Renee Xsie

[DMorgan]

What I said wasn't quite accurate, I don't think that you're apologising for stealing or that you think that stealing isn't bad...but you are advocating a culture of silence

You seem to view this as a transaction between two parties that has no effect whatsoever on anyone else. Clearly this is not the case because we see it time and time again that stealing/scamming is very rarely an isolated incident. That being true, anyone that might buy a piece of anyone stands to lose out when thieves are allowed to go from backer to backer stealing money without anyone warning others.

I would completely agree with your view Keith if there were no other stakeholders in the transaction, but I think that your characterisation of this activity as something that has no effect on anyone else in the poker community is wide of the mark

[Woodsey]

Stop it you bunch of filthy trolls 

[The Camel]

What I said wasn't quite accurate, I don't think that you're apologising for stealing or that you think that stealing isn't bad...but you are advocating a culture of silence

You seem to view this as a transaction between two parties that has no effect whatsoever on anyone else. Clearly this is not the case because we see it time and time again that stealing/scamming is very rarely an isolated incident. That being true, anyone that might buy a piece of anyone stands to lose out when thieves are allowed to go from backer to backer stealing money without anyone warning others.

I would completely agree with your view Keith if there were no other stakeholders in the transaction, but I think that your characterisation of this activity as something that has no effect on anyone else in the poker community is wide of the mark

But what gives anyone the right to act as judge and jury?

There are so many nuances and grey areas in these disputes. It is virtually never black and white. Look at some of the car crash threads on 2+2 if you don't believe me.

[The Camel]

The best example I can think of is the Max Steinberg v Tim West dispute on 2+2.

Horrible thread, horrible situation. And a great deal of money involved.

[DMorgan]

I'm not acting as judge and jury, she admitted her guilt and since Rexas was very reluctant to make this post I have assumed that the threshold of proof required for him to do so was extremely high.

If it was up in the air whether she actually did the crime or not then yes my point goes out the window and I would agree with you, but the way that this has been presented and that fact that she admitted her guilt by paying back half of it is proof enough imo.

[MANTIS01]

I really do agree that a consequence of abusing trust should be a public outing. The guilty party will have plenty of opportunities to avoid that eventuality by agreeing to do the right thing at any stage. There should be a backlash so everyone knows it is a bad thing. But what gets my goat is when people pick and choose who deserves such treatment. I remember that boldie fella's case being swept under the carpet. Blonde need to swing one way or t'other with this. I say every case needs airing, it's valuable to the poker community and it's healthy for the post count.

[celtic]

I really do agree that a consequence of abusing trust should be a public outing. The guilty party will have plenty of opportunities to avoid that eventuality by agreeing to do the right thing at any stage. There should be a backlash so everyone knows it is a bad thing. But what gets my goat is when people pick and choose who deserves such treatment. I remember that boldie fella's case being swept under the carpet. Blonde need to swing one way or t'other with this. I say every case needs airing, it's valuable to the poker community and it's healthy for the post count.

He had mental probs tho 👍🏻

[The Camel]

I'm not acting as judge and jury, she admitted her guilt and since Rexas was very reluctant to make this post I have assumed that the threshold of proof required for him to do so was extremely high.

If it was up in the air whether she actually did the crime or not then yes my point goes out the window and I would agree with you, but the way that this has been presented and that fact that she admitted her guilt by paying back half of it is proof enough imo.

I've been pretty careful not to defend her actions in any way.

But burden of proof shouldn't be left to mods / owners of a site to decide.

As a general point I don't think these threads should happen. What if the evidence is slightly less clear cut? Where is the line?

[TightEnd]

I really do agree that a consequence of abusing trust should be a public outing. The guilty party will have plenty of opportunities to avoid that eventuality by agreeing to do the right thing at any stage. There should be a backlash so everyone knows it is a bad thing. But what gets my goat is when people pick and choose who deserves such treatment. I remember that boldie fella's case being swept under the carpet. Blonde need to swing one way or t'other with this. I say every case needs airing, it's valuable to the poker community and it's healthy for the post count.

each case is seperate. We were implored by his family to remove it because there was a mental health risk. That put us in a very difficult situation indeed.

others have played out publically

Generally, while accepting that the need to ensure there is no contagion from someone grimming person/staking group a and then going to person/staking group b and doing the same is high, I personally would swing against blanket publicity. That said, this appears to be a case where there are fewer grey areas than most of these situations

word of mouth, social media etc is powerful and it avoids the type of ludicrous trolling and welter of recriminations/fall outs between posters that these threads always descend to.

[MANTIS01]

Yah but for all the righteous opinions people LOVE these threads. Because people just love rubbernecking. My man camel who doesn't agree with these threads has been super interactive as usual. Take away these threads, take away all the updates from other poker rooms, take away everything controversial and what do you have left? Boldie is one eg but I have seen more popular people get an infinitely easier ride. What I would say is it's a great opportunity for this bird or any wrongfully outted party to set the record straight. Much better than everyone gossiping behind your back.

[The Camel]

Yah but for all the righteous opinions people LOVE these threads. Because people just love rubbernecking. My man camel who doesn't agree with these threads has been super interactive as usual. Take away these threads, take away all the updates from other poker rooms, take away everything controversial and what do you have left? Boldie is one eg but I have seen more popular people get an infinitely easier ride. What I would say is it's a great opportunity for this bird or any wrongfully outted party to set the record straight. Much better than everyone gossiping behind your back.

Yeah, excellent post Mantis.

[RickBFA]

We all make mistakes in life. I think most of us are pretty forgiving when someone holds their hands up and say "I'm sorry I screwed up - lets find a way to sort it."

The problem is when people bury their head in the sand, try to find another way out, often chasing losses and often end up griming others.

If this type of thread stops that then I can see a benefit for the wider poker community.

[redsimon]

I really do agree that a consequence of abusing trust should be a public outing. The guilty party will have plenty of opportunities to avoid that eventuality by agreeing to do the right thing at any stage. There should be a backlash so everyone knows it is a bad thing. But what gets my goat is when people pick and choose who deserves such treatment. I remember that boldie fella's case being swept under the carpet. Blonde need to swing one way or t'other with this. I say every case needs airing, it's valuable to the poker community and it's healthy for the post count.

each case is seperate. We were implored by his family to remove it because there was a mental health risk. That put us in a very difficult situation indeed.

others have played out publically

Generally, while accepting that the need to ensure there is no contagion from someone grimming person/staking group a and then going to person/staking group b and doing the same is high, I personally would swing against blanket publicity. That said, this appears to be a case where there are fewer grey areas than most of these situations

word of mouth, social media etc is powerful and it avoids the type of ludicrous trolling and welter of recriminations/fall outs between posters that these threads always descend to.

Saw that guy on my FB timeline last year, seemed to have made a full recovery and was in full brag mode about life iirc

[celtic]

I really do agree that a consequence of abusing trust should be a public outing. The guilty party will have plenty of opportunities to avoid that eventuality by agreeing to do the right thing at any stage. There should be a backlash so everyone knows it is a bad thing. But what gets my goat is when people pick and choose who deserves such treatment. I remember that boldie fella's case being swept under the carpet. Blonde need to swing one way or t'other with this. I say every case needs airing, it's valuable to the poker community and it's healthy for the post count.

each case is seperate. We were implored by his family to remove it because there was a mental health risk. That put us in a very difficult situation indeed.

others have played out publically

Generally, while accepting that the need to ensure there is no contagion from someone grimming person/staking group a and then going to person/staking group b and doing the same is high, I personally would swing against blanket publicity. That said, this appears to be a case where there are fewer grey areas than most of these situations

word of mouth, social media etc is powerful and it avoids the type of ludicrous trolling and welter of recriminations/fall outs between posters that these threads always descend to.

Saw that guy on my FB timeline last year, seemed to have made a full recovery and was in full brag mode about life iirc

Grass

[EvilPie]

I really do agree that a consequence of abusing trust should be a public outing. The guilty party will have plenty of opportunities to avoid that eventuality by agreeing to do the right thing at any stage. There should be a backlash so everyone knows it is a bad thing. But what gets my goat is when people pick and choose who deserves such treatment. I remember that boldie fella's case being swept under the carpet. Blonde need to swing one way or t'other with this. I say every case needs airing, it's valuable to the poker community and it's healthy for the post count.

Boldie was 'outed' though wasn't he? If he wasn't then how the hell do you or I know about it?

It wasn't swept under the carpet. Everybody who was about on the forum at the time knows about it same as everybody active on Blonde now knows about Renee.

I think Boldie was a scumbag for what he did same as I think Renee is a scumbag.