|
|||
|
|||||||
| Register | All Albums | Member Blogs | FAQ | Members List | Mark Forums Read | |||
| Main Site | CM Casinos | CM Poker | I-Gaming Forum Reps | Rogue Pit | Webcast | Bitchin' Newsletter | News |
| Notices |
| Bingo! Here you may post about the wonderful world of online Bingo! Yee ha! |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Sissy, have things changed regarding 123 Bingo since NavyMom posted this?
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...agement-2.html Quote:
The two most recent reviews of 123 at whichbingo.com don't sound too great, and I personally had problems in the past with 123Bingo. Before whichbingo.com revamped, there were dozens of bad reviews of 123bingo: http://www.whichbingo.com/bingo-game-reviews/site131/ |
|
||||
|
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...agement-2.html
That was not my post, nor my information Sassy. Maybe if you direct that question to NavyMom, she can answer it for you. Quote:
I do know that I have a working relationship with David, the manager of 123Bingo. If we get player complaints he is accomodating in every way to provide us with as much information as we require to come to a final determination. It hasn't always been this way, so I would have to answer your question "have things changed at 123bingo" with a definite yes they have. Through discussions and handling things in a businesslike manner issues can be resolved and relationships established to further open communications between sites and players. Thanks for asking Sassy. It is nice to be able to report something good about a bingo site who has begun to care about their players and are intent on doing what they can to make those players happy. Maybe the day will come when we can speak highly of all of them .Have a great day!!
__________________
All For Regulated Online Bingo |
|
|||
|
Sissy, the reason I addressed my question to you instead of to NavyMom is because you are the one who came here to say you thought they were now a good site. Also, from all I've seen at BPU, NavyMom appears to be an active and well-respected member, so I thought it strange that if she were treated poorly there (banned for being a member of BPU and complaining about the site), that you would be cautious of recommending a site that would treat a valued member that way. Also, if they are a sister site to BingoIsUs and BingoKnights, as she stated, that your concern would be even greater.
As far as my experience with the site, there were a lot of problems that led myself, and a lot of roomies, to leaving the site. All of the chat hosts and staff were from India. Many of them were kind and intelligent individuals, but there were some communication issues. While their English was pretty good, many things were misinterpreted. Most of the chat hosts were young men who spent most of their time hosting, flirting with women who, unfortunately, acted like dogs in heat. The chat hosts shared emails with anyone who wanted them, and would send pictures of themselves to these women who would come back on and spend even more time flirting with the cute, young men instead of paying attention to the needs of the roomies. They were constantly taking long breaks for teas, prayers and meals. They'd announce they were going on a break for 15 minutes and come back 45 minutes later, including those in 'live chat' and those in accounting working on trouble tickets. One may be running low on funds and wishing for chat games to earn bonus bucks, but were out of luck for those long breaks. Or, one may have just made a deposit and since the bonuses weren't automatic, have to wait until a trouble ticket got answered to credit your account, after the long breaks. There were chat games involving side games (slot machines). Unsavvy bingo only players would be encouraged to play those little chat game tournaments in which they were offered 25 bbs if they spun the most features to pop up in the slots. Since you could play pennies, it seemed like a smart decision to participate. I can't tell you how many of those individuals went to cash out a day or two later and found out that because they played slots, their play through requirements weren't met because there were now attached a 15 times play through. When the bonuses they got for their deposits (usually 300 - 400%) were factored in, there was a slim chance they could meet the cash out requirements by playing longer. While it is true they should have read the 'terms,' many didn't, for one reason or another. It's one thing if someone chooses to play slots on their own and didn't read the rules, and it's another to be encouraged by chat hosts to venture out of their comfort zone (bingo), to earn bbs by trying the slots. I felt it was entrapment. Then there were other oddities like roomies becoming discouraged because they had made many deposits and not won any games, to announce their displeasure. Many roomies figured out that if they had been on a losing streak, if they announced in chat that they just made their last deposit and if they don't win a game or two, they are gone, the very next bingo game or two, that person would win. The jackpots were virtually impossible to win because the numbers of balls one needed to jackpot, were set so one couldn't win a jackpot. Have you ever seen anyone win a blackout in 50 numbers? During my time there, I saw one jackpot won. That person's win and picture were on the website for at least a year. I think that was because that was the only jackpot won in a year. Also, for a period after Neteller shut down, the staff of 123 disappeared off the face of the earth. They left the site up and people somehow managed to deposit (so there must have been at least one person there processing payments through), but trouble tickets went unanswered and chat hosts were no longer online and 'live chat' was disabled. I never received a single email from the site saying they were shutting down or going out of business or experiencing difficulties. If they weren't going to 'work the site,' they should have taken it off-line so people couldn't still log on and deposit. I played at numerous sites that went out-of-business due to Neteller. Every single one emailed members to inform them. Not 123! I understand your pleasure and excitement that a manager of the site addresses concerns at your board, but I don't think that is a reason to support or recommend a site. There have been a couple of managers from Virtual Casinos who have addressed concerns at numerous sites and appeared available to assist disgruntled players, but I highly doubt that anyone at any of the boards they have been active at, would recommend to any of their members that they continue to play there or deposit there. I think that situation is similar to this situation. I would instead like to see that you are letting people know that there are some lines of communication open, but to proceed with caution; if only for the reason that one of your most active and respected members has had problems there. I know I have personally talked to staff at one site that BPU was critiquing and asked why they didn't come to BPU to address BPU's concerns personally. They felt like it was a 'no win situation' that nothing they would say would change the minds of your members and staff, and they weren't going to subject themselves to the 'attack mode' of the staff and members of BPU. So, just because one or two sites come to your site to address concerns, doesn't make other sites bad because they don't send representatives, and doesn't make the bad sites good because they send representatives. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's unfortunate that there doesn't seem to be consistency at BPU regarding your statements I quoted in this post. IF, in fact, BPU were open to change and believed that through businesslike manners issues can be resolved and relationships be established to further open communication between sites and players, there wouldn't be the bad memories and battle wounds that myself and perky34b experienced when we attempted to show BPU that some of the sites up for discussion there (in an extremely negative and seemingly unswayable way) were sites that we had good experiences at that we felt were getting a bad rap that maybe wasn't deserved. Had the same open-mindedness being shown to 123 Bingo been given to the sites we were attempting to show the other side of, there might not be any bad feelings today, on anyones' part. My views of BPU are that if BPU declares a site bad, anyone who logs on to debate that issue becomes a BPU enemy. Whereas, I'm telling you of my bad experiences at a site and it's all roses and sunshine because they came to BPU to answer player issues and are now a BPU 'friend', so its not fair to badmouth them. Last edited by Sassy1; 1st June 2008 at 05:31 PM. Reason: additional comment |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Sassy1 For This Useful Post: | ||
Wild Heart (5th June 2008) | ||
|
||||
|
I surrender! I do not come here as BPU. And for the record, I have no hard feelings toward anyone. It is not personal with me.
I just want to be effective concerning what is and will happen in the online bingo industry as I cannot perform miracles and change what was or has happened. Things change. Opinions change. Players change. Sites change. I am open to change from anyone at any time. And for the record also, I have deep scars the same as you but they have healed and I have let them go. Again I cannot change what HAS happened, only what will concerning my own actions. We can make our own choices to either hold grudges, or get over it. I am over it. Have a great day ![]() Quote:
This is the end of any discussions for me about BPU. I come here as a member, in good standing I hope. I come here as Sissy. I have thoughts and ideas and opinions that are mine alone and are not connected with anything but how I feel. I request that you see me as just that and allow me to be myself without my choice of job being involved. BPU business has a place and it is not here. Thanks for understanding.
__________________
All For Regulated Online Bingo Last edited by Sissy; 1st June 2008 at 07:11 PM. Reason: add comment |
|
|||
|
Quote:
A member here asked if anyone knew anything about 123 Bingo. Some of us gave our opinions. Then you came on here and said the following: Quote:
To me, you were representing BPU with those comments. In fact, I was concerned that he might try the place out based on your recommendations because you are from BPU, a bingo watchdog site, and that he might not give the same weight to concerns NOT to play there, since I'm just a member here and not coming from a watchdog site. Here's another example: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...tml#post234706 Quote:
So, I think if you don't want to be associated here with BPU, you need to stop mentioning BPU? Last edited by Sassy1; 1st June 2008 at 10:28 PM. Reason: additional comment |
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sassy1 For This Useful Post: | ||
jod5413 (1st June 2008), Wild Heart (5th June 2008) | ||
|
|||
|
Quote from sassy:
It's unfortunate that there doesn't seem to be consistency at BPU regarding your statements I quoted in this post. IF, in fact, BPU were open to change and believed that through businesslike manners issues can be resolved and relationships be established to further open communication between sites and players, there wouldn't be the bad memories and battle wounds that myself and perky34b experienced when we attempted to show BPU that some of the sites up for discussion there (in an extremely negative and seemingly unswayable way) were sites that we had good experiences at that we felt were getting a bad rap that maybe wasn't deserved ************************************************** *******Speaking for myself I think it great that some players can have enjoyable experiences at sites even though others can not share that point of view. it is a matter of personal discretion, choice and perceptions. I can say however, that when there are a group of players that have documented discrepancies and issues surrounding a site, there is some credibility existing that something may be amiss. When research indicates that a site is not willing to communicate effectively with the depositing player or a third party entity with the objective of reaching a resolution, mediation and negotiations become moot and it would indeed be ill advised to recommend such a site, regardless of contrary claims. Some of the most notoriously deviated and underhanded sites still have players that want to attest to their "fairness" and player friendly ambience, and to that I say....Good for you that you have not fallen under their axe and are enjoying your experience, but please do not attempt to negate the documented and proven trials that have befallen others who have regretfully trusted a sites marketing ploys and presentations. What does it matter if a hundred people have no problems and one does that has been royally screwed? Should that person be dismissed or brushed off with a " too bad, but your in the minority so eat it and be gone? What I am saying that it is the individual that should be the concern and not the overall reputation of a site that ultimately determines a step into the truth. Every site has the option of communication devices and player friendly methods to acquire and keep depositing players, and sometimes that fails for one reason or another and there has to be recourse for the individual. "They have a wonderful reputation, they couldn't have cheated you" is just not enough. Research through observation,facts and documented evidence is more closely allied with the truth of any situation. Sites that get a "bad rap" that MAYBE wasnt deserved, is just as valueless and invalid as saying MAYBE they cheated a player. Confronting a player(s) that has proven to have been cheated and fouled by a site, and you are armed with nothing more than mere heresay and personal experience is without merit and a bit tactless. As it has been said, the proof is in the pudding and anyone that wishes to is welcome and invited to submit actual evidence that refutes a negative claim regarding any site that extends past the "opinion" level. Opinions are welcome, but as expressions of personal discretion and assessment only and may have little or nothing to do with reality. Just because we beleive something does not make it true! ![]() |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would be thrilled if BPU, who has (or had) good intentions, were an effective bingo watchdog site. It's my opinion, if that were to occur, some changes in methods and tactics (mostly how people are treated), needs to take place. If that were to happen, I would be your cheerleader instead of a disgruntled and banned member. I'll bet others who had similar experiences as I had, like perky34b, would be cheerleaders also. |
|
|||
|
Quote:Sassy
Documented discrepancies? Are you talking about the two ‘regular’ BPU members who were allowed to speculate as to who were house players at the site that I was defending, even down to naming names? ************************************************** **** Are you asking a question or making a declaration about my meaning or intent? As far as players being "allowed" to speculate about houseplayers..The remarks and speculations are merely that and nothing more. It is strongly suggested that personal contrivances and beefs do not get publicly posted to deter name calling and mud slinging tactics.That IS a suggestion from BPU and I agree with it, I did not mandate it, but I do subscribe to it as a member of BPU and the human race. All people are most definitely allowed to post opinions, and unfortunately when they have come from a situation that has caused some stress and confusions, they are influenced by immediate passions. Just as those on the other side of the fence also become passionate about their thoughts. I was not talking about any particular situation, as you infer, but rather to the genre of complaints that have been verified with the only proof available on the internet in these circumstances, to wit, screenshots, communications with site support, etc. Sassy said: though later, when that same loyal ‘BPU regular’ badmouthed you guys to your face, it came out that you all knew all along that the ‘BPU regular’ had posted with those two different usernames. "It came out that you all knew? How did that occur? And How is it that you are in possession of my accumulated knowledge and information? You are making an assumption that I personally knew that..arent you? Because I can tell you here and now I did not know. It is difficult to separate the person from the place perhaps, but easier to draw conclusions that are in error.It When you say things like "you said" referring to a group or body of people,it is erroneous unless that person has clearly stated they are speaking as a representative of that group or acting as a spokesperson. Just because I volunteer at a site does not diminish my rights as a person to speak my mind or retain the right to be a singular entity. When you post your thoughts are you speaking for yourself or at the behest of the site that you wish to defend? Are you going to gain anything by defending the site or are you just doing what you think is right as a loyal member? Allow me, and others the same privelige to act as a person with separate thoughts and ideas. Sassy said: What site wants to come to BPU to defend their site and face three Al Sharptons? ***************** In the short time I have been associated with a watchdog group, I have seen several instances (at least) where sites have clearly attempted to defraud players, and if you wish to say that is my opinion, you may. But a site owner or operator knows what their agenda is, and if it is an honest, forthright one, they have no reason to be fearful or hide behind the kind of thinking that excuses their deceptions and trickery. If someone is truthful and has nothing to hide, confrontation should be welcomed as an avenue to promote a site as well as clear up any misunderstandings or confusions.The "big Bad Wolf" theory is effective only if you are a juicy hog. If you wish to continue looking for reasons to bash, intimidate or speak of a site with distaste for your own personal reasons, I shall consider that venting and take it NOT personally, but I will not participate in your cleansing exercise. ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Neteller question - silly question of the day | dickens1298 | Online Casinos | 1 | 30th June 2004 07:34 AM |
Casinomeister is proud to present the following quality portals
Online Casinos | GoneGambling | Online Casino Reviews
| Wizard of Odds | Games and Casino | Online Poker Rooms | BetOnCharity | Winneronline | Online Casinos| Online Slots |
Online Casino Reviews
Legal Statements and Privacy Policy
Casinomeister.com does not intend for any of the information contained on this website to be used for illegal purposes. You must ensure you meet all age and other regulatory requirements before entering a casino or placing a wager. Online gambling is illegal in many jurisdictions and users should consult legal counsel regarding the legal status of online gambling and gaming in their jurisdictions. The information in this site is for news and entertainment purposes only. Casinomeister.com is an independent directory and information service not affiliated with any casino. Links to third party websites on Casinomeister.com are provided solely for informative/educational purposes. If you use these links, you leave this Website.