[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, I'm guessing that many of those most concerned with the "process" here are those with the most training and/or experience with the legal system. Not sure what that means, just interesting is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, I have no training or particular experience with the legal system. My interest in this derives from my previous role as the President of a Student Union at Monash University and my involvement in adjusting the exclusions process for unsatisfactory academic progress.

An important part of that was ensuring that students had a fair process - even though it was not a court, the "customers" had a right to natural justice.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that this is easy, because it is not. Bots are bad, and I don't want them infesting online poker. But realize that this kangaroo process is going to crucify some innocents in the future. It's inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that all the reasonable people who advocate keeping the process secret recognise and accept this.

They feel, I think, that this is an acceptable price to pay for less bots. I disagree with them, but it is purely a value judgement. There is no right/wrong answer here, because it comes down to a moral decision about what is worse.


[ QUOTE ]
And although a site perhaps could rob a player of his entire online bankroll with one click, I have ZERO reason to believe this is happening or even makes sense to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has previously happened with TeddyFBI's mother (with regards to PokerStars).

There are links in this thread to that story. Clearly, it has happened in the past, and clearly, it will happen in the future.

This is not surprising.

[ QUOTE ]
If it were, the site's reputation would be severely tarnished and it would hurt their business.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that this problem is currently hurting the business of all poker sites. I believe that the number one <u>controllable</u> factor discouraging new players from playing online poker is a lack of trust and faith in the operators. Taking the initiative would make good business sense.

FTP and other sites to not profit from the current arrangements. It would seem easy, then, to try another option. It's not as if they could lose from such an effort.

[ QUOTE ]
Heck, what was done in this particular case appears to be very much justified (regardless of the argument of whether or not the player should be allowed obtain the evidence to present a case to defend himself).

[/ QUOTE ]
How the hell can you say that what was done was "justified" if the whole point of this discussion is that the justification was not made available? How do you know that this has been justified? What was the justification?

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly no matter how justified Full Tilt is for their actions, they are still getting a ton of bad PR for this whether right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. They would get no bad PR if they took appropriate steps to have an independent arbiter.

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes you just have to take a step back and use some common sense. Like I said this isn't a court of law. Full Tilt is facing a difficult situation, and obviously you and I disagree (strongly) on how the process should be handled.


[/ QUOTE ]
The concept of "natual justice" is not limited to courts of law. I don't understand why people keep saying "this is not a court of law." It doesn't matter whether this is a court of law or not. People have a basic entitlement to fairness in all aspects of their life, not just in court.

If something is morally wrong inside a court of law, then it is also morally wrong outside a court of law.

Apart from anything else, the concept of only requiring fairness where both parties can agree on a court system (in an obviously international situation) is absurd. I can not envisage this situation to be brought under any Western court system in the near future.

[ QUOTE ]
If my post is ignorant your post is basically 50x more ignorant for basically stating that you'd rather have 50 bots stealing money from people at the tables than deal with this situation as it has been dealt with. Your tone is that this guy is a victim, which I think is an absolute joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

He may well be a victim. I don't know, you don't know.

I believe that a fair way to resolve the situation would be for an independent arbiter to make a decision either way.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no perfect solution, but I really think you fail to weigh the consequences one way or another. It all appears quite black and white to you. Maybe because bots haven't reached a level of sophistication yet to take your money, you don't see the other side of the issue quite as well. If the sites took your approach though, you'd certainly start to see this happen within a few years if not less time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be right - I think it is certainly an issue that involves moral judgement and involves shades of grey - not black and white.

[ QUOTE ]
When this uproar started and people got upset, Full Tilt's representative suggested presenting the evidence to a respected mod, and everybody jumped at that and told him to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Exactly. This is precisely a step in the right direction - clearly, Gildwulf's view is better than none - yet it is not perfect.

While I'm sure he does a great job in his service to 2p2, I don't want to be in the situation of gambling my $70k (if I had it) on his judgement. I don't even know his real name!

[ QUOTE ]
They go through that process, we hear from the mod, and it's still not good enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that this is a fair description of my position. I think that it is still not good enough.

I think that the process should be clear and established before situations like this arise (as they surely will in the future). At a minimum, I note no one has responded to either of my 10 second brainstorming suggestions in an earlier post of mine in this thread.

I suspect that they would be acceptable to those people in the thread who disagree with me currently. I hope that they are a fair compromise.

What did you and others think of them?


[ QUOTE ]
This is not a court of law. Full Tilt has a right to manage this situation to the best of their ability.

[/ QUOTE ]
See above for my comments on "court of law" statements.

FTP's has no <u>right</u> to manage this situation to the best of the ability - they have an <u>obligation</u> to do so. I think that they are failing in that obligation. They are failing to provide a fair system for aggreived customers.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that there is not a gaming commission available to handle this case similar to what you might see in Nevada is a result of the current landscape of online poker, and ultimately a reason why it needs to be better regulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is partially a factor, but there is nothing preventing FTP (and other sites) either unilaterally or jointly taking the initative here.

Imagine how good this would look to members of the US Congress (and other national legislators around the world) if poker sites took the initiative to effectively self-regulate themselves. It would be a clear demonstration that the online gaming market is sufficiently mature and responsible to be legalised in their jurisdictions.

Sadly, FTP and others don't have the vision to take this leadership step.

[ QUOTE ]
However, when we put our money onto these sites we are agreeing to their rules under the expectation that the site owners adhere to a strict set of standards and take these actions only in extreme circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]
Similarly, if sites are going to offer gaming services, they are agreeing to run the games fairly. They are not proving that they are running their sites fairly.

Neither you nor I know whether sites are taking these actions in extreme circumstances. Neither of us know how many people are penalised by FTP or other sites - because it is opaque and there is no publication of the process or the results.

[ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked, there hasn't been one poker playing acquaintance of mine who has had his or her money seized for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have met TeddyFBI a few times (and had two great dinners with him). Although I've never met his mother (I am reasonably sure that she exists, and if she's anything like her son, she is a positively delightful woman) she has been accused of being a bot and cheating. From memory, her money was seized (although I'm not certain off the top of my head... check the relevant thread for confirmation either way)
[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect that to change. Proof exists that the player in question violated the TOC. That's all Full Tilt needs.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know such proof exists? How does the accused know that such proof exists? There is no way of verifying this... except passing it to an independent third party.

[ QUOTE ]
They don't need to present that information to me, you, and definitely not the people who would like to find workarounds to avoid detection the next time.

[/ QUOTE ]
They are required to provide a fair process for disputes. I believe the current process is not fair. I suspect that if they were legally regulated in the US or any other Western nation, the courts would agree with me.

I'm willing to concede the point of the accused receiving access to the evidence (since others obviously feel strongly about it, although I doubt its usefulness to bot owners). I think that a fair compromise would be for an independent arbiter to consider the evidence.