English Harbour Group Warning

[spearmaster]

The issue is NOT what prompted eCOGRA to review their decision and subsequently reverse it.

The issue IS what eCOGRA ultimately did in the end - the right thing. And I should point out that the intervening period was VERY short between the first decision and the reversal.

Those of you who can claim they never made a mistake and then rectified it are welcome to cast stones. The rest of you really ought to reexamine your positions here (that's my polite answer, you don't want to know what I really think right now).

[caruso]

We're all entitled to our opinions, Ted, as long as they're politely and factually presented.

Your opinion of the relevant issue is just that - your opinion. It's certainly AN opinion, but it's in no way the "definitive" opinion.

Angelciti "did the right thing in the end".

Gaming Club "ditto".

English Harbour re. Forty+: "ditto".

There are more.

What happened at the end doesn't make less relevant what happened BEFORE. In fact, the issues are entirely indepndent of each other, and each stands on its own merit - or lack thereof, in this case. In fact, the "before" is terribly significant in the overall context. "Big" organization, all the big portals behind them - and the woman at the top of the tree can't add two and two together and make four. Now THAT's relevant.

You say "Those of you who can claim they never made a mistake and then rectified it are welcome to cast stones."

There was no mistake. A decision was taken.

When a robber is caught, returns his ill-gotten gains and says "sorry, it was just a mistake", you have to ask "what mistake??"; what did he not know before? What does he know now to realize he was wrong? What changed? OK, he's sorry: why? What is different? Is he repentent? OK, THAT's a change worth considering. Are Ecogra "repentent"? Did they apologize? Did they fire Tex Rees for gross incompetence? Methinks not.

If there had been specific facts pertinent to the matter that subsequently came to light, all when and good. But that isn't the case. Nothing changed. A decision was reversed.

Casinos reverse decisions all the time. Angelciti did. Ain't no difference, my friend.

I understand this makes you angry, Ted. It makes me angry, too. It makes my blood boil. You have no idea how much.

[Dirk Diggler]

I've got to disagree with you there Spearmaster - how they arrived at the decision is very important. If I didn't know about the forums then I would have had £1200 stolen from me by their and Lake Palace's decision.

When Warren CLoud initially refuses to pay players labelling them bonus abusers but then does so after they post on here and PaB, does that mean his initial decision is of no consequence because he came to the right one in the end?

Similarly with English Harbour here, does it not matter that they initially tried to void this players winnings because they eventually paid out after the player complained on here and Bryan pointed them in the direction of the thread?

To me it does matter an awfull lot - until a time when there's no need for players to have to post on the likes of here to overturn incorrect decisions then this industry has far to go.

For the record it was actually well over two weeks from eCOGRA making their initial decision before they reversed it. I did appeal to them to reconsider straight after their initial decision but they informed me they were not able to help me further. They did however do an about turn pretty sharpish after it was posted on here and Stanford et al contacted them.

However after saying all that I do totally agree with your point about everyone can make mistakes etc. IIRC eCOGRA have now changed their process for decising on disputed have they not? It now has to be reviewed by a director as well doesn't it, which should hopefully mean they will come up with the correct decision in the first placefrom now on.

Once again just to make sure my overall view is understood: I believe eCOGRA is fantastic for players and the industry alike, and can only be beneficial to everyone involved in the long run. I'm not bashing eCOGRA here at all, I just happen to believe in my case they the player down.

[spearmaster]

I've got to disagree with you there Spearmaster - how they arrived at the decision is very important. If I didn't know about the forums then I would have had £1200 stolen from me by their and Lake Palace's decision.

Don't tell me you've never dropped the ball before, Dirk. People strive for perfection but that is an impossible dream. eCOGRA obviously missed out on some factor when they arrived at their decision.

One should note that there could have been a number of other things that might have caused them to reconsider their decision. The route you chose, the forums, worked in this instance. That does not make it the ONLY way to solve a problem.

To me it does matter an awfull lot - until a time when there's no need for players to have to post on the likes of here to overturn incorrect decisions then this industry has far to go.

For the record it was actually well over two weeks from eCOGRA making their initial decision before they reversed it. I did appeal to them to reconsider straight after their initial decision but they informed me they were not able to help me further. They did however do an about turn pretty sharpish after it was posted on here and Stanford et al contacted them.

Someone needed to call their attention to other factors - upon which, when they said they were revisiting the situation, a decision came very quickly. Until that point I can only suppose that you didn't provide them with some point or other - unintentionally, of course, but based on what they saw at the time they made a decision.

When you agree to arbitration in any industry, you agree to abide by the arbitrator's decision, whether he or she is right or wrong. You went to arbitration, lost, and some others were able to convince them that something had been left out.

Stanford's letter was one of these key factors. However, it was NOT the only factor, because your voice should have had at least equal weight if not more.

That's all I'm going to say here, other than to let you know that eCOGRA *does* listen and that they *do* learn and that they *are* growing and getting better with time.

Caruso, excuse me for saying so, but my opinion is based on a lot of experience in working with BOTH sides of the coin. To toot my own horn, there aren't that many others that really can see both sides - Jetset and Casinomeister are obviously amongst those that will look at all sides of an issue, and typically of the three I am the loudest and most obstinate because that's my nature. Jetset and Casinomeister have infinitely more patience than I do.

But together, along with some industry people, along with some players, along with some operators, WE - COLLECTIVELY - make this thing work. It's not just the players, nor is it just the operators, nor is it just my loud mouth. But this loud mouth is willing to call a spade a spade no matter WHICH side they're on. I don't just speak up for the industry, nor do I just speak up for operators.

I speak up for those I know and trust to be right even if they DO make mistakes from time to time.

Once upon a time, I played exactly the role you are playing now. Come to think of it, I still play that role, but from three different perspectives. So it's not like I don't understand where you're coming from - but with all due respect, you do NOT see the whole picture.

[jetset]

I think there is sometimes a danger that hasty judgements can lead to almost malicious attempts to discredit an organisation that really can make for a better industry and more protection for players in my view.

That means less room for crooks to work in, and I'm all for that - no matter which side of the divide they are on. It means better standards, less opportunities to defraud and less hassles for mediators and players alike.

But repeatedly and at times with surprisingly deep hostility slagging off an organisation such as ECOGRA which is making real progress is not useful imo. Give credit where credit is due, and if they do make a mistake let's first try the reasoned approach as Stanford did before accusing them of being the devil incarnate.

Trying to kill off something like ECOGRA is sometimes done through honest cynicism based on past comparisons that may or may not really be valid, and I believe that to be the case here despite our frequent jousts on this and other matters. There are others with somewhat more ulterior motives.

I believe Spear is right in saying that a balanced and reasoned approach can get a lot more done than creating immediate bad vibes, even on boards like Casinomeister. Time to roll out the hatefests, harsh language and a few other more direct measures when that fails.

[caruso]

Someone needed to call their attention to other factors - upon which, when they said they were revisiting the situation, a decision came very quickly. Until that point I can only suppose that you didn't provide them with some point or other - unintentionally, of course, but based on what they saw at the time they made a decision.

Bingo.

That is EXACTLY the point I've been making all along. It's also the same point that others, like-minded, have been making - and I thank you for highlighting it.

Rationally, you suggest that there was some factor missing from the original consideration, something which subsequently came to light. Of course, there HAD to be. Without it, there would've no reason to change anything, no reason for them to turn "no" into "yes" - other than "whoops, he knows the ropes - so pay him quick".

There are two possibilities:

1) Additional information came to light (as you suggest ought to, or "must", be the case), some critical detail that made the difference and turned a flat refusal - reinforced, let's not forget, by the player's request to reconsider and the immediate and flat out denial - into payment within a couple of days.

Must have been one helluva detail.

or...

2) No additional information came to light, and there was no reason to reverse the decision. But given that the decision WAS reversed, a reason there had to be. Bereft of any alternative, one is left to conjecture that the reason was nothing more palatable than standard forum / affiliate / industry pressure - as I've suggested all along. Remember, I've seen one or two of these and I know exactly how they play out.

Until we are told WHAT "factor X" actually WAS, the alternative is valid: forum pressure and, without question in my mind, a phone call / email from Bryan.

My opinion, and that of others, is that there was no "factor X" - Ecogra just did an abrupt u-turn. Since nothing has been forthcoming it's the only rational assumption based on the facts as we know them.

And how extraordinarily coincidental, too: player TWICE complains and is rejected on both occasions; player posts on the boards; in EXACTLY that moment, Ecogra discovers "factor X" and has him paid.

In my clear opinion, there is no "factor X". I agree with you, though, that given a credible organization, there can only be such a thing. Credible organizations don't make arbitrary decisions, spectacularly incorrect ones like this, then spin around the other way so fast it'd give a ballerina a headache, based on postings from a bunch of casino malcontents on a message board. Credible organizations just don't work like that.

Next ICE, I'm going to try and get together with them and get to the bottom of this. One way or another, I want to know why they changed their minds. This is crucial information.

[nancyo]

I am sorry to hear what happened to you with English Harbour, but I do feel I need to say that they have always treated me well. I found a check in old paperwork last year from them when I had cashed in winings dating back to the year 2000 for 1250.00. I dont even know why I never cashed it. I called them and they immediately credited my acct with those funds to cash out......5 years later. They seem totally honorable to me, but I understand that something seems really weird with what happened to you and I would be mad also.

[chuchu59]

Yet another anniversary posting. What's up doc?

[jonevegas]

We see a few of these where the paying player fights back, it's all the ones we don't see that concerns me. There are so many naive players that have no idea how to retrieve their funds when they have been "locked out" so to speak for various reasons of which are mostly that the casino doesn't want to pay.I think a third party mediation group not affiliated with any casino's should be mandatory for all online gaming operations and a link provided at each site to access this group be compulsory.