I have to agree here. I like & respect VWM as much as anyone else on this forum, but as I pointed out to him a little while ago his writings are becoming more & more Caruso-like.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people posting their speculations & opinions - I welcome this valuable input to the forums. But when people start writing in a way which implies their statements are proven gospel, and not just their personal speculations & opinions, that's when problems can occur.
IMHO the probable reason MrC got banned from several forums was not so much what he said, as the way he said it.
This is just my 2c, not gospel!
If I had meant to make my statements appear as proven gospel, I would write "most certainly". "Probably" is an expression of what I feel is the most probable explanation for something.
Forcefulness is a reflection of the feelings I get that the industry just isn't listening to players. I get the feeling that the industry are being "nastier" to players as time goes on, which is backward progress. If players are not "forceful", then the industry will feel they can carry on as they are, something they can do since most are only lightly regulated, and it has often been the case that the regulation is not really there to protect players, but something that is convenient for casinos so that they can market themselves as a business which is subject to government regulation.
I believe there is player fraud out there, and always has been, but it seems the industry are trying to convince us that there has been an explosion of this in recent times. I do not believe this at all. I believe that, overall, a certain percentage of the player base has been out to commit fraud based on what they feel is "easy money", but that this percentage has remained pretty constant. With a falling player base, I would have expected fewer cases of player fraud overall. It seems the opposite is taking place, a sharp increase in player fraud. I expect the majority of persons come into contact with online casinos through receiving the deluge of casino related spam - a small number of exceptions exist, such as the UK where online casinos get high exposure through TV programming sponsorship and poster advertising, not to mention advertising at sporting events.
My belief is that the reason for this sharp increase in player fraud is that online casinos are moving the goalposts, and in essence redefining "fraud".
Online casinos are also very secretive, except perhaps those who are listed companies, and in a vacuum of information there can only be speculation. In some cases, casinos seem to overreact to an issue, thus making a big deal out of something minor.
My speculation in this case is based on the actions of Casino Club, as I understand them from this thread. Firstly, a player wins a huge progressive, but before they are able to receive it, the casino discovers that the player has been acting fraudulently. Since the casino avoided handing over the huge sum, they surely have already won this case - the player has lost, and has to fight for the money if they want it. They did this by posting complaints in a forum, but was not prepared to back up their claim. I would have thought this would follow the usual course of the player never really fighting much beyond this, thus showing that he does not think he has that strong a case to put before a formal dispute resolution process.
I get the impression that Casino Club then launched it's own case against the player, thus ensuring this case would receive considerable publicity. Casino Club should have known, or should have been advised by it's legal team, of the potential negative effects such a case could cause. Despite this, Casino Club decided it was worth the go ahead anyway, placing them in the tricky position of having their hands tied in respect of certain matters till the case is resolved, exacerbated by the fact that any public statements they make, either intentionally or unintentionally, could prejudice the outcome of the case, which might take some considerable time to resolve.
Usually, when a casino confiscates a payout because they have found something wrong with an account, and it later emerges that the player had indeed done something wrong, the casino is content with being vindicated & having not paid out, and the player usually stops complaining (assuming they do not receive a forum ban for what they did).
Since I started playing, this is the first time I have heard of a casino taking a player to court, which leads me to belive this player has managed to take a very large sum of money without getting noticed, which again further surprises me since casinos seem so uptight about even the slightest bit of "advantage play".
It looks to me, and some others, that it was only when this progressive was won that Casino Club decided the player was comitting fraud. This should surely have emerged at the time of their first cash-in, and there must surely have been other warning signs, such as the player seeming to win excessive amounts over a prolonged number of hands/spins, or them taking advantage of promotions too often or too well. Other complainants have complained that they were identified as "frauds", either rightly or wrongly, at the time of first cashout.
If this case does ever go to court, then the full story should emerge. This has an additional danger for the casino, in that they may find they are required to produce material they consider sensitive, and it is possible that something may come out that questions in the eyes of players in general the integrity of the industry.
As a player, I am uncomfortable with the thought that I might be dragged to court by an online casino, however remote a possibility this might be. It is bad enough having a casino tell you that you have been "flagged", and having to get the issue resolved through the normal dispute resolution procedures.
I am pretty interested to hear a summary of what this player managed to "get over" on the casino to create the situation where even confiscating the final 167,000 payout was not enough, and triggered a court action to pursue an unspecified further chunk.