4k Milestone Post: Vetting and New Player Information - Page 4 - Home Poker Games

asdfasdf32 · 08-08-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoTroy

So did I, but his getting 50 new players in a year had me reconsider.

Correlation is not causation, so your reconsideration may not be warranted.

Quote:

It's possible that the vetting process makes casual players feel more comfortable. Or, in sales terms, having the prospect put forth some effort, and in turn get "qualified," may make them more likely to show up when invited rather than feeling like it's an open invitation anybody can show up to.

It's certainly possible.

Quote:

In any case, it's not hurting his game.

I would tend to agree. Of course, what's true for his game may not be true for others.

jzpiano · 08-09-2012, 04:38 PM

Related to this thread I just had a guy email me about coming to the game. I got his info and ran a check. He lied about a couple of things in the application and in the last year has had 6 criminal charges. +1 for screening

asdfasdf32 · 08-09-2012, 04:43 PM

^^^ Yay, anecdotes.

**Schmendr1ck** · 08-09-2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

Now, an elaborate vetting process would be necessary if the stakes were much, much higher, for obvious reasons.

When people that I do not know come into the home where my wife and children live, the stakes could not possibly be higher.

**Schmendr1ck** · 08-09-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

^^^ Yay, anecdotes.

Not sure if serious or sarcastic...

It only takes one scumbag to ruin a game (or worse), so anecdotal evidence is fine IMO. This doesn't mean that a rigid screening process is right for everyone, but it certainly seems to be doing the job in jzpiano's case, and it's not hurting his interest list.

My screening process to date has been much lighter: name, email, cell number, and a regular player who vouches for you. However, if I start recruiting more heavily from local pub games and online, I will seriously consider a more rigorous process. If the cost is a few potential players who I probably wouldn't want in my home anyway, I'm okay with that.

**eneely** · 08-09-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

^^^ Yay, anecdotes.

haha, keeping bailing the boat, dude. 6 criminal charges? Yeah, that is proof enough for me. Statistics be damned.

asdfasdf32 · 08-09-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schmendr1ck

When people that I do not know come into the home where my wife and children live, the stakes could not possibly be higher.

A bit melodramatic, don't you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schmendr1ck

Not sure if serious or sarcastic...

It only takes one scumbag to ruin a game (or worse), so anecdotal evidence is fine IMO. This doesn't mean that a rigid screening process is right for everyone, but it certainly seems to be doing the job in jzpiano's case, and it's not hurting his interest list.

My screening process to date has been much lighter: name, email, cell number, and a regular player who vouches for you. However, if I start recruiting more heavily from local pub games and online, I will seriously consider a more rigorous process. If the cost is a few potential players who I probably wouldn't want in my home anyway, I'm okay with that.

As I said, to each his own. I'm just of the mind that a 5-minute conversation is more valuable than a criminal background check in determining the chance a player disrupts your game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eneely

haha, keeping bailing the boat, dude. 6 criminal charges? Yeah, that is proof enough for me. Statistics be damned.

Could of been for hookers and blow. Now you're players are missing out. Not cool dude. Not cool at all.

**eneely** · 08-09-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

A bit melodramatic, don't you think?

Obviously someone with no experience of having children.

asdfasdf32 · 08-09-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eneely

Obviously someone with no experience of having children.

No, it's not that. I don't think you should be putting your children into an inherently risky position, background check or no. Perhaps you're more lax when it comes to appropriating a demarcation line between family and strangers, but I'm not.

**eneely** · 08-09-2012, 07:41 PM

Oh, so you're saying you would be melodramatic about everyone.

**eneely** · 08-09-2012, 07:48 PM

Or maybe you are indifferent to the danger to everyone. I'm not sure what you are saying. Maybe it is just more bailing.

asdfasdf32 · 08-09-2012, 08:05 PM

The point is you shouldn't have to worry about the 'high stakes' of your family/children so long as normal precautionary measures are taken.

**eneely** · 08-09-2012, 09:34 PM

But that doesn't make the stakes less high. There is nothing melodramatic about caring about your family...or anyone. And dismissing precautionary measures when they work as merely anecdotal is hardly a compelling argument.

ChicagoTroy · 08-09-2012, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eneely

But that doesn't make the stakes less high. There is nothing melodramatic about caring about your family...or anyone. And dismissing precautionary measures when they work as merely anecdotal is hardly a compelling argument.

You don't have to argue with people when they don't make sense.

asdfasdf32 · 08-10-2012, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eneely

But that doesn't make the stakes less high. There is nothing melodramatic about caring about your family...or anyone.

No, its melodramatic because he's weighing bad outcomes too dramatically. If I were to say "You can't allow your 15-year old to go out unsupervised, the stakes are just too high!" it, while technically accurate, would be a melodramatic statement. The same is true here.

Quote:

And dismissing precautionary measures when they work as merely anecdotal is hardly a compelling argument.

It is merely anecdotal. That part is unquestionable. Does this have anything to do with why I would personally dismiss his method? Nope.