The BitchMeister Blog: it's New! Improved! Old-Fashioned!

**Artico** · 28th April 2009, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by WD2810

News

I got a phone call today from a Finnish speaking person whom I gather Rushmore had hired to seek out Finnish players. He wanted to know if I had been asked to sell my ID for $$$ or anything like that. I of course said no which is the truth. He was pretty clueless about online gaming in general - e.g. he had never heard of Moneybookers before. Anyway, he said then he will pass on the information he got from me right away.

He also wouldn't say or possibly didn't even know who had acquired his services, as I had to spell R-U-S-H-M-O-R-E to him. He just said that his employer seems to be concerned with ID theft and that possibly a rogue casino has sold people's ID's to fraudsters.

I hope this call yields action from Rushmore soon.

Rushmore seems to be run by amateurs. Accredited casino ffs. Hiring private investigators for sure, seems like some rent-a-cop calling who doesnt know anything about gambling. And that questions proves you are not fraudster and this took 4 months. Just hilarious.

If somebody in general calls me like that I dont tell him nothing. Why would I? They should clearly identificate themselves.

**maxd** · 29th April 2009, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Artico

... seems like some rent-a-cop calling who doesnt know anything about gambling.

Why would identity verification have anything to do with knowing about online gambling, or Rushmore ... or even how to plug in the internets?

Poke fun all you like but so far your jibes seem pretty unconvincing and ill-informed.

**Artico** · 29th April 2009, 08:46 AM

Well it would be nice if they said who hired to make a call, wouldn it? Ofcourse now I know this prosedure I do answer their questions. But if hadnt read this forum I probably not. That is what I mean. No need to take it personally maxd I have no intend to criticize you with those comments.

**maxd** · 29th April 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Artico

Well it would be nice if they said who hired to make a call, wouldn it?

There I will agree with you, at least insofar as no one should be expected to give personal information to a total stranger who is unwilling or unable to identify themselves. Such identification should at least include showing that they are associated with some organization which the player would know.

If someone came up to me and asked me that stuff I'd ask what it was about. If they couldn't provide a reasonable answer I'd probably tell them to go bother someone else.

That said, expecting them to answer a pop quiz about online gaming isn't very realistic either.

**maxd** · 1st May 2009, 11:45 AM

This week's update is posted: BitchMeister Fridays: PAB Report for week of 20090501

Summary: Rushmore pays, Strykke is Rogued, and as ever The Numbers: 4/3/1/1/2/2 for those of you who are keeping score.

**Artico** · 6th May 2009, 07:39 PM

Their investigator seems to be still celebrating Labours Day since I have not received phone call. Wondering how many people he has to call. If the questions are those already mentioned it should not take too long even with hundred people.

**Casinomeister** · 6th May 2009, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Artico

Their investigator seems to be still celebrating Labours Day since I have not received phone call. Wondering how many people he has to call. If the questions are those already mentioned it should not take too long even with hundred people.

Well, you've just received a two week vacation for violations of rules 1.11 and 1.15. See you when you come back

Hopefully...

**spiderlegz** · 7th May 2009, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

Well, you've just received a two week vacation for violations of rules 1.11 and 1.15. See you when you come back

Hopefully...

While I somehow can understand violation of rule 1.15 I dont see how he has violated rule 1.11.

A warning could have been more proper.

**maxd** · 7th May 2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by spiderlegz

I dont see how he has violated rule 1.11.

That person has repeated tried to turn this thread into a debate over their own personal issue with Rushmore. I believe that 1.11 items "harassing members with agenda laden posts" and "consistently ragging on a casino that did you wrong" apply in spades here.

Making others aware of your issue is one thing, being a pissy whiner is quite another.

**Casinomeister** · 7th May 2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by spiderlegz

While I somehow can understand violation of rule 1.15 I dont see how he has violated rule 1.11.

1.11 - Please do not exploit this board to promote your own personal agenda. If the moderators (and members) feel that you are ... consistently ragging on a casino that did you wrong, etc., your account may be suspended.

Seems pretty clear to me. I feel I've been tolerant enough with the hijacking of this thread. This thread concerns Max's updates to his blog - not the Finnish investigation by Rushmore.