- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Saltirelandia
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:
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:
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:
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.