Marc Wright aka dean23price/railtard1 still scamming July 2012

[Geo the Sarge]

Is it possible Blonde is not in the wrong, but could be wise to learn some lessons from this to prevent it happening in the future?

It doesn't have to be blonde is wrong or blonde is right. That just puts people's backs up for no reason.

How many lessons do people need? You seem to assume that individuals aren't intelligent enough to think for themselves.

The staking forum is there, it provides not only a tool for stakees to put up their requests but also a platform to question whether the request is justified. We see it all the time, stakees being questioned and also other members providing input as to why they think a request is a good one or bad.

As it is Marc who is being questioned here, I'll use his case, members are fully aware of his problems in the past and importantly also his efforts to put things right.

Members decide themselves, knowing all risks whether they are prepared to take a punt when he requests staking.

They are aware of these risks as the platform that is blonde has provided this information through various threads on and off the staking board and most stakers are aware.

Seems to be the way of the world these days that some don't want to take responsibility when things go wrong when they make a choice that goes wrong and expect others to sort it out for them.

And this:

I believe Blonde has done an excellant job in facilitating the possibility of Lewis getting his 5%.

Marc knows his reputation is on the line and the only way for him to carry on asking for

staking through blonde is by paying up.

The Mods probably had some tough decisions to make on this particular issue and I congratulate

them for letting the thread take it's course.

Geo

[FUN4FRASER]

What about an elected panel to sort out disagreements, with a % of the dispute going to compensate them for their time, might make people work a bit harder and be more reasonable when discussing disputes. I've not thought this through fully, but could it be a deterrent to any would be scammers, or angle shooters.  

Nobody wants aggro and conflict in their lives , so If people gave more thought to their actions and considered the long term implications there would be no need for a panel .

In any case , a panel could only adjudicate when both parties are willing ,however if somebody has set their stall out to scam from the outset then normally they are long gone with the money and the police are the only viable option .

Better to be nice and show respect to people from start to finish .

[Longy]

Re the staking board, there is very obvious example over on 2+2 where people are banned from the Marketplace for transgressions regarding staking and other shady behaviour. In fact you need privileges to even trade on that part of the forums. So that forum does police its staking boards so there is a precedent here.

[AlunB]

Is it possible Blonde is not in the wrong, but could be wise to learn some lessons from this to prevent it happening in the future?

It doesn't have to be blonde is wrong or blonde is right. That just puts people's backs up for no reason.

How many lessons do people need? You seem to assume that individuals aren't intelligent enough to think for themselves.

The staking forum is there, it provides not only a tool for stakees to put up their requests but also a platform to question whether the request is justified. We see it all the time, stakees being questioned and also other members providing input as to why they think a request is a good one or bad.

As it is Marc who is being questioned here, I'll use his case, members are fully aware of his problems in the past and importantly also his efforts to put things right.

Members decide themselves, knowing all risks whether they are prepared to take a punt when he requests staking.

They are aware of these risks as the platform that is blonde has provided this information through various threads on and off the staking board and most stakers are aware.

Seems to be the way of the world these days that some don't want to take responsibility when things go wrong when they make a choice that goes wrong and expect others to sort it out for them.

And this:

I believe Blonde has done an excellant job in facilitating the possibility of Lewis getting his 5%.

Marc knows his reputation is on the line and the only way for him to carry on asking for

staking through blonde is by paying up.

The Mods probably had some tough decisions to make on this particular issue and I congratulate

them for letting the thread take it's course.

Geo

You're probably right and I'm minded to agree with you. I honestly don't have strong opinions on this, and it's not something I am involved in.

I just felt the discussions were being pushed into a corner on all manner of things in this thread, the staking forum being one of them, where they had to take an absolute opinion.

It's healthy for blonde and for the staking forum that people can question it, and how its run.

[AndrewT]

Is there really a need for a staking board on the forum at all?

10% pls Phil.

Re the staking board, there is very obvious example over on 2+2 where people are banned from the Marketplace for transgressions regarding staking and other shady behaviour. In fact you need privileges to even trade on that part of the forums. So that forus does police its staking boards so there is a precedent here.

There was a desire from members for some kind of staking board, seeing as these deals were being done anyway. However, for something which Blonde would make no money from, a decision was taken that Blonde would be hands-off when it came to disputes and that caveat emptor would be the golden rule.

The 300 post rule is some kind of defence against chancers and that only established members can sell but, ultimately, we're not your mum. You can tie your own shoelaces.

[Simon Galloway]

"Everyone knows the problems with so-and-so...."

Well you do if you are in the know...

For new members, or older members not in the know, as well as those that don't bother to do any research, there is a case to say that some protection could be offered.  2+2 ban people from the marketplace (or outright) for shady shit, PTP brand the dodgy ones "Do Not Stake" as part of their Username/Avatar etc.  I've had situations where I was definitely left to deal with a bad stake application where others knew stuff and either assumed I would know it too (or just cba to tell me)  

So, level 1 is no protection bun-fight, caveat emptor.  Level 2 is prohibiting select individuals from offering or buying stakes via Blonde.  Level 3 is not having staking threads any more.

I'm fine with level 1, these aren't "widows and orphans" pension funds we are dealing with.  I'm also fine with level 2.  Level 3 would definitely not be my choice.

[FUN4FRASER]

Re the staking board, there is very obvious example over on 2+2 where people are banned from the Marketplace for transgressions regarding staking and other shady behaviour. In fact you need privileges to even trade on that part of the forums. So that forus does police its staking boards so there is a precedent here.

Good Point

Thus far though I would suggest the staking board has worked pretty well (in the main ) but if it had to be policed or there was a panel ruling the roost etc rather than act as a deterrent it could have the opposite effect ? People could try it on & Blonde could start to lose its soul etc if the trust element was replaced by a jury. ?

Who Really Knows what the best solution is ? Personally I like things the way they are because the vast majority of Blonde members are well intentioned and recognise matters  and issues are addresed for the good of the poker community.

[The Camel]

I think some of the comments especially the Camel makes about Marc's arrogance is unfair. All of those posts with his graphs and about his record are in OPs to staking threads. He's selling himself.

If he just posted "Hi I'm Marc Wright you all know me so I won't bother with an intro, please stake me", I'd bet my bottom dollar (even if I was potless ) that you'd abuse him for that too.

Not saying that he isn't arrogant, and I'm certainly not saying he's in the right here, I don't and I'm pleased to see he's owned up and promised to do what is right. I just think that people are using this thread as an excuse to get on the bandwagon to rain all sorts of abuse on Marc, some of which is unwarranted.

I was done with this thread until I read this.

You think I've been harsh on him?

How naive are you?

I have been exceptionally restrained. If you think Marc has turned over a new leaf you are very much mistaken. Some of stuff I have found out in the last couple of days leaves me astounded.

When I grew up in the gambling world you had one chance to maintain you good name and reputation. Once it was gone, that was it.

Out of the blue he contacted a friend of mine.

He asked to swap 2k on FTP for 2k on Stars.

My friend sent but did not receive the money on FTP.

To me that is nothing short of theft.

Despite countless 4 and 5 figure scores he didn't repay the 2k for about a year.

While this is forgiveable, I can't forget it.

I will never trust Marc Wright again.

He is a proven liar, thief, bad payer and multi accounter.

I think he has done more than enough to prove he's not worthy of a chance at redeeming his reputation.

Others disagree, probably because he's an amazing poker player and they spot an opportunity to make money on the back of his skills.

I respect their decision to trust him again, but please don't criticise me for taking every opportunity to warn people about Marc's behaviour.

Unless he seeks help for his problems he will scam people again.

It's inevitable.

[RedFox]

Is there really a need for a staking board on the forum at all?

Whyever not?

I would never ask for a stake (not got the game or the requisite number of posts) but I have taken some small stakes in recent months (obtained through pm's) and to date never had any issues.

The guys Ive had small pieces of are in the main not known to me but this is the only way I would get the chance of a sweat in a major tourney.

Let it continue and for the most part the principle of caveat emptor 'let the buyer beware' should apply to these transactions.

The risk is solely with the buyer and nothing to do with blonde who only help to facilitate the staking.

In my time Ive been grimmed as will have many on here. Thankfully its only been small amounts but still it is a very deflating and sad experience to think your trust has been misplaced. Most of the time it is because these individuals are compulsive gamblers and the monies will only ever reappear after they have won a large amount.

I think several of the responses on this thread have been mainly to do with the ability of someone who owes to repay, moreso if they are having financial difficulties and they decide to 'spin' up the winnings and not immediately return to the stakers their due returns in full and in a timely manner.

[rfgqqabc]

2+2 is a compeltely different kettle of fish. For the most part people on here know each other in real life to some extent, and that tends to add a completely different dimension to the level of trust. I could never scam anyone on here, and even if i wanted to, people know my dad, know my best friend, know where i play poker, so it would become impossible for me to live, and the person would probably be paid back by my family or friends. On 2+2 its largely a forum of unknowns, with a lot less trust at the lower stakes. Backers are generally punting around and a lot more is done via selling pieces on the forums in schedules by people who need to regularly to grind, and they build up a clientèle of backers who are regulars.

[cambridgealex]

I think some of the comments especially the Camel makes about Marc's arrogance is unfair. All of those posts with his graphs and about his record are in OPs to staking threads. He's selling himself.

If he just posted "Hi I'm Marc Wright you all know me so I won't bother with an intro, please stake me", I'd bet my bottom dollar (even if I was potless ) that you'd abuse him for that too.

Not saying that he isn't arrogant, and I'm certainly not saying he's in the right here, I don't and I'm pleased to see he's owned up and promised to do what is right. I just think that people are using this thread as an excuse to get on the bandwagon to rain all sorts of abuse on Marc, some of which is unwarranted.

I was done with this thread until I read this.

You think I've been harsh on him?

How naive are you?

I have been exceptionally restrained. If you think Marc has turned over a new leaf you are very much mistaken. Some of stuff I have found out in the last couple of days leaves me astounded.

When I grew up in the gambling world you had one chance to maintain you good name and reputation. Once it was gone, that was it.

Out of the blue he contacted a friend of mine.

He asked to swap 2k on FTP for 2k on Stars.

My friend sent but did not receive the money on FTP.

To me that is nothing short of theft.

Despite countless 4 and 5 figure scores he didn't repay the 2k for about a year.

While this is forgiveable, I can't forget it.

I will never trust Marc Wright again.

He is a proven liar, thief, bad payer and multi accounter.

I think he has done more than enough to prove he's not worthy of a chance at redeeming his reputation.

Others disagree, probably because he's an amazing poker player and they spot an opportunity to make money on the back of his skills.

I respect their decision to trust him again, but please don't criticise me for taking every opportunity to warn people about Marc's behaviour.

Unless he seeks help for his problems he will scam people again.

It's inevitable.

I'm not questioning any of that. I don't doubt it and I'm not sticking up for him in those matters.

I didn't like the way that people have jumped on the bandwagon and used this thread to rain all sorts of abuse on Marc like this arrogance tirade, which is, in my opinion, unfair. I said this in my post, I feel you've missed my point.

[The Camel]

I think some of the comments especially the Camel makes about Marc's arrogance is unfair. All of those posts with his graphs and about his record are in OPs to staking threads. He's selling himself.

If he just posted "Hi I'm Marc Wright you all know me so I won't bother with an intro, please stake me", I'd bet my bottom dollar (even if I was potless ) that you'd abuse him for that too.

Not saying that he isn't arrogant, and I'm certainly not saying he's in the right here, I don't and I'm pleased to see he's owned up and promised to do what is right. I just think that people are using this thread as an excuse to get on the bandwagon to rain all sorts of abuse on Marc, some of which is unwarranted.

I was done with this thread until I read this.

You think I've been harsh on him?

How naive are you?

I have been exceptionally restrained. If you think Marc has turned over a new leaf you are very much mistaken. Some of stuff I have found out in the last couple of days leaves me astounded.

When I grew up in the gambling world you had one chance to maintain you good name and reputation. Once it was gone, that was it.

Out of the blue he contacted a friend of mine.

He asked to swap 2k on FTP for 2k on Stars.

My friend sent but did not receive the money on FTP.

To me that is nothing short of theft.

Despite countless 4 and 5 figure scores he didn't repay the 2k for about a year.

While this is forgiveable, I can't forget it.

I will never trust Marc Wright again.

He is a proven liar, thief, bad payer and multi accounter.

I think he has done more than enough to prove he's not worthy of a chance at redeeming his reputation.

Others disagree, probably because he's an amazing poker player and they spot an opportunity to make money on the back of his skills.

I respect their decision to trust him again, but please don't criticise me for taking every opportunity to warn people about Marc's behaviour.

Unless he seeks help for his problems he will scam people again.

It's inevitable.

I'm not questioning any of that. I don't doubt it and I'm not sticking up for him in those matters.

I didn't like the way that people have jumped on the bandwagon and used this thread to rain all sorts of abuse on Marc like this arrogance tirade, which is, in my opinion, unfair. I said this in my post, I feel you've missed my point.

I don't mind arrogance when someone is justified in being arrogant.

When you are a scammer and spend your time dissing decent, honest people like Kevmath, Lewis and dreenie, it irritates the hell out of me.

His default response to any post critical of him is to attack the poster.

[cambridgealex]

He's justified in being arrogant about his poker results though.

[millidonk]

He's justified in being arrogant about his poker results though.

Is arrogance ever justified?

[The Camel]

He's justified in being arrogant about his poker results though.

More to life than poker.

He should be the humblest person I know, because he is exceptionally lucky to still be accepted in the poker community.