Resolution of the Stars investigation.

[O Doyle Rules]

Hey Teddy,

I may have missed it, but did this get escalated to PokerStar's upper management prior to you posting here or if not, how quickly did it get escalated after you posted about this?

[Warren Schmidt]

[ QUOTE ]

PS. If you have any pictures of Jack naked (sigh), pls post those too.

[/ QUOTE ]

PM me

[WhatDoesCallMean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AND, why is it that Stars seem unwilling to listen to individual complaints about a situation but they will go to the highest levels when there is a massive long thread in 2+2 about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is the same as above. I doubt there is a check system in place at stars where decisions are run through a number of people before coming to action. This just wouldn't be practical. It seems one person made a mistake on a nano-limit account. Unfortunately that one decision-maker seems to have had some clout in whatever department he was in. That kind of screws the account holder.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless im wrong (and unlike others, i am willing to accept that i may be), Stars did nothing bout the whole ZJ and JJ affair till threads started to appear here about it

if their security is so high tech and super-duper great that they can pick up on a multi-tabling bot at the nano-limits, how can they not pick up on a multi-tabling git like ZJ before they are pointed in the general direction to start their checks?

this isnt a resurection of a debate bout ZJ....it is merely me stating that they do not seem to be pro-active in reviewing security measures but rather very reactive, depending on the mood in the zoo on that particular day.

and obviously, every single decision they make cant be taken to the Board to get their approval - this is why there are managers in place throughout the organisation.
the problem arises when an employee, obviously held in high esteem by his managers, cant get over his ego trip to accept that he may have made a mistake and then sends emails to a customer that are nothing short of downright rude...not exactly what the best CS in online poker should be striving towards.

fwiw, imho, when it comes to telling a customer that their business is no longer wanted, i feel that it should be run through a number of people and not just one man who cant accept that he is not infallible.

[William]

So in one thread your mom is 57 y.o. and in the other one she is 55? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[betadecay]

I aggree with you somewhat. You can't say that Stars is primarily reactive. On issues where they are pro-active, the public will generally not be aware of it. Take the active security measure that was teddy's mom's account. The only reason we know of the issue is because Teddy comes to the forums. The decisions to look into ZJ were reactive though.

My guess is that stars was aware of people multi-accounting the MTT's, and like many MTT pro's, just considered it a part of the landscape. They have had other issues with things like this. Slowplaying, 2 players to a hand, multiaccounting the high buy-in SNG's(not at the same table), where they don't clearly state where they stand until it is brought to their attention. I am not sure what, if anything, they have done or said about the SnG multiaccounters. It seems they ruled that the first two were legal though.

I think they have made a mistake by tackling the rules and consequences to rule-breaking in this manner. This is something that they should clearly be pro-active with. The issue with Teddy is different though. I don't think it would have been practical to handle this differently. Obviously a mistake was made, but as a buisness that is going to happen. They have the oppurtunity now to change their policy to prevent it from happening again. I'm sure they will do that.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Teddy,

I may have missed it, but did this get escalated to PokerStar's upper management prior to you posting here or if not, how quickly did it get escalated after you posted about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Teddy,

I went back and re-read the original thread and I now see that PokerStars had escalated this to the highest level within 36 hours after you first posted about it here.

It can be debated how quickly this would have got resolved without this matter being posted here, but I am of the opinion if you had continued to correspond directly with PokerStars to get the issue resolved, the same result would have happened, maybe not nearly as quickly, but still would have been resolved.

No doubt PokerStars made a mistake here, but once again I am impressed that in the end they admitted their mistake, and apologized for it.

I am also confident that they will learn from their mistake so it will decrease the chance of this same sort of error occurring in the future.

I think we need to ask ourselves these questions:

If other Poker sites would have made a similar error would they have admitted it so quickly and apologize for it?

Are we glad that at least PokerStars is making an effort to detect bots, even at the nano-limits? And how do we feel about their efforts (to detect bots) compared to other sites?

As I said before, anyone can make a mistake, the important thing is having the ability to admit your mistake, correct the mistake, apologize for it and work towards making sure it never happens again.

[WhatDoesCallMean]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask yourselves these questions?

If other Poker sites would have made a similar error would they have admitted it so quickly and apologize for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

as a site that strives to be the biggest and best, the quality of their actions should not be decided upon by comparing them to other sites....their response and timing of response is exactly what should be expected from them

[excession]

yes - this is obviously from the ZeeJustin apology school [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Teddy,

I may have missed it, but did this get escalated to PokerStar's upper management prior to you posting here or if not, how quickly did it get escalated after you posted about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be debated how quickly this would have got resolved without this matter being posted here, but I am of the opinion if you had continued to correspond directly with PokerStars to get the issue resolved, the same result would have happened, maybe not nearly as quickly, but still would have been resolved.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...this I'm not so sure about. The only reason I posted about it here was because both my mom's emails to Stars (of which there were at least 6 or 7, if memory serves), and my own were meeting non-negotiable dead ends.
The email replies from Jeff said essentially that he was SURE there was a bot, and that the matter was closed, and those from Lee said that he had full confidence in Jeff's abilities, and implied that future emails would be futile.

The more I think about the matter, the more strongly i feel that the most important factor that helped get this escalated to a level far above Lee Jones within 48 hours is the pressure to address the momentum it had gained from this forum.

[gasoltub]

[ QUOTE ]

1) 100% correct. My mother's account was NOT active for 43 straight hours. Jeff's email said that the security measure they had in place initially identified that time period as having been 43 straight hours, and he simply made a mistake when he investigated in more detail.


[/ QUOTE ]

That was the one mistake I did not expect at all. Especially when Jeff mentioned several of those long sessions.
My apologies to your mom for thinking she was a cheater.
No need to apologize to you though, since I thought you were honest with this all from the beginning. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]