The only thoroughly planned deceit I see here is Lock's business plan

Shill

fyp

day 7 update, no response from lock support/security, but at least I've figured out who to block itt!

Shane, the longer you let this go without responding, the worse the morale/panic is going to get. "Assuming" Lock is not some sort of ponzi scheme about to go belly-up, if you intend to remain in business, I suggest you:
1. Set a transfer policy going forward so people can trade funds and not feel like they can never get the money off - there seems to be some confusion on this matter and this is crushing the value of Lock funds in the trading market. This should take 1 meeting amongst the decision- makers to resolve.
2. Deal with any past collusion/wrong-doing later. You need to stabilize the ship first - you don't need to do everything at once.
3. A small token release of some cashouts, even if it has to come from the owner's pockets, would also be good for morale.

You have now dipped below Merge in volume according to pokerscout, and prospects aren't looking particularly good right now.

+100000000 everything said here is spot on.
Why is there no updated transfer policy? How is it a good idea to have a mass of customers confused about transfer policies.

1. The policy on transfers going forward will come shortly, I have meetings on it this week.

2. The wrong doing has been dealt with.

3. There are cashouts already on their way out this week, just as cashouts went out last week, the week before and the one before that.

LOL @ this week. And why exactly does this require a meeting? Can't they just issue the policy? Shouldn't that have been done BEFORE they decided to alter the TOS?

And related to #3-do you see how your answer might be just a little bit insulting to people who've been waiting 4+ months for their money?

There is no evidence of this at all.

So you have meetings this week.
Took over 7 days to meet about this issue.
No meeting before the decision to make this change.
Yet now your entire player pool suffers
Great decision, also great for your already tarnished reputation.

Its funny cause, if you were in our shoes Shane, you'd likely never play a hand on Lock again.

But you have a sense of the bigger picture so we'll just sit back grab a coffee and enjoy life.

Needless to say that if ppl conducted themselves like Lock do in a large deal of there business practices, and the consistency of problems only seemed to grow, that surely any of your customers, and even some of your partners WOULD SERIOUSLY QUESTION if you can even operate anymore.

And that's not a product of your player base, its a product of management.

It seems like you're saying that people were abusing the system by receiving cashouts for too much money too quickly. The only a way a company could view that as abuse would be if there is a limit set on the amount the company can cashout per week/month, because they don't have enough funds to run the company and cover the player's balances. The players receiving their money in a timely fashion in not abuse.

Shane, the one question you haven't answered, and it's been asked a few times in this thread, is, does Lock have segregated player funds? Are all player balances available for cashout?

Keenly awaiting your response...

He's said in the past they are segregated. That obviously means nothing since there's no way to probe it

Thanks, that leaves one important question:

Are all player balances available for cashout?

that is a obsolete question as you dont believe the answer anyways.

so lol , like 4-5 monthe's ago ppls already sell lock for 0.6,7$ and why ppls still play here ? and its probably old in Rules like you received transfer 100$ you should RAKE 100$ LOLOL fu LOCK

I think you meant rhetorical question. You're not well educated for a shill.

I mean...I'm not claiming to be very educated because I'm not, but I'm pretty sure obselete is a more appropriate word for what he meant than rhetorical is.

Don't play the smartass game when you don't know what you're talking about.

Redundant is the word you're looking for guys...

Shane, you keep saying cashouts will/are improving, and yet they don't. Why? It can't just be payment processor issues as surely if it was ROW cashouts would be mostly unaffected? Therefore it seems that the only answer is some sort of foul play, either deliberate slow rolling or not having the funds. I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

As long as we are playing the word choice game, though, I am going to go with pointless>obsolete>redundant>rhetorical as far as the best word to use there.

I think obsolete is a poor choice as it usually refers to nouns (either concrete or abstract) that have been continuously relevant/used in some way. So in this case the question was posited just once so it doesn't really make sense, but a word or phrase can become obsolete because it's used (or not, as the case may be) over a period of time. You can't really say something is obsolete if it's never used in the first place, as that's what obsolescence means (it's probably from the latin ob "away" + an expanded form of solere "to be used to, be accustomed" but no one is sure). Also, really, considering both the definition and the connotations of the word, it is much more closely tied to concepts such as being out of date or no longer in use, rather than redundancy. Granted, a piece of technology (or whatever) could be called obsolete because it's made obsolete/redundant (here the two would be synonymous) by new technology, but just because here you can use redundant to mean obsolete it doesn't mean you can always use obsolete to mean redundant.

/Supernit

Of course, language is ever changing and flexible; you can use whatever words you want for whatever effect you want. 'Correctness' and prescriptivism are rapidly becoming obsolete (sorry) ideas in the world of linguistics. Here, my preference would be redundant. I think that conveys the meaning the most clearly and effectively, but y'all can do what you want, that's the great thing about language.

Good luck juggernaut and all others, sorry to participate in derail but I can't help myself...

"moot"

- of no practical importance; irrelevant
- of little or no practical value or meaning

"nugatory"

- of little or no importance or value; trifling
- having no force; invalid

also meaningless, irrelevant...interesting how they all seem to fit a tiny bit imperfectly, though i prefer "moot"

Shane simply when are we expecting an answer on how/when we can cashout after receiving a p2p. I lose quite a bit on the tables as u can prob see but make a bit thru rb does this all count towards the initial transfer amount

I stand corrected. I think we all know that the question is a waste of time as the answer wouldn't be truthful anyway.

The security team and upper management have had several meetings on this but I wasn't involved.

My comment about meeting more directly meant I am meeting with everyone to get briefed on it all.