Ridiculous offer from Virtual

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by VirtualDanny

Thank you for having me in Bryan. Like I said, this has been so totally blown out of proportion. And not one of you are willing to listen to me. So I don't know what else to say. Only that I know why I did it. I just received my log on info so if there were Payout complaints I didn't know about them to post any replies to.

Eh

Join date Aug 2005

Why no posts when members were seeking help about non-payment, but 3 now that you are being threatened with losing your licence from RTG.
As for running this "every year", I doubt it - we would have heard about it here in 2005 with just as much, if not more, condemnation as now.

How do we know you are not Chris DiAngelo back under a different handle?

RTG should suspend your licence, even if just to show there IS a limit to the excesses they are prepared to tolerate.

ALL RTG casinos could find themselves tarred by association (same software, and poor reputation of operators). Reputable RTG casinos could limit the damage by asking RTG to weed out the worst operators in order to increase the standing of the better ones.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

Eh

Join date Aug 2005

Why no posts when members were seeking help about non-payment, but 3 now that you are being threatened with losing your licence from RTG.
As for running this "every year", I doubt it - we would have heard about it here in 2005 with just as much, if not more, condemnation as now.

I think he had a different email address listed

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

.How do we know you are not Chris DiAngelo back under a different handle?

I would probably be able to detect this if this were the case - and of course, I would let the members know.

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

RTG should suspend your licence, even if just to show there IS a limit to the excesses they are prepared to tolerate.

It won't happen. If they did, it would imply that they have control over their operators. This is what they want to avoid.

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

ALL RTG casinos could find themselves tarred by association (same software, and poor reputation of operators). Reputable RTG casinos could limit the damage by asking RTG to weed out the worst operators in order to increase the standing of the better ones.

It's tough. I've been on the verge of removing RTG casinos a number of times from Casinomeister. At one time I did - it was for a few years in fact.

But RTG doesn't care - they really don't. If they did, you would have seen a major turn-around in their business model years ago.

When dealing with RTG casinos, you have to rely on the integrity and fairness of individual operators. The RTG properties listed in the "Accredited" section represent four operators. Club World, iNetBet, Mainstreet, and King Solomons. That's it and that is as far as I am willing to go. Should I drop these properties and ask players and members to boycott all RTGs? No - mainly because it would not work, and it would not be fair to the operators who work hard providing players with some really decent casinos.

The only casinos that players should avoid are the ones that pull stunts like this.

[Nicole50]

Just play at the trusted RTG listed here as casinomeister said. I totaly agree with him and we can not boycott all RTG.that is not fair for others. If Danny Virtual want to be within the trusted list then he has to show more , paying players fairly first etc...and maybe he will did. Let see what Danny wil do in the coming days.

Nicole50

[SKUNX]

I have a question..

Now some of you know were Ive worked at and some dont but what really is killing me is wondering how much money did they actually donate ???

I mean how many people actually deposited with this non profit organization Danny is running?

[vinylweatherman]

When dealing with RTG casinos, you have to rely on the integrity and fairness of individual operators. The RTG properties listed in the "Accredited" section represent four operators. Club World, iNetBet, Mainstreet, and King Solomons. That's it and that is as far as I am willing to go. Should I drop these properties and ask players and members to boycott all RTGs? No - mainly because it would not work, and it would not be fair to the operators who work hard providing players with some really decent casinos.

This is the big problem, it certainly is not fair on the decent operators, nor will it make any difference to the rogues. Unfortunately, the world is not fair. As the rogues go more and more out of control, the 4 good operators will be further dragged down. Even these 4 have no organisation that has any kind of control over them, other than being delisted or even rogued here. Players are still relying on these 4 operators to remain good. This is much harder now we have seen so many previously good casinos suddenly descend into the rogue pit, and these have even included eCogra seal holders.
We even had HippoJo, with the best credentials that any new casino could possibly have, and it descended into the rogue pit in record time.
Players who know little about all this will just see the bad and the good RTG operators making the same claims on their websites and marketing - and players will assume that all are lying if they happen to make a couple of bad choices to start with.
Here in the UK, RTG operators may find it hard to get approved by the Gambling Commission because of the bad behaviour of most RTG operators coupled with the unreliabilty of the software in terms of being seen to be fair, and controlled centrally by the provider.
Even the accredited RTG casinos are being accused of fiddling with the games, and because it is known to be possible, they are hard pressed to convince some players that they alone among RTG operators are refusing to make use of what has been provided for them. If this is true, then they are more morally upstanding than most businesses when it comes to scheming to get more money out of consumers. Here in the UK, the most well respected businesses have been caught time and time again "cheating" with sly tricks and even illegal acts just to boost profits. The only way to trust a business not to do something, is if it were impossible for them to do it.

ClubWorld group, despite being highly regarded, have participated in one UK Consumer rip-off, and that is the disguised premium rate helpline scam - soon to be outlawed by OFCOM from March 2008. If they are willing to do this to us here in the UK, what else are they willing to get up to in order to make a little extra.

[acepedro45]

Bryan, this is from your Newsletter about the Virtual Group:

When it comes to reputation, few online casino groups are regarded by the player community in as bad a light as the RTG-powered and Costa Rican based Virtual group. Despite constant player complaints and reports of questionable behaviour, this group continues to apparently flourish, suggesting that many players do not research before handing their cash over.

Just curious, but what evidence is there that these clowns are flourishing?

[bruceleo]

Originally Posted by acepedro45

Bryan, this is from your Newsletter about the Virtual Group:



Just curious, but what evidence is there that these clowns are flourishing?

Well, I think thanks to their no deposit bonuses.....

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by acepedro45

...Just curious, but what evidence is there that these clowns are flourishing?

I was writing that at warp speed. I'd change that from "flourishing" to "receiving deposits".

[gerilege]

If a software provider is clearly notified that some of its customers is almost crossing the border of criminal activity (by not paying owed funds), or does something which can at least be called unethical business practice, then it comes to the software provider to keep its reputation by suspending licenses of these customers, as soon as it's allowed by the contract. Doing otherwise would be the confession that they explicitly support those companies in unethical business practice.

Similarly if an operator decides to obtain a licence and software from a provider which behaves - or not behaves - like described above, that is also their business decision. But they have to be aware of the consequences.

With other words I don't see much difference between depositing to Danny's casinos and obtain a licence from a provider which also provides licence for Danny's company.

This example might be a bit overkill, but still. If I would sell a mechanical engineering software, probably I couldn't prevent that a terrorist buys it as well. But when the police comes to me and say that they have found drawings on a terrorists' computer made by my software, then at least I would not send him automatic updates any more. Otherwise my other customers could get notified about the fact that I still send out the updates, and they probably won't buy my software anymore. Or they would buy it with the knowledge that I'm continuing to send out those updates to the terrorist, but that would be their decision.

[gmac303]

bye bye