Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[skiny]

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 agree with what's right. I will never agree with what's wrong.

What is at the end of the document is irrelevant if the casino is going to vaguely interpret what is at the beginning. "We have final say" at the end of any agreement doesn't give anyone the right to say FU whenever they feel like it. It simply doesn't work that way.

 

[skiny]

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

That alone should have sunk him.

No, that was someone else. I think the guy who sent the student ID got paid.

 

[ksech]

This is getting nowhere. We keep reiterating the same things over and over again. Perhaps, we all need to practice some patience now and see how CWC is going to FIX this issue. THEN, we can ride roughshod over them to make sure the term is 100% understandable, with no room for debate.

They also need to address the banned area of Markham Ontario. THAT too, IMO, is way too broad and needs to be more clearly defined.

I also perceive Danl was NOT a matriculated student at the time of play, BUT if he had been honest with Steve Russo and Bryan/Max from the onset, perhaps he would have seen his winnings.

To me, closing my accounts really didn't matter, as my government has seen to it I can no longer fund any accounts. And trying to play the "now you see them, now you don't" game of trying to use QT is too frustrating. And reading about players who are trying new ewallets and taking chances trying to fund accounts just doesn't seem worth the worry and hassle of making sure they are going to be aboveboard.

So, for me, I'm pretty much done with this issue until CWC does the rewrite. I feel like an old broken record...

 

[skiny]

This is getting nowhere. We keep reiterating the same things over and over again. Perhaps, we all need to practice some patience now and see how CWC is going to FIX this issue. THEN, we can ride roughshod over them to make sure the term is 100% understandable, with no room for debate.

They also need to address the banned area of Markham Ontario. THAT too, IMO, is way too broad and needs to be more clearly defined.

I also perceive Danl was NOT a matriculated student at the time of play, BUT if he had been honest with Steve Russo and Bryan/Max from the onset, perhaps he would have seen his winnings.

To me, closing my accounts really didn't matter, as my government has seen to it I can no longer fund any accounts. And trying to play the "now you see them, now you don't" game of trying to use QT is too frustrating. And reading about players who are trying new ewallets and taking chances trying to fund accounts just doesn't seem worth the worry and hassle of making sure they are going to be aboveboard.

So, for me, I'm pretty much done with this issue until CWC does the rewrite. I feel like an old broken record...

And that's how problems like this quietly fade into the sunset and everyone goes on business as usual.

This thread started almost 5 weeks ago. How long does it take to change a few lines of text on a webpage?

My son just finished two whole websites in half that time yet the conditions remain the same on this one webpage and the "area of" Markham still remains undefined.

 

[danl]

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.

I just want to respond to this, and make a general point about T&Cs.

In places such as the UK, some types of terms are not valid. For example, a party cannot exclude liability for personal injury or death. They can write it and you can agree to it, but you can just effectively ignore it. In addition, any term which says "we reserve the right to interpret the terms" or "our decision is final" just isn't valid, so the courts would just read the contract without that term there.

Just because you agree to a set of terms and conditions, it doesn't mean that they will be enforced. And obviously it is the responsibility of any party to be aware of the terms and conditions he accepts, but only to the extent of legal terms. Again, I'm just making a general point (not about my case), and in many cases with online casinos it may not be practical to take legal action.



About the student ID: I sent in student ID that had already expired in July 2010, for when I played in August. (Just clarifying the facts, seeing as though it had been brought up.)

 

[Nifty29]

I just want to respond to this, and make a general point about T&Cs.

In places such as the UK, some types of terms are not valid. For example, a party cannot exclude liability for personal injury or death. They can write it and you can agree to it, but you can just effectively ignore it. In addition, any term which says "we reserve the right to interpret the terms" or "our decision is final" just isn't valid, so the courts would just read the contract without that term there.

Just because you agree to a set of terms and conditions, it doesn't mean that they will be enforced. And obviously it is the responsibility of any party to be aware of the terms and conditions he accepts, but only to the extent of legal terms. Again, I'm just making a general point (not about my case), and in many cases with online casinos it may not be practical to take legal action.



About the student ID: I sent in student ID that had already expired in July 2010, for when I played in August. (Just clarifying the facts, seeing as though it had been brought up.)

So why aren't you taking your own expert legal advice and pursuing CWC in the Courts?

I would think $7000 would be a reasonable amount to recover.

I still don't understand why you TOLD them you were a student, and sent them an ID card, expired or otherwise, as proof? The only reason you later declared you were NOT a student is when you found you had broken the terms.

The above leads me to believe that if you had discovered there was some kind of extra privileges for students, rather than a ban, you would be vehemently insisting that you were indeed a student.

I think you will make an excellent lawyer.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I just want to respond to this, and make a general point about T&Cs.

In places such as the UK, some types of terms are not valid. For example, a party cannot exclude liability for personal injury or death. They can write it and you can agree to it, but you can just effectively ignore it. In addition, any term which says "we reserve the right to interpret the terms" or "our decision is final" just isn't valid, so the courts would just read the contract without that term there.

Just because you agree to a set of terms and conditions, it doesn't mean that they will be enforced. And obviously it is the responsibility of any party to be aware of the terms and conditions he accepts, but only to the extent of legal terms. Again, I'm just making a general point (not about my case), and in many cases with online casinos it may not be practical to take legal action.



About the student ID: I sent in student ID that had already expired in July 2010, for when I played in August. (Just clarifying the facts, seeing as though it had been brought up.)

This should normally mean the document gets rejected as invalid due to it having expired. In your case, it shows you were ONLY considered a student until July 2010, so this term was NOT broken by you, the casino has simply interpreted the situation to fit it's desire not to pay.

This other guy also sent in a student ID, but had graduated, so got paid anyway. YOU had graduated too, yet you DIDN'T get paid. The reason for this is what you planned to do in the autumn, NOT what you were doing at the time.

The casino have used this term beyond the scope with which it was written. THEY made a mistake in writing a term that failed to properly define the type of player they didn't want.

A third guy ALSO planned to go to college, yet was PAID on the grounds that this was in the future, and he was not at college at the time of playing. He should NOT have been paid because this is the same kind of situation you are in.

It has been telling the TRUTH that got you into this mess, NOT lying throughout. Had you sent in a driving license right away, and NOT the student ID, you would have been paid without fuss once they had verified your ID.

When I played, I was not working, and sent in my driving license. I was not asked to provide proof of employment, nor questioned as to WHY I was not apparently working. I was certainly not asked whether this was because I was studying.

It seems some of those kicking up a fuss are ALSO students who have been playing at CWC for a while in blissful ignorance that they could never win & get paid. The term and it's application in these 3 cases has made them worried that they too are going to be deemed in violation should they withdraw and be subjected to verification.

Casinos behave like this because the internet is largely unregulated, and they have got away with pretty much everything they like in the past, and see no reason to obey laws they have no need to.

CWC see no need to obey the laws in America, namely the UIGEA that expressly makes the transactions between player and casino illegal, even if not the gambling itself. CWC just need to ensure they remain unavailable to US justice. The Neteller execs, and the other one (BetOnSports? ) DID stray too close to US justice, and were nabbed by the DoJ.

If any CWC execs stray too close, the DoJ will have them too!

When players start taking casinos to court and winning, they WILL have to rethink their behaviour. This will start to happen more often now that the industry has gone more "mainstream", particularly here in the UK where online casinos and poker are no longer a curiosity known only to "nerds", they are plastered all over post-watershed TV, and pretty much everyone knows this industry exists, and has a degree of respectability.

 

[skiny]

This should normally mean the document gets rejected as invalid due to it having expired. In your case, it shows you were ONLY considered a student until July 2010, so this term was NOT broken by you, the casino has simply interpreted the situation to fit it's desire not to pay.

This other guy also sent in a student ID, but had graduated, so got paid anyway. YOU had graduated too, yet you DIDN'T get paid. The reason for this is what you planned to do in the autumn, NOT what you were doing at the time.

A third guy ALSO planned to go to college, yet was PAID on the grounds that this was in the future, and he was not at college at the time of playing. He should NOT have been paid because this is the same kind of situation you are in.

And all of this was derived from a single line -

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.

Apparently what this line means is if you're finished you get paid, if you're enrolled you get paid but if you're finished and enrolled you don't get paid.

All three of these people could have read this line and all three could consider it to mean they get paid but apparently only two of the three aren't breaking the rule.

Well, I've got bad news for you. The rule was broken long before any of them showed up. And apparently nobody's in any hurry to fix it.

He finished just like the second guy. He was enrolled in new courses just like the third guy. But unlike the second and third guy, he's not getting paid.

These terms and conditions have to be simple, precise and it wouldn't hurt if they had some sort of valid reason. As long as casinos keep getting away with reneging on withdrawals for silly reasons nobody will really be secure playing online.

"It's entirely up to us whether or not we want to pay you." Just doesn't cut it anymore. You accepted the wager, if the player had lost you would have kept it. He didn't. So pay him.

 

[P.V.]

The Right To Gamble!

Several years back I had some rental property. Those days are behind me, thank goodness. Here's some things that could never be said due to discrimination.

1. "I'm sorry, but after you called, I rented that apartment to someone else."

2. "Sorry, but we do not have a waiting list."

3. "I cannot let you look at the apartment until you show me your green card."

4. "There is an additional charge for each child who will live with you."

5. "This building is for adults only."

6. "We cannot have any handicap people living here, for we don't have the proper facilities."

7. "For safety's sake, we don't allow families with small children to live upstairs."

8. "Sorry, but we don't allow college students to live here."

9. "I don't really want all those changes--a ramp, grab bars--that simply is too much."

10. "Perhaps you would find it more comfortable living down the street."

I understand a few around here don't like examples but #8 and #10 kind of remind me of this debate. Changing them to..

"Sorry, but we don't allow college students to play here."

"Perhaps you should play at another online casino that allows students."

So it's a bigger issue than the Danl case of whether he's a student. It's a discriminatory clause that should be removed completely. It shouldn't be rewritten it should be removed completely.

Regardless of whether you believe Danl is a student or not a student that's not the true problem here. Whether he read the T & C's or didn't read them. Whether he freaked when he was informed about the student clause. Whether CW thinks they're helping students with this clause. Again immaterial..

CM and Max work hard for everyone here and from what I've read the PAB is a free service, go figure! But, discrimination should not be allowed in any T & C's, period. It's not the casino's place to figure out who they think they're helping, other than someone with a gambling problem.

Since Danl I'm sure never thought he'd be a subject of discrimination, therefore he should be paid. The clause should be removed completely or I'm afraid CW will have a problem moving forward. MO

 

[Tengil]

I just want to respond to this, and make a general point about T&Cs.

In places such as the UK, some types of terms are not valid. For example, a party cannot exclude liability for personal injury or death. They can write it and you can agree to it, but you can just effectively ignore it. In addition, any term which says "we reserve the right to interpret the terms" or "our decision is final" just isn't valid, so the courts would just read the contract without that term there.

Just because you agree to a set of terms and conditions, it doesn't mean that they will be enforced. And obviously it is the responsibility of any party to be aware of the terms and conditions he accepts, but only to the extent of legal terms. Again, I'm just making a general point (not about my case), and in many cases with online casinos it may not be practical to take legal action.



About the student ID: I sent in student ID that had already expired in July 2010, for when I played in August. (Just clarifying the facts, seeing as though it had been brought up.)

You are correct of course but the reality with most of the online casinos is exactly as silcnlayc described in post nr 341.
There is basically no consumer protection in online gambling, especially not at any casino "licensed and regulated" in Curacao.

About the possibility to take them to court etc ask someone, a professor maybe, if its an option as the holding company is based in UK but the gambling (business activity) took place in Curacao.

 

[The Dude]

I am hoping that through the fog of side issues and endless analogies, at least a few members can look at the original issue and understand why the player was not paid.

Here are excerpts from the original PAB. The first comment is from Tom (my bolding):

This case started with the attached chat transcript where the player
informed us that he is not employed and that he is a student.

As per our terms of use students are not permitted to play on our sites.
When we informed him of this he changed his story and said that he is
not a student.

When players change such a pivotal piece of information we ask for
something to back up their new version of events which in this case
would either be evidence of employment or unemployment. The player was
able to supply all kinds of things that showed he was a student, but
nothing that demonstrated he wasn't. As such we refunded the deposits and closed the account...

On this occasion I am going to have to insist on seeing proof that this
player has left the education system. This would prove compliance with
our terms of use..

We asked the player to indicate exactly what he was doing at that time - was he, or was he not a student. He sent us copies of his certificates showing graduation dates - and he stated:

I'm not sure why my current situation is relevant, but seeing as though they want to know: I'm going to be started a volunteering job in January...

I'm planning on enrolling again next year to obtain a Graduate Diploma in
Law, as part of my long-term goal of becoming a solicitor. I'm taking this
year out and will applying for Training Contracts with law firms (which you
apply for two years ahead of when you will be starting), and building up my
CV by doing things like the volunteering job.

So at this point it looks as though he was a student and is just on a break - he's left the education system and therefore should be paid....

But he lied. He was not planning to enroll again next year. He was already enrolled and attending his graduate studies at the time of the PAB. It seems that many members here are ignoring this pivotal piece of information. He lied to us and is still a student.

He misled us (too include Gambling Grumbles) during the entire process - I'm astounded that many members couldn't give a flying rat's ass about this.

He never could produce anything to Club World that showed he had left the education system. Pay stubs from McD's or from the unemployment office - nothing. He could not convince anyone - except those of you who are lost in the fog here - that he had left the education system. And this is what Club World was waiting for.

This is why he wasn't paid.

 

[RedAndi]

I am hoping that through the fog of side issues and endless analogies, at least a few members can look at the original issue and understand why the player was not paid.

Here are excerpts from the original PAB. The first comment is from Tom (my bolding):



We asked the player to indicate exactly what he was doing at that time - was he, or was he not a student. He sent us copies of his certificates showing graduation dates - and he stated:



So at this point it looks as though he was a student and is just on a break - he's left the education system and therefore should be paid....

But he lied. He was not planning to enroll again next year. He was already enrolled and attending his graduate studies at the time of the PAB. It seems that many members here are ignoring this pivotal piece of information. He lied to us and is still a student.

He misled us (too include Gambling Grumbles) during the entire process - I'm astounded that many members couldn't give a flying rat's ass about this.

He never could produce anything to Club World that showed he had left the education system. Pay stubs from McD's or from the unemployment office - nothing. He could not convince anyone - except those of you who are lost in the fog here - that he had left the education system. And this is what Club World was waiting for.

This is why he wasn't paid.

2 things-

1) Was he a student at the time of playing at CW? I thought it was made clear he wasn't?

2) Danl, do you have something from university/school that can pin down the actual times of attendence/enrollment? Would that be proof for CW?

CM I know you think everyone is just nitpicking and making analogies that just confuse things, but I do see where they all are coming from.
The terms themselves were unclear and have since been changed, yes?
If Danl lied outright I understand why you are pissed off about it all.
However, I also can see it from Danl's side , after being in school a long time you just may automatically say "I'm a student" even though at the time you are not attending or enrolled.

Either way I still say T & C's need to be overhauled at almost all casinos.
Make the shit clear and add the "click yes" option for every single term (oh yes and send a mass email if anythings changes), then you won't have to fight PAB's or lawsuits later on down the road.
Simple

 

[The Dude]

2 things-

1) Was he a student at the time of playing at CW? I thought it was made clear he wasn't?

Who made it clear? Danl never did or he would have been paid. The casino waited for him to provide something that would show he had left the education system. He never provided anything because he was and is a student.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am hoping that through the fog of side issues and endless analogies, at least a few members can look at the original issue and understand why the player was not paid.

Here are excerpts from the original PAB. The first comment is from Tom (my bolding):



We asked the player to indicate exactly what he was doing at that time - was he, or was he not a student. He sent us copies of his certificates showing graduation dates - and he stated:



So at this point it looks as though he was a student and is just on a break - he's left the education system and therefore should be paid....

But he lied. He was not planning to enroll again next year. He was already enrolled and attending his graduate studies at the time of the PAB. It seems that many members here are ignoring this pivotal piece of information. He lied to us and is still a student.

He misled us (too include Gambling Grumbles) during the entire process - I'm astounded that many members couldn't give a flying rat's ass about this.

He never could produce anything to Club World that showed he had left the education system. Pay stubs from McD's or from the unemployment office - nothing. He could not convince anyone - except those of you who are lost in the fog here - that he had left the education system. And this is what Club World was waiting for.

This is why he wasn't paid.

except this is NOT how the term is written. The term is written to ALLOW play during ANY break, whether or not a return to the education system takes place. There is NOTHING to say that a break of a year or two is OK, but a break of 3 months is NOT. It seems to be the length of break, not the leaving of the education system, that is being used to determine these cases.

Activity at the time of submitting a PAB is not as important as activity when playing.

Over zealous application of the terms does not sit well with players. We are ordinary consumers, NOT lawyers (except DanL).

Purple Lounge also voided a payout for a Greek player. It turned out that this player DID violate the terms regarding his WR, and despite calls to offer the player a second chance, Purple Lounge held firm so got removed from the accredited section.

Club World are similarly not prepared to offer a second chance. They could simply lock the account down until DanL finally completes all his courses, and then let him start where he left off.

The terms did NOT make it clear that your ENTIRE stay in the education system was what they meant, they made it look like the rule applied ONLY when you were actually attending your courses, so it is reasonable to assume that graduation constitutes the start of a break in studies, and this situation falls outside the scope of this rule until any new full time course starts.

Panic is not itself a crime, and it is panic that lead to DanL struggling with his story. It is THIS, rather than his status, that has caused the total lack of willing to compromise.

They WERE willing to compromise in the case where a student took a break from study because he could not raise the funds in time to begin his course when he had planned to. He was STILL "in the education system" though, even though not "enrolled full time at a university or college".

Are CW SERIOUSLY saying that had DanL simply gotten himself a summer McJob they would have PAID!!!

 

[anniemac]

Beating a dead horse, but what is the difference in Danl's position and this one:

My son is a full time student in college. He is 28, was in the Marines 6 years and receives disability payments from the VA. While he is enrolled in college, he receives a monthly stipend from the Gov. He has no other source of income.

If you ask him what he does for a living, he would tell you he is a student. If you ask him for proof of employment, unless you would take his VA award letter, he can't give you anything else. He does have a valid US driver's license but his student ID are only valid during the current semester.

He is not classified by the US Gov. as a student between semester ending and new semester beginning until verification is sent by the college. Consequently he does not receive his stipend.
The college does not classify him as a student until the time of enrollment in the next semester.

My point is this, he would tell you he is a student. But in all actuality, he is not classified as currently a student anywhere.

If Danl had something else he could have sent in and that would have been accepted by CWC as proof of non-enrollment in college and didn't send it in, then he is to blame. Otherwise, I don't think that opinion on this will be swayed.

 

[Pinababy69]

Fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if DanL is a student, was a student, or will be a student again anytime in the future. That term is completely unenforceable as it stands, in any fair manner. It's ambiguous and it's NOT clear. As such, as an accredited casino...they have no business even attempting to enforce it on anyone.

The OP in this thread (Glunn11) is more of a student than DanL (although I personally don't believe that either was AT THE TIME THEY PLAYED), yet they paid him. Sure sounds to me like CW, whether that be Tom or the owner or whoever, is picking and choosing who to pay, and when to enforce the rule or not.

It is indefensible, and I don't see any option but for DanL to be paid, or for CW to be removed from the Accredited List. They can do whatever they like once they rewrite the term, and Bryan agrees that it's clear and concise. THEN, and only then.....can they apply it. In the meantime, an operation who conducts itself like this has no business sharing space (or awards) with casinos like 32Red.

Can you imagine 32Red refusing to pay someone because the player lied? We're not talking a whopper of a lie, we're talking technicalities and the very thing that has been debated for 35 plus pages. We can only say he lied, if we believe that he was a student. And not really that much of a lie, as the player IS A GRADUATE. Seems to me that's been forgotten as well. So, is CW refusing to pay because they stand behind their claim that DanL was a student at the time he played, or because they say he lied? If it's the latter....they need to grow up and get over themselves. Who says he lied? They do. I say that whether or not DanL was a student is debatable, and therefore is nothing more than a matter of opinion. So if someone asked me if the guy was a student and I said no....does that make me a liar even though I now know the situation in full? Hogwash.

When casinos are allowed to get away with this type of selective rule enforcement, it's criminal. And provides NO incentive for the good operators to continue to operate in a fair and above board manner.

I would never recommend CW to ANYONE. Matter of fact, I would go so far as to tell people to stay away.

One, DanL was a GRADUATE at the time he played, NOT CURRENTLY STUDYING ANYTHING. Two, even if your opinion is that he was a student, the term is ambiguous, needs clarification (which the casino agrees with) and as such, should NOT be applied.

The fact that this thread has more replies than even the Betfair fiasco one, speaks volumes about how the average player feels about this. And the fact that 99% of everyone who posted in this thread feels that DanL should be paid says it all.

PAY THE GRADUATE. Anything less than full payment is a license to steal whenever they feel like it.

 

[Pulver]

Is it even fair to have a term that discriminates certain groups of society in the T&C to begin with?

What would the advocate of fair play say if a casino had a rule in their T&C about single moms not beeing allowed to play in the casino? (I would guess that single moms would have a tighter economy than most students)

IMO, the whole term is the very definition of unfair play to begin with and should be removed all together.

It is disheartening to se the meister continually defend CWC, but not pointing out the fact that it is a ridiculous term to begin with. Placed under a false flag to "protect" the students from losing their money. An explenation that stinks all the way to the moon.


We see this all to often, casinos putting ambiguous terms in their T&C to trap players making mistakes, not implementing a few lines of code to block disallowed games on bonus play etc. etc. The reason why they do this, I think that speaks for itself. $

 

[The Dude]

...It is disheartening to se the meister continually defend CWC, but not pointing out the fact that it is a ridiculous term to begin with. Placed under a false flag to "protect" the students from losing their money. An explenation that stinks all the way to the moon...

This is when I feel like defenestrating my computer.

I have explained why the player was not paid. Not as a casino rep, but as someone who is in direct contact with both the casino and the player.

I have explained why so that you understand why.
I don't really see anywhere where I have defended the casino.

I have also stated my opinion on why this player is considered a student. That is my opinion. I agree with my opinion, and I bet Danl does as well.

I have also said that this is a poorly written term. So please point out where I have defended this term. I'm the one who said it needed to be rewritten.

And please point out where I think this has been handled correctly.

 

[The Dude]

...And not really that much of a lie, as the player IS A GRADUATE...

This a point that a lot of people don't get. He's a graduate student. He is still 100% in the educational system. He never left it.

And to tell me that he is planning to continue his education in a year while he's actually attending is a big fat f**king lie - not a little one like you suggest.

This oversight of his is the crux of the matter - he was and still is a student. He didn't read the terms and conditions. He didn't realize until it was too late that he effed up. So he lied to everyone in this forum. He purposely mislead Gambling Grumbles, Max and me and everyone else who believed his story.

 

[silcnlayc]

Operational Standards (For accreditation)

Must pay winnings in a timely manner.
Must not disqualify any player from a payout if terms & conditions are met, except for situations of fraud (multiple-accounts, bogus ID documents, chargebacks, etc.,).
Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.
Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.
No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
Must pay out progressive jackpot wins in full or in reasonable chunks, regardless of any terms and conditions limiting payouts.*
Must remove any bonus and associated playthrough requirements at the request of the player if play has not commenced.
Will not entice players to reverse cash withdrawals with bonuses or other incentives.
Will not use outsourced support. Player support must be in-house.

So, where does this go? I see them both happening...but it seems one will over rule the other as the CM said...if you read it and interpret it correctly.

.

.

 

[jamiepaul7]

Just another excuse from CWC not to pay

It's just a matter of time before this casino goes under. They'll never get a license to operate legally in the U.S. and they run their business with their own rules and what's good for them. Years ago, they didn't pay me my winnings and also kept my deposit.

Bottom line, they are greedy and take advantage of the current non-regulated environment. They owed the player from this thread money and conveniently found the right loophole to deny his winnings. Business ethics like this ultimately come back to haunt you and I hope they are seeing this right now.

The only reason why people play there is because they have so few online gaming choices and with CWC your chances of being paid are better than not being paid. When the entire climate changes, CWC will be out and they know this...they're saving what they can now as their future is very bleak.

 

[The Dude]

It's just a matter of time before this casino goes under. They'll never get a license to operate legally in the U.S. and they run their business with their own rules and what's good for them. Years ago, they didn't pay me my winnings and also kept my deposit.

Bottom line, they are greedy and take advantage of the current non-regulated environment. They owed the player from this thread money and conveniently found the right loophole to deny his winnings. Business ethics like this ultimately come back to haunt you and I hope they are seeing this right now.

The only reason why people play there is because they have so few online gaming choices and with CWC your chances of being paid are better than not being paid. When the entire climate changes, CWC will be out and they know this...they're saving what they can now as their future is very bleak.

Quite a loaded post for a newbie member

Should I say welcome back?

 

[vinylweatherman]

This a point that a lot of people don't get. He's a graduate student. He is still 100% in the educational system. He never left it.

And to tell me that he is planning to continue his education in a year while he's actually attending is a big fat f**king lie - not a little one like you suggest.

This oversight of his is the crux of the matter - he was and still is a student. He didn't read the terms and conditions. He didn't realize until it was too late that he effed up. So he lied to everyone in this forum. He purposely mislead Gambling Grumbles, Max and me and everyone else who believed his story.

The only real difference between DanL and the OP was that DanL lied, and the OP didn't.

The OP was still in the education system, but was not studying at the time he played. DanL was the same, NOT studying when he played, but then he tried to lie his way out of the problem, rather than argue that the term didn't count because he was between courses, JUST like the OP, who was WAITING to study, rather than attending at the time, but who told the truth by owning up to the fact that he was still going to study after a break.

CWC "got him" on a technicality, and DanL compounded the problem by digging himself even deeper in the hole, rather than asking around for a ladder.

Well, OPERATORS are also prone to LYING their way out of a fix. We have had various operator and even processor excuses being used to lie their way out of a fix.

Rival white label operators lied frequently about the payment issues.
EWX are STILL lying about these long term "technical issues"
Neteller lied their way out of a fix back when UIGEA was passed.
MiniVegas & Microgaming lied their way out of the Chief's Fortune debacle in 2006.
JF lied their way out of the mismarketing scandal - trying to pretend the SEO text was OK because it was not supposed to be visible, conveniently forgetting that it ALWAYS WAS when cached by Google & presented that way.

When OPERATORS start taking the moral high ground about never lying their way out of a fix, we can be harder on PLAYERS who feel they have to do the same.

The operators were finally given redemption (even Rival got another chance, which they screwed up), yet DanL will NEVER be forgiven by CWC - his win gone FOREVER over a silly mistake driven by immaturity.

It doesn't matter what the arguments are, players are making their own minds up based on their own notions of "fair play".

If casinos are going to play "Gotcha!" with ambiguous terms, they are going to scare off other players who will lose confidence because they will worry about being "Gotcha'd" themselves.

It used to be "cough up, and then change the terms".

All these behaviours play into the hands of the US senators who have to back up their LIE about the UIGEA being all about "protecting the citizens" from "unregulated" online casinos.

 

[Pulver]

If casinos are going to play "Gotcha!" with ambiguous terms, they are going to scare off other players who will lose confidence because they will worry about being "Gotcha'd" themselves.

Excellent put, as always, mr. Weatherman.

 

[Jasminebed]

This is really unrelated to Danl's issue, but what about high school students? Sometimes they are over 18.

 

[just play]

This is really unrelated to Danl's issue, but what about high school students? Sometimes they are over 18.

Yes, that's pretty funny that college students can't play, but I guess it's ok for high school students.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is really unrelated to Danl's issue, but what about high school students? Sometimes they are over 18.

They would still be students "in the education system", but show up another problem with the term, since they are enrolled in HIGH SCHOOL, not a "college or university". They might mistakenly believe the term didn't apply because they were NOT going to study further after leaving school.

In the UK "High School" is called "6th form college", so the term would be better understood by UK players.

The vendetta against students eclipses the more usual fight against "bonus abuse" we see from casinos, so students getting away with playing is FAR worse than "bonus abusers" exploiting a loophole in the terms.

 

[skiny]

Only 3 questions need to be answered.

A. When did he graduate?
B. When does he start his new courses?
C. When did he place his wagers.

If C falls between A and B, he was NOT studying anything.

If C falls between A and B, he SHOULD get paid.

If he doesn't, he's getting robbed.

Now compound that fact with the fact that as an accredited casino they are NOT supposed to confiscate winnings for vague or ambiguous terms or conditions and everyone including Tom and Bryan has agreed the term needs to be clarified.

And even then we're down to claiming that he didn't get paid because he lied in a conversation? A lie that might have been immature but shouldn't have changed the outcome of the decision regardless of whether or not he told the truth.

No matter how you spin this the player is getting robbed. This thread is pushing 40 pages now because everyone knows he's getting robbed and nobody wants to stand for it.

CW seems to be pretty much ignoring the situation at this point. I guess they figure it's all water under the bridge now. A few people have said they closed their accounts already. I would advise anyone closing their accounts to include a link to this thread with the email. At least they'll know that the players are looking out for each other.

 

[RedAndi]

This is when I feel like defenestrating my computer.

Not to derail but...
I like that word, learned something today!
Thanks CM

 

[vinylweatherman]

Only 3 questions need to be answered.

A. When did he graduate?
B. When does he start his new courses?
C. When did he place his wagers.

If C falls between A and B, he was NOT studying anything.

If C falls between A and B, he SHOULD get paid.

If he doesn't, he's getting robbed.

Now compound that fact with the fact that as an accredited casino they are NOT supposed to confiscate winnings for vague or ambiguous terms or conditions and everyone including Tom and Bryan has agreed the term needs to be clarified.

And even then we're down to claiming that he didn't get paid because he lied in a conversation? A lie that might have been immature but shouldn't have changed the outcome of the decision regardless of whether or not he told the truth.

No matter how you spin this the player is getting robbed. This thread is pushing 40 pages now because everyone knows he's getting robbed and nobody wants to stand for it.

CW seems to be pretty much ignoring the situation at this point. I guess they figure it's all water under the bridge now. A few people have said they closed their accounts already. I would advise anyone closing their accounts to include a link to this thread with the email. At least they'll know that the players are looking out for each other.

It looks like he played between courses. He submitted the PAB after having started the graduate course, and this is where he lied.

He was NOT engaged in study when he played - this took place in the long summer break between graduation and the start of the Autumn, when universities tend to reopen at the start of October.

Although students are still considered to be in education during the shorter breaks, the long Summer break is treated differently by government and university administrators. It is considered a break in study. This is mainly a cost cutting exercise, preventing students from "lazing about" over the Summer. Recent changes have made life even harder, and students can no longer claim benefits during the summer break, they are expected to get short term holiday jobs, or live of what they have left (which is usually nothing).

One thing that puzzles me about this case is where Dan got the $5000 from to start with, he would have graduated with student loan debt, and would not have been receiving benefits.

One thing is certain, a graduate with $5000 going spare is NOT "in need of protection" due to being "skint".

 

[skiny]

Not to derail but...
I like that word, learned something today!
Thanks CM

Defenestrating - A defense that routinely appears about once a month. It usually lasts about 3 days.

 

[Jasminebed]

I don't really know where Danl got the money from, and I'm not sure it's relevant. Maybe Rich Aunt Mabel died, maybe he won at another casino. Maybe Mommy and Daddy gave him a big GRADUATION present. Maybe he was a Chippendale dancer, or got a settlement from a lawsuit.

The casino has never said he was suspected of money laundering. And I believe that the casino has an obligation to report that to the appropriate authorities and allow them to make the appropriate investigation.

 

[smittytime]

This is just theft. It is kinda sick that anyone would even take the counterpoint to this. The casino offered a game of chance in which they have the greater chance to win. They lost. Freaking thieves should pay. If not the least that should happen is unaccreditation (if thats a word). How can we have so many "accredited" rtg casinos just taking money from people, giving them ultra hoops to jump through to get fax forms and such authorized then waiting for payments? This business is so far from legit. Their accreditation status is so far from in the best interest of players.

 

[ksech]

Okay, NOW I have a few questions (I'm feeling a tad dense, sorry!)...
1) CM? You stated in a previous post you had been in contact with Danl. And...

But he lied. He was not planning to enroll again next year. He was already enrolled and attending his graduate studies at the time of the PAB. It seems that many members here are ignoring this pivotal piece of information. He lied to us and is still a student.

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

2) Did I understand correctly that CWC GAVE him a chance to remit FURTHER proof he was NOT enrolled in any type of studies?

3) The money question has sat in the back of my mind also. Where does an unemployed graduate student get that kind of money? Maybe he gets a BIG allowance from mommy and daddy? If so, can I trade parents for a month or two?



@skiny, I don't believe, and I truly hope you don't believe, that ANY citizen of this community will ALLOW this issue to be swept under the carpet. The 35+ pages of this thread shows how much concern can be generated from poorly written T&Cs which can affect ALL players.



/derail/ I too like that word...defenestrating. /derail

 

[Jasminebed]

Actually, I much less concerned with his status at the time of the PAB than I am at the time of play.

Danl did himself no favours lying to the the mods here. I remember some previous issue where the the PABer was less than forthcoming, and I asked if that influenced the decision, and yes it did. If I asked that by PM and I apologize, but to the best of my recollection I asked in the thread.

The PAB is a free service. Danl signed no non-disclosure agreements and is still free to to pursue his complaint through other avenues.

But the timing of the PAB is not relevant, it's his status at the time of play. I don't know what's the norm in the UK, but generally studies begin in September here, but often post-graduate candidates (note candidates, not students) will obtain summer employment the the university.

Since law school actually has classes and seminars, unlike PhD work that may be self directed once accepted, I'd be inclined to buy the not a student between undergrad graduation and commencement of studies in law.

 

[ksech]

/derail/
@Jasminebed:
Does the banned area of Markham Ontario affect you? I'm just curious as this was another "issue" which was never answered by anyone.

 

[Jasminebed]

Kesh, I'm about 200 miles east of the town of Markham. I don't know Clubworld's definition of "area".

I remember my trip to Europe in the early 80's, people asked me about people in all parts of Canada, since I was in the same "area".

 

[skiny]

Okay, NOW I have a few questions (I'm feeling a tad dense, sorry!)...
1) CM? You stated in a previous post you had been in contact with Danl. And...



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

2) Did I understand correctly that CWC GAVE him a chance to remit FURTHER proof he was NOT enrolled in any type of studies?

3) The money question has sat in the back of my mind also. Where does an unemployed graduate student get that kind of money? Maybe he gets a BIG allowance from mommy and daddy? If so, can I trade parents for a month or two?



@skiny, I don't believe, and I truly hope you don't believe, that ANY citizen of this community will ALLOW this issue to be swept under the carpet. The 35+ pages of this thread shows how much concern can be generated from poorly written T&Cs which can affect ALL players.



/derail/ I too like that word...defenestrating. /derail

It's not so much sweeping it under the carpet as letting it fade into the abyss. It's been almost a week since CW commented on this. So when we finally get tired of repeating ourselves and the thread disappears into the land of lost and forgotten subjects, the terms remain the same and the player loses his money.

It's just a waiting game for CW. Ignore it and let the problem go away on it's own.

 

[danl]

As this thread continues to develop, I'll respond again.

Firstly, I've always been very sorry and regretful for misleading CM and CWC (and Steve Russo). There was no excuse and no need to: I believe I have a strong case on the accurate and truthful facts.

Secondly, it does concern me that my status at the time of the PAB is being mentioned. It has nothing to do with my status at the time when I played there, which is the only relevant point. Obviously the circumstances surrounding when I played there are relevant, but the time of the PAB should be irrelevant (as mentioned by posters above). At the time when I first approached Aladdin's Gold for my money, I was not enrolled at any college of university - I belonged to no institution. The fact that the issue dragged on and I then started further studies does not affect the facts at the time.

Thirdly, I've provided evidence of when I graduated (graduation certificate and results transcript), and the term dates of my law school on its website. I graduated at the end of July, and started law school at the end of September. I'm not sure what else I could provide, and I wasn't invited to provide anything further.

I guess there are two issues: one of providing evidence, and one of whether that evidence would make any difference. Would CWC accept that I was not a student if I showed a clear period between graduating from one institution and starting at another, and that I played during that period? If not, then the evidence is irrelevant anyway. It's not clear how they define "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University".

 

[silcnlayc]

danl: As this thread continues to develop, I'll respond again.

Actually danl, it is a dead subject anymore, there is no "developing" any more for this thread..as you say...the casino has made their decision...end of story...everything else in this thread is a moot point...it really is time to move on and learn. I do not say this easily. I too, have been "bitten" by another accredited casino a long while back...you actually should be grateful to get your initial funds back whereas I didn't...

So...you do have a few choices...what they will be you will only know and decide to do...but beating this dead horse is not it anymore..

skiny, I know you think that some of us just want this to go away but that is not the case...some of us know what a losing battle we are fighting..instead of putting all this energy into something that is dead...I feel the best option is to move on and make something better of this sitiuation...the word is out on the T&C's of all RTG's and this thread will serve as a warning to many other players...but to continue to beat this horse is no longer a valid option IMO..it just gets old and there is nothing to be made of it anymore...now that the decision has been finalized..


.

 

[vinylweatherman]

As this thread continues to develop, I'll respond again.

Firstly, I've always been very sorry and regretful for misleading CM and CWC (and Steve Russo). There was no excuse and no need to: I believe I have a strong case on the accurate and truthful facts.

Secondly, it does concern me that my status at the time of the PAB is being mentioned. It has nothing to do with my status at the time when I played there, which is the only relevant point. Obviously the circumstances surrounding when I played there are relevant, but the time of the PAB should be irrelevant (as mentioned by posters above). At the time when I first approached Aladdin's Gold for my money, I was not enrolled at any college of university - I belonged to no institution. The fact that the issue dragged on and I then started further studies does not affect the facts at the time.

Thirdly, I've provided evidence of when I graduated (graduation certificate and results transcript), and the term dates of my law school on its website. I graduated at the end of July, and started law school at the end of September. I'm not sure what else I could provide, and I wasn't invited to provide anything further.

I guess there are two issues: one of providing evidence, and one of whether that evidence would make any difference. Would CWC accept that I was not a student if I showed a clear period between graduating from one institution and starting at another, and that I played during that period? If not, then the evidence is irrelevant anyway. It's not clear how they define "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University".

As far as I can see, they INCLUDE the break between leaving one institution, and starting at another. As far as CWC were concerned, you were STILL a "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University" between the end of July and the end of September, thus your play during the summer break DID breach the terms in their view.

You are getting this support because the CWC view is NOT reflected in the terms as written. As written, you WERE allowed to play during that break between graduation and the start of law school.

The $5000 question has been brought up because CWC say the whole intent of this term is to protect students from gambling with MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE because they ARE students, rather than working for a living.

It seems your misguided decision to construct a web of lies is what has hardened attitudes, and had you argued your case based on the truth right from the start, you would STILL be getting this level of support from players, and the operators and mediators would not have been predujiced by the fact that their time had been wasted by the lies.

Since you are now studying LAW, you could look at other ways to pursue this, and also see whether these terms themselves would be legal were CWC answerable to an EU jurisdiction.

One strong feeling is that operators use these "odd" jurisdictions not just because they are cheaper, but because they escape the stricter laws that protect consumers in most major countries, the SAME countries they target with their product. This essentially makes them "black market" operators, no different really from those online pharmacies that use places such as "Oceania" as their legal base to exploit loopholes in "controlled drugs" laws to sell "prescription only" medicines to anybody who can pay "no questions asked".
It's the same strategy that is making it very difficult for countries like the USA to enforce a ban on online casinos - they can take US players, but cannot be brought to US justice unless they get careless. Where they are based it is perfectly legal to take US customers, and BECAUSE it is legal there is no way the US can get the jurisdiction to shut them down, or extradite the operators to face US justice.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

As far as I can see, they INCLUDE the break between leaving one institution, and starting at another. As far as CWC were concerned, you were STILL a "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University" between the end of July and the end of September, thus your play during the summer break DID breach the terms in their view.

You are getting this support because the CWC view is NOT reflected in the terms as written. As written, you WERE allowed to play during that break between graduation and the start of law school.

The $5000 question has been brought up because CWC say the whole intent of this term is to protect students from gambling with MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE because they ARE students, rather than working for a living.

It seems your misguided decision to construct a web of lies is what has hardened attitudes, and had you argued your case based on the truth right from the start, you would STILL be getting this level of support from players, and the operators and mediators would not have been predujiced by the fact that their time had been wasted by the lies.

Since you are now studying LAW, you could look at other ways to pursue this, and also see whether these terms themselves would be legal were CWC answerable to an EU jurisdiction.

One strong feeling is that operators use these "odd" jurisdictions not just because they are cheaper, but because they escape the stricter laws that protect consumers in most major countries, the SAME countries they target with their product. This essentially makes them "black market" operators, no different really from those online pharmacies that use places such as "Oceania" as their legal base to exploit loopholes in "controlled drugs" laws to sell "prescription only" medicines to anybody who can pay "no questions asked".
It's the same strategy that is making it very difficult for countries like the USA to enforce a ban on online casinos - they can take US players, but cannot be brought to US justice unless they get careless. Where they are based it is perfectly legal to take US customers, and BECAUSE it is legal there is no way the US can get the jurisdiction to shut them down, or extradite the operators to face US justice.

Do you see any flaws, get this, say conflicts of interest among many other flaws interferring with this so called free PAB system?

 

[maxd]

Do you see any flaws, get this, say conflicts of interest among many other flaws interferring with this so called free PAB system?

You really are a cast-iron a-hole. How many hundreds of chances have we given you to give up this ridiculous conspiracy theory crap?

If Bryan wants you back I'll leave it to him un-ban you. Personally I sincerely hope he doesn't but hey, he's the better man about such things than I so who knows.

 

[LaurieJim]

You really are a cast-iron a-hole. How many hundreds of chances have we given you to give up this ridiculous conspiracy theory crap?

If Bryan wants you back I'll leave it to him un-ban you. Personally I sincerely hope he doesn't but hey, he's the better man about such things than I so who knows.

Hey Max,

I really didnt read anything bad into Nash's post based on this thread, why the ban?

I dont always agree with Nash but enjoy his posts neverless and to me he was asking a valid question.

I think the whole student thing sucks and agree with others , if your over 18 or 21 whether a student or not and its your own money your gambling with, whats the big deal?

Im recently widowed and thought about maybe taking some classes, will I be included from playing at Casinos that implement these student rules.

I have nothing but respect for CWC but find this rule harsh imo.

Laurie

 

[maxd]

Sounded -- and still does -- like he was just crapping on us again because he was in one of his moods. "this so called free PAB system" when he knows damn well it is free. Blah blah blah.

I will say this though: let's not confuse the issue of this thread with the issue, as I believe, of Nash's thinly veiled contempt for what we do here. Just because Nash was on the boat doesn't mean he's part of the team, if you get my meaning.

AFAIC the guy is a troll and I've said so to Bryan. Let's leave it to him to decide. If he agrees with you then Nash will be back in an hour or so and we can all wait for his next little ... gift.

PS. I've already reported the ban to Bryan and sent him a PM about it so he'll see it ASAP.

 

[skiny]

skiny, I know you think that some of us just want this to go away but that is not the case...some of us know what a losing battle we are fighting..instead of putting all this energy into something that is dead...I feel the best option is to move on and make something better of this sitiuation...the word is out on the T&C's of all RTG's and this thread will serve as a warning to many other players...but to continue to beat this horse is no longer a valid option IMO..it just gets old and there is nothing to be made of it anymore...now that the decision has been finalized...

Fighting a losing battle doesn't mean you can't win. It just means you have to try harder.

In my opinion this is not a dead subject because the problem still exists. CW still has the same terms and conditions. I'm quite certain at any given time they will reapply them. Maybe next time it won't be a Casinomeister member that gets shafted. Maybe it happened several times in the month this thread has been on going and we just don't know it.

Every single person in this thread knows the term itself is in breach of the qualifications for accreditation and even Tom and Bryan agree that it needs to be clarified yet it remains unchanged, the casino remains accredited and Danl remains unpaid.

No term was broken and yet they're using a term that is completely ambiguous to renege on a payment.

The term needs to be fixed and the player needs to be paid or they need to lose accreditation status. OR we can all just agree that accreditation means nothing and that it's just a list of advertised casinos that this site would like us to play at. I can google a dozen lists of casinos to play at. The difference with this list is these casinos are supposed to adhere to a specific set of rules. CW is not.

And if that is what we're going to call beating a dead horse, then drag that horse over here because I can beat on that sucker all day.

 

[silcnlayc]

skiny: In my opinion this is not a dead subject because the problem still exists.

Yes, I agree with everything you are saying except for the casino has made their final decision and I was talking about that...not all the other garbage they are trying to pass off as T&C's...

I have said time and time again that the casinos have twisted their T&C's to where they cannot even understand it...(see my many replies on that)...I agree, beating that up is definitely not dead...just the decision for being paid IMO..

now that the decision has been finalized...

Sorry for the confusion...

.

 

[skiny]

Yes, I agree with everything you are saying except for the casino has made their final decision and I was talking about that...not all the other garbage they are trying to pass off as T&C's...

I have said time and time again that the casinos have twisted their T&C's to where they cannot even understand it...(see my many replies on that)...I agree, beating that up is definitely not dead...just the decision for being paid IMO..

Sorry for the confusion...

.

Well, I guess that's the tricky part. The casino has finalized it's decision and they are still accredited which means accredited casinos CAN withhold payments for vague or ambiguous terms.

Casinomeister and CW have to either decide that the term is not ambiguous or Danl has to be paid. You just can't have it both ways.

And since Bryan and Tom have both already stated in this thread that the term needs to be clarified, it's a little late to argue that it's not ambiguous.

The simple fact is, if the term needs to be changed, it shouldn't have been applied in the first place.

I understand what you're saying about arguing with a casino once they've finalized a decision. In most cases I would agree but in my opinion, in this particular situation, the argument that the term needs to be changed IS arguing that Danl needs to be paid.

I don't believe that Danl was a student when he placed his wagers. I don't believe it makes any difference if he lied about resuming his studies in later conversations after the wagers had been placed and the withdrawal submitted. But most of all I don't think any of it matters since the term should never have been applied in the first place.

 

[jod5413]

I don't mean to derail the subject but I need to say something about Nash and Max.

Nash has been kidney punching Max for a long time. He does not like Max apparently. Max is tired of it. As he should be.

Nash and his penchant for speaking in tongues and always being hung up on wanting to be banned, as his avatar comment and other similar ban comments that he keeps using, seems to have been dreaming of a permanent ban.

Hopefully Bryan will accommodate Nash and let him go elsewhere to speak his "Nash talk".

I have learned to get along with Nash, we joke and call each other frienemy. Nash, you went too far and it was NOT deserved.

 

[P.V.]

Even though Danl lied he should still be paid. People have been known to lie in fear of losing something of value when confronted. In this case 7 grand was on the line and he probably freaked in fear of losing it. It wasn't right but no reason to deny payment. You have to look at the facts not his bad decision.

At some point he came clean and tried to explain that the terms still didn't apply to him because he had graduated and provided his proof of completion at the time. Also maybe his friends and family gave him gifts of money as a graduation gift. That could easily explain how he funded his deposit of 5 grand, a few have wondered.

I assume he has proof of when he went back to school again and it will show that it was after summer break and long after he requested a withdraw of his winnings. Maybe he did plan to take a year off but changed his mind, that's his business.

The key words in the term are Full-Time Students and Enrolled. There is nothing about being in the educational system long term or should I say planning to continue your education at a later date or after graduation and whenever that date may be. Or even being in the educational system during a PAB. His dispute is after the fact...

I haven't even heard how many hours of college Danl is attending now or before he graduated the first time. A full time student is defined by hours attending or credits, whats full time?

You can lead a horse to water but ya can't make him drink it, sorry!