fyp

Trolls be Trollin'

Umm if they locked my account for scamming, I'm pretty sure the first thing I'd think to do is provide them with evidence I wasn't scamming.

Sick, i was really starting to think i was the only sane person commenting on this subject.

.. or was starting to think maybe i'm the insane one.

THIS

i was 100% serious.

I'm really really sad Lock has all these iniquities and problems that keep me checking this subforum of internet poker daily as prior to Lock I had decided, for the sake of my own sanity, to stop reading Internet Poker.

Oh I'm sorry, is this a rule upheld by the International Board of Poker? Is it in their handbook?

Or is it more a case of most pokersites taking the decision for themselves that this is the policy they wish to use and any pokersite that so wishes can change this policy or simply not have it?

The strawman here is hilariously the fact that everyone is pounding on lock because one of their policies differ from that of other sites. Which is not something inherently positive or negative(PLEASE prove to me that it is either) but it is different from the status quo and oh dear lord the sheep doth get randy when the status quo is broken

Yep and as i said before.. the reason most poker sites have this rule is exactly because it's much easyer for them. If they can just each and every time say "well, it's not our problem, sort it out yourself" what do you think they preffere?

Infact, after all this, i'm sure Lock will change their policy aswell and let people be scammed without taking action.. they both won't need to spend time on figuring out the truth, aswell as no longer risk getting threads like these pop up on forums. Win/win for them.

.. sad ..

I've contacted lock support, shane, eric lynch, and their support via e-mail in the span of 6 weeks i've only got generic e-mail responses. Also while my account was locked with ~2800 in it i managed to get a 10k skrill cash out. So I guess its a good thing that everyone at lock support is brain dead or i would have never gotten my 10k skrill cash out.

Yep, I was going to post something to this effect before reading this whole thread through.

Care to shed any light on this Shane? Seems rather inconsistent.

I followed your story beforehand sizzlin, glad to hear you got that 10k off.

pretty funny they do the same thing to you and you're like the most legit guy on this dump probably

Personally I am glad to see Lock took action since it might help prevent scams in the future. However, it is just me or does it seem that Lock really only took one side of this dispute? Unless there is something not being told it appears only one side has had a chance to explain themselves. Could Lock have not blocked both accounts until the dispute was settled?

I'm not normally a Shane fan but believe Shane has argued the case well that Lock has done the right thing here. He makes some good points, but ultimately I still don't agree.

I don't like the principle that Lock should get involved in such transfer disputes, in the same way as I don't expect my bank to suspend my account if someone claims I owe them money, with or without purported proof. A poker site holding my funds should not be the arbiter of disputes about whether I should have sent someone else money.

There are some disputes where I do expect the site to get involved. Examples would be where the claim is around cheating at the game (bots, collusion etc) or where it is about confirming whether or not transfers were made on the site itself. I would prefer security deploy their resources more in that direction.

In any case, if Lock are involved, any money confiscated should only be that used to send to the wronged party.

if other person was able to show the transaction why cant op get his PAYPAL account list and show he wasnt giving that moneys
any site has activity list =money in money out -account accessed-transaction dates
can paypal transactions be cancelled????
then u could have a transaction then a cancelled transaction that wouldnt be on the list that was sent
its a he said he said deal lock shouldnt be in it unless they can actually get the actuall info from the site[paypal] thats my opinion
scammer could send it to another account and claim its the others and then he would have the transaction record
scammed would have to prove it wasnt his account that it was sent to
and paypal wouldnt do that for a poker site

i'm just glad this thread has forced shane to answer some questions that he was clearly avoiding in the other thread. and it's once again clear that he has no idea wtf is going on

I wonder if there would be a way to cut down on these transfer scams etc.

Perhaps if players were getting paid in a reasonable time frame?

LOOOOL, but then lock would actually have to have player funds to pay out. That's against their TOS

Whenever you are ready I would really like to know what you sent Lock.

Don't mention it!

Not the easiest thing to search for, but I found a couple spare minutes and came up with a few.

Here's a very recent one:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...down1-1313978/

This one didn't get his money back because it was already gone, but it sounds like Lock would've given it to him if it was still there:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...about-1270956/

No money recovered here, but scammer's accounts were locked:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...twork-1227783/

Basically, people complaining that Lock shouldn't get involved in transfers are a couple years late to the party. Either you don't read many threads about site transfers, or you were OK with them getting involved until you thought they might have got one wrong. Given the posting in the threads where they locked an alleged scammer's account, it would appear that most people are happy with their current policy.

Don't think that's fair. Regardless of whether or not I read about prior history with site transfers it shouldn't dictate whether or not I can maintain my position and have an opinion on this. Everyone should be able to have an opinion that is free of contingencies. If you asked me two weeks ago prior to this thread popping up I would still maintain my position on this. I don't care if every situation had been successful, I have my own fundamental reasons as to why I don't believe poker sites should get involved in trades between two parties (especially in an unregulated environment).

I'm not sure what's unfair - you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I've never said otherwise.

Now you know that Lock has been intervening in some trade disputes for a number of years, that it's worked out well for some people, and that there appears to be very little dissatisfaction among 2+2ers about this so far. How that information influences your opinion is up to you.

My point about what is fair or not is specific to the above in bold. An either/or option attempts to categorize those with similar opinions into one of the two camps; either you didn't read many threads about site transfers, or you're ok with it until something goes awry.

I'm in the camp where I have an opinion that apparently is dissenting in nature from the common majority, and I don't fit into either category. This isn't a matter of semantics either. I felt like you implied that if you don't choose one camp or the other then you don't have a leg to stand on as far as validity behind one's arguments against intervention, thus my "that's not fair" post.

OK, so I guess there should be a third camp of people who have never been OK with intervention, but chose not to say anything until it went awry? Sort of gives you a shaky leg to stand on IYAM; why no protest about this policy before?

Edit to add: Basically, this is what I'm trying to say - Lock has been intervening in trade disputes for quite some time. So either you weren't aware of that, which is a little surprising if you usually keep up with trade threads in the Internet Poker forum, or you were aware of it yet have stayed silent on the matter thus far, which begs the question...why?

How about the third camp is people with opinions on the subject who aren't confined to camp one or two? Nice little touch on the end there though about not saying anything until it went awry. Give you an A+ for effort on that one b/c it did make me laugh.

Had to Google what IYAM means, guess you learn something new every day.

You're entitled to your opinion and can call it whatever you want. I don't have time to post on forums every day and I have a lot going on in life so I haven't - and wont - spend a lot of time advocating for non-intervention rights re: trading against poker sites; it simply isn't that pressing of an issue for me.

Amusing that you ask me why I haven't protested before though as if I need to justify myself. There are a lot of things I don't agree with in the world, but I can't go protesting every single one of them I find wrong. Life is about prioritizing (of which I've already spent too much time in this thread lol).

Perfectly understandable that you don't have time to protest everything you find wrong - who does? But it's just a little odd that you'd have a problem with these interventions yet not say a word about them until you think one might have gone wrong.