If county states something you can take it for fact…
Why do you use the terms “donks” and “bingo players”? That is offensive if you stop and think about it. Maybe some people like to play loose and fast, why is that so wrong?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, or if you are in the right thread at all.
But anyway, to answer your questions, there’s nothing wrong with playing loose and fast, nobody said anything about that, “donks” might be offensive to some and I don’t think it was used anywhere in this thread, and “bingo players” is not meant in any offensive way, and I don’t think anyone should be offended by it if that’s their play style.
This contradicts what we were previously told by Replay Staff.
I am going to try to remember to always state something questionable I write in the forum as being my personal opinion.
That said, staff here are very hawkish in correcting a volunteer when they mistate something or get out of line in any way.
From personal experience I can say I’ve had two polite but stern warnings thus far.
For me it was embarrassing and for staff it was probably a little uncomfortable to have to point out to me what should have been obvious (but I’m learning) but you should know, they are on top of the situation, I can assure you…umm, in my opinion that is
@GrandyB - you are one of the best. Always polite and helpful. It is good to know that there is some oversight and I thank you for letting me know.
I am trying to be better with these things myself. I may need to get “IMO” tattooed on my arm to remember but I try.
My comment is back on topic hopefully,
( unrelated topics ) - 1 person’s “relevance” is another persons “that makes no sense”. This is beautilfully shown in math. A+B=Z ( B=K-D , A=R+Q ) The topic is “A+B=Z” but if someone puts in terms of how D or Q affect Z, then thats still part of the Topic as shown.
( whataboutism ) - If 2 or more things, have simmilar characteristics, yet don’t have simmilar stigma’s attached, why wouldn’t someone ask why 1 is treated 1 way, and the other isn’t…
( Be assertive ) - Around here “assertive” isn’t … well… popular. ( agreed fact is fact, opinion is opinion ) that also does go to the misuse of all “absolutes”… never, always, ect ect ect.
( speak 4 ) - again absolutes yes, are often misused… “all”, “everyone”
( facts ) - You yourself have said, anyone can find 100 ppl on either side of ANY debate/discussion/point of view/ect ect ect… Add to that Society, can’t even agree on simple facts anymore it seems… without agreed apon facts, discussion is impossible. The problem becomes usually, when 1 person/group has emotional,moral, ethical, ect ect ect attachments to a certain belief/set of facts that prevents them from, … 1st off comming to common ground.
( generalizations ) - again “most” or “majority” are ( absolutes again ) , but generalizations can be used as distinguishing groupings of like items.
( me 2 ) - rather than wasting forum space with quote, easier to say I agree… ( but here’s how/why , unless you agree 100% with something ). Sometimes you just want to be on record publically, as being on 1 side or the other, nothing wrong with that.
Rather than quoting you, I did it that way Maya because I wanted to “comment (opinion)” on your points in order… so please don’t have a cow, about how I formatted it ( hahaha? )… I’m not sure why we need more rules on etiquette other than Replay’s…
Sometimes 1 person uses a anictdote, metaphor, or analogy because its an effective way to communicate. I remember a friend of mine, she could bake like Martha Stewart… but she had a big block in Math… so the easy solution was to use cooking/baking to teach/show her things about Math… 1 person uses the other person’s own knowledge of any subject to then segway/show/explain/teach another something… if done in correctly noone should have hurt feelings…
I think I agree, a discussion doesn’t need to be an arguement. I do think it can have a debate within it ( as part of it ). One of the easiest ways to learn something is from someone else. Also (from my experience)… many times that I have evolved to a different point of view, has been through/from others… None of us ( me included ), can ever hope to “know” or “think of” everything, doesn’t mean we can’t try ( hehehe ). So because of that, something you might know or look @ a certain way, might be worth me hearing.
Had a live chat with someone once… about an “article/post”, and in the end they said, “Ya know, had you not explained and answer’d my questions, I would’ve never realized just how right you were”. The point is Maya, sometimes 2 people can only have “posts/threads” to go by, and they do miss the drift sometimes… unless they sit and chat about it. Trying to fix that in a forum setting, usually takes the appearance of a full blown arguement, when it doesn’t have to be. When I “try not to make it personal”, what I mean is : I know the difference between “you are an idiot”, and “ohh, you’re being an idiot”. We all do “dumb” things , that doesn’t mean someone is patently dumb… I try to avoid making this mistake… here or in chat on tables.
I do @Maya , have 1 suggestion … If you are going to publically tell us what you find not-acceptable, then in future posts, please do not engage in behaviour that goes against your own beliefs.
Now as for the current itteration of this thread, I do agree with Warlock and SPG, in saying there currently is a blurr’d line as to how comments from volunteers, can be interpreted as being the views of the site. Usually if someone puts a disclaimer or simmilarly says, my opinion, then we know its not the views of Replay. I have also seen times when that does not occur, and they do act in the “interests” of Replay…
While Its good for the site to have thier volunteers actively helping Replay ( thats why they volunteer’d, right ), currently it is possible, in some situations… to be confused as to what thier post says or implies. This isn’t rocket science, or brain surgery… Either say, when in uniform act like it, even if you’re off the clock … or take your uniform off. … this implies that its possible to do so. Here @ replay its not possible (Prep or Mod is always right there). So just tell your Volunteers to be carefull and distinguish , when appropriate , " opinion " or " on the clock ".
1- You just love to argue no matter what the subject is so I’ll pass on this occasion.
2- Too long, didn’t read.
But thank you
The function of volunteers, player reps and moderators is exactly defined in the section “Site rules”, which can be found at the bottom of the dashboard. Obviously, not all read the rules when they start attending a site, including me.
As I have frequently noticed, many people grossly misunderstand the role of Replay volunteers.
The most absurd episode was at a table when a player accused a moderator of using their power to make them lose. They even sent me a private message exposing the “evidence” of their accusations.
I refrained from replying, as I’d have liked, “stop talking nonsense, for goodness’ sake!”, but I sent a quiet and polite response trying to make them understand they were overestimating the power of moderators. The result was, they cancelled our “friendship”. That was the typical reaction of vain, highly assertive people who never have any doubts, and would never bear a “friend” to have a different opinion. What can be done there? Nothing at all.
Long ago, I was asked to be a player rep myself, and although flattered, I declined, first because I am a material girl, and I take on duties only for cash. Second, and the most important reason, I honestly said, I saw some aspects of the site critically, so I could never represent it in a worthy manner.
In my opinion, all volunteers, player reps and mods here represent Replay in the only LOGICAL and appropriate manner by filling their role as attentively as they can, and by loyally defending the site against all criticisms. And I am convinced they act like that, NOT because they are obliged to, but because they feel a sincere attachment and confidence in the site.
If they are always correct is obviously a very different matter.
To use the analogy of a company and their employees, if at a party somebody says “the products of your company are defective”, not a single employee would answer, “you are so right, throw them into the rubbish bin”, they would decidedly refute such an accusation. Same thing here.
Personally, I have never noticed any disrespect in their intercourse with players at the tables or here in the Forums, but this might be a subjective impression.
They could certainly be much more relaxed about deleting posts or warning allegedly rude players at the tables, but in the end it’s not up to me to judge.
When we come to poker strategies, the issue becomes more “delicate”.
As it has been specified, when the talk is about poker strategies all volunteers speak for themselves and not as official representatives of the site.
But let’s assume for a moment the volunteers would officially speak on the site’s behalf, what would that change?
They would still express opinions about poker strategies, albeit of supposedly poker experts, not dogmas. All are free to discuss and refute them, if they don’t agree. According to my experience of many years, all poker players have their own theories, in any case.
I see here endless posts about poker strategies, either from volunteers or from “normal” players. Who can say which are useful or which are misdirecting for a newbie?
I am always surprised that almost nobody specifies whence all that wisdom derives. If it is the result of their own experience here or elsewhere, or is based on more authoritative and reliable sources. In the latter case, as in scientific papers, to cite the references should actually be a must. That would certainly encourage me to read more about “strategies” in the Forums and make me (and maybe others) want to deepen a poker issue.
Overall, I think the “volunteers” do an excellent job, and should be commended. Don’t assume I am against them in any way, shape or form… I’m not. Far from it.
However, I do think the term “volunteer” is a little misleading. I volunteered to join the army, but I got paid for it. Likewise, volunteers here do receive compensation in the form of free chips and entry into special tournaments. I don’t have a problem with that, but I still think it’s misleading to call them “volunteers.”
Anyone wearing a “uniform” is seen as representing the company, and needs to be held to a higher standard. That’s just part of the job, here or in real life. Perceptions are reality. I mean, really, what part of reality isn’t understood (or misunderstood) except through our perceptions?
This question had occupied the world’s greatest philosophers for the last few thousand years. When René Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am,” he was saying that’s the ONLY thing that can be known outside of our perceptions.
If the perception is that volunteers are speaking on behalf of the site, why not dispel this illusion by saying, “This is just my opinion, but…” or the like? Is there a valid reason not to do this?
I will conclude by saying that I don’t see this as a big problem one way or the other. Still, small problems are worth correcting if the cost isn’t great,
I volunteered at a research center once. Never got paid for the work I did. But the center was kind enough to compensate us volunteers with money for transportation and sometimes with lunch coupons. Staff obviously received salaries. Volunteers didn’t. I don’t think that lunch coupons would change the fact that we were still volunteers. And I don’t think free chips and entries into special tournaments count as payment, or change the definition of volunteers.
“Compensation is the total cash and non-cash payments that you give to an employee in exchange for the work they do for your business.” Free chips are, by definition, “payments,” it doesn’t matter if we think they are or not… they are.
The opposite of “volunteer” isn’t “paid,” it’s “forced.” I’m not changing the definition of anything. One can be a volunteer and get paid. If one receives compensation, they are being paid.
Is it a lot of free chips? All free chip? Some free chips?
No they’re not! By whose definition??
Free chips are, by my definition, “gifts”.
I respectfully disagree. Free chips are like lunch coupons, a gesture of appreciation, not a payment. That’s how I perceive them at least. They do not change the fact that these people are “volunteers” like you suggested earlier:
Excuse me, is this an argument or just a contradiction?
According to the Oxford Dictionary, a volunteer is:
- A person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.
"a call for volunteers to act as foster-parents’*
- A person who works for an organization without being paid.
"the railway is operated solely by volunteers’*
So I don’t see why the use of the word “volunteers” should be wrong here, especially because their function is clearly defined in the site rules, as I have pointed out in my previous post.
If I volunteer to help a friend, and he gives me flowers or treats me to a restaurant to thank me, I wouldn’t consider it a payment, but simply a nice gesture of recognition for my contribution.
SunPowerGuru, you remind me of those people who are incapable to pay a compliment properly. They would say something like: “Wow, what a beautiful dress you have on, but are you sure the colour suits you?”
You start saying how much you appreciate the job of Replay volunteers, player reps and mods, but then you go on to belittle their work, by saying they are not doing anything exceptional, after all, because they get paid for it (according to your definition).
If I follow this logic then I would assume that anyone playing in a free roll tourney is actually an employee of the site since the site is paying their entry fee for them.
Sure, as long as we also assume that freerolls have an entry fee.
There is nothing wrong with players volunteering to provide services to Replay. And there is nothing wrong with Replay “gifting” things to these volunteers.
The flaw is in asserting that these volunteers always continue to act as any other player, with complete independence of thought, actions and motives.
If a volunteer acts in such a way as to lessen the reputation of Replay, we can reasonably assume that the special relationship, and the gifts, will cease. This is clearly an influence that regular players don’t experience.
This is what I meant on the other thread when I wrote the words “Replay Rep Bias”.
The concept of one’s actions being influenced toward the party who is providing one with things of value is not extreme. It is recognized in courts of law and in business.
In my previous occupation I was barred from receiving anything of value from the users of our govt. service because it might appear that I would provide better service to the users who gave me gifts.
Like it or not, as a group, people who have a special relationship with Replay and regularly receive gifts as a result of that relationship, will likely be seen as having their actions influenced by self-interest.
Individual volunteers may see this as an unfair situation…a ‘Catch22’, so to speak. But it is easily resolved. Simply advise Replay that you will accept no gifts for your services and will resign if they continue. And when one of those is accomplished, post the result the discussion board.
Also, there is nothing wrong with bringing up other possible forms of bias(such as confirmation bias), that may skew the opinions of those who suspect the RNG.
JuiceeLoot did that very thing in her excellent post on the other thread…which is why I didn’t contradict, flag or complain about that post.