1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Campaign to end the FU term

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by thechap, Aug 23, 2006.

    Aug 23, 2006
  1. thechap

    thechap Banned User - multiple forum accounts - violation

    Occupation:
    not telling
    Location:
    sunny croxdale
    Just wondering peoples thoughts are on accredited casinos being allowed to have and invoke the FU rule. This rule basically states "even if you have not broke any conditions we have the right to not pay you if we so desire rule".

    I 100% think that this rule should not be allowed at any accredited casino. If they dont put enough thought or care into writing their terms and conditions to exclude actions they don't want and they duely suffer because if it, it is nobodies fault but their own. In such cases they should suffer the loss instead of this spineless act of retrospective denial that has been shown in both the giant vegas and vegas affiliate complaint threads.

    What are other forum members views on this? Should this rule be tolerated? Is there any circumstance where it is acceptable? Who will join me in my campaign to rid this scurge of the online casino world?

    viva la revoulution (if it takes off!)
     
  2. Aug 23, 2006
  3. bossplayer

    bossplayer Dormant account

    Occupation:
    medical
    Location:
    Kansas
    If Casinomeister takes this up, I will gladly push for everyone to give you thanks!
     
  4. Aug 23, 2006
  5. nikest

    nikest Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    businessman
    Location:
    canada
    i 100% agree.
     
  6. Aug 23, 2006
  7. tennis_balls

    tennis_balls Dormant account

    Occupation:
    fish n chips promoter
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
  8. Aug 23, 2006
  9. Vesuvio

    Vesuvio Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    The thing is in 99% of cases they knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the terms - invoking the escape clause is just a way of increasing their profits from the few players who actually win.
     
  10. Aug 23, 2006
  11. KasinoKing

    KasinoKing WebMeister & Slotaholic.. CAG MM PABnonaccred webmeister

    Occupation:
    House-Husband and Casino Advisor
    Location:
    Bexhill on sea, England
    You have less than zero chance of getting anything changed.
    If I owned a casino I would have this condition too!

    As for 'accredited' ones - I think it highly unlikely that any on CM's list would actually invoke this rule, unless due to serious fraud/abuse/naughtiness by the player.

    The problem is with the rogue operators - the only way to get them to change is to try to keep unsuspecting newbies from signing up in the first place by making sure they check out Casinomeister's site first!
    If we could only stop people depositing at 'dodgy' sites the online casino world would be a much better place!
     
  12. Aug 23, 2006
  13. AussieDave

    AussieDave Dodgy whacko backstabber

    Occupation:
    Gaming SEO Specialist & Casino Webmaster
    Location:
    Australia
    You hit that one on the head KK :thumbsup:
     

Share This Page