ZeeJustin the next to get caught multi accounting Party MTTs

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is foolish to play at a site that adopts considered policies with the goal of avoiding massive legal liability and the discerning interest of courts, enforcement officials, regulatory bodies and, oh, Congress. There must be a forest in here somewhere, but I can't seem to find it behind all these trees.

By the way, Party's terms and conditions state that disputes with them can only be heard in Gibraltar--and in their pre-IPO prospectus they say that their Girbralter lawyers told them it was ok to say this. Funny thing is, US courts get to decide if their Gibralterese lawyers are correct. [Hmm, didn't Californian's sue Nike for unfair labor practices in Vietnam? Oh, that's different, because it's legal to sell Nike's shoes in California. Oh wait.]





Hmm, How does the IRS handle cheating on taxes? Well, you pay what you owe and then a penalty on top of that. They don't take everything you own. You also get to argue on your own behalf, sometimes even with a lawyer (which the state seems to think is pretty important, it being unconstitutional and all for them to take things from you without providing one). But, then again, taxes aren't as imporant as making examples out of grandmas playing poker.

If I were an (outside) lawyer for Party I would be very happy, because business is going to be good. If I were an owner of some of their 8 billion public shares I'd be worried. If I were a founder, I'd be glad I already dumped $1 billion worth of my shares.

Try to guess the country from which Party derives 87% of its revenue?


***In case some people can't read and/or think: Private Companies Seizing Assets = -EV for the companies doing the seizing, especially if those companies are illegal.***

[/ QUOTE ]


To help address ghostwriter's confusion I've significantly edited my prior post to make things a bit clearer.

[And I'm quoting it here because going back to read it after heroically reaching this point in the thread cannot reasonably be expected.]

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lee,

I also will follow El Diablo and others and play at Party until you reconsider your stance on cheating.

Its just not worth the risk in higher limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lee, I too have taken this stance. I appreciate the many great things that you and Stars have done for online poker and I will return to Stars if I feel that Stars is the most aggressive in enforcement and punishment of online cheaters amongst the major poker sites. I am withdrawing today and I will be sending an e-mail to support if anyone cares to read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Lee is in a tougher spot than a lot of people are giving him credit for, and I'm surprised that the people who think Party was unreasonable for taking ZJ's entire roll (and there are people besides ZJ who feel that) aren't coming to Stars' defense.

[BigDave]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing I can't understand is why someone who's obviously good enough to win a ton of money playing poker needs to cheat to try and win even more

[/ QUOTE ]

We are all wired a little differently. Competition and winning by themselves can drive a person to do strange things. I used to play Madden online all the freaking time. There were ways to manipulate the game that were pretty lame. Money plays, ways to get a sack every time, things that made the game not so realistic. And whenever I wanted to play the better players with the better records, 9 times out of 10 you would see this crap. This was with no money involved. Some people like to win, and will do whatever it takes to do so. I did not find this fun at all, so I stopped playing.

Now, throw money into the equation, and you have another driving force. Winning in poker means making the most money, and this kid looks like he was doing pretty well at that. Perhaps greed took over, or he was running with the wrong crew and thought he had to keep up with the Joneses, or he was just a young kid who made a bad judgment call. It probably was a combination of all these things. When I was 20 I did a whole ****load of stupid things for a lot less then 100G.

[8Tdiamonds]

BigDave you are the winner.

[Baulucky]

[ QUOTE ]
When I was 20 I did a whole ****load of stupid things for a lot less then 100G.


[/ QUOTE ]

So did I, but I never stole any money.

[ZeeCheatin]

[ QUOTE ]
worst gimmick account evar

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, don't be a [sensered].

[Burno]

[ QUOTE ]

I considered doing the same, but then I found a cool new poster in their FPP store.



Count me among the optimistic-turned-disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]



This is phenomenal.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Hello Sean,

Our anti-collusion and anti-cheating policy is not set in stone. It is
simply too vague to say that someone who is cheating will have all of their
funds seized, and very possibly could be construed in many jurisdictions as
illegal. What we consider when seizing the funds of a cheater are as
follows:

-The exposure to harm of the victims
-The nature of the cheating
-The severity of the cheating
-The knowledge that the user was cheating
-The duration of cheating

As well as a few other mitigating factors. While I cannot disclose private
information about 'ZeeJustin' and his violations at PokerStars, I can say
that he only had one additional account on PokerStars that occasionally
played in simultaneous tournaments. The extent of his infractions at
PokerStars was not severe enough to warrant total seizure of his funds. We
understand that it is possible that the extent of his violations on
PartyPoker were much greater, however, we cannot speculate or base our
decision in any way related to their findings for reasons that should be
obvious.

If you choose not to play on PokerStars because of your views on our
collusion/cheating policy, we're quite sorry to lose you as a customer. I
personally hope that you review the email and understand that our anti-
cheating policy does not wholly exclude punitive damages but instead covers
a wide range of variables as stated previously. We feel that this issue is
so in depth for most users that a simple black-and-white approach to
alleged "cheating" is going to be more detrimental than effective.

If you have any further questions or concerns, do not hesitate to let us
know.

Regards,

Kyle

[/ QUOTE ]

I get their position, and its actually good that they think about things and do not just have one reaction, since it actually is *possible* for honest mistakes to happen (i.e. roomates playing in the same tourney and not colluding etc)

I'd hate to see an honest player lose thier roll because of optics and not evidence.

That being said, their lack of any punitive charges is disconcerting.

I misread Lee's first email, and thought they took his roll.

Their response to someone who set out to cheat is too tepid for my taste.

Add me to the list who won't play on Pstars.

Regards,
Woodguy

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm stunned by the Olympian heights Stars' support has attained on this issue. Their cheating policy is better than any I have been able to formulate in the last few days of thinking about this issue. When a poker support representative provides better legal/policy formulations than I can, all I can say is: that's some damn fine support. NH Stars.

[Mitternacht]

Does anyone know how many cheaters Stars has caught that have never been reported on here? How many people have received credits to their accounts due to collusion being detected and never bothered to post the e-mails here to show that Stars was doing their job?

Without the initial e-mail posted outing ZJ I sincerely doubt that we would be talking about this at all. ZJ wouldn't have told anyone he was banned and I sincerely doubt that Party would have made a general announcement that they had banned him. I still don't understand why everyone has so much love for Party on this and so much anger and disappointment towards Stars.

And does anyone on here know anything about Costa Rican law? I'm sure that could be a factor in their policy on what to do with cheaters.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not defending Stars. I'm just trying to see if there is something I am missing in this entire thing to make me prefer one site for security over another because I honestly don't understand why Stars' policy is necessarily bad. Mostly I'm just trying to figure out where my new online home should be.

[grandgnu]

This Problem Affects ALL Gaming, It's Not Just About Money.

Case in point:

It seems to be human nature to try and gain an edge over others, in a wide variety of circumstances.

Obviously, the draw/lure of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars is huge, especially to the young and brash.

While I don't condone cheating like this, it's understandable how someone can easily try to convince themselves what they're doing is ok. Plenty of people download movies and/or music illegally, but justify it based on a variety of reasons.

How many of us are clean of having never downloaded an MP3 for our listening pleasure? Sure, this is a minor infraction as one person, but as a group of people it has serious implications.

This multi-accounting issue has even larger monetary implications, on a per-person basis.

I saw this same type of crap with online games that weren't for money. The anonymity of the Internet, coupled with many individuals lack of discipline, self-control or the ability to accept a loss, lead to a variety of cheats in games I played.

I used to play two online text-based multiplayer games many years ago. One called Utopia, the other PimpWars.

There were specific rules for each game, but some players were so intent on being at the top of the pack, that they'd find ways to circumvent the rules.

They'd create multiple accounts so they could "farm" them early in the stages of a new round to give their primary account(s) a leg up on the competition.

They'd use multiple accounts to grief other players, gangbanging someone who legitimately only had one account. And as the practice became more widespread, with multiple IP accounts used to hide their activities, more people turned to acts of cheating to try and "even the playing field".

It just creates a dominoe effect, where just a handful of people can start the ball rolling on huge amounts of cheating. Some people just can't stand to lose, they can't accept or deal with it, and they'll resort to any tactics they can to avoid loss.

I was one of the most dedicated players back then in each game, and I was usually one of the top players. But I never reached the complete top, because most of it was filled with multi-accounters and players working in alliances that weren't permitted, so they'd smack anyone down that was a threat to their standings in the game (again, no prizes were being awarded, it was all just about the power and "glory" to lord over others)

Look at games like CounterStrike or Battlefield, where people use all kinds of hacks and glitches to allow themselves to hide in walls and kill you without being killed themselves.

They take advantage of weaknesses in the system, because they're obviously not strong enough to be as successful playing fairly.

Justin, what you did was weak and lame, but I understand the lure of the cash man, it's brought many a strong man down. You're a young kid, you probably have a boatload of money left over from your escapades, so I'm sure you're not hurting.

In addition, to those who say he "lost" 100 grand or whatever. Not really, he stole it from everyone else, and now it's being taken back. And I'm sure there's plenty of money he already withdrew that we'll never get back.

If a bank robber steals $500,000 and the authorities catch him and recover $400,000 of it, did the bank robber "lose" 400 grand? I don't think so.