[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there are bots and that this represents a problem. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the problem, and further the proper method of dealing with bots is highly dependent on their prevalence.

[/ QUOTE ]

With that logic I guess you'd agree the responsibility for finding, stopping, and preventing them is almost the sole job of the poker sites.

Would you further agree that if 2+2'ers found the bot, reported it to FT, and pushed FT to a decision to the point where FT got off it's ass and actually paid out damamges that perhaps Mason should get a collective bounty check in our names? I know $70,000.00 wouldn't mean much to Mason but it would send the right message to the current bot farmers and all the aspiring bot farmers out there.


D$D<--Mason really hates me!

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with an online player wanting to know the nature of their opponents.

There is something very wrong with the mindset that expects there to be no computer assisted players in an online environment.

There is something very wrong with the site mindset that seeks to steal account balances as punishment for botting instead of just simply tagging the account as such and let the players decide. Nobody is harmed if a player has a botters icon tag. If it's true that 100% of players don't want to play against the botter then no harm no foul - the botter gets zero action at the site. Keep in mind that this is less attractive to a site than current policies which essentially give them the right to steal by simply accusing anybody at anytime.

RIIT