That is already in progress. Another DP thread was started today and instantly merged into the main video thread. I am all for continuing to do that with any new DP threads.

The existing threads have too many replies to make any sense of if merged.

The following two threads could be merged, they're about the same story and are both on the front page of NVG -

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...00-me-1206724/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...tyler-1661197/

Agree.

One DP/youtube thread is plenty. I closed the latest one that had less than 30 posts and linked to the main thread.

Locked the one thread but kept the original Booth thread intact as it has been around for a long time.

Polk's stuff is going to stay contained where possible.

Many years ago when online poker started and many of us discovered 2+2 there was a shared idea that poker would be something we did for the rest of our lives and that our reputations would stick with us and matter.

With that in mind, 2+2 seemed like a great, transparent place to police people and seek justice.

Very little about the poker world turned out as expected (and the unimportance of ethics was one of the more surprising aspects) but it's cool to see all these years later that sometimes 2+2 is able to serve as an effective judge and jury. Well done to Bobo Fett and everyone else involved in helping that Klang dude get paid back.

Would like to congratulate Bobo for his handling of the Zima/Klang debacle. With such a complex issue involving multiple parties and large amounts of money it's nearly impossible to work everything out to everyone's satisfaction. The balance between transparency and actually getting a resolution done probably wasn't an easy task to decide, but I think Bobo found the right balance. Well done sir.

Well said and I completely agree.

Hi guys, I just wanted to register my concern that the detailed events of the Zima/Klang debacle have been effectively purged.

In my opinion the historical record of how events transpired, who spoke up & when, and what actions they took along the way is very important to the community as a whole, and not just the fact that the dispute was settled. Scammers or parties in a dispute may decide their best strategy is to stonewall as long as possible, knowing that information damaging to their reputations will be 'cleaned up' after the fact even if they are ultimately forced to concede. This reduces the leverage of 'going public' and increases the probability more people will be taken advantage of in the future. The length of time that passed before resolution as well as the detail of the various allegations and evidence that came out are critical in forming an opinion about what actually happened between the parties.

I don't have a horse in this race and I'm not attacking anyone, I'm sure you've given your actions a lot of thought. But if I were going to enter into financial dealings with any of the parties involved I would very much like to have access to the public posts they made (and see who didn't speak up) along the way. Reading it now as 'dispute between parties, mistakes made, now resolved to satisfaction of all' underplays the reality of what happened. I for one would like to form my own opinion from the public posts on record, all of which are now gone.

I agree with this... but it's likely Zima wouldn't pay unless his demands were met. Removing a lot of the info from public view sucks for the next person Paul Dlugozima attempts to scam/steal from - but given the amount of money involved I think the mods made the right choice in this case.

Hey just wanted to thank Bobo, R*R and the rest of the guys that were able to help me out and put up with my non-stop PMs and bull****. appreciate all of the help and hardwork, beers on me if you're ever in Florida.

Sounds good! Beers with Yayo on the jukebox.

think was handled okay since obviously zima held the editing of the post over punts head to get paid. Would have been better to leave comments in but getting the person scammed paid should be the priority. Just hoping the forums dont allow trading in threads or marketplace approval for someone who could use these boards to potentially harm or scam others.

If your assumptions are right that makes it worse. People are encouraged not to come clean or engage in discussion about their questionable behaviour and instead blackmail the victim until they agree to sweep it under the rug and they can move on to the next mark.

I would like to know if there was at least thorough discussion about this among mods and management before the decision was taken. From the lack of discussion here it feels like this thread is where concerns are sent to die.

There was.

Oh good. Case closed. Glad I took the time to engage.

It can be, depending on the content.

If the thread had been outright deleted, I'd be more inclined to agree with this. In this case, I'm pretty sure the amount of damage done to Zima's reputation is far greater than the clean-up it got at the end.

Also, look at the flip side. It's very possible people would be more reluctant to post threads like that one if they believed that there would be absolutely no chance of anything being edited out afterwards, in case that became a sticking point to them being repaid.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of people refusing to repay unless something is edited/deleted - if you owe money, pay it. I'm also not a fan of people who create threads simply for the purposes of getting paid, and then would happily have us delete everything to get their money, without a care of whether the community is warned or not (speaking in general terms here, not specifically about this situation). But I'm willing to be flexible when I think it makes sense.

I think the length of time is still clear, and I believe all of the important allegations and evidence are still there.

Appreciated, and not taken as an attack at all.

Admittedly this is one piece that was lost - the fact that Zima never responded in the thread. I don't think it's a *huge* deal, but I understand that some people would feel differently, and if I went back and did it again perhaps I'd make sure it was mentioned in the summary.

I also think that summary heavily underplays the way that OP reads now. It's pretty clear in that OP that this was more than just "mistakes made".

Fair enough. Most of it was the usual NVG banter, but of course hearing a lot of opinions and from people that may know one party or the other, or have a unique perspective, has some value. Even if there wasn't any new allegations posted (and I don't believe there was), there's no question that page after page of people coming down on the group wasn't good for them, and removing it was.

This is perhaps a bit too simplistic. Zima and Marc discussed this, and came to an agreement of what should be removed. Some of it because it was exaggerated/inaccurate, some for legal reasons, and of course some of it because it was in Zima's best interest. They came to me with their agreement, and not all of it was accepted - they needed to compromise with me as well, as I thought some of their edits went a bit too far. So his "demands" weren't fully met, but at the same time, I'm not saying he would have paid if we refused to edit/delete anything, so there's certainly a great deal of merit to your point.

You're welcome - glad it all got resolved.

Unquestionably a big concern, which is why, in my mind, outright deletion was never on the table.

This kind of thing has happened numerous times, and most people don't hear about it because it's a scam for a few hundred or a few thousand, and not posted here in NVG (because this isn't where these sort of threads normally belong) - scammers say they refuse to pay unless everything is deleted. Such requests are usually denied. Some editing is often acceptable.

Absolutely, yes.

But I want to be clear that the ultimate decision was mine. Not because I'm looking for credit for making this happen, because as far as I'm concerned they came to an agreement that I merely facilitated, but because I don't want anyone who thinks this was a terrible decision to put it on the moderators as a group. I asked for feedback, but I didn't seek consensus or put this to a vote. I'm confident that a number of moderators wouldn't have gone for this if it was their decision, but I also didn't get anyone saying this was a decision they couldn't accept, and I don't think anyone's afraid to tell me they think I'm ****ing up if they believe I am.

No, not at all. I saw some opinions had been posted, but didn't get the impression that anyone was necessarily seeking a reply until now.

There's 4 Doug Polk threads on the front page just now...

He's not going to stop encouraging people to make threads, it's his whole business plan. Maybe time for "NVG - sponsored by Doug Polk"? At least get something out of it.

I don't think that really tells the full story. Two of those threads are HTK/Polk threads; one has basically been an HTK containment thread for quite some time now, and the other is barely active and has dropped off the first page again (likely since you posted). I could see making an argument for locking that one.

The PokerNews thread was actually deleted originally, and Mason decided to restore it. The OP of that one was clearly looking to make Polk look bad - of course since then, I see it's become something of a Polk cheerleading thread.

So yeah, there's a fair bit of Polkage on the front page, but I don't think it's quite the problem you're making it out to be.

Good point.

I have locked it as it is essentially a second yet less relevant HTK/Polk thread.

@Bobo thanks for the thoughtful reply, I appreciate you sharing your rationale. While I don't completely agree on all points, it's clear there's no perfect solution and you've tried to find a good balance.

I was directed here for my explanation of Zima getting his account back but nothing was really explained. Many others have paid back debts, much more timely I might add, and ever had their account back. But you allow a person that exploited his position on your forum to try and scam someone out of a large amount of money after trying to freeroll the whole thing thinking he's got a degen to exploit. Journalistic integrity must mean nothing here as you helped in editing the thread to help Zima avoid legal issues. Now you're allowing access to players and essentially millions of dollar again.

So if he scams a single cent off another person will 2p2 be footing the bill?

I believe the reason he's not banned is because the scamming didn't happen on 2p2 or involve his account here, and 2p2 doesn't take action against people for things that happen outside of 2p2.

Did you read post #1316. That would be a good start.

Also it is clear in that post that I had very little to do with the resolution of this situation.

Bobo Fett took on the difficult this task of resolving this situation and I, like several Mods and members, think he did an excellent job in getting it resolved. I can't speak for Bobo Fett but I am guessing he will likely address your concerns. But yeah, read post #1316,

Yes, yes I did read #1316, multiple times in fact because I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Zima's repuatation, why is that the concern of 2p2? It's the community's job to form their own opinions based on the information presented. You're forcing the edited version onto the public when ALL of the evidence should be presented just like in every other case of scamming.

The creator of post can edit it as they see fit. Although none of us are mods on this site it's our intellectual property that we post. If I make a thread about an issue and I feel it's been resolved and choose to delete the post, that was my decision to make your OPINION of that has no place. Saying that people would be worried about exposing a scammer in fear of not getting paid has been a constant since forums existed, but now all the sudden it's a big issue and trumps outing a scammer?

You're interjecting your opinion onto the matter of what should and should not be shown. This is a clear abuse of power and again you're forcing your approved version onto everyone. Why shouldn't anyone in the future looking for information about this not be afforded all the information provided and make their own assumptions? Because all the information and lack of posts by Zima making him look like a total scumbag and scammer?

Zima's lack of response is a clear indicator of guilt and should be represented the way it was posted. Again you're showing favoritism to Zima and you're really just not even trying to hide it.

Stop the excuses of why you aren't allowing all the information to be shown. "The usual 2p2 banter," also includes a lot of well paid points that everyone should be privy to without your censoring.

"Zima's best interest" How does this apply to the rest of the community? You allowed him to use your forum as leveraging point to pay less than he owed. You facilitating the process makes you an accessory in helping Zima essentially blackmail his way out of paying the total sum owed.

So yeah, I read it and it makes no sense. For years he's been on here as a trusted member allowed to judge other people in the scamming thread and determine their guilt. You then not only allowed but facilitated the process of him dictating the terms of payment and management of the thread against the person he scammed to weasel out of paying the full amount.

The community should be outraged but the censorship and abuse of power in this whole thing. From Zima to the mods you all should be ashamed of yourselves, where is the integrity here?

Facts:

Zima is a scammer, scumbag and borderline blackmailing POS.

The mods here allowed him to use his ability to edit a thread as a leveraging point in a negotiation in which you all let him dictate terms that were in his best interest and not in Marc's.

Bobo's censored a thread dramatically to help Zima out with legal issues.

Bobo's opinion is NOT that of the community as a whole.

2p2 is not allowing us as the community to draw our own conclusions of the situation which is the very foundation of which these forums are based.

So please, tell me again how if this wasn't Zima the situation would have gone differently?

He didn't get his account back - it was never taken away. What did happen is that he had his Marketplace Approval removed and wasn't allowed to use the P2P transfer threads, and that's still the case.

I assume you mean "never had their account back", and if so, I would imagine that's happened in some cases, just like there are other cases where people have scammed, repaid, and either kept or recovered their account. There is no black-and-white policy here.

Not really understanding any of this. The scam had already happened, then months later the OP started a thread here to try and recover his money, and it worked.

We aren't journalists. And the editing of the thread was something that the OP and Zima agreed on, and then I agreed to do (with some modifications to their agreement).

No, we're not.

Not sure if this is a serious question, so I'll just give you the simple answer - no, of course not.

Which sort of makes me question your ability to see this objectively.

It's not.

Except, that's not what happens in "every other case of scamming". There have been many, many times that posts about scams have been edited or deleted once the issue has been resolved. This is just the first time it's been so high profile.

Actually, they can't.

You may feel that way, but that's not the way it works. First off, we have the right to remove any content as we see fit. And secondly, you don't get to edit or delete any of your posts as you like.

Now of course that doesn't mean that we go around deleting posts just because we feel like it, or deny everyone's requests to edit or delete their posts. I believe we have an obligation to act responsibly in this regard. Sometimes this leads to tough calls, and not everyone's going to agree with our decisions. That's fine. We do our best.

It's absolute, and false, statements like this that aren't going to help move this conversation forward. In this case, it didn't "trump outing a scammer" - he's still outed. It trumped outing him in the manner you'd like to see.

And this isn't especially helpful either. No, it's not "abuse of power". Abuse of power implies that the person is doing so in a way that benefits them. Just because I've made a decision you don't agree with doesn't mean I've abused my power.

A decision was made that the agreement OP and Zima reached, with some modifications I requested, was a fair compromise that kept the most information in regards to the scam and allowed them to move forward with repayment.

I imagine that played into the agreement they came up with, yes. But there's still plenty of info there that makes him look like that; in fact, far more than what was deleted.

This is what I said about it:

"Admittedly this is one piece that was lost - the fact that Zima never responded in the thread. I don't think it's a *huge* deal, but I understand that some people would feel differently, and if I went back and did it again perhaps I'd make sure it was mentioned in the summary."

So no, it wasn't favoritism - it was something of an oversight on my part.

That said, we certainly don't need it as a "clear indicator of guilt". The issue at hand was whether Zima owed him money - given that they came to a resolution and Zima paid him, obviously he was guilty.

What excuses? I've been very clear about this from the beginning. Here's the full passage that you're quoting from:

"Fair enough. Most of it was the usual NVG banter, but of course hearing a lot of opinions and from people that may know one party or the other, or have a unique perspective, has some value. Even if there wasn't any new allegations posted (and I don't believe there was), there's no question that page after page of people coming down on the group wasn't good for them, and removing it was."

So yeah, I agree that there was some value in the material that was deleted, so I'm not sure why you're portraying this as if I'm denying that.

In this case, it applies because the OP and Zima came to an agreement, which of course entailed both of them arguing for things that were in their best interests. That's usually the way it works when you negotiate.

My understanding is that they came to an agreement that Zima would pay the full amount over time, or a slightly lesser amount immediately, and the OP agreed to the latter.

See above.

And yet...they aren't. Does that tell you anything? Is there maybe the slightest chance you're overreacting just a teensy bit?

I'm not kidding myself that everyone agrees with this compromise, and I'm sure some strongly disagree. But I think most people can at least understand why I came to this decision, even if they don't like it.

Awesome. So because I've made a decision that you don't agree with, I should be ashamed with myself, and you've put me in the same category as Zima. Yeah, that makes sense.

As for the other mods, they have nothing to do with it.

Not feeling even slightly ashamed of the amount of time I voluntarily spend on these forums trying to prevent scamming and help people recover their money, sorry.


OK.

No, not "the mods". Bobo. And if you want to come to that conclusion with the facts you have at hand, I suppose that's up to you.

Pretty much anything that could have caused any legal issues was in the OP, and I believe you said earlier that it's a poster's right to edit/delete what they wanted.

LDO.

OK.

I imagine that we wouldn't have this lengthy post from you if it wasn't Zima. Outside of that, I don't know what it being Zima has to do with anything. What is it you're suggesting? How are you proposing that it being Zima as opposed to Joe Nobody or Phil Ivey changed anything?

Yeah, this would have something to do with it. There may have been times that we've banned someone for a scam that was perpetrated elsewhere, but I can't think of one where someone had scammed somewhere else, resolved it, and they were banned here as a result. Not allowed transactions here? Sure. Banned? Doesn't seem likely.