Rushmore- sucky rule to confiscate funds

[eu_lowroller]

That's for me the reason, why i'll play never at any Casino from the Rushmore Group, sorry, but there are so much another good RTGs out there with some very good (cashable!) bonuses, which even pay out much faster.

[GGW Laurie]

This is great news Louise and im sure the casino will be back on top of the game soon, i know that you have done your part, i will be seeing you soon at the casino as i have missed playing there, ...................laurie

[Louise]

Your marketing department should start looking at these things from a PLAYER's viewpoint. If they did, they would have forseen that this would ignite a debate about users of Neteller and Moneybookers feeling that Rushmore no longer valued them as much as ALL other players.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO MATHEMATICAL LOGIC in not letting ALL players take part in a WELL DESIGNED promotion. The odds of beating the casino are EXACTLY THE SAME, regardless of the initial deposit method. Players know this, and therefore consider that there must be some other reason, but the only kind of non-probability based reasons for barring these players from the bonuses are accusatory, insinuating that users of Neteller and Moneybookers are somehow "not playing in the spirit.......", whilst users of the other methods are.
Since this was a CHANGE from a far simpler system where ALL deposit methods had the same code, it has to have been a positive decision to target Neteller and Moneybookers users so that they could no longer use the weekend bonuses, because it involved quite a few changes & fixes having to be made to a system that to all intents "was not broken".

Thank you as always for your comments vinylweatherman - Regardless of the fact that your assumptions are incorrect, I like your thought process.

Regards,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis.

[Bencuri]

The Rushmore Group has been removed from the Accredited Casino section. Here's why - even though this term is in their terms and conditions, I don't believe it was implemented fairly. The player should have been contacted - warned that his account was pending dormant status. And if the player fails to respond, then so be it. But if and when a player comes back - this player should have been allowed to pick up where he left off. What's the big deal?

The members are correct in stating that this behavior is not becoming of an "Accredited Casino". And if the casinos which are listed here value their listing on the site, then they need to treat their players fairly.

New term in our standards for the accredited casinos: "Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player." The term "fair" is not as subjective as it may seem. I think the membership - to include the i-Gaming reps - would agree with me on this issue.

I was just reminded about this case by a recent note about the Meister, that is:

'That is clearly in their terms - the terms YOU agreed to when you signed up.'

Accoarding to the Meister, the rule is a rule, and if the casino sanctions you by the rules presented, that is fair, because you accepted these rules. So I find this outcome odd.

[maxd]

So all of a sudden you have a gripe about a two year old issue? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Bryan had to shut down your recent grumble (here) would it?

Looks to me like you're working overtime on making a PITA of yourself, but to what purpose? If you're really trying to get yourself kicked off the site you'll eventually succeed but how much of an accomplishment is that?

Find a new hobby dude, badgering CM for entertainment is pretty lame.

[Casinomeister]

Seven days suspension for violation of rule 1.11.

Do it again and see what happens.

[watchdogazza]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before ,as I only read the first 4 pages of this thread. But I think if this happened in an Aust casino the funds would sit idol for 7 yrs and after that if not claimed would be handed over to a government agency of unclaimed money (ASIC) to go on to be claimable for ever more...If this is not the ruling with our casinos I would be very surprised. I guess it might depend on the law of the country of which it is based..