amen

did the guy actually pay the extortion fee?

i thouht i posted this already, but cant find it ... mods?

The thing is that this ruling does far more than prevent harassment. Nemo is not harassing this guy by sitting in his HUSNGs.

Telling Nemo to stop stalking the guy across 45-mans, etc. is all that is needed. The "punishment" does not fit the crime, and no punishment is really necessary here. Was Nemo engaging in behavior that was undesirable? If so, then do what is necessary to stop it, and no more.

A permanent restraint when just telling him, "hey, cut it out, you dumb ****," would also end the harassment is excessive. FTP is supposed to provide a place to gamble, not be crusaders of justice, deciding that people need to be punished for their questionable actions.

Anyone saying Nemo "deserves" this "punishment," is thinking about the situation wrong.

"hey cut it out; also you're banned for month, moron" does fine. Giving one player bum-hunting protection is completely uncalled-for.

This imo, it was unethical and you have noone to blame but yourself
Sitting someone because you have an edge is ok, sitting him because you want to ruin his life is bad.

Theres nothing about this in FT T&C, but they pretty much can do whatever they want, so... I dont see how this is different from your offer to that guy.

Ethics should have nothing to do with; you're approaching this situation wrong.

His actions are harmful to site and its players (1) or his actions are not harmful to the site and its players(2).

His actions are harmful to site and its players (1):
-Make him stop.

His actions are not harmful to the site and its players(2):
-Do nothing.

There are many ways to make him stop harming the site and its players that don't involve giving someone a bum-hunting license. The simplest is "hey, cut it out, ******." If you feel that people need to be punished for doing things you dislike, then ban him for a while. If you would punish him, though, then just punish him. A restraint isn't even a punishment, it's just a shield for some guy who doesn't deserve it.

Actually a restraint is a form of punishment that also achieves another non-punitive goal.

Eg if you stalk your ex-girlfriend too much, the she could file a restraining order.

A restraining order impedes your ability to do something- it's main purpose is not to teach you to stop doing it, as a punishment would.

People arguing for a punishment should back an action whose main purpose is actually punishment, not "oh hey, here's a bum-hunting license, and as a side effect, this jerk gets punished."

I read this again.

I don't see anything wrong with this unless you remove the 45 man sitting/possible douchey chat involving asking for money for protection, in which case it becomes outrageous.

But that's not at all what happened or what FTP said is why it happened.

If we want to make sure that this isn't going to be the start of "if Nemo sits reg XXY now and doesn't say anything in chat, and keeps playing them, he'll get banned" (which I don't think it will be any more than prior to this thread) then just sit a friend in some $5s, have him send a complaint email to FTP and see what happens. If they won't do anything about it, the rules seems pretty clear and easy to follow and Nemo was just treated fairly or ****ed by the severity of the punishment, but then we know that there is no basic protection in place for people you sit over and over again and don't harass.

At first i was like LOL FTP. But evaluating the situation again...extortion, harassment...punishment not to be able to sit him ever again is suitable to the crime. Wanna harass some1 else?

And I would argue that intent has a lot to do with whether an action is a form of punishment or just happens to have punishment as a consequence.

Like, some spammer posts a bunch of malware on 2+2. He is banned not because we want to punish him, but because we want him to stop posting malware on 2+2. His banning works to this end by impeding his ability to post on 2+2, and as a side effect one could consider it punishment because it may teach the spammer to spam less malware or something. But the goal is to protect the site, not punish the spammer.

I just think it's really egotistical to think you can correctly judge whether and how someone deserves to be hurt for an act you disagree with. All we can really go by is "does this work?" And there are many ways to answer that question with a "yes" that don't give someone the benefit this guy got, especially when sitting HUSNGs with him could never be harassment if Nemo was simply banned from chatting.

A restraining order in this scenario protects (the victim) from further harassment/extortion from the OP, by impeding the OP's ability to sit him. It also doubles as a psudo-punishment for the OP.

Sitting a player is not harassment, so what does this restraining order do? It prevents Nemo from taking an action that is not harassment, while allowing some guy to play higher than his skill would normally allow, and also hurting Nemo's action against fish.

You know what else prevents Nemo from harassing and extorting this player? Preventing him from communicating. It also carries the benefit of not preventing things that aren't harassment, like sitting the same HUSNG.

So then what is wrong with banning Nemo from playing this player again? It prevents him from harassing this player as before. It prevents him from doing the same to another.

What's the counter solution here? They aren't taking his money away or refunding the guy that legitimately won/lost vs Nemo. If you're just arguing he should've had a reduced penalty like another warning, fine, but you sound like you're arguing the actual issue of him not being able to play this player.

I just don't find that valid unless it applies to situations much less extreme than what it sounds like Nemo was doing to this guy.

And I don't mean to sound like Nemo deserves any of this or that I sympathize with the player he sat. I don't at all, I'm just looking at it from FTP's stand point. The player bitching sounds pretty pathetic to me as described. I'm sure he said something in chat that forced Nemo's over reaction, nobody ever stalks this crazily without the reg having talked some **** and lost control at one point. Does that justify whatever Nemo may have done? Probably not, but it doesn't make Nemo purely evil and the reg innocent. I would just as soon have FTP say "look, you told the guy he was an ******* here, you told him he sucks here, you reap what you sew, you make money at this game, you talked crap, he can sit you, don't play those levels if it's a major issue" but if I worked for FTP I'm not sure that's a superior solution than what they did here.

If you don't draw the line at "is it necessary?" then where do you draw the line? Don't make any ethical appeals. Give me an argument that is not based on "he deserves it," or tell me why it's wrong to draw the line at bare necessity.

How is what FTP did any different than if you harassed a woman with verbal abuse and the court's response when she complained was to bar you from going within 100 yards of her?

They're not telling you you cannot speak to her, they are telling you you cannot be around her.

Also we can't exactly rely on poker sites to be putting a high level of thought and decision making power into something so small in this case.

A guy went over the line. Most people seem to agree he broke some rules. His punishment is that he lost the right to play this player. It's not exactly unfathomable. If the only issue at hand was that he was sitting this player over and over, then it's a much different argument.

What is wrong with sitting the 45 mans? He has a right to play anyone he wants at any time? I don't get how this is the least bit wrong...although it is a bit douchey and -EV.

Also what is wrong with making a deal? I thought HUSNG regs did this somewhat regularly...

What is wrong is that does those things and more.

The best solution would do exactly those things and no more.

I think some guys here make a mistake of comparing this situation to real life. Stalking, harrasment, extortion etc is wrong irl but I don't get why it would be wrong here.

Last post here.

Maybe you have some points, but it's not like poker sites only take minimal action, or even take consistent action in the first place.

If the guy is instigating Nemo a lot or something, my opinion changes.

But if he was sitting this guy over and over and talking crap and then telling him he'd follow him everywhere and he'd never make a dime again and so on, then asked him for money after sitting in his 45 mans, I don't see much of a gripe here.

I mean, this really sums it up for me:

"Our rules say that you are allowed to join all of the players in the HU sit and go tournaments and if they don't want to play with you we advice them not to sit alone and join other players instead of waiting for them.

Unfortunately in individual cases we take all of the factors into our consideration and make some additional steps to protect players from being harassed at the tables. The way you were talking and dealing with this player before is completely unacceptable and that's why you were asked not to sit with him any more, even if the rules for all other players state different."

I don't know the specifics, but it looks pretty clear to me that Nemo can go sit anybody he wants on FTP and as long as he's not harassing them there is not a thing they can do to protect themselves.

I think FTP's position is fine. They gave you a big penalty for something that is extremely against T&C (what seems to be severe harassment). Not allowing you to sit him anymore is a legitimate penalty. Yes, it affects your hourly, but FTP is allowed to do that because you broke T&C. They could have banned you from the site in the first place, but instead they allowed you to stay on the site with this condition.

Obviously, I don't know the extent of the "harassment" and I'm all ears about claims to the contrary there.

I don't know if this universal, but I know of one case where a restraining order barred the target from both communicating and coming near the victim. In this case, the reason for the proximity restraint was that the victim felt unsafe around the target.

I find it very hard to believe that Nemo's screen name is going to negatively affect the guy he harassed. So I see nothing accomplished by making Nemo unable to sit him.

I find it very easy to believe that the physical presence of a guy who has repeatedly harassed a person is going to affect the person he harassed. So I see something accomplished by barring this person from coming near his victim.

The other issue, of communication, is easily addressed by a chat ban.

I just have difficulty seeing a reason for them to take anything other than minimal action, or consistent action, other than "because they can."

It's true that they can do whatever they want, but I get a bit incensed seeing people come and say "oh he deserves it," as if they're in any position to judge another person for something like being mean on the Internet.