Sigh, very disappointed. Just saw this typed in a tournament chatbox by somebody who regularly posts on this forum; ********** : surprise surprise scope fish Posted by GaryQQQ
It really does make you wonder Gary about its use currently and justifies some peoples comments that are not in favour of it. It also totally highlights the need for this debate, well done Tikay.
Sigh, very disappointed. Just saw this typed in a tournament chatbox by somebody who regularly posts on this forum; ********** : surprise surprise scope fish Posted by GaryQQQ
Sigh, very disappointed. Just saw this typed in a tournament chatbox by somebody who regularly posts on this forum; ********** : surprise surprise scope fish Posted by GaryQQQ
Surely a legit time to name n shame?
If we're trying to stamp this stuff out, as a community, then why not?
He/she isn't breaking any rules, I dnt believe u wud be either by naming?
In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Surely a legit time to name n shame? If we're trying to stamp this stuff out, as a community, then why not? He/she isn't breaking any rules, I dnt believe u wud be either by naming? Posted by DOHHHHHHH
Agreed! If people feel as though they can abuse someone in the public domain (table chat) then I see no reason as to why someone should not be allowed to re-post the comments here in the forum. Perhaps a name and shame thread would be a good idea?
In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Agreed! If people feel as though they can abuse someone in the public domain (table chat) then I see no reason as to why someone should not be allowed to re-post the comments here in the forum. Perhaps a name and shame thread would be a good idea? Posted by DoubleAAA
Agreed i posted on here a few weeks ago about a certain player who had said he wished my wife and kids died after losing a hand
sky covered his name...but i think they also gave out they,re own punishment for the incident.
In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Agreed! If people feel as though they can abuse someone in the public domain (table chat) then I see no reason as to why someone should not be allowed to re-post the comments here in the forum. Perhaps a name and shame thread would be a good idea? Posted by DoubleAAA
Deep down, yes, we'd all like that, but no, it would not be a good idea, as we would not see the whole exchange in context. A player could provoke another player deliberately, then Post one side of the convo, without the context.
It's also possible that the "accused" does not use this Forum, so would have no right of reply, which is very wrong. Accusing someone who cannot defend him or herself is intrinsically wrong, imo.
Best way is to report it to CC, & they will get it sorted, as Churchy alluded to.
In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Deep down, yes, we'd all like that, but no, it would not be a good idea, as we would not see the whole exchange in context. A player could provoke another player deliberately, then Post one side of the convo, without the context. It's also possible that the "accused" does not use this Forum, so would have no right of reply, which is very wrong. Accusing someone who cannot defend him or herself is intrinsically wrong, imo. Best way is to report it to CC, & they will get it sorted, as Churchy alluded to. Posted by Tikay10
Yes I didn't think of it like that. Perhaps sky can give them a choice if found guilty of either having a chat ban or being exposed and keeping their chat privilages?
First, I'm a VERY occasional on-line player, I prefer live play. Second, I think I have looked once at SS, to check myself out and see what it was about. If I were more than a very occasional player I would in all probability opt out of SS. I tend to have a slight touch of paranoia, I am not keen on people knowing my business, or tracking me. It is only slight, hence while I have Facebook and twitter accounts I don't actually do anything with them. Here's my thoughts, for what they are worth.
Poker is a game of information. Can't really blame people for taking advantage of information available. There are many companys out there which, in this information age, use information as a commodity. Data mining gives them their raw material and they add value to it by presenting it in new and easily digested forms.
As far as SS goes, I am very much in favour of explicit opt in, rather than assumed opt in. However I think anyone who uses SS to gain information should do so ONLY if they themselves have opted in. In my book anyone who takes advantage of the information available on SS, while denying others their own stats, are AT BEST being unfair and hypocritical. I would be quite happy to have signing up for SS being counted as an explicit opt in, but you cannot then deny your info to others who have opted in.er all, if you sign up for one of Sky Poker's TV tables you can't then demand that none of your hands be shown.
First, I'm a VERY occasional on-line player, I prefer live play. Second, I think I have looked once at SS, to check myself out and see what it was about. If I were more than a very occasional player I would in all probability opt out of SS. I tend to have a slight touch of paranoia, I am not keen on people knowing my business, or tracking me. It is only slight, hence while I have Facebook and twitter accounts I don't actually do anything with them. Here's my thoughts, for what they are worth. Poker is a game of information. Can't really blame people for taking advantage of information available. There are many companys out there which, in this information age, use information as a commodity. Data mining gives them their raw material and they add value to it by presenting it in new and easily digested forms. As far as SS goes, I am very much in favour of explicit opt in, rather than assumed opt in. However I think anyone who uses SS to gain information should do so ONLY if they themselves have opted in. In my book anyone who takes advantage of the information available on SS, while denying others their own stats, are AT BEST being unfair and hypocritical. I would be quite happy to have signing up for SS being counted as an explicit opt in, but you cannot then deny your info to others who have opted in.er all, if you sign up for one of Sky Poker's TV tables you can't then demand that none of your hands be shown. Posted by SomersetJo
That is a terrific Post, with great balance.
I'm getting many PM's along similar lines, as not everyone wants to go public on their views, but they feel quite strongly about it.
Interesting debate this one. I am sitting on the fence with the whole 'what should Sky Poker do as a business' question' but would like to make some points.
1) Using SS is an advantage for some and a disadvantage for others, it seems. So if blocked, who actually gains/loses?
2) When players in a 'live' situation need information about fellow table players, they will use all kinds of media to gain this info.
eg. When a player is at the WSOP, use platforms like the Hendon Mob to get background on their opponents. Why is this so different when using a tool to do this on line?
3) I am actually playing a lot more on 888 now they have blocked SS as my track record wasn't great on there when at the early 'learning' stage but I can now play on a level playing field and my results have improved five fold.
4) As i have done holiday cover for GARYQQQ on his result thread, it is quite simple to retrieve any tournament lobby you want and view the results that way and collate if you needed to.
5) Whatever happens in the future on Sky Poker, a clear line of communication will need to be set up to convey any decisions made IMHO.
Has SS updated it's website in the last day or so? I just did a quick search on a fellow Sky player (who recommended I do so!) and before it showed their results I received a pop up box to say: Note: SharkScope is an independent tracker of poker tournament results. The results are tracked by our own software and no pokersite provides us with special access to these results. We do not have access to any account. Use of these statistics to abuse players is strictly prohibited by us and all sites we cover and may result in account closures. Is this something you guys have managed to get them to sneak into their offering... well done if so... can but hope it works? Posted by shakinaces
They have always had that Clause in their T & C's, though I've never known them to enforce it. Maybe they do, I don't honestly know.
I would honestly be extremely surprised if that had anything to do with Sky Poker, I'm not aware that the Business has even considered their options.
Yes bad move to remove it without any notice to their customers who paid for sharkscope. It affected 888 traffic, they then gave access to other sites to display their stats and now reverted back to sharkscope with opt in options. Interesting...
Comments
If we're trying to stamp this stuff out, as a community, then why not?
He/she isn't breaking any rules, I dnt believe u wud be either by naming?
Agreed! If people feel as though they can abuse someone in the public domain (table chat) then I see no reason as to why someone should not be allowed to re-post the comments here in the forum. Perhaps a name and shame thread would be a good idea?
sky covered his name...but i think they also gave out they,re own punishment for the incident.
good luck in your games
It's also possible that the "accused" does not use this Forum, so would have no right of reply, which is very wrong. Accusing someone who cannot defend him or herself is intrinsically wrong, imo.
Best way is to report it to CC, & they will get it sorted, as Churchy alluded to.
Poker is a game of information. Can't really blame people for taking advantage of information available. There are many companys out there which, in this information age, use information as a commodity. Data mining gives them their raw material and they add value to it by presenting it in new and easily digested forms.
As far as SS goes, I am very much in favour of explicit opt in, rather than assumed opt in. However I think anyone who uses SS to gain information should do so ONLY if they themselves have opted in. In my book anyone who takes advantage of the information available on SS, while denying others their own stats, are AT BEST being unfair and hypocritical. I would be quite happy to have signing up for SS being counted as an explicit opt in, but you cannot then deny your info to others who have opted in.er all, if you sign up for one of Sky Poker's TV tables you can't then demand that none of your hands be shown.
That is a terrific Post, with great balance.
I'm getting many PM's along similar lines, as not everyone wants to go public on their views, but they feel quite strongly about it.
I just did a quick search on a fellow Sky player (who recommended I do so!) and before it showed their results I received a pop up box to say:
Note: SharkScope is an independent tracker of poker tournament results.
The results are tracked by our own software and no pokersite provides us with special access to these results. We do not have access to any account.
Use of these statistics to abuse players is strictly prohibited by us and all sites we cover and may result in account closures.
Is this something you guys have managed to get them to sneak into their offering... well done if so... can but hope it works?
I would honestly be extremely surprised if that had anything to do with Sky Poker, I'm not aware that the Business has even considered their options.
Bump. Relevant news to this thread;
I see 888 have reversed their decision to ban Sharkscope. They are now back on using the same 'opted-out by default' policy as PokerStars.
Seems like a good compromise to me.