My rebuttal to Mark Seif on RawVegas.TV

Hielko · #1 10-31-2007, 06:57 PM

The latter is not just a minor inconvenience: it hints at the fact that a lot more shady things could be going on besides user 363.

highhustla · #2 10-31-2007, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The latter is not just a minor inconvenience: it hints at the fact that a lot more shady things could be going on besides user 363.

[/ QUOTE ]

How dense do you have to be to gloss over this? AP claiming they have 0 hard drives is at least as scary as the superuser account itself.

aislephive · #3 10-31-2007, 07:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The latter is not just a minor inconvenience: it hints at the fact that a lot more shady things could be going on besides user 363.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, but that is all just speculation of potential cheating. Right now we have actual proof of cheating for at least $700k, that's obviously much worse than some shady practices for the time being. Yes, potentially this could lead to uncovering of more cheating for even more money. But all we know right now is that they delete old hand histories, which by itself doesn't mean there was more cheating going on.

highhustla · #4 10-31-2007, 07:10 PM

You've got it backwards. The burden of proof is on AP at this point. They need to prove to us that there WASN'T cheating before all this, or we should assume that there was. You'd be a [censored] fool not to.

Spiff · #5 10-31-2007, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The burden of proof is on AP at this point. They need to prove to us that there WASN'T cheating before all this, or we should assume that there was.

[/ QUOTE ]

aislephive · #6 10-31-2007, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You've got it backwards. The burden of proof is on AP at this point. They need to prove to us that there WASN'T cheating before all this, or we should assume that there was. You'd be a [censored] fool not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf, this isn't right at all.

I hate AP as much as the next guy but they are still innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that they don't save their hand histories by itself is just more shady doings from Absolute, but hardly proof that cheating was going on before this. I do think there is a good chance that cheating WAS going on previous to this scandal, and the fact that they're deleting hand histories only adds to the suspicion, but it's still not enough to prove anything, period.

highhustla · #7 10-31-2007, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I do think there is a good chance that cheating WAS going on previous to this scandal, and the fact that they're deleting hand histories only adds to the suspicion, but it's still not enough to prove anything, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a scenario whereby a professional poker player shills for an online poker site but has a very busy career and life and therefore allows an insider to pose as him online. The insider plays badly, then, in an effort to regain the pros reputation as a good player, goes into ‘god-mode’ and crushes the opponent. When confronted with that reality afterwards how would the pro react? Would he want the poker community to know that he allowed someone else to ‘put in his screen time' by playing under his name or would he try to cover for this and inadvertently get himself in deeper?

[/ QUOTE ]

ike · #8 10-31-2007, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've got it backwards. The burden of proof is on AP at this point. They need to prove to us that there WASN'T cheating before all this, or we should assume that there was. You'd be a [censored] fool not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf, this isn't right at all.

I hate AP as much as the next guy but they are still innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that they don't save their hand histories by itself is just more shady doings from Absolute, but hardly proof that cheating was going on before this. I do think there is a good chance that cheating WAS going on previous to this scandal, and the fact that they're deleting hand histories only adds to the suspicion, but it's still not enough to prove anything, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

from a legal perspective, sure. as a business that would like to continue having customers, the burden is clearly on them to prove convincingly that there wasn't cheating or that, if there was, its been resolved and won't happen again.
of course this won't happen because its abundantly obvious that there was cheating, that they know it, and that they're doing a stunningly terrible job of resolving the problem.

toutatis70 · #9 10-31-2007, 08:32 PM

Ok do i have this right? before scandal Mark claimed to be an owner, after scandal he is just a poor spokesman who even gets the run around dodge from Ap's customer service. But he claims to be credible on his Raw vegas Video rebuttal.

Red_Diamond · #10 10-31-2007, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You've got it backwards. The burden of proof is on AP at this point. They need to prove to us that there WASN'T cheating before all this, or we should assume that there was. You'd be a [censored] fool not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly how it works in THE AMERICAN WAY. When you get an audit from the government for your suspicious tax reccords, it is up to YOU and only YOU to supply proper files in full. It is YOU who must make sure everything is legit, the reccords are correctly filed and up to date, and you did not try to defraud the government in any way. YOU get hit with tax evasion if you don't, it is as simple as that. YOU are under the heat and must prove your innocense to the max man, not the other way around.

On the other hand, Mark Seif's THE AMERICAN WAY seems to have a much different meaning... But to his credit, he seems to be arguing about something different here.

Anyhow, I don't doubt that the evidence has really been trashed and will never be seen again. Though on the other hand, if AP is forced to produce those files, or face a very long-term prison sentence, I wouldn't be surprised if suddenly we get a response of 'Ohhh, we forgot about something. There was a little hard drive stored up in John Doe's closet, which just happened to contain a backup of the backup that was lost. Phew!'