jetset said:Am I to understand from the above that you accept that the regulations and services that eCOGRA has to offer constitute a genuine and useful initiative (obviously with the exception of the software validation on which you have focused your opposition?)
Yes. I've never had much to say on anything apart from the software aspect.
Or do you still contend that the source of the initial funding and the payment of inspection fees to an independent third party in regard to the Seal examinations invalidates the entire initiative, in addition to your stand on the software question?
If the software verification were transparent, with data and process in the open for corroboration by independent, reliable third parties (including and additionally posters here and elsewhere, and most anyone else who cared to express an opinion), then the funding is irrelevant. As I said long ago, I don't care if it's a Microgaming monopoly or every provider and casino under the sun; as long as the data / process is proven valid, it doesn't matter who shells out the money.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that it does anything other than what its (TGTR) inventors claim for it, or is the real answer "I don't know because the information is not available to me"?
How can I have evidence of what is unseen / unknown? You're asking for an impossibility. They are the movers, not me. I'm the observer. If they make statements that I consider invalid without verification and I believe others may, too, I state the objection - as others have. It's not beholden to me to prove PWC / Ecogra are doing or not doing anything. Its beholden to THEM to give the evidence for their claims. They may choose to take that stance - but I don't think it'll take them very far. It certainly won't help their credibility.
And as an obvious follow on to that question are Microgaming and CON games in your opinion and based on your information acceptably fair?
LOL, yes. And FWIW, I consider THAT "verification" to be worth a whole helluva lot more than statements from industry insiders based on invisible processes. Of course, my own opinion remains irrelevant as any kind of proof, but you understand what Im getting at.
Do you support the concept of player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry from a player protection standpoint? Alternatively would you like to see the status quo continue, or would you prefer to identify some other equally comprehensive system?
I'm personally happy as things are. And of course, my own preference is for a player-orientated, independent of ANY compromise type organization such as the OCA project. THAT is pure regulation. I acknowledge SERIOUS teething problems and the huge credibility dent it took over the MG figures, but in terms of real "regulation", that is the way forward. At the same time, I have no problem with "player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry", as you asked. It doesn't much concern ME, but players come in all shapes and sizes and there have to be benefits.
Are you prepared to accept the possibility that the directors Hirst, Galston and Catania are independent, given the information that has been provided on their role?
FWIW, I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt until I look into it. I've not looked at individual roles of individual members at all.
"Yes, myself and a few others will no doubt continue to call you and your fellows to task on the SAME matters every time you post the "More Coveted Ecogra Seals Awarded!!!!!!!" ads."
Interesting that you again admit to this spoiling strategy...
To call it a "spoiling strategy" is to give a negative slant very far from the truth. If things were as they should be with regard to the software verification I'd never have breathed a word. Nor would anybody else. Nobody is "spoiling"; they're airing valid opinions / objections.