Poker Discussion
|
|
Please help support pocketfives by using our links when choosing to download a new site!
CarbonPoker · Full Tilt · Cake Poker · PokerStars · Ultimate Bet · Players Only · Bodog
Look there are going to be things that are unpopular in online poker. But this move is necessary for online poker. From most of the card rooms standpoint they need to protect their player base. It has become all too common to have people recruiting from other sites in a massive way.
Party Poker used to be flat out ridiculous.
This is an easy fix. Each site should look at having a part in their application where people can go to chat. Separate of the tables. I know that everyone will complain but sites lose millions of dollars unnecessarily by having chat at the tables. If you guys can't see why they would protect themselves from this you have lost your minds.
In the mean time I would be happy to set up 2-3 sites with chat formats for people to log on to. If anyone is interested in helping me with this project let me know.
|
|
|
|
You haven't answered my question...
What is wrong with the above idea proposed by wowswift?
|
|
|
|
jsbyun
(United States)
1,849
Posts.
Joined
02-07-2005.
02-01-2006 5:59 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
I think wowswift's idea is a better alternative, but regardless of the chat rules, I've always felt a separate chat room area in any online cardroom would be beneficial and relatively easy to implement.
|
|
|
|
I do understand the need to protect their (UB's) clients from seeing advertisment of another site n their table chat windows. But there is a better way to sensor advertisors chats verses completely punishing everyone at ring tables and sngs. I know UB has to know who their competition is and the spammers and I know there's a way to astrik bad words so why doesnt UB have their programmers input their competitions names into the "bad words" category and astrik it when anyone types it like its a cuss word. Jus a suggestion that would be fair to everyone including the owners of UB without running the risk of losing pissed off players who like to make their own choice to turn obs chat off instead of being punished for spammers actions :(
|
|
|
again, think about how many people are on UB, and lets us an example of
what will happen. Take a look at yahoo games. they only allow around
200 people into their lobby for each room of games. it is complete
chaos. In the beginning there were no spammers at all, but now it has
been completly taken over by bots. With a chat program on a poker site,
it will be taken over by bots too.
|
|
|
|
and lets add that UB can't afford to piss off players, since they don't
have many players, and they have scared several off not that long ago.
UB players are probably more loyal then other sites. But, I will be a
traitor by Saturday....at least I will be able to chat on stars.
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-19-2005.
02-01-2006 6:06 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
Because it doesn't address the problem. The problem is that Observers are costing the sites millions of dollars and they have decided that to be able to chat you will have to sit down in the games. Imagine a scenario where you spend millions of dollars on an ad campaign to get players and then another site sends a spammer to steal that player. This gets rid of that problem.
If spammers know that there is chat in sit and go's that is where they will go.
|
|
|
|
|
jsbyun
(United States)
1,849
Posts.
Joined
02-07-2005.
02-01-2006 6:09 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
That could be true. I know that larger chat rooms can get pretty crazy.
What about creating a PM system that must be accepted by the recipient? It's really annoying when you want to give someone a message like 'Hey, the 6 man $200 is about to start, jump on in', but you can't say jack.
I know this can also be abused, but I think there are ways to limit the amount of abuse.
Requiring money in your account for any privilege, chat included, is an excellent way to control a plethora of abuses.
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-19-2005.
02-01-2006 6:09 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
Party tried this over and over and it never worked and they went to this system. I know its frustrating but truthfully the people that would leave aren't that valuable to the site in the first place. It is an inconvenience but it won't stop people from playing at a site. You guys can threaten all you want but no one playing 15-30 consistently leaves the site for this reason.
|
|
|
|
|
jsbyun
(United States)
1,849
Posts.
Joined
02-07-2005.
02-01-2006 6:12 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
UB could even make it more restrictive by limiting chat privileges to 'Preferred Players' only. Currently, the only difference that I'm aware of is the ability to transfer money. I know the scammers never had 'Preferred' accounts and I think it's unlikely that spammers will either.
|
|
|
|
it is so easy though to program in that they can't type a website, its
not that hard. maybe they could go further and at a chat violation
button so people could report them, cuz I hate them just as much as
they do. They can block IPs and user accounts. it would be fun for them
|
|
|
|
|
jw
(United States)
197
Posts.
Joined
03-06-2005.
02-01-2006 6:13 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
I know this has been said over and over again...but maybe making the bonuses at UB easier to clear might be a better option to retain their players.
|
|
|
|
Yeah when I emailed UB, i slipped in allowing points earned in SNGs
going toward clearing bonus dollars. but they won't change that ever
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-19-2005.
02-01-2006 6:15 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty surprised by u'r lack of caring about ub players attitude beanie.. arent you part of ub staff? and if so I jus honestly feel for u to say ya dont care about losing players is really harsh and very bad for ub business. In all honesty speaking.
|
|
|
|
|
Sortable Rankings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|