Tons is confiscated by Europa casino and Tropez

[jetset]

Originally Posted by elscrabinda

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

As a non-webmaster who disagrees with the indiscriminate boycott in principle I'm glad you had the sensibility to do so, Elscrabinda - implying that this is a player-industry people faction issue is not productive.

[spearmaster]

You don't justify innocent players over innocent casinos - both are innocent and do not deserve to be wrongly treated.

What it comes down to is this. Support those casinos you know are good, and stay away from those you know which aren't. If people would listen and read more often instead of rushing into things, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

There is absolutely no way a boycott can be supported against the software provider and its operators - but plenty of reasons why you should boycott those casinos which are unfair.

Don't bother trying to play the "innocent" angle here - you know as well as I do that no innocent party should be injured, AND that there are better ways to deal with this than what you are proposing - throwing dynamite in a pond and hoping to collect all the fish is not productive.

[jetset]

"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."

But there is not a sole choice here. So how about the principle of what is fair rather than trying to decide who is the most appropriate party to punish regardless of guilt?

The ones on which pressure is required are those who are injuring the player, and the players can legitimately apply that as Spearmaster suggests - by denying their individual business to those establishments and warning other players of the dangers attendant on playing at these rogues. I doubt that anyone would have an argument with that, because it is an action based on self-protection.

I think posters here should perhaps put themselves in the shoes of one of the honest casinos for a moment - how would you enjoy this sort of conversation, having presumably already pressed Playtech to do something about the situation and strived to consistently deliver a good gaming experience to your players?

And how good for healthy player-casino relationships is this sort of proposal, academic though it may be, when viewed from the perspective of some of the decent and helpful casino reps who have long been members of this board? Not exactly a motivator, I would guess.

Having seen this academic argument on boycotts before I am of the same opinion as Spearmaster - even assuming an effective mass boycott could be put together regardless of the rights of the innocent it is unlikely to do more than create ill-feeling on both sides, and online gambling will continue unabated.

But that's just one opinion - there are too many "what ifs" and unknowns for accurate results to be predicted.

[scrollock]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

.

What it comes down to is this. Support those casinos you know are good, and stay away from those you know which aren't. If people would listen and read more often instead of rushing into things, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

.

true that players should do research and make an informed decision before playing at a casino, but likewise a casino should do research and make an informed decision when choosing its software provider.

just as player can decide which casino he plays at, a casino can choose which software it uses.

while in this debate a player, who gets ripped off by a rogue playtech casino is guilty of nothing, the honest casinos are guilty of providing reputation and finance to what is now undisputably is a rogue software provider who is complicit in the thefts that are going on at some of the casinos it supports.

[spearmaster]

the honest of casinos are guilty of providing reputation and finance

One has to remember that a considerable investment is made when choosing the software - and the PRIMARY consideration should be that the software is fair. Obviously, Kiwi has been around for quite some time now, and Acropolis chose their software based on a number of factors and recommendations from some people in the industry.

Will they change software? Yeah, could be a possibility - but I don't believe we should be burning their houses down to force them to find a new home...

[Webzcas]

just as player can decide which casino he plays at, a casino can choose which software it uses.

It is not quite as easy as that. In Online Casino Utopia I am sure this could be well achieved.

However to jump software is not as straightforward as flicking a switch. Time and a lot of finance are just two considerations to make.

While Playtech is underfire, why not boycott RTG as well, who in my opinion, need to get a lot of their Licensees to clean up their act as well. Just this last week I have received another two complaints regarding Connect To Casino from players.

[Suited72]

Those 9 accredited casinos. Can you say 100% that you would be happy in users putting there money on sites with terms which state they wont payout more than the deposit amount?

isn't this a consumer watchdog site? half of you are arguing the case for not hurting the profits of 9 casinos which are part of a group voiding possibly 1000's of individual persons money.

[spearmaster]

First of all, I am not talking about 9 casinos, I am talking about a few good casinos.

Secondly, they are NOT a part of the same group - they happen to use the same software. Just because hackers use Microsoft Windows doesn't mean we should boycott companies which use Windows or deploy Microsoft servers on the Net.

A consumer watchdog site is meant to educate the public in a responsible manner. It was not, and will never be, here to advocate actions which damage honest and fair operations no matter what the cause.

[Suited72]

It is a group because they share the same T&Cs and support staff who enforce them. If it was just software provision I dont think there would even be a problem.

"A consumer watchdog site is meant to educate the public in a responsible manner. It was not, and will never be, here to advocate actions which damage honest and fair operations no matter what the cause."

Yes I know that, which is why I asked how come a list of 9 casinos get accredited when they have a T&C which says you wont get paid out more than you put in - your saying that you would happily play a casino that enforced that term?

Im not having a go by the way. Monaco ripped me $1k they arent rogued, playtech arent rogued (and they wrote the ridiculous T&C monaco got me with) and I wanna try to save people money who play there and think they'll get winnings.

And im taking it seriously too. I put $19k through 888's pacific last year without a single bonus and im not putting another $ online until I feel confident that theres a system in place which protects me from clowns like playtech.

[Dirk Diggler]

The problem is we have had many good and reputable Playtech groups turn to rogue behaviour recently, so how do you know others wont follow? At Crypto and MG you know this isn't going to happen and even RTG to a lesser extent, but with Playtech you know it could easily and the software provider wouldn't care less.

The Swiss/Casino King group and the Carnival/Monaco group are prime examples.

Up until about a year ago I had never seen a complaint about any of these, and regularly played at both groups and was paid large cashouts promptly. I would have recommended them to anyone, but how wrong I'd have been.

Now how do I know that other groups (Main Street, Kiwi, Acropolis etc) aren't going to go down that route? The answer is I don't, and when the software provider isn't going to offer me any help why should I play there?

It's the same as RTG used to be. You knew to keep clear of all there licensees, even though there was a few good ones, as RTG wouldn't offer you any help. I'm sure that effected the good casino's business as well, but that was the problem they had made for themselves by choosing to use a software provider that had plenty of dodgy licensees.

The same applies to the good Playtech licensees now.