Perplexing Terms of Use at ClubWorld

[spiderman]

I got this from ClubWorld's T of Use:

18. In cases where players are participating in strategies or patterns of play that CWCUSD in its sole discretion deems to be abusive we reserve the right, prior to closing the account, to deduct any processing costs associated with the account from the value of the final payment. You will be notified in advance of any deductions of this nature being made.

What exactly does that mean?

Also, I am perplexed on what they would deem "abusive" play other than using some kind of bot or software which isn't even mentioned.

This is not from the bonus T & C; this is straight up play.

[maxd]

Have you tried asking them? That would probably be a good first step.

[P.V.]

I got this from ClubWorld's T of Use:

18. In cases where players are participating in strategies or patterns of play that CWCUSD in its sole discretion deems to be abusive we reserve the right, prior to closing the account, to deduct any processing costs associated with the account from the value of the final payment. You will be notified in advance of any deductions of this nature being made.

What exactly does that mean?

Also, I am perplexed on what they would deem "abusive" play other than using some kind of bot or software which isn't even mentioned.

This is not from the bonus T & C; this is straight up play.

It's a term that could be used against you when requesting a withdraw.

Such a loose term becomes ambiguous, a debatable issue.

Not a good thing in my opinion.

A pattern of play could be as simple as you playing $1.00 bets 10 times in a row and then changing to .50 cent bets 10 times in a row and then back to $1.00 bets.

What advantage would you have doing this with random software? I've yet to understand why this type of term exists.

Ask them like Max said and post the reply.

[uxix]

What advantage would you have doing this with random software? I've yet to understand why this type of term exists.

Same here.

[Andrewjon0075]

Hello, I have honestly no idea what ever do those abbreviations mean. It seems that many groups have their own Jargon to describe the same things.

[vinylweatherman]

This term has been used in the past to recover processing costs from players deemed to have made too many transactions for the amount of play made.

For example, if a player repeatedly deposits $1000, plays a few $1 spins and withdraws, repeating this every day, CW will often charge the player for the costs of this "churning", arguing that the player didn't need to deposit so much just to "try a few spins".

This has often been charged retrospectively, charges being applied to transactions that were made BEFORE the player was told their pattern of transactions was not acceptable.

There is a danger that this kind of term can be misused, or can be applied to a player that was NOT engaging in something "dodgy", but merely had a mistrust of leaving money overnight in a casino account, even if they knew they were going to play the next day.

[spiderlegz]

They hit bonus hunters with these costs. Of course they dont mention in advance how much they will charge and if its applied to past transactions too. Shows what a classy outfit they are nowadays...

Here is a thread about one "victim":http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...-neteller.html

[vinylweatherman]

They hit bonus hunters with these costs. Of course they dont mention in advance how much they will charge and if its applied to past transactions too. Shows what a classy outfit they are nowadays...

Here is a thread about one "victim":http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...-neteller.html

The odd thing is - they already have a way to deal with bonus hunters, the codes do not WORK on an account deemed to be "bonus hunting".

It is the retrospective nature of application to events before formal notification that I find troubling, rather than the charging itself.

They should inform a player that any FUTURE withdrawals will incur a charge if insufficient play has taken place on the deposit, and this should ONLY be a recovery of costs for THAT deposits, and not those made before the warning. Only when told they are doing wrong can a player know that they need to change their habits, or leave.

[gaydave]

absolutely correct VWM. Casinos take WAAAAAAAY too many liberties with OUR money. There needs to be better standards, especially for an accredited casino. To apply things retroactively is horrible. Where do they get off thinking this is in any way acceptable? If they are going to take money with no questions ask then they better damn well start paying like that too. There are way too many instances of confiscations and loopholes found to not pay people or not pay them correctly.

That cannot be acceptable for accredtied casinos can it?

[Casinomeister]

Has anyone bothered to contact the casino rep asking him to explain this term (which in turn fosters communication between players and operators), or is this just another bitch and moan session?