Solving the bot problem

[Rah]

[ QUOTE ]
You have been told multiple times your idea is unenforceable, your counter is "yes it is". Instead of repeating yourself take the time to LOOK IT UP. Specifically, US recognition of foreign courts and gambling debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

My counter is "it's possible". I try to look for possibilities instead of problems. I would never say that it's 100% foolproof, but I can definitely say that it's not such a clear case you make it out to be.

If I seem to convinced of my stance, it's probably because I have a hard time accepting arguments which are sarcastic, aggressive or stating that something is *impossible* instead of discussing workarounds. Sadly, 85% of the answers I've got so far falls into one of those categories.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be a huge moral victory even if it's only in Europe, probably affecting some bot users worldwide. Second, I believe there are ways to try it even in USA if it's really needed. For example, registering a subcompany in USA for enforcement and sue because of contractual issues. I can't say, I don't know much about internal US law. But I belive it's kinda narrow-minded to dismiss this idea totally; there is always some legal angle to use. Until every possibility is tested in court, there is no way of giving 100% answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and the Supreme Court *could* decide that a ban on online gambling violates the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. I mean, it'd go against 200 years of precedent, the argument would normally be complete and utter nonsense and get the lawyer sanctioned for advancing it, but they *could*.

No, you can't do this or anything else you can think of because US law is extremely strict on this point. (In theory, you could, of course, set up a subsidiary here, at which point the directors of that company would promptly wind up in jail for violating any of a dozen different US gambling statutes, its assets would be confiscated, and after all that, you'd still lose. But you *could*.) End of story.

[Rah]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and the Supreme Court *could* decide that a ban on online gambling violates the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. I mean, it'd go against 200 years of precedent, the argument would normally be complete and utter nonsense and get the lawyer sanctioned for advancing it, but they *could*.

No, you can't do this or anything else you can think of because US law is extremely strict on this point. (In theory, you could, of course, set up a subsidiary here, at which point the directors of that company would promptly wind up in jail for violating any of a dozen different US gambling statutes, its assets would be confiscated, and after all that, you'd still lose. But you *could*.) End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, I guess I have to rule USA out of the picture. Thank you for enlightening me.

[Daggs911]

"I would never say that it's 100% foolproof, but I can definitely say that it's not such a clear case you make it out to be. "

Actually it is a very clear cut case. As clear as anything could be.

Corporations do not have the authority to fine anybody. Only the government can fine people, and that's because "we", the people, gave them the authority to do so.

You're probably thinking - but my credit card company can fine me if my payments are late - that's because they have a valid contract that you signed. When you sign with banks, credit card companies, schools, etc, you sign over the right to be charged and fined in association with the service.

Now you're thinking that Party Poker DOES have a contract with you, one that could be enforced like a credit card contract. Fortunately in the United States, contracts are 100% subject to court interpretation. A court will only enforce a contract if it is both valid and conscionable. A $10,000 fine is simply absurd - no court in the US would EVER enforce it.

The contract is not valid either, because of the subject matter involved. No court in the US would enforce ANY contract with PartyPoker, because online poker is illegal. Its like trying to enforce a contract to buy heroine. Good luck.

Not to mention that if Party actually wanted to try to enforce these ludicrous contracts, they would have to get bar certified attorneys in EVERY STATE to prosecute the claims. They would ring up a $10K legal bill months before they get dismissed on summary judgment. Not to mention the counter-claims for malicious prosecution which could get expensive.

I agree with you that bots are a serious problem. A less intrusive way to stop them would be to use those scrambled letter things, you know the ones that ticketmaster.com uses - have those pop up randomly while you're playing. Pain in the ass? Yes. But it won't crush the poker economy, and it will catch people who use bots.

Matt

[Rah]

I understand that my usage of the term "fine" causes misunderstanding. What I mean is a fixed sum of money to be paid in case of breaking a contract. I have no idea how US interprets contracts, I just assumed a high "fine" would be acceptable, considering the amounts that US courts have awarded in other civil cases.
This doesn't really matter though, since we excluded USA as a possibility above.

I still believe that this may be enforcable in Europe though, the sum of the "fine" may of course be discussed. I picked a random number, it was not meant to be written in stone. The important thing is to chase bot users with every means possible if the situation gets worse.
I am very familiar with the concept of handling over "fining rights" in contracts, which would be possible in Europe since there is no trouble in forms of pactum turpe.

[grimel]

who give a flip about Europe? 80-90% of the players are in America. If you idea doesn't effect anyone in the US it is a WORTHLESS idea.

[Guthrie]

So a poker site owned by a southern California pornographer and an Indian programmer, headquartered in an office building in Gibraltar, with servers on an Indian (other kind of Indian) reservation in Canada, is going to sue a John Doeski in Russia and collect money? Yeah right.

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have been told multiple times your idea is unenforceable, your counter is "yes it is". Instead of repeating yourself take the time to LOOK IT UP. Specifically, US recognition of foreign courts and gambling debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

My counter is "it's possible". I try to look for possibilities instead of problems. I would never say that it's 100% foolproof, but I can definitely say that it's not such a clear case you make it out to be.

If I seem to convinced of my stance, it's probably because I have a hard time accepting arguments which are sarcastic, aggressive or stating that something is *impossible* instead of discussing workarounds. Sadly, 85% of the answers I've got so far falls into one of those categories.

[/ QUOTE ]

One LAST TIME, it is NOT possible, it involves a gambling incured debt - not enforcable. It involves an illegal (in the USAG opinion) activity - not -enforceable. Ergo, you have no work arounds. It's not sarcasm and aggression, it's people trying to explain US law to you getting your "but it could work over here so it could work there" counter. What you'd like, want, desire, or happens in Europe is completely irrelevent to online poker until such time as the US is NOT 80% of the online players. What happens in Europe can ONLY have negative effects for online poker.

[Emperor]

I love how all of the people who think that your ideas are st00pid and unenforceable have provided such thoughtful alternative solutions.

Or is everyone saying that online poker IS doomed to be overrun by bots?

[grimel]

Are you being purposely dense?

It is a gambling related debt, you can NOT enforce a contract for an illegal activity. You can not enforce a debt resulting from an illegal activity. This debt would be as the result of gambling. It would not be enforeced.

IT IS A GAMBLING DEBT. GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL IN MOST US STATES. MOST US STATES HAVE THE OPINION ONLINE GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL. IT WOULD TAKE A US SUPREME COURT DECISION TO DECIDE THAT (cost waaaaaaay over $10k). IF you win the USSC decision that online gambling is NOT illegal, then you have a debt incured again in a gambling related function. AND, it's a non US Civil action - not enforced.


I mean the aggreement is worth LESS than the electrons it take to store it just as I said - it is a gambling related debt with a NON-US company.


Re: thugs and debts:

Which part of UNENFORCABLE debt to you fail to get? No legal means to make anyone pay it other than enforcers. Now, if that happens, the person the thugs go see then has a very viable assault case (provided it doesn't happen in one of the southern/mid-western states where the thugs could very well end up getting the worst of the deal).