What to do with the fraudsters

**Casinomeister** · 15th February 2005, 10:23 PM

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but over the past several months the forum has been getting hit up by a lot of newbie fraudsters posting bogus complaints, or at times oldtimers (or semi-oldtimers) drifting to the darkside of scam-city.

I'm looking for a creative solution to this besides the traditional banishment. Here are a couple of ideas, but I'd really like to hear something from you all:

a) keep things as they are. When a member posts fraudulent complaints, they are banned and never allowed back. Tsch�ss!

b) place them into a user group that identifies them as a fraudulent player. They are permitted to continue being a member of the Casinomeister community, but it is obvious that they are a fraudster - kind of a permanent scarlet letter.

I'm just wondering if there is a way to deal with this besides the way it's being dealt with now. Suggestions - ideas?

**jinnia** · 15th February 2005, 11:21 PM

I voted to let them stay, but mark them as being a 'faudster', IF it is absolutely deemed that they are. And, right along with any casino owner/operator/manager who is a member that is also found to be a fraudster (defrauding the player).

**caruso** · 15th February 2005, 11:26 PM

I'm going to put the horse before the cart. I know it's a hard call for you, but it would assuage some of the hostility which has been generated in recent times to have an idea of just how categoric the evidence is that leads you to the conclusion that the player's a cheat in the first place. For example, Crystal Palace: do you know, or is it on oath? I don't find "oath" from either the Cloudster or RTG particularly convincing - are your chains possibly being yanked or is it categoric? And then, there were aspects of that case which are still unclear and haven't exactly left RTG with glowing halos over their heads (the password issue). That's remains all a bit nebulous, to my mind. Then there's the other matter that's got itself excalated to serious nastiness recently: is it "word of oath" on the multi-account issue from the manager who pulled out the half-baked "robot play" excuse (remember Hampton, lol) and hardly put himself in a convincing light, or did you get clear verification to your own satisfaction, but NOT based on heresay? I mean, evidence in hand - or as near as can be? (That's a rhetorical question in the circumstances)

I know you can't reveal certain matters of WHAT goes on for fear of exacerbating the problem, but if there were more clarity on these matters it would go some way to solving the problem. The question that you put is a kind of request for a headache pill - removing the symptom but not the problem.

Yeah, I know that's not exactly the answer you were looking for.

**rfg45** · 15th February 2005, 11:33 PM

------

**vgyhnji** · 15th February 2005, 11:50 PM

Bryan

You do a great job just as it is.

I have noticed something also, that of late, just as the level of these 'fraudsters' has risen, you have been equal to the task and 'smelled a rat' pretty darn quick.

If proven to your satisfaction as 'fraudsters', then keeping them as members in some 'cage' for show would achieve nothing more than a degrading of this excellent forum. They would probably only abuse any ability to post by spewing out more rubbish anyway!

Just ban them to hell and let them eff up someone else who is not as sharp as you.

As regards 'oldtimers' thats a more complicated issue which you have to negotiate with your judge/jury/executioner hat on.

The only scope for improvement as I see it, is that instead of accepting the full burden of responsibilty for a banning decision yourself, you create a panel of posters, (based on their previous records for sensible behaviour) who are given the facts behind any individual case and decide the outcome by a vote.

Choose an even number and if its a hung decision you can still have the final say!!

Keep up the good work either way.

**lanidar** · 16th February 2005, 01:46 AM

Jinnia is my partner and just once in a while we don't see eye to eye.
That's what a partnership is about. Working together and coming to an amicable decision.
She and I discussed this thoroughly and came to the same conclusion.

My point is that I completely agree with Jinnia.
Let the "fraudster" stay, though I think he/she probably wouldn't be too vocal.

BUT, the casino owner/operator/manager who is a member MUST also be termed a "fraudster" and treated in the very same fashion as the individual.

I don't feel that there should be a class differential. Both "fraudster's" in the same category.

Remember the movie "The Scarlet Letter"...well, these people will be remembered as if they were wearing
"The Scarlet Letter"!

**universexf6** · 16th February 2005, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by casinomeister

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but over the past several months the forum has been getting hit up by a lot of newbie fraudsters posting bogus complaints, or at times oldtimers (or semi-oldtimers) drifting to the darkside of scam-city.

I'm looking for a creative solution to this besides the traditional banishment. Here are a couple of ideas, but I'd really like to hear something from you all:

a) keep things as they are. When a member posts fraudulent complaints, they are banned and never allowed back. Tsch�ss!

b) place them into a user group that identifies them as a fraudulent player. They are permitted to continue being a member of the Casinomeister community, but it is obvious that they are a fraudster - kind of a permanent scarlet letter.

I'm just wondering if there is a way to deal with this besides the way it's being dealt with now. Suggestions - ideas?

Allowing them to stay while labelling them publically as "fraudsters" is more cruel than just banning

. That's why I voted for it.

**grabherp** · 16th February 2005, 03:02 AM

I wonder what bars a banned forum user from registering with a different username? Of course he cant fill out another pitch a bitch as there he has to reveal his identity. But nevertheless he could sign up with a different username and can discredit some casinos...

So therefore I would be for marking a fraudster, but not banning him!

cheers
grabherp

**555YY** · 16th February 2005, 03:17 AM

i agree with caruso and jinnia

imo no poster should be labled without rock solid evidence, all i can think of is how the poor pirate would've felt if this rule was in place when he came calling

other than that, it's not fair to let casinos off the hook any easier than fraud players. if there's solid evidence that the casino has done wrong under the circumstance, why do they get a free pass?

why do some casinos get so much leniency for all the wrong doing they did in the past but if you're labled a fraudster then you're out for life?

**maxlevine** · 16th February 2005, 03:50 AM

I agree with keeping the fraudster. They will usually just leave anyway. If not, they'll give you more reasons to be banned. On the other hand, if there were misunderstandings, it'll give them an opportunity to prove their case.

As for the voting process by a panel, I think that was done before with very little success and a lot of resentment. I prefer one decision maker... and a bunch of posters criticizing him