Bring back Maverick74

Bravo! Get rid of chit chat so people can learn to trade.

 

Yes, he is. But.....

While I appreciate that Baron has some almost impossible decisions to make at times, I think here he has not taken Maverick the person into consideration the way he should have. Maverick was banned when his words and actions were so far less serious than so many others we have seen.

Even this very thread itself is just another example of how quickly threads get "hijacked" or go so far off topic as to make the topic seem lost in the thread. Look at the excellent point "Spec8or" made a few posts back.

This is what happened in the thread in which Maverick and Waggie got so carried away. I saw the first few posts, decided I had no interest in following the thread, and when I happened to stumble back in so many pages later, I had NO IDEA AT ALL what the thread was about by that point. Let alone how the thing deteriorated into the flame war between Maverick and Waggie. It all seemed so out of context to me. (It was).

Not until after Maverick was banned, (it was brought to my attention by Pabst starting this thread), did I even try and read the posts to get a feel for how the thing evolved to what it became. And even so, having seen the (somewhat illogical to me) progression of what led to what, have we not seen far worse before? Without the result of a banning?

Baron, I implore you to let Maverick have his right to post under his real identity. His very blatant attempt to post as "Goose" seemed to me to make a good point. He could have certainly used subterfuge to come back, but he did not. He made it very clear that he was just using a new alias. He could have done it differently, but he did not. He was up front and blatant. He made his statement (which seemed basically to just thank those who showed support), and that was that. He did NOT use the alias to further his position in his "war" with Waggie. Nor did he in any other way attempt to abuse the possibilities inherent in assuming a new alias. Another thing we have seen countless times.

Maverick has been a consistent contributor to trading threads. While he has made a vast number of “chit chat” posts, and virtually all of them in support of his political beliefs, he has been quite constrained and civilized over-all. If he went too far with Waggie, it was not characteristic of his general behavior. And his GENERAL BEHAVIOR should count for a LOT.

He has never before (to my knowledge) made offensive personal attacks that were in any way really hurtful. Maverick has butted heads with me consistently. He even started a thread entitled “Maverick and Error Only”…to ostensibly argue with me one on one. Yet while he disagreed with me to such an extent that he felt compelled to start a “private” thread to “fight” with me, he was always respectful enough. He may have said that my beliefs were “stupid” . Maybe he even said that I was “stupid”. But so what? “Sticks and stones”, etc. We have seen so many instances of people being verbally abusive that were really in bad taste. References to lineage, etc.

His “threat” to go search public records to humiliate Waggie seemed somewhat extreme. But he did NOT do it. And I don’t believe he actually would have. In real life, every day millions of people say “I’m going to kill you if (fill in the blanks)”. But some threats are just so many meaningless words. However, even though I do believe that Mav did get carried away with this issue and should have dropped it after mentioning it once (he shouldn’t have mentioned it at all) again, we have seen so much worse here on ET. This hardly even registers on the “crossing the line” gauge.

Furthermore, there have been real instances of ET members actually becoming so obsessed with other members and in fact going through public records, and also doing internet searches on other members, posting personal info, and yet they were not banned. We have seen complaints about this kind of behavior in the past, yet no “punitive” action was taken against the perpetrators of this kind of obsession (to my knowledge).

If Maverick was banned for posting in “poor taste”, again, we have seen so much worse that there can be no comparison.

Earlier in this very same thread, I made this point already. I specifically called attention to the thread about “torturing harmless animals”, which was, whether written tongue in cheek (which I assume was the case), or written with serious intent (which would be REALLY perverse), the thread was, no matter what the motivation, just generally of no value at best, very offensive at worst which seemed to be the real intent…just to stir up conflict. Eventually that thread degenerated into having pornographic photos inserted.

Do I think the people who contributed to and pushed the thread over the edge should be banned? No…freedom of expression and the fact that the posts, while offensive did not in any way harm anyone should be enough reason to NOT cause the banning of anyone. But this is a TRADING forum. While “chit chat” exists because “there is more to life than trading”, still there should be some kind of boundaries. (There is a difference between censorship and boundaries IMO).

So if “bad taste” is an issue, then the “torturing animals” thread is the high water mark (or “low” as the case may be) of what is allowed I suppose. And certainly the moderators could moderate.

Just as they could have in the thread in which Maverick was banned for posting. If what he said was so offensive, then why wasn’t’ the thread just closed? Or deleted completely (we have seen this done in the past).

Or the posts that were deemed so odious as to cause his being banned could have just been deleted and Maverick could have been warned. As we ALSO have seen in the past.

Why is the way “moderating” done so inconsistent? I understand it is not an easy job. But whatever the standards are, can’t they be upheld with some level of uniformity? I know that even trying to be consistent here is next to impossible because the nature of what is and is not offensive or intolerable is, beyond some clearly stated “rules” always going to be somewhat subjective. But still, there are ways to preempt the kind of thing that happened here. Again, we have seen this done innumerable times.

If, as was said, Waggie threatened a legal action against ET if Maverick was not banned, was this “blackmail” not at least as equally onerous as whatever Maverick did? Why was Waggie not banned? Where is the evenhandedness in policy in a case of banning?

Baron, I have before stated my admiration for the way you run ET. I am frankly surprised and disappointed in this error as I see it.

I feel that I am qualified to make this plea on behalf of Maverick because I admit to being guilty of probably every kind of transgression one can make here (although I would never even think about going through public records as was threatened..but it HAS been done as mentioned).

Also, whether you have followed what has transpired or not, you can easily see (if you have the patience or even the will to know) that Maverick and I have been longstanding adversaries. He has challenged my beliefs on virtually every single issue you can imagine regarding politics, morality, economics, and even racial stereotyping. Yet NEVER did I ever feel that Maverick came close to being “ungentlemanly”. Disagreeable, yes. Subjectively offensive? Yes. But objectively and blatantly so? No, not at all.

So whatever set him off with Waggie, well it was not characteristic of his general behavior. Which, again, I believe should be taken into consideration.

No one needs to point out instances of ET members who do not contribute but to instigate conflict. There are too many instances to even begin to list.

One case has always stood out to me A high school kid came on to ET asking for advice. (He stated he was 16 or 17). He was advised by one member to quit school and start trading. Another member advised this same kid to start using steroids.

Here we have an example of supposed grown adults intentionally trying to influence a child to screw up his life. To me this was a serious breach of the spirit of ET. And a major screw up by the moderators (assuming the thread was attended by a moderator at the time….I understand it is almost an impossible task to truly “moderate” with anything approaching full effectiveness).

But the point is, real mal intent was ignored. Here, in Maverick’s case, tempers flared, things were said that should not have been, but in the bigger picture, Maverick was treated unfairly if equal treatment and evenhandedness are used to define “fair”.

I hope you will reconsider the ban. I know there must be something you want from Maverick or from Waggie. I don't know what was said by you or by them in your exchanges. I only know what is has been posted here.

So I write this from the perspective of someone who sees only what is on the surface. Certainly I am respectful enough of you (Baron) to know after a few years of watching and listening that you make your decisions using good judgment and an open mind. But it appears this time that you have miscalculated.

You explained nicely in general terms why Maverick was banned..

But it still seems severe for what appears to be a far lesser transgression than so many we have witnessed,

Why not just let Maverick back on?. Let him make his apologies for the commission of his “crimes”, and move on.

Peace,
RS

 

Naaahh.....Keep chit chat. Just don't count the posts in a member's total. I think people have time to hang out here and exchange ideas because they already know how to trade. (O.K., not all of them.) Can't study 24 hours a day.

 

RS....

Very eloquent writing. HOWEVER, Maverick went way over the line. It's not so much a question of whether Maverick did worse than someone else. Fact is, he went waaay out of bounds. So, he has to be punished, at least a little. But, I agree, he's not the only one. Last time I got a speeding ticket, I was cited for 42 in a 35. Now, some other guy probably got a ticket for 52 in a 35. But, of course, the fact is, we were both speeding. So, I agree with you that Waggie should have been banned, also.

Additionally, as I understand it, Baron has only made the ban temporary. Fair enough. We all make mistakes. But, again, yeah, he should have put the hammer down on wag also. If it was up to me, I'd certainly let him (Mav) come back using the same nickname, if he so chose.

Moderating everything around here is a full time job. Overall, I think we could agree that Baron and his moderators do a very reasonable job. When things get really out of line, I've noticed some folks being brought back into general compliance in a pretty evenhanded way.

 

What a crybaby-whiner. They probably weren't banned because the accuser was determined generally to be full of hot air most of the time and had no credibility.

If any poster should be banned for "obsession," it's you RS7; clearly you're obsessed with yourself.

 

Looks Like these Quotes were the beginning to the End!!! I say someone is being liar to us !!!

QUOTE]Quote from waggie945: 4/13/04

Gee Mav, thanks so much for telling me from your piously high pedestal that you were at the World Trade Center, and I was not.

Also thanks for letting me know that I was not a victim.
Perhaps you might want to tell that to the family of my best man and my father-in-law. [/QUOTE]

 

Yup, I think that Baron AND the moderators do a generally super job.

And Baron has always seemed to be exceptionally evenhanded.

It was therefore sort of shocking to me that this unfolded the way it did.

Maverick was wrong, but so was Waggie. As we agree, they both should have been banned, or both admonished, or both given a pass.

I was told that the way it is now, Maverick is expected to make an apology to Waggie. If Waggie keeps himself scarce (and there is no way to know he isn't just using a different alias), then really, it seems like Maverick is sort of being held "hostage".

I suppose Maverick could easily enough come on using a different alias. But he was a stand up guy and used "Goose" very transparently to make his statement, and there was no subterfuge. He was up front about what he did, and now it seems to me that he should be given the opportunity to come back as himself. If that is what he even wants. A whole other issue....who knows if he even wants to come back at all?

But if he does, I believe that he is the kind of guy that would not want to hide behind another alias.

All my opinion. My observation of Baron over the past two years or so leaves room for some doubt about the whole issue for me.

I have never thought Baron was anything but exceptionally fair. So either there is more to this than I know, or Baron is just human and made a mistake like we all do on occasion. If this is the case, I am sure he will rectify the situation. Maybe he was just having a bad day like Aphie was having when he was at Starbucks the other night

Peace,
RS

 

Since the markets have now closed for the day, and I have read some of the earlier posts with much amusement, I would simply like to remind people here on this thread that it was not I who asked for Maverick to repeatedly PM me after I had told him that he was on "ignore", nor was it I that posted the highly slanderous and inflammatory gay websites with my real name attached last Friday night, not was it I that threatened Baron and ET with legal action if Maverick was not banned from ET.

In fact, given Baron's earlier post on this thread about what REALLY HAPPENED, it is very easy to see that Maverick created the lie about me threatening legal action against Baron and ET unless Maverick was banned. If some of you don't want to accept that reality and Baron's own statement, then so be it.

As Baron mentioned earlier, the thread that Maverick had posted "violated more terms of our member agreement in a single post than I've ever seen. So he was banned for no other reason than the content of his own post."

It is apparent that not just I, but others as well on ET such as Baron blieve that Maverick needs to be held accountable for his actions. While I am not going to pass judgement on the numerous e-mails that I have received from Maverick, (since he was banned) Iwill disclose and make the point that Maverick never once apologized to me for his malicious post of last Friday night, which as Baron stated, was "totally OVER THE LINE."

He had several opportunities to apologize, but for some bizarre reason he has failed to do so. While I do not feel that it would be constructive to share with ET members the content of his e-mails to me, I will say that they were anything but "apologetic" in tone, and showed no accountability, responsibility, or remorse whatsoever.

That being said, I will however share a PM that I sent to Maverick in the following post;sharing with you my thoughts and feelings about what happened. I will also say that from this point forward I have no further desire to comment on this issue. I believe that I have already spent far too much of my time addressing what happened last Friday night, and I really don't feel that it would be constructive for myself to continue speaking on this subject.

I truly believe that most of us are here to exchange ideas on various topics, including how to make money trading in the financial markets. To that end, I wish everyone the best of luck!

 

Maverick,

I must say that I have a hard time rationalizing your highly "inflammatory" attack on me with the websites that you posted last Friday night. Moreover, for some bizarre reason, you appear to be totally unaccountable for your actions, offer NO APOLOGY whatsoever, and are at a total loss as to why Baron would want to ban you from ET. Given the fact that you had already posted my phone number and address on ET last year, did you somehow think that your posting such a malicious thread with those websites was in "good" taste too?

Seriously Mav, you appear to have a pretty distorted sense of reality and responsibility in this.

By the way, I have never posted your NAME on ET because the fact of the matter is that I don't know what your name is. Furthermore, I dare anyone ( including Baron ) to do a search on ET and find this totally erroneous allegation of yours to be supported by fact. Secondly, why does it hurt your ego so much that I mistakenly had you mixed up with TM-Direct who works in operations of a daytrading shop in Florida? Why is this such a big deal? It has nothing to do with spreading "lies" as you say, and I find your REACTION to such a thing to be highly emotional and tremendously insecure and defensive. I was mistaken. Enough said. But yet your reaction is as if someone had just kidnaped your first born, for Christ's sake!

Moreover, you are sadly mistaken if you think that I "threatened" to shut down Baron's ET unless you were banned from his website. My phone calls to Baron had nothing to do with you being banned. That was HIS decision.

Again, the fact of the matter is that I called Baron at 10:10PM and once more at 11:00PM at night, Eastern Standard Time last Friday to make sure that your thread would be DELETED. Did you somehow think that posting such malicious garbage and foul language was something that I would be comfortable with, or Baron for that matter? Yes, I also threatened legal action should that thread of yours not get deleted. Who wouldn't have? It was my only recourse at the time that ensured that thread's deletion. Thus, I never asked Baron to ban you. That was his decision.

I must say that I found your thread to be highly immature, unprofessional, inflammatory, and slanderous to say the least. It wasn't funny at all, and several other members of ET PM'd me to tell me as much. The foul language that was printed on those websites was obviously enough all by itself to have Baron ban you from ET. If you can't see this, I'm sorry. You obviously don't wish to be ACCOUNTABLE for your own actions.

As for your behavior towards me in the past, you seem to conveniently forget that you had posted my business phone number and address on ET. Thus, it is not like your attack on me last Friday night was the first time that you decided to show how malicious you are.

In the end, I'm sure that Baron would tell you that being a member of ET is a privilege. Yet, you have obviously gone out of your way to abuse that privilege with your actions regarding me. Furthermore, it is also quite puzzling to myself and Baron that you feel such a need to "set the record" straight, as if there are some "extenuating circumstances" that make you unaccountable for your malicious behavior.

I don't get it, and I don't think Baron does either.
Did someone "force" you to post what you did last Friday night?
Did they hold a gun to your head to force you to choose to be so malicious?

Again, I don't get your behavior.

Yes, I lost loved ones in the attack of the WTC on 911. But why you feel that my family life and my personal life is YOUR business is absolutely beyond me, and it is also beyond comprehension of many of those that frequent ET, as I have received many PM's from members such as Riskarb that have asked me to simply put you on "ignore".

I have spoken to "Volume" and "Pabst" via telephone on half a dozen occasions, but I can assure you that 100% of those conversations were about the markets, and not my family life.

In fact, I really don't see what the point of discussing one's personal life on a public, anonymous message board would be. In my book, it simply is not appropriate, and in my case even more inappropriate than I care to even discuss with you or anyone else in cyberspace. In fact, in the 10 years of my floor trading career back in NYC I can count on one hand how many times I went out for drinks after work with other traders. It just doesn't happen. Business is business. Family life is family life. Most people I know separate the two. Period.

Again, I am at a loss as to why you had printed my phone number and address on ET last year, let alone the posting of those highly inflammatory websites last Friday night. Your PM to me offered no apology whatsoever, and in fact the part about your "need" to "set the record straight" was particularly bizarre. I didn't know that we were running for office in cyberspace. What is it that you could possibly say that would JUSTIFY your behavior last Friday night?

Quite frankly, your unaccountability in this matter is very telling.
Your "cheap-shot" about me staying out of Chit-Chat for my New Year's Resolution smacks of tremendous insincerity. It expresses to me that you feel no responsibility whatsoever in your actions. It also tells me that you have the biggest ego that I have ever come across, and that you lack a tremendous amount of class. Five times in your PM to me you used the phrase "I don't care". That, in and of itself is quite telling and as a result I find no genuine sincerity in your PM. Any rationale and reasonable human being that has an ounce of dignity would see that they were wrong in behaving the way that you did last Friday night. But no, not you.

When all is said and done, I'm not really sure that I need to understand someone that is as malicious as you. I have already spent a tremendous amount of time dealing with this than I care to, or for that matter, need to. You have attacked me in a malicious manner not once, but twice now, and to be quite honest I see nothing from your PM that would lead me to believe that you are capable of anything else in the future. You obviously have a very unhealthy obsession with me, and I find it extremely strange given the fact that we have never met.

You have made a significant mistake that in my opinion cannot be corrected, and I do not forgive you for it. Perhaps next time you will put your huge ego aside and “check” yourself before you do something as stupid and unfortunate as you did last Friday night.

But I am not your teacher. That will be left up to you.

Good Luck!

Waggie

 

Amazing .....