[IN PROGRESS] Luckyacecasino - bonus "abuse" problem

[aka23]

You are right about that one aka, and Bryan can definitely fix that and I hope that he does list them as a Rogue here...it appears that they have certainly earned it...if for no other reason the simple fact that they still let Lucky Ace advertise the eCOGRA seal on their website...that alone to me is Rogue !!

I agree that Lucky Ace's actions warrant it appearning on the rogue or not recommended lists. However, I don't think 888.com should be added until the degree of the relationship between 888.com and Lucky Ace is confirmed. If Lucky Ace is the same thing as 888.com, then there wouldn't be an issue with Lucky Ace using the eCOGRA seal since 888.com is an eCOGRA approved casino.

[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 regrettably MaxD appears to be condoning this behaviour.

Bosh! Never condoned it in any way shape or form and still don't. As I've said over and over and over again, it is shabby behaviour and I'll do what I can to see that they are called out for it.

That said, a PAB is going nowhere if the casino can point to the Terms and say "it's in the Terms".

But this isn't how CM used to work. When he used to stand up for any injustice perpetrated by casinos, particularly where T&Cs were concerned.

As far as I know the process hasn't changed. No one has said that LA's T&Cs are laudable and I will, as I have made clear many times throughout this debate, be making recommendations to Bryan that LA's (mis)handling of the players and unwillingness to even look at the PABs be awarded with the black flag that it deserves.

In other words willfully misinterpreting what's going on here and why is not really about some change in the way things are done at Casinomeister, it's about another agenda entirely the meaning and purpose of which I'm not about to speculate.

[RobWin]

I agree that Lucky Ace's actions warrant it appearning on the rogue or not recommended lists. However, I don't think 888.com should be added until the degree of the relationship between 888.com and Lucky Ace is confirmed. If Lucky Ace is the same thing as 888.com, then there wouldn't be an issue with Lucky Ace using the eCOGRA seal since 888.com is an eCOGRA approved casino.

Even if Lucky Ace is a part of the 888 Group the way I understand eCOGRA's process of certifying casinos is to treat each one as a separate entity thus certifying each one seperately...

And if they are part of the 888 Group then 888 has responsibility here also as far as the players are concerned and also regarding the fact that Lucky Ace is using eCOGRA's site seal without being certified...JMO

[BLACKJACKBOY]

It doesnt say in their terms, that they can take the winnings, only the bonus.

Yet they are taking both. And terms that are unfair and being abused, are non inforcable under UK law. Plenty of grounds for a PAB in my opinion

Whats to lose by trying? http://www.berr.gov.uk/consumers/fac...page38609.html

[RobWin]

Something else you guys should do is to take screenshots of the T's & C's before they have the chance to change them if they decide to...

and also put a time stamp on them !

[BLACKJACKBOY]

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.

I have seen Fender1 on one of the big bonus sites, Staff Moderator, if its the same guy. Going head to head with Paddypower over some issue as I recall, certainly seemed to know what he was doing. Perhaps its not my place to reveal this, edit out if neccessary

[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.
---------------

Plenty of grounds for a PAB in my opinion ....

Do you know what a PAB is? It is a form that contains the details of a player's complaint which we pass on to the casino with the intent that they will look at it and take the issue seriously.

Given that, what might the point of the umpteenth PAB wherein the player says, in effect, "the casino followed their Terms and Conditions and I don't like it" ?

The whole process depends on the casino's desire to maintain a good reputation, or at least avoid getting a bad one. Somehow I don't think this is foremost in the minds of the Lucky Ace people just now.

So, as much as I understand why you might think the aforementioned circumstances are ample reason for a PAB the practical realities of the situation may indicate otherwise.

[BLACKJACKBOY]

Can we get them because they are taking winnings as well as the bonuses. Their terms say they can take the bonus back, doesnt say they can touch the winnings.

Any good?

[aka23]

Bosh! Never condoned it in any way shape or form and still don't. As I've said over and over and over again, it is shabby behaviour and I'll do what I can to see that they are called out for it.

That said, a PAB is going nowhere if the casino can point to the Terms and say "it's in the Terms".

As far as I know the process hasn't changed. No one has said that LA's T&Cs are laudable and I will, as I have made clear many times throughout this debate, be making recommendations to Bryan that LA's (mis)handling of the players and unwillingness to even look at the PABs be awarded with the black flag that it deserves.

In other words willfully misinterpreting what's going on here and why is not really about some change in the way things are done at Casinomeister, it's about another agenda entirely the meaning and purpose of which I'm not about to speculate.

The last casino complaint event of this magnitude was with Fortune Lounge last year, as described at http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...ighlight=rogue
. Thousands of players had their accounts locked. Many players had their winnings confiscated and deposit returned. Fortune Lounge said the players were bonus abusers, and because they are bonus abusers their T&C gives them the right to confiscate winnings. Bryan (Casinomeister) and eCOGRA both did not approve of this position. I recall Bryan posting something to the effect of multiple accounts, fake IDs, and similar violation of terms qualify as "bonus abuse", but simply playing with a bonus and winning does not qualify as "bonus abuse." Fortune Lounge was moved to the rogue pit until they eventually paid players with intervention of eCOGRA.

I think this event with Lucky Ace is being handled very differently. It's not acceptable for a casino to say winning with a bonus is "bonus abuse," and we are keeping winnings because our T&C forbids "bonus abuse." If their T&C forbids something specific like making a full-bankroll bet or playing a certain game, then they do have grounds for calling it "abuse." But with Lucky Ace, there is no such term.

[Roar]

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.

Max since my post many others have chimed in as to the validity or otherwise of this particular FU T+Cs on which you have hung your hat.

I say "hung your hat" as we actually don't know if LA is relying on this particular T+C to deny "winnings".

Your resorting to this T+C in order to invalidate various PABs has Forum members here perplexed. You are being asked to fulfill the Watchdog Casino and Advocate role for which Casinomeister lays claim.

To assist you in this role members here are throwing you the keys to the vault (plus a jemmy bar and a stick of gelignite). You have more than enough tools at your disposal as a Player Advocate in this particular case. Please do the job.