|
|
#1
10-10-2005, 12:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Eurobet says Party\'s charges were unilateral=> Skins didnt know?!
From Eurobet popup when I logged in.
"You may have noticed that a few changes have occurred to our poker product over the weekend. These are a result of our poker supplier, PartyGaming, unilaterally implementing certain technical and operational changes." this leads me to believe that the skins didnt know??? 
|
|
#5
10-10-2005, 01:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eurobet says Party\'s charges were unilateral=> Skins didnt know?!
[ QUOTE ]
1. Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: “a unilateral advantage in defense” (New Republic). 2. Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament. 3. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement. 4. Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject. 5. Having only one side. 6. Tracing the lineage of one parent only: a unilateral genealogy. 7. Botany. Having leaves, flowers, or other parts on one side only. [/ QUOTE ] Done. Now you try working on your reading comprehension.
|
|
#6
10-10-2005, 01:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eurobet says Party\'s charges were unilateral=> Skins didnt know?!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] this leads me to believe that the skins didnt know??? [/ QUOTE ] Why? [/ QUOTE ] Below is ALL Conjecture ======================= I'm guessing Party strongly believed that they were losing revenue to hardcore grinder players who played on skins instead of Party. And that most of these thousands-of-hands a week types would do all their play at Party if they could close off access to their more attractive player base somehow. So their gaggle of lawyers pored over their skin contract and found a loophole. Party guaranteed the skins access to the XYZ poker network, but nowhere in the contract did it guarantee that Party's direct player base would be on the same network. If these companies were all run in the USA, a legal fight and even a restraining order would probably be in the works TODAY, because I'm sure a lawyer could argue that the guarantee of Party's direct-players being on the network would be a reasonable assumption or an implied guarantee. Perhaps they have notes from conversations or e-mails to back this up. But alas, these companies are not in the USA so who knows how any legal response might evolve.
|
|
#7
10-10-2005, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eurobet says Party\'s charges were unilateral=> Skins didnt know?!
In the context unilateral was used here, it means that Party did all of the changes themselves, not that they didn't tell anyone.
however, the statement kind of implies that they didn't know.
|
|
#8
10-10-2005, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eurobet says Party\'s charges were unilateral=> Skins didnt know?!
[ QUOTE ]
however, the statement kind of implies that they didn't know. [/ QUOTE ] It does not imply that at all; the use of the word 'unilateral' simply implies that Eurobet is pissed off about it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
