The letter of the law, and the spirit of the law.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
You shall not and shall not authorise, assist or encourage any third party to:

3.2.9 offer any so-called "rake-back" schemes or similar which offers or allows a proportion of the player's rake to be returned to the player in any form;


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see that the 'spirit' of this law is that you can be allowed to pay rakeback.

In fact, it seems really rather clear on the issue that you can't, it actually specifically outlaws it.

Lori

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You shall not and shall not authorise, assist or encourage any third party to:

3.2.9 offer any so-called "rake-back" schemes or similar which offers or allows a proportion of the player's rake to be returned to the player in any form;


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see that the 'spirit' of this law is that you can be allowed to pay rakeback.

In fact, it seems really rather clear on the issue that you can't, it actually specifically outlaws it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're going to start the same thread over and over, I'm going to have to find that "ignore" button.

One tip: you might want to do do some research into what a "law" actually is.

[dogmeat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You shall not and shall not authorise, assist or encourage any third party to:

3.2.9 offer any so-called "rake-back" schemes or similar which offers or allows a proportion of the player's rake to be returned to the player in any form;


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see that the 'spirit' of this law is that you can be allowed to pay rakeback.

In fact, it seems really rather clear on the issue that you can't, it actually specifically outlaws it.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, Lori. However, this is probably the absolute worst place to try and challenge the masses.

I appreciate your tenacity, but acceptance is a virtue also.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You shall not and shall not authorise, assist or encourage any third party to:

3.2.9 offer any so-called "rake-back" schemes or similar which offers or allows a proportion of the player's rake to be returned to the player in any form;


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see that the 'spirit' of this law is that you can be allowed to pay rakeback.

In fact, it seems really rather clear on the issue that you can't, it actually specifically outlaws it.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you constantly have to be the thorn in the side of both people looking for a piece of THIER money back, and those that can provide it?

its clear that certain poker rooms look the other way in these matters, so why continue to fuss about it?

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
its clear that certain poker rooms look the other way in these matters, so why continue to fuss about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clear that Martha Stewart broke a law, and just because the government pretty much "looked the other way" and gave her some BS slap on the wrist doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to fuss about it. If it were any of us in that situation, we'd be doing 25 years in a "pound you in the ass" prison.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its clear that certain poker rooms look the other way in these matters, so why continue to fuss about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clear that Martha Stewart broke a law, and just because the government pretty much "looked the other way" and gave her some BS slap on the wrist doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to fuss about it. If it were any of us in that situation, we'd be doing 25 years in a "pound you in the ass" prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we wouldn't.

*Cough* Federal Sentencing Guidelines *Cough*

She got right around the mid-range for that crime.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it seems really rather clear on the issue that you can't, it actually specifically outlaws it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Lorinda,

The easy answer is... What the legal department taketh away, the marketing department giveth back /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You shall not and shall not authorise, assist or encourage any third party to:

3.2.9 offer any so-called "rake-back" schemes or similar which offers or allows a proportion of the player's rake to be returned to the player in any form;


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see that the 'spirit' of this law is that you can be allowed to pay rakeback.

In fact, it seems really rather clear on the issue that you can't, it actually specifically outlaws it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What law are you talking about?

All I see is a term from a private contract. Plus a crusader who for some reason is determined to make sure that term is enforced even though it is none of her business.

[rusty JEDI]

[ QUOTE ]


What law are you talking about?

All I see is a term from a private contract. Plus a crusader who for some reason is determined to make sure that term is enforced even though it is none of her business.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first person to jump to semantics in an internet argument is almost always the one who is wrong.

rJ

[Jim Easton]

Law vs. term of a contract is not a semantics argument, it is a factual argument. The only party that can enforce that term is Empire (and possibly PartyPoker depending on the contract between them).

[lorinda]

I think rJ is referring to the fact that it was morgant that used those words, not myself.

Edit: FWIW I think this half of the thread is useless without the deleted half, but the mods are all in bed /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Lori

[rusty JEDI]

The manner Lorinda used the term law was obviously as terms of the contract. She just substituted the word law for terms of the contract.

rJ

[lorinda]

After being destickied, it fell faster than I thought. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Original post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=rakeback&Number=3545810&pa ge=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=2)

Lori

[Jim Easton]

I saw his original post about letter vs. spirit of the law and don't think he knows what letter vs. spirit of the law means.

Your post uses law instead of contract and there is a huge difference. You are right, the contract does forbid rakeback, but if Empire doesn't enforce it, then it won't be enforced. Anyone else's opinion (with the possible exception of PartyPoker) on what the contract allows and doesn't allow and whether any particular clause should or shouldn't be enforced is irrelevant.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw his original post about letter vs. spirit of the law and don't think he knows what letter vs. spirit of the law means.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the original point of this thread. The other thread was stickied for a while and therefore could not be replied to. I didn't believe that it was locked to prevent further replies.

[ QUOTE ]
Your post uses law instead of contract and there is a huge difference. You are right, the contract does forbid rakeback, but if Empire doesn't enforce it, then it won't be enforced. Anyone else's opinion (with the possible exception of PartyPoker) on what the contract allows and doesn't allow and whether any particular clause should or shouldn't be enforced is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. The reason I was posting was simply to let people know it was against the T+C so that should Empire suddenly change direction, then those people would have no recourse.

I have also tried to let this all die down because the people who run this forum are at least known to be people who pay what they say they will, and although I was not going to let a rakeback forum start without stating my piece, I was (and still am) happy to let it drop once I had said it as a paid forum that I choose to enter is infinitely better than unpaid spam that I don't choose to open.

Lori

[somapopper]

Well in England you may have some kind of recourse if you don't violate the tc, but US players don't really have any recourse against online sites no matter what we do.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
then those people would have no recourse.


[/ QUOTE ]

That depends. I don't know what the dispute resolution terms are in the contract, but if Empire/Party have knowingly allowed rakeback arrangements there could be a waiver argument. That's the theory anyway, there are many factors that could affect whether it could actually succeed.

[morgant]

i used spirit vs. letter incorrectly.

fact still stands; empire allows rakeback. fwiw

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
That depends. I don't know what the dispute resolution terms are in the contract, but if Empire/Party have knowingly allowed rakeback arrangements there could be a waiver argument. That's the theory anyway, there are many factors that could affect whether it could actually succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you make my point more accurate for me, thanks.

To save rather a lot of time and effort, could you just argue with yourself , in text, for about 20 minutes, highlighting all the salient points in this debate.
It would save me (and some of those who dislike my points too )a lot of time and effort and would also be more accurate on both sides.

Thanks,

Lori

[Jim Easton]

Post deleted by Jim Easton

[lorinda]

Er, I was pleased, not bothered.

Lori

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
empire allows rakeback. fwiw

[/ QUOTE ]

That is my understanding and I haven't disputed that.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
I was pleased, not bothered.


[/ QUOTE ]

post deleted. I hope you understand my confusion at not taking being told to argue with myself as a good thing.

[Piers]

It seems obvious that Empire are happy to allow their own T&Cs to be broken in an effort to increase their total MGR at the expense of other Party skins.

Maybe the T&Cs are imposed on them from outside? Whatever it does not strike me as a particularly big issue.

What does appear to be true is that there is some aspect of internal Party politics that is sensitive to rakeback. Personally I say stuff them. Political censorship is usually pretty silly.

[lorinda]

I certainly do. That's the third post in 30 minutes that I've made that I swear was taken the wrong way and you know that I'm naturally sarcastic anyway, so I entirely understand.

Thanks for deleting though, on this occasion I was actually being serious because it is a subject where not only is my knowledge sketchy at best, but my philosophy is in the minority.

At some point I have to reach the conclusion that it isn't actually the rest of the world that has gone nuts in the last 30 minutes /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Lori