Quote:
Originally Posted by LiarsDice
I have networked with many poker players, and IF the subject were ever raised, sure I would chime in with my thoughts about it if someone asked me.
This is kind of what I was getting at - if anyone who is saying they shouldn't ever intervene had read other threads about past interventions, I'd expect them to have spoken up them rather than waiting until now. But perhaps none of them had seen one of those threads, IDK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneralert
TY Bobo for pulling up the old incidents where Lock intervened. It seems like they have a pretty clear history of trying to adjudicate these issues when asked to. Is that unique among iPoker sites?
I saw some references to Cake having done it; beyond that, I'm honestly not certain. I'm pretty sure there are a few networks that have
never done it, at least not that has been posted on our forums. So while it may not be unique, it isn't universal either.
As a quick aside - I was momentarily confused by your iPoker reference, as that is a network as well, and they specifically use the lower case i in their name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneralert
Also, Shane hinted at it, but do we have a confirmed case of them returning funds to a player who alleged a p2p scam?
I'm pretty sure there have been such cases, but the threads I found weren't that easy to find, as there aren't any terms I can think of to search on that are unique to these kind of threads. I hope that makes sense - not trying to avoid your question, just don't know of an easy way to find them, assuming my memory is correct and they exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneralert
One last thing, to Bobo. On your first post in this thread, you stressed that your opinion about those of us who question Lock's intervention was meant to be taken outside the context of whether Lock was doing the right thing with this policy. And it's a point well-taken. But back to those of us who've raised a stink: why can't it be about Lock? Why does our suspicion of intervention in these fraud cases have to be generalized to all sites? Our frustration isn't exclusively with Lock's intervention, it's the fact the Lock intervened despite a history of mishandling player security and integrity issues, despite a lack of opacity on certain policies, despite misleading, slow, and unreliable customer service, despite a parade of software glitches and bugs. It's not entirely unreasonable that someone could've read one of those threads 9 months ago and said "Meh, Lock intervened, don't have a problem with it" and read this thread yesterday and said "God, based on all the problems at Lock, I dont think I like the idea of them intervening in these cases" without being a hypocrite.
It absolutely can be about Lock - I just wasn't commenting on that. I was responding to the assertion that online sites in general shouldn't be intervening in trade disputes. If you feel that Lock specifically shouldn't be intervening, that's a different matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
I sympathise with your pov Bobo, and think this issue is defintely arguable both ways, but just don't like the idea that a site holds my money, someone complains that I promised them some of that money and the site just grabs it. Some of the examples you gave relate to scammers who had committed multiple examples of scamming Lock players - in those cases Lock is correct to intervene imo as the Lock account is basically being used as a tool for serial scamming. A single purported case isn't enough to warrant it imo as it is much more likely to arise from a genuine dispute or misunderstanding.
There definitely needs to be some criteria, and I'm sure different people will have varied opinions on what that should be. Hard to say what criteria this case meets without knowing the whole story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raidalot
The other important principle, which I think is a very shady area with some sites, is that any confiscated money must go to compensate players. Sites should not be able to lock accounts and just keep the cash.
That sounds reasonable. But it should be remembered that even when an account has money, it could "belong" to more than one person, and possibly even to the site itself if money was deposited fraudulently.