Lol @ the creeper drooling on the girls shoulder!!

In case you didn't notice I refer to our site as G911 and will not post links here at TwoPlusTwo.

If you could point out an example of where one of my posts can be perceived as spam I would like to know so that I can be more careful in the future.

Would you prefer shill as you are paid by lock to promote them? Please ban the shill that is chris costigan

.

Sweet! Good to see that the domain info has been updated since last week and now correctly shows Nicosia, Cyprus instead of Wilemsted, Cyprus.

Oh good, the "here there be shills" defense.

Honest to God shills are usually sniffed out and dealt with. The vast, vast majority of people on this site bitching about Lock are not shills for any other site. They are simply highly dissatisfied players.

At least here they can give vent to their frustrations instead of reading fluff pieces that ask no hard questions or get any real answers. So what, so you aren't an affiliate. The bias on your site is so blatant it's sickening. They obviously pay you enough that you'll publish idiocy like that **** with the picture of a baby on it talking about how "haters" were threatening people, as if one clearly rude and wrong twitter poster was somehow representative of the people who are calling out Lock.

Seriously, GTFO. It's bad enough people link your dreck here. We don't need you sliming up this site with more of your shiny happy bull**** for Lock.

As others have pointed out, it says a lot that the only answers Lock is willing to provide are through a site they have in their back pocket. If they are serious about improving communication with the players, they should agree to an interview with an impartial person.

And Shane should be involved no where, since he's already destroyed his credibility with repeated lies AND PROUD DEFENSE OF THOSE LIES!

I should stop reading this forum, it just really pisses me off.

I should stop as well but its like that horrific car crash..........

In this case the clown clean up patrol that is Shane and CHris Costigan and mckormik is just too much of a draw

Yeah chris I don't know why you are still here . Nobody believed you are even detached from Jen larssons titty to provide a decent truthful article.

Just leave and take your useless site with you.

I still remember the lol articles you did on FTP when it was rumoured to be being bought over. Utter guff.

You are an embarrassment to journalism.

That has absolutely nothing to do with staying in-bounds or out-of-bounds regarding how you may discuss your own site on here. You just made up that distinction in your head.

There is no 2+2 rule at all that says, "referring to the site by a shortened nickname or abbreviation is okay" nor is there one that says, "spamming/discussing my own site is okay as long as I do not post links."

I believe kilowatt is correct that you have been somewhat pushing it here. But it is not entirely your fault. Lock is more responsible for this situation by their decision to communicate to the 2+2 community (and other customers) directly through you.

And by linking on here the only content from Jen Larson on a separate site such. That alone is notwithstanding the fact that the separate site they used to communicate also happens to have Lock advertising all over it AND is very clearly buddy-buddy with them. So basically they were linking people here to their own advertising banners...at a site in which their advertising banners are not allowed.

But yeah...for you personally...I think you need to dial it down. Your posts on here reek of self-promotion for your own site (as well as for Lock).

Regarding the bit about Lock not owning Revolution.

Yeah, this is all very strange. What?!?!

According to one of the articles back when the move was made....we have the press release sent by Lock directly stating that they are launching a new network to be called Revolution. Is it possible to launch the network without somehow actually owning it?

The end of the below is a quote from Larson about how they are "excited to be driving the product." Which sure seems to be that they are in charge of the network.

So they were launching/starting a network...and are excited to be driving the product.

But now they say they don't even own the network? What the heck is going on here? None of this makes any sense.

It all reeks of the Shane-Speak, "Well, I didn't say we weren't in Portugal if you read my post carefully" and all the "depends on what your definition of is is" type of nonsense.

Conclusion: It is clear that Lock is not being straightforward and forthcoming with the community. This was a promise that was made in an earlier agreement between Lock and 2+2.

I'm all for keeping the lines of communication open with their customers for purposes of hopefully returning funds eventually, etc etc. But this whole thing reeks of deception and misdirection, etc.

They are not living up to their end of the agreement.

My last-ditch recommendation here: Bring in a new representative/spokesperson (as was already agreed upon and STILL has not happened) to interact with the community. Start over with a fresh approach to communication with the customers. Absent that, I don't see the point in any of these exercises. It's too many lies/deceptions to have any confidence at all in what is being said.

I do believe Shane's missteps here are partly to blame for that as well. He's not entirely responsible for all of Lock's financial/cashout issues of course. But his performance here has sometimes been lacking and occasionally has been down-right inappropriate.

Can we try this again? It would really be a good thing for both Lock and for the community here if this could somehow happen.

They probably bought the network with little to no money down, and then failed to meet their obligations X months into the deal.

Then someone else either stepped in and bought it, or it was forfeited back to Cake.

Seems most likely given what they've said, if we can trust any of it.

Don't worry, Shane will just create another account, try to not use his same writing style, but will slip up and be caught around post 5ish.

lmao

Rika - amazingly, even that would be an improvement. Shane taking a new identity would involve him trying to hide away his contempt for the community so as to avoid detection...which he should already have been doing.

A new representative would certainly be better though. And again, this was part of the original agreement. Lock is obviously balking on this aspect. It should have happened by now.

Last time it only took one post!

Brilliant breakdown of her falsehoods.

Hey, the title of this thread suggests that the CEO of Lock Poker was going to hold a press conference to address player concerns. When is that going to happen?

The fifth of never.

There's a good chance that the above is true.

I was told by an inside source that player money funded the Cake purchase (however much was actually purchased), and that Jen expected that to allow Lock to be balling out of control and replace it before anyone was the wiser.

You know... the Full Tilt plan.

And you saw how well it worked out for them.

When you register at Lock Poker, you sign up a contract with Cipaco N.V. and Cipaco N.V. operates the Revolution Gaming Network. This means that the Revolution Gaming Network owns Lock Poker or Lock Poker owns the RGN.

If a foreign company bought the Revolution Gaming Network = Cipaco N.V., why people then sign up a contract with that foreign company(Cipaco N.V.) when register at Lock Poker?

When you register at Buzz Poker e.g., you sign up a contract with the company Elec Games Network S.A. and when you register at Cake Poker you sign up a contract with the company Cake Entertainment N.V.

-> You always sign up a contract with the company that operates the poker site.

Oh god, not this contract crap again. It's like a broken record. None of this matters if the companies are shams to begin with, but I'll humor you anyway:

A) Just because you register with Lock, therefore signing a contract with Cipaco as you stated, and they operate the Revolution Gaming Network, doesn't mean whatsoever that Lock owns RGN or RGN owns Lock. It doesn't imply any actual ownership whatsoever. A third party can still own either of them. (Shane won't disclose information on Lock's company structure, convenient).

B) If a foreign company bought the network, that same foreign company could have also bought Cipaco (which is why you'd still sign a contract with them) OR they could still hire Cipaco as an operator of the network in the sense that you hire a manager to run your business, but still could have NO ownership whatsoever.

C) With regards to this situation, I don't trust anything about ownership, contracts with certain companies, or anything of that nature without actual documented evidence. Just because you have a contract with a company, doesn't mean you actually know who owns your contract, or who owns the company you have a contract with.

I repeat, Cipaco (who you state we have contracts through) could be the operator of the Revolution Gaming Network and yet could own absolutely NO part of it. And so long as the owner of the network either buys Cipaco (and keeps the name) or hires Cipaco as the continued operator, your contract still would show as running through Cipaco, while you still have absolutely no information on the actual owner.

You are so right, contracts doesnt matter!

Why I have to sign a contract with Cipaco N.V. before I can play at Lock Poker?

Why I have to sign a contract with Cipaco N.V. and not with ChingChang N.V.?

-> If contracts doesnt matter I can just for fun sign a contract with whoever I want.

O.k., when I register at Lock Poker I sign a contract with Cipaco N.V., but Lock Poker and Cipaco N.V. has nothing todo together. Maybe Lock Poker is an affiliate for Cipaco N.V.?

What is the company name of Lock Poker?

Where is the company Lock Poker registered?

What is the registration number of the company Lock Poker?

I was obviously talking about the relationship between Cipaco N.V. and Lock Poker and not about the real anonym owner/shareholder of Cipaco N.V.. Do you really think Shane or Lock Poker will tell you who is the anonym owner of Cipaco N.V.?
I mean they create an anonymous company "N.V." and when vindictive27 comes and ask who is the owner of Cipaco N.V. they´ll say:"O.k., its ..."

Which role does it play who is the anonym owner/shareholder of Cipaco N.V.? Will you get your money quicker then?

Is it not much more important who owns you the money?

http://www.pokerscout.com/SiteDetail...on&ab=18847299

Owner/operator Cipaco N.V.

-> Pokerscout says that Cipaco N.V. is the owner of the Revolution Gaming Network:

-> If a foreign company have bought Cipaco N.V., then they have bought the Revolution Gaming Network. How can this foreign company buy the Revolution Gaming Network seperately when Cipaco N.V. is the owner of the Revolution Gaming Network?

And if, as you said, Cipaco N.V. and the Revolution Gaming Network are 2 different companies, what is the name of the Revolution Gaming Network company?

I repeat, Pokerscout.com says that Cipaco N.V. is the owner of the Revolution Gaming Network.

Of course my contract shows the company Cipaco N.V. as my contract partner and not the name(s) of the anonymous shareholder(s). Do you prefer to have a contract with the shareholders? What will be better then if you have a contract with the shareholders instead with the company? Will you get your money quicker then?

Go ahead and take your contract to your local authorities then. Honestly, stop bothering the entire forum by questioning everyone for proof. It's meaningless, honestly. If it has meaning, go ahead and DO something about it with the law. At this point, some "contract" won't hold up in any court anytime soon regarding an online gambling site. You think differently, then prove it.

Honestly, please stop, you're doing this in every thread you post in. Trying to tell you otherwise is like trying to explain to an atheist that God exists. If you're stuck in your ways then what do you possibly accomplish by posting on here? Post about something else for once. Even if you find out a bunch of high-schoolers owned your contracts at this point, what on Earth would you do about it? How does it matter? We would suddenly feel safe because of whom our contracts are through? It doesn't give any reasons as to what has been going on, or any security of our money, because NOTHING seems enforceable right now. Again, prove me wrong through a legal system.

You are not able to answer my questions?

-> That speaks for your competence

What has my local authority to do with a contract I signed with a company registered and regulated in Curacao?

-> You better give your advices to small children who have no knowledge about the things. They´ll probably believe you.

Ahh, I´m not allowed to ask for proof.

-> Sounds like a dictatur to me: "Eat what I have told you or die!"

-> So you are creating a kind of "new world order" where asking of proof of evidence is not allowed? Respect!

How can I do something with the law vs Lock Poker when they have not broken the law of Curacao vs me?

When you as the "new world order" dictator say this, I´m sure this contract will not hold in any court.