you were intentionally silent on the issue.

The poster above seems to suggest that it is not a matter of fairness, since you own the onepocket.org. From his viewpoint, you get to ban who you want, when you want, for whatever reason you want. Certainly, such an exercise of power is consistent with rights afforded to owners. However, if that is the position you would take, I think the members should see you say it.

kollegedave
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,530
From
monett missouri
The poster above seems to suggest that it is not a matter of fairness, since you own the onepocket.org. From his viewpoint, you get to ban who you want, when you want, for whatever reason you want.

I think you must be referring to Jeff's response. If so, you have read his post differently than I did. I took it only to mean that discussing or arguing the point in public would do more harm than good, and that those who wish to influence Steve's final decision should communicate their thoughts directly to him.

Certainly, such an exercise of power is consistent with rights afforded to owners. However, if that is the position you would take, I think the members should see you say it.

I don't think the recipient of a gift has any right to hear why that gift was chosen rather than another. It would be rude to even ask.

Dave, this is not to be critical, but those of us who spend a lot more time here naturally have a stronger sense of appreciation for what Steve has done for us and therefore are more inclined to grant him lots of leeway in our assessment of his decisions/wishes.

When it comes to 1P org, I'm on Steve's side, no matter what, but that won't prevent me from debating him privately when my opinion differs from his.
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
3,317
From
Houston, Texas
The only power resides in the hands of Steve Booth... He is the sole commander in chief of onepocket.org and he is the only person who can pardon or ban members from the site, as I understand it... He should be the one you PM...

Asking members to respond would only become another campaign platform for reinstatement or continued banishment IMO, with people choosing sides and arguing back and forth as to the fairness of it all... Not productive, when the verdict rests with the founder, just more noise... :sorry Jmho.

This is a response by a member of the forum, to whom the query was addressed... Ie; "So, to the forum.."

And LSJohn has understood my intent exactly...

Again, :sorry if you read something more into it...:)
 

kollegedave

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
169
From
St. Louis, MO
I think you must be referring to Jeff's response. If so, you have read his post differently than I did. I took it only to mean that discussing or arguing the point in public would do more harm than good, and that those who wish to influence Steve's final decision should communicate their thoughts directly to him.


I don't think the recipient of a gift has any right to hear why that gift was chosen rather than another. It would be rude to even ask.

Dave, this is not to be critical, but those of us who spend a lot more time here naturally have a stronger sense of appreciation for what Steve has done for us and therefore are more inclined to grant him lots of leeway in our assessment of his decisions/wishes.

When it comes to 1P org, I'm on Steve's side, no matter what, but that won't prevent me from debating him privately when my opinion differs from his.


John, I think you are right about the site meaning something different and less significant to me. However, I think Steve probably should be interested in making the site more significant to a wider range of people...but that is a whole other thread.

I also agree with you, in general, about not having a right to quarrel with gifts from others. However, in one of Steve's posts directed to me (I think it was on AZ) he made some reference to some legal concepts; I think he was hoping to find some common ground, or something, given my occupation.

My point is this: as far as the law goes, there are only two punishments where a defendant is not provided with an end to the punishment (LWOP and death). Accordingly, I don't think there is support in the law of crime and punishment for a permanent punishment. Still further, there is support in the law for a punishment that fits the crime.

I agree 100% that Steve is not obligated to run his site, when it comes to member discipline, in accordance the common ideas in criminal law. Because of that, I don't think he should look there for supporting rationale (if he was, and I am not totally sure he was).

I want to respect the ownership rights that Steve justly holds in this site. However, the point of the site (I thought) was to solidify the community that loves 1hole and take down as much history about it as possible. In doing so, I think he does create some obligations to the community. I don't know that I am capable of outlining what they are totally or their limits.

I do know this. If all of us were punished permanently when we screwed up, we would all be experiencing a lot of punishment now.

kollegedave
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,530
From
monett missouri
as far as the law goes, there are only two punishments where a defendant is not provided with an end to the punishment (LWOP and death). Accordingly, I don't think there is support in the law of crime and punishment for a permanent punishment. Still further, there is support in the law for a punishment that fits the crime.

No doubt one's objective should be to apply a punishment that fits the crime. I have seen no reason to believe that the specific cases we're talking about involve punishments that are necessarily permanent. Inf act, the way Steve has handled things in general implies to me that his parole board is always open.

If, in law, I'm sentenced to 10-20, and refuse to appear before the parole board or to appear and offer assurances of contrition and rehabilitation, I'm going to do the full 20. Perhaps in Steve's mind there is some unspecified amount of time that a person should stay in purgatory before an automatic reinstatement, but if it were me, I'd be waiting for the perp to come to me and at least claim rehab and offer assurance.

If I were on the other side of the table and felt my banishment was unfair, I'd probably be too stubborn to make the approach that might get me back in. That would leave both sides waiting for the other to make the first move. Reality is though, if I want a new trial, I have to seek it. If I'm waiting for the prosecutor to come and ask whether I want one.... you know the outcome.

I want to respect the ownership rights that Steve justly holds in this site. However, the point of the site (I thought) was to solidify the community that loves 1hole and take down as much history about it as possible.

I guess we'd need to ask Steve about the order of his priorities, but I wouldn't make solidifying the community one of mine. Maintaining a place where 1P lovers can re-establish old relationships and make new ones in a positive, friendly manner while exchanging ideas about the game and -- if all goes right, increase the popularity of 1P -- would be my number one, and I can't think of a number two.

In doing so, I think he does create some obligations to the community.

We view this differently. An obligation is part of an exchange. What has Steve been given or taken for him to incur this obligation? You know the law of contracts. Unless both parties give up something the contract is not valid.

I do know this. If all of us were punished permanently when we screwed up, we would all be experiencing a lot of punishment now.

kollegedave

Heh. You've got me there! :eek:
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
I don't think I ever stated that such and such ban was permanent or not. But none of the three posters over there who have been 'victims' of my sanctions to one degree or another have been restricted or banned for more than a couple of years by now anyway. So if you are going to compare to criminal sentences a couple of years is not that much lol --certainly not comparable to a death sentence or life in prison.

But as far as how the process goes, and why, that was what I tried to explain in my earlier post. I guess I could just do whatever the hell I wanted because I own the site, but I honestly try to administrate in the interest of our members and what the consensus is in terms of what might be best for "the internet face of One Pocket" -- which is what I believe onepocket.org is. It does not serve the best interests for the greater good of the way the game of One Pocket and the people that play it are seen in the world of the internet, if our forum is an ugly playground -- mainly because of a small number of posters that for some reason seem to enjoy trolling, instigating and flaming types of posts. You've heard the expression about 'one bad apple spoiling the bunch' -- unfortunately that is what I see in forums if they are left to happen. You probably know better than me, isn't that basically what happened with RSB?
 

Miller

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
5,524
From
East St. Louis Area
steve....i think you should let billy smith back into gen pop. rodney could lay the lines on how long he lasts.....
:rolleyes::D

(just trying to help mr3cushion.....:))
 

Hidy Ho

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
79
From
BKK/SFO
Could be. I do not participate in the forum near as much as many others, so I am not in a position to judge level of restraint shown (or not shown) to either Lou or SJD.

Shouldn't you at least understand what went on before you stir the pot (that's my personal assessment going through your eloquent postings in this thread)?

It's not hard to see how SJD and Lou behave online (either here or elsewhere). That "style" might be easier to tolerate in a bigger forum like AZ (and there are other similar posters over there) but on here, it can be overwhelming (same noise level/decibel in middle of Manhattan street vs. inside Carnegie Hall). And I have less post counts than you but I do follow the contents throughout the year.

On this forum, I have ZERO members on Ignore List. On AZ, that list is huge and continue grows every time I go through the forum (and as banned users come back under different names and continue same behavior).
 

Miller

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
5,524
From
East St. Louis Area
Shouldn't you at least understand what went on before you stir the pot (that's my personal assessment going through your eloquent postings in this thread)?

It's not hard to see how SJD and Lou behave online (either here or elsewhere). That "style" might be easier to tolerate in a bigger forum like AZ (and there are other similar posters over there) but on here, it can be overwhelming (same noise level/decibel in middle of Manhattan street vs. inside Carnegie Hall). And I have less post counts than you but I do follow the contents throughout the year.

On this forum, I have ZERO members on Ignore List. On AZ, that list is huge and continue grows every time I go through the forum (and as banned users come back under different names and continue same behavior).

all due respect, dave knows intimately more about this dust-up (concerning lou) and its background, history, etc. that i'd wager my mortgage on that you do.

no offense intended. superdave is just an amicable and alternative dispute resolution kind of guy.....
 

Hidy Ho

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
79
From
BKK/SFO
all due respect, dave knows intimately more about this dust-up (concerning lou) and its background, history, etc. that i'd wager my mortgage on that you do.

no offense intended. superdave is just an amicable and alternative dispute resolution kind of guy.....

It's a very safe bet :) My post was a response to OP's plea of ignorance of forum activities.

And if he heard from Lou himself (conjecture), wouldn't that be just one side of the story? You know what they say about "truth lies somewhere in the middle"?
 

youngstown

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,748
Permanent Punishment

I didn't know you could ignore posters... Can you ignore threads?
 

Miller

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
5,524
From
East St. Louis Area
It's a very safe bet :) My post was a response to OP's plea of ignorance of forum activities.

And if he heard from Lou himself (conjecture), wouldn't that be just one side of the story? You know what they say about "truth lies somewhere in the middle"?

i don't know about all that conjecture and that truth in the middle fukn bullshit. fuk that. its two grown men beefing over shit that is their own.

but for some reason, every swinging uneducated ***** needs to have a commentary or editorial on it.

all i know is that dave (the ONE credible guy who knows both) is just attempting to a solid by them. and when you piss on dave's head you piss on mine as well. his intentions (as naïve as what i think they are) are nothing but loyal and noble in motivation.

leave my road partner alone. AZ is missing you.
 
Top