Sure. My experience has been the complete opposite. I've had a cpl of issues and they were fixed within 24 hours. I've found almost all the people courteous and pleasant to deal with, even engaged chat with them now and then. That is something I never do. Well, I did enjoy your childish bantering when you referred to me as a site bot after I felted you the third time on a micro cash table, 5/10, for the third time. You amusingly suggested I was another site bot that was an insider.

I have seen you verbal trash and attack women in the chat box during play on the really big tables....2/4. See, what you dont get is, only a piece of garbage would say those things to some stranger, especially a female. What you said wasn't trash talking to tilt someone. Twice I've seen people asked you to stfu and leave someone alone that had also asked for you to stop.

That kind of stuff is what grade A a-holes do. My claim is proven true just by the way your low IQ brain posted above.

On every level, you are classless. Take some time and think about what you say and do, how it impacts someone else. Maybe there is something in your past that has brought on poor judgment. Spend some time and figure out how you can be a decent human being. I am far from a regular on SWC, but I'll continue to look for you in games.

Seriously, and totally without malfeasance or sarcasm, think about what you say and how you say it to others. Those people may have issues from their own past, they may have none but just wanted to play some penny poker without being verbally assaulted by someone. Grow up.

I know zippo about what happened in 2016. I do know that believable people tend to post their evidence vs making world random claims. Do it, how could anyone discuss something that has no anything?

No, I was talking about a lady that had asked you repeatedly to leave her alone, several other players told you to stfu, you continued and she eventually sat out. That's not game talk.

You'll excuse me if I don't believe your comment about being one of the best BigO, PLO, Omaha anything. I only brought up that particular game because you ranted and raved about me being a f'n site bot. I did let you carry on prior to having fun with you. I don't care what someone says to me in the chat box, ever. I do care when it crosses the line and becomes harassing. If you were playing live, you would have been penalized. Throw out if you continued.

Like I said, maybe something in your past is the cause for the anger issues and toxic butthurt. Take a step back and look at what you've said and done. Some random female, or anyone, that is sitting down to play some social poker at penny stake level does not need to deal with that crap. It's called class and you are crass. It rhymes, but isn't synonymous. Deep down inside, you might be a very good person with a tough past. Consider your words and actions towards completely innocent people. You choose to be a decent person or a tool. It wasn't fun or amusing to the person I saw targeted. Weak people attack, strong people defend.

No, you are not. I am.

For those who don't know: This guy is Ruckuss. Ruckuss has a really big ego which I exploited by proposing a HU challenge which actually materialized. Whoever won 100k chips ($600) would get an extra 20k ($120) on top.

We played one session, he lost 23k and then he bought out for 7k of the sidebet. Now he is very, very salty.

Additionally, he had an earlier post of him REMOVED here, which should NOT be allowed, by another SWC player who seemingly has connections at 2+2 in exchange for his SWC chat to be unmuted. Which is a bribe SWC took that kinda annoyed me. But whatever.

He was not cheated against and he was not trolled. He was needled to get action, he took the bait, lost and now he's seething with rage.

Thanks for the 180 bucks Ruckuss, see you soon on an alt.

My question, which has never been answered, is can Glitch, who seems to be an admin/back end support, see cards-up hand histories of hands that have been played? Because if he's support, he should be able to, to help the site protect against colluders. But if he can see people's cards face-up (after the fact), that would give him a massive edge when he plays against those players in the future.

Pretty sure this didn't happen; perhaps you can share your evidence?

Indeed:

In fact, I can:



In this post, a post of me was quoted where I answered to Ruckuss (SmallStakesPro here). Neither can I find my actual post nor the post of SSP I reacted to, where he went on one of his little rants. These posts were deleted, a person I won't name but who has credentials in the highstakes transfer thread even told us in SWC chat that he would get it done "but my contact is probably still asleep" (paraphrased).

Let's complete a HU Challenge SlySkeevo. This time, let's, make it quick and painless. Here is my proposition:

5x 5k HU Plo8 5 card SNG- Best out of 5 Wins

30k Sidebet goes to winner

We start and finish in the same session, play 1 game at a time until there is a winner.

Let me know ASAP sweetie. 😗

I thought you wouldn't return? Come to SWC chat and we can discuss it there, I'm definitely interested but this is not the right place.

I'm there right now. I see you're harassing another long time reg and bragging about extracting the large sum of $20 off of him.

This is actually the perfect place. I made the terms crystal clear. Do you accept?

You two might want to look into some marriage counselling.

All the best.

A few things come to mind:

a) this has been going on for a long time.

b) I'm not going to quit on swc because of rigging allegations.

c) I can't think of anyone that has quit swc due to rigging allegations by another member; they tend to make up their own minds.

So who benefits from all this?

People that are skeptical about the site and on the fence about playing there. People that have had similar experiences, etc. And pretty much anyone else that plays there in general. Just be aware that you're playing on a platform where atleast one of the people that runs the site (Glitch) talk to players in private, play favorites, takes exception to certain players and is quite frankly so obsessed with the social aspect of it that he can't even throw some tournaments up for US players. Too busy moderating chat and god knows what else.

think about how many people have tried out the site, now imagine being in the bottom 0.1% of unluckiest seals ever. These people don't need any encouragement to think they're being cheated, and thus you don't benefit them by being on your crusade.

You're basically picket protesting to these people, but these are the people that know you from the chatbox; your picket sign reads "turn back! it's rigged!" but they don't take you seriously because of how you act when things get heated.

----

To those that might be skeptical of the site, or on the fence about playing here:

I value security first, functionality second, and in these regards seals has never let me down. This doesn't mean that I haven't had any bad things happen on seals; the site has had some problems. However, when the **** hits the fan, some sites fold and some sites regroup and recover. When they shut down 1.0, seals regrouped and recovered. When a bug messed up which player got rewarded a sidepot, seals repaid, regrouped and recovered. They basically had every opportunity to give up, but instead they came out with 3.0 almost as soon as the 3.0 platform became superior to 2.0.

Other more minor things have happened, such as the time 50+ chips ended up in my account by a mystery deposit. I emailed support and they confirmed it was a mistake. They took back the chips and gave me a 10 chip thank you. Another time I got booted from a big tourney just as the bubble approached. They gave me a mincash just to be nice.

Could seals be better? Sure there's always room for improvement. However, I believe that a site shows its true colors in the worst of times. Seals hasn't disappointed me yet in this regard.

I am TheShadow747 on every site I play on....

And I will say, whatever my gender is, your comment was quite rude.... You said dick lickers are mentally ill sub humans. You literally drove someone away from a table we were at. plo8 and big o are niche games, small player pools, you don't want to drive new players away. I am not saying I have never heckled a player before, but I know that is not a new player that will not come back ever again. (im doing it to get under their skin, make them play more aggro vs me.)

I guess I should have been more clear. The posts were deleted, there was no doubt about that; it was this silliness about bribes and connections at 2+2 that I was referring to:

The truth was much simpler, as it usually is. The poster himself reported the post, saying:

I didn't have an issue with the request, so I deleted it and the two posts that were replying to it. Sometimes we will grant edit and deletion requests, and sometimes we don't; it really depends on the situation. No connections or bribes needed.

In future, it would be appreciated if you could refrain from the accusations of nefarious modding when you have no proof of it.

I didn't say that 2+2 took a bribe, I said that SWC did. Which they did, they restored his chat privileges in exchange for this post to be removed. It is also true that a person contacted one of your mods with regards to the removal of this post, whether it had any influence on the removal or not I obviously can't say. I do know that policy on 2+2 for years has been that criticism/allegations won't be removed for this exact reason (potential quid pro quos/bribes).

Anyways, doesn't really matter.

I'm aware of that, which is why I didn't say you did. However, you did associate a modding decision with this alleged bribe, which is what I find highly offensive.

Really? Pretty ****ty deal on their part then, given that the two things are completely unrelated.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but I suppose it's possible that this one part of your accusations was true.

Too bad you didn't mention that in your original post:

No qualification or equivocation there. No "I obviously can't say", just that he had it removed by another SWC player - which he didn't. No mention that this was just your speculation or conjecture - you posted it like a statement of fact. Which of course it wasn't.

Once again, you are incorrect, although at least you're not far off the mark this time.

If someone posts about someone who scammed them, a problem with a site, etc., and then wants it deleted after it's resolved, it's quite rare that we do more than edit the post to indicate it has been resolved. However, if they want it deleted because it was an incorrect accusation that they wish to retract, if we believe that's correct, we will often grant the request.

Yes, it does. It matters a great deal when you declare that posts were deleted for suspect reasons, when you have no evidence whatsoever that this is true.

Dude, you being this offended just looks like you have something to hide. Just let it go.

Well, they get to remove negative reviews for effectively nothing (and they can always re-mute him for his next offense).. I disagree that that is a bad deal. There are companies who pay a lot of money to have bad reviews removed.

Additionally, whether a reason to delete a post is suspect or not is not up to you to decide. I still find it questionable at best (and I do know that policy here has been more rigorous before, I've been here for a looong time).

there are freerolls to get your feet wet, and there are 0.025 btc mixed tourneys, and everything in between. If you don't see a game listed that you want to play at a certain stake level? Say "I'd like to play ___ for ___ btc" in the main chatroom and they can usually have a game on the menu for you soon, possibly within minutes if those with the power to add games are present.

I would think that combo games would be more complicated and would probably take a while longer.

welcome.

No, it doesn't. But pretty cool of you to once again try to make us look shady with nothing to base it on.

I'm ready to let it go any time, but you keep coming back with more inferences that there has been some wrongdoing on our part.

I told you the real reason why the post was deleted. Rather than just backing down and admitting that you had incorrect information, or just leaving it alone, you keep coming back with little insinuations based on nothing.

What I'm saying is that they didn't need to make a deal in the first place, unless I'm misunderstanding who you say got their chat privileges back. It sounded like you meant the third party who supposedly contacted a mystery mod here. If you meant SSP got his chat back, then I guess they would be happy with the results, and the situation is rather unfortunate.

I don't recall having commented on any such decision. I said you had declared that posts were deleted for suspect reasons, with no evidence to back that up. I stand by that statement. Of course, since I'm the one who deleted the posts, I know it wasn't done for suspect reasons. If you want to believe I'm lying, I suppose that's up to you.

And of course you can't end off the post without one more shot.

I'm curious - what exactly do you think is at play here? SWCPoker doesn't advertise with us, and if you know anything about the relationship between the owners of their site and ours, you'd know there would be no reason for special favours. So why exactly would we be deleting posts that are critical about SWCPoker and then covering it up?

I've been a mod in this forum for 9 years, and I would have been just as likely to delete those posts 9 years ago as I would today.

Alright, listen dude, last post from me with regards to this, so try to follow along this time:

Never have I said that 2+2 did anything technically wrong. I said that SWC, in my book, did something wrong by giving SSP his chat privileges back in exchange for him trying to get critical posts removed from multiple forums (BCT and here). I know that a very reputable person NOT associated with SWC has contacts to one of your mods or you and he claimed to "have gotten rid" of the comment for Ruckuss. Maybe he was wrong and it was you for "legimitate" reasons instead. If you want that name, you can PM me. Even if he was right, it's in 2+2's right to delete any content they want (such as it is SWCs right to take the bribe!), I just do not agree with it.

Furthermore, I have been here for 11 years and I am absolutely positive that the site wide rule was that no allegations would be removed for any reason, whether it was fraud claims wrt to single persons or sites. Whether you have followed this 9 years ago, I don't know, but it was the communicated guide line.

I still do not agree with the decision to delete it, but at no point did I imply ill intent on 2+2's side. It's not wrongdoing, it's, imo, a bad decision.

Just for curiosities sake, why are you claiming to be a female in chat when you've streamed on Twitch with a face cam and are clearly a male?

Been following along just fine, but thanks for the condescension. The clarification on whose chat privileges were restored is appreciated, however. If this was why he asked to have his post deleted, and had I known that at the time, I likely wouldn't have deleted his post. Although the nature of the accusation certainly was a factor as well; it was a lot of anecdotes about super using and sold accounts with nothing in the way of evidence, and no one ever backed him up on any of it. The funny thing is, you dismissed him as a conspiracy nut, and in post #1466 he replies to you and repeats most of his claims - a post that is still here. Anyway, my point is that when an accusation sounds more like a rant from someone being on tilt than something actually based on fact, I'd be much more likely to delete it at the poster's request than at other times.

I'm not sure why this point is so important to you, but I went back and had a look at my own account to see when I became a mod - it was actually 10.5 years ago. And I was one of the most active posters in this forum prior to that as well, so I think I have a pretty good handle on what site policies were. I think the difference is in our views is explained in the last words of the quote above - "guide line". Sure, as a general rule/guideline, we don't delete accusations. That's what I'd tell anyone that asks, because we don't want people throwing around weak accusations and then asking for them to be removed, we don't want people taking hush money/bribes to cover up scandals on sites, and when someone scams we still want some record of what happened even if they pay back in full, because our members should be warned of who to avoid. All that said, there are sometimes exceptions made. This was one of them. In hindsight, perhaps it shouldn't have been, but I don't think there's much, if any, harm done since the allegations were pretty weak, and they remain in post #1466. Actually, in multiple posts.

Fair enough.

because gender is a malleable social construct.

If there’s an actual post that should be removed, it’s this one.