Stars Takes No Action Against Players Cheating In SNG

[BigF]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously dude, this is a really minor offence and everyone in this thread agrees with Stars that a warning is appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not "everyone" likes to jump on PokerStars' balls. And the buy-in is irrelevant. And who are you to say "if you don't like their ruling don't play there?"

Lastly, why must the OP be a losing player because he is fuming over a $11 SNG? Intentionally or not, he was clearly cheated out of money. How would you feel if you are cheated out of 2 grand and a high stakes player tells you to "chill"?

[Gotmilk]

[ QUOTE ]
btw I agree that along with a warning, some small financial restitution should be made in the situation described by the OP. The rules are on their website, thus it should not be allowed for a player to ignore them without any penalty whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which rule dictates that someone who breaks it must pay financial restitution? There is no specific rule governing this situation other than "it is not allowed" and there is no penalty on the books (other than issueing warnings based on the history of the players). Every rule, even in tournaments, based on stuff like this gives the director the right to make a judgement call. Why should this be any different?

[Bob T.]

[ QUOTE ]
Blame Jamie Golds retarded ass. People see the world champ do it and think they can. "I got TOP TOP" FREAKIN IDIOT


[/ QUOTE ]

Matt Savage said that if he was the tournament director, Jamie Gold would have been penalized for discussing his hands.

[hulk3rules]

@Josem-

[ QUOTE ]
6) Situations like this are rarely black and white. There is a degree of grey, especially at a relatively low level when players may not realise what they are doing is wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the post I linked though. That situation was not gray at all, or low limits, and Stars just let them walk. There are also other situations like when the 2 players (I forget who) openly admitted that they would softplay each other HU at the high NL tables and Stars did nothing. Stars is just too easy on cheaters


@terrellk11

[ QUOTE ]
2. There doesn't need to be any indication that they knew they were breaking the rules. Every one of us agree to terms and conditions when we joined the site. They're bound by them whether they took the time to read them or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said something similar to stars in one of my many emails about that situation, and they basically said we know nobody reads those so we let them off easy. I'll search for email and exact wording later, but it is likely gone

[Josem]

hulk3rules - I read that post.

I would be much more inclined to penalise those players more heavily than these players.

I believe the actions by the players in both situations are wrong.


However, people are wrong when they say that the people who did the wrong thing recevied no punishment. They received a warning. That is the first level of punishment at this site.



I also restate my original point that human stupidity & ignorance is far more likely to have caused this problem than human evil. given this, i think that warning people who are ignorant of the rules strikes a fair balance here.



since our governments have crap legislation that makes online gambling sites operate offshore, we have no recourse or right of appeal. [censored] happens. deal with it.

this is further reason to legalise & regulate such sites, and have them based in reputable western countries.

[Tachyon]

Be Gentle to the Novices - cardplayer article by Lee Jones

Cliffnotes: Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[terrellk11]

To those of you claiming that leniency is appropriate when dealing with new or inexperienced players, I would say that I absolutely agree with you. However, that doesn't apply here. The player that initiated the table talk has logged more than 1200 SNGs at Stars and the other player has more than 450 SNGs.

I also might not be as upset if they had apologized when I pointed out that their chat was against the tournament rules. Rather than apologizing, they both responded with essentially the same answer: "So . . . there's nothing you can do about it."

These weren't innocent players accidentally breaking rules. After a combined total of 1900+ tables they should know the rules and should pay at least a modicum of respect towards them.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
To those of you claiming that leniency is appropriate when dealing with new or inexperienced players, I would say that I absolutely agree with you. However, that doesn't apply here. The player that initiated the table talk has logged more than 1200 SNGs at Stars and the other player has more than 450 SNGs.

I also might not be as upset if they had apologized when I pointed out that their chat was against the tournament rules. Rather than apologizing, they both responded with essentially the same answer: "So . . . there's nothing you can do about it."

These weren't innocent players accidentally breaking rules. After a combined total of 1900+ tables they should know the rules and should pay at least a modicum of respect towards them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is information you are just providing now? Wanker.

Look, there are a number of sanctions allowed for violating the rules. A warning is one of them. You disagree with the sanction, fine. But its pretty misleading, if not an outright lie to say stars takes no action, and as an attorney, I think you'd be aware of that. If you engaged in such misrepresentations in your dealings as an attorney and got reported for an ethics violation to your state bar and they gave you a warning would you feel that no action had been taken?

--Zetack

edit: I appologize for the wanker comment. But how many times have you weighed in already in this thread against people who disagree with you, without providing this information that could influence peoples take on the situation?

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
The proper course of action in a situation like this is for the players that broke the rules to be disqualified and for the remaining players to be "promoted" into their spots. Stars themselves have done this in the past. In one thread in here not too long ago in which Lee Jones replied, a player complained of simliar conduct in a satellite tournament. The offending players were disqualified and the next two in line got the tourney entries.

[/ QUOTE ]

given your other post about restitution in the criminal justice context I'm tempted to get into a discussion about the appropriate level of damages, but I won't since I think the two situations are not in any way comprable.

However, I will enquire - its not clear from your OP whether the second player did anything wrong. Unless there's more detail you're leaving out, why are you saying he should be disqualified?

[terrellk11]

The second player arguably didn't do anything wrong and I wouldn't personally take action against him. He didn't solicit the assistance and would have been an idiot not to act on it.

As for only just now providing the information regaridng the number of tables played, I didn't provide it earlier as I didn't have it earlier. The post immediately before the one in which I added that information, I thought there might be some merit to the argument and decided to sharkscope the two players.

And the term "wanker" is just too funny to take offense to.