"oh naive young child"

Nice and condescending. If I thought anything of you I might care about that, but I don't. I do wish it were accompanied by an actual answer to the question I posed. It's pretty simple. Please explain how it is legal for on the job law enforcement personnel to perform background checks for private citizens seeking to check people attending their home poker game.

As far as the question about the home games I've "reported on", not sure what you mean. Unranked games are legal here, and these are the games I attend and have held at my home. I've never once raked or collected a fee. As far as underground games, definitely used to go a lot, and these were illegal raked games, but I never ran one, and I've stopped going due to heavy rakes, and raids. (Others would includes robberies as a reason as well. understandable, although it's never something I personally experienced and the odds of it occurring are pretty low)

Also, "put down the crack pipe" stopped being an amusing phrase years ago. In between following me to other forums and posting immediately after me, you may want to find some more current phrasing.

"Hello, Pot! I'm Kettle!"


"OHHHHH, woe is ME! He doesn't wuvs me any more!"



As for the "legality" question..... let's assume for your argument's sake that they really are performing a full criminal background check on the behest of our mad, MADhatter host above.

Is it important for you to know, so you can report the perpetrators of this horrible, HORRIBLE crime in his home state? Would you like to have a public trial, or can we just move to the public hanging?


"HAAAALLLELUHAH!! 2Outs has rePENTED his former eeeee-vil ways and has SEEN the LIGHT of RIGHTEOUSNESS and GLORY!!! PRAISE JEEEZUS!!!!"

You're a bit out there. If you go totally off the deep end because you're this irate over my describing someone else's vetting process as awkward, then it'd probably be good entertainment for everyone in other forums if you start post-stalking me again. By all means, bring it back into the mix.

As far as LE performing the background check, no, not important for me to know at all, doesn't have anything to do with me, it's simply a relevant aspect of this discussion. OP brought it up voluntarily. Would be almost comical though if OP was having people break the law in order to vet his home game to weed out people who ...... break the law.

Quick on the uptake- that's why I luvs you so!

Wait.... are you post-stalking ME right now?



"affect", not "effect".... even though some of the dictionary usages ARE a bit confusing.


btw, did you follow the stellar 2+2 tradition of a "special" milestone post? I'd love to see what your 10k was.

Okay, now that's funny.

I've taken to cutting the insides of my thighs to battle the crippling pain I've endured here. I hope you're happy.

Okay guys, settle down. At this point all you guys are doing is pushing each other's buttons and killing any chance of real discussion on this issue.

2Outs, you said a bunch since I last hit this thread yesterday, so I'll try to address the highlights.

Hyperbole and a little insulting, but I'll agree that we do have a lot of discussions about rules technicalities, edge cases, and situations that aren't covered by RRoP. That's kind of the point of HP, you know? We're a bunch of hosts & players who are smarter than the average bear when it comes to this stuff, and we talk to each other about these situations.

The goal, at least for me, is to talk it out here so that when a similar situation comes up in my game, I can make a quick and fair ruling and get back to playing poker. I've already argued the pros and cons on the forum, so I don't have to do so in the middle of the my game. Does that make sense?

We tend to be somewhat self-policing in HP - you'll notice that eneely and I aren't nearly as strict as mods in other higher-traffic forums like B&M. But if you really have a problem with a post or PM, report it. I take post reports seriously, and PM reports go to all mods & admins and will be handled by whoever gets to it first.

I didn't see this at all. After a little bit of poking over my "melodramatic" post, we ended up having a civil discussion without insults and without getting pissed at each other. Again, kinda what HP is about.

"Hey guys. My screening process caught the kind of person that I'm trying to keep out of my game." I'm not sure how this is a cherry pick - sounds more like a success story. And jzpiano has already given stats on how many folks drop out during the screening process.

When you have a strict screening process like this, there's obviously a trade-off. In exchange for getting a lot of info about new players, you're obviously going to lose a few players who object to the screening. Some will be people who wouldn't have passed anyway, and others will just be turned off by the process and unwilling to go through it for a poker game.

That doesn't make this type of screening process bad per se, it just means that a host should understand the pros and cons before deciding to use it.

I don't think OP ever said that he gets background checks through friends in law enforcement. There are about a bajillion companies out there that provide inexpensive background checks using public records databases - my guess is that OP does it this way.

To be fair, he did say:

My mistake, thank you. I scanned the thread before my post and missed this.

While this type of search-for-personal-reasons is almost certainly against department policy wherever OP's friend works, it may or may not be illegal. It really depends on the type of information provided and what database(s) it came from.

Arrests and convictions are typically a matter of public record. So while OP's friend could get in a little hot water with his superiors, he probably didn't break the law if this was the type of info he provided. Still, it's better to go through legit channels if you're going to do background checks.

</ianal>

None of my comments have anything to do with you or Eneely, you both do a very good job in this forum, you don't bother people, and the forum is not a bad one.

His example of the guy with 6 criminal offenses is somewhat of a cherry pick. It is definitely a nice example of success as well, but it is not proving his point unless he includes stories of the other side of the equation, which are good people who blew his game off because they were weirded out about the process.

The question about law enforcement is certainly a legitimate one. No one has to like me asking it, but OP voluntarily threw the info into his post and the question is a sensible one. Large departments like the NYPD aren't supposed to have their members taking cups of coffee or bottled waters for free, let alone performing criminal checks while on the job for private citizens who want their poker home game to have reputable characters at it.

I bricked the 10k post tradition, wasn't even paying attention. It's probably some standard post in the Golf Forum.

If I go to a restaurant and the food sucks, I am unlikely to go back. You could call that anecdotal or cherry picking, and sure, it is, but I don't think I am alone in that approach.

You go with what works, and avoid what doesn't. Maybe poker players ignore more of their one-off experiences than those who don't play, but experience counts for us all in the decisions we make.

Besides, I don't think jz never claimed this as proof. He was offering the evidence. It is evidence, even if it is not conclusive.

I don't advertise for unknown players, so I don't need a major vetting process. But if I did, I would rather filter out a lot of good players than let one felon in my game. There is a lot more at stake than a bad burger. I understand that others might weight this differently.

It's not "somewhwat of a cherry pick." It's a cream-of-the-crop example of screening finding someone that he wouldn't want at HIS game.

I don't get your repeated " not proving his point" stance. I don't think either he, nor I, would do anything but agree with a statement such as "Your screening process is costing you some potentially good additions, most likely."

Of COURSE it is, by sheer percentages. I think we'd both disagree, however, if you were to claim that the screening process is costing us more good players than it's screening out bad ones. I of course can't prove it by exact numbers..... BUT NEITHER CAN YOU, no matter what you claim.

YOUR example, of your minimal interview screening process, doesn't prove YOUR presumed point that a home game doesn't need a more rigorous screening process, either. So, what's your point, other than you feel that your privacy is invaded by such a process? If so, so what? Some people are going to be turned off- nature of the process.


People I've started screening, who dropped out during the process, have told me that they weren't comfortable with giving out the information. I totally respected that and told them so, and they made the choice to pass on my group. No harm, no foul.

As I've said before, a number of people who HAVE gone through the process and stayed with the group have said that the process made them feel BETTER about the game.

Since I know what kind of person and host I am, should I say that the people such as yourself, who are made uncomfortable with the process and aren't willing to give that kind of information, is way overboard with their attitude? insulting me by assuming the worst? Their concerns are irrelevant or bizarre? That I guarantee that no one else would ever share their nitty and bizarre beliefs? That they are obviously weird and their attitude is among the strangest thing I've ever heard of?

Of course not- that would be incredibly stupid, amazing self-centered and arrogantly incorrect of me to claim.


perhaps... but somewhat off-topic, no matter how it was introduced. At best, it's focusing on a few examples at the extreme end... much like the cherry-pick example you complained about as a outlier. So what?


Politicians aren't supposed to be benefitting personally from information that they get from their jobs, that isn't shared with the public that 'hired' them.

CEOs aren't supposed to be looting their companies, performing illegal (or quasi-legal) schemes to get ahead.

Priests aren't supposed to be abusing their parisheners.

Again, so what? Are we focusing on presumed outliers, or are we talking about the meat of this thread?

I'm lucky I know the chief in a small enough department that he can pretty much do whatever he wants. Is it legal, not really, but if he's willing who am I to argue. I scratch his back, he scratches mine type of deal. As I said before I don't do this extensive for every player, but rather when something seems majorly wrong, usually like once or twice a year. Others I can usually find what I need on the internet.

Yeah.... I just bet you can!