Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[NASHVEGAS]

Excellent point.

This is not an issue of "stealing" someone's money, this is an issue of a casino enforcing its policy. In fact, it a policy set forth to protect young players. Some of the comments about this casino being on the take are really unnecessary, and quite thoughtless in my opinion.

This casino does not allow underage play, and play from full time college students. That's clear as a bell and it's stated #1 in their terms and conditions - it's not hidden anywhere.

I'm not going to get involved with this publicly until this is settled via PAB.

FTR, my comments are not casino specific but industry specific. TandC's, policies, or similar of the online gambling industry are ignorant of the "Contractual Aspect of Gambling". That is fact.

Yes, I have read/seen the apples and oranges comparisons, the "Master of your own Domain" edict, regulation or lack of excuse, the industry can not divulge any information whatsover to members for security and/or competitive reasons but rest assured blah, blah among many other defenses over the years as to why the online industry is not subject to accountability, transparency and the "Contractual Aspect of Gambling", etc..

It (all the would not pass the litmus test defenses) including TandC's is just more non-sense from the online gambling industry (for example, the justification of installment payments to Players and/or Winners which are nothing more than Players capitalizing Casinos via high risk, interest free loans which then become subject to the Casinos never having to pay these loan(s) from the Players in full. It is in most casino's TandC's including all of the Club World casinos. It is designed for potential and then the actual theft of Player's funds). I could go on but perhaps better for another day and thread!

 

[maxd]

My issues have all been squared away ....

Ok, normally that would be enough to see this thread marked "Resolved" since you are the OP. However, since danl's issue has, for better or worse, found itself being discussed here and all eyes are on that now I'll let the thread ride as is for the time being.

I anticipate danl's issue will be resolved early in the week and this thread will be updated to reflect the "Resolved" status once that's done.

 

[Steve Russo]

FYI, Bryan and I are working on this. The player's PAB has been submitted to the casino manager. They are usually very responsive to these issues so I expect to hear back on this soon.

LATER: in this and my subsequent posts I am referring to danl, not the OP (Glunn11). I have no PAB on file from Glunn11.

Max, you can tell the casino manager (if he does not read this post) that if the PAB is successful the Gambling Grumbles article will be edited to reflect that.

In such a case, I will, of course, give Casinomeister full credit for the outcome. As I have said repeatedly, Casinomeister and Gambling Grumbles are in no way competitors -- we are two completely separate websites who share the same goal (a fair outcome) in these disputes.

It does not matter which of us achieve that goal -- just so that one of us does.

 

[The Dude]

...I could go on but perhaps better for another day and thread!

I await your treatise

 

[NASHVEGAS]

I await your treatise

Lol, I am sure. I prefer just one of those run-on sentences that never stops.

 

[CoolCat]

I just want to say this. I know this comment is going to rub alot of shoulders. But im gonna say it anyways.

I noticed a bias here for defending certain casinos here from CM. It seems like CWC, Inetbet, 3dice, and MG. Gets defended with both tooth and nails. There is no valid reason for Inetbet not having live support or a telephone number. The rep here gave a lame reason. And you backed them up on it. There was a case with Red Flush refusing to pay a player because he didn't make a verification deposit on a free chip before withdrawing. And his winning was denied. Instead of asking the casino to return his winnings to his account, so he could make a deposit when he could get the funds to do so. You sided with the casino, case closed. Im not saying CM doesn't do good work in helping those who needs it. But the bias here is plain. CWC has the right to pick and chose who the want to allow at their site. I agree. But what about this issues of taking outragous fees from players withdrawals? Not a word is mention about that. Enzo can come on here and talk rude to fellow members here. Even expose their account history publicly. Nothing is said.

Look how long it took you to put lock casino in the rogue pit. It hurted you to do that. And in the process you lost a few key members here.

But when it comes Rival. You don't even come to the aid of Sloto, box24 or black diamond. You standby and allow them to be lumped in with the white labels. I know you may have a special section excluding them somewhere on the site. But you don't take a personal interest in defending them. Rushmore Group may have had a few issues in the past. But IMO, they are by far the best RTG group on the Net. But since they arent in favor. No defending will occur.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Excellent point.

This is not an issue of "stealing" someone's money, this is an issue of a casino enforcing its policy. In fact, it a policy set forth to protect young players. Some of the comments about this casino being on the take are really unnecessary, and quite thoughtless in my opinion.

This casino does not allow underage play, and play from full time college students. That's clear as a bell and it's stated #1 in their terms and conditions - it's not hidden anywhere.

I'm not going to get involved with this publicly until this is settled via PAB.

This is why this issue has stimulated such interest. It seems DanL did not violate this term at all. Although he said he was a "student", he was not "in full time education" at the time, since he had already graduated.

The OP was an intending student, but failed to make enrollment deadlines so had to postpone his studies. It seems this fact was enough for his issue to be resolved. He was a student, but NOT one currently enrolled full time at college. Presumably, if the OP manages to enroll next year, he will have to STOP playing at CW until he graduates.

Whilst the aim of this rule is to prevent young students from spending all their money, and perhaps failing their course, or being forced to drop out, the wording is pretty wide as it stands in that the narrower aims of protecting students "dependent upon their parents" are not reflected by the term which implies ALL full time students are banned from play, whether 18 or 80.

Full time study also takes many forms. When I got my job, I was put on a 3 month course, and this was at a college run for the purpose by the Meteorological Office (part of the UK Civil Service). It was very much like a university in that we lived and studied "on campus" for those 3 months. To their risk team, I would have looked like a student (address & IP address), but I was getting Civil Service pay, and the course was "free".

 

[maxd]

I noticed a bias here for defending certain casinos here from CM. ....

FWIW I think a good part of what you are calling bias (some) others would call a difference of opinion.

A number of those cases you cited were discussed at length here on the forums. We came to a certain conclusion on those cases, you apparently disagreed or did not accept our reasons for doing so.

That's a difference of opinion, which is more or less to be expected. However it is very much worth making a distinction between us coming to conclusions you may not agree with and us not dealing with issues, or failing to deal with an issue, or coming to forgone conclusions, all because of bias and/or favoritism.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I think you need to allow that we are entitled to ours. It's nice when those opinions agree but when they don't, and that's going to happen every now and then, please extend us the respect of not assuming it's simply because we are being bias or unfair because of some perceived bias.

This is why this issue has stimulated such interest. It seems DanL did not violate this term at all. Although he said he was a "student", he was not "in full time education" at the time, since he had already graduated.

Whatever else may have been discussed about this issue elsewhere is one thing, us going through our Pitch-A-Bitch process is another. That process is ongoing and it's too early to be commenting on it one way or the other, as Bryan pointed out.

 

[Pinababy69]

I anticipate danl's issue will be resolved early in the week and this thread will be updated to reflect the "Resolved" status once that's done.

Just wondering if there has been any updates/resolution to DanL's case since your last post Max? Thanks in advance.

 

[maxd]

This issue occupied a good portion of my week's efforts but unfortunately it is pretty much at a dead-lock. To make a long story short it is probably going to have to wait for Bryan's return on the 29th before it moves any closer to conclusion, baring any unforeseen changes.

 

[Pinababy69]

This issue occupied a good portion of my week's effort but unfortunately it is pretty much at a dead-lock. To make a long story short it is going to have to wait for Bryan's return on the 29th before it moves any further, baring any unforeseen changes.

Thanks for the update Max, and for your efforts. I'll give Bryan a few days back before I start bugging about it, lol. So.....first week of December?

 

[maxd]

So.....first week of December?

Sure, but I doubt you'll have to wait that long. It'll be right up at the top of my priority list to discuss with him when he returns. I understood from him before he left that he felt much the same.

 

[Mousey]

Question:

If the casino software can have a "Student" specification, why can it not then lock out the player from depositing until he coughs up proof of employment (a 'please contact support' pop up would suffice) -- or whatever it is the casino is requiring? Why take the student players' deposits at all??

 

[Steve Russo]

Question:

If the casino software can have a "Student" specification, why can it not then lock out the player from depositing until he coughs up proof of employment (a 'please contact support' pop up would suffice) -- or whatever it is the casino is requiring? Why take the student players' deposits at all??

For the exact same reason that no other T&Cs are enforced at the time of enrollment (by any casino).

It leaves the casino in a wonderful position -- it can win, but it can not lose.

Let's say that a casino has a rule (as some do) that two players can not use the same computer.

John and Mary (husband and wife) both use the same computer. Both sign up. Both deposit $100. Both lose. The casino has now won $200.

At the same time, Bill and Joan (husband and wife) use their own shared computer. Both sign up at the same casino that John and Mary went to. Both deposit $100. Bill loses. Joan wins $500.

Joan's winnings will be denied to her. Most casinos will return her $100 deposit. A few (although I have not yet heard about this) may also return Bill's $100 deposit.

Those casinos which refuse to return anyone's deposit come out $400 to the good. Those which return Joan's deposit but not Bill's come out $300 to the good. Those which return both Bill's and Joan's deposits still come out $200 to the good.

 

[Mousey]

... that was a rhetorical question.... LOL

Sadly, I think you are right.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Question:

If the casino software can have a "Student" specification, why can it not then lock out the player from depositing until he coughs up proof of employment (a 'please contact support' pop up would suffice) -- or whatever it is the casino is requiring? Why take the student players' deposits at all??

I brought this up, and Tom replied that this is NOT asked for at the registration, but something that comes up during verification.

Given this term, it is something that SHOULD now be asked at registration, and any player telling the TRUTH will be prevented from proceeding further, and any student that bluffs their way past the block is most likely KNOWINGLY lying in order to get away with playing in contravention of the terms (or is a bit of an idiot).

 

[rockycatt]

there out there on both sides of the street student's husband and wife , shit some peeps prolly got a neon light outside thre door

 

[ksech]

I brought this up, and Tom replied that this is NOT asked for at the registration, but something that comes up during verification.

Given this term, it is something that SHOULD now be asked at registration, and any player telling the TRUTH will be prevented from proceeding further, and any student that bluffs their way past the block is most likely KNOWINGLY lying in order to get away with playing in contravention of the terms (or is a bit of an idiot).

I would still like to know if this pertains just to 18 year old full time students, or any aged full time student. The way it is written in the T&Cs, it does NOT state 18 year old full-time students. It states:

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.

To me, this term is a win/win for the casino and leaves a lot of room for mis-interpretation by the player. They can deny winnings to me if I am a full time student, even though I am 50 years old? Say that here in my little corner of the world you have to be 21 to gamble. So, if the casino doesn't know this, a non-full-time student (but is a part-time student) can still play online at 18? Or an 18 year old NOT enrolled for any type of schooling can play?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I would still like to know if this pertains just to 18 year old full time students, or any aged full time student. The way it is written in the T&Cs, it does NOT state 18 year old full-time students. It states:

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.

To me, this term is a win/win for the casino and leaves a lot of room for mis-interpretation by the player. They can deny winnings to me if I am a full time student, even though I am 50 years old? Say that here in my little corner of the world you have to be 21 to gamble. So, if the casino doesn't know this, a non-full-time student (but is a part-time student) can still play online at 18? Or an 18 year old NOT enrolled for any type of schooling can play?

It seems that CW are not sure what this term means. They are demanding "proof of full time employment" as though THIS is the criteria that defines "not a student". Many people are NOT in full time employment, yet are NOT students of any description, let alone ones enrolled full time.

The term itself is split into 2 sentences, so it means ALL "students enrolled full time....", and NOT just those between 18 and 21. In theory, even a 50 year old "mature student" enrolled full time would violate this term. This may not be what CW intend, BUT it is what follows from taking the term as written, without worrying about the "spirit" behind it.

CW also seem EXTRA strict in implementing this term, FAR more strict in fact than how "bonus abusers" are dealt with (who are first paid out, THEN banned).

We now have a PAB in "deadlock", awaiting Bryan's return. This is pretty unusual for an accredited casino, as normally the conclusions reached by Max are honoured by the casino. Clearly in this case there is Resistance from CW, which needs Bryan to step in.

This term needs to be clarified if it is NOT the intention to ban ALL students, of whatever age, from play.

Another term also needs to be added, which states that CW may require "proof of means" as part of the verification process.

 

[maxd]

In theory, even a 50 year old "mature student" enrolled full time would violate this term. ... CW also seem EXTRA strict in implementing this term ... Bryan to step in.

FWIW it is my understanding from discussing the issue with CWC that age is not the issue. For the PAB I was dealing with it simply wasn't part of the discussion.

Also, Bryan is back, we've reviewed the case in detail and he'll be taking it from here insofar as CWC is concerned. My guess is we'll see this settled one way or the other early next week.

 

[vinylweatherman]

FWIW it is my understanding from discussing the issue with CWC that age is not the issue. For the PAB I was dealing with it simply wasn't part of the discussion.

Also, Bryan is back, we've reviewed the case in detail and he'll be taking it from here insofar as CWC is concerned. My guess is we'll see this settled one way or the other early next week.

So, it is 100% about being a "student enrolled full time", no matter WHAT the age, 18 or 80. CW think this player IS a student, and are not concerned at all with discussing what TYPE "young, or mature" of student he is.

This needs to be made VERY clear. Most 18-21 year olds who can be bothered to read the terms in the first place, and are at University, will automatically realise they are not allowed to play, BUT those who return to a full time university course later in life would probably assume this term was ONLY meant to apply to those students who studied straight after their A levels (or equivalent). Further complication ocurrs when an EXISTING player decides to become a "mature student" - what do they do? They SHOULD stop playing for the duration of their studies.

What gets me is why an issue that SHOULD be "black & white" is being shrouded in grey, with CW not yet giving clarity to the issue of whether they ARE only meaning to bar young 18-21 year old students, as argued by Tom as being the reason behind this term, or it meaning ANY full time student, as seems to be the case in this PAB where age is not seen as a factor. Also "grey" is why even a GRADUATE is still considered a student for the purpose of this term, with no clear guidance of when one ceases to be considered a full time student in the eyes of CW. The OP thought graduation meant he could then play, but it seems it is not so clear cut as this.

Now, it seems that it is the date you start "full time employment" after your studies that is the "proof" being asked by CW, with "proofs of full time employment" being demanded of any player CW think are students.

 

[Jasminebed]

There was another thread recently, primarily focused on clarity of documents submitted at a CW group casino. I noticed one of the things requested of the player was proof of full time employment. There was no mention of any student issue, but I had meant to ask the OP his age. The matter was subsequently resolved, and I haven't been able to find the thread.

If they are going to start asking people (suspected students?) for proof of full-time employment, they better be adding that to their terms and conditions.

Also, the unusual ban of the neighbourhood of Markham Ontario is noteworthy. It's not even a municipal entitity, but part of Toronto. It is however home to the Progress Campus of Centennial College where I took computer programming back in the days of Cobol and punch cards.

 

[ksech]

@jasminebed... is this the thread you were looking for?
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/problem-with-you-guessed-it-club-usa.41126/

Was Markham Ontario ever listed as a banned area before do you know, or is this a recent add-on to the T&Cs?

 

[vinylweatherman]

There was another thread recently, primarily focused on clarity of documents submitted at a CW group casino. I noticed one of the things requested of the player was proof of full time employment. There was no mention of any student issue, but I had meant to ask the OP his age. The matter was subsequently resolved, and I haven't been able to find the thread.

If they are going to start asking people (suspected students?) for proof of full-time employment, they better be adding that to their terms and conditions.

Also, the unusual ban of the neighbourhood of Markham Ontario is noteworthy. It's not even a municipal entitity, but part of Toronto. It is however home to the Progress Campus of Centennial College where I took computer programming back in the days of Cobol and punch cards.

Maybe they are banning specific colleges by defining the small district they are in.

This is going to make their terms look very strange indeed, and likely to put off players who ARE eligible to play.

Terms like this look illogical, but could easily be added on the sly to justify confiscation of winings from certain players.

Terms need to make sense, so that players can understand what is going on. We understand that countries get banned for various reasons, mostly down to legal and banking regimes, but how can we be expected to understand how a small district of a large town needs to be banned, yet the rest of the ENTIRE COUNTRY can play.

This is not the ONLY college in Canada, probably not even the only college in Toronto. Players from this college are banned anyway because of the "no students" rule, so why the district ban in this ONE particular case of what must be many THOUSANDS of other districts where colleges are located.

Members of this district may also take this as a PERSONAL INSULT, since it implies that their neighbourhood is "so bad" that it is the only one to get such a specific and localised ban from a place that almost the rest of the PLANET can play at.

Do other casinos have such localised bans?
I have not seen any, only bans on whole countries, or more recently, whole occupations.

 

[zanzibar]

There are websites with themes along the lines of "pay for my degree" where students are taught to bonus whore. I'd bet my last dollar that this is the real reason for the CWC student bans.

And considering Glunn11 has recently made posts like this, referencing a well known bonus hunting forum...
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/3dice-roulette-random.41260/

 

[coxwel]

i just skipped over this case and this leaves me with no good impression of clubworld at all!!

its nonsense to say fulltime students are not allowed to play,imo.c`mon?

the only thing which is important here should be if the player is legally allowed to gamble not. so no minors thats for sure.

iam also very sure cw paid and stillpays many many students who play their casinos, because they just dont know they are students. i dont have to tell any casino in the world whats my job or send proof of any employment at all, this is just ridiculess and can only be seen as advantage for the casino and very very unprofessional.

i know casinos have to protect themselves from many dangers but this is way too much, who they think they are?


the fact that anybody is a student, unemployed, top manager... is no proof or exlanation to confiscate any winnings. the player itself played the casino with no tricks, bonus whoring etc.. so pay the player and stop making such crazy rules.

whats next? women are not allowed toplay? or maybe it specialists get banned as maybe they have an advantage?


very looking forward to the outcome of this case..



cheers

coxwel

 

[vinylweatherman]

There are websites with themes along the lines of "pay for my degree" where students are taught to bonus whore. I'd bet my last dollar that this is the real reason for the CWC student bans.

And considering Glunn11 has recently made posts like this, referencing a well known bonus hunting forum...
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/3dice-roulette-random.41260/

If this IS the real reason behind the draconian actions against students, then CW have LIED to the forum, and even to Max and Bryan themselves.
CW maintain that the student ban is 100% about "responsible gambling" and protecting students from spending their money at the casino, and thus risking not being able to afford to complete their studies. In particular, Tom (the rep here), said they needed to protect students still dependent on their parents from spending their parent's money at the casino, rather than on their studies.

i just skipped over this case and this leaves me with no good impression of clubworld at all!!

its nonsense to say fulltime students are not allowed to play,imo.c`mon?

the only thing which is important here should be if the player is legally allowed to gamble not. so no minors thats for sure.

iam also very sure cw paid and stillpays many many students who play their casinos, because they just dont know they are students. i dont have to tell any casino in the world whats my job or send proof of any employment at all, this is just ridiculess and can only be seen as advantage for the casino and very very unprofessional.

i know casinos have to protect themselves from many dangers but this is way too much, who they think they are?


the fact that anybody is a student, unemployed, top manager... is no proof or exlanation to confiscate any winnings. the player itself played the casino with no tricks, bonus whoring etc.. so pay the player and stop making such crazy rules.

whats next? women are not allowed toplay? or maybe it specialists get banned as maybe they have an advantage?


very looking forward to the outcome of this case..



cheers

coxwel

Well, banning a tiny district of Toronto is even STRANGER than banning players from certain specialist fields.

It could backfire though, because by implying that a specialist level of knowledge gives you an advantage implies the games can be beaten through the application of that knowledge, and thus that the games are NOT completely random, since random games cannot be beaten by even the most advanced scientific application of chaos theory, statistics, etc..

I would have the same "advantage" over a random game with my "lucky chip" as a mathematician would have with advanced calculus and probability theory.

I would like to know what is so VERY VERY special about that district of Toronto that has CW in such a panic.

 

[Glunn11]

There are websites with themes along the lines of "pay for my degree" where students are taught to bonus whore. I'd bet my last dollar that this is the real reason for the CWC student bans.

That's quite an interesting theory, actually. I don't bonus whore myself (the best bonus offers come from too-good-to-be-true sham casinos, anyway), but I do like to think that I know the games. Aside from BB I've never stumbled across anything promoting casino bonuses as a way to really make extra cash. The no-student clause could serve as a barrier against a demographic that, I would imagine, is more likely to seek +EV play.

While I am totally in favor of reasonable casino terms and conditions, I do think that this "no full time student" term could use some additional clarification on the site. Particularly, as said above, if all people are going to be required to show proof of full time employment as standard verification procedure.

Just my two cents.

 

[rockycatt]

If this IS the real reason behind the draconian actions against students, then CW have LIED to the forum, and even to Max and Bryan themselves.
CW maintain that the student ban is 100% about "responsible gambling" and protecting students from spending their money at the casino, and thus risking not being able to afford to complete their studies. In particular, Tom (the rep here), said they needed to protect students still dependent on their parents from spending their parent's money at the casino, rather than on their studies.



Well, banning a tiny district of Toronto is even STRANGER than banning players from certain specialist fields.

It could backfire though, because by implying that a specialist level of knowledge gives you an advantage implies the games can be beaten through the application of that knowledge, and thus that the games are NOT completely random, since random games cannot be beaten by even the most advanced scientific application of chaos theory, statistics, etc..

I would have the same "advantage" over a random game with my "lucky chip" as a mathematician would have with advanced calculus and probability theory.

I would like to know what is so VERY VERY special about that district of Toronto that has CW in such a panic.

just a guess but i guess its about credit card fraud

 

[GrandMaster]

I would like to know what is so VERY VERY special about that district of Toronto that has CW in such a panic.

I would guess there was an incident of large scale bonus hunting. The method of exploiting bonuses could spread very quickly in a student community, or someone could just use other students' identities for playing. Casinos are not always rational in their decisions either.

 

[Nate]

Is the PAB still ongoing?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I would guess there was an incident of large scale bonus hunting. The method of exploiting bonuses could spread very quickly in a student community, or someone could just use other students' identities for playing. Casinos are not always rational in their decisions either.

Well, but students are banned anyway, so there would be no need for this additional term.

So, this district must be particularly "evil" when it comes to "fraud", since it is the ONLY one singled out by the terms and conditions.

Out of the whole of Canada, we are expected to believe that this one tiny district is the ONLY place where the usual measures to combat fraud and "undesirables" do not work.

I just don't buy it, and casinos should realise that neither do many other players. It looks like some random exclusion they have simply cooked up on the spur of the moment, with no real logic behind it.

Since it is also "buried" in the small print, players may ONLY find out when they withdraw, and have it confiscated simply for living in Markham. To such players, it will look like the term was added specifically to deny THEIR cashout. I'll bet players from Markham have no problems registering and depositing. The same seems to apply to students, but at least the term banning students is right at the top, and is seen simply by loading the page.


These "pay for your degree by......." websites are usually a scam. It is the same type of scam used in spam where the lure is "solve all your debt problems by playing at ........ casino"; "give up your day job, play at ........ casino for a living".

Perhaps if casinos policed the affiliates more closely, such scams would not be so common.

If any CW affiliate specifically invites recipients to "pay for their degree" by playing at CW, I would expect them to be thrown out of the program immediately, rather than just getting "a talking to", since to lure students into playing at CW is nothing short of a scam, since any winnings will be confiscated.

I have NOT seen this one, BUT I have had PLENTY of "clear your debts by playing at ........." offers through the email, and these MUST be coming from affiliates of the casinos concerned, and little seems to get done about it.

Most just get "a talking to", and then go ahead and do it again (because it makes them money). If they get caught again, often they get ANOTHER "talking to".

It is NOT the same for PLAYERS, where such second chances are rare.

 

[The Dude]

Is the PAB still ongoing?

Yes.

 

[skiny]

I fail to see how banning any group of people can be considered ethical. Barring any legal reasons that pertain to gambling laws, banning a person simply because they belong to a group whether that be geographical, employment status, or age is a simple case of profiling and it's the backbone of discrimination. It's like saying people from the Ghetto can't come in my store because they might steal something or people who are unemployed are lazy or I don't hire women with red hair have anger issues or blondes because they are dumb. In my opinion, if any casino is going to start popping off reasons to stall or not pay clients it should really stick to legalities and not simply discriminate against them through general categorizations. At the very least it's an insult and it should be illegal.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I fail to see how banning any group of people can be considered ethical. Barring any legal reasons that pertain to gambling laws, banning a person simply because they belong to a group whether that be geographical, employment status, or age is a simple case of profiling and it's the backbone of discrimination. It's like saying people from the Ghetto can't come in my store because they might steal something or people who are unemployed are lazy or I don't hire women with red hair have anger issues or blondes because they are dumb. In my opinion, if any casino is going to start popping off reasons to stall or not pay clients it should really stick to legalities and not simply discriminate against them through general categorizations. At the very least it's an insult and it should be illegal.

This is EXACTLY how the ban against players from Markham looks to me. Players are banned NOT for any legal reasons regarding their participation, but simply because they come from a "bad neighbourhood" in Toronto. Players from the "good neighbourhoods" in Toronto are allowed to play. If it were down to legal reasons, they would have to ban the whole of Ontario or at least Toronto. Some casinos HAVE banned specific Canadian states for what they call "legal reasons", down to specific laws at state level.

The shop comparison is pretty close. Shops might ban people from "the ghetto" because they have experienced "people from the ghetto" stealing their stuff. This is still SPECIFIC people from the ghetto, and makes no allowance for the law abiding MAJORITY.

I have been pilloried myself by my opinions on Playtech casinos, and this has been because I have tarred all Playtech casinos with the same rogue brush because so many rogue actions turn out to be from Playtech casinos, and a far higher proportion of Playtech casinos behave badly than do those of other softwares. Betfair, as expected by my prejudice, has followed suit and "done the usual" I have come to expect from Playtech casinos. This has only provided MORE evidence that my prejudice has been justified.

If CW believe their ban on the whole of Markham is similarly justified, they CANNOT be offended when they themselves end up being talked about in terms of "all RTG casinos are........." because particular players have been disproportionately "screwed over" by a string of RTG casinos in the past.

This has even happened, with "all RTG casinos have tightened their slots since....", with CW claiming "WE haven't (don't judge us by the perceived actions of others)".

 

[jelsmith]

I fail to see how banning any group of people can be considered ethical. Barring any legal reasons that pertain to gambling laws, banning a person simply because they belong to a group whether that be geographical, employment status, or age is a simple case of profiling and it's the backbone of discrimination. It's like saying people from the Ghetto can't come in my store because they might steal something or people who are unemployed are lazy or I don't hire women with red hair have anger issues or blondes because they are dumb. In my opinion, if any casino is going to start popping off reasons to stall or not pay clients it should really stick to legalities and not simply discriminate against them through general categorizations. At the very least it's an insult and it should be illegal.

Damn skippy......and dont you forget it

 

[ksech]

Does anyone know if the banning of Markham Canada has been there all along or its it a recent add-in?

If this is a recent add-in, and I was a long standing member of CW who resides in Markham I would be royally ticked off if I won and then was denied winnings because of where I live. This is the reasoning behind the other thread I started.

Yes, the T&Cs are mind-boggling and can make you cross-eyed. BUT if an accreditted casino can add-in a term as such, who's to say others haven't snuck in weird terms also. So, do you go back and nitpick the T&Cs for every casino you are a member of, or do you continue to play as you always have..assuming there have been no changes since you became a member?

CW most certainly needs to clarify the student term. As I've stated before, it's a win/win situation for the casino and a FU to any player who has gone back to school and is no longer a full time employee. By the way, what does the CASINO consider full time employment (30 hrs, 35 hours, 40 hours or more)? Because if it's 40 hrs or more, I am most definitely NOT allowed to play in their casino if asked for proof of full-time employment. (Just another term which needs to be clarified, IMO)

 

[rockycatt]

you can enroll in school at full tilt and poker stars as well right there the courses arn't short ones either

so go figure i mean who is bigger in the business than those two
maby MG but no issue there that im aware of correct me if im wrong

we do need to compare the field to find out just what is mainstream

 

[Nate]

Has the rep answered the question of whether Deposits from students that lost were returned? I bet they wouldn't go through hoops to find this out. If I'm wrong could someone please point me elsewhere for this answer...

Nate

 

[vinylweatherman]

Does anyone know if the banning of Markham Canada has been there all along or its it a recent add-in?

If this is a recent add-in, and I was a long standing member of CW who resides in Markham I would be royally ticked off if I won and then was denied winnings because of where I live. This is the reasoning behind the other thread I started.

Yes, the T&Cs are mind-boggling and can make you cross-eyed. BUT if an accreditted casino can add-in a term as such, who's to say others haven't snuck in weird terms also. So, do you go back and nitpick the T&Cs for every casino you are a member of, or do you continue to play as you always have..assuming there have been no changes since you became a member?

CW most certainly needs to clarify the student term. As I've stated before, it's a win/win situation for the casino and a FU to any player who has gone back to school and is no longer a full time employee. By the way, what does the CASINO consider full time employment (30 hrs, 35 hours, 40 hours or more)? Because if it's 40 hrs or more, I am most definitely NOT allowed to play in their casino if asked for proof of full-time employment. (Just another term which needs to be clarified, IMO)

For that matter, what does the casino consider to be "enrolled full time at a university or college". It is not ALL students that are banned, only FULL TIME students, and ONLY where they are enrolled on a course at a university or college.

There are many other ways of being a student. Part time is the main one, but there are other forms of study, usually for "mature" students who return to study to better their qualifications later in their career. This can include a full time course, and may be residential. When I gained my first job, the FIRST thing they did was to send me on a full time 3 month residential course at their OWN college. I was therefore BOTH "in full time employment" AND "a student studying full time" for those 3 months. This was all BEFORE I was formally "posted" into a specific role.

Before this, I spent 2 years "on the dole", so even though I had graduated in 1982, I had no other occupation than "student". Although technically "unemployed", this is NOT an occupation, and was NOT considered satisfactory when fillling in forms, since it was of no help. When an unemployed person is asked for their "occupation" it is NOT the same as asking what their CURRENT JOB is, but rather what their "trade" is. A plumber could be looking for new employment, but ask him (or her) what their "occupation" is, and I bet they will say "plumber", rather than "unemployed".

I am afraid it looks like vague terms are being stretched to accomodate players they just don't want to pay, rather than being used to "protect" players from gambling beyond their means, or even protect the casino from GENUINE fraudsters.

Currently, I am NOT a student, not even part time, however neither am I in full time employment. I therefore CANNOT submit "proof of full time employment" to anyone. I can neither PROVE a negative, that I am NOT a "mature student". All I could ever do is submit "evidence that suggests" I am not studying at a university, such as accounting for some of my time in a way that would NOT be possible were I studying on a full time basis.

It seems that "proof of full time employment" is one of the compulsory documents CW require for "extended account verification". It is also IMPOSSIBLE for a player to know in advance that they will be subject to "extended verification" at some future stage, and even being an existing loyal player "cuts no ice" when the "risk department" get in on the act and ask for additional documentation.

I would have to steer clear of casinos that can REQUIRE that I supply proofs of employment at any future time, INCLUDING where I am already a member.

I have personal experience of where being a long term player "cuts no ice" with the casino, and I am having to fight some "unspecified accusation". I have concluded that casinos will NEVER EVER trust a player, not even theor most loyal VIPs. There is ALWAYS the risk that I will "get screwed" by ANY casino, no matter what their reputation. I have to work out how great that risk is, because although it exists everywhere, the LEVEL of risk varies greatly between casinos.

Even if just ONE casino "shafts" a player, that player gets a negative impression of the entire industry, and will NEVER trust casinos as much again, no matter how much they say "sorry", or whatever "regulation" they boast of.

Even reading of other players getting messed around changes my impressions of individual casinos, regulatory bodies, softwares, and even the industry as a whole.

Worst of all is when a TOP casino suddenly "turns rogue". Trust is not just reduced, it is SHATTERED. After all, if "they" can suddenly start behaving like that, what about all the casinos with a LOWER level of credibility. This does not just apply to casinos either. Take Microgaming as an example, one operator after another has gone bust, and Microgaming did little to ensure that PLAYERS' own funds were kept apart from the general funds of the operator, hence players' balances disappeared along with everything else. It was once said that this could NEVER happen with a Microgaming casino, because there was an "insurance of last resort" implemented by Microgaming. MGS got away with this because this mythical insurance had never actually been called upon UNTIL the first major operator collapse, TUSK. This showed serious flaws in the arrangements to protect players' funds, but MGHS did NOTHING, perhaps (mistakenly as it turned out) because the execs there thought "this will never happen again in my lifetime". It DID happen again, because Eurolinx went bust and AGAIN showed that NOTHING had been done to ensure players' balances were safe. Players now no longer consider MGS as being any safer than the likes of RTG when it comes to operators misusing players' money to prop up the company. Trust in MGS as "safe as houses" is gone forever, it's just another software. MGS seem not to care, as they went on to deliver a right royal reaming to US players over the summer, preferring to keep them in the dark (and playing) right up to the last moment, rather than giving them plenty of warning of what was going to happen, and how it would affect them.

I'm afraid that CW is also now "just another casino in the accredited list", no longer "extra special" in status as it once was.

 

[ksech]

Okay, what's to stop ANY casino from requiring "extended account verification" when they don't wish to grant a withdrawal? All they would have to say to the player is.. "Due to iffy verification, we now require PROOF of full-time employment." Again I ask, what is considered full-time employment?

How many players would/can lose out if they are required to provide proof of full-time employment? OR what if you were employed full-time when you signed up, but you work a seasonal job and are unemployed for X months of the year? And you happen to be on unemployment when you get your "windfall". What happens then?

So, has it come down to... a player needs to copy/paste/save a copy of the general AND bonus T&Cs when they sign up? So, IF they happen to win and the casino decides they don't want to pay, the player can go back and say... "Well, here are the T&Cs from when I signed up. There isn't any FU clause written here..." It all becomes a lot of BS just to have some "fun" time.

 

[skiny]

Personally, I don't see who's business what I do for a living. The ONLY thing that should matter to a casino is if I'm an addict. If I'm not an addict then mind your business.

Do you think that university students don't drink? They don't go to movies? They don't buy video games? They do nothing for recreation that costs money? Maybe a student decides "To hell with the pub tonight, I'll put my 50 bucks into Club World and spin a few slots." Maybe a student is too busy to go to a movie or has an exam in the morning and can't go out with friends to a local bar.

How does being a student make you any less able to afford to gamble than anyone else on a low to medium income? Are the casinos now going to ask for our yearly incomes and then a list of our bills and a record of our debt to see if we should be gambling? Do you think a B&M casino is going to have people wandering from one gambler to the next asking what they do for a living and whether or not they should be gambling? It's foolishness and insulting. The casino is basically telling us they need to know if we can afford to gamble because we cannot make that decision for ourselves.

If I go to a B&M casino here in Ontario and win a thousand dollars they don't even ask who I am. They hand me the money, pat me on the back and walk away. If I win 200 online I have to mail in a urine sample and a clay face print.

And if that wasn't good enough, now you pop in 50 bucks, win 500 and the casino wants to know if you're employed full time so they can tell you "You couldn't afford to gamble, so we're keeping the 500. Here's your 50 back." Of course as long as you never win they'll happily keep all the money you lose.

If you're not a gambling addict and you feel you can afford to spin a few slots but the casino decides you need to be a full time employee to collect your winnings, you give them my email address and tell them I hired you last week. I'll give you a damn good reference. I'll tell them you're proof reading my new e-book entitled "Online casinos that screw people around."

 

[anniemac]

Amen! Gave me quite a good laugh but absolutely true.

 

[Mavin1]

If a casino is going to publicly take such a stance of caring about students losing their money, then I think students should ALL be refunded that haven't won equal to or above what they have spent and then all banned.

Then the casino should do background checks, through a private security firm, to make sure they are eligible to play after graduation and full time employment has been secured.

Afterall, it's a new age of freedom and Big Brother is watching out for us.

 

[jelsmith]

Personally, I don't see who's business what I do for a living. The ONLY thing that should matter to a casino is if I'm an addict. If I'm not an addict then mind your business.

Do you think that university students don't drink? They don't go to movies? They don't buy video games? They do nothing for recreation that costs money? Maybe a student decides "To hell with the pub tonight, I'll put my 50 bucks into Club World and spin a few slots." Maybe a student is too busy to go to a movie or has an exam in the morning and can't go out with friends to a local bar.

How does being a student make you any less able to afford to gamble than anyone else on a low to medium income? Are the casinos now going to ask for our yearly incomes and then a list of our bills and a record of our debt to see if we should be gambling? Do you think a B&M casino is going to have people wandering from one gambler to the next asking what they do for a living and whether or not they should be gambling? It's foolishness and insulting. The casino is basically telling us they need to know if we can afford to gamble because we cannot make that decision for ourselves.If I go to a B&M casino here in Ontario and win a thousand dollars they don't even ask who I am. They hand me the money, pat me on the back and walk away. If I win 200 online I have to mail in a urine sample and a clay face print.

And if that wasn't good enough, now you pop in 50 bucks, win 500 and the casino wants to know if you're employed full time so they can tell you "You couldn't afford to gamble, so we're keeping the 500. Here's your 50 back." Of course as long as you never win they'll happily keep all the money you lose.

If you're not a gambling addict and you feel you can afford to spin a few slots but the casino decides you need to be a full time employee to collect your winnings, you give them my email address and tell them I hired you last week. I'll give you a damn good reference. I'll tell them you're proof reading my new e-book entitled "Online casinos that screw people around."

Just like the US government is babysitting our wallets....GEESH next thing ya know lawmakers will be knocking on doors with baby wipes to make sure we took care of wiping our asses well enough and didnt leave anything drag race.....I dont think the casinos need to babysit us too.

I am also a fulltime student (getting another masters in business admin)and have played there and lost a lot too...does that mean i get a refund?

 

[skiny]

Just like the US government is babysitting our wallets....GEESH next thing ya know lawmakers will be knocking on doors with baby wipes to make sure we took care of wiping our asses well enough and didnt leave anything drag race.....I dont think the casinos need to babysit us too.

I am also a fulltime student (getting another masters in business admin)and have played there and lost a lot too...does that mean i get a refund?

Yes it does.

Email them.

And tell them Skiny says hi.

 

[ksech]

If the casino stands by their T&C of no full-time students, then yes you should be getting a refund. Although, since they have interpreted the term to benefit them, you may not benefit from it as they may say you are over the 18-21 age group, which the term is NOT explicit on.

 

[skiny]

If the casino stands by their T&C of no full-time students, then yes you should be getting a refund. Although, since they have interpreted the term to benefit them, you may not benefit from it as they may say you are over the 18-21 age group, which the term is NOT explicit on.

Careful... She has red hair.

 

[ksech]

Careful... She has red hair.

LMAO!

 

[jelsmith]

Careful... She has red hair.

I heard that.......