Unable to provide details?

[zman]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

It seems BoDog are lying, we don't know which way, but first they claim that their laws prohibit them from giving players their OWN PLAYLOGS (sounds like BS, and this claim should be forwarded to their new caribbean lincensors, as if true would do them one HELL of a lot of damage to have such a law for casinos run from there).

Later though, it seems they were able to break this supposed law and give the player the details.

The second bit of BS is about how they calculate wagering. It seems they claim that if you win money, your wagering cannot count. Taken to it's conclusion, this would mean that NO PLAYER would ever be able to "risk 1x deposit" unless they either lost the lot, or started a winning streak from their final bet.

For bets of around $500 per hand, 10K does not seem to be an unreasonable amount to deposit.

Perhaps it was the withdrawal, and almost immediate redeposits, that got their attention. Their T & C allow charges for withdrawals after one free one per month, but I saw nothing that would allow them to do what they have.

How can they KNOW this player has "abused" a NETELLER promotion, What business have Neteller got in giving BoDog information as to what was happening solely between this player and Neteller. This could even be an offence under the IOM and UK laws that govern Neteller.

BoDog should have to justify this deduction based on it's own terms as published, it CANNOT just make up rules as it goes along simply because they have either guessed, or used information they have no business having, that this player might be a VIP at Neteller.

I could have indeed made a fortune from this Neteller promo, but sadly Casino Action is no more

BoDog was a poor choice, as they have little respect for the law where it is inconvenient for them, but seem keen to obey laws that probably don't even exist when it helps their case.

If they can be shown to have deliberately lied about this "Caribbean law" in order to back a refusal to supply playlogs, then they should be considered "pit material".

Problem with all of this is the fact they wouldnt reply to my emails probably to cover the ass. Only thing they would send me initially was contact the financial services department at a phone number. When i called i always asked for a reply and they would never email me with what they had said over the phone.

[suzecat]

If you choose to publicize your complaint in the public fora, we reserve the right to disregard it. Making complaints a public issue will usually derail most arbitrations.

Zman, appreciate the response but don't really understand who said this to you? Was it Bodog, or someone else, and if someone else, who?

[zman]

Originally Posted by suzecat

Zman, appreciate the response but don't really understand who said this to you? Was it Bodog, or someone else, and if someone else, who?

Its on the PAB page http://www.casinomeister.com/problems.php

[suzecat]

I think you misunderstand the phrase "we reserve the right." Maybe Maxd can respond to this issue.

[Jasminebed]

Originally Posted by zman

Its on the PAB page http://www.casinomeister.com/problems.php

Zman:

If you have the means to display your beef in this forum for folks to see how you have been responded to, Pitch a Fit rather than Pitch-A-Bitch. You've been gambling on line for quite some time, and that Meister offers player negotiations via Max is a wonderful service.

And I know that should you choose Max's clout to Pitch-a-Bitch to resolve your complaint that a successful or not so successful outcome will be posted, but that those reading at Meister will not see how the negotiations go.

Your money, your call, but fight for it Zman.

[zman]

Originally Posted by Jasminebed

Zman:

If you have the means to display your beef in this forum for folks to see how you have been responded to, Pitch a Fit rather than Pitch-A-Bitch. You've been gambling on line for quite some time, and that Meister offers player negotiations via Max is a wonderful service.

And I know that should you choose Max's clout to Pitch-a-Bitch to resolve your complaint that a successful or not so successful outcome will be posted, but that those reading at Meister will not see how the negotiations go.

Your money, your call, but fight for it Zman.

Thanks mate! I didnt know Max had such a service lol. I will deff PM him. Although $10k isnt really much its a matter of principle here.

Cheers!

[maxd]

Originally Posted by zman

Its on the PAB page http://www.casinomeister.com/problems.php

Originally Posted by suzecat

I think you misunderstand the phrase "we reserve the right." Maybe Maxd can respond to this issue.

Yes, definitely some confusion here.

The purpose of that clause is to alert the person considering the PAB process that once it has begun, which is to say once the details of the PAB have been received by us, we expect the issue to remain off the boards until we've had our chance at negotiating with the casino people.

The reason for this is simple: if the PAB is between us and the casino people then we have some control over it. Since we're investing our time and effort into getting the thing resolved we feel that having that degree of control over the issue is necessary and appropriate.

Also keeping it off the boards generally tends to put the casino people in a better negotiating mood: their attentions can be focused on getting the thing resolved instead of dealing with the many distractions of trying to keep on top of something that's gone public. The end result is that they tend to be much more likely to help settle the issue if the issue is private. Once it's gone public though the Terms & Conditions tend to set the pace and direction of the issue and that's often far less satisfying to the offended player than what is (typically) possible privately.

As we've all seen, once an issue hits the boards it is notoriously difficult for anyone to control it. At that point we are generally wasting our time if we keep trying to pursue what has become a rapidly moving target involving many parties, most of them hostile.

So, there you have it: we reserve the right to disregard an issue that's gone public because there's often very little we can reasonably do to contribute to it's successful resolution. Our stand is that if the player goes public with it then they've assumed control of the issue: at that point it's best for us to just get out of the way and let them do their best.