***
Because I care enough to ask these...
#1
People earn some of their stars and stripes whenever they defecate on any random rogue operation, but that's just too easy, especially because most members have carte blanche to do that and rightfully so. Some of those threads offer pretty generic perspectives, and contrived hero-worshiping, so there's really nothing worth discussing at the end of it all. A rogue is a rogue, and I can never see the point in getting upset about it, going off like an erupting volcano, because the only time they actually surprise me, is if they do something good (which is basically... oh... never).
If a great and reputable site like RoxyPalace will only pay after 2 business days, then I can't see why people can't make an issue out of it. They need to improve on that, let's say to at least within a 24 time frame. We can start with that. I (and most people) recognize that this is a one of the most superior casinos out there, and if I were in charge of that operation, and I'm reading up on my casino by what the players (members here) are writing about it, I would like to take notice. My site is very good, but a lot of other casinos are good, and some may in fact be better than mine, so I have to keep up with the Joneses.
If I'm iNetBet, I'm going to have to at the very least, recognize that I have to change the way I go about making up some of these bonuses. There's a ton of confusion, people play the wrong games, then they publicly complain about the fact that they screwed-up, or we screwed-up, or that deciphering the T&Cs take too long, and maybe we should just make our bonuses more player-friendly, like 32red does it, or alter the program so that the player can't get into disallowed games while playing with whichever specified coupon/bonus.
If I'm Ladbrokes, I have to recognize that I have one of the most inept, mismanaged, and disconnected customer service department around. I have to think that there could be a much quicker way of getting the scratch cards to the player's account... dare I say instantly, as opposed to waiting to credit it automated-style 36-48 hours after, that is if our system remembers to do so.
If I'm any casino, I can recognize what someone like Simmo! has been saying for about 5 years now, and that's getting rid of the initial deposit bonuses, and offering a quality loyalty program.
So, what I'm saying here, is that I don't care if the rogue's are trying to improve, or that people are complaining about rogues, targeting and cherry-picking operations that shouldn't be popping-up on anyone's radar, casinos that should be completely off the grid, when they should be voicing their concerns at operations that are actually worthy of getting ink, and doing their best to help improve the 'accredited' casinos out there.
Lady Gaga these days is getting praise for actually being able to sing (a knock on Britney Spears I would have to think), but isn't that stupid, that our standards on mainstream music have been so lowered over the years, that we're all set to applaud someone for actually being able to sing, when they carry the title of being a 'singer' and are making millions upon millions of dollars based on that? There are rogue sites that make the 'accredited' sites look awesome, but that doesn't mean that they actually are.
#2
I'm not talking about new members here, because they probably don't know, and are just getting their feet wet on what's an accredited site vs a rogue site, but to those that have been coming here for long enough, who continue to defy logic by depositing at sites that have no business getting anyone's business. Why would you put yourself in a position, where if you win, and you can, the process of getting paid will make you go bald?
You've invested all of this time coming to a site like this, where there's a wealth of information at your fingertips, yet you ignore the caution/warning signs. Some of those members I respect very much, but I can never endorse such blatant foolhardiness.
#3
I suppose that this could be an extension to the first question (above), but here we are. I love the 'Shawshank Redemption'. It's not my favorite film, but I would be more than happy putting it in my Top 50 All-Time films list (at worst in the Top 100). Even though it's not my absolute favorite film, I would have to think that for what it is, it's pretty darn close to being perfect. I also think that 'Schindler's List' is near perfection, or 'The Apartment', 'The Sting', 'Goodfellas', 'Manhattan', 'The Hustler', 'Papillon', etc. All great films. But, that doesn't necessarily ring true for everyone else.
Leonard Maltin has been making his annual Movie Guide for years now - his earliest writings going back to '69 - and even though I don't always agree with his perspectives, I still value reading his work. In his Movie Guide, he writes about 'Shawshank Redemption' and says:
"Widely praised film is well crafted but terribly overlong, and (like much of Stephen King's non-horror writing) hollow and predictable."
I don't agree with him. It's long, but 142 minutes is not THAT long, and I don't recall looking at my watch worrying about what time it was while I was watching this film. I can understand if he's watching on TBS, and their endless amounts of commercials, sure, but I never notice the time while I'm engaged in a quality movie (unless it's a surefire BOMB) Perhaps the original short-story/script is somewhat predictable, but even if we know that Andy will be free in the end, it's still very inspiring and uplifting how he escaped from the prison. Getting from point A to point Z may be very basic, but how you go about getting there is the heart of it anyway.
Even though I don't care for his review for this movie, or 'Blade Runner', or 'The Color of Money', or how he mysteriously felt that Orlando Bloom "really carried his weight" in 'Kingdom of Heaven', I still appreciate that he can offer a different perspective, and can at times influence and alter my perspective (some of the time).
So what does this have to do with the question? If someone doesn't think a specific operation isn't the cat's meow, I don't think that the member should be outcast based on their subjectivity. Not all people will be in perfect unison, and even if their tastes, likes, dislikes, aren't in line with the norm, it doesn't mean that they're wrong in their way of thinking. If 'Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shebedoe' doesn't like ClubWorld, and he played there for a long time, I shouldn't dislike him just because I happen to like the place.
#4
Operations like English Harbour, Ultimate Bet, and Absolute Poker - sites that were once considered amongst the top in the industry (and perhaps even still are) - had at one time or another proved to have had cheating software. The bad news I've just mentioned, and the good news was that they were caught, and some of their customers who had lost (I don't know how many) were paid back.
One of the reasons that someone like Russ Hamilton (UB cheating scandal) was 'ultimately' caught, was because some players were complaining about it on various websites. Same thing with English Harbour, and the famous "mathematical proof that English Harbour is cheating" thread for a few years ago at this very site (courtesy of your friendly neighborhood 'TheLawNet-Man').
Of course not every claim is legit, and some people are just on bad runs, but I don't see the harm of people posting about their gaming experiences when they felt as though something wasn't quite right with the software. If there are enough people that agree about having the same experience, and this potentially leads to someone coming up with potential evidence that there is something wrong with the software/outcome of the game, then I would think that it would be highly beneficial to get a heads up about that.
What's the worst that can happen, that we actually find out that a casino isn't putting out a fair game? I also am somewhat conservative and reserved about accusations, and take things with a grain of salt, but this is cyberspace, and there's tons of room for people to write, and I can't agree that every site performs as well as they advertise. If no one is watching them, and they would dearly love that, then who's stopping them from doing whatever they want to do?
#5
I wouldn't go so far as to call it gestapo tactics, but there seems to be an unnecessary habit to be overly cynical about literally every new member that makes a post in the form of a complaint. From that, a kangaroo court quickly merges, and the 'newbie' is put through pages of skeptical questioning, to the point that it could scare off some potential member who can potentially be a valued contributing member down the road. Of course there'll always be 'rogues' spamming the board, but those are very easy to pick-off. I can understand a post or two asking for the newbie to clarify a couple/few points, but I will refuse to understand why a pack has to ask tons of questions over a couple/few pages. It's as though people get off on picking on someone, their thirst for blood and whatnot.
I know when I started, I gave myself ample enough time to merge/blend-in, while figuring out what not to say in order to not be stepping on toes. Had I run the gauntlet like some of the newbies have over the years, I doubt I would have continued on.
Steed
***
Because I care enough to ask these...
'5 Rhetorical Questions'
#1
Shouldn't we be focusing our attention purely on the quality outfits for improvement?
People earn some of their stars and stripes whenever they defecate on any random rogue operation, but that's just too easy, especially because most members have carte blanche to do that and rightfully so. Some of those threads offer pretty generic perspectives, and contrived hero-worshiping, so there's really nothing worth discussing at the end of it all. A rogue is a rogue, and I can never see the point in getting upset about it, going off like an erupting volcano, because the only time they actually surprise me, is if they do something good (which is basically... oh... never).
If a great and reputable site like RoxyPalace will only pay after 2 business days, then I can't see why people can't make an issue out of it. They need to improve on that, let's say to at least within a 24 time frame. We can start with that. I (and most people) recognize that this is a one of the most superior casinos out there, and if I were in charge of that operation, and I'm reading up on my casino by what the players (members here) are writing about it, I would like to take notice. My site is very good, but a lot of other casinos are good, and some may in fact be better than mine, so I have to keep up with the Joneses.
If I'm iNetBet, I'm going to have to at the very least, recognize that I have to change the way I go about making up some of these bonuses. There's a ton of confusion, people play the wrong games, then they publicly complain about the fact that they screwed-up, or we screwed-up, or that deciphering the T&Cs take too long, and maybe we should just make our bonuses more player-friendly, like 32red does it, or alter the program so that the player can't get into disallowed games while playing with whichever specified coupon/bonus.
If I'm Ladbrokes, I have to recognize that I have one of the most inept, mismanaged, and disconnected customer service department around. I have to think that there could be a much quicker way of getting the scratch cards to the player's account... dare I say instantly, as opposed to waiting to credit it automated-style 36-48 hours after, that is if our system remembers to do so.
If I'm any casino, I can recognize what someone like Simmo! has been saying for about 5 years now, and that's getting rid of the initial deposit bonuses, and offering a quality loyalty program.
So, what I'm saying here, is that I don't care if the rogue's are trying to improve, or that people are complaining about rogues, targeting and cherry-picking operations that shouldn't be popping-up on anyone's radar, casinos that should be completely off the grid, when they should be voicing their concerns at operations that are actually worthy of getting ink, and doing their best to help improve the 'accredited' casinos out there.
Lady Gaga these days is getting praise for actually being able to sing (a knock on Britney Spears I would have to think), but isn't that stupid, that our standards on mainstream music have been so lowered over the years, that we're all set to applaud someone for actually being able to sing, when they carry the title of being a 'singer' and are making millions upon millions of dollars based on that? There are rogue sites that make the 'accredited' sites look awesome, but that doesn't mean that they actually are.
#2
Why do people still go to vastly inferior outfits?
I'm not talking about new members here, because they probably don't know, and are just getting their feet wet on what's an accredited site vs a rogue site, but to those that have been coming here for long enough, who continue to defy logic by depositing at sites that have no business getting anyone's business. Why would you put yourself in a position, where if you win, and you can, the process of getting paid will make you go bald?
You've invested all of this time coming to a site like this, where there's a wealth of information at your fingertips, yet you ignore the caution/warning signs. Some of those members I respect very much, but I can never endorse such blatant foolhardiness.
#3
Since no politician, no film, no corporation, literally nothing on the Globe is above criticism, shouldn't this include even the greatest casino operations as well?
I suppose that this could be an extension to the first question (above), but here we are. I love the 'Shawshank Redemption'. It's not my favorite film, but I would be more than happy putting it in my Top 50 All-Time films list (at worst in the Top 100). Even though it's not my absolute favorite film, I would have to think that for what it is, it's pretty darn close to being perfect. I also think that 'Schindler's List' is near perfection, or 'The Apartment', 'The Sting', 'Goodfellas', 'Manhattan', 'The Hustler', 'Papillon', etc. All great films. But, that doesn't necessarily ring true for everyone else.
Leonard Maltin has been making his annual Movie Guide for years now - his earliest writings going back to '69 - and even though I don't always agree with his perspectives, I still value reading his work. In his Movie Guide, he writes about 'Shawshank Redemption' and says:
"Widely praised film is well crafted but terribly overlong, and (like much of Stephen King's non-horror writing) hollow and predictable."
I don't agree with him. It's long, but 142 minutes is not THAT long, and I don't recall looking at my watch worrying about what time it was while I was watching this film. I can understand if he's watching on TBS, and their endless amounts of commercials, sure, but I never notice the time while I'm engaged in a quality movie (unless it's a surefire BOMB) Perhaps the original short-story/script is somewhat predictable, but even if we know that Andy will be free in the end, it's still very inspiring and uplifting how he escaped from the prison. Getting from point A to point Z may be very basic, but how you go about getting there is the heart of it anyway.
Even though I don't care for his review for this movie, or 'Blade Runner', or 'The Color of Money', or how he mysteriously felt that Orlando Bloom "really carried his weight" in 'Kingdom of Heaven', I still appreciate that he can offer a different perspective, and can at times influence and alter my perspective (some of the time).
So what does this have to do with the question? If someone doesn't think a specific operation isn't the cat's meow, I don't think that the member should be outcast based on their subjectivity. Not all people will be in perfect unison, and even if their tastes, likes, dislikes, aren't in line with the norm, it doesn't mean that they're wrong in their way of thinking. If 'Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shebedoe' doesn't like ClubWorld, and he played there for a long time, I shouldn't dislike him just because I happen to like the place.
#4
Isn't it actually somewhat beneficial for the player/member who comes to this site, to read about some of the suspicious experiences that others are willing to write about?
Operations like English Harbour, Ultimate Bet, and Absolute Poker - sites that were once considered amongst the top in the industry (and perhaps even still are) - had at one time or another proved to have had cheating software. The bad news I've just mentioned, and the good news was that they were caught, and some of their customers who had lost (I don't know how many) were paid back.
One of the reasons that someone like Russ Hamilton (UB cheating scandal) was 'ultimately' caught, was because some players were complaining about it on various websites. Same thing with English Harbour, and the famous "mathematical proof that English Harbour is cheating" thread for a few years ago at this very site (courtesy of your friendly neighborhood 'TheLawNet-Man').
Of course not every claim is legit, and some people are just on bad runs, but I don't see the harm of people posting about their gaming experiences when they felt as though something wasn't quite right with the software. If there are enough people that agree about having the same experience, and this potentially leads to someone coming up with potential evidence that there is something wrong with the software/outcome of the game, then I would think that it would be highly beneficial to get a heads up about that.
What's the worst that can happen, that we actually find out that a casino isn't putting out a fair game? I also am somewhat conservative and reserved about accusations, and take things with a grain of salt, but this is cyberspace, and there's tons of room for people to write, and I can't agree that every site performs as well as they advertise. If no one is watching them, and they would dearly love that, then who's stopping them from doing whatever they want to do?
#5
Is it necessary to always put new members on trial when their initial posts are complaint related?
I wouldn't go so far as to call it gestapo tactics, but there seems to be an unnecessary habit to be overly cynical about literally every new member that makes a post in the form of a complaint. From that, a kangaroo court quickly merges, and the 'newbie' is put through pages of skeptical questioning, to the point that it could scare off some potential member who can potentially be a valued contributing member down the road. Of course there'll always be 'rogues' spamming the board, but those are very easy to pick-off. I can understand a post or two asking for the newbie to clarify a couple/few points, but I will refuse to understand why a pack has to ask tons of questions over a couple/few pages. It's as though people get off on picking on someone, their thirst for blood and whatnot.
I know when I started, I gave myself ample enough time to merge/blend-in, while figuring out what not to say in order to not be stepping on toes. Had I run the gauntlet like some of the newbies have over the years, I doubt I would have continued on.
Steed
***
Last edited by a moderator:
