Didn't he?

im not against you , but I think lock needs better rules on p2p , if there going to enforce p2p transfers rules or barring. im all for getting rid of of scammers and dead beats. doing a case by case no set of rules fly by seat of your pants will be ripe with errors imo no matter how great a security team you have.

Lol... I never said I didn't like you! Lighten up man! I was just yankin your chain a little.

why not have a agreement page on transfers stating transaction by both partys would not be to hard to do. that would be some proof and easy to do on locks part. this would bring be more out in open

If that guy really got scammed, then
a) claiming "goods weren't delivered" : he doesn't want to explain the situation to PayPal, as they will block you for gambling-related transfers.
b) claiming "unauthorised use" : they will check the IP and see that his account wasn't hacked.
It also depends what kind of transfer method he would have used, whether it was for goods, services, or a family/friend transfer.

Also, photoshopping is so 2007. Editing the html takes about 2 minutes to fake a paypal transfer.

I agree network should not get involved in this

At the very least you should not ban a guy, because A TOTAL STRANGER SENT IN A SCREENSHOT LOL. This requires a bit more finesse than that. Sure just screw OP before you even know what is really going on.

If you want to get involved in this, do a TeamViewer or something with both of them and have them show the transaction. If you can't get hard evidence from anyone then don't involved and shut down people's accounts

im saying if lock does get involved in p2p transfers why not have a agreement page before transfer agreed by the 2 partys cleary stating the agreement would cut down on scammers and guess work. no reason to pick and chose what or who did what and chose to get involved in some disputes but not others. this would better protect all players

Many have reversed Paypal transfers successfully through trades initiated on 2p2. Doesn't get much more informative than Rainbow Warrior on trading knowledge. Here is a post of his that's pretty informative and has a few links.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1401

Agreed, it's really easy and very possible it has been done by this alleged scammer. I'm still wondering, though: what does he gain from this? Just for the fun of it to see if he can get away with it? I mean, those sort of crimes happen, but it's not very likely. He at least has had to have known he wouldn't ever really gain anything out of this other than damaging someone else (without gaining anything yourself). Then there's risk of getting caught too.

it could be 2 scammers scamming each other idk one guy not transferring the other guys not sending and there trying to scam the other one.why would either care about rep if there both scammers

If the OP is lying and really did scam the guy, how would the victim be able to connect the paypal to the OP's Lock account?

If the OP is really a scammer, it seems unlikely that he would have given the victim his real Lock info or used a paypal with his real name.

I am glad to see that Lock is more pro-active now and takes these issues quite serious even though the evidence to justify the actions by security is thin and can be photo shopped. So while we are at it and Shane is in this thread, how did that Girah debacle and the follow up from you guys end that was promised how many months ago ... more than 18?

While I'm not for a moment saying that Lock did or didn't handle this particular situation correctly, I'm wondering where the protests about how poker sites shouldn't get involved in any trade disputes have been all those times that a poker site intervened correctly and successfully.

Hey everyone, I am the player that is getting ripped off in this whole clusterf*ck. ( I seem to be using that word a lot in matters that involve Lock).

I have not read through this entire thread yet, but I will be doing so but I am currently grinding on intertops. I have emailed security SEVERAL times after Steve sent me the email stating my account would be closed and all funds forfeited, and I have not received any responses going 4 or 5 days now. Not even the generic response email from Customer Service saying they would forward it to security. I have honestly given up at this point and am beside myself.

I'm sure some questions have been raised within the 6 pages of this thread so far, and I will be sure to answer them after I'm done grinding on intertops for the night.

Do you have links or even some offhand examples? Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious about what sort of interventions have occurred in the past.

Like it or not, it's natural human behavior for us to express our displeasure more so than voice our compliments. There is a study somewhere that effectively states that for every 1 negative it requires 5 positives to offset the impact of the negative. Idk in what context this was being applied to, but it illustrates just how innately we're driven towards remembering negativity as a survival mechanism. So yeah, given that we remember negative crap more so than positive, you should expect to see less positive /successful interventions and more negative posts/stories/threads.

With that said, there are many reasons why I still believe poker sites shouldn't get involved with p2p transfers in the current poker climate, regulation and ease of manipulating "proof" being a few of them. In a perfect world where players were protected via regulatory bodies overseeing licensed poker sites, we would be able to trade with the comfort of knowing there is recourse in the event that we're scammed (with more tools available to make sure there isn't room for error).

This paypal situation is a great example. Lock can only go so far to investigate this because financial institutions aren't willing to work with poker sites to investigate/provide information/ be known as legitimate "services" or "goods" on listed paypal receipts. This is further exacerbated by the potential for a claim/reversal of funds w/ Paypal.

It boils down to the current poker climate and that anyone who is playing on any unregulated site has to imo factor in a certain percentage chance that they won't receive their funds and/or something bad is going to happen. Until then, I believe it's best that poker sites remain neutral and impartial to p2p trading. I have yet to read anything encourages me to believe otherwise. These are just my opinions and everyone is entitled to their own, regardless of how outrageous others deem them to be.

Don't understand how a screen shot is sufficient in this case but it wasn't enough in the clear multi-accounting case by Mt Vesuvious/Iron Maiden.

Yeah, maybe there's more, but if the screenshot is the only evidence, that's a pretty weak case, imo. It doesn't really make sense to me, maybe the OP will come back and clarify.

(It's also pretty amusing that he's still playing on the network; either he's multi-accounting with a different name or Lock doesn't really care about protecting the players from this alleged scammer.)

If the scam happened here and MH or RW were involved, I wouldn't question it at all.

In fact, they have mentioned more than once about how good Lock was about working with them to alleviate scammers.

But Lock is simply viewed under heightened scrutiny when seizing funds now that they've unveiled this fair play technology.

I actually wasn't talking about a lack of praise for doing good things, because as you say, that's pretty normal. What I was referring to was the hypocrisy and/or results-oriented thinking that was causing people to have no complaints in the past when sites intervened in transfer scams and it worked well, and now when it appears that an intervention went awry, some people are suddenly suggesting that intervention shouldn't ever be happening. Perhaps those people don't know that sites have intervened in many other cases, which instead means they have a pretty strong opinion about something they aren't fully informed about.

This might be a bit of a search, but I'll see what I can do.

i swear to god i hate to say this, but this is a great post.

Like seriously are all the people ITT braindead? Have you even read the linked post?

- OP posts a sob story about his deal with this guy
- OP lets us know security told him the guy sent in screenshots and chat logs or w/e (which is already sketchy to me b/c poker site security are usually quite secretive in these situations)
- OP seems to have not sent in screenshots or chat logs of his own
- OP posted no screenshots on 2p2 in defense of his sob story
- @YourGFs house posts "Lock apparently closed a players account without any hard evidence"
- Everyone takes OP at his word that the screenshot was fake even though OP has provided no proof whatsoever

Well, a screenshot is a screenshot. Could it be fake? Yes sure. But how does that stop OP from sending in his own screenshot? THAT would have actually been a thread-worthy situation: Guy gets scammed by other guy in paypal trade, scammer sends in photoshopped screenshot, legit guy sends legit screenshot, legit guy is banned. THAT would be news, THAT would be worthy of "omg lock scumbag ****s, etc etc".

This.... is just pathetic bandwagoning.

Furthermore I'm pretty goddamn sure that 99.9% of the ppl crying ITT that lock shouldnt get involved would snap open a thread asking lock to get involved if they were on the receiving end of a scam like this

this frustrates me so much i tried to contact support and shane and magically have wiffed this guy posts the same issue and gets 7 pages of responses. What world am i living in.

well the guy said lock hasnt responded to any of his emails since they told him he was banned so how would he know to send a screen shot of his paypal?

shoulda made your own thread about it. i myself only browse interesting titled threads. saw another post like this while just browsing your posts in the thread.

did they say if they were going to transfer the lock funds back to him?

i myself would rather sites not get involved if all it takes is a screenshot to prove guilt. its alot easier to protect yourself from another individual than from lock.

Yeah that pretty much describes nobody in this thread. Whether or not the OP is the scammer or the victim is pretty much speculation. It's also not very relevant to the issues being discussed in this thread. Conveniently, one of the few posters who have bought into the strawman that the guilt or innocence of the OP is the relevant issue is Shane.

I don't doubt someone who got scammed would likely make a thread asking Lock for help. And then everyone else would (correctly) chide them that you trade at your own risk, it is your responsibility to vet partners, all the usual caveats, etc.