|
|
#51
11-07-2007, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
Quoting Mason:
[ QUOTE ] Two Plus Two and its forum members have been responsible.... [/ QUOTE ] The forum members have done all the work....Two Plus Two as a company hasn't done [censored]. 
|
|
#52
11-07-2007, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] but for now I think it is better to have the weight of the 2+2 company name out there rather than the names of specific people. [/ QUOTE ] He made it perfectly clear though that these individuals were not, in any way, representing 2+2. And now all of a sudden 2+2 and these individuals are as one. [/ QUOTE ] from a legal perspective, surely you can see why Mason can say whatever he wants using the 2+2 name and Nat can't? [/ QUOTE ] k but that doesnt mean mason should be taking any credit whatsoever for discovering the cheating or anything else Nat did. he cant have it both ways
|
|
#53
11-07-2007, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
Quoting Mason: [ QUOTE ] Two Plus Two and its forum members have been responsible....{/quote] The forum members have done all the work....Two Plus Two as a company hasn't done [censored]. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#54
11-07-2007, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
Quoting Mason: [ QUOTE ] Two Plus Two and its forum members have been responsible.... [/ QUOTE ] The forum members have done all the work....Two Plus Two as a company hasn't done [censored]. [/ QUOTE ] soooooo true
|
|
#55
11-07-2007, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
Nat doesn't officially represent 2+2...Nat is the man, but why would Mason let him say he's going to represent 2+2? I'm assuming this is the part you disagree with: [ QUOTE ] Second, Absolute has apparently agreed to allow Bluff Magazine and Pocket Fives to review the findings of the investigation without a similar arrangement for Two Plus Two. This seems strange considering Two Plus Two’s role in uncovering and discussing this situation. [/ QUOTE ] How is he not 100% right? Nat et al obviously deserve all of the credit, but they were posting on the 2+2 forum. Couldn't he be using the word "2+2" instead of "the two plus two posters?" 2+2 should be first in line, not Bluff or P5s. Maybe I shouldn't have said "don't post anymore" but seriously, it's not like Mason is trying to take the credit for this. [/ QUOTE ] I don't want to overstate things: I tend to agree that Mason wouldn't take personal credit for the unmasking of this scandal. The term "Two Plus Two" can mean one of two things: 1) Two Plus Two, the company, who operate the messageboards and publish the books and so forth; 2) Two Plus Two, the community, a few members of whom uncovered the cheating at Absolute. Basically my objection is to Mason's second statement (the one at the top of this thread), which could be interpreted as trying to take the credit due to the Two Plus Two community (well, really Nat and a few others) and get it applied to Two Plus Two, the company. [ QUOTE ] Couldn't he be using the word "2+2" instead of "the two plus two posters?" [/ QUOTE ] Well, possibly, but it didn't come across that way to me. He's suggesting that it's his lawyers (not Nat or Adanthar's lawyers) who ought to be welcomed into Absolute's offices.
|
|
#56
11-07-2007, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
Quoting Mason: [ QUOTE ] Two Plus Two and its forum members have been responsible.... [/ QUOTE ] The forum members have done all the work....Two Plus Two as a company hasn't done [censored]. [/ QUOTE ] 2+2 is trying to do this investigation, aren't they? While the company has not been as instrumental as Nat and the others in bringing out the truth, you can't say they haven't done anything. And as I said before, it is better to have the weight of the 2+2 name at the front of this investigation, even if the company itself can only technically claim a small role in uncovering the facts (relative to Nat etc.). I think it is in the best interest of everyone in the online poker community to have Mason and 2+2 firmly on our side in the AP scandal. Time will tell, but I really believe he will give credit where credit is due when it's all said and done. Right now though, having his company at the forefront will be much better for our cause.
|
|
#58
11-07-2007, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Second, Absolute has apparently agreed to allow Bluff Magazine and Pocket Fives to review the findings of the investigation without a similar arrangement for Two Plus Two. This seems strange considering Two Plus Two’s role in uncovering and discussing this situation. [/ QUOTE ] It's kind of funny how when Nat was considering whether to go down to Costa Rica "as a representative for twoplustwo", Mason was very quick to point out that "I'm sorry but you do not represent Two Plus Two. That authorization can only from me." However, when it comes to taking credit for uncovering the scandal, he's happy to have all the credit associated with the "Two Plus Two" name. [/ QUOTE ] don't post anymore. [/ QUOTE ] I totally agree that the position of Mason is contradictory on this point, and it's even more contradictory on this one: [ QUOTE ] Over the past two months Two Plus Two and its forum members have been responsible for noticing, investigating, and ultimately alerting the world to the suspicious and potentially fraudulent cheating activity occurring at Absolute Poker. [/ QUOTE ] Two Plus Two speaking by his representative Mason was clear that Nat and the forum members do not represent Two Plus Two, and he did it in a very sharp way. And with obvious reasons, they were not appointed by Two Plus Two as representatives, period. But then his statement than "Two Plus Two and its forum members have been responsible for noticing, investigating, and ultimately alerting the world" is really horrible and unfair to the posters that were cut sharp when Nat sayed or implied that he was representing either Two Plus Two or the Two Plus Two community, Nat and the other did the noticing, investigation, and alerting job, not Two Plus Two. And in the same way that Two Plus Two can decide who represents them and who does not represent them, the posters also have the right to claim who did they represented when they did this. So, even if the posters would had accepted the representation, the representation was clearly rejected by Two Plus Two. And when he says Two Plus Two has been responsible, he is clearly saying Two Plus Two, he's a person who has a very clear concept of what is Two Plus Two and reads every post with that concept in his mind, and who is the Two Plus Two Community, so he can not get the benefit of the doubt when he confuses the two terms. But then, even if he meant the "Two Plus Two Community", meaning the people who post at 2+2, I'm pretty sure this is also totally incorrect, he can not say who represents the Community and who does not. I'm a member of this community, and to my knowledge this Community does not have formal representatives, also because it does not have a way to elect these representatives. All Two Plus Two did, was to provide the infrastructure and also the atmosphere for a group of posters of Two Plus Two to notice, investigate and alert. I've saw this the very same moment Mason made the post, but I didn't made it because I said ok, I love 2+2, I will let this one go. But now one of the zillions of flamers comes to flame a guy that made a point that is totally valid, and I had to say my word, in order for 2+2 to continue to be the place I want to be, a place when points are made based on facts, and without the zillions flamers that do not add any value to anyone. Regards ...
|
|
#59
11-07-2007, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
Hi Everyone:
[ QUOTE ] Two Plus Two speaking by his representative Mason was clear that Nat and the forum members do not represent Two Plus Two, and he did it in a very sharp way. And with obvious reasons, they were not appointed by Two Plus Two as representatives, period. [/ QUOTE ] We think that Nat is very capable and is a fine person. But Two Plus Two is a specific entity and only we can represent ourselves and only we can speak to our own policy and policy announcements. That was what my point was here, and yes Nat deserves special credit. [ QUOTE ] But then his statement than "Two Plus Two and its forum members have been responsible for noticing, investigating, and ultimately alerting the world" is really horrible and unfair to the posters that were cut sharp when Nat sayed or implied that he was representing either Two Plus Two or the Two Plus Two community, Nat and the other did the noticing, investigation, and alerting job, not Two Plus Two. And in the same way that Two Plus Two can decide who represents them and who does not represent them, the posters also have the right to claim who did they represented when they did this. So, even if the posters would had accepted the representation, the representation was clearly rejected by Two Plus Two. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously many people worked on uncovering the scandal. But I believe it was the pressure that these forums through all the posters and their posts put on AP that made them come around to the degree that they did. [ QUOTE ] And when he says Two Plus Two has been responsible, he is clearly saying Two Plus Two, he's a person who has a very clear concept of what is Two Plus Two and reads every post with that concept in his mind, and who is the Two Plus Two Community, so he can not get the benefit of the doubt when he confuses the two terms. But then, even if he meant the "Two Plus Two Community", meaning the people who post at 2+2, I'm pretty sure this is also totally incorrect, he can not say who represents the Community and who does not. I'm a member of this community, and to my knowledge this Community does not have formal representatives, also because it does not have a way to elect these representatives. [/ QUOTE ] There's also behind the scenes discussion that went on which you don't know about. And when I say Two Plus Two, I mean this community, our company and the announced policies that you are aware of, and the behind the scenes stuff which you were not aware of. [ QUOTE ] All Two Plus Two did, was to provide the infrastructure and also the atmosphere for a group of posters of Two Plus Two to notice, investigate and alert. [/ QUOTE ] This is flat out wrong. What Two Plus Two has done over the past twenty years is to create an entity that must be taken seriously by everyone in the poker business. Also, we do have a very strong reputation for integrity. It is this framework which allows our posters to have the kind of influence they had in this situation. No other major entity in the industry, as far as I know, was able to step forward in the manner that we did and apply the kind of pressure that we did. Yes, you may argue that this was done by our posters and not by us. But it was done under our name which meant it needed to be taken very seriously and could not be sloughed off. Best wishes, Mason
|
|
#60
11-07-2007, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
Nat doesn't officially represent 2+2...Nat is the man, but why would Mason let him say he's going to represent 2+2? I'm assuming this is the part you disagree with: [ QUOTE ] Second, Absolute has apparently agreed to allow Bluff Magazine and Pocket Fives to review the findings of the investigation without a similar arrangement for Two Plus Two. This seems strange considering Two Plus Two’s role in uncovering and discussing this situation. [/ QUOTE ] How is he not 100% right? Nat et al obviously deserve all of the credit, but they were posting on the 2+2 forum. Couldn't he be using the word "2+2" instead of "the two plus two posters?" 2+2 should be first in line, not Bluff or P5s. Maybe I shouldn't have said "don't post anymore" but seriously, it's not like Mason is trying to take the credit for this. [/ QUOTE ] He's made it very clear in the past that when he says "Two Plus Two" without a qualifier that he is referring to the company, not to the community. The main thing that the company provided here was a good place to discuss the issue as well as a good place for the people doing the investigative work to get the word out. Two Plus Two the company may not have had a direct role in the investigation that I know of, but the medium is certainly of value. So I guess he's right when he claims some level of credit on the part of Two Plus Two the company despite the lack of publicly-known active interest in the issue on the part of the company.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
