CoinPoker discussion

Seriously, do you not even know how to read threads, either?

What’s that supposed to mean Mike ? Show me where what I’ve just posted (after asking where posts have been deleted) is anywhere in the thread ?

Where is the post on bencb re terms ?

Where is the post you made a “minor edit” to where you’ve said jspill was doxxed ?

Where are these posts ? They aren’t on the thread when I’m logged in, they aren’t on it when I’m logged out, they aren’t on it when I view from private tab and they are not showing when you go to my profile and look through posts ?

You said there was only “one minor edit” so where’s all this ? And as you said previously I’m apparently “posting the same stuff again” and if so where is the duplication ?

And why are you accusing me of doxxing someone’s name and occupation for Mike ? Occupation was stated clearly by another poster in the thread and James did an article identifying himself as jspill on this forum - where’s the doxxing?

[image]0m5VH9B.jpeg[/i

...]

See https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp..., for example.

This is the edited post, from above, where you were accused of doxxing: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp.... (I was unaware that he had already posted his name and occupation.)

Why a link Mike ? Why’s it not available here ? This is my “post history” on my tab, nothing omitted and that’s what I see here, no sign of the post you just supplied in that link?
[image]M8k6ceU.png[/im

[image]jjr4DWm.png[/im

[image]vsF5jeH.png[/im

[image]4e6Y365.png[/im

[image]Mc6kXHL.png[/im

[image]wBL7Vve.png[/im

[image]PNmgngO.png[/im

[image]qy2Wge3.png[/im

[image]tJtQXAI.png[/im

[image]1zL8Cif.png[/im

..] ..] ..]

..] ..] ..]

..]

..] ..] ..]

You see Mike the thread went from a 5 page thread to a 4 page thread last night … I know exactly how to read a thread and I also had a post count before and after

So the sarcastic comment “do you not know how to read threads” I’m unsure why you would make that ?

While we’re here a serious allegation was made by James from CoinPoker that I had “threatened to kill 2+2 mods” it’s on this forum in full sight - after I raised a report on it and you had seen it commenting on it as attached - that allegation is false

But if you Mike as moderator could now give a clear answer on that - have I threatened to kill 2+2 mods ? If that’s going to be met with anything but a categoric “No” maybe you could lay out the basis for your answer because that’s simply something I’d never write or even insinuate on a forum and allegations like those have consequences - there’s no “ambiguity” about a threat to kill it’s either been said or it hasn’t so which is it ?

And if you’d also mike give a straight yes or no (now your aware of all information) - Have I doxxed Jspill/James?

Why a link? So that you can read the post that is in full view to everyone else in the entire thread at https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/di...

It also prevents the disruption of the thread that you cause by posting multi-screenshots of individual posts that are already in the thread.

For instance, instead of your image in this post by you, it is better to post the link of https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp..., or else use the Quote button to automatically post ... the Quote, like this:

Hope that’s helpful to you Mike and James/Jspill … and I only use AI to save me time lads I already know the position it’s not my first rodeo, far from it

**Clear Analysis**

Transparency posted:

> "If this continues my next 'campaign' will be 2+2 its owners / mods the lot [...] you don't want this [...] I don't take **** from anyone (even less away from the keyboard)"

This is a **conditional threat of escalated public campaigning** against the forum, its owners, and moderators. It is aggressive forum rhetoric but does not mention killing, violence, or physical harm.

jspill (a CoinPoker employee, publicly known as James/jspill) characterized this as Transparency having **"threatened to kill the 2+2 mods."** This is **not supported** by the post. jspill exaggerated or misrepresented the statement.

**Legal and reputational ramifications**

- **For jspill (James):** Publicly accusing someone of making a death threat (a serious criminal allegation) when the underlying post contains no such threat can constitute **defamation/libel**.

- Since Transparency is publicly linked to the X account **@pokerbots1** and many in the poker community know his real identity, this accusation can cause **substantial reputational harm** — portraying him as violent or unstable.

- In many jurisdictions, false accusations of criminal conduct (like death threats) are actionable, especially when made publicly on a well-known forum. jspill could face demands for retraction, apology, or even legal action for damages. His position as a CoinPoker employee makes this riskier, as it ties the company to the claim.

- **For the forum / 2+2 / Mike Haven:** If the forum allows jspill's unsubstantiated "threat to kill" allegation to stand (or fails to moderate it while heavily moderating Transparency's replies), they risk being seen as enabling defamation.

- Forums have some legal protections (e.g., Section 230 in the US), but they can lose them if they actively participate in or endorse defamatory content.

- Failing to correct the record could expose the forum to complaints, bad publicity, or (in extreme cases) contributory liability claims if Transparency pursues action. It also undermines the forum's credibility in handling disputes fairly, especially in threads involving affiliated sites like CoinPoker.

**Bottom line:** The "if this continues" post is a threat of forum war, **not** a threat to kill. jspill's stronger claim is false and carries real legal/reputational risks for him personally (and potentially the forum if they side with or fail to address it), particularly because Transparency's real-world identity is known and linked in the community. A demand for a public correction is fully justified, and in the absence of one Transparency should take legal action against jspill and other linked parties.

No, I did not see a post where you wrote, "I am going to kill 2+2 mods."

Yes, I did see the posts where you wrote, "If this continues my next "campaign" will be 2+2 its owners / mods the lot - and I've been around here for over 20 yrs (this is an account for CoinPoker purposes only) you don't want this - and neither should of CoinPoker but they got cheeky - and I don't take **** from anyone (even less away from the keyboard)", and, "He hung himself the weak prick - and I knew him personally and sort of liked him - not many can handle it".

I will let your court case decide whether or not the allegation is damaging to your reputation.

[Uploading Image...]

Mike, you just confirmed in writing that I did not write “I am going to kill 2+2 mods.” That’s the specific allegation James made publicly on this forum. You’ve confirmed it’s false.

Instead of correcting it, you brought up an unrelated matter that has nothing to do with this question. It doesn’t change the answer.

Harsh language is not a death threat. Only one allegation matters here: did I threaten to kill 2+2 mods. You’ve confirmed I did not.

“I will let your court case decide” is not a moderator answering a direct question. It’s you declining to correct a claim you know is false.

Will you post a public correction stating James’s claim was false? Yes or no.

@Transparency can you confirm you did post this full text, where you brag about someone's death that you harassed online?

Post the screenshots of the comments attributed is the best way to do it if you want an answer I’m not trawling through stuff considering how much has been deleted and moved

But again you make rash assumptions that I “harassed someone online”

Let me just put you straight on that also, there’s nothing posted there that intimated any online activity (there wasn’t ) - indeed I recall already making a clarification on that, that it was a legal dispute that the other party wasn’t going to come out of well (bankruptcy, loss of home etc) and he took the easy way out - he tried the “tough guy” approach initially pulling a gun on me in his kitchen when I went to collect, that failed, he tried the pity approach with a first failed suicide attempt but I personally served him papers lying in his hospital bed so that didn’t work and then he checked out for good … he couldn’t handle it (the situation he put himself in) and was a “weak prick” taking the easy way out … so what’s your point Jspill?

NONE of any of that has ANY bearing on the allegation you made publicly about me “threatening to kill 2+2 mods” absolutely none . In the vein of your employers you like to muddy the waters with absolutely everything - you made a straightforward false allegation and now your going round the houses to deflect

This is not a court where I might or might not have to answer questions with a simple yes or no.

Will you answer with only a yes or no, "Have you stopped threatening to kill 2+2 mods?"?

It's in the thread still, you quoted it a couple days ago

Mike, “have you stopped threatening to kill 2+2 mods” is a loaded question — it assumes the false premise you already disproved yourself. That’s the same rhetorical trick as “have you stopped lying.” I won’t answer a trick question built on a claim you already confirmed was false.

You had a straightforward yes/no available: “Was James’s claim true or false?” You know the answer. You just won’t say it.

James — you’ve now posted the same “campaign” quote twice. It still says nothing about killing anyone. Posting it again doesn’t make it say something different. If you have an actual quote where I threatened to kill anyone, post it. If you don’t, saying “it’s in the thread” while pointing at a quote that isn’t it, isn’t evidence — it’s repetition.

I’ll ask both of you the same direct question again: will either of you post a public correction that the “threatened to kill” claim was false? Yes or no.

I was asking if you can confirm you posted all of this:

James, look at the timestamps you just posted yourself: #26 at 07:54 AM is the “campaign” post. #27 at 07:58 AM is a separate post, four minutes later, about someone unrelated. Two different posts, two different subjects, posted minutes apart. You’re stitching them together to make it look like one statement — it isn’t.

Neither post, together or apart, says anything about killing 2+2 mods. You can quote them as many times as you like, side by side, bold, italic — repetition doesn’t merge two unrelated posts into a threat that was never made.

I’ve already answered the other matter you keep raising. Recycling it here again instead of addressing the actual question is the same move as before: deflect rather than answer.

So, again: was the “threatened to kill 2+2 mods” allegation true or false? You’ve had multiple chances now to just say it.

To summarize what’s outstanding:

1. I’m awaiting both of your answers on whether the “threatened to kill” claim was true or false.
2. I’m awaiting Mike’s confirmation that I did not dox James.
3. I’m awaiting Mike’s clarification on why posts are missing from the timeline, per my screenshots — leaving an unclear and incomplete picture of what’s actually been said here.

Three straightforward questions. I’ll wait for the answers.

Where, the reference to 'hung himself' is not in your AI summary in post #153 for example so you haven't answered yet whether you posted all of the text the moderator mentions, and the AI seems unaware of that part.

I asked AI if you doxxed me, this is what it said. Since you like to just paste what AI has told you, it's interesting I get different answers:

***

This is a classic "gray area" internet argument where someone is trying to use a technicality to justify being a jerk.

To give you the short answer: It is absolutely still a form of doxxing, but it is highly unlikely to be illegal.

Here is how that breaks down when you look at the ethics versus the law.

1. Is it doxxing? (Yes)
Doxxing (dropping documents) is the act of unmasking an anonymous online persona by revealing their real-world identity, location, or private details.

The person who did this is arguing: "It's public information, so I didn't 'leak' anything." While it’s true they didn't hack a database, doxxing is about the act of cross-referencing and weaponizing data.

The Intent Matters: The information was brought into a completely unrelated forum argument specifically to intimidate, silence, or signal to the other person: "I know who you are in real life."

The Context Matters: Even if someone links their identity on a professional bio, pulling that real-world identity into a heated, anonymous forum thread to use as leverage is, by definition, doxxing.

2. Is it illegal? (Almost certainly no)
While it is malicious and against the spirit of almost every online community, it doesn't cross the legal threshold into criminal activity in most jurisdictions for one major reason: The user voluntarily published the link.

Because the person explicitly wrote "I am X on the Y forum" on a public company website, they effectively waived their legal expectation of privacy regarding that connection. For information-sharing to be illegal, it usually has to involve:

Hacking or Data Breaches: Stealing private, unlisted information.

True Harassment or Incitement: If the person posted a home address, phone number, and said "Go attack this person," that crosses into criminal harassment or stalking.

Breach of Contract/GDPR: If a company employee leaked a user's private registration data, that's a legal issue. But a user Googling public text is not.

The Forum Rules Exception: Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it's allowed. Almost every major forum (and platforms like Reddit) have strict No Doxxing / No Personally Identifiable Information (PII) rules. Administrators generally do not care if the info is on a public bio; if you post someone's real name and details in an argument to harass them, you will usually get banned.

Ultimately, the person doing the unmasking is hiding behind a semantic loophole ("it's public, so it's not doxxing") to justify toxic behavior.

-

James, one more thing worth pointing out: you made the "threatened to kill" allegation first — before I ever linked you to your own public identity. So this entire doxxing detour, the AI hypothetical, all of it, came after the fact, as a reaction to being caught out on the original false claim. That order matters.

Also notice: the doxxing question was addressed to Mike, not you. You've jumped in to answer a question that wasn't asked of you — another way to insert yourself and steer things away from the one you actually owe an answer to.

For the record, since you've raised it: someone else on this forum already identified you as working for CoinPoker, and you never objected. All I did was link your own article, where you yourself publicly wrote that you post here as "jspill." That's self-disclosure, in your own words, in your own byline.

Your AI answer says "almost certainly no" to illegality anyway, based on a vague hypothetical it wasn't given the actual facts of. Manufacturing a generic AI opinion about a situation it never saw isn't evidence.

And still, through all of this: no answer to the one question that was actually put to you. Not the doxxing tangent, not the AI back-and-forth, not who was asked what. The "threatened to kill" claim you made — true or false?

Every post since has been about anything except that. That's not confusion, that's avoidance. I have all I need now. I'm still waiting on the actual answer.

Are you using AI to generate your actual posts as well? If so which AI, as it can make mistakes. I’m just pointing out you did engage in doxxing as an intimidation attack to silence someone, can you confirm that? That’s a pattern that matters too, you use threats of violence, and claim they weren’t explicit, demanding anyone concerned with your anonymous online persona and its tendency to be threatening, answer as if they’re in court, as Mike Haven said. Then you too also dodge questions - every accusation is a confession it seems. You also doxxed several alleged CoinPoker owners / staff before me, that’s the order of events.