CoinPoker debate

It got “personal” when libellous allegations were made that I “threatened to kill 2+2 mods” (which didn’t seem to require any moderation here despite repeated requests). and the continual twisting of my words instead of just answering valid questions - so anyone wants to go back and read over the thread from the start that’s where it got “personal” - and when it goes like that the gloves come off . As for the “not a good look” … I’ll live
James decided to put himself in this , unfortunately he didn’t realise it wasn’t going to be his decision if/when he got out of it
I’ll keep it reasonable here but that’s my position

Oh and I’m always reasonable … to a point but that threat to kill allegation went too far

Slugant - not buying that it’s the lefty playbook that they can do as they please but when they get pushback they cry foul. He was given plenty of opportunities to walk back his libellous allegations but chose not to instead doubling down on X with accusations there of “threatened to drive the TwoplusTwo mods to hang themselves”

As for the moderation , imagine I was on here accusing him of being a paedo or something ? Same thing as the threat to kill allegation levied at me ? You think that would have got “edited” ? Of course - so I’m not playing some one sided game “fair”

Yep there it is again - mods asked us to stop but you proceeded on X thereafter

You can run all the AI you like at no point did I ever make threat of violence etc against 2+2 mods your comments on here and again on X in relation to that are libellous - and everything from the 29th on has you taking what I say and distorting it - which is a common Clickout modus operandi - discredit the messenger to kill the message . You point blank refuse to address issues continually resorting to personals which gets you the same back .

The reassurances given to that CoinPoker customer on the main thread about seizure should in my view of been moderated - with a clear disclaimer that they were worthless - and you/coin knew they were when you made them

James I don’t care what you say / do I’ve made my position very clear as to what I’m doing

(The lefty comment is about you crying foul whilst you continue you little “discredit” campaign - the rat isn’t about you but all lefty’s love to throw out the “racist” line - he is a rat because he dives in makes his little speech and then hits the block so it has to sit unanswered- that’s a rat)

And yes a lot of this is borne out of frustration, I believe I commented on that previously “maybe that wasn’t handled so well”

But I had 6 mths in the background before X right up to that first post evaluating/trying to talk sense into coin as i still harboured belief you might be on the straight and narrow and were just making “mistakes”

But that’s long gone - imo everything EVERY LAST THING done recently has behind it a mindset that is just not good - and when you add it all together you come to the conclusion “this is an accident waiting to happen”

Others simply look at rake etc I’m looking under the hood and taking an educated guess of where this is heading

At any point since the 29th you could of walked that allegation back and said ok let’s take the issues one by one and deal with them - but we both know that doesn’t suit because your used to waffle and deflection - you can’t deal with the issues that way no more than Mario / Pads / Carrell . Every interaction was met with deflection or silence when they realised deflection wasn’t going to wash
So it’s just personal attack tennis now on a thread you rightly described as a “containment” one which you’ve inserted yourself into with that one goal - discredit the messenger. You could of just stayed in your lane on the main thread I rarely if ever post on it

And that

Exact same thing I reported to Coin as happening in 2025 - reports submitted no response
And that’s one of the reasons I left - no song and dance just walked away . You guys kept the dialogue going and I was still helpful but you pushed it too far with your continual misrepresentations/hoodwinking of the player base and that’s what has brought us here

Here is my AI response to your AI report

Rebuttal Report
Prepared by: Transparency
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Response to AI-generated accusations of intimidation and doxxing circulated by a Clickout Media employee regarding forum and X activity.
Executive Summary
A Clickout Media employee has produced and shared an AI-generated report that mischaracterizes public forum and X posts as severe intimidation, harassment, and malicious use of suicide imagery. The report conflates separate events, twists rhetorical warnings into direct threats, and inflates public-information sharing into “doxxing.”
This rebuttal separates the events, restores proper context and intent, and highlights Clickout’s pattern of deflection through personal attacks rather than addressing substantive transparency concerns.
1. Timeline and Separation of Events
There are two distinct components being conflated:
Event 1 – June 29 Forum Exchange (Core of the AI Report):
• An ultimatum-style post (“the time is up - DECIDE”) in an ongoing TwoPlusTwo thread.
• Reference to a prior legal dispute in which I was owed money. The counterparty faced prolonged legal pressure and tragically took his own life.
• In context and intent, this was used to warn about the weight of prolonged adversarial processes, not to threaten replication against forum staff.
• I later clarified in the thread that it was a fully legal process, not personal malice or foreknowledge.
This has been distorted into allegations of threatening to kill moderators or drive them to hang themselves. The AI report focuses heavily on the suicide screenshot as proof of “weaponization” and “intent to alarm.”
Event 2 – Recent X/Forum Post (≈1 Day Ago – Alleged “Doxxing”):
• Publication of already public information on James (a Clickout-associated individual operating under multiple pseudonyms), including LinkedIn profile, rateback.com details, and related articles.
• Accusations regarding practices such as a “criminal handbook” for working in Thailand.
• The individual has previously linked himself and his work to the forum and poker community. No private data was disclosed.
The AI report primarily weaponizes the June 29 reference to discredit the full range of criticisms, including the recent public posts.
2. Rebuttal to Key Accusations
The Suicide Screenshot Reference (June 29)
• Context and Intent: Used rhetorically to highlight the seriousness and potential human costs of escalated legal or adversarial processes.
• Clarification Provided: Explicit follow-up confirmed the legal nature and lack of harmful intent.
• Misrepresentation: Claims of direct threats to kill or induce suicide are baseless escalations. The AI report ignores clarifications and the blunt nature of TwoPlusTwo debate culture.
• While the phrasing could have been more sensitive, it does not meet any standard for intimidation or extortion.
“Doxxing” Claims (Recent Post)
• Aggregating and highlighting public records (LinkedIn, rateback.com, pseudonym usage) is not doxxing.
• This constitutes legitimate commentary on industry transparency and practices, especially given the individual’s own connections to forum discussions.
• Tying this to the earlier screenshot creates an artificial narrative of a single “campaign.”
Psychological and Legal Overreach
The report’s amateur diagnoses (lack of empathy, antisocial tendencies, grandiosity, etc.) and analysis of timing (“4-minute gap”) are speculative and biased. Adversarial online discourse in poker communities does not equate to criminal or clinical behavior.
Overall Totality
By fixating on one screenshot, the report taints all related criticism. This deflects from core issues of transparency, account handling, pseudonym use, and business practices.
3. Clickout Media’s Pattern: Deflection and Discrediting
This aligns with Clickout’s repeated approach:
• Respond to reasonable questions with personal attacks and character assassination.
• Deploy AI-generated documents that sound authoritative while relying on selective framing and misrepresentation.
• Use emotional elements (the suicide reference) to broadly discredit the messenger and avoid substantive engagement.
Look at the faux outrage here. They seize on one imperfectly phrased reference and blow it up into a grand psychological threat profile, while their own reported track record includes far more serious tactics: redirecting traffic from children’s charities and cancer awareness websites to gambling platforms, and alleged intimidation of journalists and employees who have scrutinized their operations. This is their modus operandi—projecting harm while engaging in (or enabling) practices that raise serious ethical and reputational questions across the industry. They are not the victims of “digital intimidation”; they are practitioners of aggressive deflection and narrative control. The selective moral panic over a forum screenshot is classic misdirection from their broader pattern of behavior.
4. Legal, Ethical, and Platform Considerations
• Protected Activity: Public commentary on legal disputes, industry practices, and publicly available profiles is protected speech.
• No Doxxing: Public professional information does not qualify.
• Forum Norms: TwoPlusTwo supports robust debate; external AI dossiers are not a substitute for standard moderation.
• AI Concerns: Generating psychological attacks from cherry-picked posts raises serious issues of fairness and accountability.
Conclusion
The AI report fabricates a narrative of ongoing intimidation by distorting the context and intent of a June 29 rhetorical reference and stretching separate public-information posts into doxxing claims. Clarifications were provided in-thread, no direct threats were made, and all referenced material was public or community-relevant.
Clickout Media should engage directly with the transparency concerns raised instead of deflection tactics. I remain open to fact-based discussion on the underlying issues

Follow-Up Report: Clickout Media’s Tactics of Deflection and Suppression
Prepared by: Transparency Date: July 14, 2026
This follow-up provides additional documented context on Clickout Media’s pattern of behavior when facing scrutiny — the very pattern on display in their AI-generated attack on my forum and X posts.
Core Pattern: Faux Outrage and Narrative Control Clickout and its associates frequently respond to criticism not with evidence or transparency, but with aggressive deflection, character attacks, and procedural pressure. The current AI report — which inflates a single contextual reference from a June 29 forum exchange into claims of severe intimidation — is a textbook case. They weaponize emotional topics to discredit the messenger while ignoring the substantive issues raised about transparency, pseudonym use, and industry practices.
Documented Tactics Against Journalists and Critics
1. Bogus DMCA Takedowns to Suppress Investigative Reporting In March 2026, Press Gazette and Search Engine Land published detailed investigations exposing Clickout’s “parasite SEO” model: acquiring reputable news, gaming, and sports sites; replacing journalists with AI-generated gambling and casino content (often promoting offshore/non-GamStop sites); and then abandoning the sites after Google penalties.
Shortly after publication, false DMCA copyright complaints were filed that temporarily removed these critical articles from Google search results. Google later reinstated the stories after determining the complaints were without merit. This is not engagement — it is an attempt to bury journalism through legal process, creating real costs and chilling effects for reporters and publishers.
2. Legal Pressure and Actions Against Critics
• Clickout (or closely associated parties) has pursued or threatened legal action against independent SEO investigator Timothy Malmros Genach after his multi-part series detailing their tactics.
• Former employees, such as poker writer Blaise Bourgeois, have publicly accused the company of wrongful termination after raising internal ethical concerns. Some have reported continued use of their bylines on AI-generated content post-firing and are pursuing claims involving defamation and unauthorized name use.
3. Exploitation of Trusted Domains (Including Charities) Investigations revealed Clickout-linked operations repurposing or redirecting high-trust websites — including the Charlie Gard Foundation (children’s cancer charity) and Road to Peace (linked to car accident charity Brake) — to host gambling promotion content. This demonstrates a willingness to trade on goodwill and sensitive causes for affiliate revenue, further underscoring the selective moral outrage in their response to my posts.
4. Internal Culture and Journalist Treatment Multiple accounts describe a pattern of mass journalist layoffs during the shift to AI content, NDAs on exit, and in some cases, continued publication under former writers’ names. This creates a climate where raising concerns internally can lead to swift professional consequences.
Why This Matters Here The AI report’s focus on a single screenshot and rhetorical warning is classic misdirection. While they cry “intimidation” over forum debate, their own track record shows systematic use of legal tools, content manipulation, and deflection to silence or discredit critics. This is not the behavior of a company confident in its practices — it is the behavior of one that prefers narrative control over accountability.
The poker community and broader industry deserve better: open discussion, evidence-based responses, and genuine transparency. I stand by my original calls for accountability and remain available for fact-based dialogue

Only published yesterday - I’m fully aware by the way “James” might not even exist - it was all a bit too easy with him pointing to his physics degree etc

https://theholycoins.com/news/clickout-media-published-ai-generated-articles-under-fired-journalist-ben-touati-s-byline

Here’s something for you all to chew on.
The restricted territories and seizure clauses in CoinPoker’s terms and conditions didn’t appear out of nowhere. Someone made a conscious decision to strengthen those provisions last year. That timing raises legitimate questions, especially when paired with the forum responses after months of pressure: statements along the lines of “we won’t seize on jurisdiction grounds — why would we?”
If that is genuinely the company’s firm position, why not simply remove or soften those clauses? As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s a five-minute fix. Leaving them in place keeps certain options open, and that deserves scrutiny in an industry where player funds must be protected.
Hypothetical Scenarios Worth Considering These are purely hypothetical and not accusations — they illustrate why clear, unambiguous terms matter:
• One obvious potential advantage is flexibility. If things don’t go well operationally or financially, the clauses could theoretically allow seizure or other actions at the company’s choosing.
• Another structural possibility: If a company holds significant player funds (say $100M) but is valued lower in a sale (e.g., $10M intrinsic value), an acquirer might pay a premium (e.g., $50M) precisely because the existing terms could enable recovery mechanisms post-acquisition. The original owners could exit cleanly (“we just sold the business”), while the buyer potentially doubles their money and benefits from legal protections built into the T&Cs.
Again, these are hypotheticals. I am not claiming any current plan, valuation, or intent exists. But the structure of the terms makes such scenarios possible, which is exactly why transparency and closing loopholes matter.
On Valuation and Momentum There are unconfirmed reports that CoinPoker has been shopped around for sale in the $100M range. For context, the business was essentially nothing until March this year. Stripping out any promotional free month, it has roughly three months of real trading history. In my opinion, that does not support a nine-figure valuation today.
The model relies heavily on ambassador deals, revenue share, and substantial marketing spend. The long-term proof of that approach will only emerge over many more months. The current “buzz” is real but expensive, and questions remain about the sources and sustainability of that early marketing push.
While many rightly focus on gameplay, rakeback, and day-to-day player experience, I’ve been looking at the bigger structural picture. That’s why I continue asking for greater transparency and practical steps like tightening or removing the more open-ended terms.
Player trust in this space is hard-earned and easily damaged. Clear terms, consistent communication, and verifiable financial safeguards benefit everyone — operators and players alike. I’ll keep pressing on these points because they matter beyond any single thread or moment.