[IN PROGRESS] Luckyacecasino - bonus "abuse" problem

[GaryWatson]

Fender, there could be other issues surrounding this that hasnt come to light. It could be an overreaction to an affiliate CPA scam + Min Deposits & Max bonuses. Could be many factors. It does look iffy but do you not think its better for CM to gather facts before jumping in? Some sites are too quick to freeze accounts but a less confrontation approach may open the gates to communication.

[Fender1]

I'm talking about your cheap little insults like "ready to throw in the towel", "get some balls", "stand aside" and the like. You have no idea what I'm doing, how I'm doing it or where it's going.

So far it looks like I've contributed to get Lucky Ace start paying back at least the deposits, get the bogus eCOGRA seal removed from the LA site and I may or may not end up getting LA blacklisted depending on how they proceed with this. What have you done aside from piss me off? Not much that I can see. In any case you haven't done it here so go thump your chest somewhere else.

I have no idea who you think you are but if you think you have more experience at this than I do, congrats! Considering I started doing this about 8 weeks ago I'm not sure that's saying much. In any case you know Bryan's email address, send him your resumé if you think you're the man for the job. In the meantime get of my tits and spare me the pissant cheap shots.

No, I don't agree. Why? Because it's not going to happen. Either they can't or they won't but the end result is the same: not happening! You can preach all you like about what should happen or what lofty goals one might have but I'm living in the real world and that spells this: we're lucky if we get the player's deposits back and the casino gets what it seems determined to have in terms of it's listing here.

As to your "being pleased" etc please, spare me the love. Insults and denigration coming out of one side of your mouth and back-handed compliments out of the other add up to bullshit both ways if you ask me.

I am sure that all those players that have had money stolen from them, will be sleeping more easily tonight with such encouraging comments like "Because it's not going to happen. Either they can't or they won't but the end result is the same: not happening"

It does happen, casinos do back down and return winnings, if you put some pressure on them, but your giving up before you have even started.

Anyway lets cease the insult trading, best of luck with Luck Ace, I think your going to need it.

[Fender1]

Originally Posted by GaryWatson

Fender, there could be other issues surrounding this that hasnt come to light. It could be an overreaction to an affiliate CPA scam + Min Deposits & Max bonuses. Could be many factors. It does look iffy but do you not think its better for CM to gather facts before jumping in? Some sites are too quick to freeze accounts but a less confrontation approach may open the gates to communication.

Yes perhaps, but you have to go in with a positive approach, getting the players winnings returned has to be the ultimate aim. They were always going to return the deposits anyway.

[Roar]

Originally Posted by maxd

And I respectfully decline. Aside from the fact that we're getting into serious hair-splitting here -- as in you can choose one interpretation while I might choose another. Are either of us lawyers? Is this a court? -- you might want to note the following from those same T&Cs:



The way I read this they can close your account, take "any amounts owed by you to us" which could be taken to mean the winnings and the bonus, refund your deposit and send you on your way. Which is what they've done.

I'm telling you that there is no point in pursuing a case that they will tell me is invalid because of their T&Cs. After all, I'd be appealing to them for resolution not some disinterested third party. Frankly if you want to debate this further I suggest you engage a lawyer and take it up with the casino. As far as I'm concerned it's "case closed" for the reasons given.

Max if I may prevail upon your better judgment one last time.

On registering at this or indeed any online Casino Players are immediately swamped with reams of Legalese that form under the heading T+Cs. One has to have at least a quasi understanding of Legal Terms in order to at least partly understand and comprehend their meaning and intent.

It was not my intent to "split hairs". On the contrary, I applied ordinary everyday use of the English Dictionary to elicit the meaning and intent of the following T+Cs:

"Quote:
In the event that the Company believes a user is abusing or attempting to abuse a bonus or other promotion, or is likely to benefit through abuse or lack of good faith from a gaming policy adopted by the Company, then the Company may, at its sole discretion, deny, withhold or withdraw from any user any bonus or promotion, or rescind any policy with respect to that user, either temporarily or permanently, or terminate that user's access to the Service and/or block that user's account."

The T+Cs conspicuously do not mention the withholding of "winnings" per se but only a "bonus" or "promotion".

On completion of certain wagering requirements a bonus becomes cashable as winnings. This change of status is practicably demonstrated at many Casinos that shift funds from a "pending bonus" status to a "cash balance" on fulfilling WRs (Chartwell SW casinos come instantly to mind).

Whoever framed this particular T+Cs had this in mind on choosing words "is" or "is likely" (connoting present or future tense) instead of "has" (connoting past tense). Allow me to illustrate the affect of substituting the word "is" for "has":

In the event that the Company believes a user has abused a bonus or other promotion, or has benefited through abuse or lack of good faith..........

Do you not agree that is manifestly different in meaning and intent from the present T+Cs? Are we not entitled to apply ordinary interpretation from the English dictionary to elicit meaning from such words?

By the time Players have cashed out and requested withdrawals any perception of "bonus abuse" has past into a historical perspective and accordingly escapes the specific present or future context for which the subject T+Cs were intended. The bonus is no longer a bonus per se but cashable winnings for which the T+Cs do not cover.

I wish all involved good luck, good fortune and good times.

[RobWin]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

The eCogra seal has been removed from their website now, and they are now "regulated" by IGC. This deception alone indicates they were willing to lie to convince new players they were eCogra members, and had access to an independent dispute resolution procedure.

No, not quite yet VWM...it's still there as you can see from the time stamp and pic below...

[maxd]

LATER: What follows is the original text of this post. As mentioned above I was barking up the wrong tree. Please see this post for the new improved take on this issue.
---------------

Nice try: insult, then say "lets cease the insult trading."

You know what, if it was up to me you'd be toast here. You're a smug, insulting, troublemaker who can't say "sugar" without saying "shit" and the net worth of your little contribution on this topic -- as I'm assuming is typical for you -- has been less than zero. But I guess it's your lucky day because it's not up to me. Funny how life works some times.

In any case what I'm hearing is that the players are at least happy to be getting their deposits back. Not what it could be to be sure, but a lot better than nothing.

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by maxd

However, in terms of a player's PAB the FU clause + deposit returned is basically the end of the road.

No dog in this hunt but this thread reminds me of the Fortune Lounge heated legnthy thread that was a similiar situation (where at times CM was conflicted but eventually threw FL into the Pit) and the PAB's were basically not the end of the road for the innocent as FL applied the FU clause (just as about 99% of all online casinos can if they desire) and other terms initially to both the non-innocents and what later would be determined a few innocents. That said, I am sure CM's past relationship and contacts as well as persistence with FL helped to eventually get the non bonus abusers and non fraudsters paid their winnings. Simply may not be possible here as Lucky... simply may not care!

[jetset]

Fender, you're talking a big game here, but as a webmaster yourself what are you doing to achieve the goals you are so quick to accuse Max of neglecting?

BTW, I'm sure most of us would be happy to make an exception on the self-spamming protocol by allowing you to identify your website here - it may be interesting to see how you are handling this issue and how experienced you are in view of your comments here.

Edited to add that Nash makes a good point - there have been a number of Casinomeister FU interventions where robust persuasion has caused operators to reconsider sometimes hasty and unfair decisions.

[maxd]

LATER: What follows is the original text of this post. As mentioned above I was barking up the wrong tree. Please see this post for the new improved take on this issue.
---------------

And one last time I decline. Bantering the nuances of the wording in terms and conditions with a casino that has demonstrated that they are intent of wiping winnings off the books under the protection of those terms and conditions seem to me the world's most useless activity. Lawyers find such activities profitable because they get paid to do it, I don't and I won't.

It doesn't matter what "could" or "might" be derived from that wording. What matters is that they're using the T&Cs to justify their actions and there is no reason to believe that appealing to their higher linguistic sensibilities will change that.

[juan988]

Originally Posted by maxd

Nice try: insult, then say "lets cease the insult trading."

You know what, if it was up to me you'd be toast here. You're a smug, insulting, troublemaker who can't say "sugar" without saying "shit" and the net worth of your little contribution on this topic -- as I'm assuming is typical for you -- has been less than zero. But I guess it's your lucky day because it's not up to me. Funny how life works some times.

In any case what I'm hearing is that the players are at least happy to be getting their deposits back. Not what it could be to be sure, but a lot better than nothing.

To be entirely honest, and I don't know about other players, but I can't claim to be happy about getting only my deposit back.

It's a kick straight in the face. We can all sit quite comfortably to know that now, and officially, bonus abuse is not a rarity or particular case, it occurs almost everytime somebody wins with a low house-edge game.