Tribeca NL players

[thetank]

 What is your agenda?

In the event of these allegations being true, that they are handled in a manner whereby you don't come off as someone with a vendetta.

If the facts are on your side, argue simply them, rather than hordes of conjecture that few will read, and those who do will quickly tire of. If these players have been cheating, you don't want to overdo all this and come across as just another internet conspiracy theorist.

[Eskabor]

The "I need a stake" is in my MSN screename.. not intentionally posted in these forums to try and get staked. I'm not sure what turning a bilnd eye means to you.. but I would assume there are degrees of it. If you read this whole thread and the 2+2 one I talked about warning people months ago many times. So by your definition I didn't turn a blind eye? I believe I did as I did not publically expose them as I am now. I was stuck under bad circumstances but I don't think cheaters should of also ruined my business. I was already under suspicion for cheating (i have an apology email from BOS for that as well) and it could very likely have been bad for me. Especially since I was close to all my players it wasn't just some website I ran. I may have not taken the best road.. but comparing me to him is harsh. I really doubt many others would have done differently than I did.

[thetank]

You put me into a catch 22 I look bad no matter how I handle it.

I don't believe this is true.

Putting forward strong suspicions (rather than vehement assertions) supported by explanation of whatever led you to these suspicions.

Not this man is a cheat - FACT, instead only the train of thought that led you to think it yourself. Let people make up their own minds as much as possible, and there will be more chance you get them on side.

Screaming your gospel as you are doing, posting endless headache inducing chat logs. It may get the job done, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

That's only me with my lime green panties opinion of course, take it for what it's worth.

[Eskabor]

All of my proof can be seen as "fake" to anyone who is set on believing that. I don't have DNA evidence or video tape of him doing this. Like you said it is the internet. Sorry for being so sarcastic but I really don't know what you guys are looking for. Only thing I can see missing is the list of all his accounts (my list isn't complete and it is on a fried computer but could probably be recovered) but even that isn't needed. Support can see which accounts are his and handle it themselves I don't need to spell it out for them. If svindle wants his name cleared he is aware of both threads and can post accordingly. People can take the information how they want. I think the conversations and him not defending himself with a full list of accounts is proof enough.

Mainly my posts are defending myself/explaining the circumstances and conditions I was in. Conspiracy theorist? It can be proven or disproven rather quickly with a full list of account names (Svindle already admitted to having a ton of account names).

Edit after your post: I wasn't talking about how I handled exposing them, but how I exposed them at all under the implications of your first long post. When someone admits cheating to me in previous chats I don't think there is a need from strong suspicons. Even in a court of law this is a confession and is enough to say he did it. Call me McCarthy.

[the bus]

 What is your agenda?

In the event of these allegations being true, that they are handled in a manner whereby you don't come off as someone with a vendetta.

Pfft

If that was true, then why did you attack Eskobar in your first post?

For someone who goes to talk about how best to handle things tank, are you sure that your first post was the best way to get Eskobar on side? 

[the bus]

 I think the conversations and him not defending himself with a full list of accounts is proof enough.

I think they are too.

[thetank]

 I think the conversations and him not defending himself with a full list of accounts is proof enough.

I think they are too.

If a cash player has different accounts, it may be for good legitimate reason. So his opponents find it tougher to get a handle on his style of play.

Of course, you wouldn't feel the need to make this information public in a hurry if you were him,  just because someone calls you a cheat one day.

More is needed

[the bus]

Did you even read the conversations?

[Acidmouse]

Bus tank bus tank.

[thetank]

For someone who goes to talk about how best to handle things tank, are you sure that your first post was the best way to get Eskobar on side? 

What would you suggest?

Good-Cop Bad-Cop?

[Ginger]

It seems theTank and the Bus have missed medication time again.

[thetank]

Acidmouse = mouse on acid

your post makes no sense mate

[Acidmouse]

Yes it wasn't supposed to make sense, I am bored at work.

Erm can I think of something constructive about this thread...


It's always hard on the person that exposes cheats, there motives are invariably questioned and taken into account. I would concur that when making allegations about someone you should:

1) Have proof, facts and a solid case against them.

2) Have no skeletons in your cupboard.

3) If Rule one & two are not met do it Anon.

Any sense?

I prefer a Mouse that likes AcidHouse Music not a reference to drugs

[boldie]

I have to say I think Tank is being for voice of reason in this thing (However unlikely that may seem, Tank posting something that makes sense, I mean )

I don't enjoy reading these chat transcripts as they are full of namecalling and laughing at eachother but went through them anyways and am rather dissapointed that hardly any evidence has been presented. I also agree with Tank that namecalling is not the right way to go about this sort of thing.
Eskobar seems to be a very nice bloke and coherent poster on this forum unfortunatly this does not shine through in his chatlogs.

I think he might be providing a valuable "service" in exposing people who cheat, however I am not one for believing everything I read and would like to see some form of proof other then chat transcripts (hand histories?) before I would brand others as cheats myself.

[ontilt]

What if the two playing heads up are colluding??

That's nothing - I collude at Solitaire.

But there are  card-games where you are supposed to collude - ironically, one of them is called "Solo"...!

Anyone remember that? Solo, (5 tricks) Abundance ("Bundle") 9 tricks, Royal Abundance (9 tricks in the nominated suit), Mezzaire (sp), Mezzaire-Avere (sp). I adored playing Mezzaire. For those not aware, Mezzaire is a "Solo" game option in which you have to LOSE tricks, Mezzaire Avere is the same except you have to lose every trick (13) but before the round starts, but after losing the first trick, you place your cards FACE UP on the table. I really was vey good at Mezz - I guess that's where I learned to play losing hands.

Great game, thats how I learned to play cards, age 8,  I think its 'misere' as in misery and 'misere ouvert' open misery You can play other games 'misere' as well it just means changing the rules to lose, as in suicide chess.  Its also a concept in combinatorial game theory but anyway...