Shrink, Why was the Hollywood vs Don Best thread deleted?

Java · Jan 13, 2004

Shrink-

Last night, I posted a message to the Hollywood vs DonBest thread. Today, my post, and the entire thread are gone. What's up with the censorship? This wasn't a controversial thread.

People come here for the unvarnished truth, and to see the different sides of issues and a glimpse of how things work behind the scenes.

I don't think you should have removed the thread without the permission of every poster that participated.

My post faulted Hollywood for airing business in the forum, but I feel the thread should have remained for everyone else to judge Hollywood's and DonBest's behavior.

While dropping the thread may have been a service/favor to Hollywood and DonBest, it was not a service to the posters. All, you have now is a bunch a back-patting about how they worked it out (all of which is meaningless without the original dispute).

TheGeneral+ · Jan 13, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by THE SHRINK:
I am happy to report that Hollywood and Don Best have worked out there differences.

As I suggested last night, it appears cooler heads did prevail...

This is really in the best interest of everyone in this industry...

Because both parties agreed that it is inappropriate to discuss personal business matters in a public forum, they have each requested that the previous threads be deleted...

I am happy to oblige...

THE SHRINK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Java · Jan 13, 2004

General-

I read what Shrink wrote, before I posted. I found his answer unacceptable.
There are currently 3 kiss-and-make-up threads:

1) "Hollywood Sportsbook and Don Best Sports settle their differences." by Hollywood
2) "DON BEST & HOLLYWOOD RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES" by Shrink
3) "KUDOS TO THE SHRINK FOR RESOLVING THE HOLLYWOOD DISPUTE." by Winning Hand

However, the actual dispute is missing. I don't think it is right for Hollywood to put up a thread, and then unilaterally get it removed when they find themselves embarassed by their own foolishness.

I like Hollywood and RX, but it makes me wonder what useful information is getting deleted before we get to see it.

Plus, how do I recover the time I spent crafting my own post? Why should any of us bother posting to legitimate threads, if they can be arbitrarily deleted?

TheGeneral+ · Jan 13, 2004

Java, I was not involved but as DB and Hollywood both asked, their request was obliged. Maybe a locking was better. I trust in SHRINK's judgement. Sorry, as I do understand your perspective as well. Let's consider this a lesson learned and continue on with a great day.

go2guy · Jan 13, 2004

General, locking would have been a better option. Doesn't put the Rx in a favorable light when these type of things happen IMO.

Java · Jan 13, 2004

General-
I would have been okay, with the thread moved to the rubber room, or the specific DonBest pricing information (if sensitive) redacted.

I'm not happy with the censorship (especially considering the things that are aren't censored).

The quality of the forum and posts have dropped in recent months. Censorship over something this trivial, reduces the value of the RX as a place to find the truth.

go2guy · Jan 13, 2004

Java, I agree. I am one though who believes in not just complaining but providing a solution. I suggest the owners and mods listen to the "actual" players more on this board and put their interest in par or somewhat ahead of your advertisers and personal interest. I think some of you are taking posters for granted and it will come back to bite you in the ass eventually. I know for a fact you can balance your business interest with the good of the population you cater to.

TheGeneral+ · Jan 13, 2004

Java, I am truly sorry for your frustration, but their is nothing I can do except apologize and learn from the incident.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The quality of the forum and posts have dropped in recent months. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am hearing alot of the opposite on my end. It is just the way the mop flops. We can't please all, but we can the majority.

Again, I am sorry.

HollywoodSportsbook · Jan 13, 2004

Java;

Don Best requested the thread to be removed, the owner of Hollywood agreed.

Now, I would like to address a couple of issues that seem to be the core of the matter right now. There are always more than 2 perspectives on the same issues.

The reason why we came to the forums is because that's what we do: we're open about the way we conduct business. We like to keep our customers and this industry updated, this was not the first time we do this and it won't be the last.

Last night we were put in a position where we had 2 ways to go:

1. Not say anything and just let pernicious rumors arise.

2. Be as straight forward as we could regarding the whole issue, in order to beat speculation.

The "free" accounts were not an issue, yet we decided to mention it as a way to stay 2 steps ahead of any smear campaign, of any poster with vested interests arguing that the only reason why we were taken out of the line service was because we refused to pay $3850 to have access to a service that displays our lines.

***You for example, were as far as implying that we would juice other people within our premises for the use of this "free" accounts. That is what I consider an ignorant statement. We have no need to "juice' anybody for the use of a screen; as a matter of fact, the only people working in Hollywood premises are employees of Hollywood. There are many ways to conduct business and the one described by you in that statement is despicable***

The real issue was the independence and autonomy of All World Sports and the marketing campaigns that we have projected for this book. After all this non-sense, we have achieved the aknowledgement that we are free to conduct business as we see fit.

If you think we have used the forums for our advantage, I can only say the forums is part of the media and a very effective way to communicate with our customers and the rest of this industry. Would have you preferred my trying to appease unfounded rants against our book, simply for not having communicated to the public what the real situation was? We thought it was better to beat the speculation and yes, we're aware there is a price to pay. We never thought we would please the entirity of the public opinion, but if we had to do it all over again, we would do it; as being as outspoken as we can is what we do.

We really do not care if you think we look foolish now, the truth of the matter is that we spoke up when we had to. And the truth of the matter will always be that we will speak up when we have to, whether you like or not. The way we conduct business is our choice.

Will
Hollywood International
1-800-220-0002

soccerbob · Jan 13, 2004

Hmmm. Let me get this straight. Hollywood Sportsbook started the thread. Readers of this forum took the time to read the posts and some responded with posts of their own. Then the thread was deleted at the request of Hollywood Sportsbook and Don Best.

Hold on. I've got plenty of books. Can we start a book burning party and everyone contribute. I'll start with my favorite title; Censorship 101.

HollywoodSportsbook · Jan 13, 2004

Soccerbob;

Don Best requested the thread to be deleted. The owner of Hollywood agreed. That's how it went down.

Will

BillDozer · Jan 13, 2004

You can't blame Hollywood or DB for requesting what will benefit the situation.

You have a right to not like the commercialness where your opinion gets deleted.
I for one was interested in what was said (even if I may not agree) but things disappear.

POOF

drunkguy · Jan 13, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Java:

I like Hollywood and RX, but it makes me wonder what useful information is getting deleted before we get to see it.

Plus, how do I recover the time I spent crafting my own post? Why should any of us bother posting to legitimate threads, if they can be arbitrarily deleted?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are the only two points I have issue with. Locking is always a good policy in a worse case situation, but in this case changing the title and editing some of the post would have done the job. And although you mods get hit with complaints, you should take them as constructive criticism only...I think everyone realizes that judgment is involved and sometimes mistakes will be made.

BTW...Will, thanks for keeping us all informed of things that are happening. I am sure I am not the only one that appreciates it, but I don't think you hear it enough around here...

CharlieMaxwell · Jan 13, 2004

Java -

The original dispute is on the RX home page (www.theprescription.com) It is explained in detail in an article by Stephen Nover.

Charlie

TTinCO · Jan 13, 2004

It's still censorship, and it's still bullshit.

Just because this issue was resolved does take not anything away from the fact that the OVERALL issue still remains.

Nice to see the Rx be Dana's puppet.

Java · Jan 14, 2004

Nice to have a debate on Forum ethics!

Hollywood wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>***You for example, were as far as implying that we would juice other people within our premises for the use of this "free" accounts. That is what I consider an ignorant statement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, no one can read my actual post, since you guys had it deletted.
My statement was not ignorant, as I know of a book that's been doing it for years. I wasn't claiming that Hollywood did it, but was rather trying to refute your claim that books on Don Best should be automatically entitled to free accounts and explaining a type of abuse that can occur.

As for foolishness: You must have regretted the act of starting the thread or didn't like how it made you look. Either way, the FACT that you approved its removal SHOWS you felt it to be a mistake of some sort. It's a nice way to achieve your goals, without having to take responsibility for your methods. If you make a post, have the balls to stand by it, or make an apology, but don't delete the source material. How can you say you would "do it all over again"? By deleting the thread, you didn't do it the first time. Also, you wasted my time as a contributor to this forum.

DonBest-
I'm a big fan of you guys, but I really think you were wrong to make the deletion request. I would much rather you explained your position on this forum (or get Hollywood to issue a retraction), than sweep the whole thing under the rug. As Nover pointed out: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>These issues just can’t be swept away with a handshake, because they most likely are going to arise again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would have accepted moving the thread to the rubber-room and/or locking it. I also would have accepted the redaction of confidential/sensitive pricing information

General-
The "drop in quality" I referred to was in discussions of ethical standards and taking the high road on principles. The wild ranters seem to have been removed, but the site has also lost a lot of vitality and real debate. (It ain't a debate if you delete the threads.) Plenty of books that were scamming or accused of scamming didn't have their threads dropped (though the existence of the threads costs them business). How many times has a poster pulled an old thread from the past to catch a hypocrit? If the integrity of old threads is in question, the RX loses value.

Do I now have a "get out of jail free card" to request the removal of any negative threads about myself? (particularly, any by Hollywood or DonBest

)

go2guy, Soccerbob, BillDozer, drunkguy and TTinCo-
Thanks for addressing my issue/complaint of censorship.

entropy · Jan 14, 2004

I don't think it is right for Hollywood to put up a thread, and then unilaterally get it removed when they find themselves embarassed by their own foolishness.

java i am very anti censorship but this is one of the rare occasions where i disagree with you.

most decent BB's will allow a poster to edit or delete his own post and if it is the 1st post in a thread the whole thread disappears.

this does not seem such a bad thing to me as one may sometimes regret the words one has posted.

THE SHRINK · Jan 14, 2004

java,

Normally, threadsa aren't deleted. However, in this case, there were certain things that were said out of anger that could have had serious legal consequences for one or both of these parties and I didn't want that to happen...

Don Best called and stated that BOTH parties involved in the dispute wanted us to remove that thread...

Now imagine if one day you get into it with someone on this forum and because of something that was said, your FREEDOM might be comprimised...

Maybe now you might understand why the thread was deleted....

Finally, I am sure you can undersand that not everyone reads this site in the same light as you do...

Thanks,

THE SHRINK

go2guy · Jan 14, 2004

Sorry Shrink, it still doesn't justify its deletion. Locking it definitely but not to delete the thread. Posters (the lifeblood of the community) have the right to know what this is all about unedited and not a narrative, right? I just guess we can agree to disagree.

LouDiamond+ · Jan 14, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by THE SHRINK:
java,

Normally, threadsa aren't deleted. However, in this case, there were certain things that were said out of anger that could have had serious legal consequences for one or both of these parties and I didn't want that to happen...

Thanks,

THE SHRINK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're saying Don Best threatened to take an ILLEGAL bookie to court?

Now that's what a RAT is...