Prime Casino remove my money from Neteller!

[lojo]

There's been so much drama and diversion in this thread I haven't been able to keep a train of thought long enough to contribute, but here's what I see today:

Prime made a mistake, admitted it, remedied it, and have changed their policy. What else is to discuss about them?

Were I a casino manager, I would not tie my own hands in regards to 'reverse chargebacks' by explicit T&C. Nothing but a weakness to exploit.

Of course in a perfect world all transactions would be audited perfectly, but it's not a perfect world. There is a level of trust in any business arrangement.

Prime probably has no special arrangement with NT, any casino can do this if Prime can. The problem is with NeTeller and as others have mentioned, that is where the players' focus should be to affect any real change in security.

The other two topics should have their own threads or be lain to rest, imo.

edit: just saw another thread... not what i meant pg, Jens should pab and it all should be laid to rest imo.

[GrandMaster]

Originally Posted by XXLClubCasino

Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.

It gives rogue casino managers an extra chance to snatch back the money if the player turn out to be the member of an international bonus abuser ring.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by XXLClubCasino

Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.

Rogue operators might do this for PR reasons, say, to pay players who have made a huge stink. When the topic dies, they could grab the money back.
Far more likely though, is the scenario of the rogue about to go bust, they will have paid players in the past, but could be suffering serious cashflow problems. They could make a mass chargeback, and pretend it was some mighty cock-up, and promise those players it would be sorted. In the mean time, they have a free loan of extra cash, while the player takes 100% of the risk the move fails. If the casino is criminally rogue, they could chargeback all they could get their hands on, and then simply vanish - it seems thst this would work given that Neteller need no reason for the action under current policy.
Many may have just not realised it was this EASY to chargeback winnings they had already paid out.
It was pointed out that the chargeback would ONLY go through if enough funds were in the player's Neteller, if the player had emptied the account Neteller would NOT have given the money back, as then, obviously, Neteller would carry the risk of recovering it from the player, which might mean taking the player to court where questions might be asked about the initial chargeback (Neteller would likely NOT get the money if it went to court, they would be deemed negligent in not asking questions but just handing the money over).

In short, casinos can get away with it as they have no tough regulator to answer to, Neteller would have to explain to TWO regulators exactly what happened, and they might find this rather hard to justify, as they are supposed to be protecting OUR funds, as well as those held in their merchant accounts.

[Da_Gambla]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

I see some good points made about TravelMaxx's issue, though it's a bit ironic that Pangloss was pilloried for trying to highlight it in a separate thread (it was a bit clumsy, I know, but there's a good case for this thread splitting off into two or three different discussions).

As I stated in that thread, it's unnecessary for a member to start a new thread on behalf of a registered member who is capable of starting their own thread. TravelMaxx was given several "hints" in this very thread to go start their own.

At the time Pangloss made that post, Josh had long since posted he wouldn't be responding to the Neteller issue any longer, so actually this thread became available to VWM to make that new post and re-open discussion about advantage play versus fraud. As well, at this point, this threads contains all the previous discussion about TM that shouldn't have been here to begin with. It's here now, and VWM was just adding to what he already contributed in this thread.

It's all about perception of personality, isn't it? Pangloss has let it be known, quite loudly, that he is an instigator, a distraction to any thread. That's the persona he wanted to display, and it's the persona that we now have to deal with him on. Should we direct him to "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? If he wants to be taken seriously on these forums, why doesn't he contribute anything but piggy-back rants? Based on his past history of bashing a casino at any cost, what would anyone naturally see that post as? Just a vehicle for more casino hatred. Now I'm not loving this casino too much, obviously. But I'm not going to participate in a roast, and if I see a thread created that is so obviously designed for a roasting session, I'll ask a moderator to pass judgement and lock it up. That's what I did, and CM locked it in agreement. No conspiracy anywhere, we would just like the opportunity to stay on track with this particular casino's issue in one thread. If Jens files a PAB and wants to discuss it publicy without all of this side chatter, then Jens can make that decision and click the POST button.

Vesuvio, I do not intend to go off on another 3 page discussion with you that would end up yet another major distraction to this important thread, as you will obviously find flaws in my view. If you wish to discuss this further, please PM me, or if you so desire a public discussion on this issue, please start a new thread in Wildcards. I would be happy to join that discussion, and leave the issue of Prime in this thread. Thanks.

Originally Posted by lojo

There's been so much drama and diversion in this thread I haven't been able to keep a train of thought long enough to contribute, but here's what I see today:

Prime made a mistake, admitted it, remedied it, and have changed their policy. What else is to discuss about them?

Good to have you back in some of the serious discussions again, Lojo

Well, they have changed their policy verbally. That's not good enough for me to ever recommend them at this point. If I see anyone post questions about the casino, I will certainly warn them and direct them to this thread so that they can make an informed decision before they deposit. It is wisdom to say "get it in writing", and it is a much-repeated phrase around gambling Fourms. For some reason, we should not get this one thing in writing?

Originally Posted by lojo

Were I a casino manager, I would not tie my own hands in regards to 'reverse chargebacks' by explicit T&C. Nothing but a weakness to exploit.

OR it could end up a strength to the wrong casino manager. If a player cannot initiate a chargeback without being blacklisted and publically humiliated by a casino, why should a casino be able to chargeback a customer with no repercussion?

Originally Posted by lojo

Of course in a perfect world all transactions would be audited perfectly, but it's not a perfect world. There is a level of trust in any business arrangement.

I agree with that, if we are referring to a street corner hot-dog cart. But in a business like this, contracts are everything, and everything is documented as to what both sides are responsible for, and what both sides can and cannot do. As I stated earlier, if we are going back to the trust route, then abolish all T&C's, as if one term is not needed to be in writing, none of it is! Ah, but no casino would do that... that would lead to exposure again. Well, anyways, T&C's are not there to protect one side. They are there to protect BOTH sides of the contractors involved.

Let's say the we allow good old fair 'n' square Josh to be the sole arbitor in whether or not a casino-to-customer chargeback is warranted. Let's say he never needs to pull that trigger. What happens if he quits and a new manager takes over. Ok, let's say (LOL!) that Chistopher D'Angelo takes over as manager of Prime. I think you're gonna want that in writing real quick, aren't you? In other words, it's not about Josh's personal integrity or ability to be fair or not (but I don't want to have to test that either..), but it's about a company's overall policy that covers ALL of their employees.

Originally Posted by lojo

Prime probably has no special arrangement with NT, any casino can do this if Prime can. The problem is with NeTeller and as others have mentioned, that is where the players' focus should be to affect any real change in security.

We have nothing but rhetoric on this subject so far. Only someone able to get this information from Neteller will be able to put facts to these questions. We will have to wait. But in the meantime, statements like "any casino can do this" are invalid until we know for sure under what conditions (or even none) a casino can initiate a thef.. err.. chargeback.

Originally Posted by XXLClubCasino

Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.

Hi XXLClub - thanks for your contributions here. Please know they are appreciated... I compliment you in how you've handled yourself on these forums for quite awhile now, not just in this thread.

Anyways, my thoughts on your question basically come down to: why should we have to guess why or how a rogue operator might use this? It just simply needs to stop, period. Good casinos should take care of their security issues and audits up front and should NEVER need to do this post actual funding. Since they should NEVER need to do this, it should be an addition to T&C's. Does it stop at Neteller? Maybe there are other current e-wallets that are vulnerable in this way? If not, what about future ones? If these things are written into T&C's, then the player is protect from all current and future internet banking schemes a rogue outfit might try to pull.

It may just come to one day that this is a very important thing for a player to look for in a rogue operation. Someday Bryan may need to add it to "How to spot a rogue".

- Keith

[BBKPoker]

I'd say that from the name-calling, (particularly the barb about a poster acting like a six-year old) the implicit threat about knowing who a forum member "really" is, confidential information-dropping to try and prove his knowledge of the industry, and the accusatory, defensive, snide tone that is coming across from the Prime Casino rep posting here, that this is probably a good place to avoid.

Regardless of the situation and players opinions, you have to keep it professional, and I definitely think Joshua would have crossed the line as a representative much less a manager in several of the posts he's made here.

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by BBKPoker

I'd say that from the name-calling, (particularly the barb about a poster acting like a six-year old) the implicit threat about knowing who a forum member "really" is...

The final time I quote this (promise), but Spear posted:

Joshu -

I hope you have the balls to apologize for claiming that Playtech follows any rule - because they don't run any casinos and each operator makes its own decisions. The least you can do is get your facts straight.

Imagine it's you being provoked in this way, and you know the following: 1) Playtech do own and run some of the casinos using their software, 2) the person addressing you works for Playtech but hasn't made that fact public knowledge on this forum. You'd need the patience of an absolute saint not to respond. The 6-yr old comment was fair (we all sometimes act like that when upset with something) and it wasn't an implicit threat - he just made it clear that Spearmaster worked for Playtech (it's no longer a threat if you've revealed the info).

If Spearmaster was in the position he was in before working for Playtech I'd be shocked by a casino manager getting into this exchange (and I think people who weren't aware of the fact may have been shocked), but as it is I think it's fair enough.

On the general point - I tend to agree - at least from a PR point of view. Casino managers should never really argue or get into debates. They should just occasionally post carefully checked PR statements, or show up to do something nice or accept an award. If I was paid to advise Joshua that's what I'd suggest (though I might analyse traffic to his site after this recent issue first ).

On the other hand, it's refreshing to have an intelligent and articulate casino manager willing to openly debate issues. It even adds a frisson that he's teetering on the edge of self-destruction (looking at his web presence and origins he reminds me of the guy behind the Jackpot Factory "inspirational stories"). I think it'll be a loss if, as expected, he keeps a vastly lower profile in future.

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by BBKPoker

...confidential information-dropping to try and prove his knowledge of the industry.

Assuming the information about Playtech and Neteller is correct, I'm shocked you're criticising him for this. Sure, his tone might be a little grating, but would it be better if he just kept to an industry code of silence on this? (to answer the rhetorical question , probably yes from a casino/affiliate point of view)

[KasinoKing]

Originally Posted by lojo

There's been so much drama and diversion in this thread I haven't been able to keep a train of thought long enough to contribute, but here's what I see today:

Prime made a mistake, admitted it, remedied it, and have changed their policy. What else is to discuss about them?

Were I a casino manager, I would not tie my own hands in regards to 'reverse chargebacks' by explicit T&C. Nothing but a weakness to exploit.

Of course in a perfect world all transactions would be audited perfectly, but it's not a perfect world. There is a level of trust in any business arrangement.

Prime probably has no special arrangement with NT, any casino can do this if Prime can. The problem is with NeTeller and as others have mentioned, that is where the players' focus should be to affect any real change in security.

The other two topics should have their own threads or be lain to rest, imo.

edit: just saw another thread... not what i meant pg, Jens should pab and it all should be laid to rest imo.

The above post says it all.

I've been keeping an eye on this thread, though not reading ALL of ALL the posts as many resemble War & Peace and do my head in, but I've got the gist of what's being said.

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

4. Jens...
This leaves as the ONLY justification for voiding Jens' winnings the fact that she withdrew before completing the full WR in the mistaken belief that EZBonus works the same in every casino, allowing this to blind her to the possibility that some casinos may intend otherwise.
It is clear that Jens is an "advantage player", and not a player the casino would want to offer future bonuses to, but on the other hand, there is no obligation on players to lose with their SUB, they have every right to try their best to beat the house within the rules of the game.

As a self confessed bonus hunter of 6-years standing and nearly daily player of online casinos I tend to side with the players in any disputes, but I deplore the type of play Jens did.
OK, you can argue until you're blue in the face that placing all your money on one bet in not against the T&C's, but come on, it's not 'normal' casino play or using the bonus in the spirit it was given. I fully support the casino's right to withhold bonus/winnings in these cases. I also have very little sympathy for players who do not take the time to read the T&C's before they deposit, and NO sympathy if said player is intending to 'abuse' the bonus.
I would not mind betting that it's because too many players were taking advantage of MG's 'Flexi-Bonus' in a similar way which has led to most MG's now saying you have to complete the full WR.
I think this is called biting the hand that feeds you.

Quoting Lojo again:-
The other two topics should have their own threads or be lain to rest, imo.

If these other two topics do not have their own threads started then I also call on CM to lock this one.
This thread was about a casino removing money from Neteller without the player's consent (a very big issue in my eyes) but has been totally de-railed into unrelated discussions and mindless personal attacks.

Just my 2c
KK

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by KasinoKing

OK, you can argue until you're blue in the face that placing all your money on one bet in not against the T&C's, but come on, it's not 'normal' casino play or using the bonus in the spirit it was given.

Ah, the famous spirit the bonus was given in You've really let the affiliate thing go to your head, KK. Bonuses are given to trap (encourage, if you prefer) people into depositing, as almost all deposits to on-line casinos are lost. "Extended playing time", "entertainment" and, as "Professor" outrageously claimed at CAP recently, "reduc[ing players'] risk for trying out a new casino" is just trying to put a gloss on a brutal business. The only "spirit" involved is greed (from the players' side as well as the casino's).

[Casinomeister]

Like any lively discussion, there will always be stray topics - this really can't be helped, especially when there are a number of subjects involved and players who have peculiar agendas.

Originally Posted by henryVIII

No big deal, but that isnt actually correct is it?

Yes, it is correct. But to be more specific, his account was suspended a number of times - (more than any member here) before being told to take a permanent hike. I'll respect this thread by not derailing it with this - I'm PMing you further info.

Originally Posted by KasinoKing

The above post says it all.

I've been keeping an eye on this thread, though not reading ALL of ALL the posts as many resemble War & Peace and do my head in, but I've got the gist of what's being said...

I'm pretty much in the same boat since today is a holiday and I'm doing some speed reading . But what an interesting thread, and it's been civil relatively speaking. Thanks for those who keep their emotions in check while trying to respond. There have been some very constructive and valuable criticism here

TravelMaxx should have PABd. He hasn't yet, but that's his prerogative. I appreciate Prime Casino's candor and participation in this thread. I'm satisfied with the resolution of the two players - which most everyone else has echoed favorably.