Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[vinylweatherman]

Perhaps Danl DID read the T&Cs and because he was inbetween semesters figured he was excluded. And when you state...

This term is intended to exclude children, dependants and people who are still in school from playing.

I am assuming this TERM means anybody, regardless of age, if they are a stay-at-home-spouse, or still employed but furthering their education.

And you state...

It is the player’s responsibility to read the terms before they play – we cannot pre-screen every person who creates an account with us against every item in our terms of use before permitting them to deposit.

But we the players need to make sure WE read the terms and conditions and understand them fully (although, it seems this doesn't work as the casino can alter THEIR meaning of a certain term when it suits them) BEFORE we make that initial deposit. So, if the casino has written these T&Cs, but can't be BOTHERED to make sure each person who creates an account with them isn't in some type of violation, then why have them? It most definitley is a catch-22. The player has to nitpick and now worry about loosely written T&Cs before depositing, but still take the chance their interpretation will be WRONG if they win.

Is this the precedence which will start appearing with online casinos? This case will surely see other casinos trying to worm their way out of having to pay out winnings. What's to stop them from adding-on this loosely written term? I've read so many T&Cs from different casinos lately, and surprise-surprise, many of them STATE they can change WITHOUT notice the general AND bonus T&Cs.

So, for those of you who can/do still play online, be sure EACH time you decide to deposit, that you read the T&Cs BEFORE depositing to make sure you aren't breaking a NEWLY added T&C.

That's the problem with ANY term that is even the slightest bit vague, it is open to interpretation, and even READING the terms does not mean you will be OK. Many terms casinos use are DELIBERATELY designed by them to be "open to interpretation", such as the "irregular play" term, that even where examples are given, it is often "including, .........., but not restricted to......." and use of "in the determination of the casino.........".

You would not get this with EXACT terms, and where contracts end up in court, vague terms tend to be thrown out, or interpreted in favour of the "victim" in the arrangement.

Many businesses find they are losing cases because the way THEY interpret a term is NOT the way the JUDGE does when making a ruling.

 

[hitobito2005]

Interesting case. I was a student when I played at CWC several years ago. Was never aware of the anti-student term (I played at many other casinos with no problem). Think I ended several thousand down. Looking forward to my refund

 

[jelsmith]

I agree....If multitudes of PAB's with student transcripts start rolling in....that no student term will disappear faster than your head can spin.....Do they even realize the amount of people who are probably students? I mean tons and tons of people went back to school after the economy tanked....CW is askin to take it up their a$$ if they continue with whole student thing.


Where do we send out transcripts?

 

[Pulver]

Interesting case. I was a student when I played at CWC several years ago. Was never aware of the anti-student term (I played at many other casinos with no problem). Think I ended several thousand down. Looking forward to my refund

Have you PAB'ed?

 

[hitobito2005]

Nah, was kind of tongue-in-cheek. I don't really expect a refund.

Although i'm quite fired up for the courts now with the Betfair thing and all that

 

[justymich]

I agree with Jel, maybe we should all start funneling our transcripts in. Since CW group won't let us students gamble with them, we can set up a pool and take bets on how long it will take CW to remove the clause once they have to start refunding depsoits. Hey, we gotta gamble somehow right?

 

[skiny]

I made a QT deposit to CWC, took a 75% match bonus, and made playthrough and ended with $300 ($270 due to the sticky nature of the bonus). So, I sent the documentation in. This morning, I got the following request from the cashier:

Thank you for the email. We received all documents, to approve them we also need proof of full time employment.

I understand that the issue is that the OP was a student at some point before and will be again after his play at this casino but did I miss something? I can't find any term or condition that says a player has to be a full time employee.

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.

Personally I feel this should be asked on the application for an account. It's difficult to screen out possible fraudsters or bonus abusers on an application but if it's really this important that students not gamble at this casino, asking them before they deposit is a whole lot more efficient than hunting them down after they win.

10. Club World Casinos (CWCUSD) does not currently accept any real money wagers from the legal jurisdictions of the Netherlands Antilles, Costa Rica, Israel, France or the area of Markham in Canada.

Has anyone figured this out yet? Markham is a city near Toronto in Ontario but in the greater Toronto area there is very little to define were these cities end and the next one starts. Markham, Etobicoke, Mississauga, Scarborough, York, North York, Pickering, Toronto are all cities and are all kind of mashed together. It's like one huge city. Simply saying the "area of Markham" is kind of vague. If I live in Pickering can I still play or am I in the "area of Markham?"

18. In cases where players are participating in strategies or patterns of play that CWCUSD in its sole discretion deems to be abusive we reserve the right, prior to closing the account, to deduct any processing costs associated with the account from the value of the final payment. You will be notified in advance of any deductions of this nature being made.

Standards for Accredited Casinos

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

Sounds kind of like the same thing to me.

 

[Jasminebed]

Nah, was kind of tongue-in-cheek. I don't really expect a refund.

Although i'm quite fired up for the courts now with the Betfair thing and all that

I agree with Jel, maybe we should all start funneling our transcripts in. Since CW group won't let us students gamble with them, we can set up a pool and take bets on how long it will take CW to remove the clause once they have to start refunding depsoits. Hey, we gotta gamble somehow right?

I honestly don't know if any student player will receive a refund. But for any meister member, they are CM accredited casinos, and a failed PAB will not impact your future ability to PAB.

You are not any worse off then you started, and you won't be any worse off when you finish.

Even with bonuses, casinos finish ahead. And the terms at Clubworld do not just relate to bonus play.

Students are prohibited. But this is a unique term amongst casinos, so lazy players who don't read the terms expecting fair terms from accredited casinos may miss it.

Again, I encourage anny CWC players that think they may have qualified under the current (and since day one) terms to have their winnings denied to PAB asking for their net losses back.

 

[ksech]

I honestly don't know if any student player will receive a refund. But for any meister member, they are CM accredited casinos, and a failed PAB will not impact your future ability to PAB.

You are not any worse off then you started, and you won't be any worse off when you finish.

Even with bonuses, casinos finish ahead. And the terms at Clubworld do not just relate to bonus play.

Students are prohibited. But this is a unique term amongst casinos, so lazy players who don't read the terms expecting fair terms from accredited casinos may miss it.

Again, I encourage anny CWC players that think they may have qualified under the current (and since day one) terms to have their winnings denied to PAB asking for their net losses back.

I certainly hope that some present a PAB. ALTHOUGH, with this being the first item on the list of their T&Cs, I highly doubt anyone will receive a refund. And as you stated, this IS a unique term amongst casinos. Most state players must be at least 18 to play in the casino only.

I think this is where CWC will be able to deny refunds. As clubworld Tom stated, it is the responsiblity of the player to make sure they read and understand the T&Cs before they deposit. Obviously, there are many who OVERLOOKED this term (although, it IS in the very first paragraph of the T&CS) or simply assumed the terms for this group are the same as with any other online casino.

We could spend days/weeks nitpicking T&Cs from different casinos, as I'm sure each and every casino has some unique term. And with the casinos now coming up with their own "lingo", we need to start a reference thread to keep up so new and old alike won't be caught up with logistics. It could be used to counter-reference against questionable terms.

BUT, then you will be spending minutes/hours talking to CSRs to make sure you won't be in violation of any singular term, instead of spending your money. So, another catch-22. Do the casinos want us to start trying to decipher what THEIR definitions are of specific terms (so the player can have some peace of mind before depositing and playing) or do they want the player to continue as before, ASSUMING they are going to be integral towards the player IF/WHEN they win.

With it becoming tougher and tougher for the US player to find ways to fund accounts, you would think the casinos would WANT to clarify discrepencies, such as this one, to hold onto their player based. This, IMO, would be enough to drive away any new (and possibly old) player for fear of simple misinterpretation.

We all understand this is a business. But, somewhere down the line, the odds have to be in favor for the player too. If the casinos continue tightening their reins on RTPs, banning players for obscure reasons, or simply denying withdrawals due to terms only the casinos benefit from, then they are going to lose their player base and end up on the side of the curb.

And with so many "rogue" casinos out there (and every platform has them), the choices for the new players to find honest and player-friendly casinos will be like looking for the needle in the haystack.

In the last few weeks we've seen several "favored" casinos fall into what I'd term, embarrassing situations. It was nice that clubworld Tom finally replied to this thread, although I personally think his reply was rather curt and condescending. BUT you don't find too many reps who will step in and make any type of comment anymore (again,JMO). So, kudos to clubworld Tom for that.

If things turn for the better for the US player base, I hope these once favored casinos remember who they've been screwing over lately with THEIR new and unique terminology/attitudes. (Although, I highly doubt I will be one of the ones welcomed with open arms after this is all said and done, since I've been a pain in the arse )

 

[rockycatt]

well it certainly doesn't wreak of being over capitalized

 

[vinylweatherman]

I honestly don't know if any student player will receive a refund. But for any meister member, they are CM accredited casinos, and a failed PAB will not impact your future ability to PAB.

You are not any worse off then you started, and you won't be any worse off when you finish.

Even with bonuses, casinos finish ahead. And the terms at Clubworld do not just relate to bonus play.

Students are prohibited. But this is a unique term amongst casinos, so lazy players who don't read the terms expecting fair terms from accredited casinos may miss it.

Again, I encourage anny CWC players that think they may have qualified under the current (and since day one) terms to have their winnings denied to PAB asking for their net losses back.

Well, they breached the terms, and the penalty needs to be the SAME, whether they won or lost. If winners have their bets voided, the same should apply to those who lost. Once casinos start to SELECTIVELY enforce terms ONLY in situations where THEY come out ahead, they lose credibility as a fair organisation.

Remember, Tom said this was all about PROTECTING the vulnerable, so by his own argument they MUST refund the deposits of all students who would never have been eligible to receive any winnings. Clearly, players would have to PROVE they were students, since ANYONE who lost could claim they were a student at the time.


This part of the process is also wrong:-

Thank you for the email. We received all documents,

to approve them we also need proof of full time employment.

There is NO term that requires players to be in full time employment, so refusing a payout simply because a player is NOT in employment is a rogue act.

They also want "full time" employment, yet MANY jobs are now offered on a part time basis, or a fixed term contract. The "full time job for life" died out long ago, so this needs clarifying as to what is considered NOT to be qualifying employment. It also needs to be put in the terms, so that players KNOW they will need to be in employment just in case they get asked this during verification.

 

[ksech]

There is NO term that requires players to be in full time employment, so refusing a payout simply because a player is NOT in employment is a rogue act.

They also want "full time" employment, yet MANY jobs are now offered on a part time basis, or a fixed term contract. The "full time job for life" died out long ago, so this needs clarifying as to what is considered NOT to be qualifying employment. It also needs to be put in the terms, so that players KNOW they will need to be in employment just in case they get asked this during verification.

It all comes back to what the CASINO defines as "full-time" employment. I agree, there isn't one word mentioned in their T&Cs about ANY type of employment. How many of their player base would be considered in violation of this "invisible" term? Perhaps this is one of those "we reserve the right to change the T&Cs without notification" clauses, although, the only ones who seem able to "see" this clause is the casino.

So now, players need to make sure they aren't in violation of being a student and they need to make sure they fit into the full-time employed category. So, there are approximately 11 people from this thread only who would fail to meet the criteria of playing at CWC (of course we can't take into account the members of CWC who don't post on this forum and would fail to meet these terms). I wonder how many people this would really affect, just from what has been uncovered in this thread alone...

 

[danl]

You are at a party/in a bar/on a date etc, and someone asks you "So, what do you do for a living?". I know if I were in danl's shoes, I would answer "I'm a student". I mean, you wouldn't say "Well I was a student 2 weeks ago, and now I'm nothing at all, but in 4 weeks I will be a student again", would you? Surely you would consider yourself a student given that your studies were continuing?

I understand this argument, but there I would hope that if I was on a date that I wouldn't be so pressed for time that I couldn't take an additional 15 seconds to explain the situation in more detail: I had just finished one course, and I was due to start another course in a couple of months. Moreover, the interpretation of contract terms is a more precise matter than a bar conversation.


Drawing on what Steve Russo said about when he mentioned his daughter working between courses: if I was a student when I played at Aladdin's Gold between courses, where was I a student?

The university I had left wouldn't consider me as currently studying at their institution any more: I had just graduated.

The law school I was going to start at wouldn't consider me as currently studying at their institution yet: I had not started the course.

Where was I a student? What is a student?

 

[The Dude]

...

Where was I a student? What is a student?

Okay - let's try this again.

You were clearly a student. You may have graduated but you had enrolled in another degree program. Your status would be defined as a student. Your livelihood and situation were unchanged. You even believed this yourself (that you were a student) because you said so. You only changed your mind after it was pointed out to you that you were not allowed to participate at the casino.

If you had read the terms and conditions of this casino, we wouldn't be having this conversation/discussion.

edited to add: you also misrepresented your situation to both me and Steve Russo when you failed to mention you were still a student at that time.

 

[danl]

edited to add: you also misrepresented your situation to both me and Steve Russo when you failed to mention you were still a student at that time.

Absolutely - there's no excuse for this, and it was completely the wrong thing to do.

Okay - let's try this again.

You were clearly a student. You may have graduated but you had enrolled in another degree program. Your status would be defined as a student. Your livelihood and situation were unchanged.

However, I don't think it is that clear or there would be no scope for debating the issue. My situation did change during that period: I had moved out of student accommodation and was no longer studying. It wasn't a vacation during a course, it was a period between two discrete and separate courses. I didn't "belong" to any educational institute during that time. How would you define a student?

I also don't think it's unreasonable for someone to reconsider their position more carefully when they realise that it is vitally important; it shouldn't make that refined argument less valuable.

 

[The Dude]

...

I also don't think it's unreasonable for someone to reconsider their position more carefully when they realise that it is vitally important; it shouldn't make that refined argument less valuable.

Like when you realized that you had broken the casinos terms and conditions - you didn't read them. That's a convenient time to reconsider your position

 

[Nifty29]

OK. That's it. I'm calling PETA and the RSPCA.

It's bad enough to watch horses being flogged when they're racing - but it's just damn cruel to see it done to them when they're dead.

Max....... do you have that fork handy?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Okay - let's try this again.

You were clearly a student. You may have graduated but you had enrolled in another degree program. Your status would be defined as a student. Your livelihood and situation were unchanged. You even believed this yourself (that you were a student) because you said so. You only changed your mind after it was pointed out to you that you were not allowed to participate at the casino.

If you had read the terms and conditions of this casino, we wouldn't be having this conversation/discussion.

edited to add: you also misrepresented your situation to both me and Steve Russo when you failed to mention you were still a student at that time.

Yes, but the term qualifies this by going on to say "enrolled full time at a college or university".

DanL was, for a time, NOT "enrolled full time at a college or university", so he fell outside the STRICT letter of this term, even though he was still a student within the SPIRIT of this term.

The term is too tightly qualified by this definition of enrollment when it is clear that it is supposed to apply BETWEEN different courses and at different institutions.

There also seems to be one law for one student, and another law for another. The other case was a student who had enrolled, but had to delay starting the course for an extra year because he couldn't AFFORD to take up the place.

Surely he was STILL a student by "livelihood and situation" just as DanL was in the summer between courses, so how come he was NOT barred from playing after an investigation, even though the initial sanction was the same.
How is someone having to pull out of his course through lack of funds LESS vulnerable, and so not in need of the "protection" granted to DanL, who still managed to find $5000 of "spare" money to play with despite being a student, and going on to take another course.

The approach to enforcement of this term is inconsistent, and seems down to the whim of whoever makes the decision, rather than what is written in the terms.

This is already resulting in players being scared off because they cannot be certain they are not in violation of either this term, or the implied term that proof of full time employment can be required at the whim of the verification team, something only those players IN full time employment will be able to provide if it becomes an issue.

If this ever made it to court, I think CW could lose this case because they have added "enrolled full time in a college or university", and what would be needed is evidence of enrollment and full time study at the time of play, NOT just evidence of being a student by occupation. The other player was also NOT studying at the time he played, which in his case meant he was NOT in violation of this term, since he was not going to study until he had got the money together to finance the course.

Either BOTH players should have had their play voided, or NEITHER of them should have - this would have been a consistent application of the rule.

The inconsistent nature of enforcement leaves many players not knowing where they stand on this.

Maybe I am banned too, because I have not been in full time employment since 2000, so would be "stuffed" if faced with having to provide such proof in order to verify my account.

 

[danl]

Like when you realized that you had broken the casinos terms and conditions - you didn't read them. That's a convenient time to reconsider your position

I was making a more general and more academic point.

What is inherently wrong with someone wanting to clarify their position on something when they realise it is more important than they first thought? Just because someone wasn't aware of a term doesn't necessarily mean they have broken it.

Obviously misrepresenting your position is not the right thing to do. However, if (in perhaps an alternate and fictional scenario) someone had clearly not broken a term, but made a vague initial statement, surely the fact that they were clarifying their position after they realised it was more important is just a natural and fair thing to do?

 

[skiny]

Casino: What do you do for a living?

Player: I'm a toll booth attendent.

Casino: Oh? toll booth attendents can't play. We'll refund your deposit instead of processing your withdrawal.

Player: Well in truth I lost my job last month. I am starting a new toll booth job in a few months though so although I'm not really still a toll booth attendent I still just say I am. It's easier than explaining why I'm doing nothing right now.

Casino: Doesn't matter. You consider yourself a toll booth attendent even though you aren't one currently and you will be one again in the future. Sorry, you do get your deposit back though.

Player:

 

[danl]

And imagine if that term was even more specific and said full-time toll booth attendants who are employed at a toll booth.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Okay - let's try this again.

OK

You were clearly a student. You may have graduated....

No further questions your honor. The Plaintiff rests!!

Pay the graduate please.

 

[skiny]

Well, you do have to admire the casino's resolve. They are obviously have their player's best interests in mind. Just because a person is a college graduate and is waiting to start post graduate studies in the future doesn't mean he's smart enough to know whether or not he can afford to gamble.

Unless of course he's studying to be a chartered accountant. On second thought, they're banned too. They're probably smart enough to figure out the bonus conditions.

You're a student? No soup for you!

 

[P.V.]

Pay the graduate please.

Ditto, do I hear a third?

 

[P.V.]

PS - Danl,

I suggest you go here and post a complaint moving forward. www.curacao-egaming.com/index-4.html

An uninterested party might be your best bet, good luck.

 

[vinylweatherman]

And imagine if that term was even more specific and said full-time toll booth attendants who are employed at a toll booth.

This illustrates why I feel you are right in thinking this term did NOT apply to you for a short period when you were between courses. It is the addition of the qualification about being CURRENTLY enrolled, which means although a student by trade, you were "out of work" since you were effectively "between jobs".

This also means that as soon as you started the next course, you had to stop playing at the casino, since by starting full time studies, the term and it's qualification means you cannot play.

This is really down to the legal meaning of this term AS WRITTEN, not as CW INTENDED it to work. They thought they had produced a tighter term, but in fact they created a loophole, one which the first complainant managed to squeeze through because they coudn't afford to begin their course, yet just like you, they had enrolled, and intended to begin studying in the Autumn. You began your studies, but the other complainant had to defer theirs for another year. BOTH of you are still students though, by "livelihood".

YOU could afford $5000 to spend at the casino - yet CW believes you are in a vulnerable category through being a student, and should never have risked that money. They protect you as a group category by voiding all play and returning the initial stakes.

The other guy could not even afford to take up his STUDIES, much less have spare money floating around to risk at the casino. Curiously though, CW have NOT deemed him worthy of protection, and are happy to carry on allowing him to risk his money now that his position has been clarified.

I am interested in seeing what the rewritten term looks like, as it will reveal what the true "spirit" is behind this ban on students, as they will surely ensure these "loopholes" are closed down by defining what they mean by "student" more accurately.

You CLEARLY violated the SPIRIT of the term, but so did the OTHER player. What must grate is the fact that this other player "got away with it", and you didn't - and by what seems to be down to technicalities, such as an arbitrary determination of how long a gap between ending one course and starting another still counts as being a "banned student" at the casino. The length of this gap is the biggest difference between you. YOUR break was just the summer, probably about 3 months. The other player took a "gap year", for a break of about 15 months, but this was something he didn't intend to do, but was FORCED into because he didn't have the money to take up the course straight away.

This is merely the beginning, since quite a few other posters now believe they may be excluded by this term, even though they have been playing, and perhaps even getting paid, simply because the question has never come up during account verification.

Had you provided your driving license, rather than your expired student card, CW would probably have no idea that you had been studying, and the question about your future plans would never have come up. As Tom said, they DON'T check every 18-21 year old out in case they are students, let alone the older players. They ONLY check when something else has alerted them to the possibility that a player is a student, and THEN they run the extended checks on occupation and means.

The student players they already have probably didn't set off any flags, so their occupational status has never been checked, and probably WILL never be checked unless they do something "daft" like using their campus address, or sending in a student ID card - or even let slip when chatting over the phone to a casino rep. The vast majority probably didn't bother reading the terms, so STILL don't know they are supposed to be banned.

"Newbie" players are those more likely to skip reading the terms, which is probably why students get caught out on this one. More experienced players quickly become aware that failure to read the terms gives the casino a HUGE advantage on top of the house edge - reading the woes of others makes this learning process even quicker. There are now quite a few players who NOW realise they should NEVER have played at CW in the first place, and are probably wondering how they can slip away with any remaining winnings without getting noticed. There are others who are not sure, and will want clarification of their own position before they play any further.

 

[ksech]

I too, am waiting to see how their newly reworded T&Cs will appear. Personally, I think this should be a blow to CWC's "ego". It can't be good publicity, now that they have firmly declared and upheld their decision to not honor the "spirit of fair play".

Yes, mistakes were made by Danl. BUT if he produced legitimate PROOF that he was no longer with one institution and was NOT residing in the same place where he studied when he played, then that to me negates the student status issue. Who's to say what that 3 month break could evoke? Any matter of lifes' situations could have altered whether or not he was able to continue with his studies at a DIFFERENT institution (if I am reading and understanding the gist of all this correctly).

I revert back to a previous statement: If the casino is so concerned with "protecting" the student, then change the clause to 21 years of age. Define full-time student and define full-time employment. And the full-time employment NEEDS to be written in with terminology the layperson can understand with no room for any misinterpretation.

 

[maxd]

An uninterested party might be your best bet ....

As opposed to ....? Why don't you ask danl what he thinks of how his PAB was handled? You might be surprised.

 

[ergopro]

Location: Blitzen's, a North Pole pub

Sorry for the derail but Santa nor his reindeers live in North Pole...

Edit: For the actual subject...seems no matter what CWC decides, does the trick anymore.

 

[CoolCat]

PS - Danl,

I suggest you go here and post a complaint moving forward. www.curacao-egaming.com/index-4.html

An uninterested party might be your best bet, good luck.

I agree...Dan there are other things you can do besides PAB. Try contacting the local media in the area CWC is located. Ask them if they will hear your story. Write to the local government in their area. Let them know about the unfair terms CWC is using. Start a blog. If you feel like you was unfairly denied. Do what you have to do to bring mass attention to the matter. Simply posting here isn't going to cut it. Take the time and effort. You may be surprise what might happen. I had a problem back in 1999 with Casino-On-Net. I contacted the local media in tel aviv. Next thing I know I was paid in full and account closed. So don't just accept 'SORRY NO CAN DO' as an answer. There are other avenue to take. You just gotta take the time and take them.

Good Luck

 

[rockycatt]

i think maxd just solved the danl puzzle if so id say thanx cwc for listening to this board argue his case

on a side note thanx to all of the astute participants that pulled for danl


P S on a lighter note all this mental masturbation did climax

 

[maxd]

i think maxd just solved the danl puzzle ....

I did?!? What was the puzzle? How did I solve it? What's my name and where's my lunchbox?

... Santa nor his reindeers live in North Pole...

Maybe not, but that's where they party! :yahoo:

 

[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

Hi Tom,

Have you clarified if this will happen yet?

This was quite a lengthy thread, Just to clarify, ClubWorld WILL NOT Pay the complainants winnings?

Nate

 

[maxd]

... Just to clarify, ClubWorld WILL NOT Pay the complainants winnings?

If you're talking about danl (as originally posted here) the situation is that he has received $5000 of his original $11983.50. As things currently stand CWC's position is that they will not be making further payments to this player because of Terms violations.

 

[jelsmith]

If you're talking about danl the situation is that he has received $5000 of his original $11983.50. As things currently stand CWC's position is that they will not be making further payments to this player because of Terms violations.

Thats just his deposit back right? It still leaves a lot of us hanging that were/are students but are also employed.

If you're talking about danl (as originally posted here) the situation is that he has received $5000 of his original $11983.50. As things currently stand CWC's position is that they will not be making further payments to this player because of Terms violations.

Are you ready for all the PABs that are likely to come out of this? There are a lot of us who are students.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Maybe not, but that's where they party! :yahoo:

Speaking of a party, invite those "deer" to the annual CM party next month at ICE assuming the annual CM party is a go in 2011. Club World has sponsored the annual CM party in the past.

Will there be a party next month? If so, is there a sponsor by chance yet??

If the CM party is a go next month and Club World again sponsors, will college graduates with a four year degree be able to attend?

 

[maxd]

Thats just his deposit back right?

We never discussed it but I believe that was stated elsewhere as being the case.

As to a flood of PABs, shit happens. If it is to be then bring it on.

Will there be a party next month? If so, is there a sponsor by chance yet??

It's Bryan's party so I'll leave it to him to discuss details.

 

[Nate]

If you're talking about danl (as originally posted here) the situation is that he has received $5000 of his original $11983.50. As things currently stand CWC's position is that they will not be making further payments to this player because of Terms violations.

The decisions made by Casino Management never cease to amaze me. As a few others highlighted earlier - their terms state 'Enrolled Full Time at a College or University'...

I cannot fathom that in this day and age Casino's are allowed to get away with such ludicrous terms. This is NOT Fair Play!!!

Tom has avoided the question of whether losing Students will be reimbursed. If Club World were so concerned about students spending their study money, do they have a rule for pensioners and the unemployed? Surely when these people spend their income they are at greater risk than a normal student. Responsible gambling is of a greater concern than students... How are they enforcing this???

The decision to go with Club World based on such a term is disheartening to the online Community at large. I totally do not support such a decision and it is clear that this is not about the well being of any group of individuals, but rather another way to fatten the coffers of those at Club World.

Disappointed.

Nate

 

[silcnlayc]

What an interesting thread....

I can now see, all the Casinos stop all the students at the front door, visiting to party for a week on their spring break with money to burn.

My son was one of those college students that was OF AGE to go to Vegas, and gamble..he went 4 times a year till he graduated..

What an interesting concept...legal age to vote, live, pay bills, borrow, and die...but not legal enough to gamble..

Amazing...how so many want to babysit grown adults...

As I said before, voodoo rules (now you see them, now you don't) will ultimately bite the rule maker in the butt...time to stop all the silly rules and all this babysitting...and get back to the basics..GAMBLING...how hard is that?

.

 

[Pinababy69]

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.

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?

The thing you have to keep in mind is that very few casinos will even blink twice as long as you're losing. You could spend 8 years in medical school and gamble every weekend with no questions asked as long as you never attempt to make a withdrawal. The very fact that problems almost never arise unless someone does try to make a withdrawal is a pretty good indication that the casino is really only looking out for itself.

If any casino is going to ban players on economic grounds whether it be students, part time employees or people in between jobs it should be at the top of the terms and conditions in bold "This casino does not honor withdrawals submitted by poor people."

If CW truly has a social conscience as they claim, then all players who deposit more than $100 in a week should have to submit proof that all their bills have been paid, their mortgage/rent is up to date, and that their children are well fed and clothed. I am 100% certain that many marriages, houses, and family relationships have gone down the gurgler as a result of problem gambling at online casinos like CW......!!

I have been watching and reading this thread daily....hoping against all hope that CW would see the light, but it now appears that this isn't going to happen.

As to the term itself, everyone in this thread has made so many valid points, and presented a compelling argument as to why this term is nothing more than a casino trying to protect themselves, as opposed to protecting the poor "student" player who can't afford to gamble. I daresay that DanL is more financially stable and equipped to gamble, than many of us on this very forum, myself included. If he can afford to deposit 5K, AND finance his tuition for a Law degree (without the benefits of student loans), then I'd say he is much better off than many people.

Had he never won and initiated a withdrawal....how many more thousands would CW have gladly accepted from him?

For the casino to try and say that they only have the student's best interests in mind, is, well....hogwash. I take responsible gambling very seriously, and as such, have spoken to a few different operators on the subject......none of them (all of whom I consider reputable), have such a term listed. And they pretty much agree that it's got zero to do with social responsibility, and everything to do with not wanting certain players who might be a bit more "on the ball" when it comes to gambling, bonuses, etc. And who also have the ability to "network" with other people/players.

I highlighted the above quotes, because for me they really sum up the absurdity of the term itself. You can include any term you like in your T&C's, but please don't piss on my head and then try to tell me it's raining. It is incumbent on a casino to ensure that whatever terms they include, can be FAIRLY applied. In this case, rewrite or not, I don't see how any student term can. There are too many variables. So if they insist on having this term, then the only truly fair way to enforce it, is through some prescreening...whether that be through the software during signup, phone conversation....whatever.

The university I had left wouldn't consider me as currently studying at their institution any more: I had just graduated.

The law school I was going to start at wouldn't consider me as currently studying at their institution yet: I had not started the course.

Where was I a student? What is a student?

To be honest Dan, when I read that you would be continuing studies in a few months, I was less than impressed that you hadn't been 100% forthcoming with Steve, Max and Bryan. I almost considered just letting the topic go...but then I read some of the arguments pertaining to your situation, and I consider them valid.

IMO, technically speaking, you were not a student at that particular time. As you said, where exactly were you a student? You had graduated one set of studies, and hadn't begun another....you were somewhat in limbo I'd say. You were not CURRENTLY studying anywhere.

Like when you realized that you had broken the casinos terms and conditions - you didn't read them. That's a convenient time to reconsider your position

Sort of like CW only enforcing the "student" clause, when a player initiates a cashout? I'd say that's pretty darn convenient too, don't you think? Deposit 5K, deposit 10K....keep on depositing as long as you lose. Matter of fact, deposit every last cent of your tuition money for all we care, or money set aside for books, or accomodation...but if you get lucky and win...oh no, you're a student who shouldn't have been playing in the first place. Here's your money back, but we keep the winnings.

Ridiculous term, and completely unenforceable in any type of fair manner.

Pay the graduate please.

I almost didn't even bother replying here anymore, as it appears that CW has made up their mind..but Nash's quote above kept picking at me. Making my coffee this morning, I kept rolling it around in my mind. Quite catchy, and oh so true. I'm considering making it my new signature....with full credit to you of course Nash.

Were this a court of law, I'd lay a bet that the judge and/or jury's ruling, would sound very close to that.

PAY THE GRADUATE PLEASE. Perfect!!

The decisions made by Casino Management never cease to amaze me. As a few others highlighted earlier - their terms state 'Enrolled Full Time at a College or University'...

I cannot fathom that in this day and age Casino's are allowed to get away with such ludicrous terms. This is NOT Fair Play!!!

Tom has avoided the question of whether losing Students will be reimbursed. If Club World were so concerned about students spending their study money, do they have a rule for pensioners and the unemployed? Surely when these people spend their income they are at greater risk than a normal student. Responsible gambling is of a greater concern than students... How are they enforcing this???

The decision to go with Club World based on such a term is disheartening to the online Community at large. I totally do not support such a decision and it is clear that this is not about the well being of any group of individuals, but rather another way to fatten the coffers of those at Club World.

Disappointed.

Nate

And Nate has summed up exactly the way I feel about this whole thing...hugely disappointed.

I expect, or expected, much better from a CM accredited casino, especially a group who won Best Casino here last year. I had always held CW in pretty high regard...but if this is the slippery slope they have decided to go down, they are definitely off my short list.

32Red won Casino of the Decade last year, after having won Casino of the Year many times. Can anyone imagine them denying payment on these grounds? I can't.

Casinos are free to implement any terms they like. However, it is up to sites like this one, and to affiliates and players to decide if those terms are fair. In this case, my own personal opinion is a resounding NO.

I do thank Bryan for allowing this debate to continue. And Max and Steve (and Bryan) for the time they have spent on it. Hugely gutted with the outcome of it all...and I won't be recommending CW to anyone, anytime in the foreseeable future. I expected a whole lot more from them.

 

[CoolCat]

Speaking of a party, invite those "deer" to the annual CM party next month at ICE assuming the annual CM party is a go in 2011. Club World has sponsored the annual CM party in the past.

Will there be a party next month? If so, is there a sponsor by chance yet??

If the CM party is a go next month and Club World again sponsors, will college graduates with a four year degree be able to attend?

WOW! I guess both George W Bush and the Bible is Right.

George W Bush "You're either with us, or against us."

Matthew 6:24 "No man is able to be a servant to two masters: for he will have hate for the one and love for the other, or he will keep to one and have no respect for the other."

 

[Pinababy69]

What Am I Missing?

Okay, Tom from CW says that this student term has always been there. If that's the case, then why in God's name was this case resolved in favour of the player (Samuel T), who won a whopping 33K Euros?

Link for reference:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And the story:

Club World
A Particularly Happy Result
by Steve Russo
April 2010

"These winnings will quite possibly change my life and help me re-pay my student debt, this has led to my decision to contact you."

Those words are from the first e-mail Gambling Grumbles received from Samuel T, a student at London's Royal College of Art and Design, and are the reason that we are even happier than usual that we could mediate a mutually satisfactory agreement between a casino and a player.

Actually, there was not all much for us to do -- the only problem was satisfying Club World as to Samuel's identity. However, given the amount at stake 29,535 GBP (which translates to 33,703 Euros or US $45,312), it is not at all surprising that Club World wanted to be 100% certain that Samuel was who he said he was.

For that matter, Gambling Grumbles also would not have wanted to assist someone in defrauding a casino, so we, too, didn't want to take any chances.

Samuel understood all of that even before he wrote to Gambling Grumbles. He told us that, "I signed up, deposited 500 pounds via Neteller and played slots at the casino on the 5th of November 2009 and after completing the wager requirement I I finished with 29535 pounds. Elated with my win I started the withdrawal process and between the 5th of November to the 26th of January, in total I sent them:

"* Bank statement
"* My college ID
"* My passport certified by the post office
"* The address and contact Number of the post office where I got my passport certified
"* A clear photo of me holding passport
"* The fax back form signed by me
"* A notarized copy of my passport certified by (a South Kensington solicitor)."


It sounds complete, right?

It probably would have been -- except for an apparent mistake made by someone in the solicitors' office. Here, we will let Tom of Club World tell what happened:

"When any new player registers at our casino we actively verify the account. In this case we could not verify any of the details on his account. There were no matching records for his name, address, phone number and when we tried to call the phone number registered on his account while he was online there was no response.

"This in itself is not a huge problem, however after he won the funds he still would not answer the phone or respond to e-mails. Two weeks later he supplied us with the documentation required for withdrawal, however they looked suspicious (photoshopping pixilation and shading inconsistencies) and so we asked him to get them notarized by an official notary.

"Instead, weeks later he sent us in another version of his passport that had a post office stamp near it. This proves nothing, so again I asked him to send us his passport notarized officially.

"Weeks later I received a copy of his passport with a stamp near it from a solicitor. The solicitor’s stamp did not cover any part of the ID, the associated text was obviously printed on a desk top printer, there was no signature, no date and no indication of which solicitor was acting as a notary. When I phoned the solicitor they had no record of him, no record of providing the notarization, no record of the ID and not even a receipt for the payment."

The last part was the crux of the problem. If the solicitor had confirmed that Samuel had been brought in his passport and had it notarized, Club World would have already paid him.

"I then decided to call (the solicitor's office) regarding the matter and they apologised to me for the misunderstanding and told me that they would be more than happy to call the casino themselves to verify the document I had sent the casino," Samuel said.

This probably would have been sufficient for Club World if it had been a much smaller withdrawal, but with 29535 pounds at stake, who can blame them for being very careful?

As Samuel told Gambling Grumbles that he was willing to go to any notary in central London that Club World would accept, we suggested to Tom that he choose one he had either a personal or business connection with and, more than that, give the notary exact instructions of what the casino wants.

Tom, in turn, contacted the casino's London law office, was given the names of two notaries, and told us that he would accept certifications from either one of them. To be extra careful, the notary will keep a copy of the passport and will confirm it when Tom calls to check.

Gambling Grumbles, in turn, had the very great pleasure of writing to Samuel today to tell him this. Now, all he has to do is decide which of the two notaries is more convenient for him, go there with his passport, and then wait until Club World sends him the money to pay off his student debt.

Steve, can you clarify this particular case for us? Did Samuel T verify his identity, and subsequently receive his winnings? Beyond the student thing, the whole thing raised more red flags than a game of paintball.

But if he was indeed paid...what the hell? Provides a college ID as documentation, admits he is mired in student debt, IS a student....I don't get it.

Is this term enforced dependent on the mood of the cashier, decided on a coin toss? This is just too bizarre for words.

They will pay a self admitted student, saddled with student debt....but won't pay a GRADUATE footing his own bills.

 

[rockycatt]

I did?!? What was the puzzle? How did I solve it? What's my name and where's my lunchbox?



Maybe not, but that's where they party! :yahoo:

well i think this much is huge cant get that from wall street

------> (this was a historical loss)

the situation is that he has received $5000 ( you state)

 

[Pinababy69]

If I understand correctly...the $5000 returned to DanL are the total of his deposits, which were refunded. It was not a settlement of any kind. What is outstanding are his winnings of almost 7K. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jelsmith]

well i think this much is huge cant get that from wall street

------> (this was a historical loss)

the situation is that he has received $5000 ( you state)

That was his deposit. He got nothing more than his original deposit refunded.

 

[maxd]

If I understand correctly...the $5000 returned to DanL are the total of his deposits, which were refunded. ... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That is my understanding of the situation as well, though this was never specifically discussed in the course of the PAB. [strike]My involvement was limited to trying to determine the justification for withholding any of it.[/strike] A better way to say that would be that my involvement began and ended with the debate over whether or not the player had violated the Terms. In other words trying to determine whether there was justification for withholding anything.

 

[just play]

What Am I Missing

Pina....Your missing that CW isn't going to pay him, and apparently they pick and choose who to pay?

 

[rockycatt]

If I understand correctly...the $5000 returned to DanL are the total of his deposits, which were refunded. It was not a settlement of any kind. What is outstanding are his winnings of almost 7K. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

under the circumstances i think that first id be happy to get all of my seed money that i played over time back [ very happy ] then go from there

like i said on wall street if you loose you dont get it back i hope we can get the jist here

 

[Pinababy69]

Pina....Your missing that CW isn't going to pay him, and apparently they pick and choose who to pay?

It sure "seems" that way JP. I'm hoping that maybe there is some piece of vital info missing from Steve's report at GG, that would shed some light on why CW was apparently willing to pay a self professed, in debt student...yet refuses to pay a graduate, who has yet to start his final round of studies?

Again, I've been around long enough to know that we don't always get all the info we really need via forum posts/posters, or reports....which is why I'm asking for clarification from Steve. Or Tom, if he's so inclined.

But yeah, this sure ain't giving me any of the warm fuzzies.

under the circumstances i think that first id be happy to get all of my seed money that i played over time back [ very happy ] then go from there

like i said on wall street if you loose you dont get it back i hope we can get the jist here

Honestly Rockycatt, no idea what you are getting at. This isn't Wall Street...the player didn't invest in the stock market and lose. He deposited 5K into a casino and won...he didn't lose his bet(s).

 

[rockycatt]

It sure "seems" that way JP. I'm hoping that maybe there is some piece of vital info missing from Steve's report at GG, that would shed some light on why CW was apparently willing to pay a self professed, in debt student...yet refuses to pay a graduate, who has yet to start his final round of studies?

Again, I've been around long enough to know that we don't always get all the info we really need via forum posts/posters, or reports....which is why I'm asking for clarification from Steve. Or Tom, if he's so inclined.

But yeah, this sure ain't giving me any of the warm fuzzies.



Honestly Rockycatt, no idea what you are getting at. This isn't Wall Street...the player didn't invest in the stock market and lose. He deposited 5K into a casino and won...he didn't lose his bet(s).

any one that sent 5,000.00 dollars into a Internet gaming portal and then found them selves in a squabble about weather they would forfeit it
but instead got it back [i think would be thrilled ]

ok not wall street ----> new story give money to a stranger on the Internet 5,000.00$ American then get into a very grey double talk about weres my money are you kidding me ask danl if he is happy

pin i hope you get this one