Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="DS3, post: 6438902, member: 407846"] I often wish if people reply, they actually ready the full thread and inform themselves of what has transpired, and what is legally permitted. First, the scandal which Kenney was involved in has already been made public (regarding Lauren Roberts) and it confirmed the fact that she lost over $2 million in games organized by Kenney featuring his stable playing against her. Imsimoric and Schindler were thrown off GG Poker (along with 80 other players half of which were suspended and the other half banned). GG Poker made the bans and suspensions public. Schindler was also kicked off PokerStars some years ago. Regarding what is allowed (as above and stated previously) under Nevada law casinos reserve the rights to withhold service from anyone they feel fit. If there is strong cause to believe someone has defrauded online, there is no legal demand to 'be found guilty', the casinos (in this case the WSOP) and casinos could have refused all mentioned entry to play. Finally, there are always going to be problem areas with revealing the exact nature of what has transpired on line in terms of fraud and the formation of black lists and cross industry online and live bans. Francis Lincoln, who heads PokerStars Playing Integrity recently pointed out he believes that fully outing people and then passing information to third parties regarding fraud (one site to another to form black lists) is actually a nonstarter, because it is against the law to share such details. The reason being is that all sites have confidentiality clauses in their terms of service which are standard in any business handling a clients money. All such details/matters are to be kept in strict confidence and none of this information is allowed to casually (or otherwise) be passed to other parties - ie. by law no one can share such information. So, an online site can ban a player if they believe he has been using Real Time Assistance and a casino can refuse service to anyone at any time but what online sites cannot do is publicly state who and why they have thrown a player off site. Of course there are exceptional circumstances where someone such as Gordon Vayo sued PokerStars for refusing to pay him his prize after winning an online tournament when the matter was processed in court through the legal system (Vayo lost for using a VPN). But this is not what is being discussed here so blithely citing 'innocent until proven guilty' had little to no bearing on these examples. This is players defrauding other players and if the site believes they have done so, the sites ban them under their terms of service. Finally, as said, if throwing out 'innocent until proven guilty' as if it did have bearing, note that none of the accused (as in those discussed in the public domain) have sued anyone for defamation or to retrieve funds back from the sites that were said to be confiscated. In some cases they have actually been offered interviews but refused to discuss the matter at all (Imsirovic and Schindler). If innocent, don't you think someone would try to clear their name? [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language