STOP USING SIMPLEMINE

[asherpuppy]

I'm a little confused about this. What is ok and what isn't ok to use? It seems that something like PokerAce or Game Time would give you an advantage more than just mining (without using the data during play). Am I at risk using something like Poker Ace or is there something I'm missing about what Party doesn't like?

[MentalNomad]

It's pretty simple, really, though you may not like it.

Party doesn't like anyone using software which gives them an advantage over other players; they consider it an unfair advantage.

They have made clear that this includes software which makes play decisions for you while you play (such as a bot) and software which collects and displays information about your opponents while you play.

They answer in generalities, not specific, so some grey ares remain. How do they feel about an odds calculator? No decisions are made for you, but other players don't have them. How do they feel about data collection without automated botting of tables? They clearly accommodate Poker Tracker, which is a legitimate data collection, analysis, and learning tool. However, players using PlayerView to display that same data over the Party Poker table have run into trouble.

They don't want to make a bright-line distinction, because it's NOT in their interest to do so. If they draw a bright line, they limit what they can be opposed to later. . . and if they can remaind opposed to nearly everything, at least in principle, they best protect the reputation and fairness of their game, which is their most valuable asset in the eyes of the millions. There is growing popular fear of bots and of people using computers to their advantage in ways the common player can not; Party is always happiest if you use no tools or aids whatsoever WHILE PLAYING.

Personally, I do data collection at my limits, both for analysis and for in-game use. . . but I can understand Party's position on this. It's very clear, except to people who say, "I have the right to do whatever I want to protect myself from others doing the same!" That includes defenders of cheating software, like "team" software that lets you share card information with a confederate.

[excession]

They have made clear that this includes software which makes play decisions for you while you play (such as a bot) and software which collects and displays information about your opponents while you play.

Well they have made their position clear on bots. Their position on player profilers is obscure - the section
in their TOS that refers to player profiling comes after an introduction that states it's about banning software that enables AI's (bots) to play.

So unless there has been some sort of clarification I have missed it isn't clear at all that non-AI enabling profiling software is against the TOS.

[excession]

Gibraltar might not be in the US but it is pretty well regulated (not at all like some of the dodgier offshore jurisdictions). It is a tax haven, but it's run a version of the British Common Law for 300 years (longer than the US has been up and running after all) so if you really had a case for legal redress you could sue them (and they have plenty of assets to enforce against after all).
In fact its regulation as far as use of customer data etc goes is far stronger than that the US..

[jackdaniels]

This is CRAZY. How can they shut you down and let a product like PE fly?!?!?

[asherpuppy]

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty simple, really, though you may not like it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the responses, those helped. I don't dislike the answers, it's what I expected, but wanted to confirm.

[MentalNomad]

I see that line on the forums often -- that the reference to profiling is in a section on AI -- but that doesn't really matter. The devil's in the details.

The line in question (in a section clearly labeled "7. Anti-Cheating Software."):

"We are committed to detecting and preventing software programs which are designed to enable artificial intelligence ("AI Software") to play on our Services such as, but not limited to opponent-profiling, player collusion, cheating software or anything else that we deem enables you to have an unfair advantage over other players."

Firstly, in legal language like this, it doesn't matter that much that the line begins with "artificial intelligence." It ends with, "OR ANYTHING ELSE that we deem enables you to have an unfair advantage over other players." They're leaving it wide-open for themselves.

More importantly, most people miss the point of this paragraph. It does NOT describe Party's position on cheating software, or what denotes cheating software. It is in a section about "anti-cheating software," which is allowing THEM to embed anti-cheating software in the Party application you install. You are allowing them to install Anti-Cheating Software on your machine to catch you if you use "anything else that [they] deem enables you to have an unfair advantage over other players." Here is the rest of the paragraph; this part is the meat of the clause:

"You acknowledge that the Company will take measures to detect and prevent the use of such programs and AI Software using methods (including but not limited to screen scraping or reading the list of currently running programs on a player’s computer) and you agree not to use any AI Software and/or any such programs."

So the paragraph was never meant to describe what is and is not allowable; by agreeing to this paragraph, you agree to let them snoop your machine in order to find ANY software they decide is inappropriate. . . and they define inappropriate as "giving you an advantage over other players."

[excession]

The line in question (in a section clearly labeled "7. Anti-Cheating Software."):

"We are committed to detecting and preventing software programs which are designed to enable artificial intelligence ("AI Software") to play on our Services such as, but not limited to opponent-profiling, player collusion, cheating software or anything else that we deem enables you to have an unfair advantage over other players."

I am a partner in a commercial law firm and make my living analysing commercial contracts. You attempted construction is grammatically incorrect.


The words 'or anything else that we deem enables you to have an unfair advantage over other players' is part of the list starting 'opponent-profiling, player collusion, cheating software' and not a second separate branch of the clause starting 'which are designed to'. To make it clear that this isn't a 2nd branch you just delete the 1st branch to see if the sentence still holds together grammatically..

so you would get:
'We are committed to detecting and preventing software programs which are designed to...[first branch re AI's deleted]..anything else that we deem enables you to have an unfair advantage over other players'

See - gibberish.

The only logical and grammatically correct interprettaion of the clause is that everything that follows is a list governed by:
'We are committed to detecting and preventing software programs which are designed to enable artificial intelligence ("AI Software") to play on our Services...'

It is therefore perfectly correct position to adopt that unless software you are running does this, it isn't in breach of TOS.

Also the rule that contracts which are unclear are construed against the party that drew them up would militate in favor of a restrictive interpretaton.

That said, of course Party can more or less do what they like unless you are prepared to sue them in Gibraltar.

You would however expect them to give some warning is they were going to crack down on the well-known non-bot programs like PT..

[RPMick]

[ QUOTE ]
You attempted construction is grammatically incorrect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to but into this interesting thread...but speaking of grammar...your post destroyed any glimpse of credit you attempted to establish by taking one hell of a grammatical crap in the process of articulating your point.

Next time use spell check and preview your post.

Interesting and educational posts though.

-Ryan
7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[excession]

LOL The fact that I've missed a 'r' of the end of 'Your' is irrelevant. What does a typo or two have to do with the point made?

Classic cheap shot I'm afraid.

Now if you can actually analyse the sentence in rebuttal then your comments might be worth the bandwidth.