Bonus Abuser Blacklist (Microgaming)

[funky_seagull]

But I wouldn't jump to conclusions quite yet.

I know that Proc Cyber runs players through a fraudster database. The database is not shared with the casino - only if a player pops up in the fraudster database will he be outed by Pro Cyber which notifies the casino. I remember a couple of incidents where fraudsters had been cleared by the casino for payouts, but got nailed by the cash processors - one was a Bellerock issue a couple of years ago that played out in the complaints section.

I seriously doubt that the casinos share a database of "bonus abusers". I have a feeling it's smoke being blown up the "abusers" butt in order to scare him off - or to confiscate winnings.

I'm guessing this will play out here as well.

Bear in mind, I don't believe this casino is an eCOGRA certified casino. So they aren't part of this equation.

An accredited casino which I won't name here, but have pm'd to Maxd states in their terms:

# We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.
# Information on known promotion abusers may be forwarded to Proc-Cyber Services (PCS) and Borth Holdings Ltd, our e-cash partners and may result in such player being barred from receiving bonuses at any other casino using PCS

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sorry, but again you have made a generalization without any basis in fact.

While I appreciate your participation and your eagerness to be of assistance, I do find these unwarranted accusations very disturbing.

Hence, please be advised that any future accusations, implications, or insinuations of this sort will no longer be tolerated - will be deleted - and may result in a vacation.

Thanks for your attention.

I said "very likely".

Firsly, Playtech, the company do not seem to do anything about the large number of what would be considered as "rogue" casinos that run using the Playtech software. Micrgaming, the "gold standard" have long called allegations of this level of central information sharing as "a conspiracy theory". "conspiracy theory" juat became FACT when GLC told Max that a confiscation was solely down to a "bonus abuser" flag on a FRAUD database.

The Playtech position is still that the whole thing is a conspiracy theory, however this must have started somewhere, and if Playtech started to make better efforts to police it's licensees, showing zero tolerance of rogue behaviour, then players will be more likely to believe Playtech when they say something.

Given the rate this entire industry is flushing it's reputation down the toilet, none of this probably matters very much.

Sadly, it is hard to prove a negative, which is the big problem, Playtech cannot prove it has not got a "central whatever", so it is up to it's attackers to prove it has something that was earlier denied.

Strangely, CASINOS are ROUTINELY requiring us players to "prove a negative", so they should be prepared to be held to the same standards when THEY find themselves "flagged" by our "central gut feeling database".

 

[Rusty]

I am thinking just the opposite. This is actually fact that is branded as being a 'conspiracy theory' by the casinos and some naysayers.

We are in fact agreeing.
I was being sarcastic.

 

[maxd]

Sorry wasn't sure if it was ok to post their names on the forum.

I appreciate the caution but it's their Terms & Conditions so it's not exactly a secret.

FWIW this is the info I was sent, and yes, it all checks out:

Grand Mondial: In terms and conditions under Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) :

Grand Mondial audits cash-ins to determine if winnings are a result of promotion abuse. It is possible for promotion abuse to occur even though wagering is compliant with the standard terms and conditions and bonus system rules. If promotion abuse is identified, then Grand Mondial reserves the right at managements discretion to take the following action(s) against the abusive player:
A) may be banned from receiving or redeeming further promotions
B) may be banned from play in the casino
B) may have account terminated with immediate effect
C) Player information forwarded to a central database resulting in players being barred from receiving bonuses at any other casinos.
D) Cash-ins may be denied, reversed and/or considered void. In such cases, only original purchase amount may be allowed for withdrawal.

Red Flush, in Old / Expired Link:

We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.

Maple Casino, in Old / Expired Link:

• We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.
• Information on known promotion abusers may be forwarded to Proc-Cyber Services (PCS) and Borth Holdings Ltd, our e-cash partners and may result in such player being barred from receiving bonuses at any other casino using PCS.

I don't think the moral of this story is that these are bad casinos for having these player databases, or claiming to, it's just that players need to be aware of this and -- and this is a big "and" -- this information should be used to decline deposits, not deny winnings.

Assuming that the casino has accepted the player's deposit and given the bonus, the definition of "bonus abuser" is way, Way, WAY too subjective to define it as an offense that warrants withholding a player's winnings. Note that this has been Casinomeister's standing position on so-called "bonus abuse" for quite some time.

 

[funky_seagull]

Sorry didn't want to cause strife for above casinos as I've personally never had any trouble with them, so didn't want to name them. But you're right the info is publicly available anyway for anyone to dig up if they can be arsed... so wouldn't have mattered...


This term is odd, it appears in the terms and conditions of many casinos:


It is possible for promotion abuse to occur even though wagering is compliant with the standard terms and conditions and bonus system rules.

It is very vague and could be used as an excuse to not pay someone if they didn't like the way they played, even if the play was above board.

Quite a few casinos have this term...

 

[vinylweatherman]

On top of all this, what about the MISTAKES that occur on such databases. Casinos use them as proof ABSOLUTE, there is NO DISPUTE MECHANISM, player is told "database flagged you, you are guitly, or in denial of what you did".

I was once a victim of a MISTAKE, and it was CM membership that gave me the knowledge, and another party (the MG rep), who sorted out the issue, and told me it was caused because a NEW account had been opened with SIMILAR details to mine. Although it was sorted, it seems the fact that I WAS THERE FIRST, didn't make a difference, there was NO TRUST when it came to the results from the central database, I had to prove myself all over again, as though I had been put before the courts, but had a prize barrister up my sleeve who had the case dismissed.

Another posted that they too suffered issues because someone with the same name and living in the same CITY registered an account.
The scope for mistakes here is considerable, yet players are not allowed access to their records, since they have already been deemed guilty, and access just helps them do it better next time.

PKR (remember that) even refused the player access to playlogs and what rules were broken, and this was not fraud, simply bonus abuse.

The ordering and grammar used in these examples seems to put "promotional abuse" top of the agenda, with "fraud" being of secondary concern.

The Proc Cyber database to detect PROMOTION ABUSE has been around a while. There is no reason that Proc Cyber itself should worry about anything other than fraud, until you "follow the money". Proc Cyber have no use themselves for it, but can MAKE MORE MONEY by SELLING "Risk Sentinel" to casinos than by just being a proccessor for them. Casinos SAVE more than they PAY to have the product.
By using the "training" provided with Risk Sentinel, they learn how to ALWAYS regard those snared by it as guilty, and to "not be fooled by protestations of innocence". The training also advises to use non-communication as a means to stifle any appeal by the player (internally, that is). It then means the player has no recourse but to air the grievance elsewhere.

Take the cases where players claim they have received no reply from countless Emails, and all "we'll call you back" promises over the phone are ignored - then they get the "F U email" and merely a returned deposit. This is the training offered by Proc Cyber in dealing with these cases, and CS are merely "following orders".

THIS is why players bitch that they have struggled for MONTHS doing it "the right way", but as soon as they go public, or use PAB, everything is sorted out, and it turns into a blindingly simple problem, leaving us all scratching our heads with dispelief that it all took so long to sort out.

 

[zebedy]

i find these rules disturbing, over the years i have opened an account and took there welcome bonus at every nearly every casino under (casino rewards/belle rock/fortune lounge/jackpot factory ect ect so if im reading the rules correctly i am a bonus abuser , ok fair enough, i probably am ,
having deposited many thousands and lost at most of them, im just wondering if i had of won would i have been paid,
am i on there list ?????,
how would i find out ?????,
it seems the only way to find out if im on there list or database is to win somewhere and see if i get paid- hit and miss- maybe thats why they call it gambling
so if i am on there database they wouldnt pay me anyway, would i get my deposits back, i very much doubt it, i wouldnt even know , and couldnt even prove it

as max said

this information should be used to decline deposits, not deny winnings.

 

[spearmaster]

I said "very likely".

Irrelevant. Just because Mazda has ABS doesn't mean that Skoda do. Nor is it very likely either.

There's a big difference between "very likely" and "I wouldn't be surprised if..." - maybe it's just the way you tend to spin wild theories as practically a fact.

If you've got a fact, or a theory based on reasonable assumption, it's more than welcome. But your theory is based on another company entirely - and thus is not in the slightest way reasonable.

You have been told this before - yet you persist in making these assumptions which, at the very least, would be considered a long, long stretch.

Firsly, Playtech, the company do not seem to do anything about the large number of what would be considered as "rogue" casinos that run using the Playtech software. Micrgaming, the "gold standard" have long called allegations of this level of central information sharing as "a conspiracy theory". "conspiracy theory" juat became FACT when GLC told Max that a confiscation was solely down to a "bonus abuser" flag on a FRAUD database.

Oh ok. So because Joe Schmoe who complained on here was found to be a bonus abuser, all members here are bonus abusers?

Playtech is a software provider. Unfortunately, they are not a member of eCOGRA nor any other regulatory body other than the jurisdictions of the individual operators. A complaint should go to these jurisdictions - not to the software provider.

Microsoft is a software provider. If said software is used in ways it was not intended, do you go to Microsoft, or do you go to the constabulary?

Volkswagen is an automobile manufacturer. If their car is involved in an accident because it was not driven as intended (ie. over the speed limit), do you complain to VW?

Let's get this straight once and for all. Address your complaints to the right place and they deserve to be addressed. Complaints to Playtech, or to any software provider, should only be a last resort after NORMAL methods (ie. operator and jurisdiction) are exhausted.

As harsh as that sounds, that's the way most things work.

The Playtech position is still that the whole thing is a conspiracy theory, however this must have started somewhere, and if Playtech started to make better efforts to police it's licensees, showing zero tolerance of rogue behaviour, then players will be more likely to believe Playtech when they say something.

Playtech is not a police force. It is a software provider. Please see above. Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, it has never said that any "whole thing" is a conspiracy. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh, and btw, Playtech never says anything anyhow

Sadly, it is hard to prove a negative, which is the big problem, Playtech cannot prove it has not got a "central whatever", so it is up to it's attackers to prove it has something that was earlier denied.

Sheesh. Playtech is not under any obligation to prove it has this or that, and the same goes for any other software provider - with the SOLE exception that they must prove their software operates according to industry standards and only when reasonable doubt exists.

There are only so many rabbits you can pull out of thin air. I would suggest that you stick to those where you can make a strong case.

This opinion is my personal opinion, not of any other person or company, and for the record I have no current association with any software provider so please don't even think of going down that road.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Irrelevant. Just because Mazda has ABS doesn't mean that Skoda do. Nor is it very likely either.

There's a big difference between "very likely" and "I wouldn't be surprised if..." - maybe it's just the way you tend to spin wild theories as practically a fact.

If you've got a fact, or a theory based on reasonable assumption, it's more than welcome. But your theory is based on another company entirely - and thus is not in the slightest way reasonable.

You have been told this before - yet you persist in making these assumptions which, at the very least, would be considered a long, long stretch.



Oh ok. So because Joe Schmoe who complained on here was found to be a bonus abuser, all members here are bonus abusers?

Playtech is a software provider. Unfortunately, they are not a member of eCOGRA nor any other regulatory body other than the jurisdictions of the individual operators. A complaint should go to these jurisdictions - not to the software provider.

Microsoft is a software provider. If said software is used in ways it was not intended, do you go to Microsoft, or do you go to the constabulary?

Volkswagen is an automobile manufacturer. If their car is involved in an accident because it was not driven as intended (ie. over the speed limit), do you complain to VW?

Let's get this straight once and for all. Address your complaints to the right place and they deserve to be addressed. Complaints to Playtech, or to any software provider, should only be a last resort after NORMAL methods (ie. operator and jurisdiction) are exhausted.

As harsh as that sounds, that's the way most things work.



Playtech is not a police force. It is a software provider. Please see above. Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, it has never said that any "whole thing" is a conspiracy. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh, and btw, Playtech never says anything anyhow



Sheesh. Playtech is not under any obligation to prove it has this or that, and the same goes for any other software provider - with the SOLE exception that they must prove their software operates according to industry standards and only when reasonable doubt exists.

There are only so many rabbits you can pull out of thin air. I would suggest that you stick to those where you can make a strong case.

This opinion is my personal opinion, not of any other person or company, and for the record I have no current association with any software provider so please don't even think of going down that road.

Most Juristictions are a joke. Malta have proved that, and I thought they would deal with complaints quickly.

The software provider has a MORAL obligation though, to ensure that it's product is used in a responsible manner. Software providers that look the other way when their clients use their product to "rip off" retail users are going to be unpopular.

There is NO SUCH THING AS BONUS ABUSE, casinos are NOT in the business of "entertainment", they are in the business to make money. THEY make all the rules, and players have to accept them or go elsewhere. Having these secret rules where they can void winnings just because a player PLAYED TO WIN, rather than just allowed his balance to steadily decline to zero, is not going tobe acceptable to the player community, and if casinos that persist in behaving in this manner become unpopular, and this then reflects badly on the software provider, that is tough.

As harsh as this may sound to casinos and software providers, the way PLAYERS have been treated over the last year or so is what has brought this about. A inconvenient barrage of revelations, misconduct, and even lies, over the last month has done them no favours.

Casinos need to remember that it is supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, and when THEY remember this, maybe the players will.

 

[spearmaster]

Most Juristictions are a joke. Malta have proved that, and I thought they would deal with complaints quickly.

While I tend to agree with you on that, it is still irrelevant. It is still the jurisdiction that you should be turning to before the software provider.

The software provider has a MORAL obligation though, to ensure that it's product is used in a responsible manner. Software providers that look the other way when their clients use their product to "rip off" retail users are going to be unpopular.

Software providers - both Microgaming and Playtech - have been known to step in where there is a clear problem such as blatant fraud or insolvency. It could thus be said that they are meeting any such moral obligation.

There is NO SUCH THING AS BONUS ABUSE, casinos are NOT in the business of "entertainment", they are in the business to make money. THEY make all the rules, and players have to accept them or go elsewhere. Having these secret rules where they can void winnings just because a player PLAYED TO WIN, rather than just allowed his balance to steadily decline to zero, is not going tobe acceptable to the player community, and if casinos that persist in behaving in this manner become unpopular, and this then reflects badly on the software provider, that is tough.

I've said this for many years. And I continue to agree, but all of this is irrelevant to any claim you make that the software provider is RESPONSIBLE.

I have actually spoken similar words at conferences and made it clear to operators that rogue operations will not be tolerated, and that software providers really need to find a way to control any damage which results from badly-managed operations.

For Microgaming, 888, Ongame, NetEnt, that is eCOGRA. For Playtech, there is currently nothing in place even after they have been to the table with eCOGRA a number of times.

So let's close this line of discussion - you made a statement which had no basis in fact, only wild supposition. You can turn and twist every which way you like, and while I might personally agree with your overall position, you cannot be allowed to make statements on the type of wild conjecture as in the past, regardless of who you are targeting.

To make it short: we're on the same side - but there is a line between fact and fiction and you (and I, and everyone else) need to make sure we do not cross this line.

 

[RobWin]

For Playtech, there is currently nothing in place even after they have been to the table with eCOGRA a number of times.

Why ?? What happened in the breakdown as far as getting on board with eCOGRA ??

 

[chuchu59]

Dont know about there being a central blacklist for Playtech but definitely some Playtech casinos shared a database and this was the same with RTG. I was once denied registering at a Playtech casino and when I asked support the reason given was they branded me a bonus abuser. I cant remember which one it was though. The funny thing was that, at that time I was still able to register and play at several other Playtechs. It was the same thing at RTG and the casino Powerbet made the same accusation. Lucky for me though as I didnt know they were rogue.

As for MG, I cannot recall any casino branding me for such behaviour so for me I never knew such a blacklist existed. In fact, I have never been denied any match bonuses on signing up.

 

[spearmaster]

Why ?? What happened in the breakdown as far as getting on board with eCOGRA ??

I wouldn't know - can only assume that they couldn't reach an agreement on something or other.

Dont know about there being a central blacklist for Playtech but definitely some Playtech casinos shared a database and this was the same with RTG.

I think it should be noted that if a casino comes from the same ownership group, they often share similar information - this would be no different than being banned from land-based casinos owned by the same group.

 

[RobWin]

I wouldn't know - can only assume that they couldn't reach an agreement on something or other.



I think it should be noted that if a casino comes from the same ownership group, they often share similar information - this would be no different than being banned from land-based casinos owned by the same group.

I think most all the casinos in Vegas and AC share a central database with each other as far as card counters and such go. Probably several other locations too !

 

[spearmaster]

I think most all the casinos in Vegas and AC share a central database with each other as far as card counters and such go. Probably several other locations too !

Actually, I'm not so sure of this, unless they have similar ownership. I don't think it would be shared across ownership lines, unless for other reasons such as the Nevada Gaming Board's own blacklist - and that's not operator, that's jurisdiction.

Old / Expired Link

 

[RobWin]

Actually, I'm not so sure of this, unless they have similar ownership. I don't think it would be shared across ownership lines, unless for other reasons such as the Nevada Gaming Board's own blacklist - and that's not operator, that's jurisdiction.

Old / Expired Link

Yea, you may be right about the Gaming Board or a jurisdiction issue. I'm not exactly sure about that one either. My dad worked in security at Harrah's properties for years and then moved over to The Resorts property (different corporate ownership) and had mentioned to me before that they shared the same lists but that's really as far as my knowledge goes on that.

 

[funky_seagull]

Irrelevant. Just because Mazda has ABS doesn't mean that Skoda do. Nor is it very likely either.


Playtech is a software provider. Unfortunately, they are not a member of eCOGRA nor any other regulatory body other than the jurisdictions of the individual operators. A complaint should go to these jurisdictions - not to the software provider.

Microsoft is a software provider. If said software is used in ways it was not intended, do you go to Microsoft, or do you go to the constabulary?

Volkswagen is an automobile manufacturer. If their car is involved in an accident because it was not driven as intended (ie. over the speed limit), do you complain to VW?

Let's get this straight once and for all. Address your complaints to the right place and they deserve to be addressed. Complaints to Playtech, or to any software provider, should only be a last resort after NORMAL methods (ie. operator and jurisdiction) are exhausted.

As harsh as that sounds, that's the way most things work.



Playtech is not a police force. It is a software provider. Please see above. Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, it has never said that any "whole thing" is a conspiracy. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh, and btw, Playtech never says anything anyhow



Sheesh. Playtech is not under any obligation to prove it has this or that, and the same goes for any other software provider - with the SOLE exception that they must prove their software operates according to industry standards and only when reasonable doubt exists.

I disagree I think it should be part of their business to care. If they want to create gambling software then they have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

I avoid RTG casinos because they in my mind have become associated with dodgy casinos. Playtech should care about who they license their software to, and make damn well sure they aren't a dodgy outfit or do anything dodgy else pull the plug on the dodgy casino.

To me it just stinks of greed and wanting the money and not really caring whom is licensed as long as they pay the software provider lets them do what they like.

The problem for playtech is, like RTG if they don't do anything about dodgy casinos who use their software eventually players will be put off playing them as they will equate playtech with dodgy. Playtech would be better off getting a good reputation for themselves by being a software provider who cares about the way the casinos they license their software to behave.

This isn't about cars, this is about people risking their money on games of chance and trusting the software and casinos they place their bets with. If someone wants to make a living out of licensing gambling software, they need to be strict about whom they license to and not just think about the money.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Dont know about there being a central blacklist for Playtech but definitely some Playtech casinos shared a database and this was the same with RTG. I was once denied registering at a Playtech casino and when I asked support the reason given was they branded me a bonus abuser. I cant remember which one it was though. The funny thing was that, at that time I was still able to register and play at several other Playtechs. It was the same thing at RTG and the casino Powerbet made the same accusation. Lucky for me though as I didnt know they were rogue.

As for MG, I cannot recall any casino branding me for such behaviour so for me I never knew such a blacklist existed. In fact, I have never been denied any match bonuses on signing up.

While circumstantial, if there is no link between the casino who brands a player "bonus abuser" and other casinos they have played at, this is pretty much a "central" database, rather than an "in house" database. It is not necessary for EVERY casino to share the central database, as with Rival, there are a handful who have decided to get rid of the central database where it comes to flagging "promotional abuse", although presumably they will still use it for identifying fraud.

 

[spearmaster]

I disagree I think it should be part of their business to care. If they want to create gambling software then they have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

Yes, they might care from a personal or corporate standpoint - but no, it is still not their business to interfere, just as Microsoft doesn't tell you what to do with Windows or Office (though Microsoft's license actually allows them to do so).

One has to draw a line somewhere - I used to think software manufacturers should get involved too, but once I realized the distinction I understood. With Microgaming, at least you have eCOGRA to assist.

 

[sdaddy]

While circumstantial, if there is no link between the casino who brands a player "bonus abuser" and other casinos they have played at, this is pretty much a "central" database, rather than an "in house" database. It is not necessary for EVERY casino to share the central database, as with Rival, there are a handful who have decided to get rid of the central database where it comes to flagging "promotional abuse", although presumably they will still use it for identifying fraud.

The strongest evidence I'm aware of for this shared "central" database of bonus abusers among Playtech casinos comes from the T&C of one of it's licensees, Class 1 Casino:

The Casino reserves the right to bar any promotion abusers from receiving any further promotions at CLASS 1 CASINO, as well as the right to pass on any information regarding known abusers to Playtech. This will ensure that they will be barred from promotions at all Casinos utilizing the services of Playtech.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The strongest evidence I'm aware of for this shared "central" database of bonus abusers among Playtech casinos comes from the T&C of one of it's licensees, Class 1 Casino:

The Casino reserves the right to bar any promotion abusers from receiving any further promotions at CLASS 1 CASINO, as well as the right to pass on any information regarding known abusers to Playtech. This will ensure that they will be barred from promotions at all Casinos utilising the services of Playtech.

EXACTLY!

This clearly indicates that they pass such information "to Playtech", which indicates at the very least that Playtech has some kind of scheme in place to receive such information from it's licensees.
If one were instantly banned at an unrelated casino after playing at a Playtech casino with this kind of term, the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES is that said term describes the process by which the information has circulated.

If this is not the case, then Class 1 casino has landed Playtech in the proverbial by implying it is Playtech that receive the information, as opposed to another party that might be running some kind of "blacklist" system.
If this is damaging to them, Playtech should REQUIRE the REMOVAL of the phrase "to Playtech" in such licensee terms, so that Playtech are not represented as the operator of such a database.

It is terms like this in Playtech casinos that has me strongly of the opinion that Playtech (maybe through an arms-length subsidiary) do indeed operate a central database of "high risk players", and that not only fraud, but "promotion abuse" is being tracked.

This is exactly like the terms we are seeing in MGS casinos, and here there seems little dissent about whether there is an MGS central "promotion abuse" database.

 

[spearmaster]

I am pretty certain that Playtech is not in a position to receive such information. The fact that a "right" is reserved does not mean that such right actually exists.

That being said - I agree the casino should not be making such a representation and that perhaps Playtech themselves may want to look into it - so no harm sending an email to them through their website. And if they don't respond - you've done your bit.

 

[jetset]

I disagree I think it should be part of their business to care. If they want to create gambling software then they have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

I avoid RTG casinos because they in my mind have become associated with dodgy casinos. Playtech should care about who they license their software to, and make damn well sure they aren't a dodgy outfit or do anything dodgy else pull the plug on the dodgy casino.

To me it just stinks of greed and wanting the money and not really caring whom is licensed as long as they pay the software provider lets them do what they like.

The problem for playtech is, like RTG if they don't do anything about dodgy casinos who use their software eventually players will be put off playing them as they will equate playtech with dodgy. Playtech would be better off getting a good reputation for themselves by being a software provider who cares about the way the casinos they license their software to behave.

This isn't about cars, this is about people risking their money on games of chance and trusting the software and casinos they place their bets with. If someone wants to make a living out of licensing gambling software, they need to be strict about whom they license to and not just think about the money.

I'm afraid I have to support Funky Seagull here in opposition to the view expressed by my old mate Spear.

There may not be a formal legal obligation on the software provider (and the lawyers have probably insulated them as usual anyway) but for moral and practical reasons as outlined above by Funky there is a very real need for them to be aware of what their licensees are doing, and where necessary police (or if you prefer "guide") them to the path of righteousness!

Reputable, in-it-for-the-long-haul software providers know this and pay attention to offensive or dishonest licensee reports.

Others not so. We can all think of software providers we would rather avoid because the behaviour of their licensees is outrageous. Relying on new blood or not, reputation is a precious thing and only the short-sighted ignore this.

The bottom line is that bad customer perceptions are not good for overall business.

However, the preference may be for more behind-the-scenes activity by the software provider in these matters for obvious reasons.

I therefore suggest that notifications of bad behaviour by licensees should be sent to software providers and publicised widely as additional pressure when a player is being blown off.

It works more often than not.

 

[RobWin]

I'm afraid I have to support Funky Seagull here in opposition to the view expressed by my old mate Spear.

There may not be a formal legal obligation on the software provider (and the lawyers have probably insulated them as usual anyway) but for moral and practical reasons as outlined above by Funky there is a very real need for them to be aware of what their licensees are doing, and where necessary police (or if you prefer "guide") them to the path of righteousness!

Reputable, in-it-for-the-long-haul software providers know this and pay attention to offensive or dishonest licensee reports.

Others not so. We can all think of software providers we would rather avoid because the behaviour of their licensees is outrageous. Relying on new blood or not, reputation is a precious thing and only the short-sighted ignore this.

The bottom line is that bad customer perceptions are not good for overall business.

However, the preference may be for more behind-the-scenes activity by the software provider in these matters for obvious reasons.

I therefore suggest that notifications of bad behaviour by licensees should be sent to software providers and publicised widely as additional pressure when a player is being blown off.

It works more often than not.

Exactly, also the same way GM (General Motors) pays attention to offensive or dishonest GM car dealerships as I have had to actually go to GM in the past to get a problem resolved that the dealership continuously tried to blow me off on and would not address the problem...GM saw to it that the problem was fixed and resolved to my satisfaction, since they were the one's that were backing the dealership with THEIR PRODUCT.

 

[spearmaster]

I'm afraid I have to support Funky Seagull here in opposition to the view expressed by my old mate Spear.

There may not be a formal legal obligation on the software provider (and the lawyers have probably insulated them as usual anyway) but for moral and practical reasons as outlined above by Funky there is a very real need for them to be aware of what their licensees are doing, and where necessary police (or if you prefer "guide") them to the path of righteousness!

Reputable, in-it-for-the-long-haul software providers know this and pay attention to offensive or dishonest licensee reports.

Others not so. We can all think of software providers we would rather avoid because the behaviour of their licensees is outrageous. Relying on new blood or not, reputation is a precious thing and only the short-sighted ignore this.

The bottom line is that bad customer perceptions are not good for overall business.

However, the preference may be for more behind-the-scenes activity by the software provider in these matters for obvious reasons.

I therefore suggest that notifications of bad behaviour by licensees should be sent to software providers and publicised widely as additional pressure when a player is being blown off.

It works more often than not.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing

However, I should point out that I did say:

Software providers - both Microgaming and Playtech - have been known to step in where there is a clear problem such as blatant fraud or insolvency. It could thus be said that they are meeting any such moral obligation.

What some may consider "bad behaviour" may not appear the same way to others. I fully agree that ultimately there is some moral obligation - but there is still going to be the issue of exactly what is considered to have crossed the moral line.

I also agree that they need to care - particularly as I have a background in brand and crisis management - but again they still have to do so with limited resources, they can't be expected to monitor every casino all the time on any issue that comes up.

As I have pointed out before, Microsoft cannot be expected to monitor any and all usage of its software products, just as Volkswagen cannot be expected to do the same with its vehicles. The best they can do, barring any obvious or urgent issue, is release the best possible product they can.

So perhaps it's best to say that there IS agreement on moral responsibility - but NOT on exactly what constitutes a breach of morality.