Label the Cheats and Don't Remove That Designation

[BluffTHIS!]

In the ZJ cheater thread on the MTT forum, a poster or two has objected to mod AZK's action of putting the label "CHEATER" on ZeeJustin. AZK did it for amusement, but I think it should be left there and also done to JJProdigy's account as well for a serious reason. And that is so that other readers of their posts, not realizing perhaps that they are cheats, won't accept for correct advice that which there is a good chance only worked in reality by dint of cheating.

Plus, any poster here while certainly not having to live up to a morals clause of the T&C, still should be an honest and ethical player online and in the B&M world for himself to have any respect and credence here. And this is especially when they won't take full responsibility for their actions and insist on partial justifications or maintaining an online site went too far in punishing their cheating.

So label those two and any further 2+2ers who are caught with the CHEATER label. Or just make it a scarlet <font color="red"> C </font>.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
So label those two and any further 2+2ers who are caught with the CHEATER label. Or just make it a scarlet C .

[/ QUOTE ]

hear hear

RB

[Dynasty]

I agree and will say so in the mod forum thread.

[beset]

YES

[Dane S]

Whatever...I posted my thoughts in the MTT thread. If you guys all want to extend OOT style idiocy of modding to every forum then go for it.

[BluffTHIS!]

Hey like I said there as well, there is a serious reason to because strategy advice they have given in the past may really only have worked by cheating. So readers should be warned to take anything they have said in the past with a grain of salt.

And if those guys actually took FULL RESPONSIBILITY and stopped with the lame-ass excuses, then they could be rehabilitate perhaps with a <font color="red">REFORMED CHEATER</font> label and then after more time has passed a normal designation.

[NoahSD]

Quite simply not the purpose of this forum, and certainly not the purpose of the mods on this forum.

I really don't think there's anything else to say about this.

[kickabuck]

Bluff,

First rate suggestion, I couldn't agree more.

[MicroBob]

I disagree with the idea.

Should we label any bad affiliates in such a manner?

Should we label anyone who has two accounts at the same site for bonus-purposes but has never been caught cheating or anything?

Should we just start labeling people who give really bad strategy advice?


What if I post a questionable live-hand situation that happened quickly and somebody decided that I was actually doing a fairly unethical angle-shoot?


I just don't think this kind of title-giving is appropriate for 2+2.


My opinion only on this....if other posters and other mods disagree with my feelings about this suggestion then that's fine.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey like I said there as well, there is a serious reason to because strategy advice they have given in the past may really only have worked by cheating. So readers should be warned to take anything they have said in the past with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]
Let's make everyone submit PT stats to the mods too. Anyone who is a losing player has "loser" as their title. So readers should be warned to take anything they have said in the past with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]

[send_the_msg]

i don't think jj or zee will be returning to 2p2 after this...

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey like I said there as well, there is a serious reason to because strategy advice they have given in the past may really only have worked by cheating. So readers should be warned to take anything they have said in the past with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]
Let's make everyone submit PT stats to the mods too. Anyone who is a losing player has "loser" as their title. So readers should be warned to take anything they have said in the past with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Alex,

Touting yourself as a winner which is verified by others seeing tourneys you won, is different from anonymous posters claiming they either are or aren't. ZJ clearly was a winner, and he clearly was a cheater. The cheating makes it much less likely his winning was due to sound poker play and thus less likely his advice in these forums in the past is correct. His high profile both in these forums and online with his website, is what makes his situation different. And that is a high profile he sought. This is no different than lying on a resume. If someone claimed to have graduated summa cum laude of his engineering class in college, and you later found out he never graduated, would you want others to know that fact when he kept giving engineering opinions?

[RedBean]

As much as I despise cheating, and the activity that ZJ took part in, this is not a realistic solution or implementation.

You may as well just make a blanket rule that you will ban cheaters from posting at all on 2+2 if you were to implement this, because no one in their right mind is going to continue being a productive and active member of the community with a label of "CHEATER" under their name in every post.

It is humiliation and denegration for the effect of driving them away, and if that is what the desired effect is, you may as well just not beat around the bush and ban the guy.

Of course, I don't necessarily think he should be banned either, as know one in their right mind will probably maintain the same "identity" and they would likely just resurface as another username, thus avoiding the scrutiny and any mod-imposed labels on their old names.

[William]

Good post and argumentation but maybe even easier would be to create a post telling everybody that this player has been caught cheating and ban him from the forums.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bob:

I agree with all your points. I don't think it is appropriate for us to do something like that and if we were to do it, where do you draw the line?

Best wishes,
Mason

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey like I said there as well, there is a serious reason to because strategy advice they have given in the past may really only have worked by cheating. So readers should be warned to take anything they have said in the past with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read all day.

On a somewhat unrelated note, someone in that thread also mentioned labeling people as Donkeys, and there was an argument about who was to be the judge of who is a Donkey. If I were to admit that I am a Donkey, would I get a Donkey title? I think that would be cool...!

[RunDownHouse]

All,

It seems some of you have forgotten that this is an internet forum. Calling his label change "malicious," "horrible," etc, is going way overboard. Also, if he doesn't like it, he's free to make another 2+2 account which will, presumably, be unmodified.

[Phil153]

Just ban them and make their title "Banned for Cheating". It's appropriate and not malicious.

[Exsubmariner]

Mason,
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Violations of the T&amp;C by entering multiple accounts in the same MTT is clearly cheating. That's where the line is. I don't even have a second account on Party so I can get rakeback, even though I closed my other one. But I hate Party anyway, so that's probably not the best example. Point is that I wouldn't do anything in violation of a sites T&amp;C's because I wouldn't want to jeapordize my ability to play there.

Labeling cheaters is probably not a great idea because now they know each other and can get together to figure out how to cheat better. This happening on 2+2 already, I'd be willing to bet on it. A flat out banning preceded by an official statement by red named moderators is probably the way to go.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bob:

I agree with all your points. I don't think it is appropriate for us to do something like that and if we were to do it, where do you draw the line?

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]


Mason,

Whether what I suggested by labeling, or what Exsub has by banning, is indeed not appropriate for many other things. But this topic involves the integrity of poker. Something that is vital for getting new players and retaining them. Why should such online or B&amp;M cheats have a haven on the 2+2 forums. At the very least they should be made to get anonymous accounts if they want to keep posting. And my point above about the advice of cheaters being tainted is very valid.

Where do you draw the line? That question isn't a reason to draw none, only to be conservative in drawing one. It's your site, you draw it. And draw it so the cheaters of the poker world are excluded from going by their own names or poker site handles in these forums.

Regards,

Bluff

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]

Alex,

Touting yourself as a winner which is verified by others seeing tourneys you won, is different from anonymous posters claiming they either are or aren't. ZJ clearly was a winner, and he clearly was a cheater. The cheating makes it much less likely his winning was due to sound poker play and thus less likely his advice in these forums in the past is correct. His high profile both in these forums and online with his website, is what makes his situation different. And that is a high profile he sought. This is no different than lying on a resume. If someone claimed to have graduated summa cum laude of his engineering class in college, and you later found out he never graduated, would you want others to know that fact when he kept giving engineering opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]
Being a cheater does not preclude someone from giving sound poker advice. In fact, I believe being a losing player doesn't preclude a person from giving good advice either. The best way to judge the quality of advice is not to look at the results of the poster, but to examine the logic behind it. Besides, it is very likely that ZJ's cheating has little effect on his winnings. By labeling him as a cheater, we may be missing out on some great advice from him in the future.

I understand your point about ZJ being a high-profile player. However, most people that know of ZJ will know that he cheated. On the other hand, the ones that don't know he cheated probably won't know he is a successful player. So I think this argument is somewhat irrelevant.

[BluffTHIS!]

Alex,

My point about the advice cheaters give in these forums is not that it cannot be correct, but that it is less likely to be so since such persons don't rely on such advice themselves as much as cheating to win.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bluff:

He doesn't have a haven on here. I'm sure that whenever he posts he'll be reminded of his actions and that will probably discourage him from posting. However, Mat and I will watch the situation and if necessary we'll make a decision.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Exsubmariner:

I don't know the answer. But Mat and I will be watching what happens and if necessary we'll make a decision.

Best wishes,
Mason

[KinkyKid]

This is ridiculous. There are many points in this thread against this thought.

1.) Should we label people who give bad advice, so we know that it might not be good?

2.) Part of the discourse of this forum is discussing alternates. So just because ZJ says so, it doesn't make it law. It didn't before he got caught, either.

3.) Breaking the T&amp;C...How many people here are getting rakeback at Party? Should they have some designation near their name?

4.) This site's purpose does not need to be to point out the people that cheated. Mason delves further into this.

5.) The people that thought/think these two big names were good players know what has gone down. The people that don't yet know of their cheating also probably don't know of their wins.

6.) [ QUOTE ]
And this is especially when they won't take full responsibility for their actions and insist on partial justifications or maintaining an online site went too far in punishing their cheating.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are doing this to aid the sites in punishing them for not taking full responsibility? Is this a joke? "Hey guys, until you fess up for everything you need a 'cheater' label." I'd feel like his mom or something.

7.) Banning? They haven't violated any clause here. I, and others, still find some of their thoughts helpful.

They both got what was coming to them from the poker sites and the subsequent public flogging. There may be more ramifications in the future, but it doesn't need to come in the form of some label from 2+2. I doubt either is ready to give up poker and they will just play like the rest of us. I say they just post like the rest of us too.

[Clarkmeister]

Considering that a very large number of posters have been given alternate titles by moderators (many of those against their will), I don't see why Cheater would be given a free pass. It's ok for Alex who posted in this thread to be given the mocking (but funny) "6 away from first" but NOT for ZJ to be given the deserved (and also funny) cheater?

You suggest that it's not appropriate for mods to do because "where is the line", but it's been pretty standard for them to change titles for quite some time. Basically, there is no line.

[BluffTHIS!]

KinkyKid,

I pointed out how cheating can be related to bad advice, and that when those cheaters have sought and made for themselves a high profile to where they are regarded as the best players, but in actuality aren't because they cheated their way there, then less savvy players who are not aware of their misdeeds but are aware of their high profile and esteem in which they were once held, need to be warned so as not to be misled by advice now more likely to be wrong.

As far as playing mommy and making them fess up totally, both of the cheaters in question came to these forums to use them in an attempt to explain away their actions without taking full responsibility. And they both lied about their motivations. So if they are going to come here and lie and make up lame excuses, then they should be required to set those things right or not post at all, at least not without a CHEATER/LIAR label.

Finally in regards to the T&amp;C, you are right that cheating online or violating other aspects of a site's or B&amp;M room's rules is not a violation of the T&amp;C of 2+2. But the T&amp;C does contain prohibitions against posts urging illegal activities, bit torrents being an example. Plus 2+2 has a well earned reputation for intellectual honesty and integrity in the advice they print that is second to none. So it is only natural, that as a concern that depends upon the poker economy, it should do all possible to help maintain the integrity of the games and of the posts here, so that new and existing players are not scared away.

This all indeed comes down to a judgement call as Mason has said, and he has said that he and Matt will make one if necessary. I and others here have tried to show why it is necessary. And as this is a commercial site, none of us has a "right" to post here at all, let alone with the assumption of being an honest poker player who tries to give sound advice. So those cheaters can in no way say that they have rights that are being violated. What I and Exsub have advocated is just a small way in which we believe 2+2 can help promote integrity in poker for the long term.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

It seems some of you have forgotten that this is an internet forum. Calling his label change "malicious," "horrible," etc, is going way overboard. Also, if he doesn't like it, he's free to make another 2+2 account which will, presumably, be unmodified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this attitude that insults hurled over the internet are somehow not real or substantial is pretty irresponsible. There is a real person behind each avatar and forum persona who has feelings and wants acceptance. There isn't any difference between demeaning a person on-line anonymously and demeaning him to his or her face--the former is just easier for most people because they are afraid of actual confrontation.

What I want to say I guess is that I think attacks on ZJ's actions or his twisted understanding of those actions are perfectly justified, but attempts to demean him as a person or rub sand in the wound beyond the scope of the incident are simply cruel and uncalled for, ESPECIALLY from the so-called "moderators" of the forums, imo. They should be the ones telling people to calm down and look at the situation rationally.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering that a very large number of posters have been given alternate titles by moderators (many of those against their will), I don't see why Cheater would be given a free pass. It's ok for Alex who posted in this thread to be given the mocking (but funny) "6 away from first" but NOT for ZJ to be given the deserved (and also funny) cheater?

You suggest that it's not appropriate for mods to do because "where is the line", but it's been pretty standard for them to change titles for quite some time. Basically, there is no line.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have a problem with giving ZJ a funny title that alludes to what he did. However, there's a difference between that and specifically altering his title with the intention of dissuading people from listening to his advice. The disctinction isn't necesarily in the act, but in the intent. Most of the titles here are clearly given in jest.

[BluffTHIS!]

Alex,

Why is it you think the advice of a cheater should be given equal credence as that of an honest player? It should be obvious that their advice can't be that good or they wouldn't have felt the need to cheat.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
Alex,

Why is it you think the advice of a cheater should be given equal credence as that of an honest player? It should be obvious that their advice can't be that good or they wouldn't have felt the need to cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty big logical jump.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
However, there's a difference between that and specifically altering his title with the intention of dissuading people from listening to his advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the intention.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alex,

Why is it you think the advice of a cheater should be given equal credence as that of an honest player? It should be obvious that their advice can't be that good or they wouldn't have felt the need to cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty big logical jump.

[/ QUOTE ]


It doesn't seem so to me. However obviously they are extremely well qualified to give advice on how to cheat effectively. Such advice should be given great weight by those wishing to learn how to cheat better.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alex,

Why is it you think the advice of a cheater should be given equal credence as that of an honest player? It should be obvious that their advice can't be that good or they wouldn't have felt the need to cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty big logical jump.

[/ QUOTE ]


It doesn't seem so to me. However obviously they are extremely well qualified to give advice on how to cheat effectively. Such advice should be given great weight by those wishing to learn how to cheat better.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really getting to be annoying.

I think it's clear that you made a big logical jump, and it's easy to prove empirically that this is the case because ZJ was, in fact, a good poker player, as evidenced by his live success or his success in cash games/STTs, in which he didn't cheat.

Obviously, he cheated and that's wrong, but that doesn't mean he's a bad poker player, and the fact that you're saying it does shows how childish you've become.

Just stick to the facts please.

[.Alex.]

Bluff,
I think it's up to the forum members themselves to determine whose advice should be listened to. It is very easy to tell who gives good advice without having to resort to such labels, whether it is "cheater" or "expert mtt player." There isn't such a shortage of posters here that if someone posts bad advice, he won't be quickly criticized and corrected. Again, I don't think it should be up to the mods to weed out wrong advice.

Furthermore, as Noah said, I don't believe there is a strong correlation between ethics and playing ability.

Clark,
That seems to be the intention of Bluff, which is what this thread is about. If I am wrong, what is it then?

[Nick B.]

You guys who say they shouldn't change his title to cheater are a bunch of pussies. He played in the same tournaments that you played in AND STOLE FROM YOU. GROW SOME [censored] BALLS.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this attitude that insults hurled over the internet are somehow not real or substantial is pretty irresponsible. There is a real person behind each avatar and forum persona who has feelings and wants acceptance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those whose self-esteem is so wrapped up in internet happenings are most likely those who would best be served by spending large amounts of time away from the internet, which is a pretty likely result of banning/constant mocking/ostracization/etc.

[ QUOTE ]
What I want to say I guess is that I think attacks on ZJ's actions or his twisted understanding of those actions are perfectly justified, but attempts to demean him as a person or rub sand in the wound beyond the scope of the incident are simply cruel and uncalled for

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose this is a fundamental disagreement. I fully believe that thieves deserve to be mocked as bad people, and I care not one bit for their "illness," "misunderstandings," or whatever other label you'd like to apply to their psyche.

In any case, chalk up another vote for ZJ's label sticking. Surely widespread ridicule wasn't overlooked as one of the consequences of his actions. Step up and pay the price to which you so readily agreed, Justin.

[kickabuck]

Mason,

It's about integrity sir. Nothing more, nothing less. What do affiliates or bad strategy advice have to do with this? I'm frankly dumbfounded you would equate Microbob's examples with what this person was engaged in. Anything 2+2 can do to dissuade this activity should be done. There is no rationale nor excuse for these actions and they should be noted for all to know.

[MicroBob]

Didn't Dutch Boyd post on here occasionally...even though he is widely viewed to be a cheat and a swindler?


I think that even the players who he stole from on pokerspot never campaigned for him to be banned from 2+2.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Dutch Boyd post on here occasionally...even though he is widely viewed to be a cheat and a swindler?


I think that even the players who he stole from on pokerspot never campaigned for him to be banned from 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back when Dutch posted occasionally, you didn't need to be registered to post.

[MicroBob]

when did you not need to be registered?

I thought I have always been registered...and I remember a couple of posts from Dutch.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
when did you not need to be registered?

I thought I have always been registered...and I remember a couple of posts from Dutch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to change my post. Yes, there have been some posts from Dutch since you have been registered. (he went on a streak today in NVG), but back when Pokerspot happened and people lost money, you didn't need to be registered. Therefore nobody was saying they want him banned. They were more concerned with imparting physical pain on him.

[kickabuck]

Bob,

Blatant cheating strikes at the heart of the game. You are stealing from your opponents. We designate people with asterisks, it seems the least we can do for cheats is label them with a scarlet C. Mason asks where we would draw the line. We draw the line at thieves and cheats.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
when did you not need to be registered?



[/ QUOTE ]

Anytime before my date of registration. Basically between site inception around 1996 and september of 2002.

[MicroBob]

the asterisk method is an OOT only thing for posters with inappropriate content.


We have previously only judged people based on the content of their posts (things such as vulgarity and spam and posting someone's private information).

I find no reason to stray from that.

At the heart of it, this website is basically nothing BUT posts (and mag-articles, and a place to buy books).

I was recently locked out of a site for supposedly trying to set up an account from an ISP that they claimed already had several accounts on it (I had never been to their site before).

According to them, I was somehow trying to cheat their system.

So if idiotic site-A thinks that I'm a cheater and 2+2 is just going to abide by whatever the sites do and say then I guess I will be the first to volunteer to have the C put in my title.


I guess we also have to label all the $400 party-cruise stealers as 'thief'.


FWIW - I suspect that some of you think that I am just being difficult and coming up with unrealistic arguments.
This is not my intent.
I truly believe that if Zee should get a 'C' then all the party-cruise thieves should get something too (a 'T' perhaps) and that my situation has put me perilously close to deserving a 'C'.

[Nick B.]

Microbob,

Are you always this dense?

[MicroBob]

What was the point of this kind of insult?

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
What was the point of this kind of insult?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you trying to defend the cheaters? Cheaters shouldn't feel welcome here. I agree that the people who did the cruise thing for party were idiotic, and so were the people who did the $500 thing from empire a while ago, but they aren't the topic of this thread. The topic is the people who cheat the games that we play in. Colluders, people who play multi accounts, they should be banned/made to pay their price.

[MicroBob]

I'm not defending any cheater...just as I don't defend somebody on here who gives really bad poker advice.


I think Zee already is paying the price without putting a 'C' on his title.

I don't like the precedent it sets for the forums as a whole.


I think some people on these forums are total scum-bags.
There are others on these forums who I simply dislike.
But I don't think they should be banned just for that.


Another one: One could also argue that the 2+2'ers who all got together at a bad-beat jackpot table to try to JUST win the jackpot (by playing only JP eligible hands and then checking it down) were essentially cheating the system and depriving other party BBJ players of EV.

It truly WAS collusive in nature imo (others might disagree...but we had all pretty much agreed ahead of time on how to play..always checking it down to try to get the jackpot, etc etc).

I played on one of these tables last Jan when the JP was $750k.

[soah]

As usual, MicroBob is 100% correct.

And as usual, MicroBob has elected not to allow others to elaborate.

Therefore my post contains no original content.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Quite simply not the purpose of this forum, and certainly not the purpose of the mods on this forum.

I really don't think there's anything else to say about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[kickabuck]

Bob,

If you don't like the precedent it sets, fair enough. I think cheaters should be branded as such. I do find it curious that you continue to compare cheating with bad advice, or a poor disposition, etc.

No one is advocating banning someone with a lousy personality Bob. We are advocating making a judgement, that judgement being that cheating at poker is unacceptable and that said cheaters should not be given 2+2 as an outlet for their views(or strategies,etc.). 2+2 is a well respected site and an integral part of the poker world, and as such I feel it important to impart that 2+2 frowns on such egregious activity. It is a privelege to post here, certainly not a right, and the powers that be should take a stand.

You have written 'Well what about the cabin thieves, or the BBJ players'. Certainly it can be said there are varying degrees of unscrupulous behavior in poker and the poker world(as in real life- a bank robber or someone stealing a loaf of bread are treated differently although both acts are stealing). The powers that be on this forum can decide what is worthy of cheating designation or outright ban. ZeeJustin is a swindler of the highest order, and should be treated as such.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
We have previously only judged people based on the content of their posts (things such as vulgarity and spam and posting someone's private information).



I find no reason to stray from that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Me neither. He posted an admission of cheating, therefore the title is appropriate.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys who say they shouldn't change his title to cheater are a bunch of pussies. He played in the same tournaments that you played in AND STOLE FROM YOU. GROW SOME [censored] BALLS.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do balls have to do with anything? You think it takes courage to anonymously ridicule someone? I'm pretty sure that people against the title changing [censored] aren't afraid of it happening, they just don't think it's a reasonable thing to do. Chill out, macho man.

[MicroBob]

There was an incident a few months back that I believe took place in OOT.

ElDiablo accepted someone's challenge in online boggle or scrable (I forget which). I think it was guyontilt. I don't really remember.
They played for money.

ElDiablo won in landslide. Evidently he used some compter program that always makes the best play.
Some people thought he 'cheated' (and I think I am in that group...although it's difficult to say for sure since I don't remember all the details).

Should ElD be labeled a cheat also?


And I still think that I would be almost as much of a candiate for the lable since a site has locked me out for supposedly trying to set up multiple accounts there.

And then there are the 10 other times I've been accused of colluding or cheating by other players.


What if I'm pretty a good slight-of-hand artist and I admit to taking $100 off of various suckers in my 3-card-monty game?


I think that if you label Zee then you would have to label ElD, the 3-card-monty cheat, and perhaps me since a site HAS locked me out.


Regardless, I think it may be a moot point because I'm not sure whether Zee will choose to post again on 2+2 anyway (although he may have posted 100 times today for all I know, I haven't checked).

Soah - as usual, I apologize for hogging the conversation. I do appreciate the support. And I actually DO think your post was fairly original humor-wise.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bob,

There are reasons not to do as I have suggested that others have pointed out here, although I believe the strategy related and promotion of game integrity reasons I gave trumps those. But the reason you are focusing on is not really a good reason in this issue or many others. It isn't wrong to take a certain action just because you can't perfectly act on all similar matters. Doing anything at all that you reasonably can is correct.

[gilbert]

[ QUOTE ]
ElDiablo accepted someone's challenge in online boggle or scrable (I forget which). I think it was guyontilt. I don't really remember.
They played for money.

ElDiablo won in landslide. Evidently he used some compter program that always makes the best play.
Some people thought he 'cheated' (and I think I am in that group...although it's difficult to say for sure since I don't remember all the details).

Should ElD be labeled a cheat also?

[/ QUOTE ]

was it a $500 buyin boggle tournament where the winner would receive over $100k?

if that's the case, then yes.

[MicroBob]

why does the amount of money involved matter?


this is an interesting point though.

If Zee had admitted to playing on 2 accounts in one low-limit cash-game and admitted that he stole $10 from another player by doing this would he then be deserving of a C?


What if the site banned him for supposedly stealing $10 but he claimed he had no idea what they were talking about?

[gilbert]

bob,

i actually missed the part in your post where it mentioned they played for money (important part of it but oops).

was diablo caught red handed cheating somehow or did he admit to it after his plan worked? if it was the latter then i don't really think it's a big deal and just a joke between friends. but, if he was going to keep the money wagered and didn't admit to until he was somehow caught cheating, i would think he is a crook.

i was thinking earlier about what if zeejustin played the micro mtt's and had success. i don't think it would have been as high profile or party or stars would even really look into it, but i definately would think he's still the POS cheater he is.

[MicroBob]

As I recall, it was a little bit of both.


his opponent paid the money even though he didn't think ElD won legitimately.

but ElD didn't think he 'cheated' because they never made a rule about NOT using other computer-aided programs for their contest. He was 'smart' enough to use one of these programs...and his opponent was not.
So ElD perhaps claimed that this made his win okay.


It was a significant uproar over in OOT from about a year ago.
Many people thought that ElD was a cheating scum-bag.

He thought he was ethically okay and I believe also thought it was pretty funny because he believes he completely stayed within the rules.


Again, if ElD or anyone else who remembers this incident cares to correct any of the incorrections I might have then feel free to do so.
It happened awhile ago and I don't feel like searching for it.

I'm going COMPLETELY off of memory here and I fully admit that I might have gotten many of the details really wrong so no offense intended to any of the parties involved.


For the sake of this discussion though, lets just assume this situation as another one of those 'hypothetical' counter-arguments that I've been bringing up.

[El Diablo]

MB,

a) There was no money.
b) It was a joke.
c) Why the f are you talking about sht you have no clue about?

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
MB,

"his opponent paid the money even though he didn't think ElD won legitimately."

[/ QUOTE ]


GOT posted: I'm pretty drunk right now. But! I am completely willing to pay El Diablo if he responds to this post and demands that I transfer him the money. I will lose some respect for him in the process, and it looks like others will as well, but I will transfer him the money.

ElD posted:
Tough spot? GoT owes me $500. Simple as that. And if you think any supposed peer pressure from clowns in this thread is going to have an impact on anything I do, you're sorely mistaken.



It's true that I didn't follow the thread all the way to the end to see that money was actually exchanged. this was my mistake.
My memory just left with the impression that GOT had paid. In reality, he just offered to pay. And ElD insisted that GOT owed him the money.

My mistake.

[El Diablo]

MB,

"a site has locked me out for supposedly trying to set up multiple accounts there."

"And then there are the 10 other times I've been accused of colluding or cheating by other players."

Well, I do have a better understanding of your position on this issue now.

[KaneKungFu123]

El Diablo shot JFK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BluffTHIS!]

El D,

Why did you pick up the tar baby MBob laid down in this thread? You are now tarnished forever.

(Is KKF right? Were you the 3 year old toddler on the grassy knoll?)

[MicroBob]

Hi ElD -

As you know, I made it very clear that I might be getting any and all facts incorrect.

Perhaps it wasn't such a hot idea to post from memory. Or perhaps it's not nearly as big a deal as you're making it out to be.


But I don't think that calling me an f'n scumbag is very appropriate either.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bob,

I like you a lot and your style usually. But you did slander El D through carelessness and not malice apparently. Even so you should expect to be called a name in return.

[El Diablo]

Bob,

I just called you a f'n scumbag because that's what I thought you were based on your actions. I may have gotten some detail about what you are wrong, no offense intended.

[soah]

thread (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=1697141&amp;page=0&amp;fpart=1&amp;v c=1)

[MicroBob]

A bit too late obviously but I have tried to find the previous thread on this and had zero luck using the search function. Are the recent-archives down? I can't figure it out. I truly had no idea it was a joke.


I do indeed end up with egg on my face in this situation and I have offered my sincere apoloies to El Diablo via PM for the situation.
I got carried away I believe and used poor judgement.
I offer my apologies here publicly as well fwiw.


Regardless, ElD has come on here and defended himself and since he was the one involved and I'm the one who only vagely and incorrectly remembered the incident then I trust that all who read the thread will assume his version of events to be correct.


I created an unfortunate incident that I wish had never happened.

[El Diablo]

MB,

I accept your apology and apologize for calling you a f'in scumbag.

[gilbert]

el d,

i hope you don't think i'm an f'n scumbag for assuming you were an f'n scumbag cheater.

[El Diablo]

Gilbert,

No, not at all.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

Many people thought that ElD was a cheating scum-bag.

[/ QUOTE ]


Quite a few people were taking exception to what he did (or what they believed he did).


Other early parts of the thread:


Schneids: GoT and Diablo played weboggle $100/game. Diablo won 5 straight games. Diablo used some engine on the net or something that solves the board for you, so, he was effectively scoring in the 400-500 point range on boards.

Daryn:
seems like he is smart enough to beat him within the rules of the bet.
also seems like GoT was dumb enough to be taken advantage of by the rules of the bet.
buyer beware!

sthief09 said: are you arguing that he should pay you, or just that you "did nothing wrong."

what you're saying is like me challenging you to a headsup match and beating you because I had a pattern mapper

James282 said:
Haha, you guys are crazy if you really think Diablo will collect on this bet. He has better things to do that to knowingly rip off someone for 500 bucks he doesn't even need.


ElD said: Let me make one thing very clear here, James. GoT owes me $500.


rusty jedi said:
I think what El Diablo alleged to do is sick. No Hounour, No integrity.


el cordones said:
El Diablo was clearly angleshooting and demonstrating unethical and ungentlemanly behavior.

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
Quite a few people were taking exception to what he did (or what they believed he did).

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite a few people aren't that bright.

[El Diablo]

MicroBob,

I retract my apology from earlier in this thread.

[MicroBob]

that's nice.

and why exactly is that?

[MicroBob]

This is true.

My fault for thinking that ElD actually collected.
Fuzzy memory.
actually ElD just said that he was owed $500 and that GoT said he would pay $500.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bob,

Because you basically retracted yours with a longer repeat of the initial charges, and since you obviously don't believe El D's statement that it was all a joke.

[El Diablo]

MicroBob,

Wow. I did not realize what a POS you were.

It is one thing to pick and choose snippets out of hundreds of responses to try to defend your position. Note that not once did I quibble with your statement that many people felt that way. I merely took issue with the fact that you made up additional facts that were a complete lie.

But now I realize that in addition to that, you selected a few statements and EDITED THEM INTO MY POST.

WTF? If you want to respond to something I say, respond to my post, DON'T F'IN ABUSE YOUR MOD POWER BY GOING BACK AND EDITING ONE OF MY POSTS TO TRY AND MAKE YOURSELF LOOK BETTER.

And all of this after you PM me saying you regret posting what you did and apologizing, which I gladly accepted and apologized in return here, ending the matter. Wow. What a scumbag.

As I said, I retract my apology, as it seems I was right on the mark about you.

Edited to add: I now realize that not only did MB edit his points into my posts, he DELETED the points I made about him. Wow. This is sick.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bob,

When you find yourself in a deep hole, you start carving out a stairway along the sides to spiral your way out or use the dirt from one side to build the floor up and get out. You don't keep digging and hope that you will come out the other side.

[MicroBob]

I didn't repeat the initial charges.

I went back to the thread and looked and posted some of the info from that thread.

Others aren't familiar with the thread. I did want to show that I wasn't crazy for saying that others considered his behavior not ethical.
Clearly there were many in the thread who thought that.


I do not retract my apology for incorrectly thinking and stating that GoT paid the money to elD.
That obviously didn't happen and I was wrong to assume that it did.

[El Diablo]

All,

There is a post above under my name that says: "
Quote:
MB,

"his opponent paid the money even though he didn't think ElD won legitimately."

GOT posted: I'm pretty drunk right now. But! I am completely willing to pay El Diablo if he responds to this post and demands that I transfer him the money. I will lose some respect for him in the process, and it looks like others will as well, but I will transfer him the money.

ElD posted:
Tough spot? GoT owes me $500. Simple as that. And if you think any supposed peer pressure from clowns in this thread is going to have an impact on anything I do, you're sorely mistaken.

It's true that I didn't follow the thread all the way to the end to see that money was actually exchanged. this was my mistake.
My memory just left with the impression that GOT had paid. In reality, he just offered to pay. And ElD insisted that GOT owed him the money.

My mistake.

Edited by MicroBob (02/27/06 12:35 PM)
"

None of those are my words. Those are MicroBob's.

That post was not "edited" by MicroBob. It's MicroBob's post.

It was a post where I called out MicroBob for stating that he was too lazy to look up the facts, then rather than keeping silent because he did not want to look up the facts, he instead decided to make up some lies. Not a point that was stated and later refuted. Something that Bob COMPLETELY FABRICATED.

After I confronted him with this issue, he apologized and I accepted, apologizing in return for my anger at him. How does he respond to this?

HE EDITS OUT MY ENTIRE POST AND REPLACES IT WITH HIS OWN TAKE ON THINGS.

I just want to state that the post there is by MicroBob, not me, as everything I wrote was deleted. Why MicroBob chose to replace my post with his own content WHILE STILL KEEPING IT LOOKING LIKE A POST BY ME rather than delete it if he felt it appropriate for deletion is something I cannot understand.

[Nick B.]

El Diablo,

I just wanted to refer you back to this thread. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4656405

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

Edited to add: I now realize that not only did MB edit his points into my posts, he DELETED the points I made about him. Wow. This is sick.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is the 2nd time I have done this.


In the forum in which you are modding the 'edit' button is the one on the far left.
I'm used to clicking it by default because it's 'reply' in every other forum.


I apologized profusely to exsubmariners a day or two ago for doing the exact same thing.

Now I see I've done it again. Trying to reply to a post, and accidentally messing up the whole thing not realizing I had clicked 'edit'.

(there were a couple of other times that I accidentally clicked edit instead of reply...but I realized it before I did any damage).


I will write to Cola about this for some advice.


My apologies for messing up your post.
It truly was accidental although I know you have significant reason to doubt my sincerity.

[El Diablo]

Nick B: If a mod wants to delete my post, he has that option. I may or may not agree, but he's a mod. However, when a mod takes my criticism of him and replaces it, in MY POST, with a defense of himself, that's a whole different story.

MB: Wow, that is quite a coincidence. You manage to reply fine to every post in this thread except the one where I specifically criticize you for making up a lie and admittedly not even bothering to verify the facts because you were too lazy to search. And that just happens to be the one passage in this entire thread that gets replaced by your explanation of why your action was reasonable. Quite a coincidence, I guess.

More of an issue is the fact that you apologize, in a way that made me think you actually had some class, and said that you were sorry and regretted posting that and wanted to move past it. I accepted that apology and was done with the matter, and even apologized for my inital reaction to you. So what do you do? You then COME BACK AFTER THAT and post a lengthy defense and rationalization of your actions. That is what makes me think you are a pretty classless individual.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bob,

I made a joking reference about this issue becoming a tar baby for El D. But it actually has for you. FWIW, I think you are a klutz, but an honest klutz.

Kick your cat.

[MicroBob]

It truly was an accident regarding the editing.
I agree it is an unfortunate coincidence.
It obviously makes me look really bad. I certainly would not have done that purposely thinking that you just wouldn't notice.


I defended and clarified my previous action of saying that other people thought you were a cheater.

I maintain my apology for remembering incorrectly about whether you were actually paid or not.

I do think there is a difference between 'just making stuff up' as opposed to 'remembering incorrectly' though.

[El Diablo]

MB,

You obviously don't understand the classless nature of your actions following your "apology" but I guess that's no real surprise.

[MicroBob]

my cat is completely innocent in this mess.


I am admittedly quite the clutz.


I agree that I don't come out looking terribly good through all this.

I will consider deleting the El Diablo post that I completely messed up.

But I wanted to leave it up there right now so that Cola can see the damage I have done and make a decision from there.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
my cat is completely innocent in this mess.


I am admittedly quite the clutz.


I agree that I don't come out looking terribly good through all this.

I will consider deleting the El Diablo post that I completely messed up.

But I wanted to leave it up there right now so that Cola can see the damage I have done and make a decision from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Microbob,

Diablo is mad about the editing, but I believe he is more mad that you apologized to him and then went and posted that stuff.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bob,

A little advice for the future. Once you have realized that you have wronged someone or made a mistake or made an ass out of yourself, just apologize profusely, and . . . LET THE MATTER DROP. Don't go back and rehash it and try to be more accurate about where you screwed up with the high attendant risk of just muddying the matter further. El D accepted your initial apology, and after that there was no need at all to re-explain yourself for the benefit of others, because no one else cared to take it further even if they didn't understand all the "facts" of the matter.

So just let this drop without further comment. In fact, now that this thread has been completely hijacked, why not just lock it? I started it, and I've made my point and so have others.

[MicroBob]

Reason I posted that stuff:

After he accepted my apology and said he apologized too he sent me another PM saying he couldn't figure out what I was thinking for doing such a thing.
I interpreted it as requesting further elaboration regarding my actions.

So I explained in the thread (and perhaps should have done it via PM) what I had read many months ago and where I came up with my ideas.


One of these ideas was correct: Some people thought ElD was a cheater.

The other idea was incorrect: ElD was not paid. He merely stated that he thought he should be paid. And GoT said he would pay him.


I remembered incorrectly and apologized.
I don't think I am deserving of being called a moron, f'n scumbag and classless individual simply for remembering incorrectly.


I understand that ElD is upset over this topic and that it got even more heated when he thought I purposefully destroyed his post.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bob,

You are explaining again and dragging this out. Apologize for a last time and then lock this thread. Since I started it, I feel a right to ask that when it has gotten so far off base in this unfortunate exchange. If I or others want to revisit my original point, then one of us can start a new thread.

[MicroBob]

locking it is not a bad idea.

As is your other advice regarding how I should not have returned.

But I don't want to appear as though I am just using my mod power to have the last word or anything like that.
This would effectively be shutting ElD out of this thread too right at the time when things perhaps turning worse for me (or something like that)


So if he is okay with locking it too I'll do that...and if he has any more insults he would like to throw at me I'll let him have the final say.

If he likes, I will also remove the post that I accidentally made under his name and just move it into the content of one of my posts.

He shouldn't have to have my words stay under his name.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bob,

Why not just move this thread to the mod forum "temporarily", and then forget about it? That way none of these posts will be read again.

[Ryan Beal]

[ QUOTE ]
It truly was an accident regarding the editing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no reason to doubt Bob about this. And even if I did have reason to doubt him, he would gain nothing by intentionally editing El Diablo's post like that. People tend to notice these things, and Bob is smart enough to know that.

It's unfortunate that he happened to make this error in an already heated discussion, but I completely believe that it was unintentional. Bob is hardly the first mod to make this mistake. As he pointed out, the 'reply' button is located in basically the same spot as 'edit' in the forums he doesn't moderate.

[El Diablo]

Bob,

"I don't think I am deserving of being called a moron, f'n scumbag and classless individual simply for remembering incorrectly."

I apologized for calling you a f'in scumbag for your initial post, even thought I think it is a pretty scumbag thing to do to write what you did without bothering to go verify your facts.

Think about what you did. You stated that you were unsure about the facts in this matter. So you had three options:

1) Go check the facts and only post the negative information after verifying the facts.

2) Since you were not sure about the facts, just not post them.

3) Say WTF, I can't be bothered to take the time to find the thread, so who cares if it's right or wrong, lemme just go ahead and post this stuff anyway.

So, yes, my opinion was that only a classless scumbag would choose option 3. If I'm going to cast aspersions on someone, especially ones that I can easily verify, I'm going to check them first or STFU. Obviously, you chose to just sling some mud without verifying first.

That is why I first called you a f'in scumbag, not for remembering incorrectly.

I believe I've adequately explained why I believe your further actions after your "apology" were very classless. The others in the thread seem to understand why I feel that way.

So, to clarify, I have not called you any of those things because you remembered incorrectly. I called you those things because of the way you have acted.

As for this thread, feel free to lock it, and feel free to respond to anything I've said in this post before locking it. I do not care at all about having the last word on this matter, as I've stated my position on this matter more than adequately.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Kick:

Just the fact that we run an open forum where as long as you follow the posting guidelines you can express your views does a great deal towards the integrity of the games. When a bad event happens, it will get the appropriate publicity here.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bob:

Again I agree. I understand that there are now over 300 sites where you can play poker. How are we at Two Plus Two suppose to know if all these sites are coming to the correct conclusions.

Also, if someone is clearly identified as a cheater, he'll hear about it from the other posters and will quickly be identified.

Best wishes,
Mason

[MicroBob]

I think you've explanied your position adequately as well.
Particularly in this last post.

I agree that my behavior most closely resembled option #3.
You are correct that i would have been wise to check first and not doing so was irresponsible and lazy.


Regarding the actions following my apology:
I was still pretty hot and I over-reacted to your follow-up PM I believe. There really wasn't anything in the PM to react to because it wasnt that bad...but I reacted anyway.

I was probably still just a bit too hot about this whole thing.
Not much of an excuse. But I think that's how it happened.


I definitely think it's time to lock this bad boy.

I also want to apologize to Bluffthis for royally screwing up his discussion.

if we want to re-visit the original issue regarding labelling cheaters (or anybody else for that matter) I will welcome that discussion.

And promise to stay significantly more out of the way than I did in this one (and not hijack it to completely unrelated stuff).