View Single Post
Old 08-30-2011, 04:29 PM   #65
LockRizen
banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,152
Re: Lock Poker has questions to answer [ref girah scandal] (X post from NVG)

The quotes would get messy, so hopefully this just appears under raidalot's post.

1) I will concede it was obviously also about Jose, my wording was poor. It was primarily about the challenge though.

2) I addressed this in another post, and I realize it's semantics, but it was never said that he 'legitimately won the challenge', that's taking a part of the quote somewhat out of context. It was stated that enough money was won from his on IP to have legitimately won the challenge. Again, it's semantics, but I could say 'I've won enough money in my lifetime to have legitimately won the challenge' and that's a factual statement, even though it is quite obvious that the terms of the contest require it to be won in a month. The terms of the contest required play to adhere to the rules and regulations of Lock and Merge, so the sentence itself shouldn't have been included and is kind of ridiculous. Full audit or no, chip dumping or no, the 'backer on his account' alone means nothing was 'legitimately won' regardless of if he would have won without violating that particular rule.

The wording of the sentence was terrible, but semantically it is the same as if the statement read 'If Jose hadn't violated the rules, he would have legitimately won the challenge'. well.... duh?

Notice how differently the sentence reads if it has been stated 'Although Jose legitimately won enough money from his own IP to have won the challenge'. The two are completely different sentences with different meanings and everyone is interpreting the former as the latter. Like I said, poor word choice, and I always hate to use semantics as an out, but in this case it really does change the meaning of the sentence. It's part of the reason intent is so important IMO. If it's over zealous PR trying to put a positive spin on a negative situation, that's a lot different than what is being implied. You obviously know my opinions on the intent.

3) That's a quote from Jose. Yes it's in our release and yes he was a sponsored pro of our site. Yes, we deserve a certain hit because as a sponsored pro we are essentially endorsing him as a person. I cannot elaborate on the Jose incident in particular but if I were to have quoted Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal (hopefully this doesn't date me) and issued a release that he 'did not have sexual relations with that woman' and then found out later that that is because he doesn't view a BJ as sex, it means that I made a poor choice in quoting Bill Clinton, not that I don't think a BJ counts as sex. I realize the anology isn't perfect, and personal opinions on BJs, sex, and cheating aside, hopefully it makes the point.

I certainly understand the view points and questions. I also certainly expect that we are to be held accountable for endorsing Jose. I get all that and if the situation were reversed I would certainly be asking similar questions and be questioning our ability as a judge of character. That is something we have to repair over time and with future actions, and I know for some people it might never be repaired.

What I don't agree with is the implied accusations that we were complicit in some sort of elaborate cover up or that without pressure from 2+2 Jose never would have been DQ'd from the challenge. Neither of those are true, although I realize without being able to release a lot of information at this time that's just my word and nothing more. I sincerely hope that these things end up coming to light as a part of the legal process, but I can't go into great detail about them right now.

To be clear, on the elaborate HU high stake scheme, 2+2ers were critical in uncovering that, as there is no way we woud have been able to put it together since so much of it took place via skype/teamviewer. Obviously some people can assume we only acted on that info because the 2+2ers would have come here and posted it anyways. Obviously this is just my word, but in other situations where non 2+2ers have come to us with information (although obviously not of this magnitude) we've always acted on it provided we could verify it was true.

so i don't want anyone to think I'm discounting 2+2ers parts in the high stakes HU issues, I am simply stating that in my experience with Lock over the last 2+ years, they've always attempted to do what they thought was right regardless of if there would be a spotlight on the issue or not. I won't argue that all of those decisions were correct with the full benefit of hindsight, but I will definitely argue that the process to come to those decisions was one that came from the right place.

-Rizen
LockRizen is offline