I think people are over-reacting a little here. Sky can not just suspend people on the basis of an allegation alone; to do so would not only be wholly improper but also wholly impractical. Proving multi-accounting is in-fact quite a difficult and time-consuming task. Identities have to be verified, bank account details checked, addresses verified, account histories have to be considered, IP address locations have to be checked, playing styles and hand histories may also come into account. Of course this list is not exhaustive and Sky will have their own procedures for investigating such incidents of suspected fraud. My point is simple: just let them get on with it.
It's seems plainly clear to me that if an allegation is made then Sky have to immediately make an interim decision whether or not to temporarily suspend an account. In this instance it would appear that Sky came to the conclusion that there was not enough, if any, evidence to suspend the account. To suspend an account without sufficient evidence to support the allegation would but wrong for many reasons: It is generally assumed that you are innocent until proven guilty, it would cause a slurry of false allegations by account holders who dislike each other and want to get the others accounts blocked temporarily, it would be poor business practice by sky - after all who would join an online poker site that suspends accounts on a whim?
So I believe we should simmer down a little here and let sky do a thorough and proper investigation resulting in a fair and reasoned judgement - have some faith.
I think people are over-reacting a little here. Sky can not just suspend people on the basis of an allegation alone; to do so would not only be wholly improper but also wholly impractical. Proving multi-accounting is in-fact quite a difficult and time-consuming task. Identities have to be verified, bank account details checked, addresses verified, account histories have to be considered, IP address locations have to be checked, playing styles and hand histories may also come into account. Of course this list is not exhaustive and Sky will have their own procedures for investigating such incidents of suspected fraud. My point is simple: just let them get on with it. It's seems plainly clear to me that if an allegation is made then Sky have to immediately make an interim decision whether or not to temporarily suspend an account. In this instance it would appear that Sky came to the conclusion that there was not enough, if any, evidence to suspend the account. To suspend an account without sufficient evidence to support the allegation would but wrong for many reasons: It is generally assumed that you are innocent until proven guilty, it would cause a slurry of false allegations by account holders who dislike each other and want to get the others accounts blocked temporarily, it would be poor business practice by sky - after all who would join an online poker site that suspends accounts on a whim? So I believe we should simmer down a little here and let sky do a thorough and proper investigation resulting in a fair and reasoned judgement - have some faith. Posted by BrownnDog
I think people are over-reacting a little here. Sky can not just suspend people on the basis of an allegation alone; to do so would not only be wholly improper but also wholly impractical. Proving multi-accounting is in-fact quite a difficult and time-consuming task. Identities have to be verified, bank account details checked, addresses verified, account histories have to be considered, IP address locations have to be checked, playing styles and hand histories may also come into account. Of course this list is not exhaustive and Sky will have their own procedures for investigating such incidents of suspected fraud. My point is simple: just let them get on with it. It's seems plainly clear to me that if an allegation is made then Sky have to immediately make an interim decision whether or not to temporarily suspend an account. In this instance it would appear that Sky came to the conclusion that there was not enough, if any, evidence to suspend the account. To suspend an account without sufficient evidence to support the allegation would but wrong for many reasons: It is generally assumed that you are innocent until proven guilty, it would cause a slurry of false allegations by account holders who dislike each other and want to get the others accounts blocked temporarily, it would be poor business practice by sky - after all who would join an online poker site that suspends accounts on a whim? So I believe we should simmer down a little here and let sky do a thorough and proper investigation resulting in a fair and reasoned judgement - have some faith. Posted by BrownnDog
+1
Very well put BD. TBH this thread is making me despair a little. I almost think that some people are pushing for a Matthew Wright/John Leslie moment.
In a matter this serious any intelligently run business will be completely thorough and investigate fully. I would humbly suggest that Scotty can stay in constant contact if he so wishes with Customer Services over the progress of his complaint and that everyone else should just let this thread die.
I agree with Browndog, I also believe multi-accounting happens so much on all poker sites. I have multiple accounts on other sites (all of which is against the rules). One site I have 4 accounts. Thanks for the sign up bonuses ;-)
Several people using the same account happens alot aswell. Not sure if its against the rules? But how can you stop it? And its not different.
Every "hot" thread on every poker forum does this, it's amazing.
OP says something, peeps wanna believe it, bandwagon arrives, world & his wife jump on it, the accused is clearly guilty, & about to be strung up from the nearest lamp-post, to **** with his rights.
Then "balance" arrives, & the thread veers the other way. And then we arrive at a point when it becomes useful, & constructive.
We ought to be able to skip the MainCourse, just have the Starter, & pudding.
Anyway, Sky_Rich will be back tomorrow, so I'll leave him to reply as he sees fit, I only got involved today because I knew he was absent today.
I think people are over-reacting a little here. Sky can not just suspend people on the basis of an allegation alone; to do so would not only be wholly improper but also wholly impractical. Proving multi-accounting is in-fact quite a difficult and time-consuming task. Identities have to be verified, bank account details checked, addresses verified, account histories have to be considered, IP address locations have to be checked, playing styles and hand histories may also come into account. Of course this list is not exhaustive and Sky will have their own procedures for investigating such incidents of suspected fraud. My point is simple: just let them get on with it. It's seems plainly clear to me that if an allegation is made then Sky have to immediately make an interim decision whether or not to temporarily suspend an account. In this instance it would appear that Sky came to the conclusion that there was not enough, if any, evidence to suspend the account. To suspend an account without sufficient evidence to support the allegation would but wrong for many reasons: It is generally assumed that you are innocent until proven guilty, it would cause a slurry of false allegations by account holders who dislike each other and want to get the others accounts blocked temporarily, it would be poor business practice by sky - after all who would join an online poker site that suspends accounts on a whim? So I believe we should simmer down a little here and let sky do a thorough and proper investigation resulting in a fair and reasoned judgement - have some faith. Posted by BrownnDog
thank you BD. yet another sensible person with a genuine idea of the problems faced.
if anyone has any doubts of the difficulties with this situation, then they should read this post again!!
If the player under suspicion really does use two accounts, but only ever uses one of those accounts at a time, and all the regulars at that level have worked out the same person is owner of both accounts, then surely he's not really gaining any advantage?
Sky are investigating, lets all calm down and let them resolve it.
If the allegation is that he's sitting at the same table at the same time with both aliases then it's a much worse situation, that would be serious cheating and I would agree that the accounts need to suspended until it's sorted out.
I agree with Browndog, I also believe multi-accounting happens so much on all poker sites. I have multiple accounts on other sites (all of which is against the rules). One site I have 4 accounts. Thanks for the sign up bonuses ;-) Several people using the same account happens alot aswell. Not sure if its against the rules? But how can you stop it? And its not different. Posted by 5toneFace
one player to a hand is an actual rule but also very hard to uphold online. Because you think it happens elsewhere that makes it ok, I could have sworn it's against the terms and conditions. If not i'd love to take use of the 1k sign up bonus again and again....
Is this really such a big deal? If the player under suspicion really does use two accounts, but only ever uses one of those accounts at a time, and all the regulars at that level have worked out the same person is owner of both accounts, then surely he's not really gaining any advantage? Sky are investigating, lets all calm down and let them resolve it. If the allegation is that he's sitting at the same table at the same time with both aliases then it's a much worse situation, that would be serious cheating and I would agree that the accounts need to suspended until it's sorted out. Posted by GaryQQQ
You're completely missing the point, it's not about people playing at the same table but playing under different aliases/accounts against the same people without them knowing and by doing so gaining some form of advantage.
edit the idea that because people 'think' they are aware of who it is, doesn't make it ok, it makes it even more ridiculous.
In Response to Re: Failing to deal with multi-accounting... : one player to a hand is an actual rule but also very hard to uphold online. Because you think it happens elsewhere that makes it ok, I could have sworn it's against the terms and conditions. If not i'd love to take use of the 1k sign up bonus again and again.... How many sky acc's do you have? Posted by beaneh
At no point did I say that it was ok, maybe you should read the post properly. I was just stating some facts. When your a student your do anything (nearly) for a bit of free cash. That normally turns into not so much free money.
Comments
Browndogg has either thought it through, or deciphered the clues.
Every "hot" thread on every poker forum does this, it's amazing.
OP says something, peeps wanna believe it, bandwagon arrives, world & his wife jump on it, the accused is clearly guilty, & about to be strung up from the nearest lamp-post, to **** with his rights.
Then "balance" arrives, & the thread veers the other way. And then we arrive at a point when it becomes useful, & constructive.
We ought to be able to skip the MainCourse, just have the Starter, & pudding.
Anyway, Sky_Rich will be back tomorrow, so I'll leave him to reply as he sees fit, I only got involved today because I knew he was absent today.
..... and breathe....
if anyone has any doubts of the difficulties with this situation, then they should read this post again!!
If the player under suspicion really does use two accounts, but only ever uses one of those accounts at a time, and all the regulars at that level have worked out the same person is owner of both accounts, then surely he's not really gaining any advantage?
Sky are investigating, lets all calm down and let them resolve it.
If the allegation is that he's sitting at the same table at the same time with both aliases then it's a much worse situation, that would be serious cheating and I would agree that the accounts need to suspended until it's sorted out.
How many sky acc's do you have?
Have you turned into the poker account police??