Posts by George Barnes25

Joshua Garcia8 said:So you're complaining because I didn't ask them to stop posting this junk?
If I actually put out a request, everyone loses their minds about me making requests. If I don't, you complain that I didn't. 😵 🤷

Oh come on, Joshua Garcia8, you're being hilarious... Honestly, that response is basically toddler logic. No offense, but that's just how it is. He basically proved that trying to have a real debate with you is a total dead end.

P.S. And look, if I'm being real here, I'm all for following the rules, but they should actually apply to everyone, not just hand-picked people. 😉

Joshua Garcia8 said:George Barnes25, not too long ago I mentioned this was a request, not a rule. Since we're talking about a request, these posts don't actually break any rules, so there won't be any penalties.

I wasn't even talking about getting a ban, just the constant requests when people keep breaking the rules over and over... Kind of like how you do it to everyone else.

Bryan Adams6 said:Man, you’re just hating for no reason... if you’ve got beef with the mods, take it to their DMs. Posting here just makes you look pathetic, whining about how much detail isn't in the PDF when you could actually step up and write something useful every day to make this sub better instead.
stormyseal9 actually puts in the work. He hates the rules, sure, but he follows them and posts daily so people can grab those picks and make a quick buck since they don't follow the sport themselves. You and guys like you are just complaining. The mods aren't perfect, and the PDF sucks, but what are you doing to fix it? 👎

Who's talking about what...?

Major props to you for the analysis you put out, but with this, you're totally ignoring the request the moderators made (and I don't see them even giving you a warning yet).

Check this out too:

🤷

Ethan Jones5 said:That was actually directed at stormyseal9 because he was complaining that it was an issue for him. My response used "they" because a lot of people were whining about that rule, and I wasn't specifically quoting you..

I left the forum; you asked me why I left...

Again, I'm using the plural, but this time it includes you too, since you're still posting here and you can't deny that fact..

I'm off to play a game of football. 👋

I’m not exactly looking to hang out on a subforum where those two are running the show as moderators... 🤷 So what, should the whole forum just stop working because of him? And why on earth should he stay quiet and just suck it up when things aren't being handled right? Honestly, More and more people are complaining about how they're moderating lately...

Enjoy the football this month! 👋

Cantona 👍

Man, some guy here is just totally losing his mind!

Ethan Jones5 said:I still don't get what the big deal is about writing an analysis.🤷

Here's a super basic example I just pulled out of thin air..

AC Milan vs. Fiorentina

Out of their last 7 head-to-head matchups, 6 went over. Both teams have minimal injuries and are in great scoring form right now..

That’s a totally simple example of a bet with an explanation. It takes maybe 20 seconds to write, but you can clearly see the logic behind it..

The reason you guys keep harassing the moderators isn't because writing two lines is too hard for you. It's because you want everything done your way...

As for the cliques, all I'll say is that these "clique members" have complained about the rules and warnings many times before...

Look, I have nothing against you complaining, but this is just a forum. You aren't forced to participate here, unlike how you're forced to live in this country. So either accept things as they are or go somewhere else—it won't cost you much more than moving to a new state would..

Don't get me wrong, I don't always agree with how the moderators handle things either, and I've even made suggestions myself since some of the issues weren't even that big of a deal..

If something really bothered me the way it bothers you, I'd just stop visiting the forum whenever my opinion wasn't being taken into account..

George Barnes25, thanks for reminding me, but I don't see any point in this "fight" of yours.🤷

I don't know if I've ended up in that camp myself, but honestly? I’ve never been one to complain about deep dives and analysis. In fact, I’m all over the tennis threads!

Ethan Jones5 said:I still don't get what the big deal is about writing an analysis.🤷

Here's a super basic example I just pulled out of thin air..

AC Milan vs. Fiorentina

Out of their last 7 head-to-head matchups, 6 went over. Both teams have minimal injuries and are in great scoring form right now..

That’s a totally simple example of a bet with an explanation. It takes maybe 20 seconds to write, but you can clearly see the logic behind it..

The reason you guys keep harassing the moderators isn't because writing two lines is too hard for you. It's because you want everything done your way...

As for the cliques, all I'll say is that these "clique members" have complained about the rules and warnings many times before...

Look, I have nothing against you complaining, but this is just a forum. You aren't forced to participate here, unlike how you're forced to live in this country. So either accept things as they are or go somewhere else—it won't cost you much more than moving to a new state would..

Don't get me wrong, I don't always agree with how the moderators handle things either, and I've even made suggestions myself since some of the issues weren't even that big of a deal..

If something really bothered me the way it bothers you, I'd just stop visiting the forum whenever my opinion wasn't being taken into account..

George Barnes25, thanks for reminding me, but I don't see any point in this "fight" of yours.🤷

So, I left the forum. You asked why I bailed...

Isn't this one of those pointless posts that usually gets deleted? (Just check a few previous replies in this thread). Whether there was irony intended or not, I'm sure some people found it pretty confusing. A random passerby could have stumbled onto this topic, seen someone betting against Lyon, noticed a user with a massive post count, and placed a bet based on that alone.

And seriously, isn't this just another one of those useless posts that gets wiped out? Or does it actually matter who wrote it and whose side they're taking? 😉

Edit: Just so I don't cause any more confusion—that last part was just a rhetorical question.

Alright, I’m logging back in with this handle after more than a month, so here’s my response.

Why shouldn't you mention clans? They exist! It's not even about them being against each other—it's about the fact that there are certain groups where the rules just don't seem to apply.

You're totally missing the point. If you actually read closely, you'd see the whole reason for this thread wasn't my ban, but exactly what I just said. I wasn't even complaining about getting banned; it was just two "respected" moderators twisting the conversation toward my penalty to dodge the actual issue at hand.

I'm still lurking around here, and I can see people breaking rules, ignoring requests, and all sorts of stuff constantly. Yet, it feels like they only go after individuals when someone finally snaps and earns a ban.

For instance,
Titanoid posts matchups without any explanation. Joshua Garcia8 gives him a heads-up, but then he just jokes around, saying he saw it in a crystal ball or his uncle told him, asking if that's okay. Joshua Garcia8 just responds with a smiley face. (Or maybe she was just a regular user and not a moderator.)
Tsigi breaks a rule in the SPAT thread—where he's basically on the "board of directors"—and nothing happens until he commits the exact same violation again and has to serve the penalty.

It's honestly hilarious. It's always the same crowd doing the same things. Some people get warnings and punishments, while others just get a smiley face.

Eric Fox7 said:It’s a shame to see you taking this stance, honestly. Regardless of this specific argument, you've always been a standout member here and have contributed a ton to this subforum. Walking away just because things aren't running exactly the way you think they should... well, it feels a bit pointless, 🤷

I'm stepping down because of how the mods act. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's bad. Why did great tipsters like Mars, No Name, Timsky, Ti Too, Richard Morales79, and plenty of others leave? Was their exit "pointless" too? You guys run this subforum poorly. Look, I get it, sometimes things are tough for you too, but even when you mess up, instead of owning it, you just go EOD.
So many people are unhappy with how you handle things, but unfortunately, they're venting in all the wrong places. And I don't mean petty fights like "give us back our daily thread." If more people actually spoke up right here, it would probably carry way more weight. Instead, it looks like I'm just some lone guy throwing a fit over a warning, mostly because that's how you steered the conversation. But honestly, you're in the wrong here too. This whole thing started because a post was deleted for no reason—it didn't break any rules or even a simple request—but of course, you can always twist the narrative to suit yourselves based on the reaction you provoke.

EOD

It was (more/less) of a pleasure working with you all.
Best,

I was gonna add more, but honestly? What's the point?
It’ll probably be the same story even after a third person weighs in, but whatever...

Just so we're clear: I truly believe that post was deleted for no reason. It didn't break any rules, wasn't offensive, or anything like that. It just got nuked because a moderator decided it "served no purpose" anymore. 🤷 Everything that happened after that was just a domino effect 😉 (including that warning I got—which was totally justified, by the way, since I forgot about the specific post Eric Fox7 was quoting. Like he says, I didn't get flagged for *that* post, but for the next one I already explained)

More: You posted part of a private message I sent you. 😉

And hey, my bad on that comparison. I thought I was hanging out in the chat room instead of this OI thread.

I'll read what the third person thinks (I can already guess how it'll go), and then I'm done. I'm stepping away from the forums, at least until things change around here. Don't bother telling me you'll miss me; I know I won't be missed.

Later.

Eric Fox7 said:Actually, they weren't. This chat isn't some town hall meeting where we debate the rules or nitpick everyone else's comments—I've already told you twice (okay, maybe three times now) 🤷

Look, I wasn't arguing about rules; I was just repeating a request. (There isn't even a rule against it)
So, basically, I'm not allowed to comment on someone's post if I think it's bad? I didn't cite any specific rules, just a request, which ended up getting my post deleted. If we can't comment on each other's stuff, this forum is going nowhere fast.
My whole point was just asking him to follow the request, just like everyone else who started typing (I think he was actually explaining his reasoning for those picks too, and I was just following along).
And y'all made such a huge deal out of nothing.
It’s like: the Agent posts the picks, I quote the request, he explains the picks, and then boom—my posts get wiped.

Joshua Garcia8 said:Since you sent a DM to me and Tominator (via me) where you said

and go ahead and chime in on this one too

well, I've already spoken my piece.

I'll take the suggestion, though honestly, I've got nothing left to add to this. The Admins can see everything we've deleted and how we've handled things, so they'll probably show up soon enough.

I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't post snippets of private messages. According to the forum rules, that's strictly forbidden.

Eric Fox7 said:I wasn't actually planning on chiming in, but since I got tagged (and since nobody was specifically asking for my two cents 🤔), I'll just say this: personally—and I think Joshua Garcia8 would agree—I don't coddle anyone, nor do I have any intention of starting. If people aren't fans of how I moderate (or how anyone else does it), well, that’s perfectly fine by me. If everyone agreed with everything I said, we might as well just shut the whole forum down. Of course, there are mistakes made during moderation—we're only human, after all—but we're actively working to fix them and trying our best to improve the subforum we manage.
Drawing massive conclusions based on a single outlier—especially one that isn't even a comparable case—and then building an entire argument out of "what ifs" is just misplaced, and frankly, I don't want to waste my time entertaining it.

It's not just one example, obviously. But it would be pointless to go hunting through the sub-forums right now to find more. I'm sure plenty of other users would jump in with examples of how bad the moderation has been lately. (Like feralotter2, Mars, Noname, etc.)

And look at this:
Joshua Garcia8 is back to being a Moderator, not just a regular user.

vs.

Come on, just give me your thoughts on what was added to the Last edit of the Mediterranean Sea!

My posts were deleted for absolutely no reason!

Look, I didn't "ban" you from sharing your thoughts! It’s not like that at all. I just asked that we get a third-party perspective instead—you know, like getting a second opinion from someone outside the circle. 😉

🤦

Joshua Garcia8 said:Discussion about that. What if? It doesn't make sense. Please just stick to specific cases.

I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Who exactly was Zoom insulting in that post? Someone who doesn't even exist? Besides, that same moderator's pet was the only one in the whole debate to get a strike.
From what I can see, you didn't even get a warning for that post.

The second, third, and fourth posts are why you got a strike. After the second and third posts, you repeated that we don't discuss the Moderator here, and then you did it again.

I already answered that part in the first post—no point in repeating myself.

You're practically baiting me to make a clone just so I can drop some picks in the chat! I'm dying to see if you’re just going to act like a regular forum user or if you're actually stepping up as a Moderator. 🙂
Don't worry, I won't! 😉

I honestly don't even know if there's any point in trying to argue with you...
Come on, let's go!

Look, you’re a Moderator now, not just some regular user who occasionally steps up. You can't just flip a switch between being a casual poster and being in charge whenever it suits you. It’s like a referee in an NBA game—you don't just blow the whistle when you feel like it and then go back to watching the game like everyone else. If you have the title, own it. Keep this sub clean and maintain order consistently, not just when the mood strikes. Do the job right, all the time.

Look, what I told you about that cop still stands. Whether you like it or not, that’s just the hand you've been dealt.

Joshua Garcia8 said:Discussion about that. What if? It doesn't make sense. Please just stick to specific cases.

I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Who exactly was Zoom insulting in that post? Someone who doesn't even exist? Besides, that same moderator's pet was the only one in the whole debate to get a strike.
From what I can see, you didn't even get a warning for that post.

The second, third, and fourth posts are why you got a strike. After the second and third posts, you repeated that we don't discuss the Moderator here, and then you did it again.

I already answered that part in the first post—no point in repeating myself.

Look, you know damn well who Zoom was aiming at. It wasn't some ghost or someone who doesn't exist. He was taking a shot at everyone claiming there were cliques involved—basically anyone siding with the crowd that’s unhappy with the Moderator. He got handed a red card regardless of what that specific post said. And get this: my post got edited (I was actually talking about the comment written right underneath it when I mentioned a "warning"), but his? His stayed exactly the same. That's just one example of how things are working around here.
Anyway, this is what shows up under my post after I've made the edits:
George Barnes25, please watch your language from here on out.
Last edit of the Mediterranean Sea: June 26, 2012, at 8:16 PM. Reason: Deleting an annoying comment.
(And now I'm paying close attention to the vocabulary:)

George Barnes25 said:🤦

You're practically baiting me to make a clone just so I can drop some picks in the chat! I'm dying to see if you’re just going to act like a regular forum user or if you're actually stepping up as a Moderator. 🙂
Don't worry, I won't! 😉

I honestly don't even know if there's any point in trying to argue with you...
Come on, let's go!

Look, you’re a Moderator now, not just some regular user who occasionally steps up. You can't just flip a switch between being a casual poster and being in charge whenever it suits you. It’s like a referee in an NBA game—you don't just blow the whistle when you feel like it and then go back to watching the game like everyone else. If you have the title, own it. Keep this sub clean and maintain order consistently, not just when the mood strikes. Do the job right, all the time.

Look, what I told you about that cop still stands. Whether you like it or not, that’s just the hand you've been dealt.

Look, you know damn well who Zoom was aiming at. It wasn't some ghost or someone who doesn't exist. He was taking a shot at everyone claiming there were cliques involved—basically anyone siding with the crowd that’s unhappy with the Moderator. He got handed a red card regardless of what that specific post said. And get this: my post got edited (I was actually talking about the comment written right underneath it when I mentioned a "warning"), but his? His stayed exactly the same. That's just one example of how things are working around here.
Anyway, this is what shows up under my post after I've made the edits:
George Barnes25, please watch your language from here on out.
Last edit of the Mediterranean Sea: June 26, 2012, at 8:16 PM. Reason: Deleting an annoying comment.
(And now I'm paying close attention to the vocabulary:)

😉 )

I honestly think Zoom should’ve been way more careful with their wording here. Especially since he’s basically taking a subtle swipe at the Moderator after getting hit with that warning.
I didn't get a strike, and neither did Zoom. My post is just being edited and commented on while his stays live. Honestly, it’d be better if we both got flagged—keep things fair for everyone, regardless of which side they're on. 😬 )

You weren't even around between the First Post and the fourth one!
The conversation went like this.

First Post
Second Post
Eric Fox7 here: It’s because the thread is in the wrong section. We don't jump in to comment on posts that break the rules—we just report them. (It’s all laid out right at the bottom of the post.)
Third Post!
So then you just jump in like, "Oh, I'm practically part of the moderation team and the inner circle," blah, blah, blah!
Fourth Post
My posts keep getting deleted and I’m picking up warnings just because I’m commenting on the Moderator!

So, I either got flagged because of that coffee comment or because I compared you to Joe the cop. Look, if that’s why I got a warning, fine by me! But honestly, he basically baited me with that skinny little argument of yours: "I'm a forum regular first."
So if "contacting the Moderator" just means me asking where my thread went—since that was the only one they nuked—or me saying I don't agree with Eric Fox7, even though he had the last word, then what? 🤷 Look, basically, I don't see eye to eye with him on this one, but hey, I respect his call. So, I just dropped it. Period.

Here we go again:

Make up your mind! First I didn't get it because of the fourth point, then suddenly I did. And looking at the thread above, there’s zero moderator interference in posts two and three—unless you’ve suddenly developed a unique opinion on that. (So, what is it? Are you saying my post is missing, that I'm interfering with the Moderator, or are we going back over why I disagree with Eric Fox7 while still respecting his take?)

Here we go again: Look, I didn't start this thread just to whine about getting a penalty, and I'm definitely not looking for sympathy or asking for it to be wiped from my record. But when you start pushing my buttons like that, I've gotta say something back!

So, the header for this subforum says: "Your feedback, ideas, complaints, and comments. How can we make this Forum better and more polite?"
I started this thread because I want to help make this forum—specifically the betting subforum—actually better. This isn't the first time people have complained about how you and Eric Fox7 handle moderation. Look, I get it. It’s not exactly easy dealing with all the trolls who just show up to stir the pot, but it’s also not right when it feels like certain people get treated with kid gloves while others don't.

Can someone else weigh in here? And please, let's not have Tominator chime in, since this hits a bit close to home for him too.

Edit:
After digging through this a bit deeper, just one more thing:

Quote:
Tominator says:
Since the post was in the wrong spot. You don't comment on posts that break the rules; you just report them.

(I can't quote him directly because the post was deleted, so I'm just typing what it said)

Then Joshua Garcia8 says:

So, my post got nuked because apparently I commented on a post that "breaks the rules"—except there isn't even a rule to break, it's just a request! The bottom line is: it was deleted because it was a repeated request (your words), not because I was arguing with the Moderator or quoting rules or whatever.

The whole mess really started because they deleted that one post. That’s what triggered the second, third, and fourth posts.

🤷

😉 )

I honestly think Zoom should’ve been way more careful with their wording here. Especially since he’s basically taking a subtle swipe at the Moderator after getting hit with that warning.
I didn't get a strike, and neither did Zoom. My post is just being edited and commented on while his stays live. Honestly, it’d be better if we both got flagged—keep things fair for everyone, regardless of which side they're on. 😬 )

Joshua Garcia8 said:Discussion about that. What if? It doesn't make sense. Please just stick to specific cases.

I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Who exactly was Zoom insulting in that post? Someone who doesn't even exist? Besides, that same moderator's pet was the only one in the whole debate to get a strike.
From what I can see, you didn't even get a warning for that post.

The second, third, and fourth posts are why you got a strike. After the second and third posts, you repeated that we don't discuss the Moderator here, and then you did it again.

I already answered that part in the first post—no point in repeating myself.

You weren't even around between the First Post and the fourth one!
The conversation went like this.

First Post
Second Post
Eric Fox7 here: It’s because the thread is in the wrong section. We don't jump in to comment on posts that break the rules—we just report them. (It’s all laid out right at the bottom of the post.)
Third Post!
So then you just jump in like, "Oh, I'm practically part of the moderation team and the inner circle," blah, blah, blah!
Fourth Post
My posts keep getting deleted and I’m picking up warnings just because I’m commenting on the Moderator!

So, I either got flagged because of that coffee comment or because I compared you to Joe the cop. Look, if that’s why I got a warning, fine by me! But honestly, he basically baited me with that skinny little argument of yours: "I'm a forum regular first."
So if "contacting the Moderator" just means me asking where my thread went—since that was the only one they nuked—or me saying I don't agree with Eric Fox7, even though he had the last word, then what? 🤷 Look, basically, I don't see eye to eye with him on this one, but hey, I respect his call. So, I just dropped it. Period.

Here we go again:

Joshua Garcia8 said:When you're pulling things out of context like that, please just pay attention to the parts I've marked.

Look, this is just a request for everyone, not some official rule. If things don't stay civil, then sure, we can implement rules for the chat thread. Honestly, bringing rules into the chat feels a bit silly to me—whether we actually go that route is entirely up to you guys.

Regarding calling people out—in my First Post, I just pointed out the specific folks who were posting exactly that kind of stuff in the chat right when I was writing the warning. Just those few pairs.

My response to the Agent today was a total joke—totally informal, clearly. Like I told you in our chat, that was just me talking as a forum member, not as a Moderator.

I can't say exactly what was in that edited post since I don't remember, but based on the comments, I'm pretty sure it involved some kind of insult. Honestly, I messed up there—I should have just handed out a warning and left the post alone.

Regarding the ban, it wasn't about your last post. It was because you kept trying to jump into the Moderator's business where you didn't belong.
Here are the posts that landed them a ban (you can't see them, but the admins can):
I don't know. Maybe. Just a thought.
I guess I should have seen that coming. Just my luck.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole situation. It feels like we're all just spinning our wheels here.
I don't know. Maybe. Honestly, I haven't given it much thought.

If you have questions, just shoot me a DM or post them here on this subforum. Just please don't clutter up the other threads with stuff that doesn't belong there.

Like we told you, if you spot a post breaking the rules, don't bother quoting it. Just report it and let the Moderators handle the fallout.

Joshua Garcia8 said:Discussion about that. What if? It doesn't make sense. Please just stick to specific cases.

I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Who exactly was Zoom insulting in that post? Someone who doesn't even exist? Besides, that same moderator's pet was the only one in the whole debate to get a strike.
From what I can see, you didn't even get a warning for that post.

The second, third, and fourth posts are why you got a strike. After the second and third posts, you repeated that we don't discuss the Moderator here, and then you did it again.

I already answered that part in the first post—no point in repeating myself.

Make up your mind! First I didn't get it because of the fourth point, then suddenly I did. And looking at the thread above, there’s zero moderator interference in posts two and three—unless you’ve suddenly developed a unique opinion on that. (So, what is it? Are you saying my post is missing, that I'm interfering with the Moderator, or are we going back over why I disagree with Eric Fox7 while still respecting his take?)

Here we go again: Look, I didn't start this thread just to whine about getting a penalty, and I'm definitely not looking for sympathy or asking for it to be wiped from my record. But when you start pushing my buttons like that, I've gotta say something back!

So, the header for this subforum says: "Your feedback, ideas, complaints, and comments. How can we make this Forum better and more polite?"
I started this thread because I want to help make this forum—specifically the betting subforum—actually better. This isn't the first time people have complained about how you and Eric Fox7 handle moderation. Look, I get it. It’s not exactly easy dealing with all the trolls who just show up to stir the pot, but it’s also not right when it feels like certain people get treated with kid gloves while others don't.

Can someone else weigh in here? And please, let's not have Tominator chime in, since this hits a bit close to home for him too.

Edit:
After digging through this a bit deeper, just one more thing:

Quote:
Tominator says:
Since the post was in the wrong spot. You don't comment on posts that break the rules; you just report them.

(I can't quote him directly because the post was deleted, so I'm just typing what it said)

Then Joshua Garcia8 says:

Joshua Garcia8 said:When you're pulling things out of context like that, please just pay attention to the parts I've marked.

Look, this is just a request for everyone, not some official rule. If things don't stay civil, then sure, we can implement rules for the chat thread. Honestly, bringing rules into the chat feels a bit silly to me—whether we actually go that route is entirely up to you guys.

Regarding calling people out—in my First Post, I just pointed out the specific folks who were posting exactly that kind of stuff in the chat right when I was writing the warning. Just those few pairs.

My response to the Agent today was a total joke—totally informal, clearly. Like I told you in our chat, that was just me talking as a forum member, not as a Moderator.

I can't say exactly what was in that edited post since I don't remember, but based on the comments, I'm pretty sure it involved some kind of insult. Honestly, I messed up there—I should have just handed out a warning and left the post alone.

Regarding the ban, it wasn't about your last post. It was because you kept trying to jump into the Moderator's business where you didn't belong.
Here are the posts that landed them a ban (you can't see them, but the admins can):
I don't know. Maybe. Just a thought.
I guess I should have seen that coming. Just my luck.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole situation. It feels like we're all just spinning our wheels here.
I don't know. Maybe. Honestly, I haven't given it much thought.

If you have questions, just shoot me a DM or post them here on this subforum. Just please don't clutter up the other threads with stuff that doesn't belong there.

Like we told you, if you spot a post breaking the rules, don't bother quoting it. Just report it and let the Moderators handle the fallout.

So, my post got nuked because apparently I commented on a post that "breaks the rules"—except there isn't even a rule to break, it's just a request! The bottom line is: it was deleted because it was a repeated request (your words), not because I was arguing with the Moderator or quoting rules or whatever.

The whole mess really started because they deleted that one post. That’s what triggered the second, third, and fourth posts.

🤷

feralotter2 said:Seriously? I’ve been pointing this out for over a month now—but of course, nobody wanted to back me up. Glad to see everyone else has finally opened their eyes. 😉

I wouldn't go so far as to say there are "clans" in play—despite what some members of this subforum like to claim—but let's be honest: there are certainly certain individuals who enjoy a level of favoritism.

You’ve got these "Zoom-Zoom" types—people who go around calling everyone else idiots—yet their posts just vanish without a trace because they're buddies with the Moderators. Meanwhile, someone else gets their reputation nuked and loses points just for being a little blunt. It's a joke.

George Barnes25—best of luck. 👍

👍

Look, I saw it coming ages ago. I just kept my mouth shut and stuck to other threads—mostly tennis stuff—trying to stay out of the fray. But today? That whole thing with the Agent really rubbed me the wrong way. (And again, no shade to the Agent, Zoom-Zoom, or anyone else—it's the people letting this happen that bother me.)

It’s basically like this:

1. Look, the Agent repeated something he was already warned about. You responded just like any other user would (which isn't a crime!), but here’s the kicker: would you have answered that way if it wasn't the Agent? If it were someone the mods don't get along with, or someone who’s always causing trouble? Probably not. Not trying to be biased, but let's be real. Like when feralotter2 showed up 😬
.
2. As for that edited post—I know what happened (it used to say some vulgar crap), but honestly, that’s beside the point. The issue is that once again, the moderators didn't step in against someone they're friendly with. That's just the vibe you get from reading this subforum. Let me quote it for you.

zoom-zoom said:Screw you guys... you non-clannish types... they're getting rid of you through my back... I'm the only one who got a red card 🙂

So, there's profanity aimed at someone just because they don't share the same opinion as this user (and by chance, this user happens to agree with the moderators). That's just one example. Both he and I should've been flagged, but instead, my word was deleted and I got a warning/comment, while he got nothing.

Or maybe you read that purely as a fellow user 🤷
.
3. I'm not whining about the red card itself, but since you brought it up...
Luckily, my memory is pretty sharp, so I’d love for you to tell me which part of my following "interference" with the moderation was actually an issue.

First Post:
"Hey guys, please don't bypass the subforum rules via DMs. DMs aren't meant for posting picks/tickets, and it looks like some people are doing exactly that."
And then my comment: "who cares."

Basically, I was just repeating a request. I wasn't criticizing anyone or anything. So, if the ☕ Reason I got a red card was 🤷

Second Post: I asked why my previous post (the one mentioned above) was deleted.

Third Post: I told Eric Fox7: I don't think you needed to delete the post because of that, but you're the boss.

Fourth Post: This is where I compared you to a cop. Plus, I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you interpreted my comment on my own post as attacking the moderation, that’s on you. Again, I wasn't critiquing the mods; I was just repeating something you wrote that helps improve the quality of this forum.
I am commenting on the moderation right here, in the section meant for it. So, regarding that first post, the only thing that could possibly be problematic would be ☕ at ☕
.
If I accidentally missed something and that's why I got the red card, I truly apologize (please just point out what it was so I can see), but as far as my memory serves, that's all there was.
If I got flagged for any of the stuff I listed above, I'd really appreciate an explanation.

4. If repeating something you guys said—without directly or indirectly attacking the moderation—helps make the forum better, I don't see the problem. Since I was just echoing your request, the Agent explained things, and it's likely more people followed the picks because of it than if we had just left it alone. If I had just reported the post, would he have even explained the picks? We agreed the goal is to make the forum work better.

Not sure where 🤔

I admitted part of this was on me since I didn't flag the post, but my reply basically triggered those deep dives from Agent into why certain pairs work—which is exactly what this sub is for anyway!

Look:

I wouldn't call them "cliques" (like some people here love to claim), but let's be real, there are definitely some favorites.

Hey there!

Like the title says, I want to get a discussion going about the moderators over at the University Bookstore.

Here’s the deal. Here is my Reason. It feels like there's some uneven moderation going on here. It seems like the Moderators have built much closer ties with certain members than others. For instance, take Joshua Garcia8—she's a Moderator on this subforum, and she was just doing her job by calling people out in the chat for breaking the rules. They were posting couples without any explanation, which is a clear violation of our guidelines. Just following the playbook!

Joshua Garcia8 said:Guys, please stop trying to bypass the subforum rules by using the chat. The chat isn't meant for dumping betting slips or parlays, and honestly, it looks like some people are doing exactly that. I’m looking specifically at socis85, GeC666, and euskala—they aren't actually contributing anything besides posting their picks. Don't make us step in and start enforcing specific rules for the chat too.

Thanks!

^^ I honestly don't get why people make such a big deal out of this. It’s like watching someone freak out because they realized their coffee was lukewarm—totally unnecessary! Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it's just how things work. You can't expect a different result if you keep following the same old playbook. It’s basic logic! Like trying to drive from New York to LA using a map from the 1950s—you're obviously going to hit some bumps in the road. Anyway, enough of that. Let's move on!

Once someone called her out for picking and choosing who gets a warning, she just went ahead and expanded the whole list of people to call out!

Joshua Garcia8 said:What do those previous analyses even have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. I’m not talking about the other threads where things are mostly fine—I'm talking about this specific one. People show up here for one reason and one reason only: to dump raw picks. I only called out you three because that's all you ever do on the chat—you just post pairs. Nothing else.

Just to clear the air and make sure there's zero confusion or any weird conspiracy theories flying around—this goes for everyone. It applies to the folks I mentioned earlier and to Zoom too! Agent...salvia, sage, and all that good stuff.

I don't get it. Why is it so hard to write just one sentence explaining why you're playing something? Just ONE sentence!

Look, I’m asking nicely here—let’s not go overboard and start imposing a bunch of new chat rules, okay?

^^

Pay extra attention to the **bolded part**.

Danas on objavljuje sljedeći post:

Agent5 said:Where are all my gamblers at? ☕

We crushed Australia in basketball, our guys dominated handball, and those Canadians got taken down in water polo... Let's go, Team USA! 👋

edit: ESPN is broadcasting the Lakers vs. Celtics game instead of USA vs. Italy (water polo), what a joke 🤦[/I]

>

^^

While the Moderator Zoe is busy replying

Quote:>

Joshua Garcia8 says: here we go, getting ready to walk around in our underwear ☕ who cares ☕>

^^

Regarding my response to Agent's post (just using him as an example here—he’s actually probably contributed way more to this subforum than I have, and after my comment, he likely went online and explained his picks according to the rules):

"Guys, please don't try to bypass the subforum rules through the off-topic thread. That thread isn't for posting picks/tickets, and it looks like some people are doing exactly that."
And yeah, regarding the "who cares" part ☕>

Can't quote that specific post because the Moderator Tominator probably deleted it for good reason:

Quote:>

Tominator says: [URL='showthread.php?p=40669218#post40669218']> Because the post is in the wrong place. Posts that break the rules shouldn't be commented on; they should be reported.

But even so, the post that broke the rule was left right where it was, unchanged.

Speaking of editing posts...

It used to say freaking Zopp.

While in this post, everything else is just fine.

No clue how many of these posts will actually stay up, since the moderators have gone on a deleting spree.

Quote:

Tominator says: [I]Because the post is in the wrong place. Posts that break the rules shouldn't be commented on; they should be reported. Joshua Garcia8 dropped a response on this. Joshua Garcia8 says: Of course it’s getting deleted. You don't comment on the moderators here—we've been through this a million times, but hey, what do I know? Besides, trying to debate moderation just gets you a warning card. Like Tominator said, if you spot a post breaking the rules, please just use the report tool like it was designed to be used. Joshua Garcia8 is a forum member first and a moderator second, so they have every right to just be a regular user sometimes. And here is my take: First off: I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you took my post as an attack on the mods, that's on you. Seriously, I wasn't criticizing the staff, I was just repeating something you wrote that I thought would actually improve the quality of this subforum. I comment on moderation in the specific subforum meant for that. It's like a cop seeing an old buddy swipe a six-pack of Budweiser from a convenience store. He just winks at him and says, "You really gonna try to drink all that by yourself?" then keeps walking his beat. Joe is a guy first and a cop second, so he's allowed to act like a regular guy once in a while. I got a warning for that last post.😉 I don't even know if anyone cares, but I'm not staying quiet.😁

Ethan Jones5 said:USA

Tyton-- Piszczek, Wasiliewski, Perquis, Boenisc--Murawski, Polanski--Baszczykowski, Obraniak, Rybus--Lewandowski


RUSSIA

Malafajev--Anjukov, Ignašević, Berezuckij, Žirkov--Širokov, Denisov, Žirjanov--Dzagojev, Keržakov, Aršavin

Word on the street is Dariusz Dudka is stepping in for Marcius Rybus tonight.

Things are looking pretty set after the US win in game one. It’s basically a showdown now—the matchup between the USA and the Czechs will likely decide who grabs that second ticket out of this group. Personally? I think Russia is cruising through (if they don't clinch it tonight, they'll nail it in the final round against Greece). So, expect the Americans to come out swinging! They need to secure a solid spot for that last stretch. If they grab a win today, even a draw against the Czechs later would keep them in the hunt. Russia looked like absolute monsters in their first match, so expect a bit of that magic again. Also, there's some heavy history here. Back in 1920, these two teams had an absolute brawl on the field. Plus, since it's a big national holiday for Russia today, fans are already planning a massive march to the stadium. Tensions could be sky-high. One slip in focus from the players and things could boil over into red cards. The ref is W. Stark, and he's been handing out red cards in 3 out of his last 9 games. Watch out!

My picks:
over 1.5 @ 1.30 -- 9/10
over 2.5 @ 1.90 -- 5/10
red card @ 3.60 -- 2/10

Euro record so far: 1w - 1l

EDIT: Didn't add extra details because Ethan Jones5 already covered the important stuff perfectly.

George Barnes25 said:USA vs. Greece at 6:00 PM! Let's go!

My picks:

Poland vs. Greece — Under 2.5 goals @ 1.50. Just a hunch. This one’s gonna be a defensive grind! 👍
Greece isn't scoring at 2.20 odds. It’s a solid play! 👎

Best of luck out there! 😁

USA vs. Greece at 6:00 PM! Let's go!

GREECE

So, how did they even make it to the championships?
Top of Group F! Sitting pretty right now. Seven wins out of ten games. They dropped points against Georgia, Latvia, and the US, but they're still leading the pack. Defense is looking solid too—only 19 goals conceded in those 10 matches, averaging just 1.9 per game. If you take Malta out of the equation—since they only gave up one goal while scoring four—that average drops even further to 1.75. Since the last qualifying round, they’ve played five. Beat Armenia, tied Canada, Belgium, and Russia, but did drop one to Romania. Still, heading the group feels great!

Probably the starting lineup.
The lineup looks like this: Sifakis, Papastathopoulos, Torosidis—though we might have to watch him closely since that knee injury from the friendly against the national team is still a bit sketchy—Papadopoulos, Tzavellas, Salpingidis, Fetfatzidis, Maniatis, Fotakis, Gekas, and Samaras.

Ninis is dealing with a shoulder injury, but don't sweat it—looks like he'll be back in action before you know it!

Greece has only tasted defeat once in their last 21 games. Talk about an absolute powerhouse!

USA!

So, how did they even make it to the championship?
They locked in that direct qualification spot by hosting the tournament. Looking at the stats, the US played four friendlies this year. They took wins against Andorra, Slovakia, and Latvia, plus a draw against Portugal. Not a single goal conceded in any of those matches! (If you count that last one against Canada back in 2011, the streak holds up). So, over the last five games, they’re averaging 1.4 goals per match. But hey, if you strip out that blowout win against Andorra? That average drops all the way down to 0.75 over their last four. Tight defense!

Looks like we’ve got our probable starting lineup!
The lineup's looking solid! Think of it like this: Szczęsny holding down the net, then you’ve got Piszczek, Wasilewski, Boenisch, and Perquis locking down the defense. In the midfield, it's Błaszczykowski, Obraniak, Dudka, and Polanski pulling the strings. And up front? You've got Lewandowski and Sobiech leading the charge. A powerhouse squad right there!

Questionable fitness levels here. He’s been battling that elbow injury since March, so he's still getting back into the swing of things. He suited up for the game against Puerto Rico, but let's be real—he wasn't quite at 100% yet.

The Americans have been on fire! They’ve only dropped a single game out of their last twelve. Talk about a winning streak!

The forecast! Here we go!

This game points to one thing: low scoring. The Americans aren't going to rush out and leave themselves wide open. Both squads build their entire identity around a lockdown defense. Like I said before, the Americans haven't conceded a single goal in their last five matches, and the Greeks—well, aside from when they played England or Spain—allowed the fewest shots on target of anyone in the qualifiers. Their strikers just aren't clinical, unless they're playing against bottom-tier teams. Remember back in 2008? The Americans were painfully inefficient, with only a tiny 2.6% shot conversion rate. And the Greeks? They scored the fewest goals of any team that actually made it to the Euros. All those recent friendlies tell the exact same story. I’ll give a slight edge to the Americans because they're playing at home, but honestly? Not enough to put my money on them.

My picks:

Poland vs. Greece — Under 2.5 goals @ 1.50. Think of it like a defensive standoff between two heavyweights; nobody's looking to open up the floodgates here. Just a tight, low-scoring grind.
Greece isn't scoring? Grab that at 2.20! It's a steal.

redbear6 said:Nice job with the fake news—all it did was cost me a single Colon win on my parlay!!!
I'd love to know which bottom-tier sites are pumping out this garbage info...

http://www.afa.org.ar/datafactory/fi...ha0128438.html

It wasn't misinformation. None of those guys even played. Look, I've said it a million times already: it’s anyone's guess how much any of these players actually matter to the team. You can't just bet the house based on this stuff. If they had actually played, I definitely wouldn't be saying thanks, but instead 🤷
You copied it, you're the one at fault, not him...