In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Finally, I expect to be in a whopping bowl of hot water with the Suits for replying so candidly throughout this thread, but this rush to assume guilt (without, in the most part, ANY knowledge of the facts) is fundamentally against everything I believe in. Posted by Tikay10
The fact you respond so quickly and sometimes candidly is a great thing and the suits should be made to understand that.
However the idea that so many people would not see a correlation between the same person sitting behind two names and playing exactly the same style is very annoying. It's not like the accounts play differently, have a different game selection/buyin size strategy or have none of the limitations of the other account....
I for one would like to see this properly investigated and transparently reported back to the forum not just to be told it's hard to prove and we're not really 100% sure. This is a security issue remember, this is an issue of someone going completely and knowingly against the ToC to attempt to benefit from bonuses/reads etc.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...: In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : "He should be named & shamed". "He should be suspended while the investigation takes place". "He is still doing it" Posted by Tikay10
Thanks for quoting other peoples posts...... his name hasn't been said though.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : And there you have the proof that this thread is serving no good purpose. FWIW, Scotty77 is also a high-profile player, & Sky Poker have just as much reason not to upset him. Try the legendary Charlie Munger's approach to problem-solving. Invert it. Posted by Tikay10
One 10 word post and this whole thread loses credence? errrrr no. you've seen area 51 yes?
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : The fact you respond so quickly and sometimes candidly is a great thing and the suits should be made to understand that. However the idea that so many people would not see a correlation between the same person sitting behind two names and playing exactly the same style is very annoying. It's not like the accounts play differently, have a different game selection/buyin size strategy or have none of the limitations of the other account.... I for one would like to see this properly investigated and transparently reported back to the forum not just to be told it's hard to prove and we're not really 100% sure. This is a security issue remember, this is an issue of someone going completely and knowingly against the ToC to attempt to benefit from bonuses/reads etc. Posted by beaneh
How do you know it is not being done? I've stated, clearly & repeatedly, it IS. Given that, why are you saying otherwise? Do you honestly think I'd lie?
And "properly" does not mean listening to rumours. Proof is required, & it's a very difficult matter to properly assess. Especially, as some suggest, it should be judged instantly, & on hearsay.
If Scotty was pleased with how this is being dealt with he wouldn't of created the thread. This is why it's made me critical of the situation and reading through this thread I can't say I've been filled with confidence. The fact that this guy had ALLEGEDLY HAD an edge over me on the tables that I didn't know about makes this thread very important and I've been too naive too clock on until now. Posted by zing
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : How do you know it is not being done? I've stated, clearly & repeatedly, it IS. Given that, why are you saying otherwise? Do you honestly think I'd lie? And "properly" does not mean listening to rumours. Proof is required, & it's a very difficult matter to properly assess. Especially, as some suggest, it should be judged instantly, & on hearsay. Posted by Tikay10
This is why i've said i'd like a transparent response afterwards (whenever your investigation ends), as i've said above.
We aren't demanding instant death we just want sky to accept that there is definitely something to investigate.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : And there you have the proof that this thread is serving no good purpose. FWIW, Scotty77 is also a high-profile player, & Sky Poker have just as much reason not to upset him. Try the legendary Charlie Munger's approach to problem-solving. Invert it. Posted by Tikay10
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Don't agree with this! It's irrelevant who the player in question is...whether they're £4NL or £400NL! Sky wouldn't risk their company/reputation/brand (not just Sky Poker but everything) because one of the players is high profile and don't want to offend them - do you honestly believe when they've finished investigating, the suits would go "ok we accept there's something fishy going on but as it's Mr Big Rake and we like him, we'll let him off but if it was Mrs Small Fry we'll ban them?" I think not! Posted by Action_Dan
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...: In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : FYP. You've judged him guilty already, then? Posted by Tikay10
he's used the word allegedly, i'll think you'll find that's the correct way to deal with stuff like this in the papers etc.
To make it clear I think it is great an "official" spokesman for sky can respond to everyone instantly, which is a unique trait of sky and one of the main reasons people stay here for that personal touch rather than an automated response....however I believe it would be helpful, Tikay, if you were able to pass on these status updates you have received from the suits.
You mentioned they have been in touch several times with updates, if you want to stop the speculation and lynching going on in this thread a simple progress update and a timescale to resolution one way or the other would be useful...
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : it's alright it's only big on the negative scale. In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : he's used the word allegedly, i'll think you'll find that's the correct way to deal with stuff like this in the papers etc. Posted by beaneh
I think you'll find he did NOT use the word "allegedly" - I inserted in & added "FYP". Presuumably, you rushed to judgement there. Always dangerous, that.
If Scotty was pleased with how this is being dealt with he wouldn't of created the thread. This is why it's made me critical of the situation and reading through this thread I can't say I've been filled with confidence. The fact that this guy had an edge over me on the tables that I didn't know about makes this thread very important and I've been too naive too clock on until now. Posted by zing
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : I think you'll find he did NOT use the word "allegedly" - I inserted in & added "FYP". Presuumably, you rushed to judgement there. Always dangerous, that. Posted by Tikay10
ah sorry I read his post through your quote, i'm such an amateur for not seeing FYP.
To make it clear I think it is great an "official" spokesman for sky can respond to everyone instantly, which is a unique trait of sky and one of the main reasons people stay here for that personal touch rather than an automated response....however I believe it would be helpful, Tikay, if you were able to pass on these status updates you have received from the suits. You mentioned they have been in touch several times with updates, if you want to stop the speculation and lynching going on in this thread a simple progress update and a timescale to resolution one way or the other would be useful... Posted by lynx3ffect
For all manner of reasons, Lynx, they would not allow me to do that. They take the view that the detail of these matters are confidential between Client & Service Provider, as all Sites do, & there are good legal reasons for that.
As to their Policy stance on such matters, yes, I agree, more dislogue from them would do no harm.
But they take that view, & suffer from it in all sorts of ways. When some peeps get Banned a bit back, as several high-profile players did (yes, it does happen to "high-profile" players & Forum Posters) threads go up saying the guy was only guilty of a minor indiscretion & Sky Poker have been heavy-handed. Everyone with half a brain knows that is not true, but the threads go on, & Sky Poker do not defend themselves against the daft accusations.
So yes, when, as Radiohead might say, I'm King for the day, I would be a lot more open about these things. But I'm not expecting that to happen any day soon.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : ah sorry I read his post through your quote, i'm such an amateur for not seeing FYP. Posted by beaneh
No worries Bud, it's easy to make mistakes when in a hurry.
Comments
FWIW, Scotty77 is also a high-profile player, & Sky Poker have just as much reason not to upset him.
Try the legendary Charlie Munger's approach to problem-solving. Invert it.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : "He should be named & shamed". "He should be suspended while the investigation takes place". "He is still doing it"
Posted by Tikay10
Thanks for quoting other peoples posts...... his name hasn't been said though.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting...:
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : Incorrect.
Posted by Tikay10
Can we try and have some transparency when this is over then please.
And don't worry Zing he wasn't gaining an edge LOL
And "properly" does not mean listening to rumours. Proof is required, & it's a very difficult matter to properly assess. Especially, as some suggest, it should be judged instantly, & on hearsay.
You've judged him guilty already, then?
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : FYP. You've judged him guilty already, then?
Posted by Tikay10
As to their Policy stance on such matters, yes, I agree, more dislogue from them would do no harm.
But they take that view, & suffer from it in all sorts of ways. When some peeps get Banned a bit back, as several high-profile players did (yes, it does happen to "high-profile" players & Forum Posters) threads go up saying the guy was only guilty of a minor indiscretion & Sky Poker have been heavy-handed. Everyone with half a brain knows that is not true, but the threads go on, & Sky Poker do not defend themselves against the daft accusations.
So yes, when, as Radiohead might say, I'm King for the day, I would be a lot more open about these things. But I'm not expecting that to happen any day soon.