Site bans US players

Mok · #21 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 10:04 PM

This is why the line-item-veto will never be written into law.

If the President (any President) could cut out these amendments that get tagged on, then American's wouldn't get the shaft as often as we do now.

There are /some/ decent politicians out there, but you better do your homework. Everyone voted for this bill because if they didn't, they'd be lambasted for saying "no" to port security.

I can see a time in the near future where the real reason we have the right to bear arms starts making a real hum across the nation. It is getting out of control, and it doesn't matter which side of the imaginary "isle" you think you stand on. The right vs left debate has turned into a them vs us debate, and they have the power, and anyone we put in with our own vote every few years, pretty much falls in line with the rest of them.

Rise and fall of the roman empire (isn't that a book?), we're approaching the time when the Romans failed....

Oh, and if I read more stuff about "the Christian right" i think I may just poke my eyes out...... I'm a Christian, proud of it, and I do think quite conservatively, but I'm certainly not a red republican.... Anyone who votes on party lines, is very ill-informed.

Hope that wasn't a political rant..... Since I didn't pick sides.

w16227 · #22 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dad604

First site to ban US players. Party poker to follow suit.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...384407,00.html

Any idea what this really means?

The bill blocked banks from transferring money to the online sites.

Well - Neteller is not an online gambling site. So is this blocked?

Also - I can still log on and play at pacific/888 (Oct 4th). Are they planning on blocking all US based IPs? Or are they just complying with the law and not allowing for transfers from US banks (the .00001% of them that still let you deposit directly)?

hachkc · #23 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 04:51 PM

The 2+2 legislation forum has alot of information on this but the thought process is some sites will simply ban US players to avoid running afoul of any legal issues; better safe than sorry I guess. Technically, the Neteller route should be fine as long as Neteller doesn't cave to US pressure, if any is applied. Neteller obviously knows some of the money is being transferred to gaming sites so the phrase "Aiding an abetting" comes into play but Neteller isn't a US company so who knows. Also, withdrawls from sites shouldn't be a problem as the deposits appear to be the issue; keep that bankroll up.

* These statements do not in anyway constitue any form of legal advice so please use them or ignore them based at your peril.

JM · #24 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 05:02 PM

Something interesting happened when I logged in to my neteller account yesterday. They had one of those intermediate pages that paypal does sometimes that announces a change in terms and requires you to accept before you can continue.

It had links to these new policies and privacy agreements which were quite detailed and took a long time to read through completely. One item in there caught my eye though, they spelled out very clearly that they are NOT a bank and do not insure your deposits and blah blah blah, basically explaining how they do not do all of these things that banks do. It seemed pretty obvious to me that they were trying to define themselves a a non-bank.

hachkc · #25 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

Something interesting happened when I logged in to my neteller account yesterday. They had one of those intermediate pages that paypal does sometimes that announces a change in terms and requires you to accept before you can continue.

It had links to these new policies and privacy agreements which were quite detailed and took a long time to read through completely. One item in there caught my eye though, they spelled out very clearly that they are NOT a bank and do not insure your deposits and blah blah blah, basically explaining how they do not do all of these things that banks do. It seemed pretty obvious to me that they were trying to define themselves a a non-bank.

The other thing in the new TOS is that you now need to verify that you are using them in a way that doesn't violate any laws in your host country. There were also language covering guarantees and indemnifications regarding your use of the service. Check out 2+2 as there have been a number of discussions regarding the new TOS.

JM · #26 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 05:09 PM

Yeah I saw that part too, more of a CYA statement than anything though since they know where their bread is buttered.

BozefusWashPaw · #27 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 06:40 PM

I don't understand this law... It just seems like another BS Law that ruins something that I enjoy and do very well in.... One part of this law that I really don't understand is that we can still place bets on other sporting events like horse racing (I could have misheard when watching CNN). They said that it was found that more degenerant gamblers start with poker... I find this funny because if your betting on the outcome of a sporting event that you have absolutley no control over, I'd say you more likley to become a degenrant. For example I have been playing online about 10 hours a week for the past 3 years... I started with 100 bucks and grew it enough to pay for books the past few semesters.... I do well...
I want to turn pro and actually have come really close to makign WPT events through online satellites (Bubble boy from going to Foxwoods in 2005, 5 spots from going to the WPT Championship this past spring, and another top 25 finish in an attempt to make the Main Event this summer) My total buy-in for those tourneys if I anted up out of my wallet would be near 50k, not to mention travel and etc. All those tourneys I played online would have covered that expense and I spent 50 bucks on all 3 satellites combined. I don't know how I'm going to satellite my way into tournaments anynmore other than heading to the casinos (which sucks for me because PA doesn't have anything but slots). This law just may have hurt my chances quite a bit. This is more a reason for me to hate the George Bush presidency. Sorry to all the GW supporters, I am just really frustrated with what effect this has on me eventually turning pro. I may just have to move to Canada.

kirthew · #28 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 07:08 PM

I was really pissed after hearing this earlier this week... That idiot from Iowa who snuck this into a Port Security bill should be ashamed of himself... I hate politicans who tell me how to act in my own home... and what I do in my own home is my own business... Our liberties are being taken from us more and more...

I hope the fine people of Iowa recongnize this... and vote this idiot out of the Senate...

That being said... we do need a 'Line Item Veto' in this country... I think it would solve alot of the pork problems that happen in the Senate... but I am starting to think they are a bunch of crooked bastages anyway...

Sorry about the rant...

BozefusWashPaw · #29 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 09:32 PM

It is frustrating because I really have no idea why even such a law would be passed..... It just is stupid... This seriously could lead to the demize of the poker boom (No more large prize pools in the WSOP and WPT). However, there is a loop hole. Net teller is not a bank so forget congress Im still playin poker... Thank god for Net Teller.

99%evil · #30 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BozefusWashPaw

It is frustrating because I really have no idea why even such a law would be passed..... It just is stupid... This seriously could lead to the demize of the poker boom (No more large prize pools in the WSOP and WPT). However, there is a loop hole. Net teller is not a bank so forget congress Im still playin poker... Thank god for Net Teller.

There's a very good reason. They're not getting a cut/taxes.