Alec how much did perky dump to you?

Did you give perky money for doing this?

Or did you transfer perky money any time soon. After. ?

If this was just a chip dump why did you have to come up with a signal to let you guys know what to do instead of just talking on phone,?

Did you know perky was being staked?

When this happened what was you relationship with perky?

There is evidence, Alec's hand histories and transfer records for around the time it happened. The people close to the situation know what happened. I have kn

jfc

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggymcfly
If someone owes you $150K and then makes plans to pay it, you're obviously not going to press him too hard on what the terms are. Yes, it's a little bit of a suspicious situation, but as has been brought up dozens of times in this thread, poker players are often naive.


Poker players can also be smart and scandalous. Alec seems pretty smart to me.

Close Alec's FTP Account for 2 months, that'll show him... oh wait

I think the discussion between RBK, ZJ and Krmont is important. It may not be specific to this thread but it is relevant for many future situations that may play out in a similar manner.

Also I just want to add a +1 to all of the points being made about what Alec did being potentially sketchy, but without any proof there is no evidence pointing to them clearly being wrong or illegal.

ebarnet I think is an idiot.... Just because rules are made about something doesn't mean that those rules are absolute truths and should be considered the be-all-end-all.

kanu made the strongest points of anyone in this thread.

Debt
Iggy is just as f'ing naive as the other life-long poker players in this thread.

Like if you robbed a bank and bought a car, you'd expect to have the car ready at the valet the minute you got out of jail.

We all get that breaking the rules can sometimes be innocent. When it is innocent, it goes unpunished because there are no victims.

It doesn't follow that: because rule-breaking is sometimes innocent, rule-breakers don't deserve to be punished when there are victims.

well no silly jails don't have valets.

seriously tho you're not not really stupid.

I'm sure you're not not not welcome anywhere in the world outside of the underground poker lifestyle.

zing!

This is a perfect analogy, because obviously Alec accepting a chip dump as payment of money owed to him is exactly like stealing from a bank.

wp sir, wp

lolololololololol.

ok so i just got this PM from ebernet.
please note i've never sent him a PM in my life, also please note he "reported" my post calling him stupid cuz it offended him so much and then he sends me this:


dude you need to seriously re-examine your life.
this might be the most pathetic thing i've ever seen a grown man stoop to in my entire life, congrats.

OK OK u right not the perfect analogy....

You rob a bank, then you give the money to your best bud... So he gets to keep the dough right?

So Lost: yes, because I laundered it first

Me: smh just smh

u butt hurt, bro?

fyi for all those who are arguing he broke the TOS so he must be shady, I'm under the impression that perky had a million accounts and not all of them were verified for high stakes, and for this reason he could not make huge transfers, that would explain why traheo accepted to chip dump, and make it somewhat "ok" in my book, since in this case he had really no other way to proceed (I mean someone has ONLY one way to clear his 150k debt to you and it's chipdumping, are you really going to refuse because it breaks the tos ?)

ps : I'm not taking sides I'm just trying to find a logical explanation for this

After reading some of Ebarnets more recent posts, I'm starting to come around. He's actually made a few really good points.

Is that really the only way? When you've collected money from him in person before, the obvious answer is no.

Secondly, you are to blame for extending credit to a scumbag when you get welched on.

Last of all... Letting him launder money thru FTP is not a legitimate nor credible way to proceed. Just because it happens a bunch and it's usually ok doesn't give traheho any defense when you find out about the scam. It's time to pay the piper.

ZJ, RBK, can you respond to the following question rather than get caught up in such a flaming derail?

Do you see a difference between person B stealing money and then giving it to person A to pay off a debt and person B convincing person A to be an unknowing accomplice in the theft in order for B to pay A?

Obviously it is pretty much cut and dry that Alec needs to return the 150k if he KNEW he was committing the theft, but I still personally think he should be returning the funds in the second scenario above. I am not even sure he should get to keep it in any scenario, but I am curious if you see a ethical difference between those two situations. Does the fact that Alec was part of the crime make a difference to you even if he didn't somehow know what was going on?

Yes it does, because he's not guilty of scamming people but agreeing to a doubtful payment mode, which is very different from viffer's accusations. If that is actually what happened I'm not saying that is was the right thing to do but it makes quite a difference in my book.

ZeeJustin, your philosophy: that rules are made to be broken, that rules cause confusion not clarity, and that you should determine your punishment is likely to find support among the degenerate delegation here, but when your M/O is money laundering, fraud, extortion, blackmail and defamation you won't last long avoiding the real consequences...

...Not saying you engage in that personally, I'd bet you've learned your lesson and will avoid those pitfalls.

I'm taking part in this thread to remind traheho that his holier than thou attitude is not well founded. He's going to try these tactics to get his 85k back and he quickly learned that he's probably on the hook for more than 85k. Of course, as a narcissist, he couldn't handle the thought that he had taken part in something evil... So he took off on vacation. It's a predictable story, and we all have something to learn from it.

Slight difference. The more information A has, the more guilty he his. I.e. the more sketchiness involved in being paid back = more reason to suspect something shady is going on = more responsibility on A's part.

According to Alec's story, Perky stole from two different people (as far as I'm concerned, welshing on a debt is the same as stealing). Perky paid back one of those two people (in part). It's not his responsibility to share his partial repayment of theft with the other parties stolen from, unless of course he was knowingly responsible for the theft.

WTF have you read?

He is guilty of chip dumping, and I have no problem with him being punished over that.

All I'm saying is you're focusing on the minor crime when we're focusing on the major one. How do you not understand that? I'm not saying it's not a crime. It just doesn't compare to outright stealing 150k.

What's worse: Someone stealing 150k, or someone laundering 150k? No brainer.

Which crime is worse: Murdering someone, or trying to cover up the murder? Same thing. The murder is what gets people executed. The cover up is what gets people a couple years in jail. Focus on the big picture.

Justin do you really believe Alec didn't know what was going on? Or are you just debating his side to debate it? Can people be so nieve to think Alec is an unfortunate victim here? With the stuff I know that I can't post here I'm convinced alec knew what was going on, that along with his responses and the circumstantial evidence it's a no brainier.

Justin, every drive by shooting has a driver. What do you think the driver gets... speeding ticket?

The question this boils down to is whether traheho is an accomplice or an accessory. By breaking ToS he is at least an accessory.

edit: heh, great timing, gr8