Change to the Official 888PL Rules

[Garth Kay]

My issue is with the way in which rules can be changed.

Are you serious, do you disrespect and think so little of all of us that you think we would all believe that this is your primary motive for starting this thread?

Please mate, I have been in this game for a long time. And if we changed a rule to suit your situation and help you qualify I doubt very much yo would be concerned about how the rules can be changed and why.

[trishan]

I tell you what, if you are that unsatisfied with this league, and believe that 888PL acts in such an inappropriate manner and continue to denegrate or cast dispersions on the people who operate this company then I suggest you find an alternate supplier for your poker needs.

I am not unsatisfied with the league at all. I enjoy playing in it and the people who play within it and I want the league to grow and get better. I laud the league in its efforts to promote poker to a new audience and make in roads into new markets. This thread has always been about rule making and interpretation, hence why I originally posted in the thread about a third party body reviewing such rule changes.

[trishan]

My issue is with the way in which rules can be changed.

Are you serious, do you disrespect and think so little of all of us that you think we would all believe that this is your primary motive for starting this thread?

Maybe it is because I am a law student and have been brain-washed by the law school to think a certain way or maybe it is because I am extremely naiive, but this was never meant to be about anything other than rule-making.

[maccatak11]

I couldn't make it because of personal circumstances and I even told the TC last night to unreg me if I didn't get back in time.

Then what the hell are you complaining about then?

You agree with the spirit of the rules, and you agree that the 'changed' rule is the correct one, yet you start a whole thread complaining simply about the fact that they could be changed, even though you acknowledge there was no problem with the new or old rules?

C'mon mate, seriously.

Somebody please post every facepalm picture ever made.

[666HARPS666]

Trishan , my personal opinion , you made your statement . Now just leave it m8


Does anyone who has read this believe that the ruling made against Trishan was arbitrary?

Has anyone here experienced 888PL/NPL make a ruling, to suit itself, and used the "fairness" defense in instigating said rule?

Does anyone have any issue with 888PL introducing rules immediately to stop actions that may be detrimental to the league, venues and/or players?[/quote]


No Garth

[Garth Kay]

My issue is with the way in which rules can be changed.

Are you serious, do you disrespect and think so little of all of us that you think we would all believe that this is your primary motive for starting this thread?

Maybe it is because I am a law student and have been brain-washed by the law school to think a certain way or maybe it is because I am extremely naiive, but this was never meant to be about anything other than rule-making.

Your OP reads very differently if this was your one true and only goal Trishan.

So then I ask the questions again:

Does anyone who has read this believe that the ruling made against Trishan was arbitrary?

Has anyone here experienced 888PL/NPL make a ruling, to suit itself, and used the "fairness" defense in instigating said rule?

Does anyone have any issue with 888PL introducing rules immediately to stop actions that may be detrimental to the league, venues and/or players?

[Garth Kay]

Poll now added.

Are these the questions you wish the players to answer Trishan?

[trishan]

You agree with the spirit of the rules, and you agree that the 'changed' rule is the correct one, yet you start a whole thread complaining simply about the fact that they could be changed, even though you acknowledge there was no problem with the new or old rules?

Yes. I had a look over all my posts in this thread and my argument right throughout has been that it is not against the rules and it concerns me that rules can change.

It's not that I don't trust the 888PL or feel that they are unfair, it's the potential for the league to use it (without any 3rd party regulation). My particular situation just highlights how that potential can manifest itself over what I thought was an accepted assumption.

[gundog]

Your OP reads very differently if this was your one true and only goal Trishan.

So then I ask the questions again:

Does anyone who has read this believe that the ruling made against Trishan was arbitrary?

Has anyone here experienced 888PL/NPL make a ruling, to suit itself, and used the "fairness" defense in instigating said rule?

Does anyone have any issue with 888PL introducing rules immediately to stop actions that may be detrimental to the league, venues and/or players?

no
no
no

[trishan]

Poll now added.

Are these the questions you wish the players to answer Trishan?

I think it oversimplifies the issue. People should consider the potential such a clause can have on rule-making. The question should be: should the league have the power to make any rule based on "fairness" effective immediately or should there be some period of notice before a rule is changed.

I think your answers in the poll will be biased as people seem to be missing the point and think that I personally am trying to exploit a loophole when in every post throughout this thread I have suggested the opposite.

So OK, people who register, leave and subsequently do not participate will be unregistered because that is not in the "spirit of fairness". So they register and go all-in on the first hand and automatically muck. They still aren't supporting the venue so what next?

Will there be a ruling that in the "spirit of fairness" you have to play a certain amount of hands before you receive points? Or will there be a certain amount of time you are required to play before receiving points? What if you get AA on the first hand with several players raising before you, do you fold so as to get points? Will this turn into a bubble-like scenario?

OK, so even if players register and play a few hands, is it really in the "spirit of fairness" that they don't actually purchase anything from the venue? After all it only seems fair that if a venue pays per head that each player spends some amount. So shall we impose a $50 minimum spend? What about people who can't afford it, will they be turned down?

Nowhere does it say in the rules that a person who registers and subsequently does not play will be unregistered. In fact the rules suggest, as I have pointed out, that an absentee will be blinded out. It doesn't matter if you or I think it is right or wrong, if it is within the rules then it is my opinion not an issue. If management want to change rules then they should implement them after the next Grand Final to allow time for people who have based their behaviour around the current rules to adjust.

Someone brought up the law and one of the fundamental principles of law is the rule of law. The rule of law means that "the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty." Rules must be prospective in that people should be able to adjust their behaviour based on the rules ie. Based on the 888PL rule, a pro could register and never play in order to qualify. The other characteristic is certainty. Relying on "spirit of fairness" clauses means that there is no certainty as the rule -maker can impose new rules based on "fairness" and as I have shown above this can be used to change the rules quite dramatically.