![]() |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
NO GOOD COMES OF IT. Just stop doing it. If you guys want to keep playing, stop making things easier for those trying trying to stop you from playing. I will 100% guarantee that the anti-poker forces get a significant amount of information from these boards that aid them in their fight against online poker. So, why give them a road map by providing bank names (gee, my Debit/Credit card from meowchow credit union worked!) or check details (I got a check with a purple horsehoe on it, any idea what site it's from)? Think people, no good comes of it. Just stop. <cue BluffThis! chiming in> [/ QUOTE ] Good, lets just keep putting our heads in the sand. If a site can not get money to its players, even in todays environment, they should be exposed. With a ban that you propose, all threads on Neteller would not be allowed, that is not right. Flame away, I am not the most elloquent speaker on this forum, but I dont want to see 2+2 just a shill site to promote online poker without exposit what could be pitfalls of the industry right now. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I agree with this 100 %. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
I support DING-DONG YO's point of view.
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] NO GOOD COMES OF IT. Just stop doing it. If you guys want to keep playing, stop making things easier for those trying trying to stop you from playing. I will 100% guarantee that the anti-poker forces get a significant amount of information from these boards that aid them in their fight against online poker. So, why give them a road map by providing bank names (gee, my Debit/Credit card from meowchow credit union worked!) or check details (I got a check with a purple horsehoe on it, any idea what site it's from)? Think people, no good comes of it. Just stop. <cue BluffThis! chiming in> [/ QUOTE ] Good, lets just keep putting our heads in the sand. If a site can not get money to its players, even in todays environment, they should be exposed. With a ban that you propose, all threads on Neteller would not be allowed, that is not right. Flame away, I am not the most elloquent speaker on this forum, but I dont want to see 2+2 just a shill site to promote online poker without exposit what could be pitfalls of the industry right now. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're misunderstanding me. I didn't say people shouldn't be able to discuss neteller issues, length of time in receiving checks, etc. etc. I meant that people should stop posting specific details. Such as bank names, check details (this check has a shiny purple horseshoe and was printed by "balla checks" out of EmpireMaker2, WI), etc. Does that help clarify my position? I am in no way advocating a blanket ban on discussing deposit and withdrawl options, heavens no! |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I meant that people should stop posting specific details. Such as bank names, check details (this check has a shiny purple horseshoe and was printed by "balla checks" out of EmpireMaker2, WI), etc."
lol |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Right now, the DOJ is quaking in their boots. How on earth will they be able to find poker site check and credit card processors if we stop talking about them?
The DOJ is not your bumbling local police. They don't sit around like a beat cop and wait for a "crime" to be put in their lap before they act upon it. A censorship scenario makes no sense. Your premise is flawed not only in your assumptions of how the DOJ operates, but in your belief that stopping discussion here will lower the TOTAL discussion across all boards. Your plan would only push 2+2 readers to other forums. Most of you are on mega-tilt. Stop and think. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
Right now, the DOJ is quaking in their boots. How on earth will they be able to find poker site check and credit card processors if we stop talking about them? The DOJ is not your bumbling local police. They don't sit around like a beat cop and wait for a "crime" to be put in their lap before they act upon it. A censorship scenario makes no sense. Your premise is flawed not only in your assumptions of how the DOJ operates, but in your belief that stopping discussion here will lower the TOTAL discussion across all boards. Your plan would only push 2+2 readers to other forums. Most of you are on mega-tilt. Stop and think. [/ QUOTE ] What are you not understanding? He is not talking about stopping discussion. Stop and read? |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
What are you not understanding? He is not talking about stopping discussion. Stop and read? [/ QUOTE ] I understand that there is a belief that we somehow have details unavailable to the DOJ that will aid them in their investigation. Please name those details and explain to me why you think the DOJ does NOT already have: 1. Multiple accounts at every site. 2. Multiple bank accounts from different banks to fund each site. 3. Regularly scheduled withdraw/deposits from every site, using every withdraw/deposit option that site provides. The DOJ are not idiots. If they've decided to go after the sites, then they have every piece of data on money processing at that site. If they are NOT attacking the sites, then a "OMG Stars is using Chexx" thread that you think is a hot lead, means nothing to them. You are painting a scenario of a DOJ that is so cunningly and doggedly attacking payment processors that they will pay out of their budget to scan hobbyist discussion forums, and yet...they are somehow so stupid that they won't simply follow the deposit/withdraw chain themselves to get hard evidence of their own. Do you see the disconnect? |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
No one is disputing that the DOJ can find these things out, but lets not make it any easier for them.
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
Right now, the DOJ is quaking in their boots. How on earth will they be able to find poker site check and credit card processors if we stop talking about them? The DOJ is not your bumbling local police. They don't sit around like a beat cop and wait for a "crime" to be put in their lap before they act upon it. A censorship scenario makes no sense. Your premise is flawed not only in your assumptions of how the DOJ operates, but in your belief that stopping discussion here will lower the TOTAL discussion across all boards. Your plan would only push 2+2 readers to other forums. Most of you are on mega-tilt. Stop and think. [/ QUOTE ] This is really pretty simple. There is no upside to giving out details on checks, i.e. I got my X site check today, it was from a company called Z that's located in Y. There is a potential downside in that those actively trying to ban on line gambling can gain information. I'll admit that this is a low probability, but it is possible. Why take the risk? I think that is all OP is saying. |
![]() |
|
|