Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[The Dude]

Even though Danl lied he should still be paid...

Why? He clearly broke the terms and conditions. It was written as the #1 term in black and white and was clear as day. Lying had nothing to do with the fact that he was and is a student.

Why is this so hard to understand?

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

No - he was considered to be a student because he was one. He even considered himself to be a student. He did not misspeak when he said he was a student. He believed he was because he was. It may have been a summer break, but he was enrolled in graduate school as a full time student. His position in life was "student." He falls clearly into the casino's definition of "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?

Yes, they did. I spoke with the operator last night and they were prepared to pay him if he had shown them that he had left the education system. He has not been able to do this because he is and was a student.

He lied to me, Gambling Grumbles, Maxd and everyone here in this forum about his status as a student. He told me in November "I'm planning to continue my studies next year blah blah blah...", in the hopes that I would have been swayed to consider him as a graduate and out of the education system - but he was in his fourth week of grad school when he made this statement. Why did he lie about his status? Because he knew he was a student..

For the past several weeks I've been really tolerant about this situation - about a PABer making fraudulent claims; exploiting this board and our "so called" free PAB service after he in fact lied to everyone who tried to help him out. Some of you may not think that is a big deal - but that is a big deal. He knew he was wrong, and he's successfully gotten a handful of members riled up into a mob.

Sorry - but I don't cave to mob mentality.

And I am really pissed off that some members insinuate that I make decisions based on money or friendships. I make decisions based on facts and my own observations. I have a track record that proves this.

The player Danl needs to let it go and chalk this up to "lessons learned" - read the contracts you agree to when signing up at any website to include an online casino. Yes, it sucks - but sometimes life sucks. If you fail to read what you agree to - then perhaps you will be in a sucky situation. Take responsibility for your own actions - don't blame others for your mistakes.

I already mentioned that the casino will be revising this term shortly. For those of you who feel this term needs revision, perhaps take this opportunity to give them constructive suggestions.

I for one am through with this matter. Danl has one more post he will be allowed to make before his account is closed for submitting a fraudulent PAB.

As for Nash - happy trails. It is obvious to most everyone that Nash does not value this forum, its members, nor his membership. Consistent trollike jabs and insinuations are not only unnecessary but a waste of bandwith and everyone's time. To me, it's a sign of a lack of maturity. He has been given more than his share of chances to respect his fellow members and his host. Bye.

 

[ksech]

I already mentioned that the casino will be revising this term shortly. For those of you who feel this term needs revision, perhaps take this opportunity to give them constructive suggestions.

How can we go about doing this and will CWC seriously take any suggestions we have to offer into consideration? Also, if possible, the banned area of Markham Ontario needs to be clarified, as there are a few here who may be affected by this without their knowledge.

 

[The Dude]

How can we go about doing this and will CWC seriously take any suggestions we have to offer into consideration? Also, if possible, the banned area of Markham Ontario needs to be clarified, as there are a few here who may be affected by this without their knowledge.

Your wish is my command.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/suggestions-for-the-no-student-clause.41601/

The Markham clause is a different issue - perhaps Tom or someone can look at that one as well.

 

[Pinababy69]

Well Bryan, you're not going to like this, but c'est la vie I guess. In no way do I believe that you are motivated by money or anything of the sort. But even though you admit the term (as written) is unclear and needs rewriting....you have decided the issue is dead. And "it seems" that you have zero interest in drawing a line in the sand for ClubWorld. You are more focused on the fact that DanL lied.

Well, guess what? The casino/operator is lying through his/their teeth if they are telling you that student term is there to "protect" anyone but themselves. They don't care how much money students deposit, or if they deposit every single penny they had saved for tuition. They ONLY care if they win, then it's confiscation of winnings. Pulver made a great point in an earlier post re: single moms. Should single moms be gambling online? I'm one btw. How about someone on a pension, or disability, or working for $8 an hour and trying to support a family. We all know that casinos don't give a shit where the money comes from. There are good operators that will flag anyone they think may be overspending, but beyond that, it's not their responsibility.

So for ClubWorld, or any other casino operator to say they are concerned about students, or any low income group of players, is total bullshit. And it is the ultimate LIE. I would love for Tom (or any other operator) to come on here and tell us all how worried they are, about students spending money they don't have. Just so I could say liar, liar, pants on fire. But it's okay with you if they lie, misrepresent themselves and enforce/apply a term we have already established is ambiguous.

If they are to remain on the accredited list, then that list means nothing to the really good operators who don't pull stunts like this.

So, you may as well put my account on the dormant list, as I have no interest in participating here any longer. There have been times I've maybe disagreed with you in the past, but don't think there have been many times when I have felt this strongly over an issue. I realize it's not you doing the screwing here, but you are enabling CW to screw a player out of a 7K win, by allowing them to use a term that should never be applied in its present form. I never expected this from them, I really didn't.

One final point, it almost seems that Tom and CW are more upset by the fact they "say" the player lied to them, and THAT'S their reason for not paying. If that is the case, how petty and unprofessional can you get? It's like a kid throwing a temper tantrum cause something didn't go their way. Thought we were dealing with adults at these casinos, not five year olds. Damn.

Happy Holidays to all!! Dan, when you finish law school and pass the bar, you should consider specializing in internet law. I'd love to see a good lawyer take on some of these casinos who think they can get away with this shit, simply because it's the internet and somewhat anonymous. We all know that most of these cases would never pass the acid test in a courtroom.

Crooks and LIARS (some of the casinos Bryan, not you). Deactivate me, make me dormant or whatever. If this issue is dead, then not much sense debating anything.

 

[Pinababy69]

Take responsibility for your own actions - don't blame others for your mistakes.

Just noticed this....how come you're applying that nugget to DanL, but not to ClubWorld for having an ambiguous term that is unenforceable? Shouldn't they take responsibility for their mistakes ie. poorly written term open to interpretation?

And I see you're going to ban DanL for a fraudulent PAB? But ClubWorld remains accredited even though they screwed this guy totally? Who knows if there are others too, who got caught out with this term. And their big fat LIE of protecting students.

I can`t stress enough Bryan, how wrong I think you got this one.

 

[darkpixie]

Pinababy69, you are right on the money here. Please do not go dormant.

CM although I realize that you do try your best to be fair please consider what sort of precedence you are setting for Casino's when taking such a stance to the effect that the issue is 'dead'.

I do not believe that DanL or CWC's character is relevant here in any shape or form.

I do believe that the issue needs to be stripped of the he/said she/said and strictly examined for its fairness.

A few questions:

#1 Is the term fair to both players and casino.
No, the term is only employed once a student has deposited and won, by its very nature it tips the odds significantly into the casino's favor (would be happy to see evidence to the contrary)

#2 Is the term at the time of play unambiguous.
No, the term is not clear whether students who are on break allowed to play, nor does it present any criteria for what constitutes a student. Further it makes no statement as to how the casino goes about determining that you are a student.

#3 Is the term a realistic means of protecting students?
Absolutely not. Even if there was a tick box for students on sign up, its ultimately the students choice to disclose their status.

There are 3 scenarios.

The student tells the truth = no deposit - goes and plays elsewhere, possibly at a Rogue Casino.

The student lies - deposits - loses (no further action required by the casino)


The student lies - deposits - wins (The casino investigates to see if they can void the winnings and how. Bingo, they find the player on a student news board, sorry no money for you, but here is your most recent deposit less our fee.)


So effectively you have said YES to an ambiguous, predatory term which in its very application puts students at more risk than if the term would not exist at all.

Further to that consider the Pandora's Box of other Bizarre terms that will be born of this and implemented to the players detriment.

 

[The Dude]

Let's try it again:

Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino

The guy is a student. He signs up, plays, wins, and during the cash out process, the casino asks him to provide any statements or information that proves to them that he is no longer in the education system. The guy is unable to do so because he's still a student. His winnings are forfeited because be broke these terms.

He broke these terms before he made any false statements to me, you, or the casino. Ironically, one of the only true things he said at that time was that he was a student.

It seems that a number of you only want to see what you want to see. I really can't change that. It's really a shame that we can't agree to disagree on a subject. I thought this forum was a platform for discourse - not badgering me or whomever when you don't like the outcome of an issue.

It's a shame that if this player had only read those terms before he signed up this thread would have never appeared.

Sure, the term is poorly written - it needs to be made clearer. But even if this term was written so that it gives a precise definition on what a student is or is not, this player would have violated it anyway.

Some of you have chosen to close your casino accounts or throw your hands up in the air - threatening to quit the forum in protest. Whatever. It doesn't change the fact that the player is a student and broke the casino's terms and conditions.

 

[Pulver]

Standards for Accredited Casinos

Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.

 

[darkpixie]

Bryan.

I support 2 students. One of which has a disability. This student has tuition fees that are 3 or 4 times what your average college student pays for tuition.

Should I be permitted to play at Club World by their terms?

If so why?

If not why not?

I don't think anyone wants to argue over did he break their T&C or did they not.

What needs to be examined is should the term exist in the first place.

I think it is pretty obvious that the majority believe that the Term should not exist if for no other reason than it being discriminatory. (but believe me there are lots more reasons)

Now I hear you saying a lot of 'its my decision and its final' and while I know we can't MAKE you comment on your decision it would be helpful know know how you perceive this Term as being a positive one for all parties involved.

We have seen that students will just lie, or play elsewhere.
We have seen that the casinos will only employ this Term during the cash out process.
We have seen that the casinos accept deposits from anyone with a means to deposit.
HOW can confiscating students winnings or forcing them out on the streets to entertain Rogue Casino's be positive for the industry or students as a whole?

Please let me see how this is good for anyone but the casino and I will back down.

 

[The Dude]

Standards for Accredited Casinos

Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.

Good point, but you could say that it's unfair that some casinos don't allow 18-20 year olds. Fairness can be subjective.

What I mean as "Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player" is to always try to construct terms and conditions of play in favor of the players and not make arbitrary decisions in respect of these terms.

Is it fair to ban students? Yes, I would say it is if it's not done arbitrarily and with good cause. The reason the casino has given for this is that they don't want students to be gambling away their money that they have saved for college - or their parents money for that matter. I would think most people would agree that this is a good cause. If you think the casino is lying about this - well...what do you expect me to do? Give them a lie detector test?

If you don't like that term, then don't play there. If you have questions about that term, then ask the customer support to clarify it for you. If you feel this term should be removed or amended, then offer to give them some suggestions.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Why? He clearly broke the terms and conditions. It was written as the #1 term in black and white and was clear as day. Lying had nothing to do with the fact that he was and is a student.

Why is this so hard to understand?


No - he was considered to be a student because he was one. He even considered himself to be a student. He did not misspeak when he said he was a student. He believed he was because he was. It may have been a summer break, but he was enrolled in graduate school as a full time student. His position in life was "student." He falls clearly into the casino's definition of "student."


Yes, they did. I spoke with the operator last night and they were prepared to pay him if he had shown them that he had left the education system. He has not been able to do this because he is and was a student.

He lied to me, Gambling Grumbles, Maxd and everyone here in this forum about his status as a student. He told me in November "I'm planning to continue my studies next year blah blah blah...", in the hopes that I would have been swayed to consider him as a graduate and out of the education system - but he was in his fourth week of grad school when he made this statement. Why did he lie about his status? Because he knew he was a student..

For the past several weeks I've been really tolerant about this situation - about a PABer making fraudulent claims; exploiting this board and our "so called" free PAB service after he in fact lied to everyone who tried to help him out. Some of you may not think that is a big deal - but that is a big deal. He knew he was wrong, and he's successfully gotten a handful of members riled up into a mob.

Sorry - but I don't cave to mob mentality.

And I am really pissed off that some members insinuate that I make decisions based on money or friendships. I make decisions based on facts and my own observations. I have a track record that proves this.

The player Danl needs to let it go and chalk this up to "lessons learned" - read the contracts you agree to when signing up at any website to include an online casino. Yes, it sucks - but sometimes life sucks. If you fail to read what you agree to - then perhaps you will be in a sucky situation. Take responsibility for your own actions - don't blame others for your mistakes.

I already mentioned that the casino will be revising this term shortly. For those of you who feel this term needs revision, perhaps take this opportunity to give them constructive suggestions.

I for one am through with this matter. Danl has one more post he will be allowed to make before his account is closed for submitting a fraudulent PAB.

As for Nash - happy trails. It is obvious to most everyone that Nash does not value this forum, its members, nor his membership. Consistent trollike jabs and insinuations are not only unnecessary but a waste of bandwith and everyone's time. To me, it's a sign of a lack of maturity. He has been given more than his share of chances to respect his fellow members and his host. Bye.

Nope, he didn't CLEARLY break this term.

The term does NOT "ban students", but only FULL TIME students, and they have to actually be ENROLLED. DanL was a student, but he was NOT actually studying full time nor enrolled UNTIL SEPTEMBER. This is what is unclear about the term. It MEANT "still within the education system", which DanL was, but the term didn't SAY this, it said something much NARROWER than this, which in effect left a "loophole" regarding how the period between the end of one course, and the start of another, is considered.

IF the part about having to be "full time" and "enrolled at a university or college" was left out, then it WOULD apply to DanL during that summer between courses, and CLEARLY so.

Currently, players have to abide by the "spirit of the term" rather than the letter when it comes to deciding whether their particular type of "studentness" counts or not.

Since when did "abiding by the spirit of" a term become standard. It has always been a case of a term having to be clear, or it wouldn't be considered to cover ANY situation outside of PRECISELY what is written.

The OP was "due to start a course next year" was he not? It would have been THIS year, but he couldn't get the funds together in time. There is NO evidence that he had "left the education system", and clearly he had NOT, he was merely taking a long break. So how come he is ALLOWED to play between finishing school, and starting university/college; yet DanL is NOT allowed to be playing between finishing university A, and starting at university B.

The term is NOT being applied the same in these cases. A break whilst still "in the education system" is OK, or it's NOT. Having it OK in one case, yet not in another, is what has driven this thread on.

How is any other player expected to figure out whether their own "break" allows them to play, or whether their future planned course makes them banned RIGHT NOW.

Is it merely the act of having a PLAN to take a "full time course at a university or college" at a defined future date that means you are banned NOW?

How "defined" is defined in this context. DanL had an EXACT date, whereas the OP's was merely "next year's course".

NEITHER can be said to have "definitely started" a full time course till the day they entered campus to take it. Anything could happen before this to change a FUTURE planned event, even where there is no intention of making such a change.

What about NEXT year, when the OP starts his full time course a year later than originally planned, having never left the education system, yet did NOT have his winnings confiscated for playing "while still in the education system".

The application of this term has not been SEEN to be fair, and no amount of arguing that it WAS applied both evenly, and accurately, in both cases is going to change this impression.

 

[Nifty29]

What date did danl actually enrol in his law course?

I'm not sure how it works over there but over here you need to actually pay and enrol several months in advance. Given that danl stated he only had a couple of months gap between courses, this could turn out to be the key piece of evidence one way or the other

If danl could either post his enrollment details or pass them to Bryan then maybe we can find some common ground.

I would be very surprised if danl wasn't enrolled in his new course almost immediately after or even before his other course ended, which would place him in clear contravention of the terms.

 

[skiny]

Sure, the term is poorly written - it needs to be made clearer.

Operational Standards

Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.

But even if this term was written so that it gives a precise definition on what a student is or is not, this player would have violated it anyway.

There is no "but if." The term WASN'T written so it gave a precise definition of what a student is or is not. For that fact alone it CANNOT be applied.

This is ridiculous. Bryan, what you're saying is the complete opposite of what your own operational standards are saying. I have no idea why you're being so hard nosed about something that is so clear cut and obvious. So he pissed you off. People piss me off everyday but it doesn't change reality.

The lie has nothing to do with the term itself. I do not believe he broke the term but it doesn't matter. Even if he did the term can't be applied as is. The term breaks your very own operational standards and you and Tom both agree that it does.

Basically what I'm understanding at this point is that YOU and TOM have decided that he shouldn't be paid out of spite. This decsion renders the entire accredited casino list useless. If one casino can break one of the rules and get away with it there's no way anyone can trust that another won't get away with the same thing.

I'm going to see if I can close any accounts I've opened through that list and open new ones. Obviously the changes we're seeing in the online gambling industry isn't restricted to casinos. This is a serious breach of trust.

It seems that a number of you only want to see what you want to see. I really can't change that. It's really a shame that we can't agree to disagree on a subject. I thought this forum was a platform for discourse - not badgering me or whomever when you don't like the outcome of an issue.

No, we can't agree to disagree about this subject. We're not debating politics or global warming. We're talking about a casino withholding seven thousand dollars in winnings by implementing a term that you and Tom have both admitted needs to be clarified. It is wrong and if casinos in your accredited list are going to get away with this sort of behaviour the list itself is useless.

You're sitting back acting like we're just a bunch of pissy gamblers trying to help each other abuse the system. Don't you think that if he truly broke a fair term that at least SOMEBODY would agree with you? You have every single member of this forum who's posted in this thread in total agreement that this is simply wrong. CW has players closing their accounts. Now you have at least one long time, respected forum member leaving the forum. Yet you still stick to this fantasy that if a player lies about going back to his studies after the withdrawal had already been made that makes it ok to withhold a payment based on a term that never should have been applied in the first place.

Well, if you want us all to agree to disagree, that's fine. We'll all agree that your decision is flat out wrong. We'll all agree that nobody should ever place a single wager at any CW casino until this payment is made. We'll all agree that as long as CW remains accredited the list means nothing. And you can sit back and disagree with us if it makes you happy.

The times, they are a changin'

 

[P.V.]

T & C's

Why? He clearly broke the terms and conditions. It was written as the #1 term in black and white and was clear as day. Lying had nothing to do with the fact that he was and is a student.

Why is this so hard to understand?

If the T & C would have read like this I wouldn't have even bothered to get involved in this thread.

Any Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the casino. Any person, or graduate who plans on continuing his education at a later date, or is simply taking a break from education will still be defined as a Student and are not permitted to play in the casino. Proof of exit from the educational system shall be required.

From what I've seen that's how it's being construed by you and CWC.

The above example is a long way from how it's written.

Full-Time students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the casino.

Furthermore the definition of a Full-Time student is when you are registered for twelve or more credit hours in a semester or six or more credits in the summer sessions.

Danl clearly wasn't enrolled during the summer and when he gambled.Therefore Full-Time student or enrolled didn't apply.

With that being said the player did in fact provide inaccurate and false information when submitting his ID, that's the direction CWC should have taken vs. the student clause IMO.

He provided a student ID, since I don't think he was a student at the time of play along with Danl, when providing a student ID to CWC that's inaccurate information per their T & C's which forfeits winnings.

 

[The Dude]

...Basically what I'm understanding at this point is that YOU and TOM have decided that he shouldn't be paid out of spite

Since when did I start working for CWC? This is where you are mistaken - I never said he shouldn't be paid because he lied. I said the complete opposite. I said he wasn't paid because he broke the casino's terms and conditions. And this is exactly my point - you and a number of other members are only reading what you want to read. You've ignored most of what I have said. You are confusing the information I've had to explain with information I've analyzed.

To be honest, I've been butting heads with Tom for the past few weeks on this. It's their decision to not pay this player not mine.

Back to this term, where were you all three years ago when this term was instated? Why weren't you showing alarm back then?

Some of you are acting as though Club World just pulled this term out of their ass last week and enforced it. It's been there longer then some of you have been members of this forum. Many of you are players and affiliates of CWC - surely you've read their terms.

Don't you think that if he truly broke a fair term that at least SOMEBODY would agree with you?

Funny, most people I've spoken with agree that this guy can be defined as a student. Most people in this thread have said that the term needs to be rewritten - odd thing about that is that I was one of the first persons to mention this. What irks me is that you are confusing me with Club World.

And because I say the term needs to be written, does this nullify the term? That's not my decision but the casino's decision.

I've already stated how this player lied to the casino, lied to Gambling Grumbles, to me and you and all members of this board - do you actually think the casino would consider paying the player after all this? He lied. And he broke their terms and conditions. Have you ever once tried to put yourself in the shoes of a casino operator? I mean for real? What would you have done in this situation? When a) you know he is a student and b) he broke rule #1 - no students. I'd like to know.

 

[P.V.]

Since when did I start working for CWC? This is where you are mistaken - I never said he shouldn't be paid because he lied. I said the complete opposite. I said he wasn't paid because he broke the casino's terms and conditions. And this is exactly my point - you and a number of other members are only reading what you want to read. You've ignored most of what I have said. You are confusing the information I've had to explain with information I've analyzed.

To be honest, I've been butting heads with Tom for the past few weeks on this. It's their decision to not pay this player not mine.

Back to this term, where were you all three years ago when this term was instated? Why weren't you showing alarm back then?

Some of you are acting as though Club World just pulled this term out of their ass last week and enforced it. It's been there longer then some of you have been members of this forum. Many of you are players and affiliates of CWC - surely you've read their terms.



Funny, most people I've spoken with agree that this guy can be defined as a student. Most people in this thread have said that the term needs to be rewritten - odd thing about that is that I was one of the first persons to mention this. What irks me is that you are confusing me with Club World.

And because I say the term needs to be written, does this nullify the term? That's not my decision but the casino's decision.

I've already stated how this player lied to the casino, lied to Gambling Grumbles, to me and you and all members of this board - do you actually think the casino would consider paying the player after all this? He lied. And he broke their terms and conditions. Have you ever once tried to put yourself in the shoes of a casino operator? I mean for real? What would you have done in this situation? When a) you know he is a student and b) he broke rule #1 - no students. I'd like to know.

Your quotes don't show names, who are you talking to?

 

[The Dude]

Your quotes don't show names, who are you talking to?

Sorry

Quoted skiny but comments are for anyone in general

 

[skiny]

This is where you are mistaken - I never said he shouldn't be paid because he lied. I said the complete opposite.

Then the fact that he lied AFTER his withdrawal should have been submitted should never have entered this debate.

To be honest, I've been butting heads with Tom for the past few weeks on this. It's their decision to not pay this player not mine.

It's your decision to allow them to renege on this payment and remain accredited.

Back to this term, where were you all three years ago when this term was instated? Why weren't you showing alarm back then?

I don't play at CW. I have no reason to read their terms and conditions.

Some of you are acting as though Club World just pulled this term out of their ass last week and enforced it. It's been there longer then some of you have been members of this forum. Many of you are players and affiliates of CWC - surely you've read their terms.

I'm not a student. Why would I read too deeply into a term that clearly wouldn't apply to me in any situation? I guess that's why we have these forums. When someone else has a problem that we couldn't possibly have or have no reason to consider we step in and try to help.

Funny, most people I've spoken with agree that this guy can be defined as a student.

None that I've seen. Everyone in this thread seems to think he wasn't "In the education system" at the time he placed the wagers.

Most people in this thread have said that the term needs to be rewritten - odd thing about that is that I was one of the first persons to mention this. What irks me is that you are confusing me with Club World.

Then you should have been the first person to say the term should never have been applied in the first place.

And because I say the term needs to be written, does this nullify the term? That's not my decision but the casino's decision.

It's your decision if it breaches the qualifications for accreditation.

I've already stated how this player lied to the casino, lied to Gambling Grumbles, to me and you and all members of this board - do you actually think the casino would consider paying the player after all this?

The withdrawal should have been processed before he was put in a situation where he would lie.

He lied. And he broke their terms and conditions. Have you ever once tried to put yourself in the shoes of a casino operator? I mean for real? What would you have done in this situation? When a) you know he is a student and b) he broke rule #1 - no students. I'd like to know.

He didn't break the rule. The rule was already broken. And even if he did, I guess it's only important for the players to follow the terms and conditions. When the casino breaks the rules, we just let that slide.

Like I said before, this is wrong on many different levels. The fact that the term shouldn't have been applied in the first place according to your own qualifications for accreditation is the only one you have any control over.

I know that none of us can force any casino to pay anyone but we can put our foots down and show them how wrong we think it is that they're not.

 

[petro]

There is something very fishy about this.
Have a look here:

Natasha: Hello, how are you today?

Bobby S: Hi, I am almost 30, but every now and then I do courses i.e. small university courses. Since this will mean that I am a student will my winnings be confiscated?

Natasha: No sorry students are not allowed to play here i am afraid

Bobby S: Lol thats is ridiculous

Natasha: Correct we do not allow students i am afraid

Bobby S: thanks

 

[vinylweatherman]

Then the fact that he lied AFTER his withdrawal should have been submitted should never have entered this debate.





It's your decision to allow them to renege on this payment and remain accredited.



I don't play at CW. I have no reason to read their terms and conditions.




I'm not a student. Why would I read too deeply into a term that clearly wouldn't apply to me in any situation? I guess that's why we have these forums. When someone else has a problem that we couldn't possibly have or have no reason to consider we step in and try to help.




None that I've seen. Everyone in this thread seems to think he wasn't "In the education system" at the time he placed the wagers.

Then you should have been the first person to say the term should never have been applied in the first place.



It's your decision if it breaches the qualifications for accreditation.



The withdrawal should have been processed before he was put in a situation where he would lie.



He didn't break the rule. The rule was already broken. And even if he did, I guess it's only important for the players to follow the terms and conditions. When the casino breaks the rules, we just let that slide.

Like I said before, this is wrong on many different levels. The fact that the term shouldn't have been applied in the first place according to your own qualifications for accreditation is the only one you have any control over.

I know that none of us can force any casino to pay anyone but we can put our foots down and show them how wrong we think it is that they're not.

No, I believe he WAS "in the education system" when he played, BUT this is NOT what the term actually SAYS. The term ONLY applies when a student is "active", not simply WAITING AROUND during a break in studies.

Why was the other student PAID then? NOT the one who graduated and started looking for work. The one who merely POSTPONED his course by a year, who was STILL a "student within the education system". In THIS case, the term was applied AS WRITTEN, and the student was paid because he was NOT attending a university when he played, even though he had put his name down for the following year's course. DanL was treated DIFFERENTLY, and was deemed to be studying full time at a university he had yet to arrive at

When posters talk about CW being "allowed to get away with it", they mean "remain accredited despite....". It seems Bryan is powerless to make CW change their mind, but he DOES have the power to reassess their position on the accredited list. Since they remain on the list, posters are interpreting this as full support from Bryan for the decision to pay one student "still in the education system" despite the fact they broke this term just as "clearly" as DanL, who was NOT paid.

Given that this term is unique to CWC, it must be of IMMENSE value to them to have this term in place, and they are fighting tooth & nail to keep it, despite all this outpouring of negativity in this thread.

Players who registered before 2007 would not have seen this term, and after this would be concerned with changes in the promotional terms, since they were already fully verified under the general terms.

Affiliates, on the other hand, are marketing to NEW players, so should be more attentive to changes in the general terms, since they would have an impact on how they market the casino. The problem is that affiliates often promote many brands, and may be relying on the program to keep them updated with any relevant changes.

I signed up with Partnerlogic and 32Red affiliates when I first launched by website. I have received regular updates regarding changes, and this has included references to changes in the terms, such as when Partnerlogic decided to no longer accept French players. This would be important to any affiliate running a French facing site with marketing for Partnerlogic. Similarly, a site aimed at younger people is likely to be attractive to students, so affiliates for CWC should be ensuring that marketing for CWC is NOT targetted at students, and that the audience of young people is made aware that if they are students, they should look elsewhere.

Unfortunately, a conflict of interest exists, because an affiliate will profit from students just as they would from others, and even when the student was "busted" and had their deposits returned, the affiliate would get to keep all the payments already received, unless CWC also started confiscating past affiliate payments retrospectively when players breached the the terms If this was happening, we would have heard about it from aggrieved affiliates.

 

[greasemonkey]

I'm not piling on here nor do I have exact references off hand. This is just an observation ....

....but doesn't CWC seem to have more complaints here than a lot of casinos that are not accredited? It appears as though they handle themselves at a less than desired level of an accredited casino. It also appears that they get away with it. Unlike rushpod casinos, as an example, in which I truly believe are leaps and bounds above this group.

The question is why does CWC stay accredited but not rushpod? Again, not piling on or calling out conspiracy or any such thing. Just observing and innocently wondering what is so good about this group that is overstepping normal boundaries often...

 

[petro]

I just read every single post. It was like reading the bible, a giant bore.


- To say they don’t allow students because they are responsible is a joke.

- This ‘no student clause’ is clearly a money saving tactic by CWC.

- They and the rest of the RTG gang practice cost cutting religiously.


The crux of this conversation seems to be the definition of the word “student.”

The Oxford Dictionary is the no.1 world authority on definitions of words.

student n. person engaged in or addicted to study; person undergoing instruction in university, college.

The answer is simple; he either fits the above description or he doesn’t.

It’s Casinomeister’s decision as he is the judge here.


Small note:
Pinababy69: “Casinos are free to implement any terms they like."
Only if those terms are clear and reasonable.

 

[clubworld]

Let’s boil this down to the basic facts of the case:

1. We do not permit students to play in our casino. This is clear in our terms of use, readily available for all our players to read.

2. DanL is a student. He told us he was a student, he is currently enrolled in full time education and was at the time he played. These facts are not in dispute by the player.

3. Breaching the terms of use for any casino will result in your account being closed, winnings voided and deposits returned.

This is why DanL was not paid.

The term is not vague or unclear in its relevance to DanL – it says Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino. DanL is a full time student and he is enrolled in full time education.

Whether or not you believe that we should exclude students, or whether you feel that there are some edge cases that are not covered by this term does not change any of the facts above.

I will concede that reading this term could leave some players uncertain as to whether it applies to them and as such I have put this to our legal team and asked them to rephrase it to make it clearer.

My advice to any player at any casino who is unsure whether a specific term applies to them is to ask customer services and get the answer in writing before you make your deposit.

Kind Regards
Tom

 

[jas2587]

my father was a paper cutter for the printing industry for many years

alot of times the jobs would dry up an we traveled between Ohio and Florida
we always stopped in the truckstops to eat

even tho my Father was jobless an was goin to either state the truckers would ask are you a truck driver an my fathers responce always was I am a paper cutter
even tho he didnt have a job

it is just a natural thing to say when you are between jobs

oh im a Teacher Nurse Mother Student ETC ETC

like you are a Casino Rep if you got fired tomorrow you would still say you are a casino rep

Cindy

I hate to say but I think you will lose more money over your decsion here then if you would have just paid Dan

 

[Jasminebed]

I think whether Danl was a full-time student at the time he played is indeed not entirely clear-cut. He had graduated one course and not yet commenced his post-graduate work.

Dispite the fact that I don't agree with such a term, that is Club World's choice. But I think it is far from unambiguous.

Mr. Meister, I rather resent being referred to as part of a "mob". This opinion is my own, and that of many other respected CM members. No one asked me to post, or pm'd me to ask support for their opinion. All comments I've made on the matter have been made here on the boards.

 

[greasemonkey]

Let’s boil this down to the basic facts of the case:

1. We do not permit students to play in our casino. This is clear in our terms of use, readily available for all our players to read.

2. DanL is a student. He told us he was a student, he is currently enrolled in full time education and was at the time he played. These facts are not in dispute by the player.

3. Breaching the terms of use for any casino will result in your account being closed, winnings voided and deposits returned.

This is why DanL was not paid.

The term is not vague or unclear in its relevance to DanL – it says Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino. DanL is a full time student and he is enrolled in full time education.

Whether or not you believe that we should exclude students, or whether you feel that there are some edge cases that are not covered by this term does not change any of the facts above.

I will concede that reading this term could leave some players uncertain as to whether it applies to them and as such I have put this to our legal team and asked them to rephrase it to make it clearer.

My advice to any player at any casino who is unsure whether a specific term applies to them is to ask customer services and get the answer in writing before you make your deposit.

Kind Regards
Tom

A few questions....



What about when YOU break your own terms? What is done then? For example, when you say that you will pay in "x" amount of time but it takes longer (which DOES happen with you). What about that? You clearly broke terms. At that point do you feel it appropriate to give the player $7000 from the casino because you broke a term?

If you care so much about not allowing students or whomever play, why do you not DEMAND a faxback form and all documentation prior to allowing a deposit? why is it only important during cashouts?
Ya' know, in America, if I am not at least 21 years of age and I go to a bar and drink then the BAR gets into trouble. It is their job to check my ID. Why would you not check on players prior to allowing them to transfer money into your coffers if you are so stinking concerned with it?

How are you doing anything other than stealing his winnings? You are not protecting yourself from fraud or any other thing that could be deemed as fraudulent. You are, in fact, looking for a way NOT to pay him.

 

[skiny]

Let’s boil this down to the basic facts of the case:

1. We do not permit students to play in our casino. This is clear in our terms of use, readily available for all our players to read.

2. DanL is a student. He told us he was a student, he is currently enrolled in full time education and was at the time he played. These facts are not in dispute by the player.

3. Breaching the terms of use for any casino will result in your account being closed, winnings voided and deposits returned.

This is why DanL was not paid.

The term is not vague or unclear in its relevance to DanL – it says Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino. DanL is a full time student and he is enrolled in full time education.

Whether or not you believe that we should exclude students, or whether you feel that there are some edge cases that are not covered by this term does not change any of the facts above.

I will concede that reading this term could leave some players uncertain as to whether it applies to them and as such I have put this to our legal team and asked them to rephrase it to make it clearer.

My advice to any player at any casino who is unsure whether a specific term applies to them is to ask customer services and get the answer in writing before you make your deposit.

Kind Regards
Tom

Yes, we already know CW has no intention of paying this player. We already know your decision is final. Pretty much everyone disagrees with you but they've all given up hope of this player ever seeing his money.

The debate isn't really whether or not Danl should have been paid. We know he won't be. The debate now is whether or not CW casinos should be removed from the accredited list because of it.

We have no control over that either but if enough people feel that at least one casino is on this list that shouldn't be... If enough people feel that CW has clearly broken the rules qualifying them for their inclusion on this list, the list itself is useless and the statements above it are meaningless.

So you go right ahead and hold on to the fantasy that someone who's graduated and is waiting to start studying somewhere else is a student. Make your claims that your terms were broken and withhold his winnings. It doesn't matter because I'm not debating whether or not he broke your rules anymore. I'm debating whether or not you broke Bryan's.

Since you have insisted on applying this term that you and Bryan have obviously both agreed is ambiguous and withhold this payment that should have been made long before Danl re-entered the education system and long before he even could have lied about being back in class then it is CW who is breaking the rules.

In my opinion, if CW applies this term as is and remains on the "accredited list," the list itself is no more than a bunch of casino advertisements. It used to mean more.

Nobody has any say in whether or not CW has to pay this player except CW but collectively we do have all the say in whether or not any of us plays there ever again.

And nobody has any say in whether or not CW remains on the accredited list except Bryan but collectively we do have all the say in whether or not we trust this list once the rules are allowed to be broken.

So you can all do whatever you want.

Sow the seeds and see what grows.

 

[jas2587]

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.

Not to derail also but IMO
I didn't see that much wrong with Nash post
yeah him an Max have a conflict but to ban him because you disagree with what he said seems like Max took it personal

as for Nash style of chat if you read between the lines you can figure it out

come on its Christmas Nash also has some valuable insight into alot of the threads here

someone will say something about a former post an Nash post the link quickly
I for one have always enjoyed Nash"s post an his wisdom an he is missed around here

hey he is no Lojo

just my thoughts on this matter

Cindy

 

[skiny]

I can't even be bothered posting anymore.

If CW is allowed to use a term to refuse a withdrawal and then change the term some day later on down the road (whenever they get around to it, I guess) so it actually fits the situation it was originally used for, what's the point?

If this just quietly goes away and CW and Casinomeister just carry on, business as usual, I don't think I want to be a part of that business.

And that is a shame because I kind of liked this site.

 

[maxd]

... but to ban him because you disagree with what he said seems like Max took it personal ....

I suggest you go back and read the posts related to this. He was banned for being a troll after having received repeated warnings for this kind of behaviour. Be a troll; many warnings to not do so; keep doing it; get banned.

It's not a matter of disagreeing with what he said, it's a matter of whether he should be allowed to continue ignoring the warnings and violate the forum rules, to wit:

1.14 - No Trolls. From Wikipedia: "A Troll is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." Trolls will be waterboarded, and their accounts will be permanently disabled.

 

[just play]

I can't even be bothered posting anymore.

If CW is allowed to use a term to refuse a withdrawal and then change the term some day later on down the road (whenever they get around to it, I guess) so it actually fits the situation it was originally used for, what's the point?

If this just quietly goes away and CW and Casinomeister just carry on, business as usual, I don't think I want to be a part of that business.

And that is a shame because I kind of liked this site.

I'm going to have to agree here. This thread and the other thread about changing T&C's without notifying the player isn't what I thought an accredited casiono would do. (deny payment, change term...change term after player plays the same game, deny payment)

I'm sorry but I don't care if Bryan agrees or disagrees with the casinos, there IS something he can do about it, but chooses not to. It really makes me wonder what is happening here? Must be more than meets the eye, is the only thing that pops in my mind.

Again sorry to say, but "accredited casinos" aren't that important to me anymore, if they can get away with certain things they should not. What is the difference between accredited and non accredited now? Might as well play at a rogue casino, there is no difference.

Of course business will carry on as usual. The only way players can change anything is to stop depositing at these casinos, and we all know how hard that can be, I don't really see that happening any time soon.

On a side note...I don't particularly care for the way Bryan and Max are replying to some of these threads. Things are changing, and it's not for the better.

 

[The Dude]

Fork me please

I'm putting a fork into this thread because it's just going around in circles.

Some points I'd like to make before closing this thread. I knew that this issue would be a volatile one since Danl had already presented his case to Gambling Grumbles and GG was not satisfied with Club World's response - so it ended up here. On the surface, Max and I wondered why this player was not being paid since he told us he had been out of school - he was planning to continue next year sometime. Fine he's not a student, and I believe that's the story he gave GG and anybody else for that matter. Most everyone in this forum saw this as a clear cut case of "pay the player".

When Max and I found out that the player had lied to us, that he was still a student and was a student during the time of playing at the casino, we had pretty much made the call that yes, the casino reserved the right to negate his winnings. Danl had broken the terms and condition.

What is sad is that only a handful of forum members understood this; the thread continued to get sidetracked. IMO - the thread was clouded by his initial claim of not being a student. My concern was to focus on the facts of this matter hoping to assist the player if I could. Tom posted these facts here:

1. We do not permit students to play in our casino. This is clear in our terms of use, readily available for all our players to read.

2. DanL is a student. He told us he was a student, he is currently enrolled in full time education and was at the time he played. These facts are not in dispute by the player.

3. Breaching the terms of use for any casino will result in your account being closed, winnings voided and deposits returned.

This is why DanL was not paid.

The term is not vague or unclear in its relevance to DanL – it says Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino. DanL is a full time student and he is enrolled in full time education.

Whether or not you believe that we should exclude students, or whether you feel that there are some edge cases that are not covered by this term does not change any of the facts above...

So that is what we were dealing with.

For the record, I thought that it would have been a nice gesture to pay the student his winnings anyway. Since the term was being debated in the forum - then there must be something that was unclear about it, right? So I thought if that was the case, then perhaps they should pay Danl, rewrite the term, and then move on. But as I looked into this more, the term really covered this player - you could debate the term, but it wouldn't matter because the player falls into its category of a student. So where was the debate? The debate was on how it was "widesweeping". In my opinion, a widesweeping term could be construed as poorly written - but as it stood - it was a widespread ban. I suggested that the casino rewrite this term so that there is no question who it referred to.

But it still referred to Danl.

Further with my opinion: the player lied to not only me, but to everyone here. For me that is significant - you don't try to convince others that you've been wronged by lying to them. Quite a number of members here feel that is acceptable - sorry, I don't. As soon as these lies became more apparent, I pretty much dropped my support for the player.

..Mr. Meister, I rather resent being referred to as part of a "mob". This opinion is my own, and that of many other respected CM members. No one asked me to post, or pm'd me to ask support for their opinion. All comments I've made on the matter have been made here on the boards.

I didn't mean to make a lumping of all forum members into a mob. What I meant was, there is a moblike mentality when people egg each other on with high fives (thanks) and think that being outspoken makes one right. That's what was happening in this thread. I'm sure there were a number of people turned off from joining the discussion because they didn't want to be ganged up on. If I referred to you as being part of a mob - my apologies.

I can't even be bothered posting anymore.

If CW is allowed to use a term to refuse a withdrawal and then change the term some day later on down the road (whenever they get around to it, I guess) so it actually fits the situation it was originally used for, what's the point?

If this just quietly goes away and CW and Casinomeister just carry on, business as usual, I don't think I want to be a part of that business.

And that is a shame because I kind of liked this site.

This is so way off the mark, I really don't have an idea how to respond to this. CW didn't pull this term out of its ass - its been there for years. They weren't looking for an excuse not to pay a player - they had set terms and conditions and enforced them. The player didn't read them and had his winnings forfeited. Rule #1 - when you indicate that you have read the terms and conditions, make sure you have read them. If you break them, don't try to lie your way out of it - suck it up and move on. Life lesson: be responsible for your own actions. That's sage advice and pretty damn simple to follow.

If this puts you off from posting anymore, well sorry about that. It's like you want to get divorced after one disagreement.

...I'm sorry but I don't care if Bryan agrees or disagrees with the casinos, there IS something he can do about it, but chooses not to. It really makes me wonder what is happening here? Must be more than meets the eye, is the only thing that pops in my mind....

What more am I expected to do? I accepted Danl's PAB and discussed it at length with a number of people to include Club World's manager and operator. I encouraged debate about the subject here in this forum - as long as the debate kept to the main issues it was fine. I created another thread to give players and affiliates a platform to offer CW suggestions on how to improve their terms and conditions. What more am I expected to do?

Yeah, I get it. Whenever I stick to my guns, and a player loses out "there is more than what meets the eye." Where were you two weeks ago when I pulled Betfair casino off of the Accredited list and rogued them for bad casino practice? That was some major doing. "Yeah, Casinomeister! Rogue 'dem casinos!" But when it comes to stating that a player is in the wrong - I get skewered.

I just wonder how many members who have been so outspoken against the casino are bonus banned there. Should I ask Tom?

On a side note...I don't particularly care for the way Bryan and Max are replying to some of these threads. Things are changing, and it's not for the better.

Well as another side note, I don't particularly like the way a number of members behaved in this thread. We had two troll bannings, and several warnings. And a couple of people throwing their arms in the air saying they are going to quit. I think that Max and I have maintained rather level heads under the circumstances.

As an end note, holding true to your beliefs is not an easy thing to do. But I think that this website has done it's part in giving this player a fair shake at trying to receive his winnings. If he had only read the terms and conditions, he would have gone elsewhere and saved himself (and everyone involved) a lot of grief.

Inserting fork: Thread upgraded to closed.