inetbet Nightmare

[missmichelle]

I'm not going to judge what went on with your documents. Sorry you played the money away, it really sucks when that happens. Most of us have been there before. I know I have had no trouble getting my documents approved by them and when I was asked to update them (even though I was unhappy about having to do it again) they were approved again immediately.

I have to say if I email them and don't get a response within a half an hour I email them again. So I don't usually have any trouble there. Cashins are always processed for me within 24 hours so I don't see where there are any problems there. Some people can't deal with them just having email support but I kind of like having everything in writing. If you like live chat or to be able to phone them, then inetbet is not the place for you.

Good luck wherever you choose to play!

Michelle

[vinylweatherman]

It seems the email system broke in this case.

Firstly, sending all documents in one email caused them problems in opening it. This is really THEIR fault for not having the correct configuration set up for receiving player documentation, which would by necessity lead to much larger emails than the norm. Breaking it down to one document per email is the usual solution, but then they say they didn't even receive it. This seems very odd since they DID receive the one that was too large, so should have received 4 separate and smaller emails containing the documentation.

The other issue highlighted in the Gambling Grumbles case is filling in the form on the computer, rather than by hand. Technology has moved on, and MANY forms are now produced that can be filled in on the computer, including UK tax returns. This means that players are familiar with the idea, and it is MUCH easier than doing it the hard way (print, by hand, scan, send). Without specific instructions to the contrary, some players decide it is OK to use the computer. This then leads them into trouble because casinos don't like it, and will always ask for it to be done again, adding a delay to the process.

The OP received an additional and unusual request, which was for Moneybookers details, and proof of funding. This indicates they suspect fraud on the part of this player, and need this information to either support their suspicions, or rule them out and pay the player. They will expect the Moneybookers details to match those registered at the casino, as well as the details from the source of funds for Moneybookers matching both of these.

Each document should be sent in a separate email, and confirmation of receipt should be requested in a separate plain email that has no attachments. This plain email should also list what has been sent in the way of documents. The JPEG file format should be used, as TIFF images are generally too large for "normal" email server setups to handle. Players may not necessarily realise that their scanner or camera has given them a TIFF file rather than JPEG. TIFF is the same as the .BMP file format (bitmap) in that it is uncompressed "raw" image, and much larger than the compressed JPEG format normally used for exchanging images over the internet. The GIF format can also cause problems as some anti-virus software attached to email servers will reject them. This is because GIF files have been used in the past to slip viruses into computers.

I don't recall ever having trouble sending documents as JPEG files, one per email, to any casino. I have occasionally had "too large" declared when sending a number of JPEG files in a single email. It works at some casinos doing this, but not at others.

Any form requiring a signature MUST be signed by HAND, not on the PC. Although hardware and software exists to hand write on the PC, equivalent technology to VALIDATE forms done this way does not among casinos.

[iNetBet Promos]

Hi Guys,

Firstly I would like to deal with the latest derail to GG by gaydave. We have no knowledge of this complaint at all. I am unsure how a self appointed "mediator" can post up a "report" and subsequent decision when no mediation has taken place at all. We will of course be contacting GG.

Getting back to this thread. I will have to speak with accounts to find the details. Once I have some more information I will let you all know.

Have a good day.

Best Regards
iNetBet Promos

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Guys,

Firstly I would like to deal with the latest derail to GG by gaydave. We have no knowledge of this complaint at all. I am unsure how a self appointed "mediator" can post up a "report" and subsequent decision when no mediation has taken place at all. We will of course be contacting GG.

Getting back to this thread. I will have to speak with accounts to find the details. Once I have some more information I will let you all know.

Have a good day.

Best Regards
iNetBet Promos

It looks like Gambling Grumbles contacted iNetBet but received no reply, hence cast judgement based on only the players evidence. Gambling Grumbles also cast judgement on the other case being mentioned a fair bit here (AliceK) based on the evidence given to them by iNetBet as well as by the players. Bryan then said that iNetBet did not give Gambling Grumbles ALL the evidence that was given to him, and taking this additional evidence into account made the difference, with Bryan agreeing that the case was one of fraud.

This case seems one of communications breakdown, followed by the player losing their winnings back due to frustration at the lack of progress.

Apart from this case, it seems the problems with the email system at iNetBet are endemic, with many reports of players either not getting a reply at all, or them getting replies that bear no relation to the questions asked (i.e. a "cut & paste" rather than actually reading and understanding the email, and providing a well thought out reply tailored to the specific needs of the player).

Since there is ONLY email available, these issues MUST be addressed, since players have no other way to chase up missing replies other than to send more emails in the hope that at least one gets replied to.

Someone needs to dig around under the bonnet of the iNetBet email system and find out exactly what is happening with these emails that are sent, but never make it as far as the CS desk. They should also verify that all emails received by CS are properly logged and dealt with by a reply where necessary, including a confirmation of receipt as a matter of routine when documents have been received by CS and forwarded for approval.


Almost all the recent complaints about iNetBet stem from communication problems, with these then creating a big issue over something that starts out being relatively minor.


I find this comment about Gambling Grumbles rather telling:-

I am unsure how a self appointed "mediator" can post up a "report" and subsequent decision when no mediation has taken place at all.

It suggests that operators have little trust in them, and don't recognise them as a legitimate mediator as they do the likes of Max and Bryan's service here. This is unfortunate since Gambling Grumbles has a long history, and have inherited a "stellar" reputation from the days of Julie Sidwell that they are now trading on. This means that their "reports" carry considerable weight among a significant portion of online players, and no matter how dubious, have to be taken seriously by operators.

Gambling Grumbles have come under fire here for their policy of promoting casinos such as the Virtual group, with it being suggested that they are prepared to take "blood money" from a group that pays well, but regularly screws over players. I suggested that it is this policy that has lead to operators losing trust in them, and being unwilling to cooperate as fully as they are with the PAB process here. This is demonstrated in the AliceK fraud ring, where iNetBet were not prepared to trust Gambling Grumbles with key evidence that showed what had been done, and how; evidence they trusted Max with when he processed AliceK's PAB, and found her to be part of a fraud ring.

It would be better for operators to explicitly tell Gambling Grumbles that they are no longer prepared to share their evidence with them, rather than simply not replying. This is similar to the "no-can-do" list here, where operators have explicitly opted out of the PAB service, so that no-reply does not get interpreted as anything suspicious in a particular case.

[gaydave]

It looks like Gambling Grumbles contacted iNetBet but received no reply, hence cast judgement based on only the players evidence. Gambling Grumbles also cast judgement on the other case being mentioned a fair bit here (AliceK) based on the evidence given to them by iNetBet as well as by the players. Bryan then said that iNetBet did not give Gambling Grumbles ALL the evidence that was given to him, and taking this additional evidence into account made the difference, with Bryan agreeing that the case was one of fraud.

This case seems one of communications breakdown, followed by the player losing their winnings back due to frustration at the lack of progress.

Apart from this case, it seems the problems with the email system at iNetBet are endemic, with many reports of players either not getting a reply at all, or them getting replies that bear no relation to the questions asked (i.e. a "cut & paste" rather than actually reading and understanding the email, and providing a well thought out reply tailored to the specific needs of the player).

Since there is ONLY email available, these issues MUST be addressed, since players have no other way to chase up missing replies other than to send more emails in the hope that at least one gets replied to.

Someone needs to dig around under the bonnet of the iNetBet email system and find out exactly what is happening with these emails that are sent, but never make it as far as the CS desk. They should also verify that all emails received by CS are properly logged and dealt with by a reply where necessary, including a confirmation of receipt as a matter of routine when documents have been received by CS and forwarded for approval.


Almost all the recent complaints about iNetBet stem from communication problems, with these then creating a big issue over something that starts out being relatively minor.


I find this comment about Gambling Grumbles rather telling:-




It suggests that operators have little trust in them, and don't recognise them as a legitimate mediator as they do the likes of Max and Bryan's service here. This is unfortunate since Gambling Grumbles has a long history, and have inherited a "stellar" reputation from the days of Julie Sidwell that they are now trading on. This means that their "reports" carry considerable weight among a significant portion of online players, and no matter how dubious, have to be taken seriously by operators.

Gambling Grumbles have come under fire here for their policy of promoting casinos such as the Virtual group, with it being suggested that they are prepared to take "blood money" from a group that pays well, but regularly screws over players. I suggested that it is this policy that has lead to operators losing trust in them, and being unwilling to cooperate as fully as they are with the PAB process here. This is demonstrated in the AliceK fraud ring, where iNetBet were not prepared to trust Gambling Grumbles with key evidence that showed what had been done, and how; evidence they trusted Max with when he processed AliceK's PAB, and found her to be part of a fraud ring.

It would be better for operators to explicitly tell Gambling Grumbles that they are no longer prepared to share their evidence with them, rather than simply not replying. This is similar to the "no-can-do" list here, where operators have explicitly opted out of the PAB service, so that no-reply does not get interpreted as anything suspicious in a particular case.

VWM, I don't think that inetbet's response is indicative of the entire online community. I think most transparent casinos would at least tell GG what the charges are if you read through all of the complaints.

inetbet is saying "mediator" and "report" in quotes not because they doubt their mediation per se but because nothing was mediated. Since inet did not respond they are saying there can be no mediation. GG didn't mediate that, they simply reported what happened. What happened was that they did not get a response. I would think this would be more than a day or two that they tried to get a response also. It seems to me upon reading the reports at GG that they help a large % of people get paid and they also are a good warning station as you can see casinos going down hill as they get more complaints lodged against them.

The fact that GG refused to keep something secret doesnt make them less trustworthy in my book. It makes them more transparent which is badly needed in this industry.

[vinylweatherman]

VWM, I don't think that inetbet's response is indicative of the entire online community. I think most transparent casinos would at least tell GG what the charges are if you read through all of the complaints.

inetbet is saying "mediator" and "report" in quotes not because they doubt their mediation per se but because nothing was mediated. Since inet did not respond they are saying there can be no mediation. GG didn't mediate that, they simply reported what happened. What happened was that they did not get a response. I would think this would be more than a day or two that they tried to get a response also. It seems to me upon reading the reports at GG that they help a large % of people get paid and they also are a good warning station as you can see casinos going down hill as they get more complaints lodged against them.

The fact that GG refused to keep something secret doesnt make them less trustworthy in my book. It makes them more transparent which is badly needed in this industry.

This is why ignoring them is not a good idea for operators. No responce is counted against them. Gambling Grumbles could not mediate, so they did what Max would do in a similar situation where he gets "stonewalled" when trying to process a PAB, issue a "casino warning" based on the player's story and the fact that the casino refused to respond.

Since iNetBet say their email system is "perfect", and nothing is not received if sent to the correct address, it is understandable that Gambling Grumbles infers that iNetBet have chosen not to engage with Gambing Grumbles over this complaint.

Since Gambling Grumbles has made quite a reputation for itself, negative reports about a casino posted there are important, and not something operators should dismiss as the rantings of a "self appointed mediator".

It may be that Gambling Grumbles is too transparent for iNetBet's liking in these mediations, so they are reluctant to engage. They do seem to give more information than Max does in their reports.

[Casinomeister]

This is why ignoring them is not a good idea for operators. No responce is counted against them. Gambling Grumbles could not mediate, so they did what Max would do in a similar situation where he gets "stonewalled" when trying to process a PAB, issue a "casino warning" based on the player's story and the fact that the casino refused to respond...

Just to clarify, we have a "three strikes yer out" policy. If Max emails a casino at least three times in a matter of a few weeks with no response, we'll put up a warning. We give the casino plenty of opportunities to respond.

[Nifty29]

This is why ignoring them is not a good idea for operators. No responce is counted against them. Gambling Grumbles could not mediate, so they did what Max would do in a similar situation where he gets "stonewalled" when trying to process a PAB, issue a "casino warning" based on the player's story and the fact that the casino refused to respond.

Since iNetBet say their email system is "perfect", and nothing is not received if sent to the correct address, it is understandable that Gambling Grumbles infers that iNetBet have chosen not to engage with Gambing Grumbles over this complaint.

Since Gambling Grumbles has made quite a reputation for itself, negative reports about a casino posted there are important, and not something operators should dismiss as the rantings of a "self appointed mediator".

It may be that Gambling Grumbles is too transparent for iNetBet's liking in these mediations, so they are reluctant to engage. They do seem to give more information than Max does in their reports.

I'm not sure if you saw what Inetbet said earlier, but apparently they weren't even aware of the situation before the "report" was posted. I would hardly call that "ignoring". I have never known Inetbet to ignore a complaint, although given that they were shafted by GG previously, I can understand why they might baulk at the idea of using GG as a mediator in the future.

The problem with GG is that they take everything the player says as gospel. Experience over a decade here reveals that what the player says is usually an extrapolation of the facts i.e. important facts are omitted that paint a different picture of the situation. Mind you, I would question the common sense of anyone who places any faith in a "mediator" who continues to advertise casinos that they have proven to be non-payers. Integrity = 0 IMO

Gaydave seems to want more "transparency". I think that's an excellent suggestion.....don't you GD? Why don't we start with some people here and "set the standard"?

The people who want "complete transparency" are almost always the people with something to gain i.e. part of the same syndicate, professional fraudsters, etc. The average person is willing to trust those who have proven time and time again that they are of the highest integrity e.g. Bryan/Max. If either of these two people tell me they have seen irrefutable evidence of fraud or dishonesty, then I believe them.....I mean, it's pretty pointless even being part of the forum if you don't. CM/Max put their money where their mouth is...they don't promote casinos who rip players off or who don't pay, regardless of who they are or were...which is more than I can say for other "mediators".

One thing I can say is that honest players have nothing to fear when it comes to playing at inetbet....and this isn't an opinion, it's a fact, Jack.

[4 of a kind]

Based on what I’m reading here and in that other thread “Debates between moderators and forum members” it appears members are now arguing tit for tat between two voluntary arbitrators.

Am I the only one here that realizes how pathetic and ridicules this whole online gaming mess actually became?

[Simmo!]

Based on what I’m reading here and in that other thread “Debates between moderators and forum members” it appears members are now arguing tit for tat between two voluntary arbitrators.

Am I the only one here that realizes how pathetic and ridicules this whole online gaming mess actually became?

The mere fact that arbitrators are "voluntary" is indicative of the reason the online gaming industry is what it is. While the necessary authorities refuse to regulate it that's all you can ever hope for.