Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[just play]

I can't even be bothered posting anymore.

If CW is allowed to use a term to refuse a withdrawal and then change the term some day later on down the road (whenever they get around to it, I guess) so it actually fits the situation it was originally used for, what's the point?

If this just quietly goes away and CW and Casinomeister just carry on, business as usual, I don't think I want to be a part of that business.

And that is a shame because I kind of liked this site.

I'm going to have to agree here. This thread and the other thread about changing T&C's without notifying the player isn't what I thought an accredited casiono would do. (deny payment, change term...change term after player plays the same game, deny payment)

I'm sorry but I don't care if Bryan agrees or disagrees with the casinos, there IS something he can do about it, but chooses not to. It really makes me wonder what is happening here? Must be more than meets the eye, is the only thing that pops in my mind.

Again sorry to say, but "accredited casinos" aren't that important to me anymore, if they can get away with certain things they should not. What is the difference between accredited and non accredited now? Might as well play at a rogue casino, there is no difference.

Of course business will carry on as usual. The only way players can change anything is to stop depositing at these casinos, and we all know how hard that can be, I don't really see that happening any time soon.

On a side note...I don't particularly care for the way Bryan and Max are replying to some of these threads. Things are changing, and it's not for the better.

[Casinomeister]

I'm putting a fork into this thread because it's just going around in circles.

Some points I'd like to make before closing this thread. I knew that this issue would be a volatile one since Danl had already presented his case to Gambling Grumbles and GG was not satisfied with Club World's response - so it ended up here. On the surface, Max and I wondered why this player was not being paid since he told us he had been out of school - he was planning to continue next year sometime. Fine he's not a student, and I believe that's the story he gave GG and anybody else for that matter. Most everyone in this forum saw this as a clear cut case of "pay the player".

When Max and I found out that the player had lied to us, that he was still a student and was a student during the time of playing at the casino, we had pretty much made the call that yes, the casino reserved the right to negate his winnings. Danl had broken the terms and condition.

What is sad is that only a handful of forum members understood this; the thread continued to get sidetracked. IMO - the thread was clouded by his initial claim of not being a student. My concern was to focus on the facts of this matter hoping to assist the player if I could. Tom posted these facts here:

1. We do not permit students to play in our casino. This is clear in our terms of use, readily available for all our players to read.

2. DanL is a student. He told us he was a student, he is currently enrolled in full time education and was at the time he played. These facts are not in dispute by the player.

3. Breaching the terms of use for any casino will result in your account being closed, winnings voided and deposits returned.

This is why DanL was not paid.

The term is not vague or unclear in its relevance to DanL – it says Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino. DanL is a full time student and he is enrolled in full time education.

Whether or not you believe that we should exclude students, or whether you feel that there are some edge cases that are not covered by this term does not change any of the facts above...

So that is what we were dealing with.

For the record, I thought that it would have been a nice gesture to pay the student his winnings anyway. Since the term was being debated in the forum - then there must be something that was unclear about it, right? So I thought if that was the case, then perhaps they should pay Danl, rewrite the term, and then move on. But as I looked into this more, the term really covered this player - you could debate the term, but it wouldn't matter because the player falls into its category of a student. So where was the debate? The debate was on how it was "widesweeping". In my opinion, a widesweeping term could be construed as poorly written - but as it stood - it was a widespread ban. I suggested that the casino rewrite this term so that there is no question who it referred to.

But it still referred to Danl.

Further with my opinion: the player lied to not only me, but to everyone here. For me that is significant - you don't try to convince others that you've been wronged by lying to them. Quite a number of members here feel that is acceptable - sorry, I don't. As soon as these lies became more apparent, I pretty much dropped my support for the player.

..Mr. Meister, I rather resent being referred to as part of a "mob". This opinion is my own, and that of many other respected CM members. No one asked me to post, or pm'd me to ask support for their opinion. All comments I've made on the matter have been made here on the boards.

I didn't mean to make a lumping of all forum members into a mob. What I meant was, there is a moblike mentality when people egg each other on with high fives (thanks) and think that being outspoken makes one right. That's what was happening in this thread. I'm sure there were a number of people turned off from joining the discussion because they didn't want to be ganged up on. If I referred to you as being part of a mob - my apologies.

I can't even be bothered posting anymore.

If CW is allowed to use a term to refuse a withdrawal and then change the term some day later on down the road (whenever they get around to it, I guess) so it actually fits the situation it was originally used for, what's the point?

If this just quietly goes away and CW and Casinomeister just carry on, business as usual, I don't think I want to be a part of that business.

And that is a shame because I kind of liked this site.

This is so way off the mark, I really don't have an idea how to respond to this. CW didn't pull this term out of its ass - its been there for years. They weren't looking for an excuse not to pay a player - they had set terms and conditions and enforced them. The player didn't read them and had his winnings forfeited. Rule #1 - when you indicate that you have read the terms and conditions, make sure you have read them. If you break them, don't try to lie your way out of it - suck it up and move on. Life lesson: be responsible for your own actions. That's sage advice and pretty damn simple to follow.

If this puts you off from posting anymore, well sorry about that. It's like you want to get divorced after one disagreement.

...I'm sorry but I don't care if Bryan agrees or disagrees with the casinos, there IS something he can do about it, but chooses not to. It really makes me wonder what is happening here? Must be more than meets the eye, is the only thing that pops in my mind....

What more am I expected to do? I accepted Danl's PAB and discussed it at length with a number of people to include Club World's manager and operator. I encouraged debate about the subject here in this forum - as long as the debate kept to the main issues it was fine. I created another thread to give players and affiliates a platform to offer CW suggestions on how to improve their terms and conditions. What more am I expected to do?

Yeah, I get it. Whenever I stick to my guns, and a player loses out "there is more than what meets the eye." Where were you two weeks ago when I pulled Betfair casino off of the Accredited list and rogued them for bad casino practice? That was some major doing. "Yeah, Casinomeister! Rogue 'dem casinos!" But when it comes to stating that a player is in the wrong - I get skewered.

I just wonder how many members who have been so outspoken against the casino are bonus banned there. Should I ask Tom?

On a side note...I don't particularly care for the way Bryan and Max are replying to some of these threads. Things are changing, and it's not for the better.

Well as another side note, I don't particularly like the way a number of members behaved in this thread. We had two troll bannings, and several warnings. And a couple of people throwing their arms in the air saying they are going to quit. I think that Max and I have maintained rather level heads under the circumstances.

As an end note, holding true to your beliefs is not an easy thing to do. But I think that this website has done it's part in giving this player a fair shake at trying to receive his winnings. If he had only read the terms and conditions, he would have gone elsewhere and saved himself (and everyone involved) a lot of grief.

Inserting fork: Thread upgraded to closed.