Inetbet closes my account - You be the judge

[Nifty29]

Nifty,

I believe it would be more appropriate for the casino to respond. Basically by stating 'numerous mails' they mean we have warned you many times and my reply plus their ensuing reply which was not itself a warning but rather a discussion on my suggestion for increasing wrs does not fall within the term 'numerous emails' for this purpose.

As for Gambling Grumbles, while I have not used their services since the days of Julie Sidwell(how I miss her) they may be pro-player but I trust them to take a balanced view.

Any casino should be allowed to defend its stance in relation to accusations made against it. However, the information divulged must be relevant and necessary. If not, how can they be trusted?

With respect Chu, it isn't up to you who responds and who doesn't. I believe the moderators decide what is or is not appropriate.

You are nit picking Chu - inetbet did send you more than one email. The adjective attached to "emails" is immaterial.

Can you give me an example of inetbet divulging something irrelevant and unnecessary?

I think you are being blinkered by your emotions here.

[vinylweatherman]

With respect Chu, it isn't up to you who responds and who doesn't. I believe the moderators decide what is or is not appropriate.

You are nit picking Chu - inetbet did send you more than one email. The adjective attached to "emails" is immaterial.

Can you give me an example of inetbet divulging something irrelevant and unnecessary?

I think you are being blinkered by your emotions here.

YOU are also nit picking by trying to justify the reply email (making TWO emails) qualifies "numerous" to be an accurate description of what was sent. "numerous" indicates "too many to keep count of", and is NOT a proper representation of just TWO emails, one of which was merely a reply, and would NOT have been sent had Chuchu not replied to the ONE email sent in July.

iNetBet have admitted that their use of "numerous" applies to ALL emails related to this matter that have been sent during the lifetime of the account, thus by implication trying to argue that issues long since considered "closed" are being reopened in order to "dramatise" the situation.

If Chuchu has kept all the emails over the life of his account, then he can post dates of the emails received, along with a brief indication of what they were about. In this case, emails related to the use of bonuses are the only ones relevant to the argument.

[Nifty29]

YOU are also nit picking by trying to justify the reply email (making TWO emails) qualifies "numerous" to be an accurate description of what was sent. "numerous" indicates "too many to keep count of", and is NOT a proper representation of just TWO emails, one of which was merely a reply, and would NOT have been sent had Chuchu not replied to the ONE email sent in July.

iNetBet have admitted that their use of "numerous" applies to ALL emails related to this matter that have been sent during the lifetime of the account, thus by implication trying to argue that issues long since considered "closed" are being reopened in order to "dramatise" the situation.

If Chuchu has kept all the emails over the life of his account, then he can post dates of the emails received, along with a brief indication of what they were about. In this case, emails related to the use of bonuses are the only ones relevant to the argument.

....and of course you are not "nit picking" by writing three paragraphs about my alleged "nit picking"

It's amazing how the central argument has been cleverly smothered by the inetbet haters' deliberate focus on one word pertaining to how many emails were sent. The whole episode was brought on by Chu calling them liars and being impolite. Inetbet has the right to not tolerate behavior of this kind, and also to close accounts of such players.

[greasemonkey]

@inetbet:

I would say they can easily prove that they are being honest. Tell us the coupon codes or bonus codes that alicek used on each of her deposits. She states she didn't use any bonus on her last 3 deposits. Who is telling the truth? Easily proven.
Tell us the other casinos she played at that she is lying about. Show us. You have already proven to be MISLEADING if not out and out LYING about the CDS complaints. The same with Chu's emails... or at best, exaggerating. Please answer all the questions asked earlier like Did she or did she not supply appropriate documents?

So instead of having Nifty argue of what you may have meant or what you may be thinking, just give us the proof. Show us the bonus codes and a screen shot of them in the cashier or whatever and we will beleive you. Let us know if she had supplied documents. Just "saying" something is so or is not so, is not believable to most nor is it sufficient evidence for most.

[Nate]

I cannot understand how people can equate a pair of emails to the word numerous. This word is clearly used to quantify a large amount.

Please refer to the thesaurus definition:

Adj. 1. numerous - amounting to a large indefinite number; "numerous times".

Nate

[Casinomeister]

@inetbet:

I would say they can easily prove that they are being honest. Tell us the coupon codes or bonus codes that alicek used on each of her deposits. She states she didn't use any bonus on her last 3 deposits. Who is telling the truth? Easily proven.
Tell us the other casinos she played at that she is lying about. Show us. You have already proven to be MISLEADING if not out and out LYING about the CDS complaints. The same with Chu's emails... or at best, exaggerating. Please answer all the questions asked earlier like Did she or did she not supply appropriate documents?

So instead of having Nifty argue of what you may have meant or what you may be thinking, just give us the proof. Show us the bonus codes and a screen shot of them in the cashier or whatever and we will beleive you. Let us know if she had supplied documents. Just "saying" something is so or is not so, is not believable to most nor is it sufficient evidence for most.

Stop badgering fellow members - yes, a casino rep is a fellow member and should be given the same respect you would give any other member. If you value your membership here, I suggest you chill out.

alicek is connected to other players, get over it. She took a bonus, but didn't take others - she admitted it. The bonus issue is moot. She is connected to a fraud ring coming from the UK. This fraud ring has made it's rounds at a number of RTG casinos - she's probably been shut out of them as well.

If you think that iNetBet was unfair, then that's your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, I feel they made the right decision.

As for Chuchu's issue, I still don't understand why there is such a slugfest over this. So the guy did or didn't get some emails. Some of you are busting a vein over this.

Life is too short for this sort of nonsense. You need to go outside and take a walk.

[Antonia1953]

Chu has always been one of the most rational posters on this forum, which I admire. Being accused of being a bonus abuser is not something that any seasoned online gambler would appreciate.

Accepting a bonus to a casino is perilous, especially if you partake of every one they offer because they do not make proper use of the controls available to them. If they don't want a particular customer to use bonuses, then they can easily prevent them from doing so. Chu was issued a warning, which he acknowledged with a response. Whether they warned him numerous times or once, in my eyes, would only be important if he had never received a warning.

The decision to block his account for accusing them of lying in regard to how many warnings he received was overkill in my opinion but...online casinos, the same as landbased casinos have the right to refuse service according to their own discretion. End of story.

What is interesting to me about this thread is that it is so long. Chu vented, a couple of people sympathized and the thread probably would have ended there, if not for the fire fanning of an antagonist. There are people that just like to provoke chaos, especially if they don't agree with someone else's opinion. They prey on every word in their constant need for an audience. Supplying a podium for this type of individual is a two-sided sword, whether you are the one he is antagonizing or the one he is pacifying. He will breed contempt wherever he goes and it will reflect on all who support it.

[silcnlayc]

Chu has always been one of the most rational posters on this forum, which I admire. Being accused of being a bonus abuser is not something that any seasoned online gambler would appreciate.

Accepting a bonus to a casino is perilous, especially if you partake of every one they offer because they do not make proper use of the controls available to them. If they don't want a particular customer to use bonuses, then they can easily prevent them from doing so. Chu was issued a warning, which he acknowledged with a response. Whether they warned him numerous times or once, in my eyes, would only be important if he had never received a warning.

The decision to block his account for accusing them of lying in regard to how many warnings he received was overkill in my opinion but...online casinos, the same as landbased casinos have the right to refuse service according to their own discretion. End of story.

What is interesting to me about this thread is that it is so long. Chu vented, a couple of people sympathized and the thread probably would have ended there, if not for the fire fanning of an antagonist. There are people that just like to provoke chaos, especially if they don't agree with someone else's opinion. They prey on every word in their constant need for an audience. Supplying a podium for this type of individual is a two-sided sword, whether you are the one he is antagonizing or the one he is pacifying. He will breed contempt wherever he goes and it will reflect on all who support it.

Very nice read Antonia1953 and well said.

.

[chuchu59]

Chu has always been one of the most rational posters on this forum, which I admire. Being accused of being a bonus abuser is not something that any seasoned online gambler would appreciate.

Accepting a bonus to a casino is perilous, especially if you partake of every one they offer because they do not make proper use of the controls available to them. If they don't want a particular customer to use bonuses, then they can easily prevent them from doing so. Chu was issued a warning, which he acknowledged with a response. Whether they warned him numerous times or once, in my eyes, would only be important if he had never received a warning.

The decision to block his account for accusing them of lying in regard to how many warnings he received was overkill in my opinion but...online casinos, the same as landbased casinos have the right to refuse service according to their own discretion. End of story.

What is interesting to me about this thread is that it is so long. Chu vented, a couple of people sympathized and the thread probably would have ended there, if not for the fire fanning of an antagonist. There are people that just like to provoke chaos, especially if they don't agree with someone else's opinion. They prey on every word in their constant need for an audience. Supplying a podium for this type of individual is a two-sided sword, whether you are the one he is antagonizing or the one he is pacifying. He will breed contempt wherever he goes and it will reflect on all who support it.

That about sums it all up. Thanks.

[Nifty29]

Chu has always been one of the most rational posters on this forum, which I admire. Being accused of being a bonus abuser is not something that any seasoned online gambler would appreciate.

Accepting a bonus to a casino is perilous, especially if you partake of every one they offer because they do not make proper use of the controls available to them. If they don't want a particular customer to use bonuses, then they can easily prevent them from doing so. Chu was issued a warning, which he acknowledged with a response. Whether they warned him numerous times or once, in my eyes, would only be important if he had never received a warning.

The decision to block his account for accusing them of lying in regard to how many warnings he received was overkill in my opinion but...online casinos, the same as landbased casinos have the right to refuse service according to their own discretion. End of story.

What is interesting to me about this thread is that it is so long. Chu vented, a couple of people sympathized and the thread probably would have ended there, if not for the fire fanning of an antagonist. There are people that just like to provoke chaos, especially if they don't agree with someone else's opinion. They prey on every word in their constant need for an audience. Supplying a podium for this type of individual is a two-sided sword, whether you are the one he is antagonizing or the one he is pacifying. He will breed contempt wherever he goes and it will reflect on all who support it.

I'm not quite following you Antonia.

What "antagonist"? What "fire" was "fanned"? Are you saying that only those who sympathise with chu should be able to post?

If you are going to make accusations, you could at least name the person involved.....after all, you have indulged in character attacks on that person, which is exactly what you are accusing this person of doing

What is worse, is the "high fives" for a post that contains such personal attacks. Silc I would expect, but chu should know better.

The mob is alive and well.