[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute is not "getting away" with snything if the "informed market" has appropriately discounted the risk of cheating and decided to play there anyway.

You are free to exercise your choice NOT to play there, if you want the POLICE to ban everyone else, how are you better than Focis on Family ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't know how to even approach the depth of ignorance/nihilism/whatever that this question implies.

Let's review: we uncovered uncontrovertible proof of a site co-owner/his friend rigging the site to benefit himself. The site's response to this was to stonewall - no surprise since the co-owner was running the show at the time. The market looked at this and yawned, meaning that nothing was going to stop this guy from coming back to run a slightly smarter ripoff six months later. Hell, there still isn't, since one of them is only suspended *now*.

Your response to this is "well, if they're dumb enough to play there, who are you to stop them?" Every poker player with three brain cells to rub together that cares about the perceived integrity of the game as a whole and its future growth should be smart enough to laugh out loud at this. Do you not get at all how bad this looks and how much something like this hurts the entire industry? Do you think this indifference makes future investigative efforts more or less likely to work? Am I gonna waste any more of my time doing the legwork on FTP when they go rogue if nobody cares? How about the new fish - are they more likely to sign up to *any* site when they hear games are obviously rigged and no one did anything about it?

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD A SITE WAS RIGGED AND SOMEONE HELPED SOMEONE ELSE STEAL A MILLION DOLLARS AND THEY WILL BE BACK BEHIND THE HELM OF A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR COMPANY IN THE SAME BUSINESS IN A YEAR. And the market, made up of thousands of people who can make a few hundred extra bucks in expected value by crossing a virtual picket line, keeps playing at AP, thereby reaffirming each other's horrible decisions in a positive feedback loop. Mind you, that expected value is contingent upon the game remaining unrigged when a certain executive gets unsuspended - our first public hint of that happening will be around the Tenth of Never - and upon that executive not getting any better at poker in that timeframe. But, you know, who am I to go against a tidal wave of lemmings, each of whom is securely thinking they'll get out at the first sign of trouble before the others leap over the cliff? How dare I interfere with them just because that stampede is going to directly affect the likelihood of the next 10 crooked execs getting away with it and make me unable to say "the games are honest" with a straight face? FREE MARKET FOREVER.

[ QUOTE ]
Want to offer odds on that proposition? [that no one's going to jail]

[/ QUOTE ]

I would. And I know a lot more about this than you do.