1. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
  2. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. You can find out more by following.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
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!

CIRRUS: A casino initiative and an unexpected resolution

Discussion in 'Online Casino and Poker Complaints - old section' started by caruso, May 12, 2004.

    May 12, 2004
  1. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    My cashout at Cirrus included a 200% bonus that was advertised as fully cashable. Now to my mind, cashable means just that 100%. However, the casino terms and conditions do in fact carry a clause that states maximum amount payable on any bonus is $500. You can then reasonably argue that to advertise a bonus as cashable when in fact only 12.5% of it is cashable is a misleading! Nonetheless, the clause is there, and after I discovered it (my bad for not checking closely enough) I gave up as lost the remaining $3,500 - after Cindy, having agreed to intercede and mediate the case, had collected $7000 of my unpaid winning plus $500 of bonus, total $7,500 ($2000 already paid).

    I then posted my experience on the boards a couple of weeks back.

    A few days ago I picked up a message on my phone from Christine Jennings, CS manager at Cirrus, asking me to get in touch. I figured in the circumstances she probably wasnt calling to offer me a promo or something else so trivial, so I returned the call via live chat. In essence, Christine wanted to apologize on behalf of the casino and did so, profusely and unstintingly. She insisted shed been on my side throughout, citing the payments shed managed to get through to me before the manager pulled the plug ($4000 total), and more importantly, she acknowledged on behalf of the casino that theyd been entirely in the wrong and that I had been treated unfairly and with disrespect, for which she offered a complete apology. I thought this might be an opportune time to mention the outstanding bonus dollars, which I did. I didnt receive a direct response to this, but Christine did say that the casino wished to put things right with me, and was this an unreasonable request? I was actually running a bath at the time (LOL, seriously) and I indicated I needed to get away. I was also still pretty pissed off with the whole thing and didnt have much desire to continue with the chat. I left Christine apologising further and urging me to stay in touch.

    I had a chat with Cindy afterwards to sound her out on the extremely conciliatory and apologetic nature of the casino stance, and whether or not there might be hope for that remaining disputed part of the my cashout. It turned out theyd also been in communication with her about trying to set things straight, and that a rethink of the bonus situation was the obvious way to go about it. I left Cindy and the casino to talk about it, and it was all sorted surprisingly quickly in the end.

    They paid the remaining $3500 yesterday, making a total payment of $13,000. Case concluded.

    Let me reinforce that this was always a debatable claim insofar as information was extremely conflicting. Although the promo in question was clearly advertised as cashable, there was always a clause in the T & C stating that bonuses were only cashable to $500. Misleading, clearly. Intentionally so? Quite possibly. Nonetheless, according to the letter of the law as per the website I was NOT entitled to this remaining part of my balance. Therefore, I consider it an excellent gesture of goodwill on the part of the casino to put right the general nastiness of the affair with a conversion of those promo dollars from sticky into cashable. Im also sure that the former behaviour that myself and others have been subjected to is in the process of change and will not be repeated. Im sure primarily because I have confidence in the power of affiliate pressure combined with the casinos clear lack of desire for any repetition of this.

    On a sidenote: based on our chat, and also after consulting with Cindy on the matter (Cindys dealt with a her a lot over the past year or so as youll see below), I think its probably unfair to lay any blame for all this at Christines door. At the end of the day she was acting under orders, handling a disagreeable front-line position as best she could. Shes taken a lot of flack from me, Cindy and many other people here and elsewhere who have commented on this issue and is not entirely unjustified in feeling a bit put out. With that in mind, Id like to acknowledge that I do not personally bear her any ill feeling. I appreciate that the CS job is probably a thankless one when youre passing off messages from the management as your own decisions and taking all the flack. It must also be pretty humiliating having to apologize left, right and centre on behalf of other people as a result of those peoples actions. In short, she deserves a break. No problems from my end, Christine. Thanks for working to sort this.

    As part of the general spring cleaning and strengthening, Cindy is going to keep things closely in check from her end. This is possibly the main reason Im confident that there will be no repetition of this kind of thing - the casino will be very careful not to step out of line. I believe it will work well. She has asked me to issue the following statement on her behalf, which I support:

    ***I want to acknowledge Cirrus Casino's eagerness to resolve this situation positively for Caruso. Christine and the General Manager of Cirrus actually took the initiative to reopen negotiations last week to get this resolved. They've realized Caruso's situation was not handled properly and have put new measures in place to guard against this happening again. Because of this, I'll be adding their casinos back to my sites with every confidence that this won't happen again.

    I also want to add that at no time was Christine the actual decision maker - she was only the messenger. Over the year I've been working with Christine, she's proven to be just about the hardest working and most pleasant customer service manager I've dealt with anywhere, and even though she and I argued over this situation, we still have a positive working relationship.

    As a part of the final negotiations, I've agreed to take over all situations involving Cirrus that need mediation. Fortunately, I've never had any complaints from my own players so I don't expect this to be too time consuming. If anyone, anywhere, has a situation with Cirrus that they're unable to resolve with the customer service department, please contact me at This email is not visible to you.***

    Id like to thank Cirrus for acknowledging, apologising for and rectifying the bad service I initially received and for the assurance that it wont be repeated. Also and once again to Cindy, for collecting my outstanding $11,000 :); additionally, I understand that Bryan was in communication with one of the Cirrus affiliate managers, and although Im unaware of the nature of the discussion, any input he has on casino complaint matters will ultimately lead to future improvement, and I thank him also; lastly, thanks to WOL, Casinomeister and the players thereof for their support, without whom this wouldnt have happened.
     
  2. May 12, 2004
  3. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Congrats Caruso, I'm glad this worked out for you. You've made a number of good points - especially about a CSR's job being a very difficult and thankless one.

    And I'm happy to see that you've used this forum to tout Cindy Carely's "arbitration for a fee" service. Good going! Perhaps I'll just start forwarding my pitch a bitches to the......aw forget it.
     
  4. May 12, 2004
  5. jpm

    jpm Dormant account

    I hate to be a conspiracy theorist here, but the timing of this makes me wonder, having just read the press release about Cirrus' new UK casino. Are they maybe using Caruso's case to improve their image, given his visibility in this industry? I have to wonder if its just a coincidence or a sincere change in the way they operate. Can a leopard really change his spots?
     
  6. May 12, 2004
  7. dominique

    dominique Dormant account

    Occupation:
    webmistress
    Location:
    The Boonies
    I don't think Caruso would change his spots - I think he does what he believes is right.

    But Cindy and Cirrus are chuckling together - all the way to the bank.
     
  8. May 12, 2004
  9. bethug

    bethug Banned User - Winner of the "<a href="http://www.c

    cindy charges a fee, no wonder she would not help me :what:
    how much does she charge?
     
  10. May 12, 2004
  11. hhcfreebie

    hhcfreebie Dormant account

    Occupation:
    research
    Location:
    USA
    Good point. I have the same doubt.
    Neverless, if I am in caruso's shoe I'd post a similiar thread.
    I hope they will eventually head the right direction. It's a long way to go for them to fix the damaged reputation. No matter what they did in the end, they should not hold caruso's money and treat him like dirt in the first place. Why on earth do we have to give them actions while the payment is in pending status? :eek:
    At this point I'd rather play somewhere else.
     
  12. May 12, 2004
  13. jpm

    jpm Dormant account

    I hope no one misunderstands, I'm not accusing Caruso or suggesting in any way that he's doing anything shady or not 100% above board. I'm happy he got that issue resolved. :thumbsup:

    I'm just wondering if they did that because he is such a visible figure in the industry, and their apparent good will would be seen by so many people that it would be worth the $3500 they finally paid him for all the good press they'd get from it on the heels or in front of the grand opening of their new casino. I just find the timing to be very suspect.

    Hell, it even made me think twice about playing there now (but I haven't signed up yet)!
     
  14. May 12, 2004
  15. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    Bryan - no money changed hands, I can assure you of that. This was to everyone's benefit - mine (principally:)), casino, Cindy, other affiliates and players and industry generally. I think people would probably agree with that.

    Do any affiliates charge for services rendered? Based on my own experience neither Bryan, Cindy nor anyone else I've come across or had dealings with does. I came across a mediation service a while back which asked for a "voluntary" 10%. Beyond that, I've never heard of charges for that kind of thing.

    As far as ".co.uk" goes, I've no idea. Maybe. I really don't care one way or the other. What concerns me is that players, affiliates and message boards continue to "regulate" the industry better than anything else currently on offer, and no doubt this will continue to be the case for a long time to come. It's been proven time and again, and it's been proven here - casino sees the error of their ways, puts it right and pulls themselves up by their bootstraps - all as a result of the combined efforts of that Unholy Trinity :).
     
  16. May 12, 2004
  17. dominique

    dominique Dormant account

    Occupation:
    webmistress
    Location:
    The Boonies
    This is something I have been talking about for a long time - and I can't hide my surprise at your finally agreeing.

    I am used to much different views from you.
     
  18. May 13, 2004
  19. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    No doubt another indirect and inaccurate jab at eCOGRA.

    "What concerns me is that players, affiliates and message boards continue to "regulate" the industry better than anything else currently on offer, and no doubt this will continue to be the case for a long time to come."

    I am a longtime supporter of the power of the message boards, but the sad fact remains that only a small proportion of the gambling public read or lurk on same and will benefit from more formal controls at casino level as well.
     
  20. May 13, 2004
  21. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    The first fifteen cases are free, anyway...
     
  22. May 13, 2004
  23. jpm

    jpm Dormant account

    Can they make their fonts a little smaller? I can still see them. Geez!
     
  24. May 13, 2004
  25. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Sorry, but I disagree with you here. Message boards are just that - a place where people post messages and converse with other - that's about it. I'm not demeaning them, but they are not as important as you might think.

    Only about 7% of all players visit message boards. And of those 7%, how many do you think are posting? A small percentage - I know this as a fact.

    If message boards were truly "regulating" the industry, why are the Crystal Palaces, Black Widows, and Goldbetting casinos still doing business?? I'll tell you why - because they survive by other means - asshole affiliates who sell their souls for the almighty buck.

    Message boards are a good way for casino operators to keep tabs on things, and for some problem solving activities, but it is far from any serious regulation by a long shot.
     
  26. May 13, 2004
  27. jyde

    jyde Dormant account

    Slycins - right?
     
  28. May 13, 2004
  29. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Affirmative.
     
  30. May 13, 2004
  31. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    "If message boards were truly "regulating" the industry, why are the Crystal Palaces, Black Widows, and Goldbetting casinos still doing business?? I'll tell you why - because they survive by other means - asshole affiliates who sell their souls for the almighty buck.

    "Message boards are a good way for casino operators to keep tabs on things, and for some problem solving activities, but it is far from any serious regulation by a long shot."

    Absolutely correct - and we can all name many more or just look in the Rogue Section.
     
  32. May 13, 2004
  33. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    I'm looking at things primariliy from my own perspective. The OC industry, as far as I'M concerned, is well regulated by the likes of the boards and the reputable portals who will offer assistance and whom I know I can turn to. Without these things, I could not possibly play. I couldn't deposit even 50 bucks. WITH them, I can play in almost complete comfort.

    You're looking at it from the perspective of the entire gambling public. That includes a lot of silly people - by which I mean absolutely anyone who would deposit a cent into a shady gambling outfit located in a mud hut in Costa Rica without doing ANY research. How hard is it to find information? Do a Google search of "online casino problems" and see where it takes you. People have the capicity to perform at least simple computer operations, they have sufficient internet surfing and information-locating skills to find the casinos and download them in the first place, but they can't manage this SIMPLEST of additional safeguarding research??

    I admit I don't have to much respect for people with such a cavalier, irresponsible and imbecilic attitude towards their money.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2004
  34. May 13, 2004
  35. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Some good points - you also point out the state of mind of many players - too much 20/20 hindsight.

    The "pitch a bitch" page is in the number one position - naturally :D. Wanna know the last time someone did a google search for "online casino problems" and clicked through to this page? Friday, April 23rd.
     
  36. May 14, 2004
  37. jinnia

    jinnia Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Lady of Leisure
    Location:
    Bite, ME
    I hardly ever post at gambling message boards any longer. But I saw this and wanted to reply.

    Cindy and I don't communicate with each other, so this isn't a friend speaking for a friend, it's just my views on her and her new project (sorry if that's the wrong choice of word there) Gamblers Court.

    There is no fee involved for the first few who files a complaint through Gamblers Court, and I understand after that there is a $25.00 (I think is what I've read) fee just to make sure of a legit complaint and not just anyone yelling fowl against an online casino...etc. in my opinion, that is fair, and it will keep fraudsters from using her services just to be bashing a gambling business.

    Cindy Carley and Bryan Bailey were the only two who offered to help me some time back on an issue I had with an online casino. Not one other person other than these two offered, and they both came forward, on their own, offering to help and Ill always appreciate both Bryan and Cindy for doing that.

    Neither one asked for any fee to help.

    Ok, I'm done. :)
     
  38. May 14, 2004
  39. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Hi Jinnia,

    Glad to see you're still floating around :D

    I thought Caruso was implying that Slycin was charging a fee for whatever she's doing. So I guess this was unclear. So I retract my original statement about the fee - and just the fee part.
     

Share This Page