PokerStars say you can break their rules

[Punker]

[ QUOTE ]
we should all be subject to a set of rules. We all know them

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important to note that this is where your mistake comes. If everyone did know the rules, then yes - this would be a poor decision. However, the majority of players on a site like PokerStars do *not* know that this is against the rules, which is why PokerStars takes the action it does.

[apefish]

Jumping in here to say that while I think Stars handled it fine- that is to say their prompt responses, curteousness, and full explanations are far beyond what any other site would do- and while their ruling is not out of line with their own wording on situations like this, I think OP is being given too hard a time on this.

Whether you like how Stars responded or not, leaving areas like this up to the judgment of someone looking over chat logs means you will in fact get inconsistent rulings on the same area of complaints.

I'm not saying the wrong ruling happened here. I'm not even saying OP has fully disclosed or not disclosed an accurate chain of events.
But there is a kernel of a very valid point in his post and I'm not sure people should be deriding his position just because we think the path Stars chose to follow is reasonable.

I assume if he had come in here and posted about Stars finding it egregious enough to remedy we would have largely taken a similar stance of "well handled Stars".

Sometimes it's hard to see the distinctions when it happens to you. Often it's harder to see the distinctions when it is in fact a clear cut violation with no clear cut penalty.

OP is saying "make the penalties clearer" - and I don't disagree with his prerogative to question what happened here.

[Rek]

OK OK OK – I SURRENDER.

My original post asked whether you agreed with PokerStars stance. The overwhelming agreement is that they handled this well and the most insightful post was that by jbsc7769.

I WAS WRONG – I played by the rules and reported a break in these. SORRY GUYS.

What I find strange is the way some of you guys try to justify it. Henry17 says “There is no reason to assume the player might not have folded anyway”, “something I see once or twice a week” and costing “$4 per email”. What has any of that got to do with it?

Once and for all – there is no dispute the rules were broken. Whether he would have folded anyway is irrelevant. The fact you see it “once or twice a week” does not make it right. PokerStars have issued him a warning and if repeated he will be penalised. Therefore they agree with me. The only issue is whether he should be penalised or warned in the 1st instance. PokerStars say a warning was ok and you guys agree.

I am now happy with it. End of.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we should all be subject to a set of rules. We all know them

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important to note that this is where your mistake comes. If everyone did know the rules, then yes - this would be a poor decision. However, the majority of players on a site like PokerStars do *not* know that this is against the rules, which is why PokerStars takes the action it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is good from a human perspective and seems reasonable, the fact is we all agree to the t&c when we signed up to play. I for one do not believe ignorance of the rules is a defense.

On the other hand, egregiousness of the violation is well within stars right to determine.

And of course, it is OP's right to question that decision and the process that leads to it.

[Henry17]

"What I find strange is the way some of you guys try to justify it. Henry17 says “There is no reason to assume the player might not have folded anyway”, “something I see once or twice a week” and costing “$4 per email”. What has any of that got to do with it?"

Well if he would have folded anyway then the outcome would have been exactly the same. While a rule was broken there is no way to determine that the violation actually caused the outcome.

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
"What I find strange is the way some of you guys try to justify it. Henry17 says “There is no reason to assume the player might not have folded anyway”, “something I see once or twice a week” and costing “$4 per email”. What has any of that got to do with it?"

Well if he would have folded anyway then the outcome would have been exactly the same. While a rule was broken there is no way to determine that the violation actually caused the outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Henry17 - Once more you miss the point. The outcome is irrelevant to a rule break. For example in football (or soccer to our trans-Atlantic friends) an hand-ball in the area is a penalty which generally then leads to a goal. It does not matter whether without the hand-ball a goal was likely to be scored or not. The hand-ball alone is an infringement of the rules.

Henry17 keeps trying to justify the unjustifiable. Even PokerStars admit he was wrong and if he does it again he will be finacially penalised. It will not matter whether the outcome was likely to have been A,B or C.

Do you now get it Henry17?

I am just a little confused as to why I seem to have been turned into a bad guy for simply questioning PokerStars decision. I have even since posting accepted, in view of the replies, that perhaps they got it right.

Thanks for the posters who have indicated that even though they agree with the way PokerStars handled it I wasn't totally out of order just asking why.

[Henry17]

I am not trying to justify his action I'm saying there is no way to prove his action was the cause of your loss.

The soccer / football example does not fit because there is a rule the pre-exists and sets out the penalty for that particular offence. There is no such rule in the situation being discussed.

Since there is no rule then your claim on his funds is based on establishing that:

Had he not violated the rule you would have finished in the money.

Since you can not establish this you have no claim on his funds. It is really not that complicated

[Rek]

Wow, you're dumber than I thought.

Read PokerStars email on my post. The rule is there and the punishment can be finacial. If he continues to repeat the offence he will be finacially penalised. If you are right how can that be? You are saying no one knows the penalties?

You are not (edit 2) are you?

[Henry17]

Can you highlight where specifically it says that the penalty can be financial?

I certainly don't see it mentioned anywhere. The correct penalty would be to disable his chat on a second offence.

[Rek]

I have looked over the chat logs, and agree that some of this player's
>>>> remarks were inappropriate.
>>>>
>>>> Comments like these are a breach of the tournament rules. We keep track
>> of
>>>> such incidents and as this is the first time this player has been
>> involved
>>>> in such an incident I have sent them a warning asking that they refrain
>>>> from this type of behavior in the future. If this warning goes unheeded,
>>>> much more severe penalties will be given, including likely
>>>> disqualification from any tournament in which the comments are made.


Freaking hell. IS IT CLEAR NOW. Disqualification from the tournament means losing their buy in and any winnings. Sorry the actual words are not "finacial penalty". BUT THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.

Please don't ask me again - if you can't work that out and you still need it clearer just ask PokerStars. They will tell you - they have very good support.