I have no idea if Tyler would mention it or not. It wouldn't have to be mentioned for a site such as FTP since it's closer to common knowledge/very obvious. Given the different skins and the possibility of different displays based on which skin you're playing on, it becomes much more of a grey area.

I brought it up in terms of Tyler's perception of who he was (/wasn't) playing.

Yes I completely agree that the decision to reimburse Tyler is solely that of Lock poker and/or Merge network. Perhaps the actual network should make the decision since the Lock skin could be biased. As DeathDonkey mentioned, it's up to the players/people that care to voice their concerns to the network and make it a big deal if they think it's a big deal.

I think JM saying they should let Lock (/merge) decide is reasonable.

A couple of comments about this.

First of all, as I've indicated earlier ITT, I've lost what many people would consider a very large amount of money to multiaccounting/ghosting. The incidents were investigated and dealt with by FTP, and I did not receive a dime. NOTHING. So why in this case should JM have to pay? I've never seen a case of MAing where someone got money back. I think letting Lock deal with it is a start, as the standard is to let the site deal with it.

Second, I really want to play exclusively vs. cheaters from now on if the community will persecute ALL CHEATERS (not just the really famous ones) this way and let me freeroll.

good post.

The Ike situation was him playing Prah on an alternate but legal account, similar to having different names on different skins. Prah had expressed Ike was one of the few people he avoided HU. To my knowledge Ike and Prah are not even friends (not enemies, just casual acquaintances) and the practicing avoidance was just a thing he had expressed in general, but Ike wanted his action and sat and Prah didn't practice avoidance against an unknown that could very well have been Ike or anybody else.
In this situation JM was on a very well known account linked to a very well known player. Of course JM could've played on an unknown account and this would then be a non-issue.

That's true but in this specific case Tyler did not know who girahh was. He stated he thought he was just a random, and apparently there was no indication that he was a Lock Pro since Tyler wasn't playing on the same skin (I could be wrong about this but another poster has asserted it, and no one has spoken up to say he's wrong)

For example, if Girah were to profit from superusing, then your argument is correct that Girah should not keep any of the profits. This is clearly cheating.

Now you want to claim that MAing is on the same level, when it's clearly not.

1) This is the worst argument ever. "This is how things were handled. So why should they be handled differently."

I think letting the site deal with it would make some sense if there were any question in my mind about the right way to handle this. There's none in my mind.

2) Is your argument that if my system were in place than cheaters would lose money on average? Good.

Or are you pointing out that my system would make honest people earn money off of cheaters on average? Good.

I just don't understand why you think jungleman is subject to a totally different jurisdiction than every other person who has done this.

Of course if you're arguing that normatively he should pay him back that is really different than what I'm getting at.

I don't. I've told all cheaters should repay their victims. My position has been completely consistent on this issue, and I've made it known repeatedly.

Your position appears to be "Well.. why should JM have to do it because nobody else does it?" The answer is that he should do it for the same reason that everyone else should do it.

so jose should keep all the money he won TVing ppl cuz they were also cheating?

My point is that if the penalty for 3rd degree murder is to go through through the court system in place and eventually hand down a sentence of 10 years, and you decide to murder someone in the 3rd degree, you should expect to be prosecuted and face 10 years. When Charlie Sheen is the murderer, they don't all of a sudden let Sarah Palin hand down a 20 year sentence. They go through the system that is in place (the courts).

On a side note, I agree the current system sucks. I agree we should work together to change it. But there is simply nothing we can do about it. The only way it will be fixed is when online poker is regulated heavily and cheating in any way will actually be a federal crime. However you can't just decide to change it arbitrarily while dealing with a specific issue.

That's how things were handled before and nobody complained. But now, for some reasons people are complaing away.

You make it sounds like no matter what scale of MA it is, it's the same as superusing. Cheaters as cheaters, right?

No, that's just ridiculous.

Not stopping for a red light and driving highly intoxicated. Apples and oranges.

+1 I commend you!

WTF are you talking about?

First of all, Jose wasn't giving people advice while he was sweating them. He asked to watch them play for absolutely no apparent reason. That's part of the incredible stupidity of this situation.

Second, I never said that if you cheated yourself you don't deserve to be repaid for cheating that happened to you. You just totally made them up.

What do you think I'm saying?

Your argument seems to be that even though Jungleman should be morally obligated to pay back, he isn't because the sites haven't made people pay back in the past. Your argument sucks. In fact, it sucks for two totally different reasons:

1) I'm saying that Jungleman is morally obligated to pay back. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether the sites will make him pay back (incidentally, Stars recently confiscated funds from newhizzle for multiaccounting, so there is precedent.. not that it matters). It has to do with what's fair.

2) When a system is wrong, you don't say "Well.. that's the system. We should continue those practices." You fix it.

Also, your analogy is incredibly stupid. If murder were historically "punished" with an ice cream cone, would you think the ethically correct thign to do to the next murderer would be to give him an ice cream cone?

+1

Stars did a really good job getting the 1 million back from GordyLamb too didn't they?

But Noah you can't fix the system by just punishing jungleman. The change would have to be enforceable in all cases. Which is why only the government could do it. And pretending otherwise is just naive.

I believe his only moral obligation would be to do what the average person would do if the roles were reversed, which is probably pay back in full .00001% of the time and let the site deal with it the rest of the time.

No it ****ing wouldn't. Where is it written that someone shouldn't be punished for a crime unless everyone else is punished? I learned that two wrongs don't make a right when I was in ****ing kindergarten...

I really can't believe you're honestly trying to make the argument that people shouldn't be punsihed for something because other people haven't been punished for it. That positiion is just so ****ing absurd. Stop to think for five goddam seconds about the people who get screwed over by cheating. Should they just be ****ed because other people were ****ed in the past?

Anyway, unless you can come up with an argument that has any semblance of merit or other people actually chime in implying that they don't understand why your argument is incredibly stupid, I'm done arguing in circles with you. Have fun in your world with static justice I guess..

When the crime isn't actually a crime and is just a site rule, hence the site should deal with it.... like they do in all other ****ing cases.

You want it to be one way but it's the other. I never said he shouldn't be punished. I said he shouldn't be punished by you.

can u elaborate on gordylamb story?

Murder doesn't equate with Jaywalking, I figured that out on my own

boobysmiles aka Ugotabanana multiaccount, won a million dollars quick and peaced. Afaik he got banned but didn't have any money confiscated.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gordylamb+cheating

What? Why are you bringing government into this? Your comments in general are starting to tilt me now.Pls go and sleep for some time, don't work too hard.

I know this has been said before, but there is no point arguing whether JM should pay or not. This decision is to be made by Lock Poker. They are the house and they should be allowed to deal with any malpractice as they see fit. People are entitled to their opinions but ultimately its nobody's decision except Lock. MAing is unethical but JM cannot be crucified for this, also this whole issue is an unnecessary derailment from the original problem at hand.

Leave this matter alone, and hope that this will be dealt by Lock in a fair way.

i've lost faith in HSPoker and will never play HU again, I lost about 50 to gordy.

its not really up to you to decide the consequences. its the sites TOS and the sites prerogative.

i'm not agreeing with 2shae im just quoting the last post i read abt this