Well done rag2gar

5starpool

Requiem4adream wrote: »

On a side issue too lazy to check but when does WSOP festival start?

May 28th is the first official day of the wsop. Full schedule in the wsop sticky in the tournie sub forum.

eoghan104

Macspower wrote: »

how about a final comment from Gary and put this one to bed?

I wouldnt hold your breath considering weve had one post from him in this thread from 403!

luckylucky

rb_ie wrote: »

That'd make them a good apple overall though, wouldn't it?

In terms of the teacher's pet who squeals on his classmates yes it would do

Ok this thread seems to have a lot of genuine posters with completely different takes on it, and there doesn't seem to be swaying of hearts and minds on it on either side.

For my part I have no problem with any user, be that a friend or a foe getting someone to substitute for them in an online tourney in dire circumstances - I don't care whether that's against T & C's or not either, to me it's just being practical... I appreciate that for some of you that's morally wrong. For those who do find that morally wrong would you not do it under any circumstance? Say you qualify for a $5k buy-in tournament, with potentially massive prize money and your internet connection drops and you are getting near to the bubble with an average stack, you mean to tell me you're going to say oh fiddlesticks how rather unlucky I was for that to happen, oh well what can I do it's against the rules for me to call my mate to take over until I arrive at his house so I guess there goes my tournament. Really, really... you are going to do that with potentially 100s of thousands of dollars at stake? FWIW I think Ollieboy genuinely would not do it, but have the rest of you mere mortals really thought about it or are you just being trigger happy. This is not a $1 Rebuy we are talking about! which you are solely playing for the fun/challenge.

Ok now the 2nd issue people have about his friends looking on and helping I actually find it far more understandable why people are annoyed, but largely I think he got caught up in the moment and I certainly don't think it's warranted the level of outcry from certain quarters, but obviously some people feel very strongly about it.

On the whole cliquey thing. I think it's a silly term tbh that seems to be getting overused. I feel like part of a community here and I feel a certain amount of loyalty to most(certain exceptions who get my goat up of course ) boardies. I'll admit DrEvil ahem... i mean rag2gar would be one of my closer contacts from boards, saying that I've never even met him, so we're not buxom buddies or anything either, I would be supportive of most other boardies and even the ones I don't particularly like I would just refrain from putting the boot in. If the case was more black and white then I'd be blasting rag2gar 'n all, to me it wasn't a heinous act and we've got an overreaction, but obviously that is just my point of view.

HoLLLLLaments

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

Hi,
Could you answer some queries i have about your site? Just a couple of hypothetical situations I hope you can clear up for me.

1. If my internet connection went out during play in a tournament on your site would it be acceptable for me to go a location with access to the internet? Also while I was traveling to that location would it be acceptable for my friend who was at that location to play in my stead until i arrived?

2. My second question is about if I am allowed to seek advice and help from multiple other players to aid me in my exploits in multi table tournaments?

example: I am deep in one of your multi table tournaments and during a break i go to my friends house where some other poker players are and i finish the tournament there with the help of my poker playing friends.
Is this allowed on everest poker?

I would appreciate if you could help with defining if these situations are acceptable.

Ty for your help

yours sincerely
Possible Everest Poker customer

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

Dear Potential Everest Poker customer,

We offer the following responses to your questions regarding the
"hypothetical" situations.

Yes, it is permissible to change computers/locations while playing
online, both for technical reasons such as the failure of a computer or
Internet connection as well as other reasons, such as beginning play
from a school or office computer and resuming at home.

As in live poker, the rule of "one hand, one player" also applies to
online poker. Clearly, this rule is much harder to enforce in online
poker than in a live poker room. However, Everest Poker monitors all
play and will take appropriate action should we determine there is
sufficient justification for doing so.

Finally, we invite you to review the following two sections of the
Everest Poker Terms of Agreement
(http://www.everestpoker.com/en/policies/terms.html).

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.



Kind regards,
Customer Care Team

We are committed to providing you with never ending excitement and fun.
In order for us to better serve you and resolve this issue as quickly as
possible, please do not modify the subject line of this message when you reply.

They agree that changing computers is fine and brush off the rest of your question by pointing to the T&C's without offering a definitive answer to your "hypothetical" situation at the bottom of your inquiry. I don't mind you going "na na na na na" but I'd prefer it if I had been proved wrong first.

HoLLLLLaments

Deleted User wrote: »

They agree that changing computers is fine and brush off the rest of your question by pointing to the T&C's without offering a definitive answer to your "hypothetical" situation at the bottom of your inquiry. I don't mind you going "na na na na na" but I'd prefer it if I had been proved wrong first.

what are you talking about proved wrong? i just posted the email. thats all. i didnt say what he did was right or wrong but just in case you missed it they did say they have a one player to a hand rule and there was more than one player to the hand in the situation specified. a 4 man tag team i believe or something to that effect.

jbravado

rb_ie wrote: »

That'd make them a good apple overall though, wouldn't it?

I certainly wouldnt consider that to be the case-malicious busyboding is more what Id consider it especially if it was done primarly for their own egotistical reasons. Delibrately trying to jepordise a great result irrespective of any mistakes Gary may of made and almost certainly will not make again would be pretty fooking low.

HoLLLLLaments

also all the people who think they did a good thing in defending the guy until they were blue in the face probably made the situation a lot worse. Like R4ad and others i wasn't really concerned about the whole 4 man tag team, it was the "delete this thread quick" attitude and the rank double standards that got me involved. If everyone had of just said wd and left the people who said he broke the rules alone than it would have died down pretty fast. Instead people said he didnt break any rules and the thread should be deleted and eoghan was basically called a liar. Thats where the real damage was done, not the actual tag teaming.

DocO

this thread has been so full of needless sht from the very start. Its as if the "busybodies" as quoted by Jbravado had nothing to achieve from this thread than prove they were right. Well technically, as you expected, everest have said it only is one to the hand. Some people were doing this, proving these points, because they were annoyed at the stance taking by others - WOW , great people IMO. Hollier than though - and the most annoying thing about all this is how R4AD goes and initially tells Gary to remove his blog - (very helpful, nice considerate message, accomplice to that act??(joke)) and then as Gary says what he needs to say to be in the legally correct position - the messenger of light - the beacon that is Requiem, fights the corner relentlessly for Eoghan104, and all that is right. Very short memory R4aD.
Give me a fkn bucket. The issues people have brought up in this thread deserve discussion, but its the motives behind discussing them that do my nut in.

Eoghan is well fit to fight his own battles, and in all fairness, considering the severity of the issue can any of us actually expect him (Gary)to have posted anything else than his reply in the thread. If you wish to talk properly about it, and perhaps get an apology - if your that offended about how your online persona is portrayed, then give him a call.

As for copying and pasting the whole blog entry, why would one do this and then advise that he remove it?? petty, childish and this isnt for the whole clique - because last time i checked i couldnt even get into the no homer's club.

For those who needed/wanted to prove a point, well done its done. For those who think there's a clique, well done, perhaps there is - or maybe just a group of people friendly with a certain guy. For those defending Gary and his involvement in this, well done also - its a grey area if he actually did anything wrong (i dont want to have the t&cs quoted at me, all we have is a piece of writing, that no longer exists mentioning something that arguably holds the man in question) and a bit of support is probably well received - well done. Im sick sore of tired of this all - im not in any camp -dont even like tents. End of AFAIC

luckylucky

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

also all the people who think they did a good thing in defending the guy until they were blue in the face probably made the situation a lot worse.

Quite possibly. On the other hand seeing as there seems to be a big divide on this issue irrepective of the person involved maybe it was good to have this debate after all.

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

Like R4ad and others i wasn't really concerned about the whole 4 man tag team, it was the "delete this thread quick" attitude and the rank double standards that got me involved.

There are many shades of opinion here so to say that I or others have double standards is a bit silly. Wishing to defend a fellow boardsie you're on good terms with is natural... it's my form - my standard I don't have a double standard on that,even if it wasn't a fellow boardsie for me personally what he did was at worst a minor infraction and I wouldn't want to see anyone lose their WSOP ticket coz of it.

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

eoghan was basically called a liar.

I think it was clear to everyone pretty quickly even those of us on rag2gar's side that eoghan wasn't lying. EdiT: Just looked back at rag2gar's post.. didn't see where he said eoghan was lying and I don't remember anyone else saying he was lying

The_Chopper

I think it's about time i said something

That is all.........

cooker3

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

also all the people who think they did a good thing in defending the guy until they were blue in the face probably made the situation a lot worse. Like R4ad and others i wasn't really concerned about the whole 4 man tag team, it was the "delete this thread quick" attitude and the rank double standards that got me involved. If everyone had of just said wd and left the people who said he broke the rules alone than it would have died down pretty fast. Instead people said he didnt break any rules and the thread should be deleted and eoghan was basically called a liar. Thats where the real damage was done, not the actual tag teaming.

Yeah I'd agree with this. While I wholly disagree with you in terms that you don't see it as cheating at least your being consistant. The incredible double standards for a lot of posters here is in some ways more annoying then what happened.

eoghan104

DocO wrote: »

Eoghan is well fit to fight his own battles, and in all fairness, considering the severity of the issue can any of us actually expect him (Gary)to have posted anything else than his reply in the thread. If you wish to talk properly about it, and perhaps get an apology - if your that offended about how your online persona is portrayed, then give him a call.

Donal, do you think I'm the type of person who cares about an "online Personna"? At the start all I did was say that what Gary did was wrong and that if the shoe was on the other foot the whole forum would be up in arms and mailing everest due to this travisty of injustice bestowed on our poor hero Gary. Can you refute this?

Secondly the only thing that kept me interested in this thread was all the people that came on and said that everyone playing online does this so its grand. That suprised me and I was interested to hear people talk about how this cheating is widespread and accepted.

Thirdly Gary came on and said basically that what I said was all lies and others cool cats told me im a "hater". This also pissed me off. I Pmd Gary about it and he apologised and I said thanks and wished him luck in the ME. Is any of this unjustified by me?

Never ,IMO, in this thread have I shown myself to be a holier than thou justice warrior I was just simply pointing out what I thought of the situation and the obvious double standards being shown to Gary because he is sound. Is it not my right to do so?

Like you Donal there are others on this forum that I get on well with and have a bit of craic with them when I play so yes maybe I am slightly worried about whether or not they think I am a sh*t stirrer or a "hater".

El Stuntman

eoghan104 wrote: »

Like you Donal there are others on this forum that I get on well with and have a bit of craic with them when I play so yes maybe I am slightly worried about whether or not they think I am a sh*t stirrer or a "hater".

ah shure I always thought you were a bollocks meself!

eoghan104

El Stuntman wrote: »

ah shure I always thought you were a bollocks meself!

lol ever since the A7 hand or before!!!

Requiem4adream

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

also all the people who think they did a good thing in defending the guy until they were blue in the face probably made the situation a lot worse. Like R4ad and others i wasn't really concerned about the whole 4 man tag team, it was the "delete this thread quick" attitude and the rank double standards that got me involved. If everyone had of just said wd and left the people who said he broke the rules alone than it would have died down pretty fast. Instead people said he didnt break any rules and the thread should be deleted and eoghan was basically called a liar. Thats where the real damage was done, not the actual tag teaming.

+1

DocO wrote: »

this thread has been so full of needless sht from the very start. Its as if the "busybodies" as quoted by Jbravado had nothing to achieve from this thread than prove they were right. Well technically, as you expected, everest have said it only is one to the hand. Some people were doing this, proving these points, because they were annoyed at the stance taking by others - WOW , great people IMO. Hollier than though - and the most annoying thing about all this is how R4AD goes and initially tells Gary to remove his blog - (very helpful, nice considerate message, accomplice to that act??(joke)) and then as Gary says what he needs to say to be in the legally correct position - the messenger of light - the beacon that is Requiem, fights the corner relentlessly for Eoghan104, and all that is right. Very short memory R4aD.
Give me a fkn bucket. The issues people have brought up in this thread deserve discussion, but its the motives behind discussing them that do my nut in.

Eoghan is well fit to fight his own battles, and in all fairness, considering the severity of the issue can any of us actually expect him (Gary)to have posted anything else than his reply in the thread. If you wish to talk properly about it, and perhaps get an apology - if your that offended about how your online persona is portrayed, then give him a call.

As for copying and pasting the whole blog entry, why would one do this and then advise that he remove it?? petty, childish and this isnt for the whole clique - because last time i checked i couldnt even get into the no homer's club.

For those who needed/wanted to prove a point, well done its done. For those who think there's a clique, well done, perhaps there is - or maybe just a group of people friendly with a certain guy. For those defending Gary and his involvement in this, well done also - its a grey area if he actually did anything wrong (i dont want to have the t&cs quoted at me, all we have is a piece of writing, that no longer exists mentioning something that arguably holds the man in question) and a bit of support is probably well received - well done. Im sick sore of tired of this all - im not in any camp -dont even like tents. End of AFAIC

*You are out of order good sir*. I told him to take it down because if he left it up he'd have been *in a slight predicament*. I was looking out for him and perfectly happy to say nothing more in the thread. Then for him to then re-enter the thread with a completely different version of events purely to make Eoghan look like an absolute fool was complete bs and i wasnt standing for that. Told gary as much on msn. I had the original window with the original blog open still when i woke up. It's *complete* bs attitudes like yours that make me tempted to go check my Recycle Bin. *insert expletive* you, seriously, where the *deuce* do you get off trying to switch the blame for something Gary did onto me? He had no need at all to re-enter the thread he coulda stayed out of it and it'd have died down after 5 pages.

My only point in this whole thread was if Gary had bubbled and was the victim there would be blue murder in here about it. Blatant case of double standards and hypocrisy. The defence of that has been "yeah but he's 1 of our own/sound/nice guy" etc. So all of ye remember this next time you wanna go on a rant about Sorel Mizzi or 1 of them embroiled in a bit of cheating.

cooker3 wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree with this. While I wholly disagree with you in terms that you don't see it as cheating at least your being consistant. The incredible double standards for a lot of posters here is in some ways more annoying then what happened.

see above

KINGofHEARTS

Requiem4adream wrote: »

+1

Go **** yourself. I told him to take it down because if he left it up he'd have been ****ed. I was looking out for him and perfectly happy to say nothing more in the thread. Then for him to then re-enter the thread with a completely different version of events purely to make Eoghan look like an absolute fool was complete bs and i wasnt standing for that. Told gary as much on msn. I had the original window with the original blog open still when i woke up. It's ****ing bs attitudes like yours that make me tempted to go check my Recycle Bin. Go **** yourself, seriously, where the **** do you get off trying to switch the blame for something Gary did onto me? He had no need at all to re-enter the thread he coulda stayed out of it and it'd have died down after 5 pages.

My only point in this whole thread was if Gary had bubbled and was the victim there would be blue murder in here about it. Blatant case of double standards and hypocrisy. The defence of that has been "yeah but he's 1 of our own/sound/nice guy" etc. So all of ye remember this next time you wanna go on a rant about Sorel Mizzi or 1 of them embroiled in a bit of cheating.


see above

So true...so true

HoLLLLLaments

cooker3 wrote: »

While I wholly disagree with you in terms that you don't see it as cheating

im not saying it isnt cheating or it is. Well i suppose since it is prohibited by the site then it is cheating. I just dont want to condemn him for cheating. Like i said ive been in similar spots. Its like playing underage. Im not sure if im against it. I did it but its obvious to me the reason why playing underage is not allowed. I guess i technically cheated by playing underage just like he technically cheated by tag teaming but since he doesnt exactly have a underground operation of the best players tag teaming on a nightly basis i woudnt use the word cheat because even though technically it might be fitting, that word tends to tarnish someones name irreversibly. In this case its doubtful that will happen since there are so many people defending him which is a good thing. A better thing would have been if they kept scmuck from the beginning but alas........

Also people seem to think that anyone arguing/debating/providing views on the "opposing" side of the zomg hes the nicest guy ever delete this thread quick are doing so to try and tarnish his name/be busybodys. Thats not true. Its the "delete this thread" attitude that they dont like.

smoothcall

Ollieboy wrote: »

reason I talk to him online is simple, he's not stupid enough to try and influence my play with making a statement like that. He knows the difference between railing and supporting someone and influence there play. But someone telling you that a player is a fish or xyz is not cheating, this goes on in the live game as much as the online world. Telling you how to play a hand against a player that change the way you plan to play it in the first place is cheating and 30 sec's is not enough time to make this happen. If I took a time out, my railing buddy knows to leave me to work it out and not influence my decision.

Ok fair enough.

strewelpeter

LOL at Everest saying that they have a one player per hand rule that they won't enforce and then quoting rules that you'd need roomful of Jesuits to pull such a rule out of.

Comparisons with Sorel Mizzi are ridiculous in the extreme. Mizzi bought an account and took over from a player who had gone deep in a tournament that Mizzi had already donked out of (multiple times allegedly).

KINGofHEARTS

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

im not saying it isnt cheating or it is. Well i suppose since it is prohibited by the site then it is cheating. I just dont want to condemn him for cheating. Like i said ive been in similar spots. Its like playing underage. Im not sure if im against it. I did it but its obvious to me the reason why playing underage is not allowed. I guess i technically cheated by playing underage just like he technically cheated by tag teaming but since he doesnt exactly have a underground operation of the best players tag teaming on a nightly basis i woudnt use the word cheat because even though technically it might be fitting, that word tends to tarnish someones irreversibly. In this case its doubtful that will happen since there are so many people defending him which is a good thing. A better thing would have been if they kept scmuck from the beginning but alas........

So it's ok to do it once because it's not being done every night ???

How can u say this ???

HoLLLLLaments

KINGofHEARTS wrote: »

So it's ok to do it once because it's not being done every night ???

How can u say this ???

dont misquote me. its not ok to do anytime. im saying that i dont feel happy calling him a cheat because of a one off. if there was a word less severe i could think off i would use it. obviously breaking the rules is not ok but im not of the opinion that all rule breaking incidents warrant being called a cheat.

edit:didnt really misquote me but quoted me out of context

luckylucky

luckylucky wrote: »

Say you qualify for a $5k buy-in tournament, with potentially massive prize money and your internet connection drops and you are getting near to the bubble with an average stack...... you are going to leave it go with potentially 100s of thousands of dollars at stake?

I woulda thought this was easily answered in the affirmative by those decrying our resident DrEvil(aka rag2gar), very surprising given your fine upstanding moral principles.

YULETIRED

Rooney - Eoghan = Valid points, and taking unwarranted abuse

Rag2Gar = Lesson learned but NOT a cheat IMO...

Cooker - Is da man.....right or wrong, it's good to see a young fellow stick up for his beliefs.

LuckyLucky - he is da other man on this thread......


Sniff, sniff, I'll not see this thread (or boards) for another week, I do hope something as dramatic awaits my return ...it's been emotional.....and fun IMO...



PS. GL on the tables primates :-)

cooker3

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

im not saying it isnt cheating or it is. Well i suppose since it is prohibited by the site then it is cheating. I just dont want to condemn him for cheating. Like i said ive been in similar spots. Its like playing underage. Im not sure if im against it. I did it but its obvious to me the reason why playing underage is not allowed. I guess i technically cheated by playing underage just like he technically cheated by tag teaming but since he doesnt exactly have a underground operation of the best players tag teaming on a nightly basis i woudnt use the word cheat because even though technically it might be fitting, that word tends to tarnish someones name irreversibly. In this case its doubtful that will happen since there are so many people defending him which is a good thing. A better thing would have been if they kept scmuck from the beginning but alas........

Also people seem to think that anyone arguing/debating/providing views on the "opposing" side of the zomg hes the nicest guy ever delete this thread quick are doing so to try and tarnish his name/be busybodys. Thats not true. Its the "delete this thread" attitude that they dont like.

I get what your saying. In this case I think he cheated, and it seems the t&c of Everest does agree. In general I don't think he purposefully on the night went "you know what I am going to cheat my way to the ticket" and to best of my knowledge he still thinks he did nothing wrong so he doesn't strike me as sort of guy who would purposefully cheat but yet what happened still has to be acknowledged

CourierCollie

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

Dear Potential Everest Poker customer,

As in live poker, the rule of "one hand, one player" also applies to
online poker. Clearly, this rule is much harder to enforce in online
poker than in a live poker room. However, Everest Poker monitors all
play and will take appropriate action should we determine there is
sufficient justification for doing so.

Have to admit this kind of surprised me, and makes me feel less comfortable than I originally was with what took place.
Any plans for writing 'Tag Team Tournament Poker For Advanced Players', are gonna have to be put on hold.
Also, I guess being unaware of such a rule/policy is hardly much of a defence. Never works for me when I get stopped by a Garda for breaking the various 'rules' of the road I choose to ignore every day.

Rb

jbravado wrote: »

I certainly wouldnt consider that to be the case-malicious busyboding is more what Id consider it especially if it was done primarly for their own egotistical reasons. Delibrately trying to jepordise a great result irrespective of any mistakes Gary may of made and almost certainly will not make again would be pretty fooking low.

Indeed but at the end of the day, someone has effectively been cheated out of a 10-15k prize. It's all good and well to be defending friends and whatever, but to a lot of people that's a huge amount of money and I don't think it's something that should be taken lightly tbh.
As has already been said, if this happened to a Boardsie there would be fcking uproar about it. Or even if it were a completely, non-related third party, a lot of people's minds would be very different on it.

If you happened to be the one heads up with him, and then later that day after losing to him, your $500 and a chance at 10-15k he turned around and goes "Ah hard luck, myself and 3 of the lads had the edge though!" would you go "Ah well, you're a mate so lets not worry about that".

If I were on the receiving end of it and found out that I'd been cheated by a tag team of good players, I'd follow them to vegas and cause them pure misery for their entire time there, providing Everest didn't take the package off them of course.

He may not have intended to have 3/4 other players advising him how to play his hands initially, but it ended up that way, he took their advise and played the hands how they agreed on (as Macspower said, his play changed drastically). That's active cheating and it's a pity to see the package being given to someone who cheated their way to it and not someone who played by the rules.

Also, a lot of peoples attitudes in this thread has certainly shown their true character, which is quite disappointing tbh.

rb_ie

rb_ie wrote: »

As has already been said, if this happened to a Boardsie there would be fcking uproar about it. Or even if it were a completely, non-related third party, a lot of people's minds would be very different on it.

Of course they would.

For those who sit on the "this is definitely cheating and that's it" side, then that is fine, their opinions are clear and we know who they are and I can respect that.

However, there are a great number of people on this forum of the belief that there is a certain degree of reality which needs to be taken into account as regards the nature of internet poker. The rules on Stars and FT (I think- I am open to correction) have been quoted and opinions expressed to the tune of "it may be against the rules it may not". These people tend to fall into the camp of "it might not be against the rules, but it might not be a great idea either" and then there are also those who believe this is an everyday oocurence and don't see a problem.

For the latter two categories it comes down, ultimately, to a decision about who they are going to side with and in a pinch most people will side with their friends and/or people they know. Rag2gar is a popular guy amongst poker players and, when the area is grey as I for one believe it is, then I will side with him and stand up for his point of view.

I completely respect the points made by cooker3 and HoLLLLLaments, I just do not agree with their interpretation. I have to admit I haven't much time for R4AD's points in this thread as I think if Eoghan and Gary sorted out any misunderstanding between them then that should be that and his knight in shining armour routine is old. That said, he has made some good points from atop that high horse, no denying that.

Ste05

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to admit I haven't much time for R4AD's points in this thread as I think if Eoghan and Gary sorted out any misunderstanding between them then that should be that and his knight in shining armour routine is old.

How do you propose this "misunderstanding" would have been sorted out without rag2gar posting publicly what he posted in his blog to compare it to his post in this thread?? Possibly by means of a PM exchange and private apology with everyone who didn't read the blog still thinking that Eoghan made stuff up or at the very least vastly over-exaggerated what was written??

cardshark202

Kayroo if you could please point out the post where rag2gar says him and eoghan sorted out their differences, I would be much obliged. TY

Chucky the tree

strewelpeter wrote: »

Comparisons with Sorel Mizzi are ridiculous in the extreme. Mizzi bought an account and took over from a player who had gone deep in a tournament that Mizzi had already donked out of (multiple times allegedly).

But if Mizzi just said behind the player and told him what to do instead of buying his account would that be ok?


Barring having already been in the tournament there isnt a huge difference, specially considering the money gary gave too the other lads.

luckylucky

luckylucky wrote: »

Say you qualify for a $5k buy-in tournament, with potentially massive prize money and your internet connection drops and you are getting near to the bubble with an average stack...... you are going to leave it go with potentially 100s of thousands of dollars at stake?

I woulda thought this was easily answered in the affirmative by those decrying our resident DrEvil(aka rag2gar), very surprising given your fine upstanding moral principles.

So no one can answer yes to this, speaks volumes imo, who are the real hypocrites here then!!!

HoLLLLLaments

luckylucky wrote: »

So no one can answer yes to this, speaks volumes imo, who are the real hypocrites here then!!!

im not going to leave it. id try and find a way to get back in the game. if i won it and they said i had broken the rules and dqd me and took my mula id be real pissed but id just have to accept it.

seriously tho i really dont think anyone cares about him switching computers. its not against the rules afterall

phantom_lord

idk about the other people, but i don't really have a problem with that, it's moving house to get help and win it as a "4 man tag team" that i think is wrong.

luckylucky

HoLLLLLaments wrote: »

seriously tho i really dont think anyone cares about him switching computers. its not against the rules afterall

Seriously tho... there have been many people in this thread who care a helluva lot about the fact that he got someone else to play while he was in transit, which is what you would have to do if your internet connection or electricity was off. Again to those people can you give me a clear yes in the scenario that I presented.

In regards to you personally I know this wasn't an issue for you, in fact I didn't gather that anything that Gary did here was a major issue for you, you just didn't like the fact that some of us were sticking up for a friend. :rolleyes:

phantom_lord wrote: »

idk about the other people, but i don't really have a problem with that, it's moving house to get help and win it as a "4 man tag team" that i think is wrong.

I can understand moreso why this is an issue for some people. I think it's been gone through enough already so I won't go back trhough the extenuating circumstances etc etc etc. Sheit this whole thread has been gone through enough already

Chucky the tree

luckylucky wrote: »

Seriously tho... there have been many people in this thread who care a helluva lot about the fact that he got someone else to play while he was in transit, which is what you would have to do if your internet connection or electricity was off. Again to those people can you give me a clear yes in the scenario that I presented.

yes.

DeVore

Can I close this already? My brain is full...

DeV.

eoghan104

cardshark202 wrote: »

Kayroo if you could please point out the post where rag2gar says him and eoghan sorted out their differences, I would be much obliged. TY

Just to clarify, I got a Pm of Gary saying that he never meant to make me look like a fool. That was after I had PMd him asking him to post on the thread.

Also, Luckylucky in your scenario there yes I would ask a friend to help but thats never been what i had a problem with. It was the "tag team" part I didnt like.

Cheers Eoghan I was about to trawl the thread for the original post you said that in. Saved me a bother

Ste05

Ste05 wrote: »

How do you propose this "misunderstanding" would have been sorted out without rag2gar posting publicly what he posted in his blog to compare it to his post in this thread?? Possibly by means of a PM exchange and private apology with everyone who didn't read the blog still thinking that Eoghan made stuff up or at the very least vastly over-exaggerated what was written??

Wow, way to go with the balanced moderation.

Eoghan already posted on this. Can't really blame Gary for wanting to stay off this thread, every time he says something it gets dissected to pieces by both sides. I know Eoghan would have preferred it made public but I am sure he can understand why Gary would decide not to post here again.

luckylucky

Chucky the tree wrote: »

yes.

To answer that confidently you must be a regular hi stake mtt player, didn't realise that, will be looking out for your posts in the future to get some advice.

eoghan104 wrote: »

It was the "tag team" part I didnt like.

I told mrs. LL about this thread, she knows next to nothing about poker but I was kinda surprised how readily she agreed with me (doesn't happen too often ) that it's a bit ridiculous that people have a major problem with this, it's the internet - you can't control what people are doing on the other side, as she bluntly put it they could be having a w$%^ on the other side for all you know. I think it's kinda farcical that he's meant to tell his friends you better leave the room now, I think it's just an unsual circumstance that took him beyond the site's Terms and Conditions. I reckon most people here have gone beyond terms and conditions at one time or another. All your software on your pc all bought and paid for btw chaps?

Jeez Dev close the bleedin thread plz I keep meaning to stop coming back to it but the draw of the argument is too strong

Ste05

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow, way to go with the balanced moderation.

Eoghan already posted on this. Can't really blame Gary for wanting to stay off this thread, every time he says something it gets dissected to pieces by both sides. I know Eoghan would have preferred it made public but I am sure he can understand why Gary would decide not to post here again.

I wasn't referring to Eoghan, nor was I referring to Gary having to come back onto the thread. I was referring to your use of the word "misunderstanding" and your comments about R4aD.

Deleted User wrote:

I have to admit I haven't much time for R4AD's points in this thread

Had R4aD not backed up Eoghan the way he did, Eoghan would have been left flying alone in the wind, with all Gary's mates (and other fellow boardsies alike) backing him 100%, Eoghan would have looked like a complete fool to anyone that didn't read the Blog. Did you read the original blog entry? I would actually commend R4aD for taking the stance he did, as I'm sure everyone here knows I've threatened him with a ban probably more than anyone on the boards, so IMO I have been completely balanced.

EDIT: Also, just because I'm a mod, doesn't mean I can't have an opinion too. I have to be (and am) balanced when it come to moderation, but I don't have to when it comes to a personal opinion.

Chucky the tree

luckylucky wrote: »

To answer that confidently you must be a regular hi stake mtt player, didn't realise that, will be looking out for your posts in the future to get some advice.

I dont usually post advice though, dont want to teach you fish.

luckylucky

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I dont usually post advice though, dont want to teach you fish.

lol. So you're not that noble minded then

sproodles

DeVore wrote: »

Can I close this already? My brain is full...

DeV.

The debate has been an interesting one but at this stage it is going around in circles.

I think we should just agree to disagree, many different points, a lot valid. Moral Vs Legal Vs Loyalty.

I dont think you need to close it Dev - it has been an interesting thread. But for those of us keeping it alive (like me now doh) we should probably let it die.

Hitman Actual

The thread can't be closed anyway until we get the answer to the question, who is sproodles?

luckylucky

lenny_leonard wrote: »

The thread can't be closed anyway until we get the answer to the question, who is sproodles?

I'd hazard a guess that he's the mutant offspring of Roundtower and Cardshark. Or perhaps he's the Dr Jekyl side of rag2gar.

cardshark202

luckylucky wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that he's the mutant offspring of Roundtower and Cardshark.

Nope. Pretty stupid guess imo.

luckylucky

cardshark202 wrote: »

Nope. Pretty stupid guess imo.

Soz perhaps not a mutant then. Then again parents are normally blind to the blemishes of their offspring. I mean I'm sure rag2gar's Mum has no idea she has such an evil person living under her roof.

5starpool

lenny_leonard wrote: »

The thread can't be closed anyway until we get the answer to the question, who is sproodles?

Oh, I know, I know!!!!! :pac:

Jesus Wept

Cliffnotes?