Originally Posted by molinn9

How can UB defend there actions? Why cant they proivide the complete list isnt time wtf is going on here does anyone understand this?????

Originally Posted by TookURCookie

If this is the case then they would not hesitate to throw the previous management under the bus and make this information public, allowing them to start from a clean slate. I can really only think of 2 likely scenarios for not revealing the complete superuser list.

1. Because refund total<the total amount stolen

or

2. Undisclosed guilty parties are still involved w/ the current management

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPoker

I was reading some of the BS on the UB website about Ultimate Buddy. I laughed when I saw the line about security.

Who runs UltimateBuddy?
UltimateBuddy.com is owned by eWorld Holdings, Inc., the same folks who have brought you the exciting games of UltimateBet.com and other UltimateBet-powered cardrooms.
Who can use UltimateBuddy?
Any player who is a customer in good-standing with an UltimateBet-powered cardroom may use UltimateBuddy.
How much does the service cost?
UltimateBuddy is completely free.
Is it secure?
Absolutely! UltimateBuddy uses the same security features designed into UltimateBet-powered cardrooms.

Originally Posted by titan_14_14

and still nothing from UB...

Originally Posted by Mookman5

Titan, I just received this email on 5-28-09.


Is this the same email being sent out since November, or do you think there will be an actual release in the upcoming days?

Originally Posted by faustusmedea

obv I knew the OP was too far out in front of the moving train we are on, but its valid and in the end it will prove to be correct. The post was written to suggest that we players have a role to play if this thing is to ultimately resolve in a worthwhile fashion; what is currently happening is that the sites are deciding how this is going to end and respected members of the community are now actively assisting this process; knowingly and unknowingly.

There is a lot about this situation (both UB and AP) that continues to not add up and probably is being lost on the casual reader of these forums. The way information has been leaked in a targeted manner, the various shills coming out at specific points, the talking points about "current trustworthiness".

My speculation is that there are likely two camps inside the companies; those who just wanted to get back to running a poker company and those who were either involved with the issues or exerted influence in favor of compatriots.

Ownership in a lucrative enterprise is not just surrendered for no cause so its not really believable that the founding entities were somehow "pushed out" and are now "former owners". I mean, who exactly would have the ability to push them aside???? Law Enforcement, no. Players, no. A deep sense of morality couched in a love for the game of poker.... uh no. Hustlers believe suckers are lucky to get next to money in the first place. In fact, in Nat's trip report, he writes "I just don’t believe this. Knowing how the concept of “ownership” works, I don’t see how AP could have gotten rid of Scott Tom as an owner." about the AP affair. Seems like a correct perspective to me and one that surely applies to UB as well, even though a lot of respected folks are positioning that it isn't the case with UB.

What we have appears to be a walkback going on with various investigators and others who are somewhat close to the companies trying to position this new story about the trustworthiness of the current management. Does this mean that the internal effort to out the scammers succeeded and they have agreed to move aside willingly and now the company wants this to quietly die while it gets back to business? Or does it mean that the attempt to clean house internally has only served to stir up a wasps nest and not really accomplished anything at all?

Cornell's post yesterday should serve to send a loud message to the community which is exactly this. You cannot touch us no matter what information you dig up. Everything we do is now protected by a sovereign territory made up of individuals who will protect their interests. Post all the names and sling all the mud you want, but you cannot reach us, so we call the tune.

Here is the main problem as I see it and it goes back to day one and likely a cocktail napkin. The guy who wrote the software has had a direct link to the program all along; first by directing the company and employees engaged in development and support and then later in a fraud research capacity and finally as a 3rd party Fraud detection vendor. As near as I can tell, the ieSnare product was engaged and operating as early as 2004. This superuser scandal seems to have begun in 2006 but obv we have no way of knowing for sure; it certainly could have stretched much further back. Even though there were 30+ accounts determined to be a part of this scandal, apparently ieSnare did not detect anything unusual. It defies common sense to think these crooks used 30 different computers and IP addresses for all of these accounts so what gives? Even if you allow for 3 apiece there was still likely plenty of evidence hitting the iovation database servers to suggest internal investigation; from there the absurd winrates should have been an easy tipping point.

So I will say it again, either the fraud detection software did not function correctly in which case iovation needs to explain what it is doing for all of these gaming companies currently or it did work correctly and its evidence was covered up by somebody. Obv if there was a coverup, the fraud detection company would have to be involved because the owner knows all of the parties as friends and surely would have alerted his honest friends if somebody was not taking his warnings seriously or covering them up.

Originally Posted by bjreceiver

keep up the good fight.
I am with you.