Bobo used the term permaban, but it seems not to mean anything if posters come right back with a different account. IMO, ban "permaban."

wow
I lol'd tk

i hope it's rigged!

How do you think this thread keeps going?

Steven Mears was banned as were several other of his gimmick accounts but he still came back and openly admitted that it was him.

Or do you want one rule for riggies and another for those who argue with them?

That would seem about par for the course for a riggie.

LOL If words like "permaban" had real meanings, that would be nice. Discussion and rules are pointless when different meanings are assigned according to personal whimsy.

The account is permanently banned. That's what it means. Why is this difficult to understand? You can create a term maybe like "permaperson banned" or something for IP bans if you want.

Jesus??? Because ill cover right now.


Free qpw.

OK, the account is permanently banned and the poster comes right back with a new account or a gimmick account. So what's the point?

Dude, he's come back with an clearly marked account with a stated intention to appeal his case. He knows that there is a chance his new account will also be banned. What's so hard to understand?

Banned doesn't mean banned here.

So I guess cheating doesn't mean cheating, and rigged doesn't mean rigged, and so on.

TwoMoos showing his exquisite logical deduction skills ITT.

Have just reviewed the sticky: What to do if you've been banned? Apparently, the whole process is flawed.

QPW was had quite a backing in this thread and was defended often.
He seemed to set the tone.
I am gonna miss him.

Is there a reason why we're getting all up in arms now about the process when over the top rigtards have been habitually returning with gimmick accounts following banning? Funny I didn't hear anyone saying anything then. Hypocrites.

Man, you just let your inner genius rip at will don't you?

Amazing words. They need their own Wiki entry.

Do Tell

And yet when pikachudemolisher was here, ranting and raving as if it was going out of fashion, and openly admitting to having been mumutrader you didn't say a word.

Words and phrases such as 'hypocrite and two-faced' spring to mind.

Perhaps you should observe that rule in your own posts.

At least the site applies the rule (which appears to that the account is banned rather than the poster) in a consistent fashion.

Make it Ryan or Mat; only they can overturn a mod's decision. Hoever, they rarely do AFAIK.

Is this really so hard to figure out? How do you think the process works? I ban you and you create a new account, how do I know it's you?

We could IP ban you, but that's silly to use on every banned poster for two reasons. First of all, you'd knock out a lot of potential new posters every timesome clown gets banned from a shared IP (library, university, Internet cafe, hotel, etc, etc). Secondly, lots of people post from multiple IPs, so it wouldn't work on everybody anyway.

So we ban people, and admit to the reality that if someone creates another account and behaves themselves, they'll be able to stick around. If they come back and start posting the same way, or immediately out themselves as a recently banned poster, then they'll probably get banned again. If they keep doing things, they may get IP banned in spite of the shortcomings mentioned above.

How so?

But I'm glad you mentioned it, because qpw should read it:

Sticky: What to do if you've been banned

And that's just ridiculous.

That's possible. I would suggest that the nature of this forum means we get a lot more scammers and beggars showing up - transfers thread, marketplace and staking forums, making wagers, etc.

I'd be surprised if 2+2 had a really high ratio of banned:active posters compared to other large forums, if you exclude scammers and spammers.

I take your point about the number of scammers and spammers.

It's just that I've noticed, looking at older threads, that quite often posters who you have seen in the past and who seem to make polite, level headed and sensible posts have 'banned' under their name and it's surprised me.

For example, if I saw pikachudemolisher had been banned it would seem perfectly reasonable but if it was spadebidder it would be quite a shock.

for quite some time, if you were banned temporarily, and then returned, you retained the 'banned' undertitle, imo.

I wanted to run it past you for your opinion before taking any further action.

However, as that does not seem to be practical I've emailed Mat. Not that I expect anything much to happen.

I have now read it.

It might be a good idea to reference that post in the 'banned' message as I'm sure the vast majority of 2+2 members are unaware of it's existence, let alone its contents.

guys, tell me again why I shouldn't mention the FACT that poker sites choose their own regulators....

oh, yea...I remember...

It's off topic for this thread........


LOL, btw...'bout time

How do you mean?

Don't every company, in all businesses and not just in online poker, do that based on their decision in which country/jurisdiction to operate?

Do you mean auditors and not regulators?

They all chose their auditors and can do that wherever they operate. It is for the companies owners/managers to make that decision. Of course, the auditors themselves may be regulated (slightly) differently in different jurisdictions.

Those who can base themselves anywhere can and occasionally do chose to do so on the basis of the most beneficial regulatory regime.

Somehow, I think all this will go straight over the head of BS who's simply looking for any stick he can find to beat the pokersites.