Jump to content

Talk:Cereus Poker Network

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Opening comment

[edit]

I don't understand why we have a screenshot of AP's GUI but not UB. Can someone remedy this? 64.180.240.190 09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to see if I can get a shot of UB's gui but I don't have an account there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoryx (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UB/Absolute seperate articles or one

[edit]

Please comment at Talk:UltimateBet#Needs to be a seperate article. --kingboyk 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here. Please don't start multiple discussions. 2005 02:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move the discussion then. Here is where the mergeto template points, and article talk pages are where these things get discussed. --kingboyk 02:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the discussion is not appropriate here as it covers many articles, and how to do things in the future. The merge templates obviously don't matter since the edits will just be reverted to follow existing consensus. 2005 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources about ownership

[edit]

Do we have any reliable secondary sources confirming ownership of UB and AP? Also, how Joe Norton got hold of AP if indeed he is the sole owner? Those who have read in depth debate about the AP scandal will be aware there's a lack of clarity over these issues. --kingboyk (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added one. Another would be this but the one I linked is more interested since it states "Tokwiro" is Norton's middle name, which is an interesting touch. How he he bacme owner remains a mystery officially, but we can add that if ever it is revealed. 2005 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UB Cheating Scandal

[edit]

I added this section, with a link to the relevant summary. It didn't surprise me to see that an unregistered user attempted to take it down shortly after it was added. I am willing to discuss the merits of reporting the incident here; it certainly seems like something that is well-documented and people should know about (with the reference providing in-depth information). Adam (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, foum threads are not reliable sources that meet the encyclopedia's policy. The cheating scandal is cited now with a far superior source. Additionally that forum thread has all sorts of childishness in it, which is part of the reason forum threads are not reliable sources. Please don't add the material again. if in the future a site like Pokernews, Bluff or Cardplayer or CNN does a news story on the subject, we can reference that article and any additional factual material. 2005 (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, the source is not the thread but the original post, which contains no childishness and will hopefully be published somewhere without the added comments soon. It goes into far more detail than the article referenced originally (which I left in) and cites sources. The article merely states that the problem existed and gives a rough overview; the forum post gives an in-depth timeline, graphs, compelling evidence, etc. At any rate, even if the link is not a valid reference, the information added to the article should still stand, as it is basic detail that a non-poker player should be able to read beyond just "there is a cheating scandal". I would like to hear from other users on this. Adam (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been sent some more resources (published more mainstream) for in-depth information on the cheating scandal. I maintain that the information should be included on the page, even if the source must be changed. Adam (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So add reliable sources if they exist. But for pete's sake stop adding that forum link. It's just going to be removed every time. Forum threads are not reliable sources. 2005 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is childish is to expect a magazine that derives significant income from the subject to ever print anything derogatory LeCrude (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 has it right... a forum page is not a reliable source under our policies and guidelines. This detailed information needs to be published in a reliable source before it can be included here.Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you f-ing serious? If you know the history of those "unreliable" forum sources being suggested, you would realize that those same forums, those same professional players, are the very reason that the ABSOLUTE scandal broke open to the point of Absolute even acknowledging the possibility of wrongdoing, and eventually admission of outright cheating. Now Ultimate Bet has a WAY worse scandal on their hands, as a result of the now-experienced-with-past-cheating online forum community who know what FACTUAL evidence to present in their forum posts to expose the new cheating happening at Ultimate Bet. A quick skim at UltimateBetCheats.com (and AbsolutePokerCheats.com, for comparison) shows with facts and statistics and session history what no "reliable" media source would have the bravery to show publicly. YEESH. 96.52.130.129 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and PS: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/05/ultimate-bet-issues-statement-unfair-play.htm is a May 29th "reliable source" article that summarizes (without FACTS or EVIDENCE, mind you!) what the forum community has been saying for the last few months, and has been sorta-confirmed by UB in the last few days. I highly doubt that PokerNews is going to say anything more damning, for fear of being sued or at least losing ad revenue by AP/UB or other companies, but in a nutshell PokerNews is saying that UB has acknowledged some degree of wrongdoing. Now WHY would UB do this unless factual evidence that is indisputable has been presented to the public via "reliable sources"? And from what sources OTHER THAN online forums have any of us heard about the 2008 Ultimate Bet cheating scandal? hint: NONE! 96.52.130.129 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
update (my final thoughts, sorry for the essay ;) ) -- (PokerNews.com quote) Allegations concerning unfair play on the site began when an online account named "NioNio" was identified as having results far beyond statistical norms, and other accounts were subsequently identified as having been used as part of the fraudulent scheme. Six player accounts were identified as being involved in the scheme, which targeted the highest-limit games on the site. The six accounts also changed screen names over the course of the fraudulent play, with 18 total screen names involved. Those screen names, per the official Tokwiro statement, are the following: NioNio, Sleepless, NoPaddles, nvtease, flatbroke33, ilike2win, UtakeIt2, FlipFlop2, erick456, WhackMe44, RockStarLA, stoned2nite, monizzle, FireNTexas, HeadKase01, LetsPatttty, NYMobser, and WhoWhereWhen. In discussing the investigation, Tokwiro stated that they became aware of the hidden software vulnerability in February of 2008, after being alerted of the suspicious results of the "NioNio" account the month prior. After determining that unfair play had occurred, Tokwiro then began a four-pronged investigative effort. (/quote) <-- SHAMEFUL! PokerNews didn't have the balls to even bother saying WHO "identified" or HOW they "became aware" or WHO "alerted" them the month prior. The online FORUM community of high-limit poker pros, that's WHO/HOW! "The staff and management of UltimateBet are fully committed to providing a safe and secure environment for our players..." since the AP scandal INVOLVED upper-level management/staff, this kind of statement is of the highest degree of laughable-ness. :( 96.52.130.129 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A forum page that goes into the detail that this one did should be allowed to "Breath" here and not be immediately edited off by some self imposed wiki-master. The diligence shown in the deletions makes me question the motives of the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCrude (talk • contribs) 13:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UB Phil Hellmuth Scandal

[edit]

Should something be on this page about Phil Hellmuth wrongly awarded a pot? wouldn't this add to the controversy of the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.147.187 (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Own page

[edit]

The UB/AP scandal is deserving of its own page. It's disgraceful a scandal of this magnitude, having been reported on 60 minutes (surely that's a "reliable/quotable" source?), and have been so impactful to an entire culture/community of people, even as perhaps non-mainstream as online poker players are, is described so sparsely on wikipedia. This is definitely notable. --219.77.124.92 (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Here is the article about it. 2005 (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Play at Ultimate bet!

[edit]

They have superusers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.196.60.206 (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not quite true: "Blanca Games purchased all Network assets in August 2010 from Tokwiro Enterprises."

[edit]

"most" assets, except a few that -- arguably -- were dropped because of reminders of the scandals of the recent past. Most noteably, UB.com was retained BUT "UltimateBet.com" was dropped -- thus beginning a new scandal of sorts: the URL says it all http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/ultimatebet-com-now-forwards-depositbonus-com-but-what-they-up-864582-print/?pp=100 199.214.18.122 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cereus Poker Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cereus_Poker_Network&oldid=1206798095"