By Stephen Nover
The Rx.com
July 8, 2003
After being called a professional con man, a glue sniffer, a crack smoker, a person being run out of Las Vegas, a tout who gives out both sides of a game and receiving a death threat, I'm a little reluctant to even say posting forum let alone write again.
I'm a little curious what kind of response a serious column might have generated. I mean the audacity of actually throwing out some alias names and writing, "While some may find JJGold and Peep's post's worthless and a waste of space, others may enjoy and find them informative. This is the subjective nature of posting forums and why doing a story on it can be elusive."
An apology, followed by the threat of a lawsuit, was even demanded of me by one such poster. This person just coincidentally happen to be picked for the worst poster list.
With the 20/20 vision of hindsight, an apology is in order. But certainly not to this poster. I do regret putting Peep on the worst poster list, though. My apologies Peep. That was the wrong list to put you on.
By the way, I'd like to clear up one thing. A best/worst poster list was my idea, not Shrink's. He had no input and no involvement. I couldn't even get him to e-mail his list.
Believe it or not, my goal wasn't to win a Pulitzer with this column. I thought it might be a little entertaining to do a piece on best and worst posters.
>From what I could gather, the two most influential offshore gaming Web site posting forums are Rx and Major Wager. So I sent out e-mails to various posters, moderators, bookmakers and others familiar with the genre.
I received about a dozen responses, but unfortunately many precincts didn't report. It left me with a bias toward Rx posters and a strong reliance on sources since I claim no special expertise in this area.
When opinions are being thrown out, feathers can be ruffled. Certainly I'm open to criticism if readers felt this was a superficial piece of fluff, or that I lacked qualifications or that I didn't have strong enough sources. All valid and within the bounds of good sportsmanship.
What isn't fair or right is to have outright lies said about you in public posting forums. Look, I don't use an alias. Maybe using one makes some people feel brave.
I am not being run out of Las Vegas, although some sports book directors would gladly pay for my one-way ticket.
I've never given out two sides of a game. All I do is handicap pro football and sometimes have trouble coming up with one side for the whole card.
I don't use crack, although I confess I once sniffed glue. It was Elmer's and I was in first grade. Some accidentally got in my nose.
I remember Krackman's quote from the column, "The worst posters are those who just ridicule someone and have no substance."
One of the things mentioned often in the e-mails I received about best and worst posters was that agenda-driven, egotistical, mentally unbalanced posters were driving out many of the quality posters.
Free speech is one thing. Making death threats, using vile language and writing things without any shred of evidence or truth is another.
Often voices of reason and knowledge correct and put in proper perspective wrong threads and posts. Posters police each other. However, there are times site operators need to step in and ban threads, and posters if need be, at the risk of being criticized.
I still think an annual best poster list can be a good thing. But seeing how the Rx best/worst poster thread has deteriorated into name-calling and border skirmishes, the answer is yes. I certainly regret taking a stab at trying to name some of the best and worst posters.
The Rx.com
July 8, 2003
After being called a professional con man, a glue sniffer, a crack smoker, a person being run out of Las Vegas, a tout who gives out both sides of a game and receiving a death threat, I'm a little reluctant to even say posting forum let alone write again.
I'm a little curious what kind of response a serious column might have generated. I mean the audacity of actually throwing out some alias names and writing, "While some may find JJGold and Peep's post's worthless and a waste of space, others may enjoy and find them informative. This is the subjective nature of posting forums and why doing a story on it can be elusive."
An apology, followed by the threat of a lawsuit, was even demanded of me by one such poster. This person just coincidentally happen to be picked for the worst poster list.
With the 20/20 vision of hindsight, an apology is in order. But certainly not to this poster. I do regret putting Peep on the worst poster list, though. My apologies Peep. That was the wrong list to put you on.
By the way, I'd like to clear up one thing. A best/worst poster list was my idea, not Shrink's. He had no input and no involvement. I couldn't even get him to e-mail his list.
Believe it or not, my goal wasn't to win a Pulitzer with this column. I thought it might be a little entertaining to do a piece on best and worst posters.
>From what I could gather, the two most influential offshore gaming Web site posting forums are Rx and Major Wager. So I sent out e-mails to various posters, moderators, bookmakers and others familiar with the genre.
I received about a dozen responses, but unfortunately many precincts didn't report. It left me with a bias toward Rx posters and a strong reliance on sources since I claim no special expertise in this area.
When opinions are being thrown out, feathers can be ruffled. Certainly I'm open to criticism if readers felt this was a superficial piece of fluff, or that I lacked qualifications or that I didn't have strong enough sources. All valid and within the bounds of good sportsmanship.
What isn't fair or right is to have outright lies said about you in public posting forums. Look, I don't use an alias. Maybe using one makes some people feel brave.
I am not being run out of Las Vegas, although some sports book directors would gladly pay for my one-way ticket.
I've never given out two sides of a game. All I do is handicap pro football and sometimes have trouble coming up with one side for the whole card.
I don't use crack, although I confess I once sniffed glue. It was Elmer's and I was in first grade. Some accidentally got in my nose.
I remember Krackman's quote from the column, "The worst posters are those who just ridicule someone and have no substance."
One of the things mentioned often in the e-mails I received about best and worst posters was that agenda-driven, egotistical, mentally unbalanced posters were driving out many of the quality posters.
Free speech is one thing. Making death threats, using vile language and writing things without any shred of evidence or truth is another.
Often voices of reason and knowledge correct and put in proper perspective wrong threads and posts. Posters police each other. However, there are times site operators need to step in and ban threads, and posters if need be, at the risk of being criticized.
I still think an annual best poster list can be a good thing. But seeing how the Rx best/worst poster thread has deteriorated into name-calling and border skirmishes, the answer is yes. I certainly regret taking a stab at trying to name some of the best and worst posters.
