Poll: East Coast/Ty Gaston

[meteor]

BC has to do what he feels is best for his site. he is the dictator here so to speak, so democracy doesn' treally enter into it. if he thinks the site is better without them then that's what he should do whether anyone agrees or not.

savage does make good points about nobody having proved shit in this case at all on either side though. i don't undertsand why savage should be ashamed of himself cause 72% want these guys banned though..so what cause he is in the minority he should be ashamed? that's pretty weak. doesn't sound very "america-land of the free" to me.

either way hopefully a decision will be made soon to settle this issue once and for all.

[savage1]

Leo-yeah I got into it with Ty at one time.
Later on when others "took over" so to speak and challenged Ty to contests which were in the 10-20 thousand dollar range, I stepped back especially when language and charges got very nasty on both sides and decided I didn't want to be a participant.
I thought contest would be a great idea in the 10-20 thousand range-not a huge amount of money but yet one which might prove something in the short run at least and probably one that no one would question.
I admit when the challenge went to an alleged $100000, I myself had inner doubts about it and thought that many would question it(which proved true).
On the other hand from my point of view(I suppose you could say it was selfish), I said to myself-who cares let them say any amount they want to -I want to see what these two services can do for 10 days and i get (what I thought would be) nice free picks.
Obviously, both services got off to poor starts, and because of Ty's claims in the past, he was attacked.
I stated then and still do that the picks in contest were the only things at issue and not the past;afterall if Ty or EC did poorly in the contest, no one was forcing anyone to purchase their pciks.
After that ,contest disintegrated into disputes over whether the $100000 was real or monopoly money was real or whether EC was Nutt or Nutt was EC if you get my drift as well as the vile language.
I am one who tries to think positive over negative situation as is the one found in this case.
Thus, my focus rather than being on banning anyone over whether the contest money was real or not is on how to improve things in the future.
I still maintain the vile language and attacks by some was truly disgusting, and the outlawing of that should be the top priority in my opinion and is much more important and relevant than whether someone paid someone else $100000.'
The picks of the two services in the contest were the real issue, and at least for the 10 days involved those are what counted.

[savage1]

Coverboy-in this instance I am not defending anyone nio matter what names were directed at me.
I was merely expressing a dissenting view;I firmly do not believe 1) there were established rules BEFORE the contest began, which negates any crime re: whether the money was real or not;2) the $100000 was blown way out of proportion to its worth and discussion;3) the issues of vile language, derogatory and personal attacks were not addressed and/or were people warned about this;4) there is still no code of ethics and established and written rules re: what is acceptable to say in a post and not say(are vile language, personal attacks, defmatgion of character what we reall want here?).
I think administrators really have to rethink this and establish priorities and written established rules and guidelines to be followed by ALL, not just those with whom there are disagreements.

[Lucky Leo]

Savage1, I agree with you that the money shouldn't have been an issue. But once people started bringing up questions and no answers were being brought forward I too felt that something should have been done. If I say I played for the Carolina Panthers and got a super bowl ring I would be right there with the ring to prove it! If I couldn't prove it then I deserved to be bashed for lying. The second point you made we don't totally disagree it was just the matte the problem was fixed. Until they prove the money they won't have a post without cussing bashing etc. So without them right now is a positive. If they prove the money I believe that this will all be hind site and The bashing will come to a low. It will still happen but not to the extent it was. Then you have people that just like to start something with Ty every day. That will hopefully slow too if they come back. But the every day fighting with Ty got old. But I can see why it is happening now over the bet.

[Ty Gaston]

Damn all i asked for was a fax

Gee, I forgot to ban you.

Until you get proof you are banned as I stated in your e-mail to you and Gianni.

Quit making excuses as you have 2 options to get a scan that I gave you in the e-mail. I guess you don't have the time or no one in Vegas has a scanner.

[S49erman]

that seems fair, thats what they asked for yesterday. I wish I had a fax machiene!

[savage1]

Leo-the only point I was trying to make is that I personally feel that if there were no strict rules regarding the proof ofthe $100000 PRIOR to the contest and how to show it was paid, then it is inappropriate to make a big thing AFTER the contest has already begun.
The rules were clear about the 1 pick a day for 10 day before the contest begun;to me the $100000 rules were not or at least were de-emphasized.
That being the case, I think anyways to make up the rules especially re: banning at conclusion of contest is inappropriate and even more so since by my way of thinking there is no actual proof to the contrary.

[BettorsChat]

meteor,

I guess I should be ashamed like savage pointed out huh? LMFAO

He should be ashamed for making some of the comments that he made to me. Especially about me being ashamed for banning those 2 when the majority want that. If he can't understand what I did from a business perspective that's a shame and that's what I meant.

[BettorsChat]

Originally posted by savage1
BC-do as you want.
I am simply stating that in my opinion what you did was unjustified and unwarranted based on the evidence at hand.
Even more laughable and more relevant is that you have not addressed the issue of ALL those using vile language and name calling.
If anything detracts from this(your) site, it is that and NOT whether someone paid or did not pay $100000.
In my opinion in order to improve this site you, wayne and anyone else who is interested should take steps to "clean" up the language and disgusting and childish posts of some here to ensure that debacles like this do not arise again.
Banning people is a bandaid approach and doesn't ensure a similar situation will not arise in the future.

What is laughable is that you continue to go on and on. I thought you said good day? Democratic? I guess I should allow every yahoo come and spam my site too.

[meteor]

BETTORSCHAT,

my apologies. i completely missed that post by savage. i see you were just responding to his remark. my bad

obviously nobody should be "ashamed" of anything. i suppose the whole charade has been somewhat entertaining although everyone's patience has obviously run out at this point. sounds like gaston is trying to send you guys proof. hopefully somebody will be able to play intermediary and send it to you. suspension of their posting priveleges seems like a sane solution until the proof can be provided. hopefully cooler heads will prevail and somebody will be able to bridge this fax/scanner problem.

[capperjohn1]

How many registered posters are there? And 69 people have voted so far?

[BettorsChat]

Originally posted by capperjohn1
How many registered posters are there? And 69 people have voted so far?

Your point?

[savage1]

Sorry BC- but since you responded, I must point out several more inconsistencies:
First of all I would think if someone is going to democratically ban someone(sorry if the word democratic offends anyone), then logically and is the case in most places, there should be rules posted on the chatboard which state under what circumstances someone can be banned;I don't believe that is the case here.l.
If there are rules in place here, please tell me where they are stated and I apologize for the accusation;doing otherwise is unfair and arbitrary.
Second of all, if you even assume that is ok to ban someone, then should not the people be banned relative to what they did?
My contention is that if you think Ty and EC acted inappropriately regarding threproof of the $100000, then since the whole matter was about the contest, then perhaps the banning should be about letting them participate in future contests and NOT about their posts regarding theirr everyday ads, free picks and other matters.

[meteor]

regarding the paragraph you added, that's why i said in my first post you have to do what you feel is right for your site. if no proof is provided then keep them away.

if they do provide proof and you feel they should be re- instated then hopefully the posters around here will put the issue to bed and leave them be in the service section for the good of the site . it's too bad like someone suggested that when you come to the site and the latest active threads are shown the service threads are intermixed but if the software is set up that way then what can you do.

[BettorsChat]

savage1,

When you sign up on the forum there are rules.

My question for you would you consider banning someone appropiate that posts under multiple names? With proof of course.