Accredited list.

[chayton]

I haven't weighed in on the whole CW debate, but in my opinion, yes the term wasn't very well written. But in DanL's case the only evidence that we have that he actually wasn't a student at the time he played and won is that he says he wasn't.

So as poorly written as the term was, the facts are: CW says that students can't play. DanL said he was a student. He played, won, found out he shouldn't have been playing in the first place, LIED about the information he gave and now he admitting he lied earlier but now says that he wasn't actually a student at the time he played but can't show any proof that he wasn't.

And maybe I'm cynical but if there's $7K riding on someone stretching the truth, then the truth will most likely be stretched.

So it sucks but yeah I think CW was within their rights to deny his winnings. If in fact there were 2 separate and distinct courses and there was any proof to show that indeed he wasn't a student at the time he played then the decision would have gone the other way, as it did for Glunn. Although to take the hard line, if he was a student when he opened the account, he already broke the no student term and everything beyond that is moot.

That being said, I personally don't understand the whole student clause in the term or the Markham thing either. But that doesn't mean I think CW is crooked or sitting somewhere counting their money trying to figure out how to screw people out of their winnings. I have accounts at all the Club World casinos and I will continue playing there.

If you believe DanL's account of his status at the time he played, then yeah maybe CW as a goodwill gesture could have paid and then closed his accounts. I say COULD have because they're not obligated to - it's a business after all, and setting a precedent of paying out ONE student could do a considerable amount of damage to them in the long run. Other students who were denied winnings could pull this out and say, "But you paid THIS guy."

Most of us don't have access to the information that Bryan and Max do - I know there's more to this that what was hashed out in the forum. You have to trust that they - having access to all the evidence - are making the right decision. And personally if I didn't trust what they did I wouldn't be a member here.

 

[skiny]

Skiny, I hope you're not one who will stomp off. Whilst I personally believe you have gone too far on negative tilt in this thread I have always enjoyed your really good sense of humour and wit, and although I do not always agree with what you have to say, your posts are generally well written and smart.

Thanks for the compliments but I'm not the one doing the stomping. People still seem to have the impression that I've been or I am angry. Nothing I've posted has been out of anger and I've put a great deal of thought into these opinions. I'm only posting openly and honestly. Nothing more.

So as poorly written as the term was, the facts are: CW says that students can't play. DanL said he was a student. He played, won, found out he shouldn't have been playing in the first place, LIED about the information he gave and now he admitting he lied earlier but now says that he wasn't actually a student at the time he played but can't show any proof that he wasn't.

The problem is that people seem to think whether or not Danl was a student is even relevant. The term being used to withhold the winnings stated that students are not allowed to play at the casino which is why the original debate was whether or not he was a student at the time he placed the wagers.

The real problem arose when people started to debate what the actual term meant. At that point the debate switched from whether or not Danl was a student to whether or not the casino could even apply the term if it was vague or ambiguous. Now if Tom and Bryan had simply stated that the term is clear and Danl is and was a student when he placed the wagers, we could have all disagreed but in the end it would have been the casino’s decision. Case closed.

That didn’t happen. Tom and Bryan both agreed that the term wasn’t clear and needed clarification. As soon as the term became officially ambiguous it should have been considered null and void. According to the rules for qualification for accreditation, withdrawals cannot be withheld for vague or ambiguous terms. Was it a loophole? Yes it was. If the loophole was in the casino’s favor it would have been jumped on but because it was in the player’s favor it was ignored.

Now some might think it’s not fair to use a loophole to force a payment but this particular loophole is an extremely important one. Under no circumstances should any casino be allowed to apply a term that is vague or ambiguous. It is one of the most important rules because these are exactly the terms that players are getting snagged by almost on a daily basis. There can be no exceptions to this rule. If a term or condition is not explicitly clear it cannot be applied.

Casinos can expect players to do a lot of things but they cannot expect us to read minds. If any term or condition can be interpreted in any more than one way it is utterly impossible for us to know which way it will be interpreted. Furthermore, we might not see the other way until the casino uses it to withhold a payment. It is far too easy for us to read these terms and believe full well we understand them perfectly only to find out far too late that the casinos meant something entirely different.

In my opinion the rule disallowing vague or ambiguous terms is one of the most important rules that casinos should be made to follow. As Vinylweatherman said (which I’m too lazy to go back and quote) it seems these casinos want us to get caught in these vague terms and ambiguous conditions so they can confiscate the winnings and still keep deposits from those who broke the terms but didn’t try to make a withdrawal.

Imagine how much less manpower it would take and how much time would be saved if the software was written so it was impossible to break most of these terms and conditions. Most casinos seem to have no desire to take this route and prefer to rely on terms and conditions that they create themselves and expect us to read time and time again in case something has been changed. I’m quite sure that’s done for a reason and the reason has nothing to do with efficiency.

I say again, the very second it was agreed by the operator of this site and the operator of the casino that the term being applied was unclear it should have been considered null and void. It should not have been allowed to stand regardless of the outcome of the rest of the debate. Everything else became irrelevant as soon as the term became officially ambiguous.

And THAT is why I feel that the casino broke the rules and were allowed to get away with it keeping accredited status. If we break the rules we end up with our asses in a sling. The casinos should suffer the same consequences.

 

[chayton]

The real problem arose when people started to debate what the actual term meant. At that point the debate switched from whether or not Danl was a student to whether or not the casino could even apply the term if it was vague or ambiguous. Now if Tom and Bryan had simply stated that the term is clear and Danl is and was a student when he placed the wagers, we could have all disagreed but in the end it would have been the casino’s decision. Case closed.

The term is clear inasmuch as it says "you aren't allowed to play if you're a full time student." I think the issue comes more from "What classifies as a full time student?" That you don't have any income that's not coming from mommy and daddy and student loans? What if you're independently wealthy and go back to school just because you're bored?

So yeah I totally agree that THAT part of the term is ambiguous as written, and if some like for instance Jelsmith was in this situation where she's an adult (sort of ) and has a full time job as well then I'd think she should be paid, because in her case if she read the terms she wouldn't think it applied to her. Because although she may be a full time student, she also has a job.

To be honest I never knew this term existed until the first problem with Glunn came up. But if it's been there all this time and this is the first time there's ever been an issue with it, then it's obviously been ok for all this time. And now that CW sees there's an issue, they're fixing it. So that's good, right?

 

[skiny]

The term is clear inasmuch as it says "you aren't allowed to play if you're a full time student." I think the issue comes more from "What classifies as a full time student?" That you don't have any income that's not coming from mommy and daddy and student loans? What if you're independently wealthy and go back to school just because you're bored?

So yeah I totally agree that THAT part of the term is ambiguous as written, and if some like for instance Jelsmith was in this situation where she's an adult (sort of ) and has a full time job as well then I'd think she should be paid, because in her case if she read the terms she wouldn't think it applied to her. Because although she may be a full time student, she also has a job.

To be honest I never knew this term existed until the first problem with Glunn came up. But if it's been there all this time and this is the first time there's ever been an issue with it, then it's obviously been ok for all this time. And now that CW sees there's an issue, they're fixing it. So that's good, right?

Yes, it is good that they're fixing it. (assuming it actually becomes fixed and not just different.)

The problem is when it was used to withhold a payment it was breaking a rule. In fact it is still there and it is still breaking a rule. I'm not allowed to break rules, you're not allowed to break rules. Danl obviously isn't allowed to break rules. Why is CW allowed to break rules?

Now some might say "Well, they know that it is breaking a rule now so they are going to fix it."

But it was already used as is. You can't use it as is, knowing it breaks a rule and then fix it later. You just cannot do that.

Casinos make us abide by every term and every condition. When is the last time you saw someone take a slots bonus, play roulette and get paid? Do you really think that any casino is going to agree to pay anyone because they realized they were breaking the rules and agree to play only slots from now on? We all know the casino is going to say the wagers are null and void. End of story. No exceptions.

But for some reason that I just cannot figure out people seem to suddenly think that because it is the casino snagged in their own loophole it's ok to just let it slide. It's not ok. In fact it's pretty damn far from ok.

 

[jelsmith]

The term is clear inasmuch as it says "you aren't allowed to play if you're a full time student." I think the issue comes more from "What classifies as a full time student?" That you don't have any income that's not coming from mommy and daddy and student loans? What if you're independently wealthy and go back to school just because you're bored?

So yeah I totally agree that THAT part of the term is ambiguous as written, and if some like for instance Jelsmith was in this situation where she's an adult (sort of ) and has a full time job as well then I'd think she should be paid, because in her case if she read the terms she wouldn't think it applied to her. Because although she may be a full time student, she also has a job.

To be honest I never knew this term existed until the first problem with Glunn came up. But if it's been there all this time and this is the first time there's ever been an issue with it, then it's obviously been ok for all this time. And now that CW sees there's an issue, they're fixing it. So that's good, right?

:yahoo: ty Chayton LOL

 

[chayton]

Yes, it is good that they're fixing it. (assuming it actually becomes fixed and not just different.)

The problem is when it was used to withhold a payment it was breaking a rule. In fact it is still there and it is still breaking a rule. I'm not allowed to break rules, you're not allowed to break rules. Danl obviously isn't allowed to break rules. Why is CW allowed to break rules?

Now some might say "Well, they know that it is breaking a rule now so they are going to fix it."

But it was already used as is. You can't use it as is, knowing it breaks a rule and then fix it later. You just cannot do that.

Casinos make us abide by every term and every condition. When is the last time you saw someone take a slots bonus, play roulette and get paid? Do you really think that any casino is going to agree to pay anyone because they realized they were breaking the rules and agree to play only slots from now on? We all know the casino is going to say the wagers are null and void. End of story. No exceptions.

But for some reason that I just cannot figure out people seem to suddenly think that because it is the casino snagged in their own loophole it's ok to just let it slide. It's not ok. In fact it's pretty damn far from ok.

I see your point, but it's only the details of the term that are ambiguous, the term per se is still valid. It's like uhhh ok, I buy a chainsaw - and the chainsaw has a warning label that says, "Do not attempt to stop with your hands or genitals." and I try to stop the chainsaw with Ray's genitals - and he gets hurt. Could I sue the company because it didn't specifically say not to try to stop it with other people's genitals?

Silly example but you know what I mean. (sorry about that Ray)

and you're welcome Jel!

 

[skiny]

I see your point, but it's only the details of the term that are ambiguous, the term per se is still valid. It's like uhhh ok, I buy a chainsaw - and the chainsaw has a warning label that says, "Do not attempt to stop with your hands or genitals." and I try to stop the chainsaw with Ray's genitals - and he gets hurt. Could I sue the company because it didn't specifically say not to try to stop it with other people's genitals?

Silly example but you know what I mean. (sorry about that Ray)

and you're welcome Jel!

Chainsaw companies don't specifically and purposely write warning labels so that they are hard to understand effectively turning the tool into a trap.

Chainsaw companies put guards and fail safes wherever possible to keep the user from getting hurt under normal circumstances.

Casinos have a long history of intentionally writing terms and conditions filled with loopholes and vague rules to make it very easy for a player to break a rule and not get paid.

Casinos refuse to add guards and fail safes in the software knowing eventually even honest players will accidental break a rule and not get paid.

I realize that over the years a lot of people have developed the mind set that if this website says something is ok, it must be ok and I fully understand the appreciation for what the operator of this site has done for players in the past but in this particular case the casino is wrong. The casino broke the rules. The casino should be facing the consequences. The casino is not.

If there are no consequences for breaking the rules there is no point in having the rules. Obviously many people seem to have taken the opinion that this is a grey area where sometimes it's ok to break the rules and sometimes it's not. If that is the case then we really have no idea when the rules will be upheld and when they won't.

Now people can be upset that I make such statements but if something happens once it can happen again. That not an emotional response. That is a logical conclusion.

 

[Nifty29]

Chainsaw companies don't specifically and purposely write warning labels so that they are hard to understand effectively turning the tool into a trap.

Chainsaw companies put guards and fail safes wherever possible to keep the user from getting hurt under normal circumstances.

Casinos have a long history of intentionally writing terms and conditions filled with loopholes and vague rules to make it very easy for a player to break a rule and not get paid.

Casinos refuse to add guards and fail safes in the software knowing eventually even honest players will accidental break a rule and not get paid.

I realize that over the years a lot of people have developed the mind set that if this website says something is ok, it must be ok and I fully understand the appreciation for what the operator of this site has done for players in the past but in this particular case the casino is wrong. The casino broke the rules. The casino should be facing the consequences. The casino is not.

If there are no consequences for breaking the rules there is no point in having the rules. Obviously many people seem to have taken the opinion that this is a grey area where sometimes it's ok to break the rules and sometimes it's not. If that is the case then we really have no idea when the rules will be upheld and when they won't.

Now people can be upset that I make such statements but if something happens once it can happen again. That not an emotional response. That is a logical conclusion.

You are putting the cart before the horse IMO.

If there were not so many players attempting to defraud casinos and exploit even the smallest loophole to take the casino to the cleaners, we wouldn't need all these rules and conditions. If you're looking for someone to really blame, you could start with the bonus whore forums where most of these jokers get their 'training'.

You spoke about 'simple terms' - I absolutely agree. It's a great idea....but it will never work and hence will never happen. Why? Refer to the paragraph above. If a casino ran with your idea, I would be there in a flash - which is about how long they would survive.

It is still an established fact that those players who take the time to read, understand, and follow the terms when they use bonuses have very little, if any, trouble with receiving winnings. You can usually tell the ones who don't by their PAB list.

 

[skiny]

You are putting the cart before the horse IMO.

If there were not so many players attempting to defraud casinos and exploit even the smallest loophole to take the casino to the cleaners, we wouldn't need all these rules and conditions. If you're looking for someone to really blame, you could start with the bonus whore forums where most of these jokers get their 'training'.

You spoke about 'simple terms' - I absolutely agree. It's a great idea....but it will never work and hence will never happen. Why? Refer to the paragraph above. If a casino ran with your idea, I would be there in a flash - which is about how long they would survive.

It is still an established fact that those players who take the time to read, understand, and follow the terms when they use bonuses have very little, if any, trouble with receiving winnings. You can usually tell the ones who don't by their PAB list.

We have an endless supply of criminals running around. Police still have to follow rules.

We have an endless supply of terrorists running around. The military still has to follow rules.

We have an endless supply of shoplifters running around. Retail stores still have to follow rules.

We have an endless supply of under aged drinkers running around. Bars still have to follow rules.

If casinos really wanted to rid themselves of bonus whores they would build fail safes into the software so that only permitted games could be played and only wage sizes could be made and only so many bonuses could be taken per day, month, week. It's not that difficult. The casinos WANT to keep things vague. They WANT people to take bonuses they shouldn't. They WANT people to wager without knowing they can't make a withdrawal. It's a win win situation. If you lose they keep the money, if you win they keep the money and hand you back your wagers. (if you're lucky) I have no sympathy for a casino that has every opportunity to solve a problem but takes no REAL steps to commit to the solution.

Endless list of terms and conditions does not protect the casino from people breaking the rules. It gives them endless license to withhold withdrawals for pretty much any reason they can dream up. It's unnecessary and immensely inefficient. Casinos are not doing things the worst possible way by accident. If we were to believe that we would have to believe they are all idiots.

Simple terms is all any casino needs if the software doesn't allow people to do things they aren't allowed to do. The ONLY term or condition that should be in these documents are the ones they can't program into the software.

The ONLY person I blame for a rule that can be interpreted in several different ways is the person who wrote it and I have a VERY hard time believing these people are doing it by accident.

I just refuse to believe that the people that are being paid to write these documents are so bad at it that they have to change the same rule 6 times and it STILL is not clear.

Can you imagine these guys staring at a web page with the T&Cs after changing it for the 5th time realizing that it still doesn't clearly explain what the rule means?

Reminds me of the old Far Side cartoon with the 3 guys in lab coats standing around a bent and twisted rocket ship staring up at it. One guy is saying "Well... We're not rocket scientists."

The blame for a vague or ambiguous term or condition rests solely on the shoulders of the casino and just like we suffer every time we break a rule, intentionally or not, the casino should be made to face consequences as well.

 

[3mptyseat]

Here's the funniest part... If certain people feel that I could somehow damage this site all on my own with one tiny post, couldn't many of them combined just as easily reversed the damage by simply saying "Really? I think the decision was fair."

That is not the point. There is no integrity in attempting to 'band-aid' damage by saying something many of us don't believe. I don't like the decision. I don't like the 'damaging' statements. I think that the former is only related to the latter bc of ur post. And it's juvenile and absurd to assume that anyone, let alone a collective 'many of them' should be put to the task of following a biased and inflammatory member around and patch up his/her slander. The logic is flawed. It's nearly...Well never mind what pathology it might point to. Quite the wordsmith.

 

[chayton]

I'd love to debate this some more but my brain is empty. So I think I'll go read some jokes and go to bed.

 

[skiny]

That is not the point. There is no integrity in attempting to 'band-aid' damage by saying something many of us don't believe. I don't like the decision. I don't like the 'damaging' statements. I think that the former is only related to the latter bc of ur post. And it's juvenile and absurd to assume that anyone, let alone a collective 'many of them' should be put to the task of following a biased and inflammatory member around and patch up his/her slander. The logic is flawed. It's nearly...Well never mind what pathology it might point to. Quite the wordsmith.

The only thing that should ever be posted on this site is the truth. That is where the integrity lies. I never believed that I, alone could damage this site in the first place. I was not the one who suggested it. My statement that many people could reverse the damage was in response to someone else's suggesting that the site could be damaged by my original post.

The only task that anyone should concern themselves with is posting honestly. If many people feel that a decision is wrong, it is not the opinions that caused the damage. It is the decision.

The casino broke the rules. That is indisputable. I stated that I no longer trust the accredited list because there were no consequences for it. That is my honest opinion.

Find me one statement I made that was false and then accuse me of slander.

 

[maxd]

The only thing that should ever be posted on this site is the truth. ... Find me one statement I made that was false and then accuse me of slander.

Bosh! I could, for example, say that I found you to be a manipulative and ill-willed person who systematically works to undermine the authority and the public perception of the integrity of the people who run and operate this site. I could them provide references and examples. Everything I said would be both "my opinion" and "the truth" and yet the intention -- the agenda -- of doing such a thing would clearly be to damage your reputation and standing here. And I would be rightly subject to criticism for doing so.

There is no absolute "truth" and stating something that is "false" is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. And it is not the only way to damage a site. If you believe this then you are naive and know very little about the care and feeding of public forums such as this one. I somehow doubt that you are quite that unfamiliar with how these things work.

You continue to obfuscate the issue in defense of your original post which more than a few of us have found objectionable. Not because of your original opinions but because of how you chose to express them. You don't seem to understand or want to hear that very few of us disagree with your opinion that the CW case was not handled well. And that more than a few of us see little else but the will to do damage in your initial post here. As you say "spin it how you like" but these facts remain.

Whether you were "aware" that you could and were trying to harm the site is not really the point. The point is that doing what you did does such harm and you are rightly subject to criticism for doing so. Read the Forum Rules if you have any doubt that a person's intent and behaviour on the forums is a burning issue. And notice that the Rules don't say a whole lot about crusading in the name of "the truth".

 

[Nifty29]

The casino broke the rules. That is indisputable

No it isn't - I'm doing it right now...along with others.

What you said was an opinion not a fact, and these are always disputable.

 

[rockycatt]

The only thing that should ever be posted on this site is the truth. That is where the integrity lies. I never believed that I, alone could damage this site in the first place. I was not the one who suggested it. My statement that many people could reverse the damage was in response to someone else's suggesting that the site could be damaged by my original post.

The only task that anyone should concern themselves with is posting honestly. If many people feel that a decision is wrong, it is not the opinions that caused the damage. It is the decision.

The casino broke the rules. That is indisputable. I stated that I no longer trust the accredited list because there were no consequences for it. That is my honest opinion.

Find me one statement I made that was false and then accuse me of slander.

The casino broke the rules = FALSE, IM NOT A MAN OF MANY WORDS

PS he was lucky that he was playing a accredited to get back his seed $$$

 

[Webzcas]

Hey guess what everyone?

IT'S CHRISTMAS THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW!

Have a beer, chill and relax.

 

[maxd]

IT'S CHRISTMAS THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW!

Point taken. Attach Removed (Old not found) Attach Removed (Old not found) Attach Removed (Old not found)

 

[leonardo99]

Have a beer, chill and relax.

I follow you..listen music ,drink a good wine and reading some interesting posts here on Casinomeister forum..

 

[sambaEah]

I imagine this is going over old ground but I'm only just reading this (Will read the CW thread at some point)...

What is wrong with students playing at a casino? Do they not have an ability to spend money like the rest of us?

 

[skiny]

No it isn't - I'm doing it right now...along with others.

What you said was an opinion not a fact, and these are always disputable.

Anyone disputing whether or not the casino broke the rules doesn't know what the rule is. In fact I really don't see anyone saying the rule wasn't broken (except you.)

Bosh! I could, for example, say that I found you to be a manipulative and ill-willed person who systematically works to undermine the authority and the public perception of the integrity of the people who run and operate this site.

That's hardly the same thing as simply saying "I don't trust you." Be realistic.

I could them provide references and examples.

Find them and get back to me.

Everything I said would be both "my opinion" and "the truth" and yet the intention -- the agenda -- of doing such a thing would clearly be to damage your reputation and standing here. And I would be rightly subject to criticism for doing so.

Saying someone is manipulative and ill-willed might be the truth but you need to have some fact to back it up.

Saying someone did something to break your trust, explaining exactly what it was and then saying you no longer trust them is an opinion based on a real event. An event that everyone knows the details of and everyone is quite capable of forming their own opinions about.

I do not HAVE to trust the accredited list. You can if you want but whether or not I do is my choice. Now you have 3 choices, you can agree with me, you can disagree with me or you can have Bryan tell me I'm not allowed to express that opinion. Any of those choices are fine with me but what you can't do is carry on for days trying to put words in my mouth like "corrupt bastard and twist around the original expressed view to make it sound like I have some sort of personal vendetta against the site and operator and have begun my own personal war. It's silly.

If you came around and simply said "I don't like the way Skiny dresses" you wouldn't see me coming around for days saying "Max has it out for me. You don't see me telling everyone Max dresses like a two bit hobo. He's obviously up to something. I dress like everyone else but now I'm a sloppy bastard...."

Of course the reason I wouldn't do that is because it would be taking your original opinion, adding to it, twisting it around and creating something entirely new. It would be manipulative.

 

[jetset]

MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE!

 

[LHofsdal]

Thanks Jetset!! Merry Christmas to you too! I hope you will have a wonderful holiday!

All the best,
LHofsdal

 

[Brooklyn]

Merry Christmas Jetset, and all the other members! Hope your holiday is filled with lots of good stuff .