Azzurri
Banned User
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2014
- Location
- From Foil Land
It could be worse. Like having a term that allows them to basically detain, interrogate, and polygraph your accountant. Not mentioning any names (cough, William Hill, cough, cough).
Perhaps it's worth considering WHY players sometimes want to be verified up front. There have been cases where players have been asked to supply impossible to obtain documentation once they cash out, and so naturally some players want to make certain that their documentation is good enough before they even deposit. A total lack of flexibility sometimes means players have to walk away from a perfectly legitimate win in the eyes of the casino purely because their government doesn't supply it's citizens with documents the casino is prepared to accept. These players then have to chase around looking for the closest alternatives that the casino will accept, often at great expense and sometimes having to involve notaries or solicitors. The industry only has itself to blame for this.
This "sign for deposits" idea is 99% BS anyway. There is no requirement for this in a cardholder not present transaction, and it does not give a casino any additional protection unless they are going to take a player to court over something, which isn't going to happen with any US facing brand.
As more and more tales of players getting shafted at the documentation stage surface, the demand for up front verification will increase. Players who have already suffered the springing of documentation "traps" often state that in future they will get verified up front, and as far as ID is concerned, this shouldn't be a problem.
Playtech have a notorious trap of "Please get these documents notarised and then post them to our office in the Philippines". Most players would prefer to know this up front so that they can choose to walk away.
As for finding a casino that will verify what it can up front, there are plenty. They probably realise that the law and their licensing conditions are broken as soon as they accept a bet from a player who is faking who they are or using "dirty" money, and the more bets they accept from such a player, the deeper in the hole they get themselves.
Many use an up front electronic check, but when this fails some will lock the account mid way through the first session and ask for documents. This is even MORE annoying for players than being asked to verify up front.
Maybe it would be worth adding whether accredited casinos are prepared to verify documents up front on request as a way to help players who have unusual personal circumstances which leave them vulnerable to documentation problems.
In what way was the OP less than forthcoming by using a direct quote from an email that your casino sent him? I'm pretty disturbed finding out that this is coming from the same group associated with Tropica who I made my first deposit with a few weeks ago. That's definitely not what I consider to be top notch customer service. Rudeness will get you nowhere with folks spending their cash.Hi there,
Regrettably the OP has been less than forthcoming with what transpired and also edited the response from casino support as this is not what was communicated or how he was communicated to.
Regards,
Dieter
In what way was the OP less than forthcoming by using a direct quote from an email that your casino sent him? I'm pretty disturbed finding out that this is coming from the same group associated with Tropica who I made my first deposit with a few weeks ago. That's definitely not what I consider to be top notch customer service. Rudeness will get you nowhere with folks spending their cash.
i think the op is being a tad harsh towards the casino, they were not rude, and they don't have to verify players straight away if they see fit, there was no need at all for this thread.
Hi Azzurri,
I need to clarify a few things once more:
1. I did apologise here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/am-i-wrong.65720/
2. We do not verify upfront as there is no need or risk. As explained in this thread, if we verify upfront, there could always be something else needed at withdrawal stage - which will then anger the player even more. We don't verify upfront unless we choose to. We don't inconvenience our players if we don't have to.
3. I can't understand how you can say the agent meant to say something "in a derogatory and sarcastic manner" when I have explained 3 times that this is not what they meant. Please ask yourself - what would an agent get out of speaking to a customer in that manner? What possible benefit is there? I don't believe any one of my team members would put their jobs on the line just to be sarcastic.
4. I don't think this thread could have been avoided. I say this because the OP was first advised in December that we don't verify upfront. They then asked the same question this week and received the same reply and then posted here.
5. We have seen an increase in registrations from this site this week, so it has had the opposite effect of what you're claiming. Maybe those members can see this thread for what it is?
6. Last, but not least: Casinos do things some folks don't like. That does not make the casino bad. Example: 32Red no longer flush or pay on weekends, but they will still win Best Casino or some other Top Award. We do flush and process on weekends, but we don't verify upfront - so does that mean we should be avoided? We're one of the last reliable groups, but still get persecuted for what some may call absolute nonsense.
I hope I have addressed some of your concerns and I hope you will accept that we're never going to keep everyone happy, but we will do our best anyway.
Have a great weekend!
Regards,
Dieter
There is plenty of risk. The player has no certainty that his documents will be good enough for the casino when the request eventually comes. There have been numerous cases where even the "gold plated" documents of passport and utility bill have been rejected as not good enough for some casinos. The risk is even greater if the player does not own where they live as they won't be getting the utility bills in their name. If they don't have a passport, there is also the risk that whatever alternative they have will be suitable.
A player who wants to get verified up front is REALLY making sure that the documents he has are suitable for the casino's KYC purposes. UK players are also having problems with KYC because the UK does not have a formal national ID card like some 98% of countries in the world. If such a UK player can't drive either, they are pretty much screwed as KYC is almost certain to create problems due to negotiating a suitable portfolio of alternative documents.
The industry has itself to blame for making ever more next-to-impossible documentation requests of players. This has made some players VERY wary indeed, and they see up front verification as the only real solution.
As for the casino, there is the risk that they may accept an under age player through not running KYC up front, after all, the "tick here to show that you are over 18" box hardly counts as a proper procedure for ensuring minors can't gamble.
There is plenty of risk. The player has no certainty that his documents will be good enough for the casino when the request eventually comes. There have been numerous cases where even the "gold plated" documents of passport and utility bill have been rejected as not good enough for some casinos. The risk is even greater if the player does not own where they live as they won't be getting the utility bills in their name. If they don't have a passport, there is also the risk that whatever alternative they have will be suitable.
A player who wants to get verified up front is REALLY making sure that the documents he has are suitable for the casino's KYC purposes. UK players are also having problems with KYC because the UK does not have a formal national ID card like some 98% of countries in the world. If such a UK player can't drive either, they are pretty much screwed as KYC is almost certain to create problems due to negotiating a suitable portfolio of alternative documents.
The industry has itself to blame for making ever more next-to-impossible documentation requests of players. This has made some players VERY wary indeed, and they see up front verification as the only real solution.
As for the casino, there is the risk that they may accept an under age player through not running KYC up front, after all, the "tick here to show that you are over 18" box hardly counts as a proper procedure for ensuring minors can't gamble.
I have nothing personal against Dieter, and whilst I am not a customer of his, I have witnessed the good work he does here for his customers.
However, in my opinion, it is clear as day that the chat agent meant those comments in a derogatory and sarcastic manner.
I can appreciate Dieter is trying to down play it as being misinterpreted due to various reasons, but the detection of tone in one's writing can often also be quite clear, and in this case, given the circumstances, there's frankly nothing to misconstrue.
Come on Vinyl - this is bull and you know it! We are talking about accredited sites, and they all clearly have their requirements for KYC in their T&C's. If you haven't got the required docs, you don't play! If in doubt, contact CS before you deposit. Most problems occur when players don't read the terms and then find insufficient docs at w/d stage.
"The industry has itself to blame for making ever more next-to-impossible documentation requests of players."
Not at all. Almost all casinos have the same 3 basics - photo ID, depositing card(s) scan and utility bill for address. Just because a$$wipe outfits like some Playtechs require notarized ID to be sent to a shack in Haiti doesn't mean you can generalize about all sites.
We've had this 100 times before on here - it simply isn't efficient, logical or cost-effective to verify players BEFORE making a w/d. Many players will deposit, spin and lose and then disappear, making it pointless.
Well, like you I am a fluent English speaker and I take the opposite view. The comment was obviously made after a longer exchange on the live chat, and all we are seeing is the concluding comment from the CS agent.
Without context, how on earth can anybody say with any certainty this was 'rude'?
The OP should've posted the WHOLE chat session, as is customary on this forum in matters like this; failing to do this this is unfair on both those taking the trouble to reply and the casino.
There was no chat, just emails, which i will happily post
Initially, I was not sure hence the name of my post but now I am certain that I am not wrong.
Well, like you I am a fluent English speaker and I take the opposite view. The comment was obviously made after a longer exchange on the live chat, and all we are seeing is the concluding comment from the CS agent.
Without context, how on earth can anybody say with any certainty this was 'rude'?
The OP should've posted the WHOLE chat session, as is customary on this forum in matters like this; failing to do this this is unfair on both those taking the trouble to reply and the casino.
My point is that they are the only casino who have refused to preverify me. However, it is their casino and their prerogative, however they don't need to be impolite when informing about their regulations.
The matter would have been over if the rep took responsibility instead of insinuating, i have not been straightforward about this matter.
When you are told to find another casino, it is pretty much a dead end.
Did you see me mention that if they don't verify me, i will go to another casino? If i did then they can tell me to go to another casino but no mention from me and you think that is not somewhat impolite?
=Tirilej;670356]I see absolutely NOTHING rude in those messages.
If you at least had explained why it was so important to you, but you didn't.