ty for link, gotta love merge

Isnt sirswish active here?

i know NODOJINMEXICO is sirswish6, doubt hes involved in anything shady.

ya pretty big difference between paying players to play and actually backing/staking players to play...

 

Originally Posted by Gags30

i mean, unless there's more details that they're leaving out (and there could be, cause that thread is def a shitshow)...but it seems like nothing shady is going on

a merge skin is paying some players to play on their skin in free buyin tourneys. the money still goes into the prizepool...and no one has an advantage or anything, so it seems fine to me

come on dude really? is this a level? you gotta be fucking kidding me

 

Originally Posted by J0HNS0N757

come on dude really? is this a level? you gotta be fucking kidding me

buddies gonna buddy?

 

Originally Posted by sheila12

buddies gonna buddy?

i guess im just too high, explain

I haven't thought it all through yet, but initially I feel its wrong from the skin's point of view. My issue is that they might not be willing to be impartial if it is against their own self interests by staking people on their skin as well as it being against the site's TOCs. There was a situation with Jose 'Girah' Macedo on Lock in 2011, where if they had a financial interest in it, who knows if it all would have been covered up and he would still be a pro. That being said, I don't blame SirSwish or others for being part of this backing deal since from their end. I am not friends with SirSwish, or any of the others involved, so this is an unbiased opinion on this. Its late here though, so maybe there is something I am missing about whether this is unethical from the horse's point of view, but just don't see how they did something wrong.

 

Originally Posted by yarbles

it think you guys are missing the bigger picture what if just what if the site purchased all of these tournament tickets for promotional reasons to jump start traffic on the sites increase prizepools and snowball effect for the greater good i mean even if the skin loses money short term doing this... long term it will benefit them.... dont see what the big fuss is stop being cry babies

I am fine with them giving tickets away to prop players and site pros. It is the staking part and the site having a financial interest in the outcome which doesn't sit well with me. I don't see how a site can properly arbitrate if one of these guys was doing something shady if they have a financial interest in the outcome. I don't think though any of the horses involved did anything wrong unless there is something I am msising.

 

Originally Posted by yarbles

it think you guys are missing the bigger picture what if just what if the site purchased all of these tournament tickets for promotional reasons to jump start traffic on the sites increase prizepools and snowball effect for the greater good i mean even if the skin loses money short term doing this... long term it will benefit them.... dont see what the big fuss is stop being cry babies

I guess the baby will break it down for the grown up as your post is hypothetical and a bit ignorant.

In the situation you presented you don't address the problem which is a skin backing a tournament player creating a conflict of interest. Giving away free tickets is not the problem. The skin is essentially providing itself with an interest in the outcome of the games being played rather than simply collecting a fee (rake) for hosting the game.

 

Originally Posted by yarbles

does it make a difference if its an "affiliate" and not site owners?

According to their own T&C, no.

No Company Employees or Affiliates. If you are an officer, director, employee, consultant or agent of the Company or one of its affiliated or subsidiary companies, or suppliers or vendors, you are not permitted to register with FeltStars.eu or to participate directly or indirectly in any of the Games (each an "Unauthorized Person").

Just read the TOC from the 2+2 thread, so I guess I would still have a problem with it since it is against the TOC even though morally I see a big difference since I don't see the affiliate and site owners having the same influence. Was this a case of an affiliate staking people or a skin owner?

 

Originally Posted by wackyJaxon

Just read the TOC from the 2+2 thread, so I guess I would still have a problem with it since it is against the TOC even though morally I see a big difference since I don't see the affiliate and site owners having the same influence. Was this a case of an affiliate staking people or a skin owner?

not sure either which is why im guessing that yarbles put affiliate in quotes

seems weird too, why is an account thats not paying its own rake being given rakeback?

Unfortunately, the technicality of the backing agreement violating the T&C is about the only thing they will cop to. My gut says there is much more drama/shady stuff going on... Reviewing HHs and asking sirswish for some clarification is a great place to start. Gags, ask him to respond?