Quote:
|
The only problem discovered was the period in question.
|
How could other problems be discovered without access to the data? How many actual players keep a log of each bet they make and the results? In this instance the players
GOT LUCKY that lawnet noticed something amiss, knew of this forum, and posted his results. This could have easily gone unnoticed in the past if it occured over short periods of time.
EH's position is that this is a
one-time glitch. The burden is on them to establish this as a fact because they are the ones claiming it as a defense. How can this be considered a one-time glitch when no one has been able to analyze the past data? Can I say because the sun came out today it is a one time glitch because I didn't see it come out yesterday? For all I know, this game has glitches all the time. How easy would it be to establish it by just turning over log files for the past few years?
This is not rocket science and you are right, it is not "court". If this was proceeding in court, those past log files would fall under the definition of "relevant" evidence and would be discoverable by an opposing party. The legal definition of "relevant evidence" for discovery purposes is very broad.