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.

 

[Casinomeister]

...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/