Admin Note: Complaint Section

[lots0]

Casino affiliate here.

I like the idea.

Far to many people do drive by complaints here that are not valid. Way to much wasted time and effort that should have gone into solving real valid problems.

IMO, the PAB IS the best way out there to deal with the valid complaints Players have. I have seen Bryan fix a lot of problems with the PAB.

I do like the idea of a forum where people can go and whine about getting ripped off by the Casinos in the CM Rouge list (I need a laugh once in a while)...

 

[lots0]

BTW - Shimmo is correct.

it is not in an affiliate's best interest to send a player to a crap casino.

Why would I want only one small paycheck from a pissed off player who is not going to ever again play at any casino I recommend...

When I can get a nice paycheck every month from a happy player - Not to mention paychecks from all the happy players friends who are happy as well...

 

[Simmo!]

BTW - Shimmo is correct.

Pished again lotsh0 ?

 

[Pinababy69]

Pished again lotsh0 ?

Ahhh, shomeone elshe's turn for a change!!

 

[dd99]

I have to agree that I don't really like this change.

I would liken it to the airlines' policy on hand luggage. The majority of us aren't out to smuggle a DIY shrapnel grenade on board, but the a%#holes who are have us all waiting in queues and having our shaving cream confiscated.

OK, not a direct parallel but the point is there. I am pissed since I have been playing online for a few years: I have to date solved all my problems myself, but as of now I can't post in the complaints board. Why ? Because I need to make another 75 posts (this being one of them. 74 to go). And until I do I presume that means I have nothing useful to contribute to a discussion about casino complaints, right ?

Well, it's not my board and I don't make the rules - nor is it a democracy - so if I don't like it I have no recourse bar either carrying on or going elsewhere....

 

[Pinababy69]

DD99, I don't think the change is meant to stop people such as yourself from posting a complaint if you had to. It's to stop the one-hit wonders. The ones who sign up for nothing more than to post "XYZ Casino are a Bunch of Assholes"....that type of post. You've been a member here for more than two years, and have obviously posted on occasion. And you say you've never PaB...so I gave you some rep pts. That should make you fully registered (I think). Hope that's okay (with the management I mean, lol).

 

[Vesuvio]

What's even more remarkable is, the established membership who have huge agendas rush in to judgement on posts that are so lacking in any real balanced facts, they start shouting "Pay the OP!" right off the bat. Typically, there are several such responses before Bryan sees the thread and says "Uhh.. I could use a little more info here. Could you please PAB and fill out the form entirely?"

I don't think that's the typical response from established posters. What you'll often get is people who're very experienced with these issues giving a rapid assessment, almost always with the proviso, "assuming what the poster says is true". That's a useful service, and each issue tends to help to reinforce the current state of play in the industry. Understandably Bryan's highly focussed on the individual cases, but the real value of this forum is in setting precedents and establishing a system of de-facto regulation/arbitration. The outcome of any particular case is often an irrelevance.

The recent Fortune Lounge issue is a good example. It's of no real import that some of those complaining were fraudsters - what matters is that Bryan, Jetset, Spearmaster and others have come out against bonus abuse clauses being used to deny winnings for "suspect" play patterns. Casinos have to take that into account if they value their reputation sufficiently not to want to be rogued.

 

[Da_Gambla]

I have to agree that I don't really like this change.

I would liken it to the airlines' policy on hand luggage. The majority of us aren't out to smuggle a DIY shrapnel grenade on board, but the a%#holes who are have us all waiting in queues and having our shaving cream confiscated.

OK, not a direct parallel but the point is there. I am pissed since I have been playing online for a few years: I have to date solved all my problems myself, but as of now I can't post in the complaints board. Why ? Because I need to make another 75 posts (this being one of them. 74 to go). And until I do I presume that means I have nothing useful to contribute to a discussion about casino complaints, right ?

Well, it's not my board and I don't make the rules - nor is it a democracy - so if I don't like it I have no recourse bar either carrying on or going elsewhere....

Something may not be right with your account here... Forum rules dictate either 100 posts OR 50 Rep points and 30 days since registering. You have been here for 2 years and you have 66 rep points... I think you should be fully registered by now...??? Or what am I missing? I only have 94 posts...

- Keith

 

[Da_Gambla]

I don't think that's the typical response from established posters. What you'll often get is people who're very experienced with these issues giving a rapid assessment, almost always with the proviso, "assuming what the poster says is true".[..snip..]

I'm quite sure you are defining 'established posters' quite diffferently than I meant. To me, an established poster is one who has been involved in at least any other thread besides a complaint. In other words, a community member freely able to post, and doing so. I did not mean the responses from senior and extremely respected members. I think it goes without saying that that group of posters is seasoned enough to usually only echo what Bryan would say once he shows up, and encourage the complainant to PAB.

- Keith

 

[Da_Gambla]

DD99, I don't think the change is meant to stop people such as yourself from posting a complaint if you had to. It's to stop the one-hit wonders. The ones who sign up for nothing more than to post "XYZ Casino are a Bunch of Assholes"....that type of post. You've been a member here for more than two years, and have obviously posted on occasion. And you say you've never PaB...so I gave you some rep pts. That should make you fully registered (I think). Hope that's okay (with the management I mean, lol).

This explains away my previous post... LOL

I was flipping between this thread and the Forum rules trying to figure out why this guy wasn't fully reg'd after 2 years. You gave him the extra points and I saw 66 when I flipped back. Made me even more confused.. hehe

I think you did the right thing by him... I think Bryan should maybe add an additional way of becoming fully reg'd, because this guy was somehow short-changed. The rep stuff is cool and all, but in the end, someone has to thank your posts for it to increase substantially.

- Keith

 

[Vesuvio]

I disagree entirely.

First, these forums will never lack in posts. They will also never lack in fully registered users who find unusual casino activities that need to be brought to a discussion.

That strikes me as hubris, or at least unduly complacent. The complaint forums are already much quieter than they used to be. Issues that would have once have provoked well-articulated responses from a wide range of members can now pass almost without comment. General expectations for casino behaviour are much lower now than they were only a year or two ago.

I'm not sure what can be done about any of that, but this current idea seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It'll avoid some annoying posters (though they're not just first-timers!), but everyone's new once, and if this measure discourages even a few posters who would have gone on to be regulars, it'll have had a negative effect.

As mentioned, perhaps restricting new posters from starting threads but allowing them to post in existing ones would be a better half-way house.

 

[Pinababy69]

It'll avoid some annoying posters (though they're not just first-timers!)

I resemble that remark, lol. Actually, I try to keep my nose outta there if I can. I read, but try and comment as little as possible. Keep myself out of trouble that way.

 

[Da_Gambla]

That strikes me as hubris, or at least unduly complacent. The complaint forums are already much quieter than they used to be. Issues that would have once have provoked well-articulated responses from a wide range of members can now pass almost without comment. General expectations for casino behaviour are much lower now than they were only a year or two ago.

I'm not sure what can be done about any of that, but this current idea seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It'll avoid some annoying posters (though they're not just first-timers!), but everyone's new once, and if this measure discourages even a few posters who would have gone on to be regulars, it'll have had a negative effect.

As mentioned, perhaps restricting new posters from starting threads but allowing them to post in existing ones would be a better half-way house.

Some posts are passed without comment because for the most part either the issue has been dealt with in-depth before, or the casino in question is already rogued. New users of the Forums are allowed to SEARCH, even if not allowed to post/respond in the complaint section. They can easily see where the issues were discussed in the past. Do we need to re-discuss everything every time a new poster shows up? I think most veteran posters are tired of repeating the same thing over and over to newbies who didn't know about the rogue and not-recommended lists prior to their signup and/or bad experience with a particular casino.

So, not only do they not heed a request to PAB before airing their problem publically, they also tend to not read the request to TITLE their thread carefully and SEARCH the forums for answers that may already exist. Because of this, they cost all of the long-time users of the forums a lot of energy rehashing issues.

Allowing new posters to respond to complaint threads? That's rediculous, but it's Bryan's choice. I think a sufficient amount of players around gaming message boards have established themselves as able to manipulate rules to however it seems to serve them. So instead of new threads, we just get the same "XYZ Casino are fraudulant!" embedded in ongoing threads. That would be rather productive, I guess...

- Keith

 

[Simmo!]

I resemble that remark, lol. Actually, I try to keep my nose outta there if I can. I read, but try and comment as little as possible. Keep myself out of trouble that way.

Although I moderate and am obliged to read the posts, I'm like Pina and I rarely post in there. I find the complaints forums unduly wearing at times. There is a lot more emotion in there and there are a few posters past and present that I (politely put) choose not to engage (not aimed at you by the way V). I find it interesting, but I just feel some posts/posters are designed purely to antagonise or appropriate a similar response. It's just not my scene.

PS. Da_Gambla: You may not have noticed the "Multi-Quote" button

 

[tennis_balls]

but I just feel some posts/posters are designed purely to antagonise

bugger off! ya flea-bitten muppet.

 

[Casinomeister]

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments and suggestions concerning the issue on who should be posting in the "Complaints" section. I've been kicking this around all week and I'm willing to go to a happy medium:

...As mentioned, perhaps restricting new posters from starting threads but allowing them to post in existing ones would be a better half-way house.

Sounds fair to me. Newbies can not initiate threads in the complaint sections, but they can participate in them. I'll see how this works during the next casino "crisis" (don't worry, there's always one on the horizon ), and hopefully I won't have to start chasing down members concerning their complaints.

 

[jetset]

Sounds like a useful compromise...but the moderator (sorry about that Simmo!!) will have to be alert for O/T attempts by newbies to achieve the same result as starting a thread of their own.

 

[KasinoKing]

That strikes me as hubris, or at least unduly complacent. The complaint forums are already much quieter than they used to be. Issues that would have once have provoked well-articulated responses from a wide range of members can now pass almost without comment. General expectations for casino behaviour are much lower now than they were only a year or two ago.

My 2c on that last statement:
It was about a year ago (?) that Bryan split the complaints threads out from the main section into their own sub-section.
Now I have CM as my home-page (as do we all ) and when it comes up I only see the main section - the complaints are off the bottom of the screen, hence I tend not to even notice them. (Much like a Google search - if it's not in the first 5-6 results I tend not to look further down).
Now this may only apply to me (being a lazy b'stard), but I definitely know that I browse & post in 'complaints' way, way less than I used to.

I'm not proposing that the location needs to be changed, but just suggesting that the reduction in responses Vesuvio has noticed could be due to the this same reason.

KK

 

[Casinomeister]

My 2c on that last statement:
It was about a year ago (?) that Bryan split the complaints threads out from the main section into their own sub-section.
Now I have CM as my home-page (as do we all ) and when it comes up I only see the main section - the complaints are off the bottom of the screen, hence I tend not to even notice them. (Much like a Google search - if it's not in the first 5-6 results I tend not to look further down).
Now this may only apply to me (being a lazy b'stard), but I definitely know that I browse & post in 'complaints' way, way less than I used to.

I'm not proposing that the location needs to be changed, but just suggesting that the reduction in responses Vesuvio has noticed could be due to the this same reason.

KK

Like they say - out of sight - out of mind

Interesting observation. I've gone over the stats, and reviewed the "new threads" and new posting" stats for the past few years. They've been climbing steadily, with a few peak months here and there (English Harbour fiasco, US crisis, etc.). Unfortunatly I can't break this down by section. It could be that more postings are being made in the non-complaint section.

But isn't this a good thing? Could it be that we have less to complain about?

I could bring the complaints section further up since I'll be adding a couple of new catagories shortly (skill gaming, etc.) move Bingo out and the secret US section (Shh!) elsewhere. That way you'll have all the moaning and groaning right in your face - right in time for your morning tea

Or maybe I'll pick up bitchmeister.com and move everything over there...

Edit: damn, bitchmeister.com is taken

 

[Pinababy69]

Edit: damn, bitchmeister.com is taken

J/K, I wish I'd thought of it.

 

[Vesuvio]

Sounds like a useful compromise...but the moderator (sorry about that Simmo!!) will have to be alert for O/T attempts by newbies to achieve the same result as starting a thread of their own.

That's true, but at least O/T posts shouldn't mess up the board as much as new threads.

Actually, I think the fact that there are ways around posting your complaint if you're a new poster makes this compromise reasonable. Anyone with a genuine grievance will be encouraged to search (and perhaps even read ) the existing threads to find one relevant to their issue.

 

[REOdeathwagon]

PS. Da_Gambla: You may not have noticed the "Multi-Quote" button

I use Firefox/2.0.0.3. I have never been able to get this to work for me. Anybody else have problems with "Multi-Quote" using FF?

To "Multi-Quote" I have to do it manually. Which is a PITA.

 

[Simmo!]

I use Firefox/2.0.0.3. I have never been able to get this to work for me. Anybody else have problems with "Multi-Quote" using FF?

To "Multi-Quote" I have to do it manually. Which is a PITA.

Yeah def a PITA I gave up using FF 2 years back because too much web stuff didn't like it. Ah how I missed tabbed browsing. Til now

 

[Da_Gambla]

I use Firefox/2.0.0.3. I have never been able to get this to work for me. Anybody else have problems with "Multi-Quote" using FF?

To "Multi-Quote" I have to do it manually. Which is a PITA.

Yeah def a PITA I gave up using FF 2 years back because too much web stuff didn't like it. Ah how I missed tabbed browsing. Til now

FWIW, I didn't use the multi-quote feature because all those were individual posts at that moment. Between V, Pina and myself, that whole flurry of responses occurred over the course of a few minutes. It's just how it ended up...

And I agree Simmo, now that IE7 has tabs (assuming you meant IE7...), I haven't loaded up FF in about 7 months. Almost everywhere you go, people scream and curse IE7, but it works fine for me...? It didn't bugger up my whole system, doesn't crash any more frequent than anything else, and I really like the little tab that you can click to open up a blank page in a new tab. In FF, I always had to select File -> New Tab which became tedious.

Anyways, back to the regularly scheduled thread...

- Keith

 

[REOdeathwagon]

This reply is being posted with IE7. I tried to use "Multi-Quote" w/ IE7 in this response, same results as FF. "Multi-Quote" doesn't seem to work. When I click on it, it just turns red, but nothing happens.....weird?

Did get to see the Casinomeister home page though. Looked nice, when I come in through FF, it goes directly to the forums.