A Meditation On Being Anti-Casino

[vinylweatherman]

I see your point Chopley, I can see where this can be frowned upon, I wouldn't play at a casino that has that term, sure if it is a NDB that they are referring to I wouldn't have a problem, but if I deposit, take a bonus, use autoplay, hit a nice win, go to cash out and be held accountable for using autoplay, my winnings are then voided, 'that is stealing'! No doubt about that.

There is even autoplay on land based slots

Slots autoplay just spins. MGS have strategy based autoplay on Blackjack, which is a bot built into the software. VP autoplay was removed recently by MGS, yet Blackjack autoplay remains.

It's a poor term, and problems are best dealt with by not having the feature in the software to start with.

Detecting the use of autoplay is one thing, but this term requires that they read a players' mind to determine the intent behind it's use in order for this term to be applied fairly, or maybe they just guess, or use an algorithm like.

"we don't like this player" + "autoplay detected" = "confiscate winnings".

 

[TheLastCylon]

Thanks for the support, Chopley. I also like the term you chose to describe this situation. I really do think that this is a drum that needs to be banged, and this is the bully pulpit from which we should be banging that drum!

I simply don't accept the argument that "if it's in the T&C's, you must abide by it." I take the Augustinian approach and say that an unjust law is no law at all. I don't have legal recourse in dealing with these casinos, but I can bang my drum, and bang it I shall!

 

[Nifty29]

Thanks for the support, Chopley. I also like the term you chose to describe this situation. I really do think that this is a drum that needs to be banged, and this is the bully pulpit from which we should be banging that drum!

I simply don't accept the argument that "if it's in the T&C's, you must abide by it." I take the Augustinian approach and say that an unjust law is no law at all. I don't have legal recourse in dealing with these casinos, but I can bang my drum, and bang it I shall!

How about answering my question, so we know who is really banging the drum? (Or banging on)

If you don't have the courage to admit your identity, then this whole wordfest you indulge in is just the rantings of a tinfoil hatter with a personal agenda.

A good debater never ignores a question.

 

[maxd]

IMO there is a hell of a big difference between saying (a) "casino X has this particular term in the T&Cs which is crappy/stupid/unfair/whatever" and (b) "all casinos should remove their T&Cs because they are evil and pointless and I don't like them".

AFAIC the "debate" thus far has pretty much been in the (b) camp. In my experience that is a misguided argument for the aforementioned reasons. It's also a pointless wank because casinos are NEVER going to ditch their entire Terms pages because a few -- or even a bunch -- of disgruntled players huff and puff and say they should. To suggest they will seems pretty much in the "you've been taking too many mushrooms" category if you ask me.

As for the (a) argument -- which you'll notice has only surfaced here very recently -- there's no question IMO that it can be a legitimate and useful effort: without a doubt there are shite Terms here and there that need a good dragging out into the open and exposure to the light of day and reason. Furthermore that approach can produce meaningful results if handled properly. We know this because we've seen it and done it before. Thumbs up all around!

If we're shifting this thread from a (b) thing (which it has been) to an (a) thing (which it should be) then bravo! "Rock on and more power to you" I say because good sense will have won the day. Not to mention the fact that you may actually accomplish something useful which will doubtless, in the long run, benefit us all.

So to be clear: "yes, bravo, and good work!" to exposing individual and specific Terms at specific casinos that need to be worked-over and re-tooled. The point here is be "specific": target something specific, make a clear case (in real-world terms) what the problem is, propose realistic alternatives, gather support for your case and maybe change can happen.

But "no" and "don't waste my time" to the notion that all casinos should abandon all of their Terms for ... well, for whatever ill-conceived notion gave birth to that idea in the first place. This approach is not specific, it is not based on real-world problems, it does not offer realistic alternatives and because of these things it will never produce meaningful results.

Finally, Nifty has a point: Cylon is being a bit of a hypocrite if he is presenting himself here, now, as the bringer of light when in fact he has been here before under a different name and is hiding his previous activities. History matters and he should be held to account for his, regardless of how politely he is trying to sneak back in, if that is in fact what is happening. "Answer the question" should be one of the first orders of business here, IMO.

 

[immortality]

Slots autoplay just spins. MGS have strategy based autoplay on Blackjack, which is a bot built into the software. VP autoplay was removed recently by MGS, yet Blackjack autoplay remains.

It's a poor term, and problems are best dealt with by not having the feature in the software to start with.

Detecting the use of autoplay is one thing, but this term requires that they read a players' mind to determine the intent behind it's use in order for this term to be applied fairly, or maybe they just guess, or use an algorithm like.

"we don't like this player" + "autoplay detected" = "confiscate winnings".

I didn't know this VWM, I though that slots only had autoplay, the term autoplay should be followed by (not slots autoplay) in brackets like this, it is very misleading to those of us that do not know that autoplay is and was used on other games other than slots.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I didn't know this VWM, I though that slots only had autoplay, the term autoplay should be followed by (not slots autoplay) in brackets like this, it is very misleading to those of us that do not know that autoplay is and was used on other games other than slots.

When it comes to slots, a mouse clicker macro is just as good, or even a hardware "gaming" mouse that offers programmable functions, which for gaming means "autofire" for the avatar's gun, etc. This "autofire" becomes "autospin" when instead of controlling a game avatar, the pointer is hovered over the "spin" button and the mouse set to autoclick every xx seconds. It's not a "bot" since it does not use even a rudimentary level of AI coding to make decisions. The Blackjack autoplay IS a "bot" in the sense that it makes decisions based on the cards dealt, and executes play according to a "perfect strategy" algorithm. There is NO strategy with slots, and to claim this is "bot" use, even where the bot in question is built in to the software, is as much bullshit as voiding winnings because a player used a certain brand of mouse not pre approved by casino management. There is no mouse on the market that can decide for itself whether or where to click based on what is shown on the screen.

 

[TheLastCylon]

@MaxD:

Regarding your statement - "Answer the question" should be one of the first orders of business here, IMO.

Do the Rules, Regulations, Policies, Terms or Conditions of Casinomeister require that I "Answer the question"?

If Yes:

1. Could you please phrase "the question" in such a fashion that I could reply with a "Yes" or a "No"?

2. From Post #89 of this thread:

Okay, putting this thread on 24 hour notice:

Cylon needs to answer the "were you banned" question ASAP.

If yes, then his account, and possibly this thread, will be suspended until Bryan has a chance to review the case.

If no, no problem...

To which I replied: Regarding the question "were you banned?": no.

And about which you then concluded:

Fair enough, thank you for responding. Time to move on then.

To the others: if anyone has further questions on this please ask them via PM or whatever, the point being to not derail the thread any further with such things. Let's get back on topic here shall we?

Given all of the above, do you anticipate that I will be required to answer further questions in the future.


If No:

Could you please stop asking me to "Answer the question"?

 

[Surasanji]

@MaxD:

Regarding your statement - "Answer the question" should be one of the first orders of business here, IMO.

Do the Rules, Regulations, Policies, Terms or Conditions of Casinomeister require that I "Answer the question"?

If Yes:

1. Could you please phrase "the question" in such a fashion that I could reply with a "Yes" or a "No"?

2. From Post #89 of this thread:



To which I replied: Regarding the question "were you banned?": no.

And about which you then concluded:



Given all of the above, do you anticipate that I will be required to answer further questions in the future.


If No:

Could you please stop asking me to "Answer the question"?

You are asking, demanding, that casinos behave in a more honest and open manner.

If there is reason to believe you are not- you have far less strong a point.

So, I guess- Put up or shut up. Do not demand of others what you are not willing to do yourself.

 

[Nifty29]

You are asking, demanding, that casinos behave in a more honest and open manner.

If there is reason to believe you are not- you have far less strong a point.

So, I guess- Put up or shut up. Do not demand of others what you are not willing to do yourself.

Very true.

I don't know much I can add to that.

He is so ashamed of himself that he doesn't want to be associated with himself. His former tin foil hat views were ridiculed, so he thinks expressing the same dribble under a different alias is going to make everyone into a "believer".

You'll also notice how he digs up Max's original posts and ignores the recent ones, as Max ALSO stated that he needs to state if he has been a member previously.

You're right that it is hilarious that he is banging his fists for honesty and integrity, when he has neither. Makes me laugh, and it also shows why there is a distinct lack of attention paid to the content of his incessant ramblings by the general membership. We've heard it all before - literally.

 

[maxd]

Do the Rules, Regulations, Policies, Terms or Conditions of Casinomeister require that I "Answer the question"?

I'm not sure what the point in playing games is but yes, I'd say they do:

1.9 - ... Do not register more than one account in the forum. Additional accounts will be deemed as bogus....

1.10 - Members who commit player fraud (chargebacks, fake accounts, gnoming*, multiple accounts, etc.) will be banned from the forum.
...
1.18 - Don't be a PITA Members who just don't have a clue on what is socially acceptable, or are just too annoying will have their accounts closed. The administration and moderators of Casinomeister reserve the right to close accounts at our discretion. This may be a public forum that encourages freedom of expression, but it's still our house. Abuse it and lose it.

* "Gnome" - Someone who opens multiple accounts.

I think it is quite clear that multiple accounts are, generally speaking, not allowed here. If you want an exemption then ask for it, don't take it upon yourself to ignore the Rules, sneak back in and then pretend that it is perfectly reasonable to do so. If you were previously banned, or asked to leave, or had your account closed or indefinitely suspended then you should respect that. At the very least you should ask to be re-admitted if that's what you desire. Taking it into your own hands is deceitful and duplicitous, not to mention profoundly disrespectful of the management and moderators.

So the question would be "have you previously registered at Casinomeister under a different login name?" If so, what was it? Or what were they if you've done so more than once.

FYI, I see no need to make that a "Yes" or "No" question. If you do please enlighten us.

... do you anticipate that I will be required to answer further questions in the future. ... Could you please stop asking me to "Answer the question"?

As long as you are a member here and I am a moderator yes, you may be called upon to answer such questions. It would depend entirely on the circumstances. Anyone else who did what you appear to have done would be asked the same questions I've asked you. Or they would simply be given the boot assuming the evidence was on hand to make that a legitimate call (see the Forum Rules cited above). I've asked you politely (more than once) and I'm asking because I feel it is in the best interests of these forums to do so.

I'm not sure who you think you are but the Admin and moderators here can and will enforce the Forum Rules, which may include asking questions of a forum member when and where we see fit. If you have some reason to believe you should be exempt from that I say again, please enlighten us. Otherwise, enough with the fun and games.

 

[TheLastCylon]

Regarding the question "have you previously registered at Casinomeister under a different login name?"

No.

 

[Nifty29]

Regarding the question "have you previously registered at Casinomeister under a different login name?"

No.

Have you ever registered an account at casinomeister, or posted at casinomeister under a different alias, or used someone else's account?

You're using some kind of word play to make it appear you have never posted here before. You're lying.

If there were never an issue, and you were a genuine newb, you would have answered all questions asked immediately and completely like any other genuine newbs. Only someone desperate to protect their real previous identity would go to such lengths to avoid scrutiny.

I'm sure some will say you've answered the question, but we both know what's what. I'll just sit back now and wait for Bryan to connect the dots, and prepare a special farewell tinfoil hat for you.

Sorry to the membership for the recent derails. Just don't ignore your spidey sense.

 

[bpb]

I don't see any tinfoil hatting in this thread.

I do see people derailing discussions, with what I can only assume to be personal agendas.

 

[maxd]

Regarding the question "have you previously registered at Casinomeister under a different login name?"

No.

Fine. Until such time as there is good reason to believe otherwise I suggest we set this particular issue aside and move on.

If anyone has further questions or concerns I would ask that they direct them to the site admin or moderators via Private Message or email.

 

[Nifty29]

Fine. Until such time as there is good reason to believe otherwise I suggest we set this particular issue aside and move on.

If anyone has further questions or concerns I would ask that they direct them to the site admin or moderators via Private Message or email.

Agreed.

 

[Gremmyboy]

Repeating Myself...


Edited to remove Post!


Cheers
Gremmy