Moderate ability to post complaints until PAB filed?

[Diane]

Ok, I am not a long term member of this forum. But I believe this is the right area to throw out a suggestion.

So many of the posts these days have to do with complaints against a casino. Is there some way, that "complaints" can get blocked until they have used the resources of Casino Meister services to see review and determine if these are legitimate or not?

Forume is already monderated (wonderfully refreshing from my past experience with newgroups) to keep topics on target and in the right sections of this forum.

People air their gripes in excruciating details and with such venom so often only to find out that the OP also did something wrong that caused the problem. Too many casinos get vilified without cause or reason.

A few months back I had a complaint that I aired here because I didnt know about the PAB process. I am not trying to bog down MAX with excessive PAB's ---- but couldn't a filter of some kind be applied before these (frequently whiny & bitchy) complaints see the light of day??

My complaint was resolved and in hindsight I wish I wouldn't have aired it here before giving the site some leeway and perspective.

IF someone has been burned ----- sent it to some separate "holding" area until it can be fully vetted AND until site has been given time to respond. Todays world causes us to want instand responses and instant gratification - online sites dont always work that way. Especially the cashier's office which frequently is closed on the weekends. We all have to learn to wait. Wait until documentation at a new site is accepted and viewed as complete, wait until someone in a position to respond knowingly gets back to us.

Don't just bitch here..........give the process some time.

IMO ---- but I am prepared for some flames.

[bryand]

No flames from me

I think you have a valid point but wouldn't it take away from the essence of a message board?

[Pinababy69]

I disagree on shutting down the complaints forums to newbies. Actually Bryan did do that before (couple years ago maybe?), and I was one of the ones who lobbied to have it reopened.

Many of us who have been here for any length of time can smell bullshit when it pops up, and are pretty good at discerning what's a legit complaint and what isn't. And also who the good and bad operators are. The good guys don't really have alot to worry about, IMO. If a complaint is bogus, that will eventually come to light. And if it's legit, then HOW it is handled by the operator is just as important as the complaint itself. For myself, it helps me to keep abreast of who is toeing the line, and who could do better.

The casinos/operators/reps, are always able to post to the thread and give their side of the story as well...and let us decide.

I agree with Bryand, limiting access to posting complaints sort of defeats the purpose of a message board. And most of the complaints I see posted, certainly aren't any more damaging than the dozens of "this casino/software is rigged" threads.

Perfect example...right now there is an ongoing thread re: Betfair...which is a HUGE story. I have no idea if there have been PAB's filed as yet, or not...but players deserve to know what a highly respected company like Betfair has been doing...and it's not good. I am sure Bryan will jump into it when he returns...but for now...it deserves coverage...which could be denied if the section(s) were shut down.

My two cents worth.

[maxd]

As much as I empathize -- 'empathize' is not a dirty word regardless of what Glen "Punch Me" Beck says -- with Diane's point I'd have to say that it's one of those damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't things.

On the upside tighter control over what people gripe about means there's less unfocused whinging, fewer bogus accusations and a generally more level-headed atmosphere.

On the downside: it's virtually impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff until you've had a chance to look it over; the freedom to speak freely means that stuff gets dug up and outed rather efficiently; and, as bryand more-or-less said, speaking out is pretty much what forums are all about: if you take away the soap-box a lot of the potential speakers wander away and you never get to hear what they wanted to (or needed to) say.

I've been moderating casino forums for about a decade now and in that time I think I've probably made just about every mistake a forum moderator can make ... although I never had babies with someone I met on the forums which is a good thing. Having pretty much been-there-done-that I think it all comes down to this (if I may paraphrase): forums are the worst possible way to provide a public voice for players and industry people except for all the other ways.

In other words if you take it all into consideration, all the pros and all the cons into the mix, a well-moderated but open forum is about as good as it gets. There are inevitably going to be mistakes, misfires and the occasional miscreant but thems the breaks if you even begin to hope for something like fair treatment and reasonable accountability in a multi-billion dollar, mostly unregulated business.

Of course the tricky part is the "well-moderated" bit. Most aren't, a few are, and at the risk of sounding like a "team player" (*shudder*) the good ones are worth their weight in gold. Treasure them because basically they are a freak of nature: a good, free, and reliable service has ever been an endangered species.

[rockycatt]

what MAXD said

[jetset]

Whilst I can appreciate the original poster's point, I think Pinababy summed it up for me, especially:

1) The need for timeous exposure of baddies to warn other players

2) The fact that truly customer-oriented online operators should have staff monitoring top forums like this, and thus have the facility of being able to respond to false accusations.

3) How a beef is handled by an operator is an important indicator of its level of integrity.

I agree with her on the Betfair issue, too. Pulling the wagons into a circle and going into silent mode rarely works well, as Betfair will no doubt discover if its screwed up promo debacle is allowed to develop much further.

[oldtrvlagt]

There are times (IMO) when there is a fine line between having a complaint and having a large enough complaint to file a PAB. The forum is a great place to air a problem and get other peoples experiences and input without censorship. As mentioned before members can normally sniff out a bogus claim. If someone had to monitor each and every thread Max would have to be cloned

[bryand]

Whilst I can appreciate the original poster's point, I think Pinababy summed it up for me, especially:

1) The need for timeous exposure of baddies to warn other players

2) The fact that truly customer-oriented online operators should have staff monitoring top forums like this, and thus have the facility of being able to respond to false accusations.

3) How a beef is handled by an operator is an important indicator of its level of integrity.

I agree with her on the Betfair issue, too. Pulling the wagons into a circle and going into silent mode rarely works well, as Betfair will no doubt discover if its screwed up promo debacle is allowed to develop much further.

Even how an operator handles shills and flames on the board usually reflects on the maturity and stability of the organization.

[jetset]

Couldn't agree with you more!

[vinylweatherman]

Whilst I can appreciate the original poster's point, I think Pinababy summed it up for me, especially:

1) The need for timeous exposure of baddies to warn other players

2) The fact that truly customer-oriented online operators should have staff monitoring top forums like this, and thus have the facility of being able to respond to false accusations.

3) How a beef is handled by an operator is an important indicator of its level of integrity.

I agree with her on the Betfair issue, too. Pulling the wagons into a circle and going into silent mode rarely works well, as Betfair will no doubt discover if its screwed up promo debacle is allowed to develop much further.

As with other businesses, rogue behaviour can flourish so long as the business ensures it stays well hidden. Exposure means the business has to answer for it's actions, and no longer has the luxury of "business as usual". In many cases, consumers can complain to regulatory bodies, even the media, but THIS industry largely gets along with little in the way of regulation. For starters, an operator can CHOOSE where they will be regulated, and if thinking of behaving badly, will seek out a place where they can get away with it.

A frequently asked question of businesses that appear on BBC Watchdog has been "why has it taken an appearance on this program to get you to take action on these complaints?". It's clear that whilst an issue isn't creating a stir, a business will "stonewall" rather than seek a fair resolution that could cost it money. Once an issue becomes public, a business has to begin accounting for itself, or risk losing customers to the competition.

Betfair are "stonewalling" the best they can, and if these issues were done by the book, stalling the PABs would have allowed these issues to be kept a good deal quieter than has been the case. Betfair now face losing credibility every day they procrastinate, and even players not affected are going to consider whether playing there was as safe as they thought. These is plenty of competition.

IF Betfair force the issue to court by refusing to discuss anything with mediators, they risk LOSING a case, which could have a destructive effect on their credibility that will be hard to counter.

I'll bet there will be "out of court settlements" negotiated on the quiet, and the publicity generated by the forums will give affected players a far stronger negotiating position.

The UK banks did this during the bank charges argument. They stood their ground, and faced down complainants UNTIL it got as far as a formal court summons, upon which nealry all banks "caved in" and negotiated a settlement rather than risk setting a precedent in court by losing a case. Publicity surrounding the issue ensured that customers knew they had probably been "ripped off", and had a good chance of getting their money back.