Originally Posted by caruzo
Why are these pro-Microgaming posts so "factual"? You do not know that this is a fact. Microgaming's spectacular lack of due diligence on Tusk may well be a legal weakness. Do you know for a "fact" that it isn't?
You're comparing the legitimate business of poker to the illegitimate loss of these players' funds. How is the legitimate analogous with the illegitimate?
But I have cited two instances where Microgaming did JUST THIS. How do you square this fact - and it is a FACT, not your speculation - with your statement above?
Here's another apparently pretty categorically factual statement that I suspect is speculation. You have insight into an instruction from Microgaming's lawyers to NOT pay the players? I would be flabbergasted if this were the case.
"You do not know that this is a fact. Microgaming's spectacular lack of due diligence on Tusk may well be a legal weakness. Do you know for a "fact" that it isn't?"
My guess is, you have never done due diligence on a company and do not know what is involved.You could have the best due diligence team in the world and they could easily miss something IF the targeted company wants to hide something, before and during operations.. Happens all the time in every industry. Various banks/financial companies pulled off a spectacular cover-up of their dodgy doings and dealings which the best auditors in the world did not pick up on until it was too late..
"You're comparing the legitimate business of poker to the illegitimate loss of these players' funds. How is the legitimate analogous with the illegitimate?" You're saying that not me. I don't agree with you. I think you missed the point..!
"You have insight into an instruction from Microgaming's lawyers to NOT pay the players?".
Never said that either. IE: Lawyers instructed MG to NOT pay players. I said the lawyers got involved and since then its in their hands. What they instructed MG to do and not do, I am not party to...
Regarding Microgamings responsibility for player and operator actions: Until any of you see the legal contract signed between operators and MG.. then please refrain from saying I do or do not know what's in them.
I know what's in them, you guys don't. I am also not in the position to divulge legal agreements between us and MG, so don't ask me to. All I can say, as before, is that Microgaming in not responsible (legally) for rogue player and operator actions etc etc. That's all you need to know with regards to saying Microgaming is "responsible" for the TUSK downfall. If Unibet went broke, for whatever reason, why do you guys think Microgaming would compensate Unibet poker players? 100 euros to the man who shows me why Microgaming would be liable.. legally (goodwill does not count).. Lol.. I pointed this out to stop you guys from wasting so much time trying to prove they are responsible. Whether I or you like it, it's a lost cause guys....
To be honest, you guys all have your own opinions which, I or any other so called "Pro" Microgaming operator, are not going to change.
I am simply being pragmatic, pointing out some "facts" which you are all clearly unaware of or are too blinded by your "hatred" of Microgaming to pay attention to and instead have a go at me..!
So, is a bit like being in a dead-end with no reverse.. Totally pointless, waste of time etc etc. We ain't going anywhere...!