|
|
#161
03-28-2006, 10:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
[ QUOTE ]
ucla wins, cold caller sounds like an imbicile! [/ QUOTE ] Your contribution to this thread is immeasureable. Would you care to state an argument that is easily dismantled like the majority of posters here? 
|
|
#162
03-28-2006, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars refunded all people that were cheated by JJProdigy and ZeeJustin. PartyPoker did for one tournament, but none for the rest, yet they seized above and beyond the funds that ZeeJustin obtained that was against Party's policy. Why aren't we talking about this? [/ QUOTE ] I think we've found some common ground. That as an issue makes this thread trivial. My arguments have been centered on how the world “ought to be” not so much the practical side of things. Lee Jones it would appear is not a monster and I even understand the context of “we don’t care” translated as I’m frustrated. However..... All “seized” funds should be returned back to the pool that it was scammed from minus fair and reasonable administrative cost.
|
|
#163
03-28-2006, 11:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is very simple. I want them to set rules based on generally accepted ethical guidelines for poker, not based on whether or not they think they can currently enforce specific rules. Otherwise, they are condoning that which is unethical by having no rule prohibiting it. [/ QUOTE ] Generally accepted ethical guidelines? That sounds a lot like Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, something plenty of companies followed to the letter while simultaneously committing fraud and cooking the books. Here's the deal: Ultimately you have to decide what is ethical and what is not. PokerStars has laid out their policy for all to see. If you determine that this is an unethical position to take, then you probably should not play there and support their organization. However, if you don't think it's a big deal or support their decision, then it is not a problem to play there. Internet poker rooms are not in the business of legislating morality and ethics. They are in the business of solidifying their bottom line by retaining customers and attracting new ones. [/ QUOTE ] LOL, brilliant.
|
|
#164
03-29-2006, 12:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
[ QUOTE ]
My arguments have been centered on how the world “ought to be” not so much the practical side of things. [/ QUOTE ] And I can appreciate that. However, you cannot enact laws and policies that cannot be enforced. This only further weakens your reputation and integrity. [ QUOTE ] All “seized” funds should be returned back to the pool that it was scammed from minus fair and reasonable administrative cost. [/ QUOTE ] I agree, except that no administrative cost should be levied. It is the poker room's job to ensure that collusion and cheating does not occur, and when they find out it has, they should seize the money and repay all harmed individuals. If there is not enough money to do so, they should pay out of pocket. It's that simple, because the poker rooms say they have a fair game going on. If they don't, then they [censored] up and should pay the players for their indiscrections. I don't know PokerStars or Party's or anyone else's official policy on this, but I would like to hear it.
|
|
#165
03-29-2006, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ucla wins, cold caller sounds like an imbicile! [/ QUOTE ] Your contribution to this thread is immeasureable. Would you care to state an argument that is easily dismantled like the majority of posters here? [/ QUOTE ] i agree with what ucla has said, what is so difficult ot understand. would you like me to re type all his posts for you or something?
|
|
#166
03-29-2006, 12:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
Sorry if the fact that a business's main concern is the profit at the end of the rainbow, and the ability to keep that profit growing. Maybe you think people care about ethics and [censored], but guess what - that's not what corporations and businesses have a main goal of. Their job is to provide a service or good as marketable as possible and attract as much profit while doing so. Whether or not this makes YOU happy on the ethical side is completely irrelevant.
Welcome to the real world.
|
|
#167
03-29-2006, 12:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ucla wins, cold caller sounds like an imbicile! [/ QUOTE ] Your contribution to this thread is immeasureable. Would you care to state an argument that is easily dismantled like the majority of posters here? [/ QUOTE ] i agree with what ucla has said, what is so difficult ot understand. would you like me to re type all his posts for you or something? [/ QUOTE ] I'd like you to think critically about the issue and why enacting such policy will harm the integrity and reputation of the site. Consider that I am rebutting every single one of UCLA's posts and he's seemed to have given up, maybe you could pick up the torch since you're so sure of your position?
|
|
#168
03-29-2006, 12:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ucla wins, cold caller sounds like an imbicile! [/ QUOTE ] Your contribution to this thread is immeasureable. Would you care to state an argument that is easily dismantled like the majority of posters here? [/ QUOTE ] i agree with what ucla has said, what is so difficult ot understand. would you like me to re type all his posts for you or something? [/ QUOTE ] I'd like you to think critically about the issue and why enacting such policy will harm the integrity and reputation of the site. Consider that I am rebutting every single one of UCLA's posts and he's seemed to have given up, maybe you could pick up the torch since you're so sure of your position? [/ QUOTE ] LOL, yes I gave up beating my head against a brick wall.
|
|
#169
03-29-2006, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
That's a pretty common debate technique when you've run out of arguments - simply insult the other party and claim that you have the superior position.
|
|
#170
03-29-2006, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You\'ve sold your soul for money, Lee. How does it feel?
UCLA's argument basically breaks down to "I want pokersites to set rules that they cannot enforce". Umm... Like, huh?
I'm reasonably sure if you asked anybody working, they're sure prefer that they could enforce OPTAH as it would make people like UCLA feel a lot better. However, having an policy that you can't uphold just doesn't pass a spit test for making sense. Asking a company to fight windmills for the sake of making you feel better is pretty asinine.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
