1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Counter-Strike Pro handed 1000-year ban for sending explicit messages to 15-year-old girl

By midian182 ยท 15 replies
Feb 8, 2017
Post New Reply
  1. Counter-Strike tournament service ESEA doesn’t mess around when it comes to handing out suspensions. It has just imposed a 1000-year ban on one player after sexually explicit conversations and photos between himself and a 15-year-old girl surfaced online.

    As reported by Kotaku, Reece “bloominator” Bloom’s ESEA account is now banned until June 6 3016, or around 365,000 days. The account lists the reasons as “Malicious Activity.”

    The chat logs between the girl and 25-year-old Bloom are still online. They show the player boasting about how “there’s just something about being able to influence young minds,” and “I just don’t care that I’m a pedophile.” He also sends her a nude video of himself.

    The girl clearly states that she is a minor in the conversation, something Bloom acknowledges. He posted an apology on his Twitter account (since deleted), the cached version of which you can read here. “No excuses, obviously incredibly stupid of me to do what I did. But please keep the hate on me, don’t give crap to to [sic] any of my friends or [organizations] I’ve associated with. I hope some people can forgive me, but I understand if not,” he wrote.

    Bloom had been playing for Armor eSports and is a former member of Grandpa Berets and the now disbanded ESEA Invite team Exertus.

    ESEA told Kotaku Australia that Bloom was banned for his “interactions with a member of the community,” and that “these types of actions are not acceptable,” though they didn’t go into specifics.

    Permalink to story.

    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2017
  2. alabama man

    alabama man TS Guru Posts: 563   +355

    Kotaku's topic:

    "Counter-Strike Player Banned For 1000 Years For Allegedly Harassing A 15 Year-Old Girl"


    "Counter-Strike Pro handed 1000-year ban for sending explicit messages to 15-year-old girl"

    Is it proven or not, I'm confused. If it's just allegations why won't they get cops and be sure about it? But you state it as a proven fact, did someone forward the information to the authorities and get them involved?
    frostyshield likes this.
  3. Nobina

    Nobina TS Evangelist Posts: 1,696   +1,186

    "There's just something about being able to influence young minds" - Mentally ill.
    Reehahs and frostyshield like this.
  4. Badonk4

    Badonk4 TS Member Posts: 30   +21

    Because anything less than 100 years just isn't long enough amirite.

    Would be hilarious if we invented immortality and he comes back in a thousand years and reactivates his acc. Boss.
  5. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 8,647   +3,283

    I hope he learns his lesson. When he's allowed to play again in 3017 maybe the young chicks will find him a little too old to be attractive anymore let alone perform... err, sexually, that it seems he likes to brag about and impress them with. :D
  6. stewi0001

    stewi0001 TS Evangelist Posts: 2,031   +1,432

    Everyone has their issues. I am not justifying what he's done/doing, but his is public now. Not sure how a 1000 year ban is going to help though, heck 5-10 years would probably be long enough. I would bet most people will forget about him by then.
    TheDreams likes this.
  7. Uncle Al

    Uncle Al TS Evangelist Posts: 4,608   +3,069

    One has to wonder if it was a real girl or officials posing as a youngster? There was a time when that was considered entrapment .... but like so many other things, the laws have become tougher and perhaps with good reason.
  8. Dude's a creeper and probably developmentally stunted but "harassment"? What I see in the screenshot above doesn't look like harassment of any kind.

    This is unlawful interaction with a minor (sexually explicit content), not harassment.
  9. j05hh

    j05hh TS Booster Posts: 171   +42

  10. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,032   +4,750


    I'm so glad that is not the case.
  11. PinothyJ

    PinothyJ TS Guru Posts: 490   +38

    It was never considered entrapment. What you appear to think entrapment is, is not what entrapment is. If a law enforcement individual convinced a person who would not normal commit a crime, commit a crime, that would be entrapment. Going to extraordinary lengths to get a normal person to commit a crime, where the chances of them /not/ committing said crime is slim. Like going up to someone and offering them 1.5 million to kill someone and then when they took up the offer, arresting them for attempted murder, and the rest. That is entrapment, because the entire situation did not exist already and the LEO have intervened on a normal situation.

    Setting up a dummy account of a young person to see if an older person will react sexually to it is not entrapment, that is one of the main methods any pedophiles ever get caught. If this was entrapment then the majority of drug busts and drug operation hauls would be null and void.
  12. Uncle Al

    Uncle Al TS Evangelist Posts: 4,608   +3,069

    If you went to law school .... do go back and demand a refund, or at least subscribe to WestLaw where you can learn a bit more about a subject you are not entirely up to date on.
  13. PinothyJ

    PinothyJ TS Guru Posts: 490   +38

    Okay, how am I wrong?

    "Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer."

    From the transcript of a successfully tried entrapment trial: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/287/435.html.

    Even if you are completely ignoring the subjective case, of which, based on the screen-grabs, he would not fare well in, you will have the objective case that you are yet to convince me that the theoretical LEO have failed here.

    "With this test, the courts scrutinize the level of government involvement in the criminal actions to determine if the officers acted in such a way that they would, in a usual case, affirmatively create crime where none would have existed without their actions." http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html

    For example, if the fifteen year old girl is a LEO and THEY contacted the accused, then you could arguing that it would be entrapment (give or take, depending on the jurisdiction). However, if the accused was the one who sought out the pretend LEO in this instance, than no entrapment ruling would ever be found.
  14. Uncle Al

    Uncle Al TS Evangelist Posts: 4,608   +3,069

    Put out your copy of Blacks Law Dictionary to get the appropriate reading; your quoting arguments, not codicil law.
  15. sac39507

    sac39507 TS Addict Posts: 221   +83

    Can't you just create a new account under a different name?
  16. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,174   +3,478

    No, not mentally ill. He's just a super candidate to takeover coaching women's junior gymnastics.

    (Sometimes even I'm appalled by the things I say).

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...