Rushmore- sucky rule to confiscate funds

[Pulver]

One thing everyone needs to remember - these are winnings, right? Not the actual funds that the player deposited - so in other words, the player is not out of pocket.

I would consider this unfair if the casino wiped the account clean and included deposited funds, but from what I can tell, this didn't happen.

Sorry to have to say this Bryan, but with all due respect, I feel what you are saying is nonsense. First regarding your first quote about agreeing to the T&C when you sign up. Do you read every singel word of the terms and conditions when you install a new software program, or do you trust the company not to put unreasonable rules in there? You trust that the likes of Microsoft would not put anything unfair in there. And if they did, you could be shure that there would be a gigantic debacle and probably legal action taken against them. Since online casinos really aren't regulated anywhere, they pretty much do what they like. That does not however make it right in any way.

When I signup to a new casino I check for the important stuff like bonus requriements (If im going to take a bonus) and if my country is eligble for play. That is pretty much it. Have anyone in here actually read every line of every T&C in a casino they have registered at? I think not.

I am really baffled when you say that winnings are not really the players money. When you play at a casino and win, and your withdrawable balance goes up, that is YOUR money, NOT the casinos. How you can claim that the player is not out of pocket is beyond me. Money you can withdraw when you like, is your money, not the casino's money.

In my opinion this is extremly rogue behavior. It is unacceptable that they didn't even send the player a warning notice about their actions. Louise, you can put in your T&C that players not playing in their underwear will have their winnings confiscated and be within your right as the player accepted your T&C, it still doesn't make it right.

jas2587: I forgett about money all the time. I once logged into a sportsbook account I hadn't used for maany months, and lo behold, there where over £200 I had forgott all about.. And I don't even have a illness.. OK, only a slight mental-illness, but thats it..

[Casinomeister]

I'm not spewing nonsense - perhaps you are misreading what I wrote. I'm trying to explain that players are responsible for their activity online. Sure we can agree that these terms suck, but they are there. The OP agreed to these when signing up. I'm not defending the casino - I'm trying to point out that players have certain responsibilities - that is not nonsense.

And yes, I do read the general terms and conditions - everyone here should be doing so as well. I'm surprised that any members here would admit that they don't. That's asking for trouble.

I agree that the casino should have contacted the player since this is standard procedure. I'm unsure whether or not this was done since I'm not privy to this.

...winnings are not really the players money. When you play at a casino and win, and your withdrawable balance goes up, that is YOUR money, NOT the casinos. How you can claim that the player is not out of pocket is beyond me. Money you can withdraw when you like, is your money, not the casino's money....

Sure - in spirit, these are his funds, but technically speaking - he's not out of pocket if those funds never hit his bank account.

[Louise]

Hi all,

This players account was last logged in to back in December 2008.

As stated in our terms and conditions:

xxxwww.rushmoreonline.com/TermsAndConditions


Quote:
Rushmore Casino reserves the right, in its total discretion, to void any winnings and withhold any balance in Rushmore Casino account under any of the following circumstances: If you do not log onto your Casino account for a period of 180 days, any balance in your account will be forfeited to the Company.

Kind regards,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.

If I may first of all correct myself, the last log in to the player's account was back in October 2007 and not October 2008.

Second of all, the player didn't have deposits sitting there which hadn't been wagered with. The player had wagered at least $100,000 with the last deposit which was made in his account before his account being left unused for 2 years.

Thanks,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.

[chuchu59]

Sorry to have to say this Bryan, but with all due respect, I feel what you are saying is nonsense. First regarding your first quote about agreeing to the T&C when you sign up. Do you read every singel word of the terms and conditions when you install a new software program, or do you trust the company not to put unreasonable rules in there? You trust that the likes of Microsoft would not put anything unfair in there. And if they did, you could be shure that there would be a gigantic debacle and probably legal action taken against them. Since online casinos really aren't regulated anywhere, they pretty much do what they like. That does not however make it right in any way.

When I signup to a new casino I check for the important stuff like bonus requriements (If im going to take a bonus) and if my country is eligble for play. That is pretty much it. Have anyone in here actually read every line of every T&C in a casino they have registered at? I think not.

I am really baffled when you say that winnings are not really the players money. When you play at a casino and win, and your withdrawable balance goes up, that is YOUR money, NOT the casinos. How you can claim that the player is not out of pocket is beyond me. Money you can withdraw when you like, is your money, not the casino's money.

In my opinion this is extremly rouge behavior. It is unacceptable that they didn't even send the player a warning notice about their actions. Louise, you can put in your T&C that players not playing in their underwear will have their winnings confiscated and be within your right as the player accepted your T&C, it still doesn't make it right.

jas2587: I forgett about money all the time. I once logged into a sportsbook account I hadn't used for maany months, and lo behold, there where over £200 I had forgott all about.. And I don't even have a illness.. OK, only a slight mental-illness, but thats it..

Agree with everything except the word "rouge"

[Pulver]

Why did you not contact him about his funds before you closed the account and confiscated the money?

[chuchu59]

If I may first of all correct myself, the last log in to the player's account was back in October 2007 and not October 2008.

Second of all, the player didn't have deposits sitting there which hadn't been wagered with. The player had wagered at least $100,000 with the last deposit which was made in his account before his account being left unused for 2 years.

Thanks,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.

This player wagered $100,000 and you confiscated the money at your 'discretion'. What is the discretion, may I ask. He wagered a princely sum and is not a bonus abuser or anything of any sort so what are your reasons for taking his money. Again, what is the discretion you are speaking of?

[RobWin]

Sure - in spirit, these are his funds, but technically speaking - he's not out of pocket if those funds never hit his bank account.

I never, ever thought that I would hear this type of rhetoric (meant in classical oratory terms) coming from you Bryan, of all people! I'm sorta at a loss for all the right words after reading this thread, to say the least.

Why the Rushmore Group is still even "Accredited" here after all the threads, after threads, after threads this year regarding their cashflow issues and confiscation of funds...etc. etc. etc. just absolutely blows my mind.

This might refresh your memory about Rushmore's ethics a little more... http://pitbullpoker.com as you can clearly see how they continue to allow this rogue site to keep their banners up there. You see how long Clubworlds banners stayed there!

Bryan, IMO...you need to do some serious re-thinking on the Rushmore Groups "Accreditation" here.
____
____

[maxd]

I'm just going to dip my toe in here to make a couple points that I think need making:

1. Somewhere back in the thread I believe someone said something like "no point in doing a PAB (before posting) because it's clear that the T&Cs were violated".
   
   Bad assumption: casinos will often resolve issues as good-will gestures to players even though the player was in error but they usually only do this IF THE PLAYER HAS COME TO THEM FIRST, ie not made it a public issue.
   
   Of course once you post about it you're taking your chances. Most casino peeps don't like being bullied or blackmailed, go figure , so they're generally in a less giving mood once that has happened.
   
   The point being that PAB BEFORE YOU POST is generally a wise course if you really want your best chances at getting a good resolution. Once you post you're gambling that you can twist the casino peeps arm into doing what you want and that is usually a pretty lousy bet.
   .
2. Fraudsters will often leave their winnings to simmer for a while, sometimes a long while, in the hopes that the details of their doings will be lost in the fog of time.
   
   It's a tactic based on ignorance -- most play records are digital and can sit on the shelf for quite some time without going off -- but hey, they're fraudsters so what do you expect.
   
   Anyway, point is, casinos are partly fighting this issue too when it comes to the "staledate confiscation" policies.

So there it is. Just my 2¢.

[Casinomeister]

I never, ever thought that I would hear this type of rhetoric (meant in classical oratory terms) coming from you Bryan, of all people! I'm sorta at a loss for all the right words after reading this thread, to say the least....

Geeze - then I'll try to stop explaining things and keep my big mouth shut.

Obviously I'm being totally misunderstood here - TECHNICALLY speaking your funds are in some cyber entity - they aren't yours TECHNICALLY.

They ARE YOURS in spirit - which I guess is a bad way of explaining it. Sorry - couldn't think of anything better at the moment.

Come to think of it - just forget what I said. The more I think about it, the stupider it sounds.

As mentioned earlier, I'm not defending the casino - I'm just addressing the fact that players need to be aware of casinos' terms and conditions. That's all.

FTR - I would have expected the casino to have contacted the player.

[elscrabinda]

Can I also assume Bryan that as Louise has confirmed that my balance was made up of a deposit, albeit one that had been wagered many multiples of times (she makes it sound like a bad thing), that you consider it unfair of them not to have returned this amount to me?