Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

[ QUOTE ]

I actually addressed this right away... you missed it. Has anyone been punished for chipdumping at AP? Like ever?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are your thoughts on this:
Can it have ever been anything other than a cover up, given who these accounts are apparently registered to?

Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

The fact that the named accounts early on turn out to be connected rather clearly to higher ups in the company certainly would have been something they could and should have known.

Which is why we are back to either gross incompetence or a coverup.

It's pretty simple- they either tried to coverup- or didn't care much what was happening.

Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aw WTF

way to ruin this page too!

[/ QUOTE ]

i see it fine, get a new monitor

[/ QUOTE ]

or don't quote it just to say wow?

Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

Serge/Nats' sources have confirmed a cover up.

Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can someone in the know make a list of the lies that have been told by AP during their attempt to coverup?

At this point they shouldn't just be answering to the behavior of the players who comprised their system, but their own behavior over the past month.

[/ QUOTE ]

View it from their perspective tho, hell view an analogous situation in BBV. What if all this was started not by a mod, but by some no name scrub with 5 posts? Would you take him seriously? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, and most of BBV would just make fun of him. (Hell we do it all the time) This is how Absolute viewed our allegations in the beginning imo until its proven otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't the big problem with this that even a cursory glance of the events complained about would have revealed to AP that Potripper was AJ Green, a former, or perhaps current, high up employee of AP. That being the case, you'd expect special notice to be taken of the claim, and ideally, extra care taken in checking them out. Nevertheless, until a few hours ago, and in the face of more and more damning evidence, they've continued to deny all allegations.

[/ QUOTE ]

1.) You'd hope so, but we don't know.
2.) They haven't been issuing blanket denials for at least 3 days now, which was the last time I updated them on this thread. Instead they wrote down what I had to say.

Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) There is no evidence of cheating at any other major site wrong. betfair, party, prima

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf? link please.

[/ QUOTE ]

for starters

Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Serge/Nats' sources have confirmed a cover up.

[/ QUOTE ]

in things not posted?

Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

whoops

Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the named accounts early on turn out to be connected rather clearly to higher ups in the company certainly would have been something they could and should have known.

Which is why we are back to either gross incompetence or a coverup.

It's pretty simple- they either tried to coverup- or didn't care much what was happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could also be that they're extremely incompetent and therefore saw allegations of cheating and thought it was another idiot accusing poker sites of being rigged for no reason. Then as the allegations got stronger, they were still not persuaded BECAUSE the accounts were well known accounts of high levels in AP who presumably would never cheat.

I actually think this is a reasonable explanation about the whole "We know something that makes it clear chip dumping didn't occur thing." That "something" may very well have been "Umm.. we know that guy. He wouldn't chip dump."

Re: We win (AP Scandal v. 27)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the second part of your post seems incredibly naive. i would wager a large amount of money that there was an attempted coverup.

[/ QUOTE ]

then prove it, thats all I'm asking

[/ QUOTE ]

these threads are proof enough for me. stonewalling. denying chipdumping. denying strange tendencies in the play.

DENYING WHEN SCOT TOM WORKED FOR THEM

DENYING A SUPERUSER ACCOUNT EVEN EXISTED

refusing to give out info on who runs the site, who owns the site, who the accts belong to.