Slotsoasis voids winnings - I played the wrong game

[NASHVEGAS]

Well, please allow me to elaborate publicly for you. Your case is frivolous and Max has wasted more than enough time on your issue. No one sees it your way but you. Not one member here has sided with you - no one that I know of has had the same problem.

Do you see a pattern here? You need to face the fact that you are wrong.

If you value your membership in this forum, I would suggest you let this one go.

WTF?....threatening members that do not see it your way? Total BS, quack,quack!

[spiderlegz]

Well based on the first post were they seemed to have contradicting terms it would have been ruled in the favour of the consumer, at least in any civilized country. No arguing there.

But here we have an online casino licensed in Curacao(?). They of course do what they see fit. So one can say that the mistake that uungy ultimately did was to play at Slots Oasis (especially knowing their history).

[Casinomeister]

WTF?....threatening members that do not see it your way? Total BS, quack,quack!

I never said that - don't put words into my mouth. I said stop wasting Max's time. I've told Uungy a number of times that this is a closed issue and that he can take it elsewhere.

To continue arguing about nothing saps our resources for dealing with much more important issues. Max's plate is full and it pisses me off to see people wasting his time.

So yeah, if you are intending to go on and on and on and on about whatever, I'll give you a break form the forum.

[NASHVEGAS]

Well based on the first post were they seemed to have contradicting terms it would have been ruled in the favour of the consumer, at least in any civilized country. No arguing there.

But here we have an online casino licensed in Curacao(?). They of course do what they see fit. So one can say that the mistake that uungy ultimately did was to play at Slots Oasis (especially knowing their history).

agreed, and there is such thing as "The Contractual Aspect of Gaming" that could be applied to all these frivolous issues but of course "The Contractual Aspect of Gaming" is non-sense.

[Casinomeister]

Well based on the first post were they seemed to have contradicting terms it would have been ruled in the favour of the consumer, at least in any civilized country. No arguing there.

But here we have an online casino licensed in Curacao(?). They of course do what they see fit. So one can say that the mistake that uungy ultimately did was to play at Slots Oasis (especially knowing their history).

agreed, and there is such thing as "The Contractual Aspect of Gaming" that could be applied to all these frivolous issues but of course "The Contractual Aspect of Gaming" is non-sense.

It's obvious to me that neither one of you has read this thread in its entirety. If you wish to discuss an issue, please make sure you understand exactly what went down, and how the casino has responded. To jump into this conversation with half-baked knee-jerk responses just turns a thread into crap.

[NASHVEGAS]

It's obvious to me that neither one of you has read this thread in its entirety. If you wish to discuss an issue, please make sure you understand exactly what went down, and how the casino has responded. To jump into this conversation with half-baked knee-jerk responses just turns a thread into crap.

Agreed, I do and will review the thread again although my memory does recollect most. I will stop posting accordingly in this thread until. Peace

[spiderlegz]

It's obvious to me that neither one of you has read this thread in its entirety. If you wish to discuss an issue, please make sure you understand exactly what went down, and how the casino has responded. To jump into this conversation with half-baked knee-jerk responses just turns a thread into crap.

I have read the entire thread. In at least EU we have a thing called consumer protection, usually defined in a Consumer Affairs Act.

So it would have meant that his winnings from roulette would have been removed from his cashout because if there are terms that contradict each other its always ruled as the most favourable for the consumer.

[maxd]

I'm not going to lay out the whole nine yards here but if you look at the bonus Terms and the General Terms and take them together -- as players are expected to do -- then there is no contradiction, no ambiguity and no reasonable grounds for the PAB, or this thread for that matter.

Compound that with the fact that the player started off by saying they screwed up + they've tried two or three self-contradictory attempts at this + their PAB is simply outrageous ("the Terms mean something different to me than they mean to other people") and you've got a situation where the PAB is where it belongs, in the dustbin.

The pot-and-kettle crew can bang on as long as they like, noise is just noise and it is certainly not rational nor reasonable argument.

[uungy]

Well, please allow me to elaborate publicly for you. Your case is frivolous and Max has wasted more than enough time on your issue. No one sees it your way but you. Not one member here has sided with you - no one that I know of has had the same problem.

Do you see a pattern here? You need to face the fact that you are wrong.

If you value your membership in this forum, I would suggest you let this one go.

I value my membership here, however I am not sure "not one member has sided with me", I have only just about posted what my PAB was. This is a very similar case to the betroyal case and many members agreed to the OP there.

I did not bring this thread back up or update it in any way, so why was i wasting time? Once the PAB was closed, I responded that my PAB was that I did not play a restricted game so they had no right to void my winnings, and had nothing to do with the disputing terms I started this thread about. It answered a few other members questions why I PAB'd, which I think is fair, as they questioned my side.

..........
Compound that with the fact that the player started off by saying they screwed up + they've tried two or three self-contradictory attempts at this + their PAB is simply outrageous ("the Terms mean something different to me than they mean to other people") and you've got a situation where the PAB is where it belongs, in the dustbin......

whats contradictory in my PAB? I didnt say the word "ambiguous" or "contradictory". I don't get why you keep saying I said its contradictory, or anything like that! The terms mean what they say, you actually responded, that from looking at the whole terms its easy to work out that the games restricted are ............... which I explained to you is incorrect.

You still havent responded to that. I had no intention to bring this up, but you keep saying I say things are contradictory, hence the reason why I stated earlier its a different issue

[jackieonweb]

I'm not going to lay out the whole nine yards here but if you look at the bonus Terms and the General Terms and take them together -- as players are expected to do -- then there is no contradiction, no ambiguity and no reasonable grounds for the PAB, or this thread for that matter.

"winnings .... will be removed at the time of a cash-out request" - Tells me only the winnings will be removed.

"Wagering on restricted games may void all winnings won on this promotion" - Tells me all winnings will be lost.

This is called a CONTRDICTION.

Casinomeister site:
"Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player."

Like spiderlegz said, in any civilised country, contradictory terms would be ruled favour the consumer, in Casino/Casinomeister land this seems to not apply, why is that?