Debates between moderators and forum members

[swampwitch]

It wasn't that long ago that Gamtrak was put through the gauntlet for promoting the same known rogues...an exercise in which I most gleefully participated. The equine excrement (better Simmo?) was flung from both sides, to the point that Gamtrak was finally banned, ostensibly for being an unremittant PITA. Yet it would seem the Grumbles Boys are to be treated with kid gloves while doing the same thing, albeit with prettier language and a bit of a holier-than-thou attitude (something I'm guilty of myself at times, so I know it when I see it).

So what's the difference between Gambling Grumbles and Gamtrak in this situation? I mean, other than the fact that Gamtrak STOPPED PROMOTING THE ROGUES.

[Simmo!]

... to the point that Gamtrak was finally banned, ostensibly for being an unremittant PITA

I don't intend to discuss the specifics of a member who can no longer post here however I will reiterate that posters are rarely, if ever, banned for their opinions. They are banned for how they put them across.

The issue of someone promoting bad operators (which is subjective anyway) *should* be discussed IMO.

[swampwitch]

I don't intend to discuss the specifics of a member who can no longer post here however I will reiterate that posters are rarely, if ever, banned for their opinions. They are banned for how they put them across.

The issue of someone promoting bad operators (which is subjective anyway) *should* be discussed IMO.

I neither implied nor said outright that she was banned for her opinions. It is my belief that people are NOT banned here for their opinions. I said she was banned for being a pain in the ass.

But if I have to sit through whining posts about how some people are treated better than others, then I see nothing wrong with pointing out that when it comes to this particular group of rogues we've been down this road before...and historically people don't get away with it. So why should the Grumbles Boys be any different?

[Simmo!]

I neither implied nor said outright that she was banned for her opinions. It is my belief that people are NOT banned here for their opinions. I said she was banned for being a pain in the ass.

But if I have to sit through whining posts about how some people are treated better than others, then I see nothing wrong with pointing out that when it comes to this particular group of rogues we've been down this road before...and historically people don't get away with it. So why should the Grumbles Boys be any different?

OK I may have misunderstood your reasoning for requsting us to ban Gambling Grumbles here...please accept my apologies Swampwitch. But - speaking personally - I don't think it would be right to ban any posters for a difference of opinion, which is essentially what this is. To disagree - certainly. But not to ban. The other mods may have an opinion of course - I only speak for myself.

[bb28]

OK I may have misunderstood your reasoning for requsting us to ban Gambling Grumbles here...please accept my apologies Swampwitch. But - speaking personally - I don't think it would be right to ban any posters for a difference of opinion, which is essentially what this is. To disagree - certainly. But not to ban. The other mods may have an opinion of course - I only speak for myself.

Did I miss something? Did SW ask for a ban?


And I agree with you, banning should not happen because of disagreement.

[swampwitch]

I don't think anyone should be banned for having an opinion, or even for promoting scum. I merely mentioned Gamtrak was banned, but it had nothing to do with my overall point...that the Grumbles Boys should expect the treatment from THE MEMBERSHIP that we would give anyone else that promotes rogues. I hope that's clearer for you Simmo.

[Simmo!]

I don't think anyone should be banned for having an opinion, or even for promoting scum. I merely mentioned Gamtrak was banned, but it had nothing to do with my overall point...that the Grumbles Boys should expect the treatment from THE MEMBERSHIP that we would give anyone else that promotes rogues. I hope that's clearer for you Simmo.

OK sorry - the bolded bit coupled with "...So what's the difference between Gambling Grumbles and Gamtrak in this situation?..." got me confused

[slotaddict]

The point has been brought up but many seem to be missing this valid and important point.

That point is that because you are a member here at casinomeister you see that virtual is "rogue". It is at other places too undoubtedly. However, InetBet is Rogue at several places and as you have seen here on this forum they are definitely taking players funds without just cause. However, because it is not rogued HERE you seem to think it is a great place and virtual is bad. That is very much a point of opinion. At Gambling Grumbles InetBet is not linked to (similar to a rogue here) and virtual is not. That is probably based on the complaints
that get lodged to steve russo. If they list virtual and do not get complaints but do get complaints when listing InetBet then they are doing the prudent thing and not linking to them any longer.

So it would appear that many of you are seeing this as a black and white issue with virtual being totally rogue. Maybe they are and you are correct. I have noticed inetbet getting far more complaints in different forums than virtual. Maybe because more people play inetbet, I really don't know the answer. I do know that just because one site lists a casino as good and another as bad that the whole world does nto agree.
The Inetbet example is perfect. They are actually accredited here and rogued elsewhere. I do not think that any of us think Bryan has lack of integrity for listing them either. They pay him, it is his decision and right. I am fairly certain that Bryan does this for money also. I do not believe it is altruism that keeps him putting up with this. Surely it is his way of earning great income for him and his family. That does not make his opinions and recommendations any less relevant.

The same can be said with gambling grumbles. They seem to be as honest and above board as any other site I have read.

If you are going to give Graeme and Steve a hard time about listing virtual then give Bryan the same hard time about inetbet or any other accused casino of being rogue or taking players funds.

[Nifty29]

The point has been brought up but many seem to be missing this valid and important point.

That point is that because you are a member here at casinomeister you see that virtual is "rogue". It is at other places too undoubtedly. However, InetBet is Rogue at several places and as you have seen here on this forum they are definitely taking players funds without just cause. However, because it is not rogued HERE you seem to think it is a great place and virtual is bad. That is very much a point of opinion. At Gambling Grumbles InetBet is not linked to (similar to a rogue here) and virtual is not. That is probably based on the complaints
that get lodged to steve russo. If they list virtual and do not get complaints but do get complaints when listing InetBet then they are doing the prudent thing and not linking to them any longer.

So it would appear that many of you are seeing this as a black and white issue with virtual being totally rogue. Maybe they are and you are correct. I have noticed inetbet getting far more complaints in different forums than virtual. Maybe because more people play inetbet, I really don't know the answer. I do know that just because one site lists a casino as good and another as bad that the whole world does nto agree.
The Inetbet example is perfect. They are actually accredited here and rogued elsewhere. I do not think that any of us think Bryan has lack of integrity for listing them either. They pay him, it is his decision and right. I am fairly certain that Bryan does this for money also. I do not believe it is altruism that keeps him putting up with this. Surely it is his way of earning great income for him and his family. That does not make his opinions and recommendations any less relevant.

The same can be said with gambling grumbles. They seem to be as honest and above board as any other site I have read.

If you are going to give Graeme and Steve a hard time about listing virtual then give Bryan the same hard time about inetbet or any other accused casino of being rogue or taking players funds.

Could you please provide examples of when Inetbet has denied a legitimate player their legitimate winnings? Can't wait for this one.

The fact that you are placing Inetbet and Virtual in the same category shows just how little you know about the industry. The likes of Virtual et al just loooove players like you. Why don't you go and play with them for a while and report back when you have a big win.....maybe you could even use Gambling Grumblers links? I'm sure if you run into trouble they will help you out just like they did with the guy who won $900+ and was refused payment for no reason....Virtual will never recover from having their banner impressions reduced so there's no way they will do it to anyone else

[Simmo!]

They pay him, it is his decision and right.

I know most people know this already but just for clarity to any newer members that are reading this, it should be pointed out that no-one pays to be accredited at CM. I'm sure that wasn't the intended inference from Slotaddict but the sentence above could be misinterpreted.