Am I wrong?

[bdbro]

I always like to verify my account before depositing, signed up to cashalot and asked. Which docs. They need
Reply was no docs needed till first cash out,. So I explained that I hate getting delayed in getting paid when I win, i then got this reply


This is not how our system works.
Good luck in finding a casino offering what you want
Bye


I found this strange, am. I alone?

 

[The Dude]

I always like to verify my account before depositing, signed up to cashalot and asked. Which docs. They need
Reply was no docs needed till first cash out,. So I explained that I hate getting delayed in getting paid when I win, i then got this reply


This is not how our system works.
Good luck in finding a casino offering what you want
Bye


I found this strange, am. I alone?

Classic.

Yeah, let's toss a player to the wind.

Don't bother with nitwits, there are plenty of outstanding casinos in the Accredited section.

 

[maphesto]

Classic.

Yeah, let's toss a player to the wind.

Don't bother with nitwits, there are plenty of outstanding casino in the Accredited section.

Casholot is a sister casino to Tropica. I don't think there are both cashalot and casholot...

 

[conker]

If this is truely what they said then this is tragic, although we have to take your word for it.

I think it's pretty pointless asking the question - is this right? Of course it isn't and you shouldn't waste anymore time at this particular casino if this is genuinely their response.

 

[Slotaholic]

Well thats what i call customer service

 

[curremon]

Really ?

 

[suzecat]

Casholot is a sister casino to Tropica. I don't think there are both cashalot and casholot...

It looks like there is a Cashalot casino and a Cash 'o Lot casino.

 

[Azzurri]

Don't tell me their 'collection agency' is now working in the customer service department?

Surely not?!

Definitely one of the most puzzling responses I've ever seen from a CS agent. They must be that popular and busy that they have a wait list to become a customer at their site, judging by that 'don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya' reply.

Like Bryan said, you don't have to look far if you wish to never deal with that shit again.

 

[rena35]

That makes one great response and one great reason why i would not play there.

 

[maphesto]

It looks like there is a Cashalot casino and a Cash 'o Lot casino.

I can't find the "cashalot" one.

 

[Refilliates Casinos]

Hi there,

Regrettably the OP has been less than forthcoming with what transpired and also edited the response from casino support as this is not what was communicated or how he was communicated to.

We don't request documents if there is no cashout or financial transactions as we would need to request these in any event, should there be a withdrawal as financial transactions need to be signed for. Added to this, we explained that we pay cashouts within 1 - 24 hours which members here can vouch for. This did not suit the OP and he requested his account to be closed.

Naturally we would like to verify customers upfront, but it has never worked because customers get irate when they are verified and then asked to sign for deposits in any event at cashout stage.

Regards,
Dieter

 

[bdbro]

Clarification

This is the mail I mentioned

[email protected]>
Date: Jan 27, 2015 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Questions (Support #25976570)
To:
Cc:

>
> It's not how our system works.
>
> Hope you find the casino you're looking for : )
>
> Good bye!

 

[Azzurri]

Oh, so that's your personal email address.

Excellent.

 

[bdbro]

Insult

I take it as an insult when called a liar.
What was it i was not upfront with in this thread.
I asked to get verified and you replied(i just posted)
It has nothing to do with my query about cashout timeframe.
Yes I asked to close my account as when told to look for casinos who will verify before I deposit, after which i requested to close account.
If you still stand by your mail, i am happy to post the four mails we exchanged,. And let the forum decide if I did any wrong or not and was not forthcoming.

Hi there,

Regrettably the OP has been less than forthcoming with what transpired and also edited the response from casino support as this is not what was communicated or how he was communicated to.

We don't request documents if there is no cashout or financial transactions as we would need to request these in any event, should there be a withdrawal as financial transactions need to be signed for. Added to this, we explained that we pay cashouts within 1 - 24 hours which members here can vouch for. This did not suit the OP and he requested his account to be closed.

Naturally we would like to verify customers upfront, but it has never worked because customers get irate when they are verified and then asked to sign for deposits in any event at cashout stage.

Regards,
Dieter

 

[bdbro]

Thanks for the heads up.
I am replying to the post, but being in. Bangladesh, today there are bombs going off everywhere, hence my mistake as my mind is in two places at the same. Plus my very close friend passed away and we r waiting for his body to arrive from abroad

Taken care of and thanks again

Oh, so that's your personal email address.

Excellent.

 

[rshkrn]

Don't see whys ending docs for verification in advance should be an issue!?! Even if the casino doesn't wish to verify right away, they can do so when a withdrawal is requested or as per their procedures.

If it doesn't suit them, might as well mention in the T&Cs that players need not send any docs until withdrawal is requested....

 

[Refilliates Casinos]

Hi,

I simply stated that what you posted was not what was said to you. Your original post was written as to paint the casino in a bad light, however after I chatted with the agent, they say that they were wishing you all the best (hence the smiley face), after you made it clear that you wanted to be verified upfront and we had explained that we can't. I.e. we could not be of service to you if that was your final decision. The agent did not have to end with "Good Bye" as that closes the door on any follow-up you might have had.

Insisting on been verified upfront when it is not something we do, is either something you can accept or refuse. You chose to refuse it and asked for your account to be closed. There was nothing else to say or that we could do after that, unless you're prepared to verify now and sign for deposits later?

For what it is worth: If I had to ask you to send in verification documents, the length of time for your withdrawal to be processed would only be affected by how long you took to send those documents in. I.e. we're pretty quick when it comes to cashouts - any delay is not on our end. I hope you will get to experience this for yourself, should you change your mind.

Apologies if you feel you did not get treated properly and also that we could not fully verify you upfront.

Regards,
Dieter

 

[bdbro]

I agree, but not only that.
I have played since 1998, and my play is considerably higher than the average
Never have i heard a casino doesn't want to verify even though the account owner request to be verified.

Don't see whys ending docs for verification in advance should be an issue!?! Even if the casino doesn't wish to verify right away, they can do so when a withdrawal is requested or as per their procedures.

If it doesn't suit them, might as well mention in the T&Cs that players need not send any docs until withdrawal is requested....

 

[bdbro]

Thanks for your clarification.
Wish you all the best And no hard feelings

Hi,

I simply stated that what you posted was not what was said to you. Your original post was written as to paint the casino in a bad light, however after I chatted with the agent, they say that they were wishing you all the best (hence the smiley face), after you made it clear that you wanted to be verified upfront and we had explained that we can't. I.e. we could not be of service to you if that was your final decision.

The agent did not have to end with "Good Bye" as that closes the door on any follow-up you might have had. Insisting on been verified upfront when it is not something we do, is either something you can accept or refuse. You chose to refuse it and asked for your account to be closed. There was nothing else to say or that we could do after that, unless you're prepared to verify now and sign for deposits later?

For what it is worth: If I had to ask you to send in verification documents, the length of time for your withdrawal to be processed would only be affected by how long you took to send those documents in. I.e. we're pretty quick when it comes to cashouts - any delay is not on our end. I hope you will get to experience this for yourself, should you change your mind.

Apologies if you feel you did not get treated properly and also that we could not fully verify you upfront.

Regards,
Dieter

 

[suzecat]

I can't find the "cashalot" one.

Here is a site that discusses Cash-a-Lot:

nodepositbonus.cc/no-deposit-bonus-info/cash-a-lot-casino-launches-new-usa-friendly-rival

You are right about the Cash 'o Lot being the only one. Looks like the NDB site misinterpreted the spelling of Cash 'o Lot.

 

[maphesto]

Here is a site that discusses Cash-a-Lot:

They mean cash-o-lot...that's the us friendly Rival that opened late in 2013. If you follow the link from their page you come to cash-o-lot.

 

[Azzurri]

You say tomatas, she says tomatoes.

 

[michielm1]

couldnt ask for a more clear answer wheather to play at a casino or not...

 

[The Dude]

Just to jump in real quick. I thought the OP was referring to some unknown cashalot - not the one being run by Tropica. If I knew it was Tropica's, I would have PMd Dieter giving him a heads up; not made a funny ha-ha.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi,

I simply stated that what you posted was not what was said to you. Your original post was written as to paint the casino in a bad light, however after I chatted with the agent, they say that they were wishing you all the best (hence the smiley face), after you made it clear that you wanted to be verified upfront and we had explained that we can't. I.e. we could not be of service to you if that was your final decision. The agent did not have to end with "Good Bye" as that closes the door on any follow-up you might have had.

Insisting on been verified upfront when it is not something we do, is either something you can accept or refuse. You chose to refuse it and asked for your account to be closed. There was nothing else to say or that we could do after that, unless you're prepared to verify now and sign for deposits later?

For what it is worth: If I had to ask you to send in verification documents, the length of time for your withdrawal to be processed would only be affected by how long you took to send those documents in. I.e. we're pretty quick when it comes to cashouts - any delay is not on our end. I hope you will get to experience this for yourself, should you change your mind.

Apologies if you feel you did not get treated properly and also that we could not fully verify you upfront.

Regards,
Dieter

Perhaps it's worth considering WHY players sometimes want to be verified up front. There have been cases where players have been asked to supply impossible to obtain documentation once they cash out, and so naturally some players want to make certain that their documentation is good enough before they even deposit. A total lack of flexibility sometimes means players have to walk away from a perfectly legitimate win in the eyes of the casino purely because their government doesn't supply it's citizens with documents the casino is prepared to accept. These players then have to chase around looking for the closest alternatives that the casino will accept, often at great expense and sometimes having to involve notaries or solicitors. The industry only has itself to blame for this.

This "sign for deposits" idea is 99% BS anyway. There is no requirement for this in a cardholder not present transaction, and it does not give a casino any additional protection unless they are going to take a player to court over something, which isn't going to happen with any US facing brand.

As more and more tales of players getting shafted at the documentation stage surface, the demand for up front verification will increase. Players who have already suffered the springing of documentation "traps" often state that in future they will get verified up front, and as far as ID is concerned, this shouldn't be a problem.

Playtech have a notorious trap of "Please get these documents notarised and then post them to our office in the Philippines". Most players would prefer to know this up front so that they can choose to walk away.

As for finding a casino that will verify what it can up front, there are plenty. They probably realise that the law and their licensing conditions are broken as soon as they accept a bet from a player who is faking who they are or using "dirty" money, and the more bets they accept from such a player, the deeper in the hole they get themselves.

Many use an up front electronic check, but when this fails some will lock the account mid way through the first session and ask for documents. This is even MORE annoying for players than being asked to verify up front.

Maybe it would be worth adding whether accredited casinos are prepared to verify documents up front on request as a way to help players who have unusual personal circumstances which leave them vulnerable to documentation problems.

 

[Azzurri]

It could be worse. Like having a term that allows them to basically detain, interrogate, and polygraph your accountant. Not mentioning any names (cough, William Hill, cough, cough).

 

[bdbro]

Exactly

My sentiments exactly as i have fallen in this trap in the past. So I always verify first.
In in my decade plus of gaming this is the first casino who refused to oblige.

Perhaps it's worth considering WHY players sometimes want to be verified up front. There have been cases where players have been asked to supply impossible to obtain documentation once they cash out, and so naturally some players want to make certain that their documentation is good enough before they even deposit. A total lack of flexibility sometimes means players have to walk away from a perfectly legitimate win in the eyes of the casino purely because their government doesn't supply it's citizens with documents the casino is prepared to accept. These players then have to chase around looking for the closest alternatives that the casino will accept, often at great expense and sometimes having to involve notaries or solicitors. The industry only has itself to blame for this.

This "sign for deposits" idea is 99% BS anyway. There is no requirement for this in a cardholder not present transaction, and it does not give a casino any additional protection unless they are going to take a player to court over something, which isn't going to happen with any US facing brand.

As more and more tales of players getting shafted at the documentation stage surface, the demand for up front verification will increase. Players who have already suffered the springing of documentation "traps" often state that in future they will get verified up front, and as far as ID is concerned, this shouldn't be a problem.

Playtech have a notorious trap of "Please get these documents notarised and then post them to our office in the Philippines". Most players would prefer to know this up front so that they can choose to walk away.

As for finding a casino that will verify what it can up front, there are plenty. They probably realise that the law and their licensing conditions are broken as soon as they accept a bet from a player who is faking who they are or using "dirty" money, and the more bets they accept from such a player, the deeper in the hole they get themselves.

Many use an up front electronic check, but when this fails some will lock the account mid way through the first session and ask for documents. This is even MORE annoying for players than being asked to verify up front.

Maybe it would be worth adding whether accredited casinos are prepared to verify documents up front on request as a way to help players who have unusual personal circumstances which leave them vulnerable to documentation problems.

 

[horseplayer]

Hi there,

Regrettably the OP has been less than forthcoming with what transpired and also edited the response from casino support as this is not what was communicated or how he was communicated to.


Regards,
Dieter

In what way was the OP less than forthcoming by using a direct quote from an email that your casino sent him? I'm pretty disturbed finding out that this is coming from the same group associated with Tropica who I made my first deposit with a few weeks ago. That's definitely not what I consider to be top notch customer service. Rudeness will get you nowhere with folks spending their cash.

 

[bdbro]

Of course there is no fault of mine as any player has the right to be sure they will get paid if they win.
They were rude and there is no way around that.
After this thread, I did receive a form from them to verify my account which is also strange as even the casino mentioned I asked for my account to be closed

The mistake was mine, I should stick to the few outstanding and also few mega casinos I play at daily.
I say this with two minds as i did find BETAT recently and if i did not take the chance and tried it, I would have missed out on a great place.

In what way was the OP less than forthcoming by using a direct quote from an email that your casino sent him? I'm pretty disturbed finding out that this is coming from the same group associated with Tropica who I made my first deposit with a few weeks ago. That's definitely not what I consider to be top notch customer service. Rudeness will get you nowhere with folks spending their cash.

 

[Refilliates Casinos]

Hi,

As explained above: the agent was not been rude. The smiley face should tell you that it was not meant to be "rude" - it was simply a friendly wish for you to find a casino that would meet your requirements. I don't know how else to explain this.

How you choose to interpret written communication is defined by what the actual content means to you personally. I.e. you can't read tone in an email and it's a mistake all of us make.

Regards,
Dieter

 

[sigothx1]

i think the op is being a tad harsh towards the casino, they were not rude, and they don't have to verify players straight away if they see fit, there was no need at all for this thread.

 

[bdbro]

Experience

I guess you have never faced getting the run around after a big win due to verification.
Not sure what country you are playing from but places like Bangladesh where I play from, certainly causes problems if i dont get verified before depositing.
I deposit couple of thousand dollars a day and when i win, i like to get paid
I am sure I am not alone in this predicament, and hence this thread is needed.

i think the op is being a tad harsh towards the casino, they were not rude, and they don't have to verify players straight away if they see fit, there was no need at all for this thread.

 

[gagamel]

No, it`s definately not needed.

I had the same "issue" with that casino.

They asked me after the third withdrawal for my passport and a bill, that was it.


If you like RIVAL play with this group, they are the best around. If you don`t like their rules then please find another casino.

Ehm, am I now agressive or is the casino agressive because they said to you ByeBye.

I don`t know, but the Refiliate Group is the best Casino group outside.

If you have a question, please feel free to PM Dieter. This guy lives for his casinos and he will do anything to give his players a great experience.

 

[Azzurri]

I have nothing personal against Dieter, and whilst I am not a customer of his, I have witnessed the good work he does here for his customers.

However, in my opinion, it is clear as day that the chat agent meant those comments in a derogatory and sarcastic manner.

I can appreciate Dieter is trying to down play it as being misinterpreted due to various reasons, but the detection of tone in one's writing can often also be quite clear, and in this case, given the circumstances, there's frankly nothing to misconstrue.

Whether or not early verification is common protocol or not, in this case I see no reason why the agent couldn't just simply grant the customers wishes, given it wouldn't have cost the agent or casino anything to do so.

Instead, the agent chose to decline the simple request, and as a result, now the casino has paid a price for the agents actions, and that is they've lost a genuine customer that seemingly would have otherwise been a long term patron. Not to mention this added bad publicity, which couldn't have come at a worse time.

This is not the first nor last incident like this we'll see, and we often can't, and shouldn't hold reps accountable for all their CS agents questionable actions or comments. However we have what's often a welcomed right to inform the reps of occasions we've felt wronged or disrespected by cs agents, and from the majority of examples I've seen, the rep should then be working to rectify the issue, and either educating or disciplining the unruly cs agent, if in fact they have been in the wrong.

Sorry Dieter, but from what I've read here, I think the correct response should have been a simple apology, rather than a defensive response favoring the agent, and excusing their rude arrogance as a friendly best wishes.

I think Dieter is very good at his job, but unfortunately, there seems to be a few working around him who don't abide by or honor the same customer service values. I know it makes your job that much harder Dieter, but regardless of the customers part in any incident, the customer service industry swears by the simple, yet most important rule, and that is 'what could WE have done differently' to resolve the issue, whilst finding a mutually satisfying resolution, that ensures both customer satisfaction and repeat business.

This is unnecessary bad publicity that could have easily been avoided before reaching this stage, and just as easily resolved here if Dieter chose instead not to defend a clearly cheeky agent.

Like I said, nothing personal against Dieter, but in light of this issue, and the previous disaster, I will never feel comfortable playing at your casinos. It's a shame, as I almost joined before the BOF took a turn.

Just my opinion, and I wish both parties all the best moving forward.

 

[Refilliates Casinos]

Hi Azzurri,

I need to clarify a few things once more:

1. I did apologise here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/am-i-wrong.65720/

2. We do not verify upfront as there is no need or risk. As explained in this thread, if we verify upfront, there could always be something else needed at withdrawal stage - which will then anger the player even more. We don't verify upfront unless we choose to. We don't inconvenience our players if we don't have to.

3. I can't understand how you can say the agent meant to say something "in a derogatory and sarcastic manner" when I have explained 3 times that this is not what they meant. Please ask yourself - what would an agent get out of speaking to a customer in that manner? What possible benefit is there? I don't believe any one of my team members would put their jobs on the line just to be sarcastic.

4. I don't think this thread could have been avoided. I say this because the OP was first advised in December that we don't verify upfront. They then asked the same question this week and received the same reply and then posted here.

5. We have seen an increase in registrations from this site this week, so it has had the opposite effect of what you're claiming. Maybe those members can see this thread for what it is?

6. Last, but not least: Casinos do things some folks don't like. That does not make the casino bad. Example: 32Red no longer flush or pay on weekends, but they will still win Best Casino or some other Top Award. We do flush and process on weekends, but we don't verify upfront - so does that mean we should be avoided? We're one of the last reliable groups, but still get persecuted for what some may call absolute nonsense.

I hope I have addressed some of your concerns and I hope you will accept that we're never going to keep everyone happy, but we will do our best anyway.

Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Dieter

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Azzurri,

I need to clarify a few things once more:

1. I did apologise here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/am-i-wrong.65720/

2. We do not verify upfront as there is no need or risk. As explained in this thread, if we verify upfront, there could always be something else needed at withdrawal stage - which will then anger the player even more. We don't verify upfront unless we choose to. We don't inconvenience our players if we don't have to.

3. I can't understand how you can say the agent meant to say something "in a derogatory and sarcastic manner" when I have explained 3 times that this is not what they meant. Please ask yourself - what would an agent get out of speaking to a customer in that manner? What possible benefit is there? I don't believe any one of my team members would put their jobs on the line just to be sarcastic.

4. I don't think this thread could have been avoided. I say this because the OP was first advised in December that we don't verify upfront. They then asked the same question this week and received the same reply and then posted here.

5. We have seen an increase in registrations from this site this week, so it has had the opposite effect of what you're claiming. Maybe those members can see this thread for what it is?

6. Last, but not least: Casinos do things some folks don't like. That does not make the casino bad. Example: 32Red no longer flush or pay on weekends, but they will still win Best Casino or some other Top Award. We do flush and process on weekends, but we don't verify upfront - so does that mean we should be avoided? We're one of the last reliable groups, but still get persecuted for what some may call absolute nonsense.

I hope I have addressed some of your concerns and I hope you will accept that we're never going to keep everyone happy, but we will do our best anyway.

Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Dieter

There is plenty of risk. The player has no certainty that his documents will be good enough for the casino when the request eventually comes. There have been numerous cases where even the "gold plated" documents of passport and utility bill have been rejected as not good enough for some casinos. The risk is even greater if the player does not own where they live as they won't be getting the utility bills in their name. If they don't have a passport, there is also the risk that whatever alternative they have will be suitable.

A player who wants to get verified up front is REALLY making sure that the documents he has are suitable for the casino's KYC purposes. UK players are also having problems with KYC because the UK does not have a formal national ID card like some 98% of countries in the world. If such a UK player can't drive either, they are pretty much screwed as KYC is almost certain to create problems due to negotiating a suitable portfolio of alternative documents.

The industry has itself to blame for making ever more next-to-impossible documentation requests of players. This has made some players VERY wary indeed, and they see up front verification as the only real solution.

As for the casino, there is the risk that they may accept an under age player through not running KYC up front, after all, the "tick here to show that you are over 18" box hardly counts as a proper procedure for ensuring minors can't gamble.

 

[mcgameboy]

There is plenty of risk. The player has no certainty that his documents will be good enough for the casino when the request eventually comes. There have been numerous cases where even the "gold plated" documents of passport and utility bill have been rejected as not good enough for some casinos. The risk is even greater if the player does not own where they live as they won't be getting the utility bills in their name. If they don't have a passport, there is also the risk that whatever alternative they have will be suitable.

A player who wants to get verified up front is REALLY making sure that the documents he has are suitable for the casino's KYC purposes. UK players are also having problems with KYC because the UK does not have a formal national ID card like some 98% of countries in the world. If such a UK player can't drive either, they are pretty much screwed as KYC is almost certain to create problems due to negotiating a suitable portfolio of alternative documents.

The industry has itself to blame for making ever more next-to-impossible documentation requests of players. This has made some players VERY wary indeed, and they see up front verification as the only real solution.

As for the casino, there is the risk that they may accept an under age player through not running KYC up front, after all, the "tick here to show that you are over 18" box hardly counts as a proper procedure for ensuring minors can't gamble.

And I consider myself to be one of those people. I am not the bill payer, nor do I drive or hold a passport. For me, taking steps to get verified upfront are not optional, they are essential. I am of the attitude "better to be cautious now than to be shafted later". And if a casino wants to keep me waiting to get verified, then fine. Don't expect me to deposit at your casino.

I took the step to get pre-verified up front with Spin Casino way back in October. Last Sunday, I made my first cashout request with them.

There were no problems. My decision to get verified upfront was fully vindicated.

I spoke with someone in live chat at Betat on Thursday night, as I wanted to get verified before I make my first deposit there. Rather than saying that such a step was not necessary, the guy in live chat actually ENCOURAGED me to get verified first. I encountered a similar experience at Bet365.

The way I see it, I don't have a problem with waiting to get verified. If I am "desperate" to play, I can always play at 32Red or Casino Rewards until I get verified at a new casino.

 

[dunover]

There is plenty of risk. The player has no certainty that his documents will be good enough for the casino when the request eventually comes. There have been numerous cases where even the "gold plated" documents of passport and utility bill have been rejected as not good enough for some casinos. The risk is even greater if the player does not own where they live as they won't be getting the utility bills in their name. If they don't have a passport, there is also the risk that whatever alternative they have will be suitable.

A player who wants to get verified up front is REALLY making sure that the documents he has are suitable for the casino's KYC purposes. UK players are also having problems with KYC because the UK does not have a formal national ID card like some 98% of countries in the world. If such a UK player can't drive either, they are pretty much screwed as KYC is almost certain to create problems due to negotiating a suitable portfolio of alternative documents.

The industry has itself to blame for making ever more next-to-impossible documentation requests of players. This has made some players VERY wary indeed, and they see up front verification as the only real solution.

As for the casino, there is the risk that they may accept an under age player through not running KYC up front, after all, the "tick here to show that you are over 18" box hardly counts as a proper procedure for ensuring minors can't gamble.

Come on Vinyl - this is bull and you know it! We are talking about accredited sites, and they all clearly have their requirements for KYC in their T&C's. If you haven't got the required docs, you don't play! If in doubt, contact CS before you deposit. Most problems occur when players don't read the terms and then find insufficient docs at w/d stage.

"The industry has itself to blame for making ever more next-to-impossible documentation requests of players."

Not at all. Almost all casinos have the same 3 basics - photo ID, depositing card(s) scan and utility bill for address. Just because a$$wipe outfits like some Playtechs require notarized ID to be sent to a shack in Haiti doesn't mean you can generalize about all sites.

We've had this 100 times before on here - it simply isn't efficient, logical or cost-effective to verify players BEFORE making a w/d. Many players will deposit, spin and lose and then disappear, making it pointless.

 

[dunover]

I have nothing personal against Dieter, and whilst I am not a customer of his, I have witnessed the good work he does here for his customers.

However, in my opinion, it is clear as day that the chat agent meant those comments in a derogatory and sarcastic manner.

I can appreciate Dieter is trying to down play it as being misinterpreted due to various reasons, but the detection of tone in one's writing can often also be quite clear, and in this case, given the circumstances, there's frankly nothing to misconstrue.

Well, like you I am a fluent English speaker and I take the opposite view. The comment was obviously made after a longer exchange on the live chat, and all we are seeing is the concluding comment from the CS agent.
Without context, how on earth can anybody say with any certainty this was 'rude'?
The OP should've posted the WHOLE chat session, as is customary on this forum in matters like this; failing to do this this is unfair on both those taking the trouble to reply and the casino.

 

[hoff1985]

I'm here with Dieter on most points, but i do have to say i ALWAYS send in docs already after registration (did it also for Refilliates when they were still doing it like this) and i NEVER was being told that i can't and also i can't remember that i zad to send additional docs later.....

 

[vinylweatherman]

Come on Vinyl - this is bull and you know it! We are talking about accredited sites, and they all clearly have their requirements for KYC in their T&C's. If you haven't got the required docs, you don't play! If in doubt, contact CS before you deposit. Most problems occur when players don't read the terms and then find insufficient docs at w/d stage.

"The industry has itself to blame for making ever more next-to-impossible documentation requests of players."

Not at all. Almost all casinos have the same 3 basics - photo ID, depositing card(s) scan and utility bill for address. Just because a$$wipe outfits like some Playtechs require notarized ID to be sent to a shack in Haiti doesn't mean you can generalize about all sites.

We've had this 100 times before on here - it simply isn't efficient, logical or cost-effective to verify players BEFORE making a w/d. Many players will deposit, spin and lose and then disappear, making it pointless.

It should be up to the PLAYER to decide whether it's necessary. It will also be cost effective because not every player will want to be verified up front.

The basics are not enough. We have had casinos rejecting "a valid photo ID" in the past because their outsourced security teams don't have enough experience of the document in question. The "utility bill" is also a minefield as there is no industry standard of what is meant by "a utility bill", with some casinos rejecting perfectly valid utility bills simply because the supplier is one of the smaller players in the market, or even a big player that has just undergone a rebranding. Some also don't accept bills for phones, yet others INSIST on seeing the phone bill, and don't care much for the electric or water bill.

If there was a strict adherence to the idea that you don't play if you don't have the documents, casinos would go bust in no time as it would mean that at best, only one person in every household could play, and even then, it would have to be the person who actually RUNS everything and pays the bills, and they should also drive.

It's all very well for those who don't have any trouble getting verified to preach to those who do, but the real problem is not the documents a player has in their country, it's the attitude of the casino.

We still have the "a$$wipe outfits" because the industry and it's various regulators have deliberately looked the other way when they misbehave. If rogue outfits had been properly kept in check, they would have had to change their ways or operate from Mars with software no one has ever heard of. Currently, rogue outfits are able to operate well known branded software and get licences from mainstream jurisdictions.

Many dodgy outfits have misused KYC as a means to avoid paying legitimate players, and the failure of the industry and regulators to keep this in check has now come back to bite them on the a$$ as an increasing number of players feel that KYC after they have won can't be trusted to be a fair process as the casino then has an incentive to find fault, whereas casinos have a strong incentive to NOT find fault with a players' documents where a player will not deposit until this is done.

Fortunately, it turns out the CS rep was wrong, it is pretty easy to find a casino that will verify up front upon request. These casinos can benefit from the custom of those who want to be verified up front, whereas casinos who can't do this must make do with a smaller field of potential customers.

As for the passport, you are not actually supposed to be scanning and sending/giving a copy anyway, not to ANYONE, let alone some offshore casino. It is a national security issue, nothing to do with consumer laws or terms and conditions. You should only SHOW your passport, but you should not allow the other party to make any kind of image copy. This all comes from advice issued by the UK Passport Office, and occasionally updated.

 

[bdbro]

Incorrwct

There was no chat, just emails, which i will happily post
Initially, I was not sure hence the name of my post but now I am certain that I am not wrong.

Well, like you I am a fluent English speaker and I take the opposite view. The comment was obviously made after a longer exchange on the live chat, and all we are seeing is the concluding comment from the CS agent.
Without context, how on earth can anybody say with any certainty this was 'rude'?
The OP should've posted the WHOLE chat session, as is customary on this forum in matters like this; failing to do this this is unfair on both those taking the trouble to reply and the casino.

 

[Tirilej]

There was no chat, just emails, which i will happily post
Initially, I was not sure hence the name of my post but now I am certain that I am not wrong.

So your point with this thread was if they were rude with that email, not if we found it strange that you couldn't be verified before you made a deposit?

I wonder sometimes if we we feel better with ourself if we can make someone else look bad. I've never understood that way of thinking.

 

[bdbro]

Hope this clarifies things

*Jan 27, 2015 1:28 AM

Hi

Hope you are well*
Can u tell me your withdrawal timeframe.*
Also ,* is my account verified



—---------



Hi,

Withdrawals for approved accounts are processed within 1-24 hours.

You are not verified and will not be asked to until you withdraw.

Regards,
Cash o' Lot Security

—----------

Would rather clear verification before playing to avoid problems in future



—---------
It's not how our system works.

Hope you find the casino you're looking for : )

Good bye!
------------
Would you please delete/close my account

Br

Well, like you I am a fluent English speaker and I take the opposite view. The comment was obviously made after a longer exchange on the live chat, and all we are seeing is the concluding comment from the CS agent.
Without context, how on earth can anybody say with any certainty this was 'rude'?
The OP should've posted the WHOLE chat session, as is customary on this forum in matters like this; failing to do this this is unfair on both those taking the trouble to reply and the casino.

 

[Tirilej]

I see absolutely NOTHING rude in those messages.

If you at least had explained why it was so important to you, but you didn't.

 

[bdbro]

My point

My point is that they are the only casino who have refused to preverify me. However, it is their casino and their prerogative, however they don't need to be impolite when informing about their regulations.
The matter would have been over if the rep took responsibility instead of insinuating, i have not been straightforward about this matter.

QUOTE=Tirilej;670352]So your point with this thread was if they were rude with that email, not if we found it strange that you couldn't be verified before you made a deposit?

I wonder sometimes if we we feel better with ourself if we can make someone else look bad. I've never understood that way of thinking.[/QUOTE]

 

[bdbro]

When you are told to find another casino, it is pretty much a dead end.
Did you see me mention that if they don't verify me, i will go to another casino? If i did then they can tell me to go to another casino but no mention from me and you think that is not somewhat impolite?


=Tirilej;670356]I see absolutely NOTHING rude in those messages.
If you at least had explained why it was so important to you, but you didn't.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tirilej]

My point is that they are the only casino who have refused to preverify me. However, it is their casino and their prerogative, however they don't need to be impolite when informing about their regulations.
The matter would have been over if the rep took responsibility instead of insinuating, i have not been straightforward about this matter.

To get answers you sometimes have to ask questions. You didn't explain why it was important so you never gave them a chance or a reason to explain anything to you.
Didn't you know Dieter was in here? I'm sure he would have taken the time needed to explain.

I don't think it's right to try and slander this casino for this. It's really not right.
For once though I'm happy you posted the emails so we knew what was said

 

[bdbro]

They could have said that it is not their system, and I would have understood. But why the sarcasm of hope you find the casi you are looking for.
Also, i was not being harsh, i felt they were incorrect and to be sure I posted my query. That is not really slandering a casino.
Sadly, don't know Dieter, as it was the first time I was going to try that software as i am regular at betsafe, guts, verajohn, BETAT, MrGreen, videoslots, 32red and a few other and all verified me before I deposited.


QUOTE=Tirilej;670360]To get answers you sometimes have to ask questions. You didn't explain why it was important so you never gave them a chance or a

reason to explain anything to you.
Didn't you know Dieter was in here? I'm sure he would have taken the time needed to explain.

I don't think it's right to try and slander this casino for this. It's really not right.
For once though I'm happy you posted the emails so we knew what was said [/QUOTE]

 

[dunover]

When you are told to find another casino, it is pretty much a dead end.
Did you see me mention that if they don't verify me, i will go to another casino? If i did then they can tell me to go to another casino but no mention from me and you think that is not somewhat impolite?


=Tirilej;670356]I see absolutely NOTHING rude in those messages.
If you at least had explained why it was so important to you, but you didn't.

It was quick and to the point, but not 'rude' in any way. Basically they couldn't accede to your request so hoped you could find a casino that could. Obviously I can see how you may think it was odd, as normally CS try and recruit or retain players. I would also guess the e-mail was typed by someone for whom English is a second language so may seem slightly unusual. But rude? No.

I understand that Banga is a nation on most sites' 'avoid list' so can see why you want to pre-verify - I would to be honest. I have also on occasion pre-verified too when I join a site in the week intending to play at the weekend, usually by using the automated submit facility in the banking or details section. Tropica obviously use a different system and procedure. As Tirilej said Dieter is a good rep and handles things efficiently on here, so due to your nation of residence I'm sure if you'd PM'd him he could have helped in some way.

If you want to play Rival and get paid, and quick, then Tropica would be your logical choice.