I wasn't going to reply to you anymore, but man, your replies are continuing to be quite out of touch.

You simply aren't considering the facts. You're making so many assumptions on the areas where you aren't privy to the information and for some reason that makes you so assured of your point of view. I get that you have preconceived notions and perhaps anecdotal/casually researched concepts, but you literally have zero hard facts in this specific case that should confirm it for you. And when presented with something definitive, you simply ignore it to maintain your worldview.

To identify with the "humility" in that interview, you'd have to ignore the continued lack of respect he gives his peers (e.g. claiming there's a "correct" way for jilted investors to react, not treating all his victims equally, etc). To see true "remorse" in that interview, you'd have to ignore the lack of complete honesty that persisted throughout (e.g. his financial situation, his play at the Venetian, his overall timeline/mindset).

You yourself admitted a lot of your assumptions were created based on his payout of me. But not sure if you read my last post and let me make this very clear: He admitted he wasn't going to refund for the oversold bullet, much less admit it was oversold even AFTER being outed for scamming on the 2nd bullet. I had to go back and call him out on the amount he actually owed me.

What kind of character does that show? I can't see how that isn't pulling at least two scams--and in fact, that's how he saw it too.

You told me earlier you aren't hurting anything by putting out your point of view, and that may be true simply because you're such an outlier here. But to put it frankly, if there were more people in this community thinking the way you do, we would be way worse off than it already is and scams happen all the time.

Posted my last message before seeing this and glad to see you are starting to see the light. I get that everyone is out for their own best interests, but the fact he is still attempting to spin things at this point, doesn't show true humility or remorse. If he were a truly ethical person, I would expect at this point for him to see rationally it makes sense to just come clean on it all. It's a bad look to persist with the half-truths or convenient omissions. But he simply doesn't get it.

No one is saying Ben is the worst person in the world, but he's clearly not "Top 5%" or whatever you were saying before.

And to clarify this, I don't mean you are intending to be malicious obviously, I am trying to speak as an investor where I have very limited options in "punishing" or creating "consequences" for guys who screw me over. I've said this earlier, but one of the rare tools is to have public outcry/backlash towards that person and make him feel as though he is in danger of losing his participation in this community.

Whether or not that happens is not up to any one individual, but when you come in and tell him you might stake him immediately after doing this, you basically handicap any fear one of these guys has in doing something bad, especially when they think of these things as a "one-off" mistakes.

If anyone could provide me another option, I'd gladly not vilify them.

Fakelogic,

Like I stated very clearly earlier, my views are based on publicly known information since I am not a party to these transactions.

Before your latest update, there was little public info suggesting Ben was acting anything but forthrightly after getting caught. As more information comes public, we all become better informed and can form more accurate opinions. As I wrote just before your last post, the latest obfuscations and rationalizations in ben's story do not look good for him. As a result, I'm far less confident in my opinion of ben's good character as I was before. And if more damning information comes public, then I may later conclude that my earlier read was wrong.

It's clear now why you have been frustrated with the situation and my posts and I don't blame you. But at the end of the day, you were repaid. If Ben was half the scumbag most posters here seem to think he is, that wouldn't have happened.

One remarkable fact that was oddly hardly remarked upon at all was sheets coming into the thread and suggesting he believed this was a one-off and that Ben was fundamentally honest. Given the length and depth of their relationship (at least what I infer about it), sheets likely has better insight than anyone else ITT (or perhaps even in the poker world) as to ben's true character. And clearly as a prolific and successful backer, he's almost certainly a very, very good judge of character.

Just because I was repaid doesn't mean I should stop speaking out about it or against people who try to diminish his actions. His actions and the consequences for them (or lack thereof) affect the marketplace and future transactions in so many ways. And don't forget, he claimed ITT that he had the money to cover it, but now has admitted he does not, nor has he paid everyone back. So IMHO that more than counters the fact I got paid my small amount.

As for Sheets, I'll let him speak for himself, but I will say if you carefully read his post, he never definitively endorsed Ben as you are claiming. Not saying he wouldn't, but he simply didn't in his posts (which is why no one remarked on it).

the majority of the thread seems to disagree with you

what makes you so compelled to defend proven thieves instead of siding with those who were wronged?

also can the "feel sorry for you" crap, that's so sanctimonious. My life is awesome and I've been very lucky in life overall, I just have contempt for people who steal from their close friends and associates

edit: has a single person ITT besides you said they saw "humility, humanity, and remorse" in his response?

All I saw in that interview was a bunch of excuses.

That being said being a **** up in your early 20s is much less forgivable than being a **** up in your 30s

*He scammed, did not admit to it until exposed

*It's vital if he has any hope of a future in tournament poker that he "confess"

*said "confession" is full of distortions/half-truths at best

A scammer attempting to manipulate the aftermath in dishonest ways to serve his own future interests is not someone to be lauded.
mixgameADDict, your characterization of Ben's virtues is ignorant fantasy.

Methinks you meant this the other way around?

This is a false dichotomy. All I've said (repeatedly) is that good people sometimes make terrible mistakes and that is what I believe happened here. I've never "defended" ben's actions nor have I taken any position re: the victims in this case.

Is this your proposed dictionary entry for "hypocrisy"?

please elaborate on how that is in any way hypocritical?

at this point I have to assume you're just trolling

Quick poll, should we as a community encourage those who've been caught scamming to:
1) confess what they've done and make restitution
OR
2) disappear

Does a tidal wave of sanctimonious (great word, bparis, thanks!), self-righteous condemnation do the former or latter?

I'm wondering the same. I'm a reasonably clever guy, but it'd be hard for me to come up with a sentence more sanctimonious than

"My life is awesome and I've been very lucky in life overall, I just have contempt for people who steal from their close friends and associates"

adjective
1.
making a hypocritical show of religious devotion, piety, righteousness, etc.:
They resented his sanctimonious comments on immorality in America.

this would apply if I were decrying his actions while stealing from people myself; I am not

it does, however, apply to your "I feel sorry for you" comment, which is in my mind is akin to religious people saying "i'll pray for you" to athiests and other supposed sinners

I merely included the comment about my own life in response to your asinine claim that something awful must have happened to me to make me so cynical. It tilts me, a MP reg who has not swindled anyone in my 4+ years selling action on there, that people like you are just snap defending someone who did one of the worst things you can do in the marketplace, despite all evidence pointing to him acting maliciously and only feeling "remorse" once he was caught red-handed. Why is that so hard to understand?

towards your other point, I would vote for 1, then 2; pay everyone back, then disappear permanently. This can be incentivized through threatening to create BenWarringtonIsAScammer.com (which has been done many times in much less sketchy situations than this)

I will also note that if you wish to buy his action in the future, you are more than welcome to, but 2+2 marketplace has a responsibility to protect its members

if you wish to continue this convo we can take it to PMs, I feel like we are derailing the thread at this point

MixedgameADDict please post your real name and pic so I can make sure to avoid any financial dealings with you.

This is a straw man. Most people ITT are not arguing this dichotomy at all. In fact, even you haven't always been consistently arguing it either.

Instead we have been arguing on whether Ben is worthy (read: ethical) of forgiveness/less punishment on a one-time mistake or whether Ben has done something in which he should be severely punished for. Many of the facts shared and the views from experienced people all point to latter, yet you are essentially the lone dissenter.

You came straight away into this thread arguing for the former without having all the facts and not considering the context or history in cases like these. Any reaction to you since has been along these lines, not whether or not we would rather him not pay anyone back. That's just silly.

You contradict yourself in this post. You ARE defending his actions by reducing their negativity or significance when you say "good people sometimes make terrible mistakes". That implies you are certain he is a "good person" and therefore he's not as bad as others, and thus this doesn't warrant as bad of a reaction from us. That's the only logical line you can draw from your statement.

We're not arguing a theoretical preference between a good and bad person (as I stated previously). We all prefer people to be good, obviously. But instead we are all arguing that the facts in this specific case have consistently pointed to someone who is not that ethical and going from there. But for some reason, you keep wanting to diminish what has happened--again, which is defending his actions--all without specific evidence whatsoever.

To further breakdown your original argument:

He simply didn't have the opportunity to (once he was outed). But he clearly admitted he WAS going to take it if he could've. He definitively stated in the recent interview he wouldn't have admitted to the overselling unless caught (and my personal interactions agree with that). How he can say he wouldn't have done the same for the phantom 2nd bullet must be a pretty a sophisticated deception in his mind. UNETHICAL.

But this Venetian $5K event WAS part of the summer package. The timing of it is irrelevant, it's simply a logical result of his desperation. And let's not forget this tweet, "Venetian 5k #tripsaver" (which has since been deleted). He was playing 150% oversold/swapped, knowing he did it to close associates, without enough money in the bank to cover all his debts, supposedly aware he was in "serious trouble" (again, interview) if he made a deep run...and yet he still wrote that. "#Tripsaver" really? That at LEAST points to some level of premeditation. UNETHICAL.

In one sentence, you show that he "straight" steals, but then have such certainty when you say it's done w/o malicious intent. I think most would argue, knowingly stealing=malicious. UNETHICAL.

He did double down on his lies afterwards. He planned to hide the overselling aspect (got caught). He claimed ITT to have the money to cover it (he doesn't and you were flat wrong for easily believing him when it made zero logical sense). He continues to claim he played the Venetian event as standard (delusional/spin--read Sheets reaction to this). I don't see how this doesn't at least make you wonder what else he's lying about. UNETHICAL.

As shown, he hasn't taken full responsibility--he was FORCED to take responsibility because he got outed and clearly showed he intended to not take responsibility if he was given the chance.

And if you don't understand how with reactions/reads like yours--uninformed, assuming too much, forgiving too easily w/o context--would've enabled him to continue to not take responsibility, then I don't think anyone can really change your worldview, regardless of how "clever" you may think you are. You were clearly wrong on your read and IMHO a truly clever person would simply admit they spoke out of line.

damn that fakelogic post is reminiscent of when nas dropped ether

Something that seems common to all these guys is that they rationalise their actions in their own mind and see themselves as different from all the other grimmers, and often play the victim card themselves (eg Ben's comment about one of his victims not acting in a correct manner, wtf).

Speaking from experience here. I've got an ongoing situation from last summer that I've kept out of the public domain but somehow I'm at fault for telling 2 or 3 people about it and not keeping it completely to myself. Some people would probably say I've got a duty to out this person but that's not the route I decided to go down, not least because I want my money back.

Prior to last summer I had a sizeable bankroll, but due to a pretty horrific downswing I've found myself struggling to make ends meet for pretty much all of 2015. This money owed could have made a huge difference, but instead I've found myself trying to grind out bowl tournies and selling sometimes embarrassing amounts of my action on facebook.

Pretty sure I could have had the opportunity to grim a few people along the way, but the thought never entered my head. Maybe I'm naive but I believe the majority of the poker community also has a strong moral compass, and any attempt to side with the grimmers in these cases is an insult to the vast majority of us who have found ourselves in tough circumstances at some point in our poker careers but have got their heads down and tried to honestly grind their way out of it rather than take the easy way out.

ps Vegas is a very dangerous place and one of the reasons I believe people sell at way too much mark-up, especially for the main and events like the venetian 5k after a long and often demoralising 6 weeks. I sold for the main @1.22 when I know I could have got a hell of a lot more.

real logic ITT

fakelogic gottem

has he paid everyone back?