ZeeJustin the next to get caught multi accounting Party MTTs

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
It's odd that most everyone else is so trusting of these sites to always do the correct thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see a choice, do you?

We are talking about players from around the world, not just the US (I'm Canadian btw) so talking about US case law is incorrect for a lot of us.

Given the quasi-legal nature of the whole business in Norht America you have to vote with your $$$, because you have no other recourse.

If we don't like how a site deals with it, we can leave.

Its up to the players to pressure the sites into doing the right thing, because all the sites care about is the rake and if their reputation is getting in the way of making more rake, they fix it or die.

Regards,
Woodguy

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]
"Say you just won a MTT at party and currently have $30k in your account. Before you cash off, you decide to play some $0.10/$0.20 NL for kicks. Your cable goes out and you disconnect partway through a hand, activating your AI protect. "


LOL, stretch it a little more. Let's figure this out. What are the chances that you win a big multi (~1/800), and you decide to play low limit game to blow off some steam after the win (~1/20, i am usually too tired to play after), then you disconnect due to cable modem (i have never had this happen while I was playing, but let's just say it happens once a year so ~1/365) and it disconnects while you were about to make a big decision (maybe 10 big decisions an hour so ~1/6) and then party decides that you have had a history of abuse even though you haven't (1/100, probably way low). So figure it out to be a .00000000026% chance of this actually happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I admitted in my original post this would never happen. My example was to illustrate the extremest possible set of circumstances.

When does the "punishment fit the crime"? I don't know either, but I know I'm not comfortable with a site just "winging it", and making it up as they go along....

Edit: is "extremest" a word? I don't think so...

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm no lawyer but I assumer california was able to sue nike in vietnam because nike is a company based in america. Or am I wrong here aeest400?

[/ QUOTE ]

It does business here and I believe it has assets here - neither I believe are true for Party. You really can't say they do business here because it is all done online.

[/ QUOTE ]


The stong trend in the case law counsels otherwise.
Here is an abstract from a recent article.

Technology and Internet Jurisdiction
JOEL REIDENBERG
Fordham University School of law
Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 79
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 153, p. 1951, 2005

Abstract:
The current technology of the Internet creates ambiguity for sovereign territory because network boundaries intersect and transcend national borders. In this environment, jurisdiction over activities on the Internet has become a battleground for the struggle to establish the rule of law in the Information Society. This essay argues first that the initial wave of cases seeking to deny jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement to states where users and victims are located constitutes a type of 'denial of service' attack against the legal system. In effect, the defenders of hate, lies, drugs, sex, gambling and stolen music use technologically based arguments to deny the applicability of rules of law interdicting their behavior. The essay next shows that innovations in information technology will undermine the technological assault on state jurisdiction. Innovation creates this counter-intuitive effect because more sophisticated computing enlists the processing capabilities and power of users' computers. . .

This interactivity gives the victim's state a greater nexus with offending acts and provides a direct relationship with the offender for purposes of personal jurisdiction and choice of law. Some of these same innovations also enable states to enforce their decisions electronically and consequently bypass the problems of foreign recognition and enforcement of judgments.

Finally, the essay argues that the exercise of state power through assertions of jurisdiction can and should be used to advance the development of more granular technologies and new service markets for legal compliance. Technologies should be available to enable Internet participants to respect the rule of law in states where their Internet activities reach. Assertions of state jurisdiction and electronic enforcement are likely to advance this public policy.

[MOMOwheeler]

Technology and Internet Jurisdiction

Can you post a sysnopsis of that essay to read at a 4th grade level please?

[excession]

1. All the ZJ apologists who claimed he had admitted the full extent of his cheating can now crawl back under the rocks they came out from..

2. 'We permitted him to cash out the balance over that.'
Er not smart - you need to use a concept akin to 'punitive damages' and take his entire BR or Stars just became 'the cheaters favorite site - cheat at Stars - you can't lose'[TM] Not a tag line you'd like to hear on your ads, but you can rest assured it will be all over the net in days...

3. If you haven't been spotting cheating as obvious as this so far, how can you be sure that ZJ or other players aren't using more sophisticated multi-ing or syndicate play methods to steal EV from honest players in your games?

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
When does the "punishment fit the crime"? I don't know either, but I know I'm not comfortable with a site just "winging it", and making it up as they go along....

[/ QUOTE ]

But its (the punishment) in the T&C, they made this up a while ago, Stars seems be the ones who are flying by the seat of their pants.

You bolded the words internal investigation in your OP, are you suggesting the sites are corrupt and you want an independent reveiw board? How would that work? How'd be on it? Can we trust them?.....etc.etc....

At least I know I can semi-trust party because I've trusted them with my $$$ and games for 3 years and I haven't been blatenly screwed by them (other than their lack of multi-playering security eating at my equity)

We have to let capitalism do its thing here, if you don't like it, walk from the site, its as simple as that.

Regards,
Woodguy

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm no lawyer but I assumer california was able to sue nike in vietnam because nike is a company based in america. Or am I wrong here aeest400?

[/ QUOTE ]

It does business here and I believe it has assets here - neither I believe are true for Party. You really can't say they do business here because it is all done online.

[/ QUOTE ]


The stong trend in the case law counsels otherwise.
Here is an abstract from a recent article.

Technology and Internet Jurisdiction
JOEL REIDENBERG
Fordham University School of law
Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 79
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 153, p. 1951, 2005

Abstract:
The current technology of the Internet creates ambiguity for sovereign territory because network boundaries intersect and transcend national borders. In this environment, jurisdiction over activities on the Internet has become a battleground for the struggle to establish the rule of law in the Information Society. This essay argues first that the initial wave of cases seeking to deny jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement to states where users and victims are located constitutes a type of 'denial of service' attack against the legal system. In effect, the defenders of hate, lies, drugs, sex, gambling and stolen music use technologically based arguments to deny the applicability of rules of law interdicting their behavior. The essay next shows that innovations in information technology will undermine the technological assault on state jurisdiction. Innovation creates this counter-intuitive effect because more sophisticated computing enlists the processing capabilities and power of users' computers. . .

This interactivity gives the victim's state a greater nexus with offending acts and provides a direct relationship with the offender for purposes of personal jurisdiction and choice of law. Some of these same innovations also enable states to enforce their decisions electronically and consequently bypass the problems of foreign recognition and enforcement of judgments.

Finally, the essay argues that the exercise of state power through assertions of jurisdiction can and should be used to advance the development of more granular technologies and new service markets for legal compliance. Technologies should be available to enable Internet participants to respect the rule of law in states where their Internet activities reach. Assertions of state jurisdiction and electronic enforcement are likely to advance this public policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is an essay and it acknowledges the ambiguity of the situation. If your are really a lawyer why don't you take the case? You have very little chance of winning, it will cost more in legal fees than you are trying to recover and I can almost guarantee you would never see a dime of any reward no matter it size.

[betadecay]

I don't get it. Right now the jurisdiction over the internet is very ambiguous but this guy argues that a certain thing needs to be done to change this. Is that what that article is about?

[faustusmedea]

[ QUOTE ]

The LAST friggin' thing you want to do is put out in big bold letters:

HEY EVERYONE, WE FOUND A CHEATER OR TWO AND CONFISCATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND WE'RE GIVING IT BACK TO YOU, THE PLAYERS!

Reasons why:

1. This will awaken the majority of players to the reality that there are online cheats, and likely more than just these two. (most of the players online likely have zero clue about this situation, they aren't 2+2ers or reading up on this stuff, why would Party want the negative publicity?)

2. Many players would worry that they "might" be accused of cheating and have their funds seized, and thus would leave the site and withdraw their funds (which is also a possibility because they fear being cheated)

It's in Party's best interests (and our own actually) to be as hush-hush about this as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, thats not a good argument from a player's perspective. It was my exact point that this should be viewed as a players vs the house issue and not as players+house vs cheaters issue. The house is not the game, they are not part of the game and are risking nothing. The game is the players; end of story.

Now, does Party want its shareholders and clueless players to be frightened by scandalous cheating stories. Obv not, but keeping it hush hush will only magnify it when it does come out. And it ALWAYS ends up coming out. By making the information public, they make a clear stand against the behavior and showcase the consequences. If the problem is of such a scale that it would scare off a magnitude of players, then the company has a much bigger issue to deal with and this argument is moot.

As to the second point, I cannot fathom where this comes from. This episode has done wonders for getting an issue that was sketchy at best into the poker public eye and you can see by these threads not everyone agrees on the ramifications. Having thorough transparency is the only way to give players a clear understanding of where the line is and what happens if you cross over it. BTW, if this doesn't happen, it is clear this will never become legal in the states.

Fm

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe I should get the rest of their stack that they had at the table when they DC'd. I lost that money because they didn't have to put it in.


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no, you didn't lose that money. If the DC abuser had called, then his disconnect saved you from losing more. The only thing the DC abuser cost you was the pot you would have won if the abuser had folded. I understand people don't like disconnections. I don't like them either, but at the level I play the disconnectors don't understand what the advantageous situations are for disconnection.

While I'm here...

1. Yeah, penalties are only effective at deterrence if you're willing to advertise them. The sites don't find that a good idea.

2. OTOH, there are groups opposed to all gambling who would use this in argument against the industry. They would say that the industry just wants to fleece as many people as possible. In their view "professional gambler" is equivalent in meaning to "cheater". I think some of the laws in various U.S. jurisdictions against professional gambling came into place as reactions to people cheating.

3. I'm satisfied with the penalty action at both Party and Stars. But it does concern me that the 3 cases (if the grindblog case did indeed happen) only came about because the people blabbed about their activities. OTOH, we might only be seeing the player-reported cases, because the reporter posts the results here(?) I guess that's not quite true, because we do occasionally see someone come along here and post whining that a site froze their account(s) - and they only had 2 accounts, or were abusing bugs, or whatever. Player reporting is not effective enough to be relied on, and I hope the sites are more energetic than is visible.

4. I do want sites to be careful. I played one of those multi-player web games like an earlier poster described. And my character was killed by administrators, citing that it seemed I had more than one character. I had only played for like a day, so I shrugged it off and restarted - and no further problems. If there had been money involved though, I would have been livid.

5. I agree with the people who would not be surprised if Justin Bonomo limited his unethical activities. It really shows misunderstanding of people to think that they must have taken further advantage. Of course someone who cheats to the hilt might also say that their actions were limited, so you can't be sure. But people do draw boundaries - somewhere. There are people who will sell pot, but won't sell meth, or will only resell for the same price they paid. There are parents who will take their children trick or treating (violating solicitation ordinances) even though not all the children are in the age range approved for this activity by the community. But if you take that same parent, and have them walk by a candy store, with a bag of candy sitting in the doorway, and no one around, and yet they won't take the candy - because it would be wrong!