PKR revoking bonus for no reason.

[topoor]

Why? They have lied to Moneybookers about a player and they have invited me to a bonus only to remove it when I adhere to the terms and conditions.

What doubt is there?

It sounds to me that all they care about is their ability to make money and ensure that other trusting players are snared. Doesnt sound like much of a good attitude to me and certainly not one that this website should be seen to be supporting in any shape of form.

It is in my mind a good step that you have taken to disagree with PKR and the AGCC but I cant help feeling that more direct action should be taken and a warning should be issued against both.

Although it seems I am the only one who complained I am not the only one who was treated in this way.

[blizeH]

Two (or more) weeks on and still no response from them, I've pretty much given up on ever seeing that $250 bonus again. Oh well.

[lauram]

I take it this is another place not to deposit. I prefer no bonus but looking at the issue at hand it seems that even if you didnt take their bonus and they didnt like your style of play they can shut you down. Sorry topoor this to me is uncalled for I hope this all works out for you if you submit a further complaint.

[maxd]

They have lied to Moneybookers about a player and they have invited me to a bonus only to remove it when I adhere to the terms and conditions.
What doubt is there?

I have not reached the same conclusions you have and I don't see it as being that cut-and-dried. I understand why you might reach the conclusions you have but I'm not on that page.

It sounds to me that all they care about is their ability to make money and ensure that other trusting players are snared.

If I had a nickel for every time I'd heard that old saw from a pissed-off player I'd be living in a much warmer climate and working a lot less. Sorry, but it's easy to blurt out things like that ... reality is more complicated.

... more direct action should be taken and a warning should be issued against both.

Thank you for your suggestion but (a) the PAB is still in progress as far as I'm concerned and it's too soon to invoke those kinds of measures, (b) there's absolutely no reason to throw in the towel just yet and doing what you've suggested would probably kill any chances of a decent resolution, and (c) it's my job to decide if and when such actions are necessary, not yours, and as (a) and (b) clearly illustrate I'm not convinced of that just yet.

Besides, what's the rush?

[topoor]

I wasnt aware the PAB was still ongoing. I thought the ruling from Alderney made this final. PKR are hardly likely to turn around now and say OK our regulator has backed our decision we will look at it again and overturn it, are they?

I have to disagree with you on a lot of points Max particularly the disgrunted player/sour grapes angle, Alderney have confirmed that I have done nothing wrong. No fraud, no bots just play to the terms. This is something I have clearly stated since post 1.

Unless you are privy to a process that I am not there is no grey area and I am very much talking in "reality" - it is completely cut and dried.

Whats the rush? Perhaps if warnings had existed on this casino or juristiction I wouldnt have deposited and then been subjected to this fraud.

[GrandMaster]

This term is often seen, but has no real standing. It can be challenged as being "unfair" in a consumer contract, as it restricts your right to participate in a LEGAL activity.

A bank is not obliged to open an account for you, even less lend you money even if you want it for a legal activity. Similarly, an insurance company does not have to insure you in order to enable you to drive legally on the public highways. There are a few grounds on which companies are not allowed to discriminate, but apart from that there are few restrictions on what they can do.

[maxd]

I wasnt aware the PAB was still ongoing. I thought the ruling from Alderney made this final.

The PAB process is determined by us, not Alderney nor anyone else. You seem to make a lot of assumptions and then base your conclusions on those. This can lead to deeply flawed thinking, as I've already indicated.

PKR are hardly likely to turn around now and say OK our regulator has backed our decision we will look at it again and overturn it, are they?

Maybe yes, maybe no. The PAB process is full of surprises. And there's the appeal process to consider. It ain't over till it's over and there's some way to go before we get there.

Unless you are privy to a process that I am not there is no grey area and I am very much talking in "reality" - it is completely cut and dried.

Clearly there is a lot going on here that you are not privy to, so yes, your conclusions are premature and there's still work to be done.

On the other hand if PKR reads the things you've been posting they'll probably be quite happy to fullfull your expectations and close the book on you. That's one of the primary reasons why the grievance upon which the PAB is based should remain private until the process has run it's course. Public debate is a highly unpredictable means of negotiation, and often equally unsatisfying.

Whats the rush? Perhaps if warnings had existed on this casino or juristiction I wouldnt have deposited and then been subjected to this fraud.

By that logic we should Rogue everyone and then you'd be quite safe, no? Bosh!

The process exists precisely so we can give the good operators the chance to do the right thing, and allow the grey operators to improve themselves. The bad guys are unlikely to be swayed by our process or any other and they'll reveal themselves for what they are in due course. Process first, conclusions later. Anything else is superstition and paranoia.

[topoor]

By that logic we should Rogue everyone and then you'd be quite safe, no? Bosh!

I think this is an unreasonable thing to say. In this instance we have a casino who has by their own admittance removed a bonus and banned a player for no reason other than bonus abuse which they have classed as play which sticks to the terms of the offer.

If every casino practices this then yes every casino should be rogued. But they dont.

[Rusty]

I always thought paranoia was a heightened sense of reality

Topoor I understand how angry you are about this but Max is the wrong person to be shouting at.
Even if some of his posts do seem to lack empathy he is bound to react if he feels he is being attacked when he is trying to help you.
Take a step back and regroup.

I hope this one has a happy ending.

[maxd]

Topoor, you may have forgotten that I basically agree with you insofar as PKR's misuse of the T&Cs to pull your bonus, as Rusty alluded to.

Where we seem to disagree is how soon and how fast we should blacklist people. You must understand that the Casinomeister PAB process has been years in the making and it works because we ask casinos to adhere to a set of expectations that all reasonable people in the industry basically agree with. Before we can blacklist someone for failing to follow those expected guidelines we have to give them the chance to do so, and that takes a little time.

I'm sure you feel your claim is valid and your frustration reasonable. But Casinomeister has years of experience doing this over thousands of cases with hundreds of casinos. You came to us because you felt it was a worthwhile process to participate in and I dare say you thought so because of the reputation Bryan has built up over the years doing this. Trust the process, in spite of how heated you may feel at this particular moment, and let it run it's course.

You said "if warnings had existed on this casino or juristiction I wouldnt have deposited and then been subjected to this fraud." Sorry but you're the first case with PKR where we've had a serious difference of opinion. How exactly are we supposed to issue Warnings against problems that we didn't know existed?

The truth is that you're on the bleeding edge of this particular problem and there's not much anyone, including me, can do about it. It simply takes some time, however vexing that may be to you in your particular circumstance.