Well done rag2gar

YULETIRED

WSOP 2008 - Final Table

So jessie here we are at the Final table of the WSOP , it doesn't feel like 3 months since the FT bubble burst ..we'll be right back after this commerical break. ...... We return, I see that Irishman Gary McLovin is sitting on a nice stack. Yeah his play varies from ntty to ultra agressive, it's almost like he has different personalities .........Why is he banging on his left ear so hard? Duunno must be wax buildup, I get that myself...., he appears to be lip synching to something...... wait a minute I think something has fallen out of his left ear, the TD is being called. Wow, he has just eaten whatever that piece of debris was. Phil Helmut is pointing and yelling accusations at Mclovin....the game is halted.........


We resume, apparantly the debris was 'passed' by mclovin and it turns out it was the latest nano earpiece for the ipod Apparently Mclovin was listening to Britney Spears on his Ipod and didn't want anyone to know his filthy secret. Earphones are not allowed....ESPN rules....
Helmut was justified here, this is exactly what he was accusing Mclovin of doing, he even named the ablum.....kind of explains mcloving sometimes agressive 'do you want a piece of me' all in moves. tut tut Gary Mcloving , .Britney Spears..tut tut man you have demeaned the WSOP ...throw him into the POND.

RoundTower

KevIRL wrote: »

I really hope so. Although I get the feeling its genuine.

Even if it is a wind up, its still awful bad form, and not in slightest bit funny IMO.

what's wrong with it? Most likely Everest will send him a reply saying "yeah that's all OK" (maybe not part 2 of the first question) and the matter will be laid to rest.

Or do you think that email will lead Everest to this thread and they will take rag2gar's prize off him?

I agree if he was on the losing end of this, people here would be up in arms about it, but I wouldn't be, and I'd still tell them they were wrong.

Tar.Aldarion

I don't have a problem with hollsomethings email, a simple 'hypothetical' question to get an answer off Everest.

HoLLLLLaments

RoundTower wrote: »

what's wrong with it? Most likely Everest will send him a reply saying "yeah that's all OK" (maybe not part 2 of the first question) and the matter will be laid to rest.

Or do you think that email will lead Everest to this thread and they will take rag2gar's prize off him?

I agree if he was on the losing end of this, people here would be up in arms about it, but I wouldn't be, and I'd still tell them they were wrong.

qft. unnecessary? why because hes your friend? Im not saying what he did was right or wrong. Ive been in similar spots. Problem is no one else seems to know whats right or wrong. So i thought id find out by simply asking. And if you think that email will jeopardize his wsop package your mad. Id never mention any names or such, just want to know if he broke the rules. The thing that kind of pisses me off is everyone jumping on here saying ZOMG DELETE THIS THREAD QUICK. I dont really care about him getting advice from other players. Its the protect out buddy attitude that i think is annoying some people. Its a stark contrast of the angleshoot spot lazare was telling me about in the bb sticky. Everyone jumped on that guy like he deserved castration. If it was him in this spot now everyone would want his bollix on a plate but because everyone likes the guy who won the wsop package its "ahhh its alright sure he may have broke the rules who knows does anyone even know the rules? probly not haha grats buddy." to summarize my email did not incriminate him in anyway. it was just an inquiry.

And when i said everest probably received some emails already about it i was referring to the guy who made the angry post saying his package should be confiscated.

sproodles

stevire wrote: »

1. He rang a mate and asked him to continue playing on his Everest account until he arrived, this is wrong and breaches the T&C's. And can then be called cheating.

This is a major breach. Permitting another party to play on your private account. Penalties up to removal of package and account suspension is justified here.

stevire wrote: »

2. He was playing while a couple of mates railed and shouted advice, this is fine imo. You'd get it at a live game, a point that was made earlier Jamie Gold was getting constant advice from Johnny Chan in the latter stages of the ME and at the final table.

A bit of a twist to the original which is that he was coached through the final table by several players which he consequently shared the prizemoney with by way of thanks.

Also a breach, not as major but a syndacate breach.

If Everest get wind of this it is possible that they will review the IP's and timings involved and the hand play style in comparison to other games he has played.

They have the right to suspend or terminate following the conclusions but may opt not to do so. In fact they may decide to ignore it altogether.

Many sites would remove the package under these circumstances however.
I feel bad for the guy but I am quite shocked by the double standards in play on this thread.

Points also made in the thread that this is diffucult to police I agree with. Indeed in athletics the dope testing race will continue to rage with one side ahead or behind of the other.

Needless to say there should be an onus on the player themselves to refrain from cheating behaviour.

bops

5starpool wrote: »

You said you didn't read most of the thread but you disagree with the so called begrudgers (I don't think there are begrudgers, just people trying to draw parallels). For someone who thinks that people here gang up on newcomers and defend and agree with their own (I am not going to search for evidence, but think you have expressed things like this in the past), you are very quick to dismiss all the posts you haven't read here.

the first post i spotted was some guy quoting a well written post by Gary and saying "BULLSH!T" i didn't need to read anymore imo

i never referred to them as begrudgers, buy i think you may be on to something there

i don't think i was ever one to go on about the clique? maybe i'm wrong?? it's not that cliquey around here imo

i just think it's all bad form and is taking away from a nice win - ok fair enough, it's probably a good/fair discussion, but a bit too personal imo

Killme00

Congrats Gary and good luck in the ME

:cool:

luckylucky

RoundTower wrote: »

I agree if he was on the losing end of this, people here would be up in arms about it, but I wouldn't be

Yeah you're well known for your sensiteive nature though. :rolleyes:

sproodles wrote: »

blah blah blah blah

Random newbie strikes again. At least most people on this thread on either side of the argument have a bit of kudos on here, I think you'll find a better home in 2+2 BBV thread.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

HoLLLLLaments

luckylucky wrote: »

Random newbie strikes again. At least most people on this thread on either side of the argument have a bit of kudos on here, I think you'll find a better home in 2+2 BBV thread.

lol good to see this clique attitude is really a figment of everyones imagination

Lazare

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

. Its a stark contrast of the angleshoot spot lazare was telling me about in the bb sticky. Everyone jumped on that guy like he deserved castration. .

Of course there's a stark contrast in reactions, and deservedly so. That's like comparing non payment of a TV licence with bludgeoning someone!

luckylucky

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

lol good to see this clique attitude is really a figment of everyones imagination

I never denied I didn't feel like part of a group/clique or whatever you want to call it. I woulda thought that was perfectly natural, much more so than hanging one of your own out to dry.

sproodles

luckylucky wrote: »

Random 1 post = non entitlement to opinion. At least most people on this thread can have a more valid opinion by hillariously re-editing quotes.

you rock!

ditpoker

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How? He's just asking a hypothetical question which would allow this thread to be wrapped up. If the response says "thats fine" then Gary's mind is put to rest and all those questioning him have to stfu. If they say "that is something that would be punished severely" then at least everyone knows what the story is - but no names have been mentioned and I can't see how that email would directly bounce back on Gary.

Holla is surely the only person in the thread who is being constructive. That is much more useful than posting: "WE LOVE GARY SO **** THE HATERS", right?

if i had won a satalite under similar situations and you wrote the poker site an email with a similar "hypothetical" email i'd run you over twice and then put a united jersey on you.

all that email will do is 1) say gary did nothing wrong and he keeps his ticket. 2) they get wind of a problem and gary ends up without a ticket. given that 1) is happening at the moment the only change that can come of the email is that gary loses out due to an email.

fortunately i suspect it is one.

i think if gary had started the tournament by calling his mates over with the intention of getting their advice etc etc its different to if circumstances dictate that he is surrounded by poker players. in footballing terms its the difference between roy keane going out to hurt alf inge haaland and martin taylor accidently hurting eduardo... imo.

eoghan104

bops wrote: »

the first post i spotted was some guy quoting a well written post by Gary and saying "BULLSH!T" i didn't need to read anymore imo

Well maybe you should go to read the rest of it and then you will realise that Gary's "well written post" was indeed "Bullsh!t"!!!

luckylucky

sproodles wrote: »

you rock!

I have no problem with newbies in general, in fact I have commented in the past bout some of the sarcy replies they undeservedly get, but this is a highly sensitive issue, not really appropiate whatsoever imo for a first post. Do you expect to catch no flak after sticking your nose in from nowhere into this, c'mon get real.

HoLLLLLaments

Lazare wrote: »

Of course there's a stark contrast in reactions, and deservedly so. That's like comparing non payment of a TV licence with bludgeoning someone!

no its not. but i suppose its a matter of a opinion really. Im sure alot of people would think what wsop package winner did was really bad. Like very very very bad. To get a true unbiased opinion if it was equally as bad or nearly as bad or w/e id have to start a poll on 2+2 or something and that would definitely put his package in jeopardy so well give it a miss but i think you definitely have to consider that to a lot if unbiased people what he did would be very very wrong and not equivalent to missing a tv license payment

sproodles

And exactly what qualifies you to made that decision Lucky? Tell me what kind of thread my "first poster" status allows me to comment on?
Are you the person to whom I should refer for these matters or would a moderator have the same "pull" as you?

Gillybean72

Flushdraw wrote: »

Jaysus i could sue you for defamation of character over that romance thing, next you know people will be saying i'm shagging gillcarr1972 :rolleyes:

Cheeky B*stard!

luckylucky

sproodles wrote: »

And exactly what qualifies you to made that decision Lucky?

Where have I made a decision? I gave a forthright opinion, it's my opinion only.

sproodles wrote: »

Tell me what kind of thread my "first poster" status allows me to comment on?

It's called common sense, if you had it imo you wouldn't have made your first post in a heated topic.

HoLLLLLaments

luckylucky wrote: »

I have no problem with newbies in general, in fact I have commented in the past bout some of the sarcy replies they undeservedly get, but this is a highly sensitive issue, not really appropiate whatsoever imo for a first post. Do you expect to catch no flak after sticking your nose in from nowhere into this, c'mon get real.

its a public forum. if you disagree with what he says it should be on the grounds its his first post. and i respect that you admit that you have the clique attitude. Alot better than people saying it doesnt exist.

green123

bops wrote: »

the first post i spotted was some guy quoting a well written post by Gary and saying "BULLSH!T" i didn't need to read anymore imo

i said it was bull**** because it was.
i read his initial blog entry, and if you had read it you would also realise that what he has posted here is bull****.

a quick summary of what he wrote in his blog for you bops :

he lost his internet connection.
he asked a friend to play the tournament for him while he travelled to that friends house.
then they decided to go to another house to get more help from other friends.
with all this help and advice he played a very different style.
the 4 man tag team won
he is paying his pals 500 quid for the help

Iago

Is asking someone else to login and play for you as you're travelling because your internet connection is down unethical?

I don't think so, it's an honest problem and only a temporary solution so that you can continue as you had planned.

Is it against the rules of the site?

Absoultely, and if the site were to look at the IP address history (which is all they would have) then they would have no idea that you actually started playing again at the new IP address, so would in all likelihood suspend your account for cheating.

Ultimately I think there is nothing wrong with doing this as long as your plan is to continue to play as soon as you can get to the new location.

Is having your mates rail you while playing unethical?

Not really, having people watch you is fine, if they give advice you can ignore it and play your normal game.

If your style of play changes dramatically, and the decisions you make are radically different from what you would normally do in that situation. and this change is as a result of advice or "suggestions" from other players, is that unethical or against the rules?

I think the answer to that is yes on both counts. It would be very difficult to penalise without a public confession, but I would definitely regard it as being against the rules of the game. From an ethical point of view, I think it's wrong and it gives an unfair advantage over the other player.

I'm not on a moral crusade because I believe everyone has their own moral compass, and sometimes a lot of what we do is in shades of gray. I agree with the posters who suggest that had a boards member been on the recieving end of this there would be general outrage.

Ultimately I think if I was faced with the same situation I would do the same thing, I could live with that. I don't think that makes me a bad person, but at the same time I'm not sure how much it would take away from the acheivement in my own mind...

...certainly not enough to consider giving the prize back though!!



Anyway, best of luck in the WSOP, hope it goes well for you.

sproodles

luckyclicky wrote: »

Where have I made a decision? I gave a forthright opinion, it's my opinion only..

It wouldnt be largely based upon the fact that my posted opinion is pretty much in direct opposition to yours now would it?

BTW. For all you know I am a seasoned veteren here, or a long time lurker 1 time poster. either way I fail to see what is wrong with my post. Perhaps you should concentrate on that and tell me what you feel is "newbie" about my points?

luckyclicky wrote: »

It's called common sense, if you had it imo you wouldn't have made your first post in a heated topic.

Well it sounds like you might be angleshooting for the role of King of the Clique WP sir.

Lafortezza

Less talk about people with low post counts and clique stuff please. Try to stick on topic.

ditpoker

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

its a public forum. if you disagree with what he says it should be on the grounds its his first post. and i respect that you admit that you have the clique attitude. Alot better than people saying it doesnt exist.

it exists alot. i think though the point is that to anyone who posts here alot it is hard to add weight to what a new person says, yes their opinion is equally as welcome as everyones but at the end of the day to us (boards poker community) a new poster is a stranger... it would be like if you and 5 mates were at the cinema discussing what film to go to and some random chap walked up and said "hey guys, i think we should see x film because i think it looks good" ... we cant assess the quality of the strangers opinion on film as we dont know, we dont know his history. equally, a new poster, we dont know, we dont know his motives so it appears given the contentious nature of the topic that he could just be rattling cages for the laugh.. i hope not...

welcome to the forum sproodles, dont think luckylucky was having a go imo.

luckylucky

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

its a public forum. if you disagree with what he says it should be on the grounds its his first post.

So it is, and I'm entitled to give my opinion that this is not a post for a newbie to get involved in. It's also my opinion that I feel a loyalty to most regulars on here, call that being cliquish if you like, as such although your posts are tilting me at least you have built up the kudos to have your opinion listened to. I think it's an important factor, that is my opinion.

Gillybean72

If someone wanted a hypothetical answer.. could they not have asked pokerstars or fulltilt as they might have similar policies, but an Irish IP sending an email asking a question just after an Irishman won a tourney as big as ME ticket for the WSOP.. would ring alarm bells with me...

Maybe it was wrong, but I know I have been given a hand in a MTT recently when it got down to nearly at the FT, I changed my play etc, but I didnt really view it as cheeting as even though it was suggested to do something, I ultimately made my own decision.

I would not like to see garry lose his ticket, and I hope that email doesnt cause that, as it will leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths for the next while.

luckylucky

sproodles wrote: »

It wouldnt be largely based upon the fact that my posted opinion is pretty much in direct opposition to yours now would it?

Of course it does. you might very well have got a similar reaction from the other side of the argument if your first post was supportive of rag2gar.

sproodles wrote: »

BTW. For all you know I am a seasoned veteren here

It had crossed my mind.

ditpoker wrote: »

welcome to the forum sproodles, dont think luckylucky was having a go imo.

I was having a go. An outsider sticks their ore into a raging torrent of a debate is bad form imo.


Anyway I think my opinions are clear and I'm probably off a few peoples Xmas Cards list at this stage .

I'm getting back to the poker now, this debate is just going nowhere at this stage. Must be the most polarised thread ever I'd say here. Gl Gary at the WSOP.

Spuca

Well done gary. A deserved win no matter how many fools roam this forum.

Wish u the very best in the big game.




Cillian O Murchu.

HoLLLLLaments

Gillcarr1972 wrote: »

If someone wanted a hypothetical answer.. could they not have asked pokerstars or fulltilt as they might have similar policies

no pokerstars have already said that they do not have a one player to a hand rule i dont know what ftps policys are. And i dont want a hypothetical answer in regards to the rules. I want a definitive answer regarding the rules in a hypothetical(to everest support) situation.

I doubt everest support will have inspector clueso on the case. Im sure they tonnes of emails every week about stupid crap.

sproodles

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

I doubt everest support will have inspector clueso on the case. Im sure they tonnes of emails every week about stupid crap.

On its own, without the blog, the confession etc I would 100% agree with you it is highly likely it would have been missed. But most of the bigger sites would put in this kind of analysis and it is really not as complicated as it sounds.

DIT-thanks for the welcome no cage rattling here just an educated opinion on how a case like this might swing with a large poker site.

The account sharing is fairly damnable, the rest is just padding for the big picture imo.

bops

green123 wrote: »

i said it was bull**** because it was.
i read his initial blog entry, and if you had read it you would also realise that what he has posted here is bull****.

a quick summary of what he wrote in his blog for you bops :

he lost his internet connection. (very unlucky)
he asked a friend to play the tournament for him while he travelled to that friends house. (needed to be done, most people with common sense would do the same, i have done it and have no quams about it, i did it through necessity, a logical choice)
then they decided to go to another house to get more help from other friends. (i don't see any reason in the world why he would want to move house, it looks like he had no choice??)
with all this help and advice he played a very different style. (when people are physically railing you in a big tourney with a lot at stake, it is only natural that this hightens your adrenaline levels and therefore probably play more aggressive, but in general this background noise is a hinderence)
the 4 man tag team won (yeah - i'm sure they took turns at the mouse!! what he should have done is banashed them from the room in their house and only talked to them through the door??)
he is paying his pals 500 quid for the help (very generous, it's nice when you get a good win to look after those you supported you)

why did you read his blog in the first place? are you interested in how he's getting on in his life?? do you think it's fair to jump to conclusions about the reasoning behind other peoples actions??

no offence intended, i see where you're comming from, but i just can't grasp your (and others) thinking/feelings towards this matter

maybe ye should put yourselves in his shoes - what would you have done differently?? i think the only difference would be that you would be cute enough not to write it in detail in your blog for people to rip appart

DeadParrot

I feel terrible for rag2gar. But I think what he did was stupid rather than malicious.
He then further compounded it by blogging it.
Made it worse by lying about it.
And also, I cant remember now, Andy?, saying that when he took over it was on a break is also a lie. (at least according to the original blog entry).

To be honest, the most shocking thing about the whole episode is people's reactions to the lucid and valid queries and opinions of Eoghan, R4AD et al.

luckylucky

you want me to address your posts.

sproodles wrote: »

The account sharing is fairly damnable.

lol do you actually know what you are talking about. This is actually even permitted on some sites in extreme cases where someone's internet connection drops, electricity goes down etc etc. The kind of account sharing violations that are totally out of order and have been big news are when it's done deliberately,

e.g. 1 Justin Bonomo - where he had several accounts playing in one mtt or
e.g. 2 Sorel Mizzi where he bought another user's account . Not as bad as example 1.

To compare what Gary did to the above two is ludicrous imo and absolutely ridiculous to refer to it as damnable. I can't imagine many serious poker players who wouldn't do the exact same.

cardshark202

luckylucky wtf are you on about? Do you know Gary? Or just because you have been posting on the forum for a while you think you know him. This is sproodles' business just as much as yours. Think before you post.

Also I never saw the original blog entry so I'm only going on what I've read here. But surely someone who plays 2/4 and 3/6nl would not need advice on what to do in a satellite situation. And surely they would also be able to change gears if necessary?

Also holllaments did nothing wrong you idiots lol

sproodles

luckylucky wrote: »

lol do you actually know what you are talking about.

Yes

luckylucky wrote: »

To compare what Gary did to the above two is ludicrous imo and absolutely ridiculous to refer to it as damnable. I can't imagine many serious poker players who wouldn't do the exact same.

I am not comparing it to anything or anyone. When I say "damnable" I mean from a legal t's and c's perspective. It is account sharing and if you refer back to the Everest t's and c's you will see that that is not permitted on penalty up to account suspension.

I dont know Gary personally and the situation that has arisen is a sad one. But site house-rules are essentially there to cover the site.

EVEREST, T's and C's

1.11 Safeguarding Player Account. Player is solely responsible for his Account transactions and will keep his Account information confidential. Player will not divulge his Account username or password to any third party. Player agrees that under no circumstances will the House be liable for any authorized or unauthorized Account activity.


1.5 Personal Use. Player will use House software and Player Account only for Player's own private, personal use and not for any business or commercial use, and not for use by others or as part of a professional or coordinated syndicate. Granting access to your account to any other person, or sharing accounts between multiple people, is strictly prohibited and is grounds for account suspension.

2.3 Individuals Only. Player must play as an individual. Each Player is only allowed to have one account. Any Player determined to be playing as part of a professional or coordinated syndicate, playing on multiple accounts, or in any way in collusion with another Player will be banned, all winnings will be void and all funds in Player's Account will be forfeited.

2.5 Use of House Software. House software is licenced and distributed solely for the purpose of enabling legitimate players to participate fairly in the games. Player may use House software for online play only on House servers. Player agrees not to modify, adapt, translate, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of House software or any part thereof or to create, publish or distribute derivative works from the software. Furthermore, the use of any software, script or other process (such as "robots" or "bots") which automates, attempts to automate, or replacing a human action in any way is strictly prohibited.

8.0 Termination.
Player may terminate this Agreement at any time by notifying Management in writing, provided that Player owes no money to the House for any reason. Upon receipt of termination notice, Player's Account will be closed and the terms of this Agreement shall remain in force for an additional 180 days.

At its sole discretion, Management may terminate this Agreement and the Player's ability to use House software and servers at any time and for any reason, and in particular in case of any activity that may harm the House or other Players including, but not limited to: fraud; abuse of promotions or privileges; misuse of House websites, software or services; or frivolous or unsubstantiated claims.

luckylucky

cardshark202 wrote: »

luckylucky wtf are you on about? Do you know Gary? Or just because you have been posting on the forum for a while you think you know him. This is sproodles' business just as much as yours. Think before you post.

Firstly, I know Gary from here and the odd chat on msn. I played him in the heads up league on boards and have chatted to him from time to time since, seems like a sound bloke.

Secondly. What took you so long. Roundtower posted a few hours ago. You're normally a bit quicker than that. Lol TweedledumTweedledeeaments

eoghan104

Just to clarify a couple of things Bops.......

bops wrote: »

then they decided to go to another house to get more help from other friends. (i don't see any reason in the world why he would want to move house, it looks like he had no choice??)

The reason he went to the other house as stated in his blog was to get some more help from the two guys down in the house.

bops wrote: »

with all this help and advice he played a very different style. (when people are physically railing you in a big tourney with a lot at stake, it is only natural that this hightens your adrenaline levels and therefore probably play more aggressive, but in general this background noise is a hinderence)

Are you taking the piss here? Again as stated in his blog the reason he played more aggressivley was due to the advice he was getting from the other guys on how to play certain hands.

bops wrote: »

maybe ye should put yourselves in his shoes - what would you have done differently?? i think the only difference would be that you would be cute enough not to write it in detail in your blog for people to rip appart

If I was in his shoes I wouldnt have gone to the 2nd house for extra help.

The outcome of the tournament was changed due to the advice recieved end off theres no denying that. Why do you feel the need to defend him so adamantly when you, by your own admission, didnt bother reading the thread and certaintly didnt read the blog entry in question? You know nothing about whats going.

strewelpeter

YULETIRED wrote: »

All the guys like Eoghan/Dan/Cooker/LL are correct to question this however and should not be lambasted for it. Simply put though it's a moral versus a rules issue....the morality part is subjective and the rules part is not.

.

Enough of this back and forth already.
Its clear that the rules of the site weren't broken.
There is a debate to be had about the morality/ legality, the pros and cons and the general phenomenon of Tag Teamplay.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to take that discussion somewhere else and divorce it from this specific instance about which there has already been way too much said.

Mr.Plough

I've only just read through the full thread now.

First of all there's nothing wrong with hollllaments email imo.

I don't know Gary personally but It's pretty obvious he didn't intend for any of this to happen. Logging on from a different ip is fine obviously, but asking someone to play the tourny until you arrive is not. I didn't see the original blog post but if he was taking advice and changing his play accordingly I agree it's definitely unethical.

R4AD wrote:

Ringing a friend to get him to log in for you elsewhere is granting access to your account. /end.

.

And I wish people would stfu going on about the boards clique in every single thread. It seems that whenever a few people disagree with someone that person just blows it off and says "They're in the clique of course they agree with eachother", just makes you sound like a

This obviously isn't the same but a case with some similarities that happened before the 07 ME. Notice how everyone is telling him to sell the T$ asap? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=175310

Mr.Plough

Its clear that the rules of the site weren't broken.

What?

1.11 Safeguarding Player Account. Player is solely responsible for his Account transactions and will keep his Account information confidential. Player will not divulge his Account username or password to any third party. Player agrees that under no circumstances will the House be liable for any authorized or unauthorized Account activity.


1.5 Personal Use. Player will use House software and Player Account only for Player's own private, personal use and not for any business or commercial use, and not for use by others or as part of a professional or coordinated syndicate. Granting access to your account to any other person, or sharing accounts between multiple people, is strictly prohibited and is grounds for account suspension.

2.3 Individuals Only. Player must play as an individual. Each Player is only allowed to have one account. Any Player determined to be playing as part of a professional or coordinated syndicate, playing on multiple accounts, or in any way in collusion with another Player will be banned, all winnings will be void and all funds in Player's Account will be forfeited.

gunner06

strewelpeter wrote: »

.

Enough of this back and forth already.
Its clear that the rules of the site weren't broken.
There is a debate to be had about the morality/ legality, the pros and cons and the general phenomenon of Tag Teamplay.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to take that discussion somewhere else and divorce it from this specific instance about which there has already been way too much said.

Well said,if someone didnt know better you might say that for one or two individuals it has turned from a debate into a witch hunt.Its all gone a bit crazy and out of hand and should be put to rest.

5starpool

gunner06 wrote: »

Well said,if someone didnt know better you might say that for one or two individuals it has turned from a debate into a witch hunt.Its all gone a bit crazy and out of hand and should be put to rest.

A witch hunt? LOL!!!! I have seen some with hunts on here and this isn't one. Some people seem to be trying to ignore that what happened was probably a breach of regulations, others are try to say that whatever the intentions, by the letter of the law, t's and c's were broken, and then others are saying 'oh stfu, ignore the hatas!!' which adds absolutely noting to the debate, much like your comment above. No one has said his package should be taken away, only that it seems like different standards are being applied because most of us know (somewhat at least) and like gary, and to be honest it is true.

I think it is fairly likely that in the next 6 months a thread will happen where there is general upinarmedness about something, then someone will refer back to this thread, and it will get interesting then.

This is not a black and white issue, but there is definitely some issue here that shouldn't just be dismissed as a witch hunt.

YULETIRED

Mr Plough,
for someone who gets vexed by clique comments, why do you have one in your signature......more irony....:D

mewso

Speaking as an outsider (these days anyway) who doesn't know rag2gar but I would respect him purely based on his posts in general. I would say the worst thing here is that you get eaten alive by some people if you even question something.

Q. Is this legal?
A. stfu and stop abusing player x/stop abusing me.

Is this to be the standard of "debate" here from now on? We have to be able to question each other as much as anyone out there and do it with some maturity. i.e. if someone asks a question we don't have to assume they have it in for the person they are questioning.

Then Hollaments emails Everest with a hypothetical question and gets jumped on too. I mean in your wildest dreams this wouldn't be tied to a specific event. The email is signed "A possible new customer" which is the only part the Everest guys will pay attention to. Another possible punter who needs re-assuring that he won't be playing with cheats.

I'm still considering the rights and wrongs of this one but if more information is forthcoming from Everest etc. then all the better. We could discuss the moral issues too but I doubt we'd get 2 posts before someone uses the word "retard".

Oh and someone mentioned Jackie Chan coaching Jamie Gold at the final table of the WSOP. This is of course incorrect. It was in fact Bruce Lee.

Mr.Plough

YULETIRED wrote: »

Mr Plough,
for someone who gets vexed by clique comments, why do you have one in your signature......more irony....:D

lol. damn

Spuca

musician wrote: »

Oh and someone mentioned Jackie Chan coaching Jamie Gold at the final table of the WSOP. This is of course incorrect. It was in fact Bruce Lee.

Nice.

mickste

Willie, you are growing into this 'clique' that you believe exists.You more than anyone comments on this or monkeys or some other phrase which is an attempt at humor.

If you're so laid back you sure seem to find the need to criticize a lot of posters discrepancies.

YULETIRED

mickste wrote: »

Willie, you are growing into this 'clique' that you believe exists.You more than anyone comments on this or monkeys or some other phrase which is an attempt at humor.

If you're so laid back you sure seem to find the need to criticize a lot of posters discrepancies.

Well Mick, you do not understand what a 'clique' is then....
name a clique type of comment I've made?

You seem offended by my chimpesque comments......well meh to that too ...this is how I view young upstarts who LOL at posts of newbies and the like... Something I DON'T DO. I at least stand up to the arrogant *chimps* who bounce around with thier know it all attitude to every subject under the sun. The reason I use humour is If I actually said what I thought sure I'd receive my umpteenth banning....no doubt that would please your ilk. .. .


quite suprised at your comment to be honest....(hmmm well maybe not now that I think of it)

If ya don't getz my humour that fine, not arsed really tbh as I don't exactly expect hugs when I go to play poker...(a muttered hello is more the norm)


now back on topic...