Tons is confiscated by Europa casino and Tropez

[jetset]

I think it should be understood here that those posters who oppose boycotts do so on the basis that they regard such practices as indiscriminate, unjust to operations that are on the level and therefore intrinsically unfair...not that they support Playtech.

Based on the actual cases that have been reported, the bum Playtech casinos should be widely exposed and strongly condemned as best avoided in the absence of any policing or remedial action from Playtech. That in itself is likely to hurt both Playtech and the casinos concerned, but player self-protection, not vindictive commercial damage for revenge should sensibly be the driving force.

I'm pretty sure that the more ethical Playtech licensees will already be pressuring that company to get it's policing act together, if only for self preservation.

I don't believe you can use that lawyer's catch-all phrase as a rationale for including the *good* Playtech casinos in a boycotting action - using that logic there would be few online gambling venues for players to use anyway because most of them have this sort of T&C in one form or another. That's because lawyers usually draw up the original T&C and their objective is to cover the casino against all eventualties up to and including the Apocalypse.

The *rogue* element definitely kicks in when operators actually started using these iniquitous and downright silly clauses when they don't have any real grounds for taking punitive action against a player - that's true ROGUE conduct.

"Move the situation offline. Would you expect voided winnings in a land based casino for the excuses ive been seeing? Shit no you wouldnt. Playtech would be closed down. The authorities wouldnt care that 9 of the 60 casinos were presumably ok."

I agree with you at the start of this passage, but I don't think this can be applied here.

First off, the land authorities would be taking action against an individual land casino or group - not the provider of their equipment. Other casinos using that equipment but operating honestly would therefore not be involved.

Land casinos are regulated by appointed and usually state or territorial bodies with the legal power and will to take action and pull a license if necessary. Before doing so there would have to be a defensible case with all the evidence before them. Some even have inbuilt appeal structures distinct from the normal Constitutional civil remedies available to any citizen. Informal boycotts don't usually have too much in the line of legal niceties like that, and instigators would probably be open to litigation.

By way of comparison, generally online gambling is not effectively regulated in a governmental sense because it transcends borders and most jurisdictions have little interest in actually enforcing their rules unless it involves non payment of the license fee(!) That being the case, the likelihood of this sort of scenario is unlikely.

[Webzcas]

If you want to boycott questionable operators, by all means do so. They deserve to pay for their own problems. But it is absolutely unfair to top-notch licensees like Kiwi and Acropolis, amongst others, that you should promote a boycott against them as well.

I couldn't agree more with the above posted by SpearMaster. Boycotting all Playtech Operations due to the actions of some of their Licensees is not the way to go. By roguing Playtech you would be roguing the good Playtech Operations such as Kiwi - which is very unfair as they are a good casino.

Personally as a webmaster I only promote one playtech casino which is Kiwi, but there are several others which are also good operations.

I certainly will not remove Kiwi from my site as a result of other Playtech Operations whom I do not advocate or promote, causing problems for players.

[whiterat1]

If you let people use your name and they pay you to use your name and then they act poorly but you still get paid from them for using your name you should be held responsible.

[Suited72]

Kiwi & the other acredited playtech casinos still have the line in their terms & conditions that they hold the right to withold a withdrawal in excess of the original deposit.

Playtech have made that T&C and the rest of the ones they catch everyone out with. The fact that monaco choose to uphold playtechs rules and kiwi don't says that monaco are actually doing what they are meant to and kiwi are breaking playtechs terms. Thats why regardless of how good a playtech casino might be playtech are still rogue.

Lets say i put $100 on kiwi and won $10k (yeah, right!) playtech would be fine with them voiding it on the playtech T&C. Where do i complain after that? The antigua & barbuda government?

What really takes the piss is this - playtech obviously wrote up all the T&C's for all their casinos.... and then they employ iris to look at complaints of casinos that uphold them.

Im sorry but casinomeisters first rule on the accredited casinos list is to read carefully the terms & conditions of a casino. Then below that is 9 accredited casinos with stupid terms & conditions written by playtech which other playtech casinos uphold.

[elscrabinda]

[Deleted by me. Shouldn't try and pick a fight]

[scrollock]

Originally Posted by elscrabinda

Any non-webmasters who oppose a boycott?

good point.


although i agree that a boycott of honest playtech is unfair, however the problems are.

1) while they give their custom to playtech, its provides no incentive for playtech to clean up its act

2) honest playtechs add legitimacy to the dishonest ones, for example from UK point of view, many UK players start off playing casinos off their favourite sportsbook, someone could start off at say bet 365,betfred or the tote, then when they see another playtech, they might end joining having gained confidence with the playtech software and customer service, only to get a nasty shock.

3) although the honest playtech are honest at the moment, the fact remains that playtech disputes is a joke, so the fact remains that should any honest playtech get tempted over to the darkside as there is no effective disputes channel for the player.

in fact having a disputes channel that doesnt work, increases the chances of a casino turning dishonest if there is no sanction against them doing so. I'm sure that some of the dishonest playtechs started off as honest operations and only turned dishonest when they realised they could get away with it.

fact is that if there was a wholescale boycott of playtech, then honest playtechs would be getting punished for no reason of their own, however while innocent players are putting their money in day after day to dishonest playtechs, then it is the innocent players who are getting punished for no reason of their own.

so as the situation stands, if the status quo is maintained, then some innoncent players are going to be out of pocket, if there is a boycott then some innocent casinos are going to be out of pocket.

i think i know which scenario i would prefer.

maybe a possible solution for those innocent playtechs is to set up there own regulatory body, firstly this would send the message to playtech that their disputes channel is not worth the paper it is written on, it would give a easily recognisable separation from the dishonest playtechs and most importantly of all give the player somewhere to go should he ever encounter a problem.

[caruso]

so as the situation stands, if the status quo is maintained, then some innoncent players are going to be out of pocket, if there is a boycott then some innocent casinos are going to be out of pocket.

i think i know which scenario i would prefer.

With all due respect to Bryan, Ted, Webcaz and Jetset, who are of opposing opinions on this subject generally, I also support the idea that if it's a choice between innocent players or innocent casinos getting caught in the fallout, then innocent casinos are preferable.

One way or another Playtech needs to do something about the substantial rogue element. They are doing nothing. If the dispute service is having ANY effect at all, I have to say I haven't seen any evidence - my one thoughtful, considered communication to date has been TOTALLY ignored, and I've seen nothing from anyone else.

I would have to have to encourage players to think twice before depositing at Playtech casinos. I'm probably going to get it in the neck again for saying that, but the greater good is more important, and I do believe there is value to be had if the "forum ten percent" votes with its feet. If my meeting with Iris had any value, it was her acknowledgement that it's a very valuable ten percent that Playtech cannot do without.

I'm sure that if Playtech pulled their socks up as a result, the good Playtechs would see an increase in business with the generally renewed player confidence in the brand. That way, although there might be an initial downturn in business, they would be most likely well compensated subsequently.

[spearmaster]

I'm sure that if Playtech pulled their socks up as a result, the good Playtechs would see an increase in business with the generally renewed player confidence in the brand. That way, although there might be an initial downturn in business, they would be most likely well compensated subsequently.

This is simply unjustified in the real world - what if Playtech do not "pull their socks up?" Then you would be actively promoting action against a casino which has been an upstanding member of the community up to now, and has taken good care of its players... and by driving them the wall you take the risk that they too go under - leaving you with less good casinos to play at, and thus encouraging other rogue casinos to keep doing what they're doing in order to survive.

Nope. Can't support this at all. While I encourage people to vote with their feet and avoid patronizing operations which are less than stellar, I cannot possibly recommend an action in which the innocent are hurt as well as the guilty - I'm not going to draw the real-world war comparisons here but I think you can safely figure out what I am talking about - ahem - which is why many of us are being burdened by bullshit like the Patriot Act...

Your greater good concept simply does not work in this scenario.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by elscrabinda

[Deleted by me. Shouldn't try and pick a fight]

busted!

[caruso]

I said if they did. I wasn't even thinking about the "didn't".

I read into your post that you are pessimistic about Playtech ever doing anything, since you focus on this eventuality. I would second that, it being the case. I have detailed knowledge of one substantial case that has been dragging on...forever. Nothing, stress NOTHING, is happening. PLAYTECH IS DOING NOTHING.

Who is best protected, players or casinos, if there is a choice - the only choice? How can you justify innocent players over innocent casinos? I'm not saying it would definitely work, as you suggest. But it would be an option.

Ted, you got any better ones, any more effective ones, fire away.