[MarvinMartian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

... In order to accept, however, my attorneys needed to make it very clear that:

4. They would accept direct compensation for the investigation only from Two Plus Two as a client.

....

Best Wishes,

Mason Malmuth
Two Plus Two Publishing

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

This is a blurring of the financial facts at best. AP was paying for this. And that matters.

Or more to the point, you should have said:

4. They would accept INDIRECT compensation for the investigation only from AP as a client.

Seriously, this was a horrible idea. Investigations that are funded by the bad guys NEVER work. Because the good guys have to be seen to be beyond question. And of course that goes beyond 2+2.

I'm sure you know this. Don't you?

DUCY etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are just wrong here. The investigators would not have a business arrangement with AP, and there would be no likely future business between the two (which is where the real conflict of interest arises). Also, because they would be getting the money from 2+2, their responsibility is to 2+2. Now, you could argue that 2+2 may be influenced by the potential of future business with AP, and thus instruct their lawyers accordingly, but that is not what you are saying (and I think the argument is pretty weak in any case).

The only way to do things your way is to fund the investigation with private funds. Seriously, that is just not reasonable in any light. It would be reasonable for a government to fund a criminal investigation. It would be reasonable for a licensing organization (ideally one not owned by the same people who own AP). It would be reasonable for a funded group if that was in their charter. (For instance, if it was fell under the PPA's charter, which I don't believe it does). It would be reasonable for someone trying to reclaim money they thought they were owed but AP claimed they didn't. To ask those cheated to spend their own money (if they were already being paid back) is pretty silly (they already have their money back or it is in process and afaik, no one is disputing they amounts claiming they were cheated out of more, so for them to fund the thing is just throwing away money with no upside). It is silly to think a disinterested third party would spend their own money here. This is not a trivial sum of money we are talking about to fund this sort of endeavor.

The very best one can hope for, barring an unbiased investigation from a governing body is to have an independent trusted third party do exactly what Mason has suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in a nutshell this site bears no responsibility to enforce internet poker regulation? Well, no question they don't. It just would have been nice if they pretended there was a better looking future and some form of protection was available. At least a vague notion of a reference to an idea that somewhere was a means to make internet poker safer. I think the philosophical ideology of Sklansky just makes people feel a little bit deflated. A little bit of fantasy consisting of something like "the evil tyrants will pay for their crimes!" wouldn't have gone astray in the hearts and minds of a lot of people. Its rough playing poker, we all know it. Noone is asking to be babied, but seriously, blatant abuse in something we love and endure shouldn't be met with complacency and defeatist attitudes.