I'm sure AFFILIATES would be VERY interested to know this. This effectively means a player can be "detagged" at their own request, and "detagging" has been a hot topic among affiliates suspicious of sudden inactivity from players they have referred.
This would also enable players to bail from one affiliate, and having got permission, open the new account through another that might offer some kind of benefit back to the player.
This is AFFILIATES getting screwed, not players.
A player should be able to be “detagged” as you call it, although I can fully understand affiliates not appreciating the players having this option. When an account is created through an affiliate link the player earns a revenue share for the life of the player. There may come a time when any player may not wish to contribute to an affiliate site and I see no reason that any player should be locked into a relationship with anyone. In fact, knowing that players have the option to end this relationship might change the way some affiliates run their sites.
Power to the players!
You're missing the point. I'm not wild about the way CW handled this either, a fact that seems to be frequently ignored and easily forgotten. Speaking of selective interpretation of events .... Anyway, to follow "this is what I think" with "I'm outta here" does cast something of cloud over your opening statements.
I haven’t ignored or forgotten anything. In fact I have never even mentioned you in the entire debate or in this new thread. I also never once typed “I’m outta here” I stated quite plainly that I no longer trust that accredited casinos will be forced to adhere to the rules. How does that cast a cloud over anything? I think it’s quite clear.
You've misunderstood my statement, again. What was that you were saying about how you "find it interesting how people take one statement and add their own subtext to it"? I was referring to fans in general and had none specifically in mind.
Originally Posted by skiny
... for the most part I think my posts here are usually quite rational and to the point. At least that's what I'm told.
(This was your response.)
“Don't believe everything you hear. Fans will tell you you are beautiful and your shite smells like roses so they're not exactly the most trustworthy lot when it comes to an honest critique.”
(I answered with this.)
“I'm flattered that you think I have fans here at Casinomeister. Maybe you can point out which ones you feel aren't trustworthy and I'll ignore their compliments.”
Now considering my statement said that I was told my posts HERE are quite rational and to the point, I have to assume that the “fans” you speak of “who aren’t the most trustworthy” are also here. I’m not sure what subtext I added. The subtext I was talking about was where I said I no longer trust the accredited list and you implied from that, that I called Bryan a corrupt bastard. I think the latter would be a bit harsh. I usually have a little more tact than that.
I should think it pretty obvious that there's no reason to "fear" having an opinion, as any survey of these forums would show. And no one has said you are not entitled to your opinion. Perhaps I missed something but again this feels like stating the obvious.
What I believe some of us are saying is that making a big show of what your particular opinion might be and presenting it in such a way as to discredit the very site you are posting said opinion on is, as has been said, more in the nature of "throwing the toys out of the pram".
There seems to be a general practice by some to interpret simple criticism such as "that is dubious behaviour" as something ridiculously extreme, such as "you should be shot". They are not the same thing. They never were the same thing. By equating the two you -- meaning "you" as in those who do this not you in particular --are only inflaming a difficult issue, often with the intention of making it appear as if you are being persecuted when in fact no such thing is happening.
I know exactly what Justplay is talking about. We have all seen it a thousand times. If a person posts an opinion that certain people disagree with the reaction is not always diplomatic. Mudslinging and insulting is quite often the preferred response and some people may not post certain opinions in fear of provoking this sort of reaction.
See above. Having the opinion is not the issue, we already knew what his opinion was some time ago and I don't see that anyone took particular objection to it. It's the the nature of it's presentation here, again, intentionally in the most damaging possible way that is highly suspect. And that is in fact the subject of this current discussion, not that his opinion exists.
Actually, regarding my opinion on the original topic, most people agreed with it. I’m not sure how many other ways there are to “present” a very simple statement. I no longer trust that list. If this is viewed as damaging then apparently I have far more sway around here than I ever imagined. Now there are many different ways my opinion could have been answered. Some people might agree or thank the post. Some people might disagree and simply state that the outcome of one case isn’t enough to cause them to believe the rules won’t be upheld in the future inexplicably. And some people might stomp their feet, sling a few insults and try to discredit the poster himself by insinuating that the post was made simply from a loss of temper rather than the culmination of a month long debate where it was stated quite clearly by several people that this outcome with no ramifications would, in fact be viewed as a breach of trust. The case was closed. My new view about the trustworthiness of the accredited list is the result.
However, they have not brought this term out of their backside, it has been there from day one. So it is clear cut, and they technically are within their rights not to pay the player.
By stating that the accredited section is flawed because they remain is a swipe at Bryan and this site. Because for those who frequent this site will know, Bryan will and does pull a casino if they fall short of the criteria for being listed. Regardless who they are.
Just because a term has been around for a long time does not automatically make it clear cut. In fact Bryan and Tom have both said themselves the term needs to be clarified so obviously the term is not clear cut. I’m quite certain that in all the terms and conditions in all the casinos in and out of the accredited list, there are hundreds of terms that could be interpreted in different ways. These are no more than traps waiting to be triggered.
Players may have read these terms and believed they understood them only to find out later that they are being interpreted in another way. Putting Danl’s case aside, all of these ambiguous terms may be sitting around for years before a complaint is made about them or they are brought to light for some other reason. Players may even have had withdrawals withheld many times because of them but made no formal complaints. The point is, once a term has been declared vague or ambiguous it can no longer be applied until it is clarified.
The lie is irrelevant, the term should never have been applied in the first place. A casino cannot be allowed to have any terms or conditions that can be interpreted in any more than one way. A player could very well read these terms and believe they fully understand what it means only to find out later that it means something different. This puts the onus on the player to know what someone else is thinking when the terms are being written. It’s just not possible. And nobody is going to contact a casino to question a term they believe they understand.
Once it is agreed that a term needs to be clarified the term itself must become void and cannot be applied until the situation is rectified. Yes, it IS a hard-nosed approach but we’ve spent years discussing how these casinos make the players bend over backwards to follow any and every rule they can dream up and every once in a while it becomes the player’s turn to step back and say “sorry, you can’t do that.”
This myriad of terms and conditions that players have to deal with just to gamble online are so full of loopholes I’m surprised the letters don’t fall through the page and I, for one would am not very sympathetic when a casino falls through one of their own. I’ve seen it said for Danl “You’ve made your bed now lie in it.” Well, it’s Club World that wrote these terms and conditions and then changed them several times to make them even less clear than they were to begin with. It’s their bed they should be made to lie in. Pay the player THEN change the term so there is no chance of misunderstanding it. Anything less is dishonest and refusing to do this, in my opinion, most certainly DOES break the rules for accreditation.
No, that's not what I mean. And I think this takes us to the nub of it: it's not an opinion we're talking about here, it's an agenda.
When someone says "I disagree with you" they are expressing an opinion.
When they spray-paint "THIS PLACE SUCKS" on the front door they have an agenda, which is to damage the property and reputation of the place in question.
So when I mentioned criticism by saying "that behaviour is dubious" I was talking about the agenda, not the opinion. So no, it's not a matter of disagreeing with them it's a matter of saying "your behaviour is out of line and inappropriate". What I may or may not think of their opinion is another matter entirely.
We're talking about two different groups of people. I believe you're talking about the general forum population. I'm talking about the grand-standers and the "I wanna be a martyr" crowd and the vandals. These people aren't here to engage in intelligent discussion about a subject of interest, they're here to aggrandize themselves and do damage to their host. In other words, exactly not the general forum population.
Saying I no longer trust the accredited list to be made to follow the rules is a statement of opinion. Suggesting that others should feel the same would be an agenda. People will believe what they want to believe. I do not believe that saying I do not trust the accredited list or in fact saying I do not trust anything or anyone is in no way inappropriate if I have a valid reason for doing so. I think many would agree my reasons are valid. I stated a very specific opinion about a very specific topic. I did not resort to name calling, I did not allude to an accusation of corruption and I did not call anyone a bastard. Now if people want to take my statement, turn it upside down, add to it or insinuate that it means more than what it says, be my guest. But it won’t change my opinion or the opinions of anyone who agrees with it.
So true.
Ohhhh the drama
Ohhhh the childishness.
If people only knew the efforts that Bryan has gone to over this issue in trying to see it amicably settled I reckon the song being sung by the "toys out of the pram" crowd might be a little different. Those details are "behind the scenes" stuff and not suitable for public discussion but they have still been part of this nevertheless. Those that think they've seen all there is to be seen here are running half-blind, at best.
I don’t have to see it all. I have to see the problem and the solution. The methods used to come to this solution are irrelevant if the solution itself is wrong.
Interesting thread.
For Bryan and this forum, at least we are allowed to voice what we think and that is what is good about being here, we may not like what is said in response, but at least we are able to speak without worrying about being deleted as if our thought never existed.
My statement “Ban me if you like” was made because at the time I thought that’s what might happen but in retrospect you are correct and players are allowed to post negatively about this site itself so in that regard I was wrong. I agree.
If members like Skiny, 4ofakind, Pinababy, Nash, Rusty and others leave for a time, I hope to see them back, as I understand how it is when you lose heart for being here, but have fought that feeling myself many times, because frankly, I like it here.
I never said I would quit posting on this site. I have said that lately because of this decision I’ve lost the desire to enter in to the other ongoing conversations. Some people seem to think that because I have no faith in the accredited list that I should no longer speak to anyone here about anything.
Now I’m not saying anything at all about Bryan personally in this analogy but saying I shouldn’t come here anymore because I have no faith in the rules for accreditation being upheld with no uncertainty does remind me about a bar I used to go to many years ago. I was talking to a friend about the bar and mentioned that the owner really was kind of a dick. He asked “So why do you go there, then?” I answered “Because everyone else isn’t.”
)
so maybe Skiny can clear it up.
