I'm certainly reconsidering it. TPCi's tacit approval of having known thieves attend events is giving me pause. Considering the money spent in travel, hotel, cards, etc., this certainly adds to the 'risk' column of the 'risk/reward' chart.
Thieves caught on video at Worlds, TPCi does nothing
- Thread starter Meesie6x6
- Start date
- Status
I'm certainly reconsidering it. TPCi's tacit approval of having known thieves attend events is giving me pause. Considering the money spent in travel, hotel, cards, etc., this certainly adds to the 'risk' column of the 'risk/reward' chart.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
The last two responses have mentioned known thieves in general being around.
Thieves are everywhere, no? Every league and every tournament, at some point will experience some theft. It happens. But what about afterwards? When a thief is identified, I hear (and witnessed once) that the best way to confront them is to convince them to just give the stuff back, kind of no questions asked. I'm sure this isn't unfamiliar to many of you.
So if we are so concerned about thieves, why haven't people been arguing to get all of those people banned from Organized Play? Indeed they may be already getting banned from the particular leagues or card stores, by the organizers themselves. But why not the entire program?
Thieves are everywhere, no? Every league and every tournament, at some point will experience some theft. It happens. But what about afterwards? When a thief is identified, I hear (and witnessed once) that the best way to confront them is to convince them to just give the stuff back, kind of no questions asked. I'm sure this isn't unfamiliar to many of you.
So if we are so concerned about thieves, why haven't people been arguing to get all of those people banned from Organized Play? Indeed they may be already getting banned from the particular leagues or card stores, by the organizers themselves. But why not the entire program?
What I don't get is why the police can't do anything?
If something that's worth over $3000 goes missing, don't they call Iterpol or the FBI when it goes across the border?
Plus if you own a laptop, you really should have someway of tracing it.
There is several software programs that do so.
Once the person whom took said laptop uses it to go on the Internet, blam it sends out a signal so you can find it.
Anyhow, I don't know any of these people, and I have no clue about their personalities.
I just think its really sad when you can't trust people who play this normally family friendly game to act like civilized people.
When we found out people were taking cards at the local league, they were perma-baned on the spot.
If there was something as important as a laptop taken, there should be legal actions taken.
Yet another reason for us to just quit playing this game.
If the people who run it can't take responsibility for their players (at the location of their biggest event), then why should we continue to support their company?
If something that's worth over $3000 goes missing, don't they call Iterpol or the FBI when it goes across the border?
Plus if you own a laptop, you really should have someway of tracing it.
There is several software programs that do so.
Once the person whom took said laptop uses it to go on the Internet, blam it sends out a signal so you can find it.
Anyhow, I don't know any of these people, and I have no clue about their personalities.
I just think its really sad when you can't trust people who play this normally family friendly game to act like civilized people.
When we found out people were taking cards at the local league, they were perma-baned on the spot.
If there was something as important as a laptop taken, there should be legal actions taken.
Yet another reason for us to just quit playing this game.
If the people who run it can't take responsibility for their players (at the location of their biggest event), then why should we continue to support their company?
It's an entirely different level of risk. Do you watch your kids when in the general public? Of course. Do you deliberately put them in a position to be taken advantage of by a known molester? No.
Swordfish1989
New Member
My 2 cents - is it because we've never had such concrete proof thrown at us before?
losjackal
Technical Administrator
Swordfish, I think there are two issues here:
1. Are people concerned about Gino showing up at a tournament, so much so that they insist on having HIM banned?
2. Are people so concerned about would-be thieves in general (which exist, known or not), that they are considering not attending large tournaments anymore?
Again, the last two responses seem to be about #1, as well as the people on this thread that are calling for more action.
People are also citing the precedent it is setting now in terms of inaction.
I'm considering the precedent it might set going forward whereby people are asking TPCi's penalties to reach even further then TPCi is currently willing to do.
For instance, people were so ENRAGED about TPCi banning of Con and Alex over gaming the Play! Points system at a prerelease. That maybe whatever transpired should have been limited to those players, judges, and the tournament organizer.
And here is an alleged crime of one player vs. another, where players are calling for TPCi to do something about it.
Some people are even of the mind that player's actions outside of the game (being accused of shoplifting in a store for instance) ought to be reflected in their ability to participate in Organized Play.
There is a very gray line here, where TPCi should be reaching and shouldn't be. I'm very much trying to look at the events and issues beyond this one person and incident.
1. Are people concerned about Gino showing up at a tournament, so much so that they insist on having HIM banned?
2. Are people so concerned about would-be thieves in general (which exist, known or not), that they are considering not attending large tournaments anymore?
Again, the last two responses seem to be about #1, as well as the people on this thread that are calling for more action.
People are also citing the precedent it is setting now in terms of inaction.
I'm considering the precedent it might set going forward whereby people are asking TPCi's penalties to reach even further then TPCi is currently willing to do.
For instance, people were so ENRAGED about TPCi banning of Con and Alex over gaming the Play! Points system at a prerelease. That maybe whatever transpired should have been limited to those players, judges, and the tournament organizer.
And here is an alleged crime of one player vs. another, where players are calling for TPCi to do something about it.
Some people are even of the mind that player's actions outside of the game (being accused of shoplifting in a store for instance) ought to be reflected in their ability to participate in Organized Play.
There is a very gray line here, where TPCi should be reaching and shouldn't be. I'm very much trying to look at the events and issues beyond this one person and incident.
ryanvergel
New Member
Are you doing that thing you love to do where you argue against your own beliefs for the sake of arguing?
You believe that Gino should be suspended for this, but you've made lots of responses that would lead almost any other reader to think you're opposed to such action.
I really want to know why you constantly try to be a contrarian? YOU believe that they should be suspended, right? So what are you even doing in this thread? What's your end goal with these distracting lines of inquiry that get repeatedly trumped by people like Moss?
Swordfish1989
New Member
I think it's much simpler than that, it's based on some emotions we've faced since the beginning of time: fear, vengeance, and equity.
I'll start with vengeance, since it's a bit easier to describe. We have a person who comes here with concrete proof that -something- was taken out of his bag by the accused. The accused refuses to answer for it and instead only antagonizes. All of us standing by hate this (and he knows it) because it feels like the good guy lost. The bad guy isn't supposed to get away with it and then wave his victory in our faces. Bad guys get punished.
In terms of equity, we're talking about equality of punishment. Con and whoever else gaming the PP requirements were banned for doing so. Considering how the general opinion of having a minimum PP is already on the fence with the community, and that it was at a pre-release, the public did not see it as a big enough deal to warrant a ban. They gamed the system to gain access to an event, which is an offense that didn't really bother many people. After all, it doesn't really hurt us (us being the playing public). Then there was the hotel poop incident, which happened AFTER an event as well, and while it caused no harm to anyone, they were banned for hurting the image of the game. Now we have someone stealing - with proof- and when presented with the proof, TCPI doesn't do anything NEARLY as detrimental to the parties involved. That doesn't seem fair. In our legal system, for example, you'll rarely if ever get as much time in jail for theft as you would for murder, because the severity of both is different. The players in this situation feel that the severity of theft is greater than that of poop in a hotel room or cheating at a pre-release, and it feels like the punishments are inverted.
This brings me to fear. There's a reason that in our legal system there are different sentences and gravity assigned to manslaughter, first degree murder, second degree, etc., and some of it IS indeed based on fear. The thought of some crazy person planning our your death for years and then carrying it out in cold blood is scarier to us than someone getting into an argument with us and murdering us over that. The same could be said here. We are much more afraid of a $1000 item being taken from us than we are of someone cheating at a pre-release, or leaving poop at our front doors. We feel that the punishment for something that adversely affects us in a bigger way and causes us to feel terrible emotions regarding loss, fear, & panic should have a higher punishment than those other situations that may make us go 'meh'.
So in conclusion, I feel that most people's prime fear here is that we are allocating punishments unfairly and that we fear the lack of punishment might mean this can happen again in the future. As to why we don't feel this way about EVERY theft, I seriously think it comes down to the amount of transparency on the issue. Here it's very clear - Mees posted pictures and the letter, and we saw TCPI's response to what he sent. It's not a mere 'he said, she said' thing - it's solidified now. If Mees had no proof, we wouldn't be so upset because we would 'understand' their decision - ie, they don't have enough proof so they can't ban a player over it. Over here they do.
I'll start with vengeance, since it's a bit easier to describe. We have a person who comes here with concrete proof that -something- was taken out of his bag by the accused. The accused refuses to answer for it and instead only antagonizes. All of us standing by hate this (and he knows it) because it feels like the good guy lost. The bad guy isn't supposed to get away with it and then wave his victory in our faces. Bad guys get punished.
In terms of equity, we're talking about equality of punishment. Con and whoever else gaming the PP requirements were banned for doing so. Considering how the general opinion of having a minimum PP is already on the fence with the community, and that it was at a pre-release, the public did not see it as a big enough deal to warrant a ban. They gamed the system to gain access to an event, which is an offense that didn't really bother many people. After all, it doesn't really hurt us (us being the playing public). Then there was the hotel poop incident, which happened AFTER an event as well, and while it caused no harm to anyone, they were banned for hurting the image of the game. Now we have someone stealing - with proof- and when presented with the proof, TCPI doesn't do anything NEARLY as detrimental to the parties involved. That doesn't seem fair. In our legal system, for example, you'll rarely if ever get as much time in jail for theft as you would for murder, because the severity of both is different. The players in this situation feel that the severity of theft is greater than that of poop in a hotel room or cheating at a pre-release, and it feels like the punishments are inverted.
This brings me to fear. There's a reason that in our legal system there are different sentences and gravity assigned to manslaughter, first degree murder, second degree, etc., and some of it IS indeed based on fear. The thought of some crazy person planning our your death for years and then carrying it out in cold blood is scarier to us than someone getting into an argument with us and murdering us over that. The same could be said here. We are much more afraid of a $1000 item being taken from us than we are of someone cheating at a pre-release, or leaving poop at our front doors. We feel that the punishment for something that adversely affects us in a bigger way and causes us to feel terrible emotions regarding loss, fear, & panic should have a higher punishment than those other situations that may make us go 'meh'.
So in conclusion, I feel that most people's prime fear here is that we are allocating punishments unfairly and that we fear the lack of punishment might mean this can happen again in the future. As to why we don't feel this way about EVERY theft, I seriously think it comes down to the amount of transparency on the issue. Here it's very clear - Mees posted pictures and the letter, and we saw TCPI's response to what he sent. It's not a mere 'he said, she said' thing - it's solidified now. If Mees had no proof, we wouldn't be so upset because we would 'understand' their decision - ie, they don't have enough proof so they can't ban a player over it. Over here they do.
Last edited:
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
I think the bulk of that rage was over confusion. The player base didn't really know what was going on. Once the truth came out about that incident, I think most of the players have been reasonably OK with the resolution, if not the process.
homeofmew
Active Member
Vegeta ss4 - Well yeah there's more of a reason then "it happened in Canada". I agree what Gino and Jon did was wrong, however there are reasons I think this isn't being pushed by the company. Compared the the VGC player situation, this did not go as viral as that incident. But yes there are inconsistencies in banning. I believe a few years ago (06) someone also stole someone backpack at worlds and they ended up with a few years ban. But it was on the main floor (and it was in the US).
Because of the money amount, the Canadian Authorities also can't do anything either as Mees Said.
Bilbo Baggins - From what I understand, and Ginos Facebook he does not have the computer, and all "they" (Gino and Jon) Took was cards. Being that said that's still wrong. Anyway seems like Ginos denying the entire thing. Jon did send Mees cards back, so yeah that's all we really know.
Because of the money amount, the Canadian Authorities also can't do anything either as Mees Said.
Bilbo Baggins - From what I understand, and Ginos Facebook he does not have the computer, and all "they" (Gino and Jon) Took was cards. Being that said that's still wrong. Anyway seems like Ginos denying the entire thing. Jon did send Mees cards back, so yeah that's all we really know.
If what is said is true, I would actually feel uncomfortable being around Gino, specifically, at tournaments. Granted, it wouldn't be to the point in which that would be the main deciding factor for me to go to a tournament. However, I would not want to be around a person, knowing that he could potentially steal something while I'm not looking.
ryanvergel
New Member
Is this to say you would feel disrupted at an event?
I want to quote the penalty guidelines again:
I don't see how this individual, Gino L, is not seen as disruptive to other players, and thus the future events he attends. I know I will feel uncomfortable to be around him, just based on this proven information.
I just can't fathom how it is a better outcome to have Gino and Jon not suspended, rather than removed from OP.
Vegeta ss4
Iron Chef Leader
Homeofmew-This incident has gone more viral than any incident in the past 5 years. So i'm not sure where you heard this is NOT viral, but okay.
The reason Canadian authorities cannot do anything is because extradition laws between Canada and the US. If the Canadian authorities got Gino before he left the country, we would be talking about something else...We would be talking about how to get Gino back. Canadian authorities also can also issue a warrant for Gino, which basically means if he were to return to Canada he would be arrested.
The reason Canadian authorities cannot do anything is because extradition laws between Canada and the US. If the Canadian authorities got Gino before he left the country, we would be talking about something else...We would be talking about how to get Gino back. Canadian authorities also can also issue a warrant for Gino, which basically means if he were to return to Canada he would be arrested.
Bilbo Baggins
New Member
I wouldn't say Gino is denying, I would say he is avoiding/refusing to cooperate while antagonizing everyone. Simply stating his case to get his perspective of not taking the laptop would be denying. Not saying anything while acting like a donkey is another.
Last edited:
PLOT TWISTS:
Gino has blackmail on a higher-up(s) in TPCi.
That, orrrr he threatened to steal their lunch money.
Ok but in all seriousness - it is fascinating how quick TPCi are to ban people with only subjective (mostly word-of-mouth) evidence to go off of - but take this case though - full of eyewitnesses AND (comparatively) hard evidence... in addition to a player who has been accused of shady activity and/or bullying in the past... and no ban?
Gino has blackmail on a higher-up(s) in TPCi.
That, orrrr he threatened to steal their lunch money.
Ok but in all seriousness - it is fascinating how quick TPCi are to ban people with only subjective (mostly word-of-mouth) evidence to go off of - but take this case though - full of eyewitnesses AND (comparatively) hard evidence... in addition to a player who has been accused of shady activity and/or bullying in the past... and no ban?
Last edited:
I can't speak to every aspect of the criticism being directed our way in this thread, but I did want to touch on one issue that I think is a source of confusion.
There is a lot of talk in this thread about precedent. What most of you could not possibly know is the number of reports we get from hotels about various kinds of bad behavior that can happen at a hotel or on their property. Everything from wild 18th birthday parties to players a bit too hyped and loud on energy drinks at 2am.
In the vast majority of these situations we have allowed the hotel to handle these issues, because legally, this is their responsibility. It’s part of what they are paid for. In fact, we know for a fact that the stuff they end up telling us about is only a portion of what the hotels actually end up dealing with, because the Pokémon is a tight community and we probably hear more than you guys think we do.
What I am getting at is that from our perspective, those incidents vastly outnumber the exceptions that have been made and makes our recent decision very much in line with the precedent we have set. I believe that the majority of players would prefer that we continue to allow the hotel to handle these kinds of issues.
There is a lot of talk in this thread about precedent. What most of you could not possibly know is the number of reports we get from hotels about various kinds of bad behavior that can happen at a hotel or on their property. Everything from wild 18th birthday parties to players a bit too hyped and loud on energy drinks at 2am.
In the vast majority of these situations we have allowed the hotel to handle these issues, because legally, this is their responsibility. It’s part of what they are paid for. In fact, we know for a fact that the stuff they end up telling us about is only a portion of what the hotels actually end up dealing with, because the Pokémon is a tight community and we probably hear more than you guys think we do.
What I am getting at is that from our perspective, those incidents vastly outnumber the exceptions that have been made and makes our recent decision very much in line with the precedent we have set. I believe that the majority of players would prefer that we continue to allow the hotel to handle these kinds of issues.
homeofmew
Active Member
Vegeta ss4 - The VGC Player/(s) who left feces on the floor of a hotel hallway went super viral, (happened last year BTW - google the name Ruebén Puig Lecegui ) if I recall it made it to the kotaku website. I understand this situation as many others this year like Con and Alex went pretty "vrial" on facebook and the pokemon community. However my only point is the VGC Player incident went beyond the realm of the Pokemon land. In the post above me Dan talked about precedent issues like this, and some of those precedents did end in bans, who knows.
Bilbo Baggins- According to his post on facebook today he claims that the claims on here are false. He did however not answer Jason's PMs over facebook, yeah we all know that. But yeah he was complaining about this thread in general on facebook.
Bilbo Baggins- According to his post on facebook today he claims that the claims on here are false. He did however not answer Jason's PMs over facebook, yeah we all know that. But yeah he was complaining about this thread in general on facebook.
Last edited:
Vegeta ss4
Iron Chef Leader
Biggie, is that a SERIOUS post?
Wow...that made EVERYTHING worse, good job. Why am I shocked by that absolutely ridiculous statement?
So because this happens ALL the time, you can't do a thing about it??? Wow...
It is in your own guidelines, yet you fail to enforce it!! TPCi is such a joke with their contradictive rulings. You are like the 5th grader at elementary school that is the popular kid. We all want to play on the playground but you pick and choose which rules you will enforce. If we don'tlike the rules then we can't be your best friend.
This is atrocious, I wouldn't be surprised if 'mom likes your post, it has "we do nothing wrong we get everything right" written all over it.
Edit- She has already liked it.
Homeofmew- So pooping on a floor is worse then stealing?
Wow...that made EVERYTHING worse, good job. Why am I shocked by that absolutely ridiculous statement?
So because this happens ALL the time, you can't do a thing about it??? Wow...
It is in your own guidelines, yet you fail to enforce it!! TPCi is such a joke with their contradictive rulings. You are like the 5th grader at elementary school that is the popular kid. We all want to play on the playground but you pick and choose which rules you will enforce. If we don'tlike the rules then we can't be your best friend.
This is atrocious, I wouldn't be surprised if 'mom likes your post, it has "we do nothing wrong we get everything right" written all over it.
Edit- She has already liked it.
Homeofmew- So pooping on a floor is worse then stealing?
Last edited:
wow. Pontious Pilate washes his hands again.
TPCI should take note, because even to this day, no one like Pontious Pilate
homeofmew
Active Member
Vegeta ss4 - Well they didn't poop on the floor, supposedly one of the friends of Ruebén put some poop in paper and left in the hallway as a joke, and Ruebén ended up getting his title stripped and a ban. As far as your question "is it worse" personally, I think stealing in general is worse. Leaving poop on the floor is gross, but it was in a paper thing as they claimed. Personally I think they got banned because it did go so viral as I said before and the Hotel probably complained to TPCI. The hotel takes care of theft incidents, and isn't going to directly complain to pokemon about it, they might notify them, but not like " X player vandalized our hotel with poop".
- Status