LOL. That's ****ing ridiculous.

Think this through for one minute. Do you really want people who get scammed to not get any help anymore ever? Well, alright then. I'm sure Lock will happily take that proposal, much easyer for them (can't take the blame for anything ever, if you do nothing, you can't do anything wrong, right? .. but you can't do anything right either, obviously), especially with this ******* community.


Get this through your (thick) skull.


Also, this:

a) Actually players regularly expect us to get involved with zero evidence. That process is exactly what our security team does.

b) This doesn't match the expectation of the scores of players who contact us daily asking us to interviene in scam cases.

c) All serious fraud allegations are investigated, players often assume because security matters arent dealt with publicly here that nothing has been done but this just isnt the case. I had a case recently where people kept posting things in a thread saying "Lock needs to do this, this and this..." not realising that the security team had already done all of those things and not found the evidence to support the claims at hand.


Giving a clear and coherent policy gives scammers a tool to better find where they can find an angle or find a weak spot. The amount of fraud and attempted fraud in our industry is astronomical.

thanks for the heads up about paypal, didn't know any of that stuff

We can speak hypothetically all day, the bottom line is that without actual proof, we might as well go hold hands and take a few philosophy courses together and question the meaning of life.

As far as ascertaining who the victim is in most cases, you're implicitly leaving room for there to be fraudulent activity where the scammer succeeds and the victim loses. Where there is ZERO risk for scammers, why wouldn't they continue to scam in 5 out of 100 are successful? Ever wonder why Nigerians still send out those emails telling you that you've inherited $100k? The only difference between the Nigerian example and this one is that there is potential for the Nigerian scammers to be disciplined where as with unregulated online poker there is not.

The more you involve yourself in trade disputes the more likely you are to provide loopholes for scammers.

"Clearly" sent in substantial evidence huh? Considering Lock isn't able to contact Paypal directly due to policy violations with gambling, how in the world can you be so sure (this is where you tell me your Security Dept. can't disclose such information to an anonymous forum and provide little else)? Chat logs and screenshots of Paypal don't constitute proof.


From the horses mouth:
Shane, how can he send proof of something that he didn't send? If he received no Paypal, then he isn't going to have proof of sending anything. There is no documentation you can request from him to prove that he isn't the scammer and that the person who claimed he sent him Paypal isn't.

Again, it comes down to a "his word versus mine" argument because we really don't know who is and isn't the scammer in this case. I'm trying to be as polite as I can here, but the quality of your logic and arguments in your replies are just silly.

Also @YourGFsHouse Im happy for this thread to stay but your title is misleading since Lock wasnt involved in the actual player transfer only in investigating and policing it. I didnt want to edit it on you I'd prefer you edit it so it still conveys your message, just a little clearer.

Sort of interesting how in one breath Shane defends the opacity of security procedures as necessary and then in another publicly lists the specific documentation that will used to adjudicate this case.

And if the other side was eventually able to provide evidence, would Lock re-transfer the money back to the original account? What if the scammer already blew all the money?

The amusing thing here is that OP (in the link) could also doctor the evidence of a Paypal non-transfer if he is indeed the scammer. I find it hilarious as to why poker sites would intervene in trade agreements between players.

Because I would actually like OP to prove his case. If he really was wronged here he needs to contact security and prove his case so it can be reversed.


If OP was able to prove his case then yes this would be reversed.

Another aside to this is that your position really isn't shared by the majority of people. As before players constantly send us these cases as do the 2+2 mods.

The poker community at large wants these cases investigated and players who commit fraud prevented from committing further fraud.

Why dont you want players who commit fraud investigated and banned?

so will prop bets , football and all gambling debts wagers be handled this way , if it includes lock funds

Read my other posts for the answer to your question. I'm going to leave it at that.

There is no way to verify this so obviously no.


Since we provide P2P transfers as a service to our players, when our players have fraud committed against them using this service they expect us to assist them in the return of these funds.

There's a reason sites don't get involved in off-site disputes.

Also, does the guy who sent in the screenshot get the funds?

Or does Lock just keep the cash?

WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE DEMAND PROOF FROM OP? It's too much of personal info to post his transaction history or something? in PayPal you can filter it down to Payments received only aswell.

Really it's ****ing ridiculous to not demand proof in this case, why should we believe OP without it? He has everything to gain by lying, so asking proof isn't much to ask for.

I'm fully aware in some cases innocence can't be proven. This isn't one of those cases, however.

im all for banning punishing scammers . But I don't want the scammers to have upper hand , I trust very few players , every case I see lock handle the girah out of your hands, the 70k , I see excuses being made for them. really makes players think some players get special treatment. rules should apply to all equally.

How is it an off-site dispute when the trade was for Lock funds, furthermore either one of the parties decided to take action and contact Lock support himself.

Are you this dense?

If he didnt receive any Paypal transfers I'd imagine it would be pretty easy for him to send proof of that. A screenshot of his transaction history with time stamps would be a great place to start.

The only 'evidence' OP has provided is posting on the forum his story, apparently that holds more weight than the evidence gathered by security on this matter. OP has made no mention of any attempt to prove his innocence other than this thread.

Read my response to norfair18 above. If Lock requests a screenshot of the person who claims to have sent him Paypal, then what is stopping OP from doing likewise and provide a potentially fictitious piece of documentation?

95% of us aren't even talking about who is the guilty party. It really doesn't matter if the OP is a scammer or was scammed. We're concerned primarily with how Lock handles these disputes and what the implications of that are. OP's guilt or innocence is pretty immaterial to that issue. Yes he will have to go through the ordained procedure to try to get his money back/re-steal someone else's money. But what really mattters are the details of that procedure and others that Lock has ordained.

OP could very well be the one who is scamming here. The problem, again, is that OP can provide you with a fake screenshot of his Paypal account showing no money was sent. Can you see the fundamental issue here?

At least we have something to work with then, we can start looking for marks of photoshop on both screenshots, we can start thinking of the next step to take, etc. Such as asking either one parties if they're willing to let someone log their paypal account with a temporary password to check out the truth. (i'm somewhat certain the guy actually speaking the truth would be willing to do this, i know i would).

There's OPTIONS from that point forward. If OP doesn't take action, then i agree with Lock for all intends and purposes, the case is closed.

Screenshots don't prove anything. Lock support should a remote control program to view the screen of the other person. If he claims he sent the money, he can log in to his paypal account to prove it. He says he got scammed, so make him prove his side first.

"The other party could have faked their evidence" is the weirdest reason not to send in evidence I have ever heard.

As I mentioned before, security will only intervene in cases where the evidence clearly proves a point.

If OP send in his proof then at worst there isn't enough clear evidence to take action either way.

What is totally baffling to me is all this talk of how easy it is to fake the evidence but just ZERO focus on OP not sending any yet. If fake evidence is so easy to come by real evidence should be even easier.

Alright, and then you'd get uproar by people being scammed "Why doesn't Lock do something, the proof is so overwhelming?!"

You really don't see the issue here, and are honestly telling me you'd personally preffere to be scammed and get no help?

Or maybe they should stop P2P transfers altogether?

I'm sure both options are far and beyond easyer for Lock.