I just don't get why we're still going down this road. Does this mean you guys actually think a regulation would exist that would prohibit Stars from telling a player he was being banned for his winrate? Or that they're lying about this being an issue of what regulations allow them to do?

Meh, I don't know why I'm still bothering. If you guys really want to continue running around fretting over Stars booting OP for some reason to do with his style of play despite there being no evidence of that, knock yourselves out I guess.

Possibly.

Although, in your example, the customer is usually told of the reasons, can access a full copy of his credit report via credit reference agencies and has plenty of other options that can provide the same substantive service (even small banks can grant mortgages for hundreds of thousands). So thats hardly the same issue due to it not being a dominant position and the abundance of information available.

I should point out that whilst I think Stars have to provide a reason and can be compelled via the courts to do so (either now or in the future) theres nothing stopping them from coming up with a valid reason and OP still not being allowed back on Stars.

Anything over 50% raises a presumption that it is a dominant position though. Ive no idea what Stars' (or rather Rational Groups) market share is, but Im guessing its >80%. Suggesting that that level isnt a dominant position seems unarguable to me.

come on stars at least provide a reason...

I'm not, nor have I ever, suggested that Stars is banning him for his "griming, bumhunting, or being a winning player".

If it is due to these new accounts then they should just say we are banning you due to your possible relationship with these 5 new accounts. As it stands they provide no reason and it's for that lack of openness that I have issues with. There is no regulation that's stopping them from stating that this is the reason as we've seen countless threads on here where we've seen that email stating due to your relationship with x we no longer want your business.

You're right, I shouldn't have grouped your posts together, sorry.

And what if it's something like this?

I suppose there is a possibility to what xalas posted. Therefore I'll back off final judgement until then. I hope OP notifies the IOM gaming commission to find out if that's the scenario.

The crucial word there is "can" - they are not obliged to tell GSC and even if they do GSC has the discretion to not even tell the player that reason they were banned.

If P/S informs them that it was a highly sensitive security reason that he was banned, that will provide the GSC with even more impetus to not provide that reason to the player. And there is nothing stopping P/S IMO from providing a totally irrelevant reason to GSC to justify the banning given the ambiguities in the clause cited by P/S to ban the player and the lack of external investigative power that the GSC has into P/S operations.

The other point is that even if they do inform the OP of a reason there is no legal recourse that the OP can turn to.

The GSC can only make guidance and recommendations it cannot order P/S to do something such as re-instituting his account.

The Independent Arbitration Service which appears as an option on GSC's site to independently arbitrate on the matter cannot do anything as Pokerstars is not a registered operator and thus not subject to this service.

Yes, i'm going to follow that route even though I have zero hopes that will change anything. Haven't had the time to as I've had a few busy days, but I will in the next few days.

I just can't see how it would lead to them reopening my account, I'm pretty sure they will just tell IOMGC that someone tried to launder money (or wtf there might be going on, I still don't have a clue) and now i'm a 'risk', and IOMGC will be like, okaaay decision made you were right now stop wasting our time. I might be a bit pessimistic but I don't really believe in these 'regulatory bodies'. Just see how they handled previous situations where sites went broke, like minted.

But I'm still going to try, even though i'm super frustrated and about to smash things here in my office.

Oh, I wanted to say something to all these people telling me 'hey man look they can just ban you even when you are totally innocent so stop complaining'.

Just imagine you'd be lifted from your bed one day, put in front of a judge, and be told 'so yeah we think you committed a crime, we don't have proof or well at least, we are not going to tell you what proof we think we have, and yeah, you can not appeal to this verdict, and we are not even going to tell you how we came to our conclusion, so yeah, here's a life long sentence'.

Would you just shrug and be like, oh yeah that's fine?

Or would you say 'that's a weird analogy'? Because that's what happens in North Korea and I'm sure everyone is against a governement treating people that way. Why is it suddenly ok if it's a 'private company'?

That definitely is an absurd analogy. You haven't been sentenced by Stars, their aim is not to punish you. They don't want to do business with you anymore, that's all.

And even though I can see why you don't think the way Stars handled is fine, that doesn't mean Stars should have handled differently. Sometimes in life you have to accept that something isn't fine, but that you can't do anything about it either. Even if you could, your self-respect should prevent you from making such a drama after being turned away. That analogy about being refused entrance at a club and keeping asking the bouncer to get in was pretty spot-on.

And obviously government behaviour is subject to completely different standards than behaviour of private companies. There's so many reasons for that I don't even know where to begin. A pretty fundamental principle of civilised countries is that private parties are entitled to do as they wish as long as they don't invade the freedom of someone else. This obviously includes choosing who to do business with unless discrimination is involved. A government is chosen by the people to serve the interests of the people and as such it doesn't have a self-standing claim to arbitrarily do as it sees fit.

If you really think someone owes you a reason to not do business with you, how would that apply to yourself if the roles are reversed? Do you owe Lock-poker an explanation for not playing there? Do you have to prove Lock-poker is insolvent before you can refuse to do business with them? Does not doing business with Lock makes your behaviour comparable to the North-Korean government?

The comparison with North-Korea is poorly chosen anyway. Not being able to play on Stars are just white man's problems, although you do manage to make a big fuss out of it.

I still feel that the parameters set up by Rational Group and the IOM license for denying business should be consistent regardless of whether the site is at risk to losing money or players are at risk of losing money.
I don't believe this to be parallel.

Try being a pro and being locked out of the 2 sites that hold like 70% of the market. That's not a 'white mans problem' it means you are near jobless after having invested 7 years of your life getting where you are.

How is that not being sentenced? And how should I not make a drama? It's so easy to post such absurd **** when you are a random recreational player.

looks like you are going to have to move to NJ

Doesn't seems a big concern for you, I quote yourself in another thread :

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=31

Whether something is a punishment or not is based upon the intent of the acting party, and not upon how the action is perceived by the person impacted. If an employer fires someone for whatever reason, that is a punishment because someone lost his job? Obviously not: negative consequences ≠ punishment. So it's not being sentenced because a sentence is intended as punitive, and as far as we can know Stars doesn't intend to punish you but just wants to avoid doing business with you any longer. If they would want to punish you they'd make clear why they did it to deter others from doing the same. The problem is you look at all this only from your own perspective, and refuse to take the perspective from someone else into account. Maybe that’s why you didn’t answer the Lock question; that requires you to look at it from Stars perspective, and then your logic fails.

You shouldn’t make a drama because you gain nothing by it, and I wouldn’t because it’d be bad for my self-respect to give some random Stars security employee the idea my life depends on him. But that might be personal.

WTF. OP you might best be honest about where you're playing and for how long etcetera. Personally I believe that Stars made a weird decision in your case. Although they are unlickely to change their mind anyway, inconsistancies like this for sure won't help.

*

Edit/MH: Link: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=31