You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
You are in a wolrd of tloubre now.
ah, more school playground talk.
sincerely.
Cone on Gents, we really do want to have a good debate on this (as I noted earlier in the thread), let's not start getting personal.
Links
Links to sites which seek to gain commercially from the link being there will be removed and users are asked to refrain from posting them. For example, posting to a competitor’s website would very much be a no-go. Posting of links to external sites will be permitted if doing so adds something to the quality of the discussion. Posting YouTube links is fine as long as the videos are not deemed to be in favour of competitors – so again, posting a link to a poker show which is heavily branded by another online poker room will soon find itself removed. Please use some judgment when posting links.
Yes the site may not gain massive commercially just yet but by posting it on the forum everyday will really help.
stuarty
he has a point? his point was a personal criticism and questioning my sincerrity. ger's last post was just an insult and nothing else.
for your information, i have taken time to answer the majority of posts, but chosen not to from those who resort to being abusive or who want to create an argument. i am not putting any effort into responding to those.
the old thread was nothing to do with me and i see no need to comment.
you post about links, which says, "posting to a competitor's website ..." etc. my website is not a competitor's website. and says, "posting of links to external sites will be permitted if doing so adds something... " my website does. It says, "please use some judgement when posting links". This is where we are, without insults, judge for oneself.
posting on the forum is one way people can find information on sky poker tournament results, player leagues, hero cards, UKOPS and other stuff. but it is only one way. people don't need to go from the forum to find the website. google, yahoo, facebook, twitter and other social media, indeed other poker forums, carry far more people to the website than this forum. know also that competitor websites are keen for me to carry their corporate messages but i have declined those opportunities.
asserting that i am not sincere is unfair. unacceptable.
lets turn it around. given that sk already allow links to commercial player-results databases [sharkscope], why should they make a special case and ban links aussies?
why are people more concerned about aussie's site than sharkscope?
one good reason for sky allowing both links to scope and aussie's site is they also gain commercially from the interest those sites generate.
only one site currently have an opt-in policy for scope and that is stars. 888 recently went back to opt-out and WPN allowed scope to publish their results. i'd strongly argue that scope generates interest in poker and is a very positive thing.
i'm genuinely perplexed as to why people who are ok with sharkscope are against aussie's site.
I'm engaged with other matters at the moment, but I explained the situation earlier in the thread, & that remains the case until the debate has concluded, & a decision is made.
Anyway, we shall see. A decision will be made in due course, & then of course, it will all kick off again, whatever way the decision falls.
Massive +1
on sharkscope you can see that you've opted out. aussie site did allow free access on some stuff, now not so much, its impossible to know if your info is hidden unless a paid member checks its-no regulation.
players don't like the idea that when playing the £33 BH mains, detailed info about their average number of bounties, ROI, relative place in the field, winnings that year from a specific set of tournament: all info not available if you've opted out on SS to be revealed. there is more info on aussie site than a free search on sharkscope for a non opted out player.
rec players don't want to feel that other players in the field have more info at their fingertips than they do, esp if they have to pay (no matter how little) to have the same processed info.
@TK, if you follow this thread, you'll notice that aussie doesn't defend against any of the specific fact related complaints. Teddy chimes in to say its ok and the info if not that useful and many regular forum users have said their 'uneasy' about it.
I noted this comment, by you, too....
".....as usual sky haven't been proactive in making it clear what is allowed...."
Which I thought was a little unfair, unless I misunderstood it, (if so, my apologies) as I've been active in this thread, & tried to show both sides of the debate, & I don't generally swerve any questions on this Forum.
As I explained, perhaps poorly, its not as straightforward as some may suggest, & there are genuine views from both sides which are relevant.
So I suggested we have a good debate about it before coming to a decision. And that's what is happening.
Best burnt or scolded, as Grandma Kendall used to say.