Stox, you should divulge sn's to prove there was in fact, no collusion. I'm a customer. Cough it up, yo.

+1 although I posted on the Stox forums asking to confirm/deny whether any of the 5 names mentioned were his or anyone he was involved with and he said he would not say any more about it.

You know there's an ethics problem when online poker training starts getting compared to major league baseball. I thought we were better than that...

U shouldnt have Sauce's name on this list. From what i remember FTP asked him to switch back to his old name(without RB). His name is very obv and similar to his Stars name. And he made a post in HSNL saying it was him and that he had been forced by FTP to switch.

obv something to hide. pretty sad.

We believe the original thread was started by someone who was already banned from Two Plus Two. Once this is the case, the person is not allowed to post on www.twoplustwo.com anymore. So the post/thread would have been removed no matter what it said.

Best wishes,
Mason

So the mods were acting appropriately, because they accidentally acted in a way that coincidentally resulted in what you wanted?

There's no need to cross the line on this. If Mason (or someone in the mod/admin team) had reason to believe the OP was a banned user, then it's totally defensible that the post would get removed. There's nothing wrong with a zero tolerance policy for banned users. The coincidence here is that a banned user actually had something to say that people care about.

If that were true, do you think this one, or the one in HSNL would still exist?

Note what I bolded.

That's not why the thread was moved.

quoting with permission from nick rivers. i mean, this is pretty ****ing sick
this is all true i guess

no it's not. lol.

Many players had multiple accounts early in the game. While always wrong, it was known, rarely looked down upon, and frankly wasn't much of an issue. Self-policing poker evolved over time. I think it's quite possible some didn't even know it was against the rules, it was openly discussed. I'm not condoning the behavior, simply you had to play then to understand the shift in thinking on this. I didn't, that's not my point. My point is to do this now, with all the scrutiny, with all the heat already on poker from multiple fronts, is beyond stupid.

I have no idea about Stox personally. In other words, I can conceive of things in life that might make it advisable to start a second account. Attention from LE, a divorce, etc, but any of those matters should have been cleared through the site and made publically known to the small number of people in that HS circle.

Uh, sure. Your training people to play a game where deception and bullying is considered fair and optimal play (inarguable)...In an environment where collusion and team play of solo game is commonplace (see here)...Hosted by institutions that stole millions from their players (Dutch Boyd, AP, UB, MicroGaming)...and everybody really really really hopes the RNG's are truly random.

So you think you're better than who?

Question: Are live players who undergo cosmetic surgery to radically alter their appearance cheaters?

Wearing makeup/wig at a live poker game is not against the rules.

Having multiple accounts at an online poker site is specifically against the rules.

I'll let somebody who can explain the business end of baseball chime in here, but point taken (well articulated too).

Agreed. He also went out of his way to let anyone who sat to play the new name HU know it was him.

Wasnt data mining only recently forbidden on full tilt? I mean anyway compared to rest of allegations this is a somewhat moot point but still if the video is from the period when data mining was OK then there isn't a problem.

Thanks to Viffer for posting this information.

****ing Stox and CR seem like scumbags. I hope they comment to save their name and rep, at least CR. In Stox's case it seems like it might be too late, though I have an open mind.

Where'd the Viffer post go? Seemed to be pretty serious business.

****ing great, slow pony. Can someone construct a hypothetical situation that doesn't involve anyone we know yet conveys the gist of Viffer's post?