Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[just play]

This is really unrelated to Danl's issue, but what about high school students? Sometimes they are over 18.

Yes, that's pretty funny that college students can't play, but I guess it's ok for high school students.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is really unrelated to Danl's issue, but what about high school students? Sometimes they are over 18.

They would still be students "in the education system", but show up another problem with the term, since they are enrolled in HIGH SCHOOL, not a "college or university". They might mistakenly believe the term didn't apply because they were NOT going to study further after leaving school.

In the UK "High School" is called "6th form college", so the term would be better understood by UK players.

The vendetta against students eclipses the more usual fight against "bonus abuse" we see from casinos, so students getting away with playing is FAR worse than "bonus abusers" exploiting a loophole in the terms.

 

[skiny]

Only 3 questions need to be answered.

A. When did he graduate?
B. When does he start his new courses?
C. When did he place his wagers.

If C falls between A and B, he was NOT studying anything.

If C falls between A and B, he SHOULD get paid.

If he doesn't, he's getting robbed.

Now compound that fact with the fact that as an accredited casino they are NOT supposed to confiscate winnings for vague or ambiguous terms or conditions and everyone including Tom and Bryan has agreed the term needs to be clarified.

And even then we're down to claiming that he didn't get paid because he lied in a conversation? A lie that might have been immature but shouldn't have changed the outcome of the decision regardless of whether or not he told the truth.

No matter how you spin this the player is getting robbed. This thread is pushing 40 pages now because everyone knows he's getting robbed and nobody wants to stand for it.

CW seems to be pretty much ignoring the situation at this point. I guess they figure it's all water under the bridge now. A few people have said they closed their accounts already. I would advise anyone closing their accounts to include a link to this thread with the email. At least they'll know that the players are looking out for each other.

 

[RedAndi]

This is when I feel like defenestrating my computer.

Not to derail but...
I like that word, learned something today!
Thanks CM

 

[vinylweatherman]

Only 3 questions need to be answered.

A. When did he graduate?
B. When does he start his new courses?
C. When did he place his wagers.

If C falls between A and B, he was NOT studying anything.

If C falls between A and B, he SHOULD get paid.

If he doesn't, he's getting robbed.

Now compound that fact with the fact that as an accredited casino they are NOT supposed to confiscate winnings for vague or ambiguous terms or conditions and everyone including Tom and Bryan has agreed the term needs to be clarified.

And even then we're down to claiming that he didn't get paid because he lied in a conversation? A lie that might have been immature but shouldn't have changed the outcome of the decision regardless of whether or not he told the truth.

No matter how you spin this the player is getting robbed. This thread is pushing 40 pages now because everyone knows he's getting robbed and nobody wants to stand for it.

CW seems to be pretty much ignoring the situation at this point. I guess they figure it's all water under the bridge now. A few people have said they closed their accounts already. I would advise anyone closing their accounts to include a link to this thread with the email. At least they'll know that the players are looking out for each other.

It looks like he played between courses. He submitted the PAB after having started the graduate course, and this is where he lied.

He was NOT engaged in study when he played - this took place in the long summer break between graduation and the start of the Autumn, when universities tend to reopen at the start of October.

Although students are still considered to be in education during the shorter breaks, the long Summer break is treated differently by government and university administrators. It is considered a break in study. This is mainly a cost cutting exercise, preventing students from "lazing about" over the Summer. Recent changes have made life even harder, and students can no longer claim benefits during the summer break, they are expected to get short term holiday jobs, or live of what they have left (which is usually nothing).

One thing that puzzles me about this case is where Dan got the $5000 from to start with, he would have graduated with student loan debt, and would not have been receiving benefits.

One thing is certain, a graduate with $5000 going spare is NOT "in need of protection" due to being "skint".

 

[skiny]

Not to derail but...
I like that word, learned something today!
Thanks CM

Defenestrating - A defense that routinely appears about once a month. It usually lasts about 3 days.

 

[Jasminebed]

I don't really know where Danl got the money from, and I'm not sure it's relevant. Maybe Rich Aunt Mabel died, maybe he won at another casino. Maybe Mommy and Daddy gave him a big GRADUATION present. Maybe he was a Chippendale dancer, or got a settlement from a lawsuit.

The casino has never said he was suspected of money laundering. And I believe that the casino has an obligation to report that to the appropriate authorities and allow them to make the appropriate investigation.

 

[smittytime]

This is just theft. It is kinda sick that anyone would even take the counterpoint to this. The casino offered a game of chance in which they have the greater chance to win. They lost. Freaking thieves should pay. If not the least that should happen is unaccreditation (if thats a word). How can we have so many "accredited" rtg casinos just taking money from people, giving them ultra hoops to jump through to get fax forms and such authorized then waiting for payments? This business is so far from legit. Their accreditation status is so far from in the best interest of players.

 

[ksech]

Okay, NOW I have a few questions (I'm feeling a tad dense, sorry!)...
1) CM? You stated in a previous post you had been in contact with Danl. And...

But he lied. He was not planning to enroll again next year. He was already enrolled and attending his graduate studies at the time of the PAB. It seems that many members here are ignoring this pivotal piece of information. He lied to us and is still a student.

Was he perhaps taking a few pre-requisite courses or summer courses? Is this why he was considered to STILL be a student?

2) Did I understand correctly that CWC GAVE him a chance to remit FURTHER proof he was NOT enrolled in any type of studies?

3) The money question has sat in the back of my mind also. Where does an unemployed graduate student get that kind of money? Maybe he gets a BIG allowance from mommy and daddy? If so, can I trade parents for a month or two?



@skiny, I don't believe, and I truly hope you don't believe, that ANY citizen of this community will ALLOW this issue to be swept under the carpet. The 35+ pages of this thread shows how much concern can be generated from poorly written T&Cs which can affect ALL players.



/derail/ I too like that word...defenestrating. /derail

 

[Jasminebed]

Actually, I much less concerned with his status at the time of the PAB than I am at the time of play.

Danl did himself no favours lying to the the mods here. I remember some previous issue where the the PABer was less than forthcoming, and I asked if that influenced the decision, and yes it did. If I asked that by PM and I apologize, but to the best of my recollection I asked in the thread.

The PAB is a free service. Danl signed no non-disclosure agreements and is still free to to pursue his complaint through other avenues.

But the timing of the PAB is not relevant, it's his status at the time of play. I don't know what's the norm in the UK, but generally studies begin in September here, but often post-graduate candidates (note candidates, not students) will obtain summer employment the the university.

Since law school actually has classes and seminars, unlike PhD work that may be self directed once accepted, I'd be inclined to buy the not a student between undergrad graduation and commencement of studies in law.

 

[ksech]

/derail/
@Jasminebed:
Does the banned area of Markham Ontario affect you? I'm just curious as this was another "issue" which was never answered by anyone.

 

[Jasminebed]

Kesh, I'm about 200 miles east of the town of Markham. I don't know Clubworld's definition of "area".

I remember my trip to Europe in the early 80's, people asked me about people in all parts of Canada, since I was in the same "area".

 

[skiny]

Okay, NOW I have a few questions (I'm feeling a tad dense, sorry!)...
1) CM? You stated in a previous post you had been in contact with Danl. And...



Was he perhaps taking a few pre-requisite courses or summer courses? Is this why he was considered to STILL be a student?

2) Did I understand correctly that CWC GAVE him a chance to remit FURTHER proof he was NOT enrolled in any type of studies?

3) The money question has sat in the back of my mind also. Where does an unemployed graduate student get that kind of money? Maybe he gets a BIG allowance from mommy and daddy? If so, can I trade parents for a month or two?



@skiny, I don't believe, and I truly hope you don't believe, that ANY citizen of this community will ALLOW this issue to be swept under the carpet. The 35+ pages of this thread shows how much concern can be generated from poorly written T&Cs which can affect ALL players.



/derail/ I too like that word...defenestrating. /derail

It's not so much sweeping it under the carpet as letting it fade into the abyss. It's been almost a week since CW commented on this. So when we finally get tired of repeating ourselves and the thread disappears into the land of lost and forgotten subjects, the terms remain the same and the player loses his money.

It's just a waiting game for CW. Ignore it and let the problem go away on it's own.

 

[danl]

As this thread continues to develop, I'll respond again.

Firstly, I've always been very sorry and regretful for misleading CM and CWC (and Steve Russo). There was no excuse and no need to: I believe I have a strong case on the accurate and truthful facts.

Secondly, it does concern me that my status at the time of the PAB is being mentioned. It has nothing to do with my status at the time when I played there, which is the only relevant point. Obviously the circumstances surrounding when I played there are relevant, but the time of the PAB should be irrelevant (as mentioned by posters above). At the time when I first approached Aladdin's Gold for my money, I was not enrolled at any college of university - I belonged to no institution. The fact that the issue dragged on and I then started further studies does not affect the facts at the time.

Thirdly, I've provided evidence of when I graduated (graduation certificate and results transcript), and the term dates of my law school on its website. I graduated at the end of July, and started law school at the end of September. I'm not sure what else I could provide, and I wasn't invited to provide anything further.

I guess there are two issues: one of providing evidence, and one of whether that evidence would make any difference. Would CWC accept that I was not a student if I showed a clear period between graduating from one institution and starting at another, and that I played during that period? If not, then the evidence is irrelevant anyway. It's not clear how they define "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University".

 

[silcnlayc]

danl: As this thread continues to develop, I'll respond again.

Actually danl, it is a dead subject anymore, there is no "developing" any more for this thread..as you say...the casino has made their decision...end of story...everything else in this thread is a moot point...it really is time to move on and learn. I do not say this easily. I too, have been "bitten" by another accredited casino a long while back...you actually should be grateful to get your initial funds back whereas I didn't...

So...you do have a few choices...what they will be you will only know and decide to do...but beating this dead horse is not it anymore..

skiny, I know you think that some of us just want this to go away but that is not the case...some of us know what a losing battle we are fighting..instead of putting all this energy into something that is dead...I feel the best option is to move on and make something better of this sitiuation...the word is out on the T&C's of all RTG's and this thread will serve as a warning to many other players...but to continue to beat this horse is no longer a valid option IMO..it just gets old and there is nothing to be made of it anymore...now that the decision has been finalized..


.

 

[vinylweatherman]

As this thread continues to develop, I'll respond again.

Firstly, I've always been very sorry and regretful for misleading CM and CWC (and Steve Russo). There was no excuse and no need to: I believe I have a strong case on the accurate and truthful facts.

Secondly, it does concern me that my status at the time of the PAB is being mentioned. It has nothing to do with my status at the time when I played there, which is the only relevant point. Obviously the circumstances surrounding when I played there are relevant, but the time of the PAB should be irrelevant (as mentioned by posters above). At the time when I first approached Aladdin's Gold for my money, I was not enrolled at any college of university - I belonged to no institution. The fact that the issue dragged on and I then started further studies does not affect the facts at the time.

Thirdly, I've provided evidence of when I graduated (graduation certificate and results transcript), and the term dates of my law school on its website. I graduated at the end of July, and started law school at the end of September. I'm not sure what else I could provide, and I wasn't invited to provide anything further.

I guess there are two issues: one of providing evidence, and one of whether that evidence would make any difference. Would CWC accept that I was not a student if I showed a clear period between graduating from one institution and starting at another, and that I played during that period? If not, then the evidence is irrelevant anyway. It's not clear how they define "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University".

As far as I can see, they INCLUDE the break between leaving one institution, and starting at another. As far as CWC were concerned, you were STILL a "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University" between the end of July and the end of September, thus your play during the summer break DID breach the terms in their view.

You are getting this support because the CWC view is NOT reflected in the terms as written. As written, you WERE allowed to play during that break between graduation and the start of law school.

The $5000 question has been brought up because CWC say the whole intent of this term is to protect students from gambling with MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE because they ARE students, rather than working for a living.

It seems your misguided decision to construct a web of lies is what has hardened attitudes, and had you argued your case based on the truth right from the start, you would STILL be getting this level of support from players, and the operators and mediators would not have been predujiced by the fact that their time had been wasted by the lies.

Since you are now studying LAW, you could look at other ways to pursue this, and also see whether these terms themselves would be legal were CWC answerable to an EU jurisdiction.

One strong feeling is that operators use these "odd" jurisdictions not just because they are cheaper, but because they escape the stricter laws that protect consumers in most major countries, the SAME countries they target with their product. This essentially makes them "black market" operators, no different really from those online pharmacies that use places such as "Oceania" as their legal base to exploit loopholes in "controlled drugs" laws to sell "prescription only" medicines to anybody who can pay "no questions asked".
It's the same strategy that is making it very difficult for countries like the USA to enforce a ban on online casinos - they can take US players, but cannot be brought to US justice unless they get careless. Where they are based it is perfectly legal to take US customers, and BECAUSE it is legal there is no way the US can get the jurisdiction to shut them down, or extradite the operators to face US justice.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

As far as I can see, they INCLUDE the break between leaving one institution, and starting at another. As far as CWC were concerned, you were STILL a "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University" between the end of July and the end of September, thus your play during the summer break DID breach the terms in their view.

You are getting this support because the CWC view is NOT reflected in the terms as written. As written, you WERE allowed to play during that break between graduation and the start of law school.

The $5000 question has been brought up because CWC say the whole intent of this term is to protect students from gambling with MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE because they ARE students, rather than working for a living.

It seems your misguided decision to construct a web of lies is what has hardened attitudes, and had you argued your case based on the truth right from the start, you would STILL be getting this level of support from players, and the operators and mediators would not have been predujiced by the fact that their time had been wasted by the lies.

Since you are now studying LAW, you could look at other ways to pursue this, and also see whether these terms themselves would be legal were CWC answerable to an EU jurisdiction.

One strong feeling is that operators use these "odd" jurisdictions not just because they are cheaper, but because they escape the stricter laws that protect consumers in most major countries, the SAME countries they target with their product. This essentially makes them "black market" operators, no different really from those online pharmacies that use places such as "Oceania" as their legal base to exploit loopholes in "controlled drugs" laws to sell "prescription only" medicines to anybody who can pay "no questions asked".
It's the same strategy that is making it very difficult for countries like the USA to enforce a ban on online casinos - they can take US players, but cannot be brought to US justice unless they get careless. Where they are based it is perfectly legal to take US customers, and BECAUSE it is legal there is no way the US can get the jurisdiction to shut them down, or extradite the operators to face US justice.

Do you see any flaws, get this, say conflicts of interest among many other flaws interferring with this so called free PAB system?

 

[maxd]

Do you see any flaws, get this, say conflicts of interest among many other flaws interferring with this so called free PAB system?

You really are a cast-iron a-hole. How many hundreds of chances have we given you to give up this ridiculous conspiracy theory crap?

If Bryan wants you back I'll leave it to him un-ban you. Personally I sincerely hope he doesn't but hey, he's the better man about such things than I so who knows.

 

[LaurieJim]

You really are a cast-iron a-hole. How many hundreds of chances have we given you to give up this ridiculous conspiracy theory crap?

If Bryan wants you back I'll leave it to him un-ban you. Personally I sincerely hope he doesn't but hey, he's the better man about such things than I so who knows.

Hey Max,

I really didnt read anything bad into Nash's post based on this thread, why the ban?

I dont always agree with Nash but enjoy his posts neverless and to me he was asking a valid question.

I think the whole student thing sucks and agree with others , if your over 18 or 21 whether a student or not and its your own money your gambling with, whats the big deal?

Im recently widowed and thought about maybe taking some classes, will I be included from playing at Casinos that implement these student rules.

I have nothing but respect for CWC but find this rule harsh imo.

Laurie

 

[maxd]

Sounded -- and still does -- like he was just crapping on us again because he was in one of his moods. "this so called free PAB system" when he knows damn well it is free. Blah blah blah.

I will say this though: let's not confuse the issue of this thread with the issue, as I believe, of Nash's thinly veiled contempt for what we do here. Just because Nash was on the boat doesn't mean he's part of the team, if you get my meaning.

AFAIC the guy is a troll and I've said so to Bryan. Let's leave it to him to decide. If he agrees with you then Nash will be back in an hour or so and we can all wait for his next little ... gift.

PS. I've already reported the ban to Bryan and sent him a PM about it so he'll see it ASAP.

 

[skiny]

skiny, I know you think that some of us just want this to go away but that is not the case...some of us know what a losing battle we are fighting..instead of putting all this energy into something that is dead...I feel the best option is to move on and make something better of this sitiuation...the word is out on the T&C's of all RTG's and this thread will serve as a warning to many other players...but to continue to beat this horse is no longer a valid option IMO..it just gets old and there is nothing to be made of it anymore...now that the decision has been finalized...

Fighting a losing battle doesn't mean you can't win. It just means you have to try harder.

In my opinion this is not a dead subject because the problem still exists. CW still has the same terms and conditions. I'm quite certain at any given time they will reapply them. Maybe next time it won't be a Casinomeister member that gets shafted. Maybe it happened several times in the month this thread has been on going and we just don't know it.

Every single person in this thread knows the term itself is in breach of the qualifications for accreditation and even Tom and Bryan agree that it needs to be clarified yet it remains unchanged, the casino remains accredited and Danl remains unpaid.

No term was broken and yet they're using a term that is completely ambiguous to renege on a payment.

The term needs to be fixed and the player needs to be paid or they need to lose accreditation status. OR we can all just agree that accreditation means nothing and that it's just a list of advertised casinos that this site would like us to play at. I can google a dozen lists of casinos to play at. The difference with this list is these casinos are supposed to adhere to a specific set of rules. CW is not.

And if that is what we're going to call beating a dead horse, then drag that horse over here because I can beat on that sucker all day.

 

[silcnlayc]

skiny: In my opinion this is not a dead subject because the problem still exists.

Yes, I agree with everything you are saying except for the casino has made their final decision and I was talking about that...not all the other garbage they are trying to pass off as T&C's...

I have said time and time again that the casinos have twisted their T&C's to where they cannot even understand it...(see my many replies on that)...I agree, beating that up is definitely not dead...just the decision for being paid IMO..

now that the decision has been finalized...

Sorry for the confusion...

.

 

[skiny]

Yes, I agree with everything you are saying except for the casino has made their final decision and I was talking about that...not all the other garbage they are trying to pass off as T&C's...

I have said time and time again that the casinos have twisted their T&C's to where they cannot even understand it...(see my many replies on that)...I agree, beating that up is definitely not dead...just the decision for being paid IMO..

Sorry for the confusion...

.

Well, I guess that's the tricky part. The casino has finalized it's decision and they are still accredited which means accredited casinos CAN withhold payments for vague or ambiguous terms.

Casinomeister and CW have to either decide that the term is not ambiguous or Danl has to be paid. You just can't have it both ways.

And since Bryan and Tom have both already stated in this thread that the term needs to be clarified, it's a little late to argue that it's not ambiguous.

The simple fact is, if the term needs to be changed, it shouldn't have been applied in the first place.

I understand what you're saying about arguing with a casino once they've finalized a decision. In most cases I would agree but in my opinion, in this particular situation, the argument that the term needs to be changed IS arguing that Danl needs to be paid.

I don't believe that Danl was a student when he placed his wagers. I don't believe it makes any difference if he lied about resuming his studies in later conversations after the wagers had been placed and the withdrawal submitted. But most of all I don't think any of it matters since the term should never have been applied in the first place.

 

[jod5413]

I don't mean to derail the subject but I need to say something about Nash and Max.

Nash has been kidney punching Max for a long time. He does not like Max apparently. Max is tired of it. As he should be.

Nash and his penchant for speaking in tongues and always being hung up on wanting to be banned, as his avatar comment and other similar ban comments that he keeps using, seems to have been dreaming of a permanent ban.

Hopefully Bryan will accommodate Nash and let him go elsewhere to speak his "Nash talk".

I have learned to get along with Nash, we joke and call each other frienemy. Nash, you went too far and it was NOT deserved.

 

[P.V.]

Even though Danl lied he should still be paid. People have been known to lie in fear of losing something of value when confronted. In this case 7 grand was on the line and he probably freaked in fear of losing it. It wasn't right but no reason to deny payment. You have to look at the facts not his bad decision.

At some point he came clean and tried to explain that the terms still didn't apply to him because he had graduated and provided his proof of completion at the time. Also maybe his friends and family gave him gifts of money as a graduation gift. That could easily explain how he funded his deposit of 5 grand, a few have wondered.

I assume he has proof of when he went back to school again and it will show that it was after summer break and long after he requested a withdraw of his winnings. Maybe he did plan to take a year off but changed his mind, that's his business.

The key words in the term are Full-Time Students and Enrolled. There is nothing about being in the educational system long term or should I say planning to continue your education at a later date or after graduation and whenever that date may be. Or even being in the educational system during a PAB. His dispute is after the fact...

I haven't even heard how many hours of college Danl is attending now or before he graduated the first time. A full time student is defined by hours attending or credits, whats full time?

You can lead a horse to water but ya can't make him drink it, sorry!