I’m going to do my best to respond to as many of the general concerns that have been posted here. I’m sure I’ll miss some tidbits, but knowing all you folks, I’m sure you’ll let me know what it is I’m missing.
First, I want to explain the actual business models involved. Ace is more of a traditional casino group. There are not the sort of massive bonuses being offered at Ace as with Virtual, instead favoring more standard bonuses and wagering requirements. Conversely, the Virtual brands offer outlandish bonuses and much broader wagering requirements. While some players may take issue with Virtual’s bonus approach, it’s a proven fact that this is a very successful business model.
what i think is that they are loosing more players each day
There is no basis of truth in this, whatsoever. The truth of the matter is that the Virtual brands are the top producers with RTG and a retention rate which most casinos would kill for. Whether anyone here likes it or not, the fact is that these brands are as successful as it gets.
It’s been mentioned several times that there have been only a handful of PAB’s because CM members don’t play at these casinos. Are you SURE about this? Do you really want to put your money on this? I can say with absolute certainty there are MANY CM members who DO play at these casinos—they just don’t admit to it publicly. As it is, there ARE a few members who’ve ‘outed’ themselves in this thread. There are far more that will stay quiet in fear of losing their CM cred.
It was asked why I would get involved in this situation. Again, at the time I was approached, I did not for one moment believe that these companies were sincere. At the same time, I knew there were many players who were not treated fairly in the past and I wanted to see these players paid. Further, I also realized that whether I was involved or not, these casinos would continue to operate, and would do so, successfully. It was important to me to see that the players hurt by these brands in the past have their issues resolved. Equally important was to see that these brands improve their conduct, moving forward. Surprisingly, it turned out that management was indeed sincere in their desire to improve, which resulted in millions of dollars being paid to players who never dreamt they’d see the monies due to them.
It has also been asked why these companies wanted to change their ways. Truthfully, they were weary of being the industry pariah. There has never been a discussion of becoming more profitable in all this time—it’s always been about how management could fix things and move forward.
Now with some explanations out of the way, I’ve been working with management to begin moving forward with some of your concerns. I’m not acting as a representative of these companies, I’m only trying to explain certain things where I’ve been involved. When it comes to withdrawals and processing, it is not my place to discuss the internal machinations in place. I do understand their reasoning behind the timelines relating to withdrawals and I WILL say it really has nothing to do with the assumptions and assertions made here (at CM), pointing to potential reversals of these withdrawals. Additionally, I understand why it is going to be difficult for Ace and Virtual to make immediate, drastic changes to make things more expeditious.
Since Bryan announced pulling Ace and Virtual out of rogue and into probation, I’ve been having discussions with the company’s management to begin addressing some of the issues brought up in this thread…
Regarding the lengthy hold-times on withdrawals, Virtual and Ace have agreed that where there are no bonuses involved or the bonus amount is 100% or less, the hold time on these withdrawals will not exceed 48 hours (provided all documents are in order). This will become effective Monday, November 11, 2013.
For withdrawals by players making withdrawals following receiving a bonus of more than 100%:
Those players who’ve already had at least one previously successful withdrawal, the wait time for approval will be reduced from 14 days to 10 days. This will be effective, December 1, 2013.
There will be no change in the hold time for those players who will be making their first withdrawal when a bonus of more than 100% has been applied.
Management has asked me to be very clear that they will be continuing to review their processes in place to find ways to shorten these hold times.
Telephone promotions: Management has agreed that only ONE call will be issued per week per player. This means that if a player has accounts across multiple casinos and has opted into accepting calls, the player will not receive calls relating to each casino they have accounts with. Only one call will be made. Further, should the player wish to opt out of telephone promotions, they may do so by contacting the casino.
Email promotions and SPAM: The casinos are currently and will continue to be compliant with opting any player out of receiving promotional emails. Casino management has committed to put pressure on affiliates to unsubscribe any player who has opted out of mailings via the casino(s).
I realize there are miles more to go, but as I mentioned in my last post, it’s been baby steps all along. These new agreed changes are more baby steps--but these are baby steps forward and over time, they do add up. Please remember, Virtual has been around pretty much since the beginning of online gaming. They spent many years making mistakes. Unraveling things and having the confidence to make drastic changes is not such a simple task when you’ve become accustomed to the security of doing things a certain way. What is important is their willingness to do so and taking these baby steps.
It’s because of the postings made here that we’re able to identify and define many of the issues—over the coming days, weeks and months, Virtual and Ace have committed to continue to address these issues and hopefully more and more steps (of increasing size!) will be taken.
Lastly, I’m in full support of Bryan’s decision to extend the probationary period to six months—I believe this is absolutely right in this situation. Ace and Virtual are in full support of this, as well.
What Bryan stated is spot on:
My philosophy here is that a casino who is aware of it's responsibilities and is making that effort is far better for the player as a whole. In fact, I think it is very important to try and persuade a bad casino that there are benefits to reform rather than simply rogue them and ignore them.
- If we cannot set deadlines and a list of what needs to change to get them out, then this, in my humble opinion, is a waste of every ones time here. 
Even after you said they have turned rogue NOT ONCE but TWICE when given repeated chances. This is like someone given their cheating spouse repeated chances to cheat on them again. Once I can understand, Twice maybe, but 3 times? You got to be a damn fool. That's what's in my head and i'm sure many other members. 
