[Roulette and Gambling framework] Re: RULES for confirmation of a CONSISTENT Bet

[VLS]

Received a complaint

Compa
This testing suggestion is exactly the win.3.million sugestion.

I don't say that it is not a good testiong.In fact it is the best of the best!

But the consistant winning bets is a scam fallacy(unfortunatelly)
Nothing can win because there is no reason to win.

If u have indeed found a CWB please just say YES or NO.

Thank you.


ps.I was a huge fun of the CWB idea.
Untill I EXPOSED win.3mill my self and I stoped looking for 1.
The man just want to scam people by taking their money.And I have 100% hard proofs of that.

NOTHING CAN WIN MORE OR LOSE MORE.ALL ARE EQUAL

[Jordan]

I just told my expirience Victor ...nothing else.
I didn t offend anybody.

[VLS]

Dear Jordan,

Here we do not want to mention that w3m site. They can do and say as they wish at their guestbook/website, but here we want to me w3m-free.

Thanks for respecting it.

You can however debate actual ways to play even if they are derived from some suggestions/hints/puzzle/whatever the value in that website is...

As long as you don't bring in polemics and focus only on debating roulette, it all should be fine.

Thank you.

You may repost at the thread now if you wish

Victor

[VLS]

OK, I've removed the latest posts from the thread and marked this topic solved.

[Jordan]

nice democracy

[VLS]

Well Jordan, ALWAYS, 100% of the times bringing *THAT* site and *THAT* website to name ends up in a boiler/flamewars, which obviously defeats the purpose of this forum.

Our description for the search engines say:  "We are a CALM and FRIENDLY place where the FELLOWS gather to debate ROULETTE."

We want to make it our permanent motto and sure would do as possible to keep it that way.

Nothing productive comes from debating that man/website combo.

You can see the personal quality of this person by reviewing his "contributions" to our forum at google's cache:

link:://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-bszmaqevrwJ:rouletteforum.cc/profile/simon/%3Fsa%3DshowPosts++site:link:://rouletteforum.cc/&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk

We sure are better without them in our database.

[VLS]

nice democracy

OK Jordan, for the sake of Democracy now you can elaborate on how the deleted topics are productive. Now you have the opportunity to provide the community with reasons for them to be reinstated to continue such flow of discussion in our forum's pages.

These are the topics:

1. Dont come and try to start some s**t argumentation in here man.

2. As im saying for the Third Time Now. Im laying out  the only way to confirm a Bet.
NOTHING ELSE,

3. If YOU got a problem with that.(seems like bobody else has) Please consider Leave this Board,

1. Dont come and try to start some s**t argumentation in here man.

I didn t and I have NO intention to do it.

2. As im saying for the Third Time Now. Im laying out  the only way to confirm a Bet.
NOTHING ELSE,

No  you don't say only that... you are also saying that  you have found 2 CWBs

3. If YOU got a problem with that.(seems like bobody else has) Please consider Leave this Board,

who else has a problem with that?

There you go, democracy at its best.

You can contest the "government" here (admin), but also must provide reasons for the people (readers) to validate your point. This is why this community council section is here.

P.S. the topic's status is back to unsolved. Please do provide your points.

Regards.

[Jordan]

You can see the personal quality of this person by reviewing his "contributions" to our forum at google's cache:

I know the quality of this person a lot better than U.

And my posts in this thread had nothing bad.
I was NOT AGGRESSIVE
I was NOT IRONIC
.....

[VLS]

I know the quality of this person a lot better than  you.

This is why we don't need to talk about the man and website anymore, anywhere. Please don't bring in the topic again.

It is only calling for problems for the harmony and peaceful well-being of the community.

If you wish, feel free to debate any methods shall you actually had gotten some way to play from that site. They think they are so smart for not talking clear, but not talking clearly is not precisely the sign of the good people.

The good ones don't want to waste other people's time since they value theirs.

The caring ones either share straight or keep silent, as to not sending people to the path of puzzles, hints that lead to more hints and endless riddles that lead to more riddles.

And my posts in this thread had nothing bad.
I was NOT AGGRESSIVE
I was NOT IRONIC

Well, I got a report so they were appreciated like so.

Look, you have not made something worth a ban or anything, at most just a Warn.

Rigth now I could reinstate the topics, not to the main thread, but to the dissenting area; a follow-up discussion to the ending question of the message sure doesn't seem to be able to bring the most proper debate to main thread.

If I reinstate the threads to dissenting area so you can continue debating there, would that suffice to solve this issue?

[Jordan]

would that suffice to solve this issue?  

I can t see any issue

[esoito]

Hate to say this but there IS an issue.

Victor has carefully, clearly and concisely explained what it is !!

Just because the poster above can't (or won't) see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Victor is well within his rights to take action over an historically divisive issue in the interests of the wider well-being and peace of this forum.

Think 'harmony'. Think 'err on the side of caution' when posting and problems can often be avoided. Just takes a little foresight and thinking ahead.

Be grateful he went the extra mile to demonstrate his democratic willingness to hear points of defence. Not many would do that...

It's Victor's forum. We knew that when we sought membership. And his expectations were made very clear at the outset.

Either we accept his decisions or leave if we can't.

Simple, really...

[VLS]

Thanks for your kind words dear Esoito.

Let's give the man a chance to prove those threads can still derive something.

[VLS]

...It doesn't really takes too much to imagine a possible flow of discussion for such posts, but anyway in the sake of forum democracy they have been restored here:

[Dissenting] Re: RULES for confirmation of a CONSISTENT Bet

I certainly hope the posters will dissent in mutual respect.



Ok Jordan, now you can have your follow-up thread...

There you go, you can actually contest the authority here and get a fair response/reply.



P.S. While you are addressing compa and myself, I choose to exclude myself from such thread and won't participate there. I'm wiser than that and know such discussions lead nowhere.

You know what I think about it: there are those who can win, and those who can't. At the time they say it, both are right in their statements. As much as you can't tell a long-term loser it is possible to win, you can't tell a consistent winner he isn't winning, when he consistently takes home money from the casino, beyond what is allowed by any "statistical fluke".

...People tend to only believe what they experience, and in this game of fluctuations, personal experience varies a lot. No use in arguing about the validity of someone else's experiences; their perceptions are their realities and we should respect that!

P.S.2 if the debate degenerates, the whole thread gets removed for good (with no appeals for another reinstatement this time!)

[VLS]

This topic has been marked solved again