It should be clear. He was given a three day vacation because he reposted what we had already deleted. If we choose to delete something, he is making a mockery of this site by posting it again. I think that should be obvious.

Mason

That is the reason that he was banned and it's a totally legit reason. If the mods say "don't do this or you will be banned" and you think that they're wrong, disagree with them, don't just do it anyway.

Edit: Man.. my view on this is getting ****ing complicated. I think that viffer shouldn'tve posted it, but I think that it shouldn'tve been deleted, but given that it was deleted I think the mods were totally justified in banning viffer.

so does this mean that 2+2 was aware that stoxtrader was multiaccounting and basically decieving customers by producing videos and offering coaching while he was short stacking or just that these things which he admitted to in this thread are not a big enough problem to disassociate from stox?

You may want to go back and reread those threads to see exactly what we did. But to help with your memory, we did make an arrangement with AP to send a legal/investigating team to AP headquarters to look at their claims. When they backed out, and I don't believe this was ever mentioned before, we still had to pay our legal team approximately $10,000 in attorney fees for the preparations.

MM

*************

I've just woken up and have a number of (10+) messages asking whether I made a post about StoxPoker's and CardRunners inner workings.

I did not, have not and would not under any circumstances make a post like this.

*************

wtf is this shiit. you mods are gonna censor any and all allegations? you tried to do it once already and then you relented and allowed this thread. so wtf is going on here. nazi germans running this site

Welll, I guess this is as close to an admission as we are going to see. Correct me if I'm not characterizing your stance accurately, but you're saying that it is the reputation of a 2+2 author and, by extension, the reputation of the 2+2 brand and all other employees that is being protected by not allowing unverified claims. So it sounds like both 2+2, and the critics of this "policy" are in agreement that Stox's position as an author (and/or advertiser, although I'm going to say the author role is more important) is what's behind this enhanced level of scrutiny. Is that fair?

That's all the critics are complaining about, and I think it's an understandable complaint: that a party affiliated with 2+2 enjoys a different standard of review. On its surface, that seems reasonable enough: 2+2 certainly has a greater interest in protecting affiliated parties from unsubstantiated rumors than unaffiliated parties; we all understand that. Here, though, I think is the key distinction that is driving the frustration: the allegations/rumors, unsubstantiated as though they may be, don't seem to possess an identifiable nexus to the nature of Stox's relationship to 2+2. In other words, he is (i) an author, and (ii) an advertiser. If these allegations related to either of those roles, I think the enhanced protection would be more palatable. For example: if someone posted unsubstantiated rumors that Stox had actually paid someone else to write his entire book manuscript for him and passed it off as his own, well that sounds like an allegation having a direct nexus to his status as a 2+2 author, and I don't think anyone would object to a post like that being removed until facts could be verified. But the allegations here have only a tenuous connection, if any to the apparent nature of Stox's relationship to 2+2. Do they call into question his abilities / performance as either a writer or an advertiser? Not at all (or they bear at best only a weak correlation). And that's the source of the frustration, imo: that Stox's relationship with 2+2 seems to afford him blanket immunity (or at least a higher 'enhanced scrutiny' standard, as a lawyer might say) over any and all rumors that may cast him/his company in a negative light.

Isn't this something like a "Have you stopped beating your wife? question. If we at Two Plus Two are ever aware or become aware that an individual or a company is not acting with appropriate integrity, our relationship with them will be severed.

MM

tell the person who made the anonymous allegations (the ones that came after stox replied) to either create a 2+2 account if he doesn't have one or post them under his existing 2+2 account.

it's really simple.

Mason,

Fair enough. I would suggest that in future cases such as this, you or another high-ranking mod make a brief statement about the matter in the thread in question. There are lots of people following this issue with great interest.

I'm not saying you handled that poorly. From what I remember, I think you guys did a great job.

I think that your quote "The reason why this is different...." implies that you would've taken those threads down. I don't think you actually would do that in that case, so I was hoping that pointing that out to you would cause you to rethink your policy or at least clarify how the policy applies differently in that case vs. this case.

Also, this is sorta a separate issue. Could you maybe move the posts about 2p2's response to what viffer posted to ATF and put a link in this thread? I think this is pretty important and should be discussed, but I feel bad derailing this thread.

Go **** yourself, you ****ing weird ****** ass supermods. I mean 2 mods stealing and blatantly cheating for an extended period of time and then there are the ****ing creeps that come in and ban people trying to get to the core of it.

so when will stox be demodded? & if the allegations are true, will you cease to advertise for stoxpoker?

Your post is simply amazing. Our author process is extremely thorough, and it can be quite difficult to be a Two Plus Two author as our required rewrites and editing can be quite taxing on both us as a publisher and the author(s). One result of this process is that we get to know the author(s) quite well.

And one other point, my best guess is that pieces of the Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games manuscript went back and forth between myself and the authors, both Stox and Geoff Herzog, well over 100 times. If someone else wrote this book they did an incredible job of fooling me.

MM

what a clever way of not answering the question at all