Big changes coming soon.

Graham · May 19,2004, 10:15 AM

Sorry I havent been around here guys. Looks like Scotty is doing a good job in my place though

Just wanted to make you all aware that there are going to be some very big changes to the site's appearance and even name taking place. Believe me, I've been working a lot while not being here

Pokerforum.ca is merging with another site under a new name, (but you'll still be able to get here by typing pokerforum.ca of course) You're going to like it. I can assure you that much

This forum will be transported into the new site, and no posts will be lost.

It's a fair amount of work to do yet between myself and the site that I'm merging with, so there isn't a specific date set yet...and it's proven difficult to collaborate with the owner of the other site because he's in the USA and we've never met in person!

more to follow. 8)

Systine · May 19,2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

because he's in the USA

Will it still be Canadian focused?

Dan808 · May 19,2004, 11:35 AM

yeah, systine, that was my first thought too.
because it's nice to have a place all our own

we'll see, but if sloth says we'll like it, i'm sure we will

ConfusedONE · May 19,2004, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Systine

Quote:

because he's in the USA

Will it still be Canadian focused?

i hope i hope :shock: :shock: :shock:

ScottyZ · May 19,2004, 12:58 PM

Here's the thing.

This is an internet forum.

Unless an internet forum is heavily moderated (which this one is currently not, I think), you can't really say it is any particular *kind* of forum. For example, a Canadian forum. Or a poker forum. Possibly a Canadian poker forum.

There have been quite a few posts about poker here, and quite a few about poker of specific interest to Canadians.

There have been quite a few posts which have has absolutely nothing to do with poker in general, or poker in Canada.

In the end, the forum will be what the posters want it to be. If the posters want a Canadian poker forum, it will be that. If posters want it to be a forum filled with bad beat stories and online poker consipracy theories, it will degenerate into such a forum. If posters want it to be a forum about monkeys, then, for the love of monkeys, it will surely turn into www.monkeyforum.ca

A change in domain name, or server location will not change the forum content. Merging this forum with another forum certainly *could* change the forum content, but I'm sure that Sloth has made a wise decision in this regard.

If this *was* actually some kind of heavily moderated forum strictly about Canadian poker, there would theoretically be no discussion about:

1. Online poker

2. The NBA playoffs

3. Poker at the Turning Stone casino

4. Where a nice place to play poker in Vegas is

5. Monkeys

all of which might actually be of interest to some Canadian poker players. (Especially #5)

So, don't panic. 8)

It's an internet forum now, it will be an internet forum after whatever changes Sloth has in mind.

Quote:

Will it still be Canadian focused?

Answer: If posters want it to be.

ScottyZ

all_aces · May 19,2004, 01:48 PM

I fear change.

Graham · May 19,2004, 02:14 PM

Nothing to fear gents. I really love the Canadian focous. If anything, when you first click on "forum" there will then be a choice for "Canadian poker talk" and "US poker talk" and a "general hangout" for everything else in between. I realize it will segregate(sp?) the members, but I think there is a need/want to keep things "zoned" in this way.

HellmuthFan · May 19,2004, 02:21 PM

It should make for some awesome US vs. Canada poker tournaments

And with the talent in here I fear not 8)

TreC · May 19,2004, 03:02 PM

Can't wait to see it

ScottyZ · May 19,2004, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by all_aces

I fear change.

You should change that point of view.

ScottyZ

all_aces · May 19,2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

You should change that point of view.

Lol. I would, but... :lol:

In all seriousness, I embrace change in general. At the same time, my immediate impressions of forthcoming changes to this site are: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

But, it sounds as though the 'new' format will in fact make for a better, broader discussion of the topics we've shown interest in discussing. Basically, we lose nothing and gain potentially a lot, from the sounds of it.

And as HellmuthFan pointed out, it should make for some good cross-border tournaments indeed.

Let's get a general feeling of anti-Americanism started now, just so we're ready to be belligerent, come the merge.

Regards,
all_aces

ScottyZ · May 19,2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottyZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by all_aces

I fear change.

You should change that point of view.

ScottyZ

Quote:

Lol. I would, but...

Hehe, that wasn't supposed to be some kind of attitude adjustment suggestion. I was just trying to scare you.

Cashier: "And 36 cents is your change, sir."

all_aces: "Change? AAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!" [runs away pulling out hair]

ScottyZ

all_aces · May 19,2004, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Cashier: "And 36 cents is your change, sir."

all_aces: "Change? AAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!" [runs away pulling out hair]

My girlfriend just happened by, and read this passage over my shoulder. Imagine trying to explain to someone how we arrived at this scenario.

If it was, like, 5 cents, I'd be OK with it. But 36 is much, much, too much. As a matter of fact, with the new Ontario tax laws, 36 cents sounds like how much I'll be getting back from a ten for a pack of smokes, or from a fifty for a case of beer.

:cry:

These sin taxes are killing me. I sin a lot. At least our government, in its wisdom, isn't taxing gambling winnings. I really don't understand how the people of America can let their government make an absolute fortune from casino profits, and then let them tax them on the winnings, should there be any!!!

Just trying to get the ball rolling....

Regards,
all_aces

ConfusedONE · May 19,2004, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by all_aces

I fear change.

time to go hide :shock: with them monkeys :shock:

ScottyZ · May 19,2004, 04:21 PM

Quote:

At least our government, in its wisdom, isn't taxing gambling winnings.

Well, instead of taxing the winnings, they take a much simpler approach and just *own* the casinos. (At least, this is so in Ontario.) They make quite a bit more money that way. 8)

Well, now that I think of it, publicly owned casinos might not even be the optimal way to maximize government revenue. I'll bet the state of Nevada takes in far more tax revenue from the corporate taxes alone on their casinos than the total amount of gross profit from all of Ontario's casinos combined.

Quote:

As a matter of fact, with the new Ontario tax laws...

I've always found taxation of cigarettes strange. Hey, we need more money for health care to treat bazillions of people with various lung diseases. How do we solve this problem? Ban cigarettes? Nah, let's just jack up the price of cigarettes via taxes instead. But, shucks, now we have loads of unhealthy people with even *less* money than usual. I wonder if this will increase the costs of government health care? Darn, it probably will. No problem, we can just increase taxes. Hmmm... where can we increase taxes... [repeat ad idiocy]

Wouldn't it smarter to ban cigarettes and issue more healthy nicotine sources instead at an equivalent (or lower) price? This is supposedly an age of modern technology, so why do we still have to use the same nicotine delivery system that was used in the 1600's? Give people the part they want, not the part that kills them.

I already know how to market it:

"Less of what you don't want, more of what you want."

BTW, just in case any smokers are fuming at this point [ba dum pish!], I'm not trying to be anti-cigarette or anything like that. I was just trying to make a point that it's silly to slap taxes on products which are addictive and as justification, somehow imply that these products are optional. You can't pass something off as a "sin tax" when a significant proportion of your population is physically addicted to the product you're taxing, and there is no alternative product (in the same price range) available. I guess the government just won't be very popular calling it something more accurate, like an "addiction tax".

ScottyZ