surely this person should be named and shamed!!!!!! Posted by LENGALENG
So you've clearly decided he or she is guilty. What evidence did you examine to ascertain that, if I may ask? What proof do you have? Would YOU liked to be judged in such a casual & haphazard way?
This thread is serving no good purpose. Sky Poker ARE fully aware of the allegation, are investigating it thoroughly & properly, & they do not knowingly allow Multi-Accounting.
if scotty feels the need to post such a thread then surely he should name the player. otherwise deal with it through the proper channels and not on the forum for all people to read about and speculate, thats all im saying tikay. wouldn't ur post e better directed towards scotty as he was the original poster , just a thought.
if scotty feels the need to post such a thread then surely he should name the player. otherwise deal with it through the proper channels and not on the forum for all people to read about and speculate, thats all im saying tikay. wouldn't ur post e better directed towards scotty as he was the original poster , just a thought. Posted by LENGALENG
Hi
Naming and shaming is against the forum rules, if you wish to read them, please click here, thank you
if scotty feels the need to post such a thread then surely he should name the player. otherwise deal with it through the proper channels and not on the forum for all people to read about and speculate, thats all im saying tikay. wouldn't ur post e better directed towards scotty as he was the original poster , just a thought. Posted by LENGALENG
Not at all. He deliberately, repeatedly, & specifically, said (what amounted to) "I will not name the player, nor must anyone else".
And Scotty DID deal with it through the proper channels, in the proper way. FACT. That he then chose to start this Thread is a matter that you should take up with him. Just a thought.
I understand peoples frustratins if this seems to be taking it's time to be dealt with but surely people realise that this is not something that can be acted upon unless 100% sure???
Even if you can prove that the 2 players have a similar style, live in the same town, even play from the same IP address...... You still have not proved Multi Accounting
If there is a 2nd account then the likely hood is this is in a second name, different bank, possibly even a different sex of player. You may know there playing from the same address but how can you PROVE that it's the same person sitting at the computer??
And if were talking about site bans and funds being confiscated then i think you have to be able to PROVE that one person is using both accounts.
What if a guy and his girlfriend both have accounts from the same address, then sky leap in without propper investigation and freeze the funds of these players for doing nothing apart from living together. They may have similar styles as one taught the other to play, they would have the same address as they live together, but htey have committed no breach of the rules
I'm not saying that your wrong and the 2 accounts are not the same person, but if the player ahs set up an account in his/ hers other halfs name then how do you PROVE there one and the same??
I am speaking personally, & Sky Poker probably don't approve of my open-ness, but I feel strongly on this.
I utterly abhor Multi-Accounting for the sake of deception. Anyone who knows even a tinsy bit about me, & my actions with regard to it here & elsewhere, well knows that. I actually reported a suspected case of Multi-Accounting here a while back - through the proper channels - & the geezer had his account frozen, & he got himself Banned. Then the usual "martyr" thread started, & after an accusation on this Forum, I openly acknowedged that I had reported him. Two subsequent posts here said I was a "grass", & a "snitch", & I got brutally savaged for it on an alternative Forum. Now we want to "name & shame"! I mean, for goodness sake, people need to grow up, & leave that "grass" nonsense to the primary school playgrounds, where it belongs.
But.......
Sky Poker MUST be fair to the accused, too. It is extremely hard to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" - if we think about it, it's a nightmarishly difficult thing to prove. And in judging whether there should be a "name & shame" expose, & if the Lynch Mob who always coat-tail these threads get their way - "BAN HIM NOW, HE'S DEFFO GUILTY, A BLOKE WHO I KNOW SAID SO" sorta thing just reviles me. What if it were US that were accused, & we were stone-cold innocent? We would wish & hope that Sky Poker deliberated carefully, before just knee-jerk snap-banning us & with-holding our money. Do we really want to be judged by random Posters on a Forum, or by those who have access to the under-the-radar information?
"Fair & reasonable" cuts both ways. And so does properly considered justice.
FWIW, I understand why Scotty (who has become a Luton pal of mine in "real-life") started the thread. He feels strongly & passionately about the matter - just as I do - & he's frustrated that from where he stands, it appears that no action has been taken. But he does not actually know what Sky Poker are doing about the allegations. As a statement of fact, they ARE fully aware, & are dealing with the matter exactly as Scotty or myself would wish allegations about him or me were dealt with - with great care, & taking into account ALL the facts.
i cant see anyway of proving a player guilty for this, you may know its true but its not possible to prove. As acesover has said if he taught his girlfreind how to play then playing styles would be the same, just so you know i DO NOT AGREE with multi accounting.
i cant see anyway of proving a player guilty for this, you may know its true but its not possible to prove. As acesover has said if he taught his girlfreind how to play then playing styles would be the same, just so you know i DO NOT AGREE with multi accounting. Posted by freechips1
It CAN be proven, & it always comes out on top eventually, but as you rightly suggest, it is very complex to prove beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it takes some time.
Thankfully, despite some of the more extreme Posts on this thread, the days of lynch mobs have long past. Thank goodness.
if this took place in a place of work, would you expect the person to be sacked just because someone made an allegation? no... you would expect the management to investigate thoroughly and then make a judgement based on the evidence found. just as Sky Poker are doing now. give them time eh?
if this took place in a place of work, would you expect the person to be sacked just because someone made an allegation? no... you would expect the management to investigate thoroughly and then make a judgement based on the evidence found. just as Sky Poker are doing now. give them time eh? Posted by lozgo
Expresses what I was trying to say, but better & quicker.
And in a place of work, the accused would have legal rights, & if the procedures were not correctly followed, the case would FAIL.
Please (not you, Mr Lozgo), trust them on this. The matter IS being properly dealt with, & it is being dealt with right now. Honest '****.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Not at all. He deliberately, repeatedly, & specifically, said (what amounted to) "I will not name the player, nor must anyone else". And Scotty DID deal with it through the proper channels, in the proper way. FACT. That he then chose to start this Thread is a matter that you should take up with him. Just a thought. Posted by Tikay10
i cant see anyway of proving a player guilty for this, you may know its true but its not possible to prove. As acesover has said if he taught his girlfreind how to play then playing styles would be the same, just so you know i DO NOT AGREE with multi accounting. Posted by freechips1
Sadly i believe this post to be true :-( , i hope that i am wrong.
The last week or so it has become apparent that a high profile player on the site has been multi-accounting. I reported this player and was told that they were already aware of this player and it was being investigated. A week has gone by and he is still there playing, presumably unaffected. When I first has my suspicions about this player, I asked a number of other regulars for their views to see if it was just me seeing thing...everyone single one agreed. To be honest tho this player has quite a one dimensional playing style so its not hard to spot, so unlike other multi-accounters he isn't gonna be getting any advantage over other regulars at the limits he plays as I would imagine that everyone has spotted him within an hour or so with playing him. However to the more casual player, who are the most important users of the Sky Poker site, it is a serious advantage. I am dismayed and disgusted that Sky Poker has let this individual carry on using the site unaffected. I've been a loyal customer of Sky Poker ever since the start, and this is the first time I have felt this way about this site. Live poker is something that I enjoy at least a couple of times/week. Whenever chatting to randoms I and someone goes 'do you play online' I only say good things about Sky Poker. And believe me Sky Poker is seen as a bit of a joke in the poker community. Well from now on my response will be something like 'Sky Poker is a good site however it clearly disregards fundamental parts of its terms and conditions, and basic standards or ettiquette, fair play and decency when it comes to certain players.' Oh and I'm sure that you'll try and find a way to delete/move this thread but to my knowledge I have not mentioned any names or broken any forum rules. If I have then let me know and I'll edit out the offending sentence. Posted by scotty77
Why is this? always wondered, i have seen on quite a few other forums a lot of people don't have much good to say about sky poker. sorry its a bit off topic. Didn't really want to start a thread asking as its abit of a negative subject just never really understood why.
What do sky need for proof? What is there policy for looking into this sort of stuff. Do you try ringing the contact numbers right at the same time so you can hear a phone go off in the background of the other?!
You could just freeze both accounts and offer each account owner a free cab fare down to the Sky Pokers office and there in person they can release their account with a few poker discussions about the way they play certain hands (both specific hand strengths [definitely not 5x utg with AJ because it's hard to play.....] and specific hh's that they should have played recently just to you know prove the two people aren't one with some random other standing in to help out.
We must remember that this has all taken place over the weekend and perhaps we can all understand that things of such importance may not be able to be investigated at length on a sunday.
In Response to Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Why is this? always wondered, i have seen on quite a few other forums a lot of people don't have much good to say about sky poker. sorry its a bit off topic. Didn't really want to start a thread asking as its abit of a negative subject just never really understood why. Posted by robc
probs because it is a tiny site filled mostly with recreational gamblers.
Comments
This thread is serving no good purpose. Sky Poker ARE fully aware of the allegation, are investigating it thoroughly & properly, & they do not knowingly allow Multi-Accounting.
Naming and shaming is against the forum rules, if you wish to read them, please click here, thank you
And Scotty DID deal with it through the proper channels, in the proper way. FACT. That he then chose to start this Thread is a matter that you should take up with him. Just a thought.
Even if you can prove that the 2 players have a similar style, live in the same town, even play from the same IP address...... You still have not proved Multi Accounting
If there is a 2nd account then the likely hood is this is in a second name, different bank, possibly even a different sex of player. You may know there playing from the same address but how can you PROVE that it's the same person sitting at the computer??
And if were talking about site bans and funds being confiscated then i think you have to be able to PROVE that one person is using both accounts.
What if a guy and his girlfriend both have accounts from the same address, then sky leap in without propper investigation and freeze the funds of these players for doing nothing apart from living together. They may have similar styles as one taught the other to play, they would have the same address as they live together, but htey have committed no breach of the rules
I'm not saying that your wrong and the 2 accounts are not the same person, but if the player ahs set up an account in his/ hers other halfs name then how do you PROVE there one and the same??
Great Post by ACESOVER.
I am speaking personally, & Sky Poker probably don't approve of my open-ness, but I feel strongly on this.
I utterly abhor Multi-Accounting for the sake of deception. Anyone who knows even a tinsy bit about me, & my actions with regard to it here & elsewhere, well knows that. I actually reported a suspected case of Multi-Accounting here a while back - through the proper channels - & the geezer had his account frozen, & he got himself Banned. Then the usual "martyr" thread started, & after an accusation on this Forum, I openly acknowedged that I had reported him. Two subsequent posts here said I was a "grass", & a "snitch", & I got brutally savaged for it on an alternative Forum. Now we want to "name & shame"! I mean, for goodness sake, people need to grow up, & leave that "grass" nonsense to the primary school playgrounds, where it belongs.
But.......
Sky Poker MUST be fair to the accused, too. It is extremely hard to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" - if we think about it, it's a nightmarishly difficult thing to prove. And in judging whether there should be a "name & shame" expose, & if the Lynch Mob who always coat-tail these threads get their way - "BAN HIM NOW, HE'S DEFFO GUILTY, A BLOKE WHO I KNOW SAID SO" sorta thing just reviles me. What if it were US that were accused, & we were stone-cold innocent? We would wish & hope that Sky Poker deliberated carefully, before just knee-jerk snap-banning us & with-holding our money. Do we really want to be judged by random Posters on a Forum, or by those who have access to the under-the-radar information?
"Fair & reasonable" cuts both ways. And so does properly considered justice.
FWIW, I understand why Scotty (who has become a Luton pal of mine in "real-life") started the thread. He feels strongly & passionately about the matter - just as I do - & he's frustrated that from where he stands, it appears that no action has been taken. But he does not actually know what Sky Poker are doing about the allegations. As a statement of fact, they ARE fully aware, & are dealing with the matter exactly as Scotty or myself would wish allegations about him or me were dealt with - with great care, & taking into account ALL the facts.
As acesover has said if he taught his girlfreind how to play then playing styles would be the same, just so you know i DO NOT AGREE with multi accounting.
Thankfully, despite some of the more extreme Posts on this thread, the days of lynch mobs have long past. Thank goodness.
And in a place of work, the accused would have legal rights, & if the procedures were not correctly followed, the case would FAIL.
Please (not you, Mr Lozgo), trust them on this. The matter IS being properly dealt with, & it is being dealt with right now. Honest '****.