The Archives

[don_gambler]

I don't think anyone from the OPA is in disagreement about this situation, or agrees with Spearmaster about it. A letter about this is going out to the casino and the OPA does not consider this matter over. The OPA has an obligation to inform players about casinos with shady practices such as this, no matter how "nice and honest" the owners may be.

[steve]

Dave, we can only rule on each complaint that we have recieved from our members.

That is our first concern. Our second concern is that if the situation warrants, we should warn people of the situation.

Don and Mary are both on the OPA committee and you can see what they have been saying.

[steve]

Oh and just because Spearmaster might not agree with everything here really is not a reason to ask what side he is on.

maybe you should tell him your sorry. ha ha

I have waited for a chance to say that Dave.

[spearmaster]

I don't take sides because I have to try and address the issue.

Mary's long report there is quite interesting. And obviously we disagree on a few things - but heck, that's what forums - and committees - are for, I guess!

Bad decisions - absolutely positively. I spent all sorts of time telling them exactly that.

I agree that 4xB was the terms of the promotion, regardless of whether that was wagered before or after receiving the bonus. And of course I made that opinion known too.

Promotional terms - it has always been stated on the website, before and after any changes, that they may refuse a bonus at any time. That's a loophole. Do I like it? No. But it's there.

Riskier medium, meaning PayPal? No. Players have every right to chargeback credit card deposits into PayPal. But it is also implied that they may chargeback an amount sent to a merchant, providing they provide relevant justification - and then PayPal requests information from the merchant before rendering a decision. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that there is no additional risk to the player by making a PayPal deposit.

Integrity of customer support? I'd just prefer to call it a problem which turned into a disaster. There's no doubt they were probably as confused as the players were, for reasons unknown - but frankly if a CSR replies "4xB" by email, there you have it. I side with players on this issue.

Intransigent? See above.

440%? I think you meant 140% - and yes, absolutely, I agree with you on that one, without specific timeframes.

Are we clear on that? It looks like we basically agree.

What I do NOT agree with is the position being taken where Don wants to renege on an agreement he made with the casino, despite any mitigating factors, and I also do not agree that duress was present as at no time did the casino ever threaten to take away all funds. They only said they would take away $490, which in his case was representative of the 10% bonus awarded.

If you made an agreement, stand by it. No matter how much you hated the terms, you accepted it yourself.

If we don't exactly have a legal issue here, we most certainly have an ethical and moral issue with regard to the agreement that was reached. On BOTH sides.

[spearmaster]

And I do not believe that Don is representing the OPA's stance on the issue, he is representing his own opinion.

Whoever is qualified to speak for the committee, please confirm if such a decision has been reached.

[mary]

DaveR brings up some interesting points I'd like to address.

"While I thank Spearmaster for all his efforts trying to resolve this matter on behalf of both parties, I think it is outrageous that he is unwilling to take sides in this dispute."

Spearmaster offered to mediate as an individual, not as a reperesentative of any group, as an act of consideration for both players and for the owners of this casino whom he knows personally. In the role of mediator, I would not consider it to be appropriate for him to be expected to take sides or make judgements concerning the issues at hand.

A mediator is not the same as an advocate. A mediator makes a best effort to keep negotiations open and to convey information. If the mediator can assist the parties involved to come to a mutually agreeable solution through the clarification of assumptions and terminology, that is great. But, sometimes, there can be no mutual agreement, in which case the mediator attempts to get mutual compromises. In some cases, that too does not happen. This appears to be one of those cases, as there is a definite disagreement concerning terms of contract and facts in the case.

"Spearmaster, you now have more than enough evidence to prove that this casino changed ITS OWN RULES midstream."

As an individual, Spearmaster may make his own evaluation of the evidence. It is his decision whether or not he voices that opinion. It is, at this point, not necessarily the most effective thing for him to do in his role as a mediator.

"The casino has not conducted itself it a moral/ethical manner."

This is a wider issue that deserves more discussion. If it can be established that casino management was not truthful in statements to players or Spearmaster, that would be unethical conduct.

"In fact, it should be illegal for a casino to change its own promo terms after the fact."

Again, this too is a big issue. The OPA position right now is that a casino can cancel a promotion if it turns out they screwed up; but; if that is the case they must be specific about when the promotion was canceled and honor the terms of the promotion for players who deposited and fulfilled terms before the change; we usually take this on a case-by-case basis.

"I would like to see all the executives at the OPA come to a vote as to who is right/wrong in this dispute."

Many issues have been raised in this matter that I think would be more productive to parse out and discuss in the theoretical. For example, we need to discuss the fact that when a player makes deposit by Netteller, that is a different contract then when a player makes a deposit using a credit card, and does that change the balance of power such that they should be considered differently with respect to promotions and negotiations?

The opinion I have offered is based on information I have read in this thread, and I offer my opinion as an individual. Before offering an opinion on behalf of the OPA, I have questions that need to be answered first & I would have to review evidence that has not yet been produced or verified.

As we work through member complaints, this may be clarified.


Spearmaster, you now have more than enough evidence to prove that this casino changed ITS OWN RULES midstream. The casino has not conducted itself it a moral/ethical manner. In fact, it should be illegal for a casino to change its own promo terms after the fact.

So, Spear, isn't about time you make a decision as to who your true allies really are?

I would like to see all the executives at the OPA come to a vote as to who is right/wrong in this dispute.

[mary]

"Whoever is qualified to speak for the committee, please confirm if such a decision has been reached."

Not as far as I know, we're still in discussions ourselves. In fact, (and anybody can contradict me if I'm wrong), we're not yet in a position to issue any decisions, as we have not yet completed our gathering of information or our advocacy process *independent of Spearmaster's work & the above posts.*

Spearmaster's mediation has significantly accelerated the communication process, but it is still in the MESSY stage. I know that is frustrating for all involved, but there it is.

[steve]

Oh I knew that somehow I would get thrown into this and no matter what I say someone is going to get pissed.

By calling each other liars and stuff we need to look at the facts. You know there are two sides to every story and then there is the truth.

The casino has responded. That is more then we can say for other casinos (magicfuckingoasis and alofuckingha) Those players that did not accept the new terms it is my understanding are being paid. Those that accepted the agreement (even if under duress) sounds like they made more money or it came out even.

If one of the members that filed a complaint took the new deal and lost money. Please let me know via email. Include your complaint number and I will contact the casino.

The OPA committee had decided to send a letter to this casino to get a response. We got a response.

Now I want to see damages. After I see those then the committee can discuss it and go from there. But all this hoopla is not getting anything done.

Does a casino have the right to make a mistake and then fix it after the fact? In the name of fair play they should not do that.

If it was a typo. Lets say a casino says recieve a 1000 bonus with a 100 purchase. Then says oh man the person added one to many 0's at the end the bonus is only 100. That would be acceptable wouldn't it? We would not expect them to give us a 1000 would we?
I think it is important that a casino honors what they offer. If they dont they are not going to last in this business anyway. I bet if they had it to do all over again they would have done it differently. Just look at all the negative posts that have been made about it.

Was there fraud intended? Is this a simple mistake or some massive fraud scheme?

Oh and yes you can chargeback a paypal deposit so the theory that they got your money and you cannot do anything is not correct. You can make a dispute with paypal. I verified this today.

[mary]

"Oh and yes you can chargeback a paypal deposit so the theory that they got your money and you cannot do anything is not correct. You can make a dispute with paypal. I verified this today."

Thanks, Steve, I didn't know that. I don't know how many players do. That may make a difference in some of my opinion (the duress part).

But I still think the casino screwed up pretty darn good.

[spearmaster]

No argument there. And yes it is messy.

And Steve's references to other cases which are far more severe are particularly telling.

Now that I have managed to condense my thoughts into that one post (inspired by Mary) it should be quite clear what I think - if anyone is unclear please feel free to ask.