PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

To Freddie, Bruno, Hazy & all

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • To Freddie, Bruno, Hazy & all

    Pokergoddess writes (in part):

    Why have Freddie and Bruno decided to end their broadcasts? Personally, I think we can attribute it to an affront on Freddies prsonal integrity.

    My input:

    I would like to go on record as saying that I never, ever intended an affront to anyone's integrity, and have made statements to that effect in more than one post. If anyone got that from what I wrote, that is regrettable, but it was certainly not my intention.

    I brought up an important issue, stated my views, and laid it open for discussion. Unfortunately, I am now thrust into a situation where I feel very confident about the issue and, at the same time, utterly wretched for bringing it up in the first place.

    I believe that one of the most precious things we possess in the great United States of America is our right to voice a dissenting opinion. Debate provokes thought, and change for the better is often wrought through the heat of discourse. Obviously, there is inherent in dispute the possibility that the parties will just agree to disagree, and I am aware of and accept that. Que sera, sera.

    May the meat of this discussion redouble the broadcasters' determination to present the best show possible for the fans who love them. No one wants them to quit broadcasting, including me. I never suggested that, and I truly hope that is not the case.

    Once again, I emphasize that I never doubted anyone's integrity or intentions in this matter. I only pointed out something that seemed crystal clear to me, but that apparently no one else had brought up yet.

    Freddie, I hope to be tuning in to another great broadcast soon. BAM!! KICK IT UP A NOTCH!!!!!

    All the best in the coming New Year! / RR

  • #2
    Rita,
    I don't think anyone intended that you were responsible for what I PERSONALLY *this was not anything I got from Freddie* thought about how Freddie must now feel about the position he is in. As a matter of fact, Freddie wasn't even the one who made the comment that has been discussed and rediscussed...but, the show bares his name, and therefore I think *again, my personal opinion* that he feels he shoulders the responsibility for what transpired, on the broadcast.
    You are right, about discussion and the possibility of non resolution...we can agree to disagree. Freddie has stated his belief on the subject and has those who agree with him, as well do you on your point. But, I also can understand that now, Freddie might feel like he would be hampered in his enjoyment of what he was doing, having to constantly wonder if a remark made by hisself or someone else on the broadcast was going to offend someone. After all, since this is a new frontier, and there are no hard and fast rules for what can be considered right or wrong, ethical, or nonethical, and the mainstream rules of B&M poker do not neccessarily apply, where do you go and where do you stop? Yes, you can say agian..."you don't talk about a hand while in play", BUT, does that mean, for example, you don't say..."Mr.X is a short stack and has raised Mr Y, who has him outchipped by 5 to 1" ? After all, Mr Y may not have noticed that Mr X has a short stack. Is that giving information? Or, is it O.K to say, for example, " Ms A has raised UTG here, the last time she did that she showed down a 2/7o on a bluff steal attempt..." Giving information? I hope you can see, that it leaves so much open that anyone can pick apart, that it takes away from the whole intent and experience of a "radio" broadcast. The other aspect is the logistics of the venue. Internet poker moves VERY fast, especially near the end of an event. I have had the opportunity to attempt to give some last 2 or 3 table coverage with Freddie and Bruno, and by the time you get the first sentence said, the hand has played out, and you've gone to the next one. You don't have the leisure of time, where the cards are handled by the dealer, for analyzing. This "on the fly" censoring is much more difficult than it may appear.
    I do know that your postion seemed "crystal clear" to you, but it's not as crystal clear as maybe it appeared to be, as the "one player per hand rule" you cited, just absolutely has no relavence in this particular situation. So maybe there is more grey area than thought at first glance?
    Please believe, that I am NOT trying to beat a dead horse here. I am only attempting to hopefully explore the positions here, that we may all learn and grow from this and hopefully keep in tact a very valuable part of PSO, with most importantly, no hurt feelings.

    The best in the New Year for you too....and all the PSOers!

    8O

    'Goddess

    Comment


    • #3
      Rita I have read all of your posts & I believe all you did was express your opinion with nothing but class and integrity. You do have a valid point, but it seems as if everyone will just have to agree to disagree as you said. If Freddie does cancel his show I believe in no way that it was your fault or your doing. You are a great player and I look forward to playing with you in the future.

      P.S. Congrats on your finish in TBO 2 you played great at the final table.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: To Freddie, Bruno, Hazy & all

        Originally posted by Rio Rita
        I believe that one of the most precious things we possess in the great United States of America is our right to voice a dissenting opinion. Debate provokes thought, and change for the better is often wrought through the heat of discourse. Obviously, there is inherent in dispute the possibility that the parties will just agree to disagree, and I am aware of and accept that. Que sera, sera.
        Another most "precious thing" (I prefer to call them priviledges) is our right to freedom of speech.

        It always amazes me how people can attempt to deny the rights of others and then shield themselves by standing behind the very instument with which they originally attacked.

        The Jam and Guava Nectar have spoiled, Dreams.

        Comment


        • #5
          I amazes and disgusts me that some seemingly intelligent poker players have such a mis-guided concept of free speech, more rightly called "Freedom of Expression".

          The broadest application, as many here seem to favor, leads to complete and utter anarchy? Freedom of expression is only ONE right and it MUST NOT intrude on others. Everything must be in balance.

          Do not cardrooms have limits on speech? Are "English Only" and "No Cursing" rules a limit to free speech? By the standards some have support they must be. However, they serve a greater good of promoting a fair and equitable playing environment.

          Even PSO has limits on what can be said (ok, typed) in the chat window. As PSO must provide a fair and equitable playing environment as well such limits are allowed, even expected. Since the broadcasts are not possible without the PSO games, I shall continue to contend that PSO, and only PSO, has the right to establish the guidelines for such broadcasts. And as with their chat gudelines I feel that they are obligated to insure that these broadcasts do not in any way intrude on a fair and equitable playing environment.

          Comment


          • #6
            I have the "right" speak any language I want or cuss as loud as I want in any cardroom.

            AND

            Any cardroom has the "right" to refuse my business and have me removed from their establishment.


            Most cardrooms have made this into a clear action/consequence situation. If your action fails to meet their parameters......the consequence is you will be removed.

            The only way (i see) this could be applied to the PSO/Broadcast situation is to eliminate access to PSO of those who fail to meet the "guidelines" for broadcasts. Basically cancel the offending member's account. This would force the more determined broadcasters to go incoqnito and go on air without revealing their true identity.

            Problems for PSO and problems for those who wish to broadcast. Is there a balance that would "serve the greater good"?









            Disclaimer:
            I obviously stayed away from the actual "debate" over what should or shouldnt be discussed during play and went for a different approach on a related topic. If my ramblings seem incoherrent this is due to the fact I have been awake for some 32 hours....having spent half of that time driving. Gotta love the Holidays!

            Comment

            Working...
            X