Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[ksech]

@silc: I totally agree with you. All of these quotations are found in/around the MIDDLE of the general T&Cs. But I just wanted to illustrate that CWC isn't the only one who makes the statement about periodically reviewing the T&Cs. (BTW, if you go to the "casino terms and conditions" thread, the complete T&Cs for each of the casinos is listed there if you don't want to go to the website for each.) It doesn't appear that many changes are made (some date back a few years), but who isn't to say with the changing atmosphere of online gaming, that casinos won't start adding in more ambiguous terms to try to "entrap" (this may not be a good word to use?) the unsuspecting player.

 

[skiny]

If the player was not enrolled in studies at the time of wagering he was not a student. It IS that simple. If I graduate in June, placed my wagers in July and started post graduate studies in August I broke no rules.

Nobody HAS to read the terms and conditions. It IS a good idea to read them and if you don't you're taking a gamble. If the terms and conditions didn't cover everything from whether or not you shave your armpits to how often you clean your gutters it might not be necessary to read them but they're clearly written to give casinos the chance to renege on a withdrawal at the drop of a hat. So it IS up to you to read them and play standing on your head if you have to just to make sure you don't accidental break one of them.

That being said, whether or not the terms were read here before wagering makes no difference because the player broke no rule. Unless I'm misreading this entire story, Dan was finished his studies and had not started post graduate studies at the time of wagering. If that is true then he is owed the balance of his withdrawal.

I can clearly see what Dan is owed is irrelevant and this discussion is a complete waste of time because two things are happening right now. The casino is simply refusing to pay a debt they owe to a player for no real good reason and everyone is getting a straight forward and stubborn "I'm right and you're wrong no matter what anyone says" from the casino.

This is fine. If that's the type of reputation the casino wants to earn that is entirely up to them. Betfair has tossed it's reputation in the toilet, CW is following suit.

Sorry about your luck Dan but you can argue about this until the cows come home and it won't make an ounce of difference because it's obviously not a case of what's right or wrong. It's a case of the casino is going to do what the casino wants to do. It's a shame that it cost Dan thousands of dollars in winnings for us to learn how CW has decided to start using their terms and conditions but now we know.

Bryan, I respect your opinion and I respect your resolve but we are simply going to have to remain in disagreement. I don't believe that CW really cares about a few thousand dollars worth of withdrawals. I believe that they are just being hard nosed and stubborn and that seems to come as a surprise to a lot of us. If you agree with their decision and truly believe that a person not currently studying is still a student that's entirely up to you but you and Tom are apparently the only two people in this 30 page thread who do.

So that's two well known and well respected casinos down the toilet in the last month. Who's next? Batter up.........

 

[just play]

you and Tom are apparently the only two people in this 30 page thread who do.

This is probably what bothers me the most. There is ALWAYS fellow members who agree and disagree with certain posts and threads. BUT in this thread, there are only 2 people who disagree with the rest of the forum members. I don't think I have ever seen it.

 

[CoolCat]

This is probably what bothers me the most. There is ALWAYS fellow members who agree and disagree with certain posts and threads. BUT in this thread, there are only 2 people who disagree with the rest of the forum members. I don't think I have ever seen it.

That should tell you something. Robwin and a few others got the picture. Reminds me of a small town Judge and DA. Both of them goes out to lunch and play golf together.

 

[justymich]

I am also an adult student, i'm 32, enrolled back in June, started in August. I went back because i was laid off and on unemployment so i figured i might as well take advantage of the idle time on my hands. Ironically, while on unemployment, i could gamble with no problems. Now anyone knows that those on unemployment don't get nearly the amount of money they would if they had a full time job, yet CW doesn't seem to care if you have enough to afford it then? Also, since i enrolled in June, but didn't start til August, does that mean in June i was not allowed to gamble with CW anymore?

Going back to the Dan convo, i agree with the rest of the members. If Danl provided proof that he had in fact graduated earlier this year, and could provide info showing that he had in fact applied to post graduate studies. Also that it was in fact different from his previous enrollment in graduate studies, and he was in fact in the interim between the two. Then he was not a student at the time, period.

I am extremely displeased with this whole outcome and i will be closing my accounts as well. I don't know how CW can let those on unemployment with little extra money gamble, but not students, who a majority probably had more extra spending money lying around than i did It sounds to me that there is a much deeper reason of them having this clause other than protection for students.

 

[Nate]

He wasnt a student at the time so regardless of whether he read it or not its null.....CW is gonna get away with this...and I think it sucks...I closed all of my accounts there...and cited this as why maybe if more people do they will wake up and smell the bull$hit.

Accounts closed at Lucky Red, Clubworld and Highnoon.

Nate

 

[The Dude]

That should tell you something. Robwin and a few others got the picture. Reminds me of a small town Judge and DA. Both of them goes out to lunch and play golf together.

Nice jab - do it one more time and see what happens.

For the record, I have only expressed my opinion on whether or not the player is a student. I believe he is and was. I haven't mentioned anything at all on how this should have been handled. There are a number of people who agree with me - this forum is not the only place this has been discussed.

 

[The Dude]

Nice jab - do it one more time and see what happens...

Never mind. Ten minutes of searching the back end connects him to Atlanta, Mishun, etc.

/admin note

 

[Pinababy69]

He wasnt a student at the time so regardless of whether he read it or not its null.....CW is gonna get away with this...and I think it sucks...I closed all of my accounts there...and cited this as why maybe if more people do they will wake up and smell the bull$hit.

Accounts closed at Lucky Red, Clubworld and Highnoon.

Nate

Sending Tom a PM right now to close my accounts at CW, High Noon, Lucky Red, and Manhattan Slots. Don't think it's gonna hit them in the pocketbook or anything, as I hadn't deposited in quite some time there. But it's a definite I won't EVER be again. (EDIT: PM sent, accounts closed when he returns I'd guess).

Nice jab - do it one more time and see what happens.

For the record, I have only expressed my opinion on whether or not the player is a student. I believe he is and was. I haven't mentioned anything at all on how this should have been handled. There are a number of people who agree with me - this forum is not the only place this has been discussed.

Point taken Bryan re: the opinion thing. And there are two issues at play here, as stated yesterday. One, was DanL a student at the time of play? Two, is the student clause unambiguous, and can it be applied fairly? Even if your answer to the first part is yes, you can still believe that the term isn't clear enough in the first place, and shouldn't be applied. That's my argument. Whether or not he is/was/will ever be a student, is "almost" becoming irrelevant for me. It's more about the term itself, and the fact that it can be debated for 30 pages. Major problems, which indicates that it shouldn't be applied in the first place (in its present form).

Never mind. Ten minutes of searching the back end connects him to Atlanta, Mishun, etc.

/admin note

Why in God's name they keep coming back dozens of times when you are so corrupt and lacking in integrity is beyond me.

 

[ksech]

I agree with Pinababy, for me at least, it's more about the term and how many others could/would be affected by it. Since it is so broad, the casino then can enforce it when/if they see fit, and who knows who the next "victim" may be.

Tom made mention in his first (?) post on this thread, that this term has been there since day one. Does that mean for Aladdins Gold casino only and then was added into the T&Cs for the rest of the group or is it for all of the casinos in the CWC?

And I ask again, now knowing that the casinos can and will enforce these ambiguous terms, how many will go back and reread the T&Cs for casinos they signed up with & play at regularly? I think we have all learned a valuable lesson at the expense of Danl. Assume nothing and ask lots and lots of questions, after all, it's YOUR money you are putting at risk.

 

[The Dude]

...Why in God's name they keep coming back dozens of times when you are so corrupt and lacking in integrity is beyond me.

To remind me how corrupt and dishonest I am?

 

[Pinababy69]

To remind me how corrupt and dishonest I am?

Ah, that must be it. Shazam!! Well, maybe you should just make a sticky note to yourself or something.....you know, so you don't forget and the poor souls don't have to go to the trouble of opening multiple accounts to remind you. :smilewink:

[/end of derail/lame attempt at humour]

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am overseas at the moment but I have managed to catch up on this thread.

First of all DanL is a student and he is currently studying full time. He lied about this to me, to Steve Russo and to Max and Bryan in his PAB.

If he had played blackjack with a slots coupon there would be no debate. The terms say you can’t play that game with that bonus and failing to read the terms is no excuse.

He is a student and students are not permitted to play in our casino. The terms say that students are not permitted to play so why should this be any different.

The rules are there for all to see on our website and if you deposit without reading them you may well encounter problems.

One thing that this thread has highlighted is that this particular term needs clarifying – it does not adequately cover some of the edge cases that have been pointed out and I when I get back to the office I will work with our legal team to reword this.

Kind Regards
Tom

P.S. Samuel T was paid in full as he was not a student when he played.

Whilst DanL was a student, he was NOT at the time "enrolled full time at a university or college", he was "in limbo" between the end of one course of study, and the start of another. Like Samuel T, he was not "studying full time" when he played, he had graduated. he didn't again start full time study until he started a new course at a new institution.

Whilst he didn't read the terms, even if he HAD he would have seen that they didn't apply to him between courses because of the requirement to be in full time studies.

Further, it seems you have mislead the forum, since this term has NOT "always been there", but has been added and evolved since 2007. In fact, the earlier version was CLEARER than the current one, and PRECISELY covered the vulnerable "traditional" students between ages 18 and 21 who go straight from college to university, dependent on parents, grants, and student loans. This left little room for "edge cases", but "simplifying" the term has broadened it to such an extent that many "edge cases" have been created.

The determination of "student enrolled full time" is not up to the BUSINESS either, it is a LEGAL CONTRACT, and meanings are a matter of the law, and if necessary, the interpretation and "clarification" of a judge. The more vague a term, the more likely it is to fail in court. The current term ONLY works when a player is actually ATTENDING their course full time at the same time they are playing. You are clearly NOT able to attend your course full time BEFORE IT STARTS.

This is the case you faced with the OP, who had been UNABLE to begin his studies, so was deemed OK to play because although he was clearly a "student", he was NOT "studying full time", but waiting for his course to start the following year when he hoped to have enough money to take it.

Enforcement compared to the text of the term is riddled with inconsistencies, as though a different definition of the term has been used in each case.

As for reading the terms, first they need to be WRITTEN accurately, otherwise reading them is pointless.

If I was French, and read the terms, I can play at Club World, yet NOT at Alladin's Gold - it's quite CLEARLY written in the terms.

If I lived in Toronto, I would have to wonder whether I lived in Markham. As a player, I would decide this based on how the local government of Toronto defined Markham, such as from my postal address, or district authority. If nothing featured Markham, I would conclude I was NOT "in the area of Markham", and conclude it OK to play.


The fact that evidence shows that the definition "under 21" has been REMOVED from this student term at the last review shows that this term was NEVER aimed at "protecting students who are still dependent on their parents". The term was altered so as to INCLUDE students over 21 who were no longer deopendents, and who had returned to studies from an independent adult existence.

This came from the SAME rep who claims the term "has always been there", when evidence shows it was added around 2007, and CWC has been around since 2005, 2 years at least WITHOUT this term.

Clarification of this term now is a bit like "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted".

There also seem to be large numbers of players who never thought this was THEIR problem, but now think this is very much "their problem" since they new see themselves as "edge cases" because they engage in some kind of formal study. If they have any sense, they will STOP DEPOSITING until they have absolute clarification as to their position.

There is also another angle for LOSING "students". Since they only get "busted" when they withdraw, well - engineer a cash-out, and see what happens when you are verified. If the verification fails because you are a student, this opens a pathway to get ALL your deposits back, since you could NEVER have won. It has the advantage that the casino has already made this determination BEFORE a claim has been lodged for the return of past deposits. IF a claim for past deposits was lodged because a player suddenly presents "proof" that they were students, I am sure CWC would be far more "flexible" in saying "No, you're OK because.............."

In short, I don't believe Tom is telling us the TRUE reason for the addition of this term in 2007, but is giving us the "company spin" treatment about it being part of their "responsible gambling" strategy to protect vulnerable groups from being able to lose money they can't afford.

There are groups FAR more vulnerable to "irresponsible gambling" than students, but as for protecting them, it seems a case of "can't be arsed". This too could come back to "bite them in the ass" if such groups come to grief through a lack of "responsible gambling" policy enforcement, which would contrast with the extensive measures that are being taken to "protect students".

 

[silcnlayc]

He is a student and students are not permitted to play in our casino. The terms say that students are not permitted to play so why should this be any different.

We all have been a student at one time or another...even later in life...with careers changes etc and this affects those too as this rule stands...what in the world was the casino thinking?? This should NEVER have been put in an T&C's...if they are of age, they deserve to be allowed to play regardless of whether or not they are "in school" or "enrolled" ...if they are "of age" what difference does it make...really!

As I said, the rulemakers are being bit in the butt by their own making...and deservedly so...too many ridiculous, unfathomable rules that they cannot agree on even with themselves, so they keep "tweaking" the rules to fit the occasion..



Amazing..
.

 

[Pulver]

I can probably answer that for him. The player is/was a graduate student.


You don't know that. You don't have any legal expertise that I know of, so please don't make your opinions sound like facts


.

You are right, I don't have any legal expertise, but a friend of mine is a lawyer and I talked to him about this case and asked for his opinion.

His opinion was basicly what a poster wrote earlier in the thread. If a term is unclear or could be debated in any way (which this case clearly is) the court should rule in favor of the customer (player).

He also said that the customer\player couldn't in any legal definition be defined as a student as he was not currently studying anywhere.

That is how it would work out in any normal european country atleast, as we all know the rules on the internett are different\non existent and the casinos are in most cases both judge and jury themselves.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Point taken Bryan re: the opinion thing. And there are two issues at play here, as stated yesterday. One, was DanL a student at the time of play? Two, is the student clause unambiguous, and can it be applied fairly?

Actually, there is a third issue Pina. It is perhaps the most important issue which imo would be the critical and/or specific legal issue based on the known facts as currently posted in this thread in the (hypothetical) event of a legal case in the U.S.!

This issue is known as the previously mentioned "Contractual Aspects of Gambling" (simply and concisely defined as: a legal bet wagered whereby a result in favor of the wager must be paid in full, I repeat, in full by the subject party that accepted the subject wager). U.S. Case Law can be clearly cited and referenced.

The online gaming industry ((including this forum)) often and imo conveniently but incorrectly continues to generally ignore the "Contractual Aspects of Gambling" in favor of the often included and clearly evident unregulated (per se), paradoxical, predatory, unfair, fraudulent, and other illegal et al, etc., rules per se best known as an online gambling site's specific "Terms and Conditions".

Over the years, these above referenced and superceding "Terms and Conditions" have been defended fanantically by both the industry as well as others via a treasure of multiple defenses, yet all the while generally ignoring the credence of the "Contractual Aspects of Gambling". IMOO, most of the so-called defenses as well as some of the subject defenders are or may be often misguided, some innocently of such and some clearly with self-serving motives.

 

[rockycatt]

TO CWC

in the name of fair play is it possible to give a half measure $$ to danl seeing that the terms need to be rewritten

looking for good will at Christmas's
R C

 

[NASHVEGAS]

TO CWC

in the name of fair play is it possible to give a half measure $$ to danl seeing that the terms need to be rewritten

looking for good will at Christmas's
R C

I know your intentions above mean well Rocky..

That said, the four year college graduate is clearly due ~ an additional $7K, not $3.5K. Christmas is not relevant and goodwill for Club World is an oxymoron pursuant to this particular situation.

All the above said, if Danl sees no other option than an unjust settlement offer then that should be his call on what may or may not be acceptable to him. Even if Club World decided now to pay Danl in full, it would not be gesture of goodwill. A gesture, yes....goodwill, nada!

 

[vinylweatherman]

You are right, I don't have any legal expertise, but a friend of mine is a lawyer and I talked to him about this case and asked for his opinion.

His opinion was basicly what a poster wrote earlier in the thread. If a term is unclear or could be debated in any way (which this case clearly is) the court should rule in favor of the customer (player).

He also said that the customer\player couldn't in any legal definition be defined as a student as he was not currently studying anywhere.

That is how it would work out in any normal european country atleast, as we all know the rules on the internett are different\non existent and the casinos are in most cases both judge and jury themselves.

This is why you so often find that a business in this kind of situation will NOT usually allow a case like this to go before a court. They will hold firm, as if in a "game of chicken" with the customer, to see who flinches first. Usually, the customer gives up, and the business wins by default.
Sometimes though, the bluff is called, and the customer actually books a hearing, pays the court fee, and the business gets a summons to defend the case. This will usually persuade the business to settle "out of court" rather than risk a humiliating defeat that could set the groundwork for similar cases.

The recent run of claims against the banks over "unfair charges" has been a recent example. The banks all held firm, but CAVED IN each and every time their bluff was called by a customer actually taking them to court. Eventually, the banks decided to allow the regulators and them to fight it out in a "supercomplaint" case before the courts. This might have been because customers were more and more willing to "call" the bank's hand, rather than "fold", and the court cases began to mount up.

Cases of player Vs online casino are very rare, BUT there HAS been a case of B & M casino Vs player. The case involved the casino trying to reclaim winnings from a player because in "the casino's sole determination", they had cheated by using laser and computer technology to give them an edge at the Roulette table, netting them a 7 figure sum in profit.

The casino LOST the case!!! The ruling was based on the fact that NO actual "cheating" occurred, the game was not interfered with in any way, and the laser and computer was merely PASSIVE observation of the game's starting point, from which was calculated the most likely segment for the ball to end up in. There was also no SPECIFIC rule that related to the use of such equipment, probably because it was the first time it happened. The ONLY thing the casino was allowed to do was bar the player for life, which they did.

There is NO room for "spirit of" and "intent behind" arguments in court. It the term AS WRITTEN, and if it is written with a level of ambiguity, the interpretation will be in favour of the more vulnerable party, which in business Vs consumer cases usually means in favour of the consumer.

Casinos don't expect this kind of issue to be taken to the courts, but with the lack of proper regulation this is bound to start happening eventually. The recent Betfair fiasco might be the issue that propels this kind of thing into the domain of toe courts, and victories by players in what seemed "hopeless" cases will mean casinos will NEVER get this particular "genie back in the bottle". It will be a GOOD thing, because it will force casinos to consider consumer protection laws PROPERLY when putting together terms and conditions that more or less currently give the casinos unfettered discretion to rule ANY player to be "violating the rules", with the player having only the likes of Malta's LGA to fight their corner.

 

[GrandMaster]

Fact: I'm just telling you like it is. The guy failed to inform us that he was already enrolling in his graduate studies. He never planned on or is doing anything else but participating in full time education. He's a student.

Try to consider this: if the casino had a clause that stated "Students Only" and refused to pay this guy based on your "facts" that he is not a student, there would be an uproar from everyone including me because it is pretty clear he falls into the category of participating in full time education = a student.

There is no bait and switch here - I have no idea why you feel that comment is adding anything to the discussion.

I disagree. Once a student starts his degree, he remains a student until the end of the semester in which he satisfies the requirements for graduation or until he ceases to be a student, for example, because he withdraws or he fails his exams. If after graduation, he decided to continue studying, he won't be considered a student until he starts the new programme, even if he continues at the same institution. Basically, if someone gets his undergraduate degree in July and then starts a graduate programme in September, he is not a student in August. The university certainly won't consider him a student.

Another example: let's say your homeowner's insurance expired in November and you took out another policy which will only start in January, but in the meanwhile your house got burgled in December. Would the insurance company pay up just because you were insured last month and you will be insured next month?

 

[skiny]

I don't even think the issue is if Danl is, was or will ever be a student and I don't think the issue is whether or not the term is fair or vague. The issue is that Danl will be a student when it suits people and won't be when it doesn't.

People see things the way they want to see them and sometimes through intellectual debate, heated argument or a knock on the head they might be swayed to see things in another light but that just isn't going to happen here.

Some people (or casinos) seem to think they will lose face to side against an issue and then be convinced their decision was unfair or unethical. Some don't understand that it's already happened in the eyes of many and the only way to regain respect and reputation is to admit to being wrong. This should have been done about 25 pages ago but like I said, people will see things the way they want to see them and now the damage has been done. The reputation lost, the accounts have been and will be closed.

Is it really so important that a casino remain stubborn in the face of such a large group of players and potential players that it will watch them close accounts and potential players refuse to ever play there just to maintain that their decision was right? Apparently it is. And apparently the high road of paying the player AND THEN changing the term to guarantee the same thing doesn't happen in the future is simply out of the question.

Surely any reputable casino would agree that the very fact that the term needs to be changed means it cannot be used to deny a payment. Apparently this casino doesn't agree. And apparently this is no longer a reputable casino because of it.

An honest casino would look at the term as it is written from the player's point of view and apply it accordingly and then change it if need be to suit the casino. A fair casino would not ask that players read the terms and then expect them to be viewed from the casino's perspective. But maybe we ask too much. Maybe we're victims of our own desire. We want to believe that the casinos we believe to be fair, honest and reputable will look out for our interests in times like these. Times when basic misunderstandings happen between what the casino means and the player thinks.

Read an understand the terms, we are told. When in reality we are expected to read them and then somehow know how they might be applied even if the application makes no sense to us.

And here we are again. Questioning why an online casino requires a 10 to 20 point list of terms and conditions just to let us make a deposit and spin a slot machine. Questioning why a casino is withholding a withdrawal for violation of one of these terms that the player is clearly entitled to. Questioning if any of this is really worth the time and effort just to spin those slots.

Sometimes I wonder if these casinos even want us to play there.

 

[ksech]

CWC needs to step up to the plate and do the right thing here, "pay the graduate please" as NASHVEGAS before stated. Also, how many players have been members with CWC PRIOR to 2007, when the term was added in? Will CWC be willing to reimburse those players deposits, who can produce PROOF they have been a student any time from 2007 to present day? Since CWC isn't willing to back down on this situation, it only seems right that others, although unbeknownst to them due to the addition of this term, receive the same option of having their deposits returned.

If the casino is so determined to "protect" the student, then the casino needs to protect ALL the students and return ALL deposits. Otherwise the
term is biased and only "protecting" the casino.

Even though there has been past statements of "fast payouts", "fast and courteous CSR", these are NOT the type of statements new and old players will be looking at in the future. For those still willing to play with this group, are YOU willing to take the chance of some ambiguous term suddenly appearing hidden deep in the mumbo jumbo of the general T&Cs? Having to constantly reread the terms to make sure you aren't in some type of "violation"?

I don't think I have ever done more than play a free chip at maybe High Noon and Lucky Red, but I too will be closing out those accounts if they aren't already from being "dormant" accounts.

This is blindsiding the loyal players they have established, something to be expected from one of Virtuals' group...

 

[greasemonkey]

If the casino is so determined to "protect" the student, then the casino needs to protect ALL the students and return ALL deposits. Otherwise the
term is biased and only "protecting" the casino.

I am so incredibly sick of this LIE. If these casinos ever wanted to protect BOTH the player and the casino they would do a complete and thorough check of all documents and anything else they demanded BEFORE they accepted deposits. It is such a bold faced lie that it makes me sick to hear they still try and pass that off.

 

[Webzcas]

I am so incredibly sick of this LIE. If these casinos ever wanted to protect BOTH the player and the casino they would do a complete and thorough check of all documents and anything else they demanded BEFORE they accepted deposits. It is such a bold faced lie that it makes me sick to hear they still try and pass that off.

Actually the resources required to do this are considerable. You also aren't vetted walking into a land based casino before you play.

That said if I was Dani I would be extremely unhappy.

 

[anniemac]

I don't know what it would take for an online casino to verify a player before depositing but I have to think that the problem lies with the fact that the player would not be depositing while the verification process is being done.

The casino, not just CWC, needs to weigh the outcome. Seems to me that a few disgruntled potential depositors having to wait would bet alot of PO'd players and bad press when a casino refuses to pay.

As far as B&M casinos vetting players, the ones I have been to check ID's if you don't look 21. My daughter is 35 and still gets carded each time she goes in one. Would be a compliment to me.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Actually the resources required to do this are considerable. You also aren't vetted walking into a land based casino before you play.

That said if I was Dani I would be extremely unhappy.

......but they do this ANYWAY when players cash out, so the resources are THERE, they just don't use them early on.

There ARE some things that they can do that are NOT going to require "considerable resources".

For a start, GET REAL! Players are NOT always going to read and understand the terms, even though they are always being advised to. This happens in all walks of life, not just casinos. Many will just tick the box because they just want to "get on with it".

Where there is a PARTICULAR term that constantly creates problems after the fact, or is "highly unusual" in terms of their industry in general. They need to bring it to prominence on the FIRST page, not through a link next to a tick box that says (paraphrased) "I have actually bothered to click here, read it, and understand it - I have not simply ticked the box because I am a lazy ****"

Information that might indicate an obvious breach should be collected at registration. Your age is required, your address too. The daft thing is that you can truthfully say you live in France (for example), and despite this being an obvious violation in ONE of the CWC casinos (but strangely not the other), you can STILL pass through the process, deposit, and play. This is CLEARLY something they can change to protect players from their own laziness.

They can also ask DIRECTLY a question like "Are you currently enrolled full time in a course of study at any institution". A "yes" answer puts a "refer to CS" hold on the account, and CS will then ask for more details to determine whether the player is classed as a student FROM THE CASINO'S POINT OF VIEW, which might NOT be completely clear just from reading the terms if you are one of the "edge cases". A further question of "have you GRADUATED in the last xx months". THIS will capture cases like DanL, since although he thinks he is not a student, he would have to answer "yes" to this question, which again would place a "refer to CS" on the account. CS would then verify that he was NOT going on to start another course, but was going to enter the jobs market.

Other DIRECT questions that should be asked are:-

"Do you hold a current passport"
"Do you hold a current drivers license"
"Do you have any government issued photo ID other than the above"

IF a player answers "NO" to all three, they are CERTAIN to face problems when they withdraw, and in these cases CS should ensure that they can reach agreement on an alternative form of verification, and if not - they will not be allowed to play.

This is simple programming, and will NOT cost much in the way of resources. In fact, it will SAVE on resources later on, since many problems will be nipped in the bud, and the casino will NOT have to deal with "after the fact" complaints based around these common issues. They can then devote more resources to combating REAL fraud, where fraudsters lie their way past as many of the checks as they can, and of course deserve what they get.


This is NOT the first issue that has made me feel that CW are slowly declining, but it is by far the most contentious. CW are getting "stale", and with this comes the danger that the "fresh" new entrants will steal their shine, and at least some of their players.

 

[silcnlayc]

vinylweatherman: This is NOT the first issue that has made me feel that CW are slowly declining, but it is by far the most contentious. CW are getting "stale", and with this comes the danger that the "fresh" new entrants will steal their shine, and at least some of their players.

I think it is not just CW starting it's slow declining, I have felt ALL RTG's have been declining...including all the accredited ones for a long time.

When they must use convoluted T&C's in which they cannot even understand...and if they must continue to twist more wordings and rules around, add more, tweak more..it is time to move on...

When you can choose to play at casinos that have simple rules, and there are some...then it is time to avoid those that have 50 pages of rules plus rules on the rules plus rules on the coupon, coupon rules plus rules on the coupon rules...I mean, c'mon...when is it all too much?

I have said before that I believe RTG's are dying due to their own silliness...and it shows even more lately...they cannot understand the saying...KEEP IT SIMPLE.....as other casinos do..why cannot RTG???

.

 

[hurdle]

Actually the resources required to do this are considerable. You also aren't vetted walking into a land based casino before you play.

That said if I was Dani I would be extremely unhappy.

They are going to check regardless, so why not do it before you deposit? Why only when you cashout? How does checking when you want to cashout protecting you in any way? No more resources than they already use methinks.

this thread is very long but very insightful.

 

[skiny]

How does checking when you want to cashout protecting you in any way?

It doesn't.

It's done this way because they want to turn a blind eye to anyone who deposits and only concern themselves with the ones who try to withdraw.

Imagine how many people make dozens of deposits and never make a withdrawal and then move on. In fact the way things are these days you might make a hundred deposits and never make a withdrawal. The very last thing the casino wants to do is stop people from making deposits.

And if 1 out of 200 people who shouldn't be playing there anyway tries to withdraw, all it cost the casino is the processing fees to return the deposits. The other 199 that never tried to make a withdrawal should cover that easily enough 2000x over.

Simply put, accepting withdrawals from students and people in "the area" of Markham is a no way to lose situation for the casino. If the casino wins they keep the money, if the casino loses they give back the wagers.

I wish I could gamble like that.

 

[nisosbar]

Actually the resources required to do this are considerable. You also aren't vetted walking into a land based casino before you play.

No, but you could be. Further, in New Jersey, I believe the law is that casinos may not arbitrarily ban people seeking to gamble. Thus, even if they wanted to ban students as a class (over 18 and who otherwise fully qualify in New Jersey as being eligible to gamble), the New Jersey Department of Gaming (or whatever that agency is called) would very likely overrule, if the player appealed to the state.

 

[ksech]

No, but you could be. Further, in New Jersey, I believe the law is that casinos may not arbitrarily ban people seeking to gamble. Thus, even if they wanted to ban students as a class (over 18 and who otherwise fully qualify in New Jersey as being eligible to gamble), the New Jersey Department of Gaming (or whatever that agency is called) would very likely overrule, if the player appealed to the state.

You need to be 21 to gamble in Atlantic City. They escort you out of the casino if they ID you and you aren't 21 (this happened to a young man who accompanied us on vacation last year). He was attempting to play a penny slot in Caesars when casino "cops" asked for ID, he's only 20 and they escorted him to the boardwalk.

 

[nisosbar]

You need to be 21 to gamble in Atlantic City. They escort you out of the casino if they ID you and you aren't 21 (this happened to a young man who accompanied us on vacation last year). He was attempting to play a penny slot in Caesars when casino "cops" asked for ID, he's only 20 and they escorted him to the boardwalk.

Ok, thanks for the correction.

I think what this thread highlights is the drawback to gambling with unregulated casinos - to a lesser or greater extent, you are at the mercy of the casino, which maybe wouldn't be so objectionable if the game odds were even, but of course, the casino builds in a pre-determined house edge, for a guaranteed long-term profit, so it really stinks when even THAT isn't enough.

I do hope this gets resolved amicably, as Club World's casinos are the only RTG's I play on these days.

 

[jas2587]

I find it ironic that they are doing this
I consider myself a student
A student in Life
I learn each day something new
theres my Grandkids when they was born I was never a Grandma I had to learn that
same as when I turned into a parent
when we get our learners permit to drive we don't know how to drive we just wing it
I had to Learn to Gamble had to Learn what the hell wagering was
Hell I didn't know a thing about SEX had to learn that an am still bein TAUGHT a few things

so IIRC we are all Students of somekind or another


Cindy

 

[vinylweatherman]

CWC have won this battle, but maybe they are losing the war

 

[JAMES50]

Yes they most certainly are

 

[skiny]

CWC have won this battle, but maybe they are losing the war

Too bad there was no actual battle. They said they're not paying. Everyone said that's ridiculous and they just went on about their business.

Seems like you can't trust anyone anymore. Accredited or not.

 

[P.V.]

You make this sound like it's a bad thing.

This is where the problem lies. How is a student defined, and who defines him? Many here are arguing it's a call made by the player; the casino concedes that they are the decision makers.

It's a poorly written term (as I have mentioned), and the casino has stated that they will rewrite this.

You've been very successful with the PAB process, if the casino always gets the final say and can define a student themself, sorry players.

If you had agreed with the many members here that in fact he wasn't a student and that he graduated, what recourse would have been taken?

This is exactly why many posts back I said why read the T & C's. I caught hell for that but with ambiguous T & C's and no liability on the online casino's behalf, it's a win win for the casino regardless of the PAB system or the T & C's. They get the final say.

I also think if Danl is truly concerned about his money he should file a small claim for the remainder. The good thing is, he was returned his deposit so it's not over $10,000 now and it can be handled in small claims court. I'm assuming that UK is 10,000 and like the US but not sure. Small claims is easy and you don't have to hire an attorney, present the facts yourself and let the judge decide. He'd win IMO.

I read the T & C's and I don't see a dispute venue, most legal agreements have something like:

This Agreement and all matters arising from it are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of XXXXX. Exclusive jurisdiction over any and all disputes arising in connection with this Agreement shall be the XXXXX Court of XXXXX location.

I know they have a gaming license from Curacao but can't find a venue for legal disputes. Danl should file a claim in his hometown or nearest court and see if they want to come to him to resolve this issue since he's in the UK and online gambling is legal. I doubt they will and I doubt they want to go to Curacao either if that's the location.

Also it would be nice to hear from some other operators on their opinion as to whether they think he was a student or not and why. I think one persons opinion and the casino isn't getting it vs. all the comments I've read.

I do adimit it's an interesting debate!

 

[nothappy]

I prefer to be approved with my documents prior to any play at casinos.
That is not always possible. Actually, at some RTG they will not approve or process your licence, fax form or any of that until after you have deposited. I use NETeller and I would have to deposit, then they would look at my documents. This is not always the case but it is the case at some RTG certainly. When I question this it is because they need to verify the NT account and that is part of the process. They cannot approve you prior to seeing you deposit, even moreso if it be by wire or cheque of some sort. That is another issue altogether. There are a few casinos that want to see cheques as part of the document package sent in regardless of deposit method. I do not even know of anybody that still uses them here so probably RTG's methods are a bit antiquated and could be updated.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I prefer to be approved with my documents prior to any play at casinos.
That is not always possible. Actually, at some RTG they will not approve or process your licence, fax form or any of that until after you have deposited. I use NETeller and I would have to deposit, then they would look at my documents. This is not always the case but it is the case at some RTG certainly. When I question this it is because they need to verify the NT account and that is part of the process. They cannot approve you prior to seeing you deposit, even moreso if it be by wire or cheque of some sort. That is another issue altogether. There are a few casinos that want to see cheques as part of the document package sent in regardless of deposit method. I do not even know of anybody that still uses them here so probably RTG's methods are a bit antiquated and could be updated.

So, what are they smokin'

I have received only a couple of cheque payments this year. One from my Mum, and another as a refund for a duplicated payment taken from my card. I write no more than a couple of checks a year, and these are for small clubs that can't take card payments. These clubs are starting to offer PayPal.

The only guaranteed way to get a cheque is for the casino to send you one, and you make an image of it before you cash it at the bank.

Although they can't verify your deposit until you have made it, they CAN at least verify that your documentation is of acceptable quality (not blurred, suitable for the purpose, etc).

It seems some RTG casinos are going out of their way to keep open an excuse not to pay by REFUSING to verify a players' identity until it is too late, and the player risks not getting paid. If they are so keen to keep this avenue for refusal to pay open, they are probably just as keen to use it.
There are a number of casinos that find numerous problems with the SAME set of documents that have not caused any problems with any other casino the player has sent them to - this indicates the casino os going out of it's way to find a reason not to pay, whereas the others look for reasons TO pay the player, and would rather NOT end up having to confiscate a withdrawal.

 

[danl]

This is where the problem lies. How is a student defined, and who defines him? Many here are arguing it's a call made by the player; the casino concedes that they are the decision makers.

It's a poorly written term (as I have mentioned), and the casino has stated that they will rewrite this.

The player and the casino agree who a student is when they form a contract with its terms and conditions. If something mentioned in the terms is not already obvious or clearly defined, then it is ambiguous. In consumer contracts in many legal systems, if a term is ambiguous, it will be construed in favour of the consumer.

Additionally, in many legal systems, a contract term which states that one party has exclusive rights to interpret the terms is invalid. In the case of a dispute, it is the courts (not the casino) that will ultimately decide. It is obviously a nonsense for one of the parties of the contract to be judge and jury on an issue they have an interest in.

 

[silcnlayc]

danl In consumer contracts in many legal systems, if a term is ambiguous, it will be construed in favour of the consumer.

danl, sorry to say this but these are "unregulated" waters..this has nothing to do with any regulations , legal or otherwise, it is taking the "promises" on "faith" and "good will". That is the chances we take when playing online. This also has nothing to do with any legal contracts...except for the casinos side to interpret as they will.

No sense in going down the "legal" road IMO...because we all know these places do not have anyone overseeing them..and we all agreed to follow THEIR terms and conditions...it just gives the casinos license to change it, misconstrue it and twist it any way they want..hence so many ambiguous terms they cannot even understand themselves...


.

 

[The Dude]

The player and the casino agree who a student is when they form a contract with its terms and conditions. If something mentioned in the terms is not already obvious or clearly defined, then it is ambiguous. ...

Jeesus dude, give it a break.

You agreed to the terms and conditions, right? But you agreed to them while failing to read them, am I correct?

You are a student - you've been one for years. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Obviously, you feel like you're the victim and it's the casino's fault because you didn't understand the terms and conditions. Even though it is clearly stated in the first paragraph that they do not allow student players.

 

[ksech]

The proverbial horse is dead...

22. By installing and using this software the player hereby agrees to have fully read and understood the above 'terms and conditions' and so agrees to be bound by them. In the event of any disputes, all decisions made by the casino will be final

This is where they have you...

I truly understand your frustration in all of this, but take it as a valuable lesson learned, the casino isn't going to back down. You have your deposits back. I would have liked to see you receive your money, but you also need to take some responsibility for your lack of reading the T&Cs, your failure to "understand" and/or question the loosely written term, and your failure to be honest and forthcoming with the parties who attempted to help you.

 

[The Dude]

...
I truly understand your frustration in all of this, but take it as a valuable lesson learned, the casino isn't going to back down. You have your deposits back. I would have liked to see you receive your money, but you also need to take some responsibility for your lack of reading the T&Cs, your failure to "understand" and/or question the loosely written term, and your failure to be honest and forthcoming with the parties who attempted to help you.

Thank you. You have verbalized what I've been trying to get people to understand over the past twenty pages or so.

Does the situation suck? Yes. Do I feel for the player? Yes, I do. Was the player in the wrong by not reading, understanding, and following the terms and conditions? Yes. Did the player mislead those who tried to assist him? Yes.

And members are getting all riled up closing accounts and stomping around in protest. I'm getting beat up because I voice my opinion on believing that this guy is a student, and the casino is being turned into the second coming of Satan.

 

[Pulver]

Self edited.

I can't be bothered arguing anymore.


This industry needs regulations, and fast.

Good night all.

 

[skiny]

Jeesus dude, give it a break.

You agreed to the terms and conditions, right? But you agreed to them while failing to read them, am I correct?

You are a student - you've been one for years. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Obviously, you feel like you're the victim and it's the casino's fault because you didn't understand the terms and conditions. Even though it is clearly stated in the first paragraph that they do not allow student players.

The mistake he made was calling himself a student, not being one.

Danl's only real crime wasn't breaking the rules, it was not reading them. If someone asked me if I was a carpenter I might possibly say yes. I'm not now but I was for quite some time many years ago. It is more likely I would say "Well, not anymore but I used to be" but if I wanted to flip off an easy answer "yes" would do and neither answer would truly be incorrect. If Danl had read the terms he might not have been so quick to call himself a student. The answer might have been "Not at the moment, no."

As for agreeing to these terms and conditions, the problem with agreeing to these and many other terms and conditions is that what you agree to may not be what the writers mean or the operators want them to mean. One person may feel that a student remains a student until all studies are complete for the life of the person while others might feel that a student is only a student while they're currently studying. And to be quite honest with you, I think for most casinos the terms mean whatever suits the casino at the time.

No offense but if someone owed me 7k I wouldn't give it a break. A casino owed me 4k once and I kept at them for over 2 months before I got paid. I didn't have this forum to come to and discuss the matter at the time and it wouldn't have helped anyway since it was a rogue operation but I'd be damned if they were keeping my money. They took my wagers, they can bloody well pay my winnings.

What really bugs me is these casino will take money from damn near anyone. They do it because they know 99% of the people who deposit while breaking some vague rule will lose and walk away never knowing they wouldn't have been paid either way.

It's really a shame that every player online couldn't get together and form a union. The casinos sign OUR terms and conditions or nobody plays there. You play fair or you don't play at all. That would be a perfect world for online gambling. We both agree to a set of rules and if we break them we don't get paid and if the casino breaks them they go out of business by next week.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

1) If gambling online is legal in your country of residence and you're old enough to participate legally and you're not a gambling addict. You get paid.

There is no 2.

It's not rocket science to build the software to keep people from playing games they shouldn't or withdrawing before bonus requirements are met. All the other terms and conditions are just extra baggage that causes nothing but grief when you try to withdrawal. If there is any reason other than the ones listed in the above terms and conditions that a casino shouldn't pay you, they shouldn't have accepted your wagers in the first place.

Where I live and how old am I? Those are the two questions you need to ask. What I do for a living is simply not your business and whether or not I can afford to gamble is really not for you to decide. You are simply not equipped to make that distinction. There may be ditch diggers who have more gambling money than international lawyers or brain surgeons. Just because you make a lot of money doesn't mean you have a lot of money and just because you're making minimum wage doesn't mean you're broke.

The sole purpose of these lengthy documents is not to protect you or I. It is to protect the casino. And the more wiggle room these documents have the better they protect the casino because they are vaguely written by the casino, interpreted how they see fit by the casino and then enforced by the casino. And when the casino decides you're not getting paid there isn't a damn thing you can do about it to get your money but there is a thing you can do about it to make sure they don't get yours. Stop playing there.

I truly understand your frustration in all of this, but take it as a valuable lesson learned.

It's old and it's tiresome. It's time some casinos learned their lesson. They accepted the wager, they can pay the winnings.

 

[jelsmith]

Thank you. You have verbalized what I've been trying to get people to understand over the past twenty pages or so.

Does the situation suck? Yes. Do I feel for the player? Yes, I do. Was the player in the wrong by not reading, understanding, and following the terms and conditions? Yes. Did the player mislead those who tried to assist him? Yes.

And members are getting all riled up closing accounts and stomping around in protest. I'm getting beat up because I voice my opinion on believing that this guy is a student, and the casino is being turned into the second coming of Satan.

Dont be giving my title away....I worked hard to earn that

 

[Nifty29]

The player agreed to the casino having the final say when it comes to any disputes.

In fact, we all do it every time we create an online casino account. If you don't believe me, check for yourselves.

It may be that some casinos will allow an arbitrator e.g. Max to make recommendations, and and agree to adopt them. However, should the casino decide against this, we have to accept it as we agreed to do when joining.

Anyone who doesn't accept that the casino has the right to make the final decision should cease playing online immediately.

I'm not talking about who is right or wrong here. I'm talking about what every player agrees to when they tick that box.

Personally I think there may have been room for a better solution, but I think the player probably blew that chance by being less than honest in their dealings with Max and the casino.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thank you. You have verbalized what I've been trying to get people to understand over the past twenty pages or so.

Does the situation suck? Yes. Do I feel for the player? Yes, I do. Was the player in the wrong by not reading, understanding, and following the terms and conditions? Yes. Did the player mislead those who tried to assist him? Yes.

And members are getting all riled up closing accounts and stomping around in protest. I'm getting beat up because I voice my opinion on believing that this guy is a student, and the casino is being turned into the second coming of Satan.

The problem is, he WAS NOt ACTUALLY STUDYING AT A UNIVERSITY when he played. Being a student by trade is NOT enough given the terms as written. he had to be studying full time as well.

If anyone can prove he was actually attending lectures at his chosen university at ANY point between registration and cashing out, then I will agree that he violated the terms as written.

The casino in this case has written one thing, but means another. The INTENTION was to ban anyone who is a student by trade, and NOT merely when they were actually studying full time. They should NOT therefore have added the bit about having to be full time at university or college.
Whether someone reads the terms or not does not alter those terms. It is also not really relevant for casinos to use something that will "probably happen in a couple of months" in order to judge a case that has happened "now".

If I were moving to France next January, I would STILL be allowed to play at CWC until that time. I would NOT be banned straight away because I was going to move to France in a month.

A court would probably find for the player, but this might mean travelling to Costa Rica to bring a case.

The casino industry do NOT "behave" in the sense that they do NOT recognise consumer rights within the EU. It is these rights that allow such one sided terms to be struck out by a court. It is a case of the terms being struck out under laws protecting consumers from unfair contracts, rather than the court deciding whether the terms were breached as written.

It is right to call out a casino that does NOT operate to accepted business practice in the countries where they do business.

 

[jod5413]

If I rememberer correctly, didn't this guy send a student ID to the casino for an ID?

That alone should have sunk him.

Everyone here seems to be saying the guy is right and the casino wrong. I do not understand why there is such nit picking going on. The player screwed up, and to sit and keep going on about him not being a student at the time, but was a student and will be a student. Damn, you guys are tough.

The casino could have been forgiving, but you all know what that would have led to, future breaking of rules that they are supposed to forgive, and then poof, anybody will fight for every transgression they have made and want forgiveness for and demand their deposit back and winnings, too ?

IMO the player needs to move on, as do some members here that can not seem to let go of the bone and want to keep chewing on it.