bellerock being akward over ID - locked accs and no payouts.

[Casinomeister]

...In any case, I do not want to give you my place of work, what purpose is that going to serve?...

Because then I can clear up this whole mess. I thought you wanted to get paid?

[jpsartre]

You've already let Bryan look at your personal identification. What difference does it make if you tell him where you work?

[GOCC]

Well Ive sat back and watched this and it seems that whatever marcholmes does is irrelevant as he is not going to get paid. OK, so he tell CM where he works, what then, he phones up and speaks to HR and asks for a print off of everyone who works there. Then runs all the names past proc cyber and see if any of them match.

I remember once receiving an email telling me my accont at Jackpot Factory had been linked to THREE different people, but the crucial part here is IT TOLD ME WHO THEY WERE. I had no Idea who any of them were and sent in ID and told them just that that I had no Idea.

Surely it would be easier to tell marcholmes, by PM, who these people are. Maybe he does know them innocently. Maybe one of them knows the others and that could be a link.

Personally to ask marcholmes where he works is BS. What relevance is it and what purpose would it serve. If he said he worked in a call centre then what, you know he works in a call centre. What could that information be used for ethically? It couldnt in my opinion

Like I said, IMHO whatever marcholmes does he aint gonna get paid, end of. Id like to know why vesuvio was classed as being in the wrong place at the wrong time and why none of the others were.

[soflat]

I don't have much sympathy if they are fraudsters.

But there is no way I would supply certified documents, tell a casino where I work, etc. (I'm pretty sure they could figure out where I work just from their logs if they wanted to know)

Anyways, I would have to just drop it right there. Then of course I would be labeled a fraudster because I didn't divulge my private life to an unregulated casino.

[GOCC]

Anyways, I would have to just drop it right there. Then of course I would be labeled a fraudster because I didn't divulge my private life to an unregulated casino.

EXACTLY, its a heads I win, Tails you lose situation

Reminds me of the medievil days in England when they suspected a woman of being a witch. They had ducking stools which they would tie the withch to a dunk her into a river for about 20minutes. If she survived she was a witch and burnt (Which amazingly not many did) or if you died then you were innocent

[Casinomeister]

EXACTLY, its a heads I win, Tails you lose situation

Reminds me of the medievil days in England when they suspected a woman of being a witch. They had ducking stools which they would tie the withch to a dunk her into a river for about 20minutes. If she survived she was a witch and burnt (Which amazingly not many did) or if you died then you were innocent

Witches didn't have computer IDs

[Linus]

Because then I can clear up this whole mess. I thought you wanted to get paid?

No way I'd feel comfortable giving an unlicensed, unregulated, offshore gambling operation information about where I work.

If the issue is same computer IP, I don't understand why they couldn't have said that in the beginning.

I'm also disappointed with their T&Cs -

Gaming Club T&Cs
We may impose any limits or conditions that we, in our sole discretion, deem fit on any persons who open or attempt to open Accounts at the Casino where such Accounts originate from environments where computers are, or the environment is shared.

If they don't want same-IP customers, they need to just say so. This kind of "maybe we'll pay you, maybe we won't" language looks like a classic attempt to freeroll customers, to me.

In fact, if they take same-IP as a sign of cheating, they should prevent same-IP customers from logging in or depositing in the first place. Poker sites - good ones, anyway - do not allow same-IP players to sit at the same tables. There's no reason casinos can't do the same.

[GrandMaster]

I remember once receiving an email telling me my accont at Jackpot Factory had been linked to THREE different people, but the crucial part here is IT TOLD ME WHO THEY WERE. I had no Idea who any of them were and sent in ID and told them just that that I had no Idea.

Surely it would be easier to tell marcholmes, by PM, who these people are. Maybe he does know them innocently. Maybe one of them knows the others and that could be a link.

Giving out information about other players is not cool.

If they don't want same-IP customers, they need to just say so. This kind of "maybe we'll pay you, maybe we won't" language looks like a classic attempt to freeroll customers, to me.

In fact, if they take same-IP as a sign of cheating, they should prevent same-IP customers from logging in or depositing in the first place. Poker sites - good ones, anyway - do not allow same-IP players to sit at the same tables. There's no reason casinos can't do the same.

IP addresses do not identify computers uniquely. Most people have dynamic IP addresses, which means they get a new IP address every time they connect, and several computers can have the same IP address if the connection goes through a proxy or they behind a NAT router. I believe AOL also does something weird giving allocating the same IP address to different people. It makes good sense not to allow two people from the same IP address to play poker at the same table, but if player A plays at a casino from the same IP address that player B used a month earlier, that in itself is not an indication of cheating. Now if every time a casino has a promotion player A plays it, then 10 minutes later player B, another 10 minutes later player C, all from the same IP address, that's much harder to explain away, especially if there is some other information linking these people.

[TaggedYa]

IP addresses do not identify computers uniquely. Most people have dynamic IP addresses, which means they get a new IP address every time they connect, and several computers can have the same IP address if the connection goes through a proxy or they behind a NAT router. I believe AOL also does something weird giving allocating the same IP address to different people. It makes good sense not to allow two people from the same IP address to play poker at the same table, but if player A plays at a casino from the same IP address that player B used a month earlier, that in itself is not an indication of cheating. Now if every time a casino has a promotion player A plays it, then 10 minutes later player B, another 10 minutes later player C, all from the same IP address, that's much harder to explain away, especially if there is some other information linking these people.

There are various ways to identify the actual hardware that is used to connect from. When CM mentions a computer ID he is not referring to an IP address. I can not speak to the method that is in use here but there could be a multitude of specific ways of doing it and several are known to be VERY accurate. They are probably reluctant to discuss it as someone with a little skill, and knowledge of how they are doing it, can easily spoof the ID.

Gaming Club T&Cs
We may impose any limits or conditions that we, in our sole discretion, deem fit on any persons who open or attempt to open Accounts at the Casino where such Accounts originate from environments where computers are, or the environment is shared.

This does not say you can’t use a work computer it just says that they have the right to impose additional conditions on people who do so. It in no way implies the right to ex-post-facto revocation of winnings.

Gaming Club T&Cs
If you open multiple accounts you will not be eligible for the Sign-Up Bonus on each account. The Sign-Up Bonus is only available once per Player and/or per environment where computers are shared and/or per e-mail address.

Casinomeister:
That's the problem. Did you read the terms and conditions carefully before you deposited? You are in a shared environment which negates your claim for winnings stemming from a bonus.

CM’s statement here is contrary to the plain language of the quoted terms. The player may have no way of knowing if he is the first to sign up from a particular shared environment or not. The first to do so is clearly entitled to the bonus. The casino is able to determine if a particular player is first from a given environment and can deny the bonus if he isn’t.

Apparently, in this case, the casino did not choose to impose any additional limits or conditions as they reserved the right to do in the first quoted paragraph. They also did not choose to deny the bonus as they could have under the second quoted paragraph. Instead they allowed the player to sign up. They gave the bonus. They had the unique knowledge necessary to decide whether the new account was within the parameters that they were willing to accept and failed to use that knowledge. It is unreasonable that such a failure should be rewarded by countenancing a freeroll against the new player who may very well have no possible knowledge of previous accounts from the same machine. Conversely, marcholms may very well have been the first to sign up from that computer and thus may very well be 100% within the terms as written.

If, and that is a big if, multiple accounts playing from the same computer at about the same time on the same games is the extent of the “suspect play” then it is my opinion that anyone who can reasonably show themselves to be a unique individual should be paid. Any account that is registered to a shown fictitious person should not get back anything. Any account that is in limbo between these two points should stay closed while reasonable efforts are made to verify the identities in question.

Asking for notarized phone bills is not a reasonable effort. With the level of information collected at signup I should be able to prove or disprove the identity of anyone in the Western World in 30 min to an hour with the expenditure of $10 or less for info search and phone charges.

All of the aforementioned not withstanding, I have little doubt that some people here were “lawn Gnomeing” and got caught at it. The only problem is which ones.

If, however, the individuals who’s identity can be faithfully ascertained are paid all, and the fictitious ones got back nothing then the casino should breakeven or come out ahead and no innocent will get more than inconvenienced.

TaggedYa

[jpsartre]

@ soflat

But there is no way I would supply certified documents, tell a casino where I work, etc. (I'm pretty sure they could figure out where I work just from their logs if they wanted to know)

Good for you but the player in question already supplied certified documents. And that's in addition to sending more than 50 PM's and emails to Belle Rock (according to himself). If I had jumped through so many hoops, letting Bryan know my place of work would be the least of my concerns.

@ GOCC

OK, so he tell CM where he works, what then, he phones up and speaks to HR and asks for a print off of everyone who works there. Then runs all the names past proc cyber and see if any of them match.

In most cases you can find out who works a certain place without using a phone, but even so, what would be wrong with the above if it would help clear the name of the accused player?

Personally to ask marcholmes where he works is BS. What relevance is it and what purpose would it serve.

Perhaps to find out of the players connected with marcholmes account work at the same place?


@ Linus

No way I'd feel comfortable giving an unlicensed, unregulated, offshore gambling operation information about where I work.

But you'd give them your personal details, including home-address and phone-number and your creditcard-details? Doesn't make sense to me....