No, the thread I mentioned has nothing to do with SNGs. It describes the case of a recreational player that won 2 PLO hands to someone whose account had been hacked. They closed his account and they said that that was a "final decision". It turned out that it was not a final decision (just like in my case they "had detected" something that they had not detected). He had around $0 in his account and everyone said that PS owed him a compensation due to the stress of the situation and PokerStars gave him something like a $300 ticket for a satellite for a WCOOP main event or something like that. As in my case, this player was mostly disappointed due to the wording of PokerStars. He was treated like a delinquent and that was highly offensive to him, just like it is to me.

All the sites come on that strong in their initial posts to possible cheaters. I think that it is their way of chasing away cheaters. Cheaters will assume that they've been caught and move on, whereas the innocent will immediately contact the site and proclaim their innocence. The sites are doing whatever they can to stop cheating. If it's a choice between a site not hurting your feelings and a site being effective against cheaters, I'd choose the latter.

You're wrong. In that thread MichaelJ said that they'd revise their wording:

" We are improving processes and training to minimize the chances of such mistakes happening again. We also had internal communication to reinforce to staff that using phrases such as "final decision" is improper no matter what the circumstances."

(In fact, as you must know, many cheaters have come here proclaming their innocence, so it's also wrong to think that they'll move on.)

How am I wrong? I wasn't saying what they might or might not do in the future. And simply because some cheaters will contest the email anyway (particularly those with a large sum of money in their accounts) doesn't mean that some will simply not bother.

I really don't know what the purpose is of these threads that you have created. You haven't listened to one word of what any poster has said to you. If you think that the folks here on 2+2 are going to rise up against PS on the basis of your posts you are just fooling yourself. If the biggest problems you have are the ones you've posted in your 2 threads, you should consider yourself a very lucky person.

You said that all sites come on strong (always, before, now, and in the future) and you gave the reason for that. I said that MichaelJ explained that they'd try not to "come on strong".

The goal of this thread is to make PokerStars understand that they should be more careful with their wording and the way they treat players they have some suspicion on, just like MichaelJ said they would in the post I'm mentioning.

The goal of this thread is to make them understand that given the situation at .es, they made a big mistake and it wouldn't take them more than a few minutes to know that I was just playing a role. As I explained people at .com just care about the SN/avatar to have an image on players other than by the way they play, because in a large pool that's all you can usually know. Instead, in a very small player pool everyone has a much more precise "off-poker" image of everyone else.

Don't you agree that if they had simply looked at the chat examples I mentioned in post #57 they'd have evidence that I was just playing a role? This kind of examples are not hard to find. I *always* talked like that in the chat at PokerStars, my Twitter account and my blog.

This shows that they just saw "oh, he's saying that he's a female and the account is registered under a male name, let's say that we have detected that other users have used his account". Does this seem like a good procedure to you? Wouldn't it be better to look at the case for a few minutes before freezeing an account (not to mention saying someone that he is guilty) to see if things make sense?

(And the goal of the other thread is to see if people agree with their chat policies because they make no sense to me: they ban the chat for things I couldn't care less but they do not ban it for things that can really be offensive.)

No. Using the present tense does not include the future. That's a ridiculous thing for you to say.

I'd say that, all things considered, they had good reason to investigate your account to make sure that you were who you said you were, and not who you pretended to be. When they investigate an account, it is mandatory that they suspend the account to prevent bad guys from transferring money out of their accounts before the investigation is concluded. 4 days is really fast for concluding an investigation. On most sites, which don't have the resources of PokerStars, the investigation would probably have taken significantly longer.

This will all be a language problem... Do you agree that MichaelJ said that they'd try not to "come on strong" (from the date of cookiemd's case)? In my case, they did come on strong.

OK, so then let's talk about the mafia member case I exposed. He said in the chat that he "discovered poker in February 2014", yet he has a PokerStrategy account since June 2012. Should his account be suspended?

Another point on the urgency of the suspension: I have *never* cashed out a single cent despite having in my account much more than I need to play. At .es it is not allowed to make player to player transfers. I'd be fine if they suspend the account if I try to cash out when they have those suspicions. It's not either that if they take some time to investigate there's going to be a huge impact on the games in a few days, because I had been playing the same games, in the same way for about a year.

Josem doesn't own the company. He can only say what he believes their future plans are. And I can only tell you what I've seen in the way of emails, not what might or might not happen in the future.

The people in your life must find you exhausting.

Let's see. OP and all players in that thread complained on PokerStars decission to close that account and on PokerStars wording.

PokerStars Security (Michael J) replied that they'd try to be more careful with their procedures and wording.

And now you (and most other players in this thread) don't care about their wording (and procedures) in these cases?

I just don't get it. Either I'm not communicating things well or you're unable to talk about general situations with me because I played a role that you don't like (and don't, or didn't, understand) (In your opinion, is it ok for them to say that they have detected something that they have not detected under some circumstance? Is it ok for them to say "this is a final decision" under some circumstance?)

I just think that you are being really petty. And I don't think that you should expect others to put in as much time and energy into all of this as you want them to.

I don't think that answering questions in my last posts require too much time and energy (but reading the long OP and making the effort to understand the situation do).

Cliffs:
OP is complaining about a hypothetical scenario where he doesn't get SNE in 2014 due to 4 days that he had to wait to get his account reinstated. Why was it blocked to begin with? He made a fake twitter and was pretending to be a girl. Now, instead of keeping his new 'identity' a secret, he goes on 2+2 and tells everyone how pokerstars didn't let him play for 4 days.
*OP is SNE right now

OP sets up an alternate online poker identity, but is upset when PokerStars investigates the possibility of multiple players on her account - Oh the unfairness of it all!!!

OP achieves SNE despite being denied the opportunity to achieve SNE, but where is the collective outrage???

OP tries to work out his/her gender identification issues anonymously, reaching out for support - but nobody cares!!!

OP sees himself/herself as a great defender of justice and truth, fighting against the online mafia cartel a la Wonder Woman or Superman. But can she save the world against all odds???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQPYAhcEhlo

OP's home video, though it is debatable which character(s) he/she is playing. People who play on pokerstars.es would better understand.

More cliffs:

*Everyone understands that I pretended to be a girl in the Spanish poker forum (even the people that reported me, who claim that PokerStars does not suspend any account for pretending to be a girl)

* Nobody understands it here

*Therefore Spain is different

* Therefore PokerStars should not treat .com cases in the same way as they treat .com cases.

You're an idiot. GTFO.

We have all kinds of transgendered and multigendered folks over here in the USA, and it's really not a big deal. Just don't be afraid to be who you are. Once you can handle it, Spain will be able to cope.