Mr. Gatorade’s Lies cost me over 70k at Full Tilt

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, what SW said: You signed to the TOS of these poker sites, you agreed to follow their rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been said over and over and over in this thread, and it's true. To an extent. HOWEVER, a big-huge, small print, legalese, "license agreement" such as a T&C is not governed by exactly the same rules as if you and I decide that I'm selling you my house, here are the terms, payment schedules, sign here, etc.

It is what is known as a "contract of adhesion" which is lawyer-talk for "take it or leave it" - there is no negotiation, no give and take.

Now, what that means is that such a contract will be construed pretty liberally against the drafter (read: FTP) and in favor of the user (read: the players). Typically, this means two things. First, any ambiguity in the language or effect of the terms will be resolved in favor of the player - though this is not likely an issue here.

Additionally, the law takes the fairly common sense approach that no one really reads the damn things, and holding people to every last provisions is probably not fair. More specifically, a term of the T&C could be found void or unenforceable or simply not operative for a variety of reasons: it could be illegal (you must kill one baby per day or else we have the right to...); it could be against 'public policy' (nebulous - some might argue that the T&C as a whole are void, as gambling is against the public policy of the U.S.)

It could also be found "unconscionable" so burdensome or harsh that it completely defeats the reasonable expectations of the user - this typically occurs in situations where the little guy gets obviously screwed the best examples I can think of off the top of my head are where chintzy RTO type stores implement a "dragnet" clause by which none of your purchases are paid off until all of them are. So, I buy a sofa today, and a TV tomorrow, pay off the purchase amount of the sofa and part of the TV and then default, they could come and snatch not only the TV but the sofa as well.

Now, I don't pretend to know how a court would rule on this particular term, BUT, it would seem to me that a system by which the site can confiscate several thousand dollars, giving the user no process, formal or otherwise, is at the very least arguably unconscionable.*

So while yes, we have agreed to play by the rules of the poker site, there are limits as to the rules they can expect to enforce against us.



* I should point out that KNOWINGLY violating a rule, even one that might arguably be unconscionable, would be very detrimental to one's case. I can certainly see a court finding that A) the process used was unfair, but B) the evidence against beatme was so damning that it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. If this reaches an American forum in some fashion, they will have to say something other than "we seized it because we can," regardless of what the terms and conditions say. I think that the "We seized it because we can" argument is a loser in most American juridictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may disagree and give a reason. Still it will not change reality, as StellarWind described it so eloquently. And even though it is not regulated (not saying lawless, really), it is still not quite like an anarchy. I don't want to bring politics into this, but sorry: You can choose to disagree with the foreign policy of your country (in a democratic system you theoretically even have the right to) but you will not be able to change it.

You can try to initiate a petition (this is what some of the posters try to do here), but usually it will not help you. You were born under your nations flag, you have its passport. As citizen you will need to follow their law.

Again, what SW said: You signed to the TOS of these poker sites, you agreed to follow their rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't the slightest idea what you are trying to say. I have never agreed to an arbitrary seizure of my funds, and my point was that most American Courts would not accept the very Argument that you are proposing: that these T&C's include an arbitrary seizure clause. A judge won't see it that way. To the extent someone is claiming the right to ARBITRARILY seize funds, I say: good luck with that. An American judge will likely read reasonableness into these terms. you go ahead and make the argument that they can seize anybody's funds, for any reason, and they answer to no one. Again, good luck with that.

There are plenty of reasons why a case premised on these facts would fail, not the least of which that it looks like the OP is really, really guilty and did bad things. That's a lot better argument.

But more fundamentally, I stated that I thought the court process was at most secondary. I mean, who wants to literally have to sue to be treated fairly? The process I am referring to would be an internal process that allowed the account holder an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful fashion. If that's too much to ask, count me out.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the answer is really, "no obligations whatsover," as you say, they simply perceive it as a unilateral right to seize accounts without explanation or an opportunity to be heard, that's unacceptable.

At least to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is the key point.

No one has any power to "force" FTP* to be a good corporate citizen. The only lever that people have is to not use their services if their service is not up to scratch.


*Feel free to substitute the name of any other poker site here

[/ QUOTE ]

This not true at all...

Let them take the wrong person's money...

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, what SW said: You signed to the TOS of these poker sites, you agreed to follow their rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
For the record I didn't say that.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
This actually is the old argument between FULL-DISCLOSURE or NON-DISCLOSURE policy in the IT security. I'm not saying non-disclosure is a bad thing regarding investigation on bots on poker sites but there are two sides to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The standard approach from the "White Hats" is to inform the vendor and provide all relevant details including the actual exploit. To the public they will only state that there is a security problem in that software but no more.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's important to realize that in the context of this classic security argument the poker sites are the black hats.

1. It's the bot gang that is attempting to operate secure computers and conceal every trace of its actions. The site wants to find a way for the poker client to hack into the user's PC and detect evidence of bot usage.

Do criminal hackers normally notify Microsoft when they find another way to exploit Windows? Or do they just keep exploiting (catching bots) until someone (a botter) figures it out?

2. The site is also looking for play patterns that indicate bot behavior. Examples of this that have been discussed including timing tells, seating habits, identical playing styles, etc. It's very similar to how intelligence organizations go about studying the enemy.

Suppose the CIA figures out that whenever the Outer Baldonians are planning a sneak attack, the parking lot at the War Ministry suddenly fills up. Should they tell the Baldonians why their attacks keep failing?

3. The site may also be investigating suspicious accounts in the real world. Perhaps they found a way to prove that the bots accounts are all using fake identities which are related in some way.

Suppose that the FBI learns that a certain craftsman is producing fake IDs for a terrorist organization but the IDs all have a telltale flaw. Should they announce it to the world or quietly start watching for people with flawed IDs?

The bottom line here is the bot gang had a hole in their security and FTP exploited it. The undoubted winning course of action is to keep quiet and milk the exploit until the bot underground catches on.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line here is the bot gang had a hole in their security and FTP exploited it. The undoubted winning course of action is to keep quiet and milk the exploit until the bot underground catches on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not convinced that this is supported by evidence.

I understand that the OP continues to claim that he is innocent. Surely, given that there is apparently the chance that sites hit false positives (eg, TeddyFBI's mum) there should be some way for the accused to prove their innocence.

Let FTP set the hurdle - let them set how high the accused has to jump to clear his name - but the idea that there is <u>no</u> recourse is tyrannical in the extreme.

[cwar]

Clearly theres a lot more recourse when your innocent, Teddy's Mom got cleared or am I mistaken?

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly theres a lot more recourse when your innocent, Teddy's Mom got cleared or am I mistaken?

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT? No, really, WHAT?????? How is it that someone who is innocent has recourse to more process when there is no process to determine guilt or innocence???

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly theres a lot more recourse when your innocent, Teddy's Mom got cleared or am I mistaken?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[Under dog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Libel. Lol. You can't defame the reputation of someone who is anonymous. Perhaps you should have googled libel first...

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? What do you mean anonymous?


McGatorade repeatedly told FTP that beatme1 is operating a bot. FTP knows exactly who beatme1 is and they proceeded to ban her and confiscate $70000. Probably her name is now on some industry-wide cheating blacklist as well. It may be hard for her to ever play again.

A statement was made about her and it apparently led to enormous financial damages. Of course none of this matters if McGatorade is right. But if beatme1 is serious about her innocence then I think she should consult a lawyer about suing McGatorade for libel. Libel doesn't just mean public humiliation. Telling lies to someone's spouse, employer, customer, or supplier and getting them divorced, fired, dropped, or cutoff is quite sufficient.

P.S.: The "illegal gambling" aspect might create problems in court. I don't know and that's what the lawyer is paid for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow you give me a lot of credit. I guess you know all the facts and you know that I "repeatedly" told FTP to ban him. LOL. I guess you side with Beatme1 without having all the facts as no one but FTP has all the facts. Beatme1 is a bot and I stand by my position, which is the same as FTP position. Also about this libel thing, that’s simply funny. What "lies" have I said? I simply speak truth about this matter. I don’t work for FTP but I guess in your eyes and Beatme1's that I am the one that decides who gets banned on FTP. I guess I should promote myself from "player" to "FTP bot security banning guy". I hope my new position pays well, because right now I get nothing. =) On a serious note please understand that there is WAY more then what is posted here and hopefully when the time is right FTP will divulge. Also, I would say most people that play 50/100+ after years of self-proclaimed poker play he/she would have some sort of reputable friend on here that will stand by him/her. I might be wrong; he/she might be a hermit that wants to play a 200K freeze out with me. Beatme1 uses a bot, was caught, and now is punished. Without punishment what is going to stop him or any bot user from thinking twice about just opening up another account with a different IP address using EVDO, DSL, Cable, Satellite, Dial up, ETC. to play his bot's again. Understand that crime goes down when there is harsh punishment. I just wish that other sites follow suit and take the bot problem head on instead of ignoring it like they have done the last few years. Bots will become a more significant problem as time goes on if they are not destroyed right here right now.
-Crazy Mike (MrGatorade)

[/ QUOTE ]


FFS someone show introduce this guy to paragraphs?


Also FT just stating "We think your a bot, your money is now ours ...goodbye" is a bit WTF!!

Things dont just work like that FT, even if she is guilty there are things you are obliged to do. Guilty or not you just TOOK SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS of someone, spend some time explaing in details your findings and why ye are doing what ye are doing.

FT support makes young babies cry