You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Video I made protecting players names and styles
The--Don
Member Posts: 392
in Poker Chat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeinDVyd7zkFor those that don't know, Sky asked me to stop making video's on my youtube channel, primarily because they showed my opponents screen names and style of play.
Whilst I didn't agree with the decision, I respected it and stopped making the video's.
I am hoping that this video will address those concerns and that Sky will find this acceptable.
I have also accepted that trolling players in my video's and generally being a bit of a knob in them probably isn't the way to go either, so I have also toned that down.
Sky did threaten to close my account if I continued to make video's but I am hoping that given the changes I have made, they won't have any objections. I am not affiliated to Sky in any way other than playing on their site, nor am I seeking any kind of affiliation. I just want to be able to make video's of my play without fear of having my account closed.
If this type of video is still deemed unacceptable to Sky, then I will delete it when I receive official confirmation and won't make any video's of my playing live on the site again. I would hope though that those in charge will see how far I have moved to address their concerns about protecting their customers and allow me to continue.
I am going out to work now, so the video will remain up until at least 10pm today. If between now and then Sky contact me and ask me to remove it, I will remove it when I return home.
I believe that I have addressed all of Sky's concerns with the steps I have taken. If I am ok to continue, I will tidy the blocks up for future video's, this was a bit of a spur of the moment rush job and looks a bit messy.
If someone from Sky could message me, or email me to confirm this is acceptable, or that they want me to delete the video at my earliest opportunity, I would appreciate it.
Cheers
Reg
Comments
Are you saying they are now not ?
Sometimes you are allowed to give someone a break if they make a mistake, really no need to set the tone of this thread negative with the very first reply post.
I used to work in a very dirty detergent factory and I suffered a shock exposure to enzymes when about a tonne of washing powder dropped out of a mulox bag and filled the room with dust and stuff.
My nose membranes are ruined. I am super sensitive to any nasal irritation and my throat is also in worse shape than most peoples. I sniff too much and I have a constant tickly cough.
I barely notice it these days but I'm sure it irritates the **** out of people I am around, especially when they first meet me.
For some context here, SB&G were just sold for £3.6 billion, so they were always protective of their GC licence, as you can surely imagine. Now, they are part of TSG ('Stars to you & me) so the combined business must be worth fortunes, £10 billion or more. (Pure guess, but let's just say "a lot"). Without a valid Gaming Licence, the business is toast.
Various gaming businesses, in the last 12 months, as the regulatory landscape tightened, were fined huge sums of money. Wm Hill were fined £8 million, several Online Bingo sites were fined £3 milly apiece, & even SB&G agreed a settlement with the GC amounting to £600,000.
I don't think a major Gaming Business has yet to lose it's licence, but the GC do have a totting up procedure, & so no business wants to incur GC fines & "points on their licence".
So, what evolved was that all Gaming Businesses set up Compliance Departments, to make sure their Business did not stray outside the regulations. I can't speak for other businesses, but in SB&G, Compliance are God. They sit right next to Richard Flint, the CEO, in fact in a way they are more powerful than him. If they say "no", then no it is.
Compliance don't employ a little man to monitor this Forum, or spend all day watching Twitch streams, it does not work like that. They generally only get involved in these matters if a complaint is received. And these days, if the Poker Team receive complaints, they are obliged to make Compliance aware. Once that happens, it is out of the hands of the Poker Management.
If there had been no complaints, Compliance would never have been aware of this whole issue. Once it got to them though, it was always likely to end the way it did. Compliance pay zero heed to commercial value of players, all they are interested in is being squeaky clean.
I hope that helps the understanding of what happened. It's a bit sad that folks just mock & say "lol @ Sky Poker", as those people have never seen the inside of a modern Gaming business. Finger-pointing is way too easy.
If we all keep our noses clean, (sniffing is unfortunate but permitted....) then there's no reason for anyone to be troubled imo.
The latest Video?
The Office will not have viewed it, they are busy with productive stuff, but I have, I & passed my thoughts up to them early this morning.
These views are my personal views, but I think they are reasonably close to the mark.
The latest video does not offend any "intellectual property", which did trouble Compliance originally, nor is anyone insulted or abused, or even, with one minor exception (for which there was an apology) name any players at all.
On that basis, personally I can see no reason for anyone to complain, or for Compliance to be made aware.
+correct quote this time - you see i cant even copy paste let alone make a video - d'oh
That’s a great post by Mr.K., hopefully the people who question the site making the original decision will have a tad more understanding as to why they did so.
Can a leopard change its spots? Sadly on this occasion I think not., the only video of the op I watched ( after sky had asked him to desist) had the commentator giving his audience clues as to the players alias on the felt, why do that if you are genuine in trying to comply?
And in a piece of spooky timing, news has just emerged that Camelot - the folks who run the National Lottery - have just been fined (or more correctly "agreed a settlement") in the sum of £1.15 million. Even if you say it quickly, that's a lot of money, & even worse, an embarrassment to Camelot.
Their crimes? To be honest, not much, not very much at all, just a series of relatively minor infractions all bunched together under "inadequate Governance".
Gaming businesses really are having to jump through hoops these days, & it would really help if the punters understood that, even if they disagree.