Thieves caught on video at Worlds, TPCi does nothing

[PkmnHu]

Nobody has said the picture alone is evidence. The picture was what could be provided to Mees to identify the person who took his stuff. Hotel security saw this person (identified as Gino) take a bag. The video likely cannot be released because of our privacy laws in Canada.

Denying this evidence is desperate reaching.

I'm not "desperate reaching" I just think the community needs to shut up. I also think it is wrong that Mees keeps getting the community so stirred up over the matter.
From what I know, I believe Gino could have stolen it. I believe anything is possible. But from what Mees presented to TPCi. There is not hard enough proof to ban him. Whether this is a good/ bad call is NOT up to us.

 

[Bilbo Baggins]

From what I know, I believe Gino could have stolen it. I believe anything is possible. But from what Mees presented to TPCi. There is not hard enough proof to ban him. Whether this is a good/ bad call is NOT up to us.

I guess having his bag in his hand, walking out the door is not proof these days? Man, I could get away with so many things now....

- - - Updated - - -

Is this the same guy we're talking about..?

You either go out a hero, or stay in long enough to become a villain..

 

[Cyrus]

Hu, you may not be desperately reaching, but you are overreaching. The letter, if presented accurately, shows a punt to the authorities -- not any conclusion about "hard enough proof" at all.

 

[Pooka]

At first I was very skeptical of the situation, and I was not ready to speak up on the issue until enough evidence was provided to make me feel comfortable about doing so. Even after the initial story, the police report, and the pictures, I might be able to fathom someone not being convinced still. But the eyewitness reports are what seal the deal for me. At this point, you pretty much have to be in denial to think the theft didn't really happen.

 

[CardKaptor]

Thats a fair point. BUT, at the same time who, from now on, is not going to watch Gino closely.

Me, for one. I've never met Gino in my life and do not know what he looks like. So the only outcome is that I am hyper aware of my surroundings, which while prudent in all situations, is not the atmosphere TPCi wants associated with their game.

 

[Alakalen]

I'm not "desperate reaching" I just think the community needs to shut up. I also think it is wrong that Mees keeps getting the community so stirred up over the matter.

This is a terrible argument. As of now Mees has had no reconciliation on the matter, he doesn't have his laptop back, the offenders aren't banned, why should he just shut up and be content. The best way to actually get anything to happen is to rally the support of the community. If he just sits on his own and is unhappy nothing will happen, but if he brings it to the attention of the community he can hopefully still at least get some measure of justice.

Based on precedent the fact this didn't happen exactly within a tournament shouldn't matter, there are numerous examples of players being reprimanded for things that happened with much greater separation from a tournament than this, and so the offenders should be banned in this case also. I hope tpci listens to their community and changes their mind for the well being of the game.

 

[jenkem918]

I'm wondering if I'm looking at the right guy on Facebook, but he does have a picture of a macbook tagged as Mees macbook. Uploaded Sep 2. Is this real? I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already.

jeezus how brazen can you be? there is no way anyone can defend him after looking at his facebook.

 

[Ruiner]

I want to approach this in a slightly different manner than some of the people posting here already have. I am not going to look at this directly as being a case of Mees vs Gino/Jon. I know Mees in passing, have never spoken to Jon, and have always had pleasant personal experiences with Gino myself. I don't necessarily want to pass judgment on either side.

What I do want to point out is a potential extreme case of hypocrisy regarding bans and punishments by TPCi. If TPCi wants to claim they saw insufficient evidence regarding the issue, and give the potentially guilty side a free pass and acquit them entirely, then that is their choice. If they feel that the party in question is GUILTY, they absolutely should be banned for the crime, not only based on the grounds of justice, but on past precedent set by previous handlings on their behalf. We've seen the Nick Schutte case. We've seen incidents, such as the case in Europe with "poopgate" for lack of a better term. Theft gets bans. The act doesn't have to be held immediately during the actual tournament. Those two precedents have both been established. I know of people who have been banned from the game FOR LIFE soley based on posting inappropriate images on this particular site. That CERTAINLY wasn't "during their events". Either TPCi feels there is not sufficient evidence to convict the party in question, and they are entirely innocent in their eyes, OR they committed the acts and need to be appropriately punished. I REFUSE to accept some pathetic "technicality" that has been COMPLETELY IGNORED by multiple past actions by the company being used in a situation like this. TPCi's handling of bannings and punishment for crooked behavior in the past year has been fickle and questionable at best, and seeing the trend continue in this manner really does make me doubt the direction of the policy as a whole. Both Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh have dealt with the problems of theft in the past, and have at least attempted to crack down on the issue. I really would prefer that Pokemon follow in the same footsteps and nip the problem in the bud as quickly as possible. This is sending a pretty unfortunate message. I want a cut and dry decision from TPCi on the issue. Either Gino and Jon are innocent of this crime and they did not do it and should not be punished, or they did do it, and should be punished. I don't think I can handle some vague loophole cop out of a reaction as the official response.

- Chris Fulop

 

[cpeterik]

Pokemon has the friendliest atmosphere and I've met only the nicest people through the game. I would hate to think this is an indicator of a trend; rather just one or two bad apples that should fade out from the game ASAP. The last thing we need is to feel like our safety is being jeopardized by the poor decision TPCi has made regarding this issue. After all, they can't control what people do, but they can choose the proper disciplinary action. If the players in question aren't banned, think of how high tensions might get at tournaments- who knows what might happen in the heat of the moment if these players are allowed back at huge tournaments- like Nationals? I for one would not like to wait and find out!

 

[Articjedi]

I want to approach this in a slightly different manner than some of the people posting here already have. I am not going to look at this directly as being a case of Mees vs Gino/Jon. I know Mees in passing, have never spoken to Jon, and have always had pleasant personal experiences with Gino myself. I don't necessarily want to pass judgment on either side.

What I do want to point out is a potential extreme case of hypocrisy regarding bans and punishments by TPCi. If TPCi wants to claim they saw insufficient evidence regarding the issue, and give the potentially guilty side a free pass and acquit them entirely, then that is their choice. If they feel that the party in question is GUILTY, they absolutely should be banned for the crime, not only based on the grounds of justice, but on past precedent set by previous handlings on their behalf. We've seen the Nick Schutte case. We've seen incidents, such as the case in Europe with "poopgate" for lack of a better term. Theft gets bans. The act doesn't have to be held immediately during the actual tournament. Those two precedents have both been established. I know of people who have been banned from the game FOR LIFE soley based on posting inappropriate images on this particular site. That CERTAINLY wasn't "during their events". Either TPCi feels there is not sufficient evidence to convict the party in question, and they are entirely innocent in their eyes, OR they committed the acts and need to be appropriately punished. I REFUSE to accept some pathetic "technicality" that has been COMPLETELY IGNORED by multiple past actions by the company being used in a situation like this. TPCi's handling of bannings and punishment for crooked behavior in the past year has been fickle and questionable at best, and seeing the trend continue in this manner really does make me doubt the direction of the policy as a whole. Both Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh have dealt with the problems of theft in the past, and have at least attempted to crack down on the issue. I really would prefer that Pokemon follow in the same footsteps and nip the problem in the bud as quickly as possible. This is sending a pretty unfortunate message. I want a cut and dry decision from TPCi on the issue. Either Gino and Jon are innocent of this crime and they did not do it and should not be punished, or they did do it, and should be punished. I don't think I can handle some vague loophole cop out of a reaction as the official response.

- Chris Fulop

The only vague loophole I see is that Nick Schutte stole the cards during sunday night in the open play area. Technically that's on tpci's time. The picture of Gino stealing stuff is monday morning, when tpci isn't running anything. Either way it's stupid, the guy probably thinks he's invincible now, especially for someone who seems to thrive on being hated.

 

[lurb]

I would just like to chime in and add my own disgust to this situation. TPCi is NOTORIOUSLY bad at making decisions, and/or showing consistency in those decisions. To let Gino completely off the hook here is absolutely insane. He's even been accused of cheating in the past, trying to bully other players into scooping to him, etc. These past few months have seen some of the worst TPCi decisions in history. Unbanning two people caught cheating on camera because they pleaded ignorance (two extremely established players, they knew what they were doing), followed by a "lol not our job" response towards Gino and Jon. Players should not be intimidated or worried to show up at a Pokemon tournament.

As for people making comparisons to the Alex/Con Le pre-release thing, I think it's better to separate these situations. Alex and Con may not have "deserved" a ban at first, but it was within the rules to ban them. They also dug themselves a deep hole by lying. However, it does directly contradict past bans/suspensions like the VGC kid being permabanned for leaving feces in a hotel hallway (international, outside of an event.) Martin Moreno being suspended for giving alcohol to minors. Dudes being banned for two years after stealing cards from Anaheim Worlds. All of these players were severely punished in either identical (in the case of VGC kid) or similar situations.

Aaand victim blaming. Just stop. Leaving your luggage at the bell desk during the time after checking out and actually leaving is very common. I don't care what's in the luggage. Could the hotel have put the luggage in a more secure area? Yep. Is it anyone but Gino's fault the Gino stole? Absolutely not.

I cannot reiterate enough how much the blatant hypocrisy sickens me. Gino should have been banned for past offenses, and needs to be banned for this.

 

[Articjedi]

Wait, so I heard a rumor that Jon was going to return the cards that he stole from Mees. What you're saying is that he never stole any cards at all, those were his and Gino planted them there?

 

[GrandmaJoner]

This is an absolute farce if TCPi does not hand out any sanctions.

 

[Bolle_Aap]

I have no idea how TPCi can screw up so badly. There is video evidence, there is photo evidence and there are eye-witnesses. Still, they do nothing. My mind is blown.

For the people that cannot open the images, I re-uploaded them for you so you can all see them:

http://i.imgur.com/Tq1vAUB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Gu254Xu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/r30VS8K.jpg

Also, if you cannot read the report, here it is:

Please find following our security department's account of the incident as we understand it: On Monday August 12, 2013 at approximately 2pm, the occupants of room 931, including Mr. Mees Brenninkmeijer, Mr Manuel Broekes and Marcel Opperman approached our hotel security officer to report a possible theft from their luggage. Reported missing was one Macbook laptop computer and some rare and valuable Pokemon cards, with the total value of missing goods estimated by Brenninkmeijer to be $3,000. All of the goods reported missing were belongings of Mr. Mees Brenninkmeijer. Mr. Brenninkmeijer requested to view hotel security footage of the area where his luggage was stored at the time of the suspected theft. This request was granted and upon viewing the video footage it was evident to Mr. Brenninkmeijer that the names of the 2 persons seen on camera involved with the theft were known to him as people he had met during the Pokemon competition and who had been invited over to a party in their guest room #931 the previous night. The camera footage showed that the 2 persons involved only targeted Mr. Brenninkmeijer's luggage (a pink suitcase that was easily identifiable) out of several pieces of luggage that were being stored in the area at the time. They were seen removing items from the suitcase and exiting the hotel. A snap shot of the suspects were shown to BRENNINKMEIJER, who in turn confirmed knowing both suspects from the tournament. Suspect #1 was ID'd by Brenninkmeijer as Jonathan BRISTOW and suspect #2 as Gino LOMBARDI. Writer advised BRENNINKMEIJER to contact non-emergency and report the matter directly to the Vancouver Police Department. At 17:46, VPD members arrived on-site to investigate. End of report Gordon Cook | Rooms Division Manager Pan Pacific Vancouver 300-999 Canada Place, Vancouver, BC V6C 3B5 P: +1 (604) 895-2471 | F: +1 (604) 891-2897 | [email protected]

 

[SonicAD]

Overall this is going to cause some really awkward situations pretty soon. I mean, yeah, it's not like Mees is going to run into Jon and Gino by chance at an event, but Mees has provided enough evidence (along with other, reputable, witnesses) to prove to many in the community that this did happen, beyond a reasonable doubt. The players who know about this aren't going to feel comfortable being at the same event with people who they know would do something like this. I'm honestly baffled as to why they're not banned; I think overall it's going to hurt the community as a whole to have them still playing, and I would prefer TPCI err to the side of player safety here.

 

[Tego]

This is a very strange situation - I feel like I'm missing some crucial piece of information, but I have no idea what it could be.

Why does TPCi consider this case to be different to other similar cases in the past, with incidents happening at the hotel / tournament venue after the conclusion of the event? We do not know. We don't know the whole story, but I do agree this is hard for everyone to understand based on the information we do have.

Also, the accusations towards Gino are of a very serious nature. We still haven't heard Gino's side of the story. If Gino is innocent, he should be allowed to tell his side of the story. If he isn't innocent, and indeed _stole_ a _laptop computer_ from a fellow player, he of course should not be allowed to be part of this community anymore.

There's been a great deal of turmoil in the community lately, and it makes me sad to see that. I hope we can all get through this together as a community, overcome all the different incidents we've seen lately and continue being the best and friendliest gaming community I know - at least that's the way I'm used to knowing it since I joined in 1999.

 

[awesome37]

Great... so you get banned by TCPI for a bunch of stupid things, but when something that actually is BANWORTHY HAPPENS, YOU CAN GET AWAY SCOTT-FREE!

 

[losjackal]

I was asked to lend my voice to this thread, because I am a Pokedad. But the main reason I'm posting this is because I'm also someone who actively watched the drama unfold as this situation was originally shared to the community back on August 12, and I have something material to add.

Many arguments have been presented in this thread about why something should or shouldn't be done. Some are grounded, some are not. I'll avoid making this post 5 times as long by quoting and debating those, but I will state some salient points in my mind.

1. Don't leave a computer in a suitcase unprotected in the lobby of a hotel. Look at that picture...there is nothing secure about it. That woman doesn't know who is or isn't authorized to be looking in a bag and removing something, and thus the hotel cannot be liable. http://i.imgur.com/r30VS8K.jpg
2. There is clearly something personal going on here between players. They attended a party the night before in Mees' room, and they are targeting his bag the next day. Whatever is going on personally, I find it interesting that in some cases players wish TPCi minded it's own business. But in this case, they want TPCi to reach even further into personal business.
3. And it is personal. Yes, both players happened to be in Vancouver because of Worlds, but it was the day after the event TPCi was responsible for. I can see arguments where TPCi can't be held liable for matters that happen outside of that event. What if Player A stole Player B's wallet at a restaurant a few blocks away? What if it happened at the airport? On the plane on the way home? It seems very clear that if it happened at the event in the hall, the jurisdiction would be clearer. But unfortunately Monday morning in the hotel lobby during checkout is at least one step removed. It's not logical to think that TPCi needs to police all matters among Pokemon players who happened to be in Vancouver that weekend, no matter where they were and for day(s) before and after the tournament event itself.
4. It's not clear that the Macbook was taken by Gino. At least the security report just says items were removed. The bag Gino is carrying looks like it could contain a Macbook, but it also could be a binder. This is almost direct evidence, but not solid proof. Otherwise it is at least circumstantial evidence that Gino and Jon were captured on video removing items and that the Macbook is subsequently missing. (Maybe the original video was clearer, but here all we have are these stills.)

Based on the hotel report and these video stills, I can see where the evidence isn't strong enough to merit a ban. Have any of you looked up the default penalty for theft at an event? It is only Disqualification. Obviously other factors such as total value ought to be weighed when investigating and making a decision, but it is similarly false to imply it's as simple as "the community doesn't tolerate thieves! ban them!"

What I still find curious is the eyewitness the OP wrote about: "Additionally, eyewitnesses, including one who saw Jon and Gino with the stolen items, messaged Dave what they saw." Pooka also cited an eyewitness. I wonder if this testimony was factored in enough?

If you want my opinion, I believe Gino took the laptop. I believe that because on the morning of August 13, I posted a detailed recount of the events as they were explained thus far:

http://imgur.com/SGdhCwe

In response, Gino volunteered this reply:

http://imgur.com/E8XiQMs

This isn't a court of law, but by refusing to answer to the community, you're certainly not doing anything to try to defend your alleged actions.


So, the chosen action was a warning letter. I can only presume that ANY subsequent questionable actions would lead to suspension. Speaking of which, this is indeed in the Penalty Guidelines:

9. Suspension
Pokémon Organized Play may issue suspensions to players who disrupt other players or the events they attend.

So players can disrupt players, or they can disrupt the event as a whole. It's not clear that the player-vs-player disruption is only limited to the events themselves. The interpretation of this sentence is crucial, since it is the one and only guideline that would call for an appropriate response from TPCi. Though, these resource documents are meant to govern the events, not the Organized Play program as a whole. To some extent Spirit of the Game could govern who is welcome to be part of Organized Play, but is "the Game" even involved when two players have a personal matter the morning after the event in the hotel lobby?

 

[Nemes]

Let me put it in very simple terms: with Schwimmer's unbelievable answer this story has far exceeded the point where it's just plain internet drama. I do expect the company that runs the game I play to do everything in its power to fight people that can menace the healthy environment of its events. And theft is a very serious issue that you can't get away with something as simple as “that is not under our jurisdiction”.

This is not a questionable OP decision we're talking about, which in the end might be right or wrong. I'm seriously concerned about putting my faith – not my money, my FAITH – in a company who sees something that's utterly wrong, something which is (at reasonable extent) resposible of, something that can threaten me as a customer and a loyal fan, and simply looks the other way.

 

[Slev]

[*]Don't leave a computer in a suitcase unprotected in the lobby of a hotel. Look at that picture...there is nothing secure about it. That woman doesn't know who is or isn't authorized to be looking in a bag and removing something, and thus the hotel cannot be liable. http://i.imgur.com/r30VS8K.jpg

No real comment on this. This is just sound advice.

[*]There is clearly something personal going on here between players. They attended a party the night before in Mees' room, and they are targeting his bag the next day. Whatever is going on personally, I find it interesting that in some cases players wish TPCi minded it's own business. But in this case, they want TPCi to reach even further into personal business.
[*]And it is personal. Yes, both players happened to be in Vancouver because of Worlds, but it was the day after the event TPCi was responsible for. I can see arguments where TPCi can't be held liable for matters that happen outside of that event. What if Player A stole Player B's wallet at a restaurant a few blocks away? What if it happened at the airport? On the plane on the way home? It seems very clear that if it happened at the event in the hall, the jurisdiction would be clearer. But unfortunately Monday morning in the hotel lobby during checkout is at least one step removed. It's not logical to think that TPCi needs to police all matters among Pokemon players who happened to be in Vancouver that weekend, no matter where they were and for day(s) before and after the tournament event itself.

I don't understand why something is "personal" or not is relevant. Theft is a crime. It doesn't matter if the perpetrator is my father,friend, or a complete stranger. A large majority of homicide is also very personal.

The argument about liability doesn't really make sense to me either. TPCi isn't liable for the actions of competitors that compete in their sanctioned events much like the NFL isn't truly liable for actions of NFL football players, but the NFL still punishes persons who get into trouble outside any sanctioned NFL event. This account of theft is marring for the Pokemon community's image.

[*]It's not clear that the Macbook was taken by Gino. At least the security report just says items were removed. The bag Gino is carrying looks like it could contain a Macbook, but it also could be a binder. This is almost direct evidence, but not solid proof. Otherwise it is at least circumstantial evidence that Gino and Jon were captured on video removing items and that the Macbook is subsequently missing. (Maybe the original video was clearer, but here all we have are these stills.)

You are correct that it is not clear that the Macbook was taken by Gino. What is clear is that "items were removed". I hate the idea that this is only relevant if the "Items removed" was a 1000+ macbook. Who cares what is in the bag. The bag was not Gino's. It was identified as Mee's bag. This is theft. PERIOD. Gino walked out of the hotel with "items" belonging to Mee's shown visibly on security camera.

Based on the hotel report and these video stills, I can see where the evidence isn't strong enough to merit a ban. Have any of you looked up the default penalty for theft at an event? It is only Disqualification. Obviously other factors such as total value ought to be weighed when investigating and making a decision, but it is similarly false to imply it's as simple as "the community doesn't tolerate thieves! ban them!"

I find this surprising. If multiple competitors can be permanently banned for an incident with feces in a hotel, but people can get away with stealing things w/ a warning and or tournament disqualification it may be time to rewrite those guidelines. That is just my opinion.

I am just still a bit perplexed about how this was handled.

I don't really have anything else to say.