Quote:
Originally Posted by alligatorhater
I wish people would stop moaning about something that is a win win for everybody. Fields remain big and fishy vs small fields with much tougher line ups. This isn't some mass conspiracy. We finally have big tournaments back on the map and people just moan and want them axeing down. I would bet the vast majority of people moaning about this didn't even play the comp.
You make some valid points and I understand them along with the "good for the poker business" argument behind them.
However, there is publicly-available information, liberally spread by licensing authorities in certain jurisdictions that either directly or indirectly addresses the numerous "social responsibility" lapses that abuse of these operator business methods create -- particularly when it comes to
misleading advertising and
targeting of vulnerable consumers.
Furthermore, this system (once those involved gain the necessary experience and sophistication to efficiently abuse it) creates
gaping orifices in legitimate fan outreach/marketing services that the poker industry naturally depends on for new business generation -- not least of which is rankings.
Take Alex Dreyfus and THM/GPI for example. How do you think they feel about the source material -- for what the company has attempted to market as a bonafide rankings system -- being further manipulated to favor certain players in ways that have nothing to do with "live poker skill?"
How about the RG Network and the company's
recent acquisition of online rankings site PocketFives? Anyone feel like reaching out to Adam Small and asking him for observations on what he thinks about the source material for peer-to-peer gaming rankings being further dumped on by "pro" player influencers who clearly
don't have a firm grasp on how new or casual players will eventually perceive such practices once the abuses become rampant?
I haven't reached out to either on this b/c it's supplemental to the actual story -- which is how these practices
go against existing UKGC "social responsibility" rules in ways that are self-evident to even laypeople (including players), to the point where players, media or whoever can sufficiently connect the dots and progress the discussion.
It's unfortunate that no official response from partypoker has been offered, but the story is there, is already being talked about and released to the public by high profile players, and can be relayed in a way that addresses player concerns while offering verifiable methods -- promoted by an established licensing authority -- for escalating complaints through third-party Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services.
Whether this process grants an overall "value" to players by enabling them to formally escalate an issue to an "independent" arbitrator -- or is simply a gimmick designed to funnel informed players into a never-ending cesspool of disadvantageous negotiating positions (a la PokerStars SNE Removal and the fact that most iGaming players on regulated sites would be contractually obligated to lodge civil action in far-off jurisdictions) is another question altogether.