Casino La Vida - cashout without the standard 20£ deposit?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although this thread is currently closed the popularity of the previous post prompts me to want to clear up a few misunderstandings regarding the nature and details of this case.

As I understand it the current perception (as indicated by the post above) is that the player was:

A) not treated like other players for this bonus and,

B) that the casino either somehow singled this player out for unfair treatment or,

C) the Terms were set up such that the player was "tricked" into messing up and was then brushed aside.

First things first, item (A): the casino has said that the bonus the other player, Mallorca, played was not the same bonus that the OP here played:
There is an older version of the bonus that had no landing page and did not require a deposit. This was scrapped due to abuse. The bonus in question does have the terms attached and has not been waved for any player.

Different bonus, different Terms, hence different ways in which the players were handled. In other words the OP's claim that he should be treated like the other player is completely unjustified: they were not playing the same bonus. The OP is subject to the Terms of his bonus regardless of what the Terms of the previous version of that bonus may have been.

So, the "someone else got payed without deposit" argument is meaningless: they got paid because they were using a different bonus. I trust that ends the debate on point (A).

Point (B), the player was unfairly singled out and that the casino "based their decision ... on whatever was said in the email exchanges".

The record of events that I have seen support this, the casino did indeed make decisions based on what the OP sent during their email exchanges. And so they should! Email is the primary form of communication with most players and is a valid part of the dealings with any player: what a player says in his emails matters, period.

In his initial emails to the casino the OP spends a great amount of time saying how he can help the casino by posting about them, etc. When it comes to cashing out he says "I know You require a 20£ deposit ... i have not got any money" and goes on to tell them other things he can do for them in lieu of the required deposit. In other words the OP is saying "I'm not going to abide by your Terms but can you pay me anyway?"

Given the nature of these emails it is perfectly reasonable that the casino take action based on them. As far as the casino was concerned the player was in violation of two Terms:
4. In such a case as the player taking advantage of his or her casino account for promotional offers only, and not demonstrating any intention to play or personal risk with his or her funds, the offers of bonus offers and promotional offers (including but not limited to sign up bonuses) will be withdrawn and withheld. This will remain in place until such time as the player demonstrates a significant purchase history within the casino.

9. In the event that the casino deems a player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign up bonuses, will be suspended until such time as the player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the casino.


This brings us to (C):

"The reason he was not paid was because he failed to deposit BEFORE he requested his withdrawal??"

No, the reason he was not paid was that he made it clear he was not going to deposit. He said so in his email. This put him in violation of both the bonus Terms and the general Terms (see above). As far as the casino was concerned the player was saying "I'm not going to risk my money at your casino but please give me your money because of all the great things I can say about you on the forums, etc."

Given that, the casino decided this was a non-depositing, bonus exploiting player and not someone they wanted around. That's perfectly within their rights. And since the OP had stated he was not going to fulfill the Terms of the bonus ("You require a 20£ deposit ... i have not got any money") they withdrew the bonus offer and the winnings. Again, reasonable and justified.

A few other points:

"Where does it say....Players need to make a minimum deposit of $20 before cashing out or all winnings will be voided????"

It doesn't, but the bonus Term "you must deposit in order to cash out" plus the general Terms (see above) say that if you're not going to deposit then you can't cashout the bonus and if you're just using your account to exploit the bonus offer and show no intention to risk your own money then "the redemption of all such promotional offers ... will be suspended".

The casino assessed the OP's situation as being exactly that: non-depositing and bonus exploiting, hence the Terms are applicable and the bonus and its redemption were "suspended".

"Paaske didn't handle himself properly, and this has cost him his winnings ..."

Yes, as it should for any player who basically says "I'm not going to respect your bonus Terms and I'm not going to deposit any of my own money but look at the great things I can do for you on the forums." Any player who behaves like that deserves to be shown the door.

And ignorance is no defense: saying things like "oh, I didn't realize what I was saying was bad" is pretty feeble stuff. Too bad, you said it, more than once. You are responsible for what you say. Live and learn, know better for next time.

As to the casino violating the Accred requirements I think it pretty obvious that they did not. They applied fair rules to a player who had repeatedly expressed no interest in respecting the Terms.

Finally I'll say this: in the pursuit of this case and the presentation of various bits of the story the OP has called me a liar, twice. In both cases I have direct evidence to support what's been said and flatly refute the OP's claims. If the OP wishes to make this personal and start calling my integrity into question that is their business. However they should expect to be held to the same rules of the game.

What I have seen in dealing with this case is a player who has repeatedly manipulated the truth, made several accusations that proved to be groundless, denied evidence that has been presented in black and white, and basically tried anything and everything to distort the truth and manipulate the situation to their advantage. This includes manipulating the readership.

Go back, look at the evidence, look at groundless accusations, the manipulations and denials. Weigh all this in light of the facts that have been presented and I believe you'll see that the player has not been treated unreasonably. Their case has been presented, seen more than its fair share of debate and the conclusions have been justified again and again. By all rights this issue should be well and properly put to rest, it has seen its day.

FYI, the casino's response to the post above is as follows:
The facts in this case is very clear and was in the end being avoided by the OP.

The player made it clear that he wanted to cash out without making a deposit as per the terms. The player was very much aware of the fact that he had to make a deposit before cashing out. The player actually sent the terms with his first communication.

With that said posters are under the impression that the player made a mistake which based on the evidence is not true. The customer support agents explained this numerous times.

The casino had no choice as per the Standard Terms and conditions [but] to remove the balance, as the player demonstrated that he would not become a casino customer.

In conclusion bonuses are offered to players to experience the casino and have to have these terms to prevent abuse.

Exert from the terms:
4. In such a case as the player taking advantage of his or her casino account for promotional offers only, and not demonstrating any intention to play or personal risk with his or her funds, the offers of bonus offers and promotional offers (including but not limited to sign up bonuses) will be withdrawn and withheld. This will remain in place until such time as the player demonstrates a significant purchase history within the casino.
 
Going over this thread again, Max has stated on more than one occasion that it was CLEAR that the OP had no intentions of ever making a deposit (presumably in the email exchanges). In the emails I see here, I don't really see that. He did say he didn't have any money this current month....thats about the only thing I see where this conclusion could be drawn. Are there more emails that we are not privy to? The OP did state that they registered a credit card when they signed up....certaintly this implies that they could possibly have the intention of depositing at some point down the road. I believe he also said he now had money in his Moneybookers account, ready to deposit...

Also, as the OP pointed out earlier....how does one risk their own funds on a no deposit offer? Remember that this was NOT the original reason for not paying him. They originally said, sorry, you didn't go directly from point A to be B....we are not going to give you a second chance to try and do it correctly. Only when this was picked apart as a ridiculous and unfair term, did they bring up this deal about "not demonstarting any intention to play or personal risk with his or her own funds"
 
Going over this thread again, Max has stated on more than one occasion that it was CLEAR that the OP had no intentions of ever making a deposit

The OP said on more than one occasion that he did not have any money. Instead of describing how he was going to satisfy the Terms he went on and on about what he could do for them on the forums. It is not unreasonable to conclude that he was offering alternatives to the required deposit in Terms of forum posts, etc. The casino was not interested in that and took action on the OP's stated plans to make no deposit.

Remember that this was NOT the original reason for not paying him. They originally said, sorry, you didn't go directly from point A to be B....

Not as far as I've seen thusfar or heard in the course of the PAB. The OP said he had no money, repeatedly offered his "services" on the forums, and the casino shut him down. The "A to B" theory is your own creation afaik.

Also, as the OP pointed out earlier....how does one risk their own funds on a no deposit offer?

I, for one, find this argument pretty hard to take seriously. Repeating it makes it seem sillier IMHO. I should think it pretty obvious that the casino is referring to making a deposit, any deposit, presumably with the intention to play it.
 
I rarely have any money, yet I manage to deposit almost on a daily basis.

I hear you and know how it feels but be careful who you tell that to. Joking on the forums is one thing, telling it to your casino Rep when you're trying to get a withdrawal out of them and a deposit is required is, clearly, a different kettle o' fish.
 
These terms that were quoted is for future promotions. So "brake" them and you wont qualify for future promos. They talk about withdrawing offers not money. So in this case he would have disqualified himself from future offers.

4. In such a case as the player taking advantage of his or her casino account for promotional offers only, and not demonstrating any intention to play or personal risk with his or her funds, the offers of bonus offers and promotional offers (including but not limited to sign up bonuses) will be withdrawn and withheld. This will remain in place until such time as the player demonstrates a significant purchase history within the casino.


9. In the event that the casino deems a player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign up bonuses, will be suspended until such time as the player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the casino.
 
These terms that were quoted is for future promotions.

To some extent, yes. But afaic this includes current offers and winnings thereof:

9. In the event that the casino deems a player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign up bonuses, will be suspended until such time as the player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the casino.

However, are we really down to parsing through the Terms? I presented those because they were what the casino pointed out as their items of issue with the player. If you want to debate those Terms I suggest you take it up with the casino.

Anyway, that all came into play after the OP had already cooked his goose. In his emails the OP basically said "I'm not going to deposit but I can do some stuff on the forums for you". And he repeats this ad nauseam. The casino took exception to that for what I would hope are obvious reasons, I supported that decision, and the game is pretty much over at that point.

Many people seem to want to forget or forgive this kind of behaviour. I'm disinclined to do so, regardless of how innocent or unaware the OP claims to be after the fact. The bottom line is this: Speak Bullshit, Expect Pain. The OPs emails to the casino were full to brimming with exactly that, bullshit. The pain followed.

Neither this person nor anyone else should be exempt from what they say in their communications with the casino. I realize that that may not be the most popular stand to take on this issue but them's the breaks. I deal in what people say and do, not in how cute and fluffy their thoughts supposedly are.
 
I had a somewhat similar experience at a Rival, although, I fully intended to make a deposit. I never thought I would make the 50X playthrough on the free chip, was mildly surprised I made it and was able to maintain the max payout. I went to live chat and asked how long they would hold the money in my account, as I needed a few days to come up with the $20 deposit. They were going to confiscate my winnings (even though I hadn't hit the withdrawal button yet) because they thought I had no intention of following the rules. It took several emails to convince them I had EVERY intention of making the deposit. Needless to say, I made the deposit 2 days later, withdrew the funds and deleted the casino from my computer.

I realize there are players out there who thrive on scamming the casinos, but when an honest and sincere person goes to live chat or emails them about a time frame... It just doesn't seem fair that you have to be treated like second rate trash to make a withdrawal.

I've also had the experience of live chat at an accreditted casino closing my account when I asked about the terms for a bonus I didn't understand. I very seldom use a bonus (and had never used one at this particular casino before) , so I was quite upset when they informed me I was a bonus abuser and was not welcome to play at their casino anymore. When I emailed the casino rep about this, he was extremely rude and condescending. All I asked was for him to look at my deposit history and my bonus history. There isn't a free chip large enough to make me want to consider playing at that casino.

I don't feel the OP was right in trying to manipulate the casino into breaking their rules by using the forum in lieu of depositing. I did notice a bunch of discrepencies in his postings which would have caused me to question his motives, but this is just what my take on the situation was.
 
Well the casino shouldnt have brought them up (terms 4 and 9) as they are totally irrelevant to the case. The offer was already redeemed.

Just another case when the casino thinks that it can interpret its own terms to suit them. But I think thats what to expect from a group that has spelling errors and FU clauses in their terms.
 
Just another case when the casino thinks that it can interpret its own terms to suit them. But I think thats what to expect from a group that has spelling errors and FU clauses in their terms.

Not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand but as a general complaint about this casino I think you should consider making your case elsewhere and bringing it to Bryan's attention.

As I'm sure you are aware recent events show that he's no fan of F'd-up Terms, particularly when it comes to Accred casinos.
 
Given that, the casino decided this was a non-depositing, bonus exploiting player and not someone they wanted around. That's perfectly within their rights. And since the OP had stated he was not going to fulfill the Terms of the bonus ("You require a 20£ deposit ... i have not got any money") they withdrew the bonus offer and the winnings. Again, reasonable and justified.

You mention several times how this was a "non-depositing, bonus exploiting player" but you didn't mention, if I understand correctly, that he did indeed made the required deposit after all and this happened before the 250£ got confiscated. To me this invalidates many of the points you made in post #51.
 
Hi All,

I thought I should clear this up.

if I understand correctly, that he did indeed made the required deposit after all and this happened before the 250£ got confiscated. To me this invalidates many of the points you made in post #51.

No,the OP made the purchase after the balance was removed.

1. The OP was aware of the terms and conditions of the promotion and included the terms in the emails that he sent to the CS.

2. The OP made it clear that he did not want to make the minimum purchase as per the terms.

3. The OP was contacted more that once by the CS and it was explained to him that he has to make the purchase to withdraw.

4. Understanding what needed to be done to withdraw the OP insisted that he did not wish to follow the terms, which led to the no deposit bonus and winnings being withdrawn.

In conclusion:

Every effort was made to accommodate the player. In the end there was one conclusion that can be drawn. The player had no intension of becoming a customer at the casino, which is the intention of the sign up promotion. Players have the ability to evaluate the casino and make a decision based on their experience to either become a regular player or not.
 
Hi All,

I thought I should clear this up.



No,the OP made the purchase after the balance was removed.

1. The OP was aware of the terms and conditions of the promotion and included the terms in the emails that he sent to the CS.

2. The OP made it clear that he did not want to make the minimum purchase as per the terms.

3. The OP was contacted more that once by the CS and it was explained to him that he has to make the purchase to withdraw.

4. Understanding what needed to be done to withdraw the OP insisted that he did not wish to follow the terms, which led to the no deposit bonus and winnings being withdrawn.

In conclusion:

Every effort was made to accommodate the player. In the end there was one conclusion that can be drawn. The player had no intension of becoming a customer at the casino, which is the intention of the sign up promotion. Players have the ability to evaluate the casino and make a decision based on their experience to either become a regular player or not.

Playing devil's advocate here - ;)

Just curious - was there a time limit tied to this ND bonus? IE: If you don't deposit by......your winnings are void?

If not, then why would the winnings be removed from the account? I know that I played at another casino on a ND bonus, won, and thought that I had to make the withdrawal request before depositing. Well, this wasn't the case, and they ended up returning the money to my account until such time that I made the $25 deposit. They never once mentioned confiscating the money.

I know that my case is different, but somewhat similar to the OP. IMO, there's no reason to confiscate funds based on a feeling that CS/management gets as to what their intentions may or may not be. In a perfect world, the funds would have been returned to the players account and sat there dormant until such time that they deposited. If the casino has a rule about dormant accounts, then of course cross that bridge when you get to it; but until then, leave it be.

But if a casino simply confiscates funds based on a procedural technicality....then, well.....that's not good business, in my mind. Just like someone else brought up. If someone made a withdrawal request (even w/o a bonus) before they sent in documents, but the rules stated that you needed to send in documents before requesting a withdrawal, would it be right for the casino to confiscate their winnings, as well? I don't think so...
 
Just curious - was there a time limit tied to this ND bonus? IE: If you don't deposit by......your winnings are void?

If not, then why would the winnings be removed from the account? I know that I played at another casino on a ND bonus, won, and thought that I had to make the withdrawal request before depositing. Well, this wasn't the case, and they ended up returning the money to my account until such time that I made the $25 deposit. They never once mentioned confiscating the money.

The time limit on the bonus is 3 months. However this does not apply as the player made it clear that he wanted the withdrawal without depositing.

I am sure in your case you did not contact the casino and state that you did not want to make a deposit as per the terms of the promotion.

there's no reason to confiscate funds based on a feeling that CS/management gets as to what their intentions may or may not be. In a perfect world, the funds would have been returned to the players account and sat there dormant until such time that they deposited.

The decision was not based on what the players intentions might be. The player made it clear that he did not want adhere to the terms.

But if a casino simply confiscates funds based on a procedural technicality....then, well.....that's not good business, in my mind. Just like someone else brought up. If someone made a withdrawal request (even w/o a bonus) before they sent in documents, but the rules stated that you needed to send in documents before requesting a withdrawal, would it be right for the casino to confiscate their winnings, as well? I don't think so...

In the case of any player that withdraws before they deposit or before the wagering requirements have been met, the balance would simply be returned to the account until the terms have been met.

There is no procedural technicality in this case. The decision by CS management is sound, as the player was offered every opportunity to adhere to the terms and he chose not to.
 
Hi All,

I thought I should clear this up.

No,the OP made the purchase after the balance was removed.

Really? Because the OP stated in post #35 that

"Also spoke on live chat when i deposited the other day (they gave me 111% on top of my 20£ deposit) so got 42,20£ to play with, i told in chat i did not wish to play with the bonus and kindly asked to get it removed, but Kim took them off and added them to cash balance instead, which i off course told, because would not risk any problems [...] Ive checked my account at La Vida, and can see the 250£ comes up as "work in progress" now, so maybe there is still hope? allthought because i had the small free amount i am happy about that, so its not really 250£ but 227,80£"

So if the OP is right the £250 was still there at the processing status at the time of his deposit.

The player had no intension of becoming a customer at the casino, which is the intention of the sign up promotion.

How did he have no intention of becoming a customer at the casino if he deposited £20 which he also lost?

There also seems to be the complication that upon your first deposit you will also get the 111% sign-up bonus instantly credited to your account upon deposit. Unless you ask customer support to manually remove that bonus you will have to meet the WR for that bonus as well which in turn puts your already cleared free play winnings at risk.
 
Really? Because the OP stated in post #35 that

"Also spoke on live chat when i deposited the other day (they gave me 111% on top of my 20£ deposit) so got 42,20£ to play with, i told in chat i did not wish to play with the bonus and kindly asked to get it removed, but Kim took them off and added them to cash balance instead, which i off course told, because would not risk any problems [...] Ive checked my account at La Vida, and can see the 250£ comes up as "work in progress" now, so maybe there is still hope? allthought because i had the small free amount i am happy about that, so its not really 250£ but 227,80£"

So if the OP is right the £250 was still there at the processing status at the time of his deposit.

Based on the facts in the account:

"2010/05/18 03:39:33 PM" "Confiscated cash-in"

"2010/06/03 09:56:09 PM" "Purchase"

I have a transcript of the chat where the player was informed that the balance has been removed before he made the purchase. You draw your own conclusion.

How did he have no intention of becoming a customer at the casino if he deposited £20 which he also lost?

There also seems to be the complication that upon your first deposit you will also get the 111% sign-up bonus instantly credited to your account upon deposit. Unless you ask customer support to manually remove that bonus you will have to meet the WR for that bonus as well which in turn puts your already cleared free play winnings at risk.

This is moot based on the information above.
 
Maybe the player made the deposit ONLY when his bluff was called, and the balance removed. He was backed into a corner, and thought he had better deposit to get his money.
Now, if he had no money, where did this £20 come from once his bluff was called? Maybe he DID have money, and had tried this with success elsewhere (wriggling out of the make a deposit term).

Maybe not blackmail, but a fine example of "blagging" a freebie using skilled negotiation, which in this case didn't work, and he didn't realise this in time, otherwise he would have deposited the £20 to get at the £250.

If it lasts for 3 months, by his own evidence he would have got money "next month", so could have waited to receive the £250.

He may be a "bonus abuser", but not a particularly skilled one, otherwise he would have had his £250, and STILL never come back beyond the £20.
 
The time limit on the bonus is 3 months. However this does not apply as the player made it clear that he wanted the withdrawal without depositing.

I am sure in your case you did not contact the casino and state that you did not want to make a deposit as per the terms of the promotion.



The decision was not based on what the players intentions might be. The player made it clear that he did not want adhere to the terms.



In the case of any player that withdraws before they deposit or before the wagering requirements have been met, the balance would simply be returned to the account until the terms have been met.

There is no procedural technicality in this case. The decision by CS management is sound, as the player was offered every opportunity to adhere to the terms and he chose not to.

Well, what it comes down to, imo, is the fact that there's really no "rule" that he broke in order to have the funds confiscated.

Say I did the same thing. Then I changed my mind at a later date and made the deposit, only to have the funds confiscated....is that so wrong?


Talking about trying to break the rules, or get around them, is not the same as actually breaking the rules. I really hope people aren't that dense to think that their cashout would be processed even though it's clearly written that they can't withdraw without making a deposit.

I could be wrong, but I sort of believe the OP, and who knows how he came up with the money or already had it, but one thing is clear - he made the deposit. Whether he was running a bluff is beside the point.

To be clear, this is simply a debate. I'm neutral in this, and am not advocating paying the player or anything of the sort.
 
What I can't understand in all this, is who in their right mind wouldn't deposit £20 to get £250 ? Even if there was an 'abuser' who was trying to win £250 on a freebie, surely even then they'd deposit £20 to get a 12-fold return.

Despite all what has been said, I feel the casino is wrong. Without trying to sound too rude, it may just be that the OP's IQ isn't quite as high as your average person - and he's gone around things the wrong way and/or said certain things incorrectly, perhaps being taken out of context. The casino has stuck rigidly to its 'rules' to suit themselves and there's been no leeway at all.

I happen to think the OP isn't a bonus abuser in the way he's been made out to be by the casino. He was skint at the time, needed a few quid to get his car insurance etc and would have probably returned to the casino at some point.
 
Basically this boils down to a judgement call....as I don't really believe the OP made it 'clear' that he wasn't going to deposit. He did deposit......so what if it was a few weeks later?? Im sure the OP never came out and said, "no, I refuse to deposit, pay me my winnings"

Everyone goes thru tough times....he didn't have the money at the time, that is the only issue. There is nothing explicit in the terms that gives the casino the right to confiscate the winnings....they just did based on a judgement call. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

For all the casino knows, they could have become a loyal player somewhere down the road. The OP did state that they were a VIP at a number of casinos. Its all about how you handle the CUSTOMER

Im beating a dead horse here so no point in posting on this subject anymore. Just another casino looking for an excuse not to pay a lucky winner:mad:
 
For all the casino knows, they could have become a loyal player somewhere down the road. The OP did state that they were a VIP at a number of casinos. Its all about how you handle the CUSTOMER

Funny you should say that. Once my physical therapy is over and/or whatever it takes to get "back to normal" (hopefully) from my car accident almost 2 months ago, my lawyer and I are going to start settlement proceedings with the at-fault driver's insurance company.

But anyways, once that settlement is finished (expecting a mid 5 figure settlement, ideally, but who knows...) my first purchase, once I get my debts paid off, will be a new car - and it'll be a cash transaction. Who hasn't always wanted to do something like that? :)

I've always heard stories about how rich people will "slum it" when they go looking to make a major purchase, and do business with the place that has employees that treat them like a human being, no matter what they look like, what they drive up in, how they act, etc. That's exactly what I plan to do.

Sure, I'll only be looking at cars in the $10-20k range, but I plan on finding a beat-up car to drive up in, probably wear some ripped up jeans and old tennis shoes, and not shave for about a month prior, just for good measure. :)

And for the sales people that won't give me the time of day, right before I leave, I'm going to walk into the sales managers office, flash a stack of cash in their face and explain to them why I'm taking my business elsewhere. ;)

Of course that's not exactly the same situation, but it's the same principle. This is just like the point funeral brought up.....how do you know that the OP isn't some huge whale that was putting the casino through a test? I learned early on in life that you can't judge a book by its cover.
 
And for the sales people that won't give me the time of day, right before I leave, I'm going to walk into the sales managers office, flash a stack of cash in their face and explain to them why I'm taking my business elsewhere. ;)

Of course that's not exactly the same situation, but it's the same principle. This is just like the point funeral brought up.....how do you know that the OP isn't some huge whale that was putting the casino through a test? I learned early on in life that you can't judge a book by its cover.

I agree! Big Mistake, BIG MISTAKE!


____
____
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can also understand that the OP got upset about beeing called a blackmailer here in public.
I think that was a bit harsh too.
Blackmailing, imo, goes like this:

IF YOU DO NOT PAY ME MY WINNINGS I'M GONNA BURN YOUR CASINO DOWN TO THE GROUND ON CASINOMEISTER!!
YOU HAVE 24 HOURS!

Thats blackmailing. And thats not what the OP did.
Further, the OP signed up here in Nov. 2008, not last week.
So he's not one of those hardcore bonusabusers who only use this forum to get what they want.
Still he got treated like one.

The whole thing just doesn't feel right...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top