Complaint about Casinomeister

Status
Not open for further replies.

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Having temporarily taken Bencuri off my ignore list...
By his accounting...
CasinoMeister's failure to stand by the Meister Mission
CasinoMeister has let down/cheated/scammed:

current number of Active Members:1,865
of which 471 have logged in today

So by Bencuri's reasoning, Bryan should have a whole lot more than a handful of members upset about this whole affair

Ah, 1865 members on Bryan's payroll. He also has a hefty telephone bill by phoning more than 400-odd people to log in:D
 

Cleveland

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Location
Texas
emoticon-games-021.gif
emoticon-games-022.gif
 

Marie2473

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Location
Sweden
I dont get it, is this 8 page discussion about the op not getting a bonus from CR? And he PAB about it? about not getting free money? Not for not getting his winnings?

hmm, i agree with Casinomeister, there are more serious issues then this since we all know that casinos do not HAVE to give us bonuses if they dont want... I think the OP should be glad that they eveb agreed to look into it again - if it was me... i wouldnt!!

Have a good weekend...
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I know, but the conclusion of the PAB was that MAX agreed on that the casino is right. It is nonsense if I consider your mission statement. And also because of that the rules are not about my case. Accoarding tot he rules of the casino I am not an abuser!

'you made the decision to not abide by their terms, so that was it.'

I followed the rules. Accoarding to the rules, I am not a bonus abuser. I have pointed this out several times, even in the starting thread. Accoarding to the rules my activity doesn't belong to that cathegory that can labelled as bonus abuse accoarding to the casino. Why do you skip this fact all the time? Can't you see that the casino is calling me abuser and restriction my bonus based on nothing?

CR don't give a rat's ass what you think, and the more you protest, the more they feel you are what they call a "bonus abuser".

They pulled the same stunt on me years ago, soon after I started playing online. After playing at one casino, they sent me a personal and "exclusive" invite to try another. This was not general spam, this was a direct "by name" invite through a hand typed email to encourage me to try another casino after busting out the first time. I won a little and withdrew a mere £50. They paid, but promptly locked my rewards account for withdrawing a mere £50 on my second attempt. When I inquired, support were rude, and refused to give me a straight answer. They said I should carry on playing and it would unlock automatically. I did so, and won another £800:p
They didn't unlock the rewards account, so I uninstalled the casino and fired off a complaint including all their emails and personal invites to Kahnawake and ignored them for a couple of months. I then checked to see if my rewards account had been unlocked, and it had. I removed all the comps and played them off. I then ignored them for the next couple of YEARS by defecting to Casino Action.
Over £600K of gross deposits later at Casino Action, and after buying a couple of their casinos and player lists, CR contacted me again - to make me VIP!

I played the "hard to get" game with them, and told them I just didn't trust them. I only installed their casinos again after joining GoneGambling and seeing that CR had a near monopoly on MGS casinos offering conversions.

I have not had any real trouble from them since. My VIP host knows that I "play at other casinos" as well as theirs, and a couple of weeks of me not playing at CR has them dropping boni into my (unlocked) rewards account and/or casino account.

If they lock my rewards account again, I will uninstall all their casinos on the same day (after emptying them out), and ignore them until they behave - the same way you get a naughty child to behave better:D

The golden rule is NOT to let casino support know that bonuses are the most important thing (if they are), and NOT to pester them asking for additional boni just because you have busted out.

When taking offers, read all the terms, and never give them an excuse to void any play, nor to claim you have not played "in the spirit" of anything. Avoid playing too much Blackjack and VP with bonuses, as this is what gets their attention when they are looking for "patterns of bonus abuse".

If you play only slots, and the casino accuses you of "abusive play", they will make a laughing stock of themselves if it comes out in the forum, since unlike Blackjack and VP, there is no such thing as a "strategy table" for a slot in order to improve your RTP.

Kasino King plays mostly slots, and at small stakes. He makes a regular long term profit from the various bonus offers, yet rarely does a casino bonus ban him. He does this openly, and on his site is a detailed account of his play, and how it works - all there for casino operators to see.

If a casino bans a slots player for "playing too skillfully", they leave themselves wide open to suggestions that the fact that a "strategy" can consistently beat their slots means that they have to be RIGGED rather than random, and that the "skill" is in spotting the patterns, predicting future "hot" and "cold" spells from them, and either playing on or switching slots accordingly.

The only argument consistent with the slots being random and fair is that winning players are simply very lucky for now, but will lose it all back in the long term - hence the casino does NOT want to do anything to deter that player from continuing to deposit, else they will quit when ahead, and do the long term losing back elsewhere.
 

taysh075

Non-Gambler
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Location
New Zealand
Man, I just read this whole thread and I find the thought going through my head "that's 20 minutes of my life I will never get back". Ben, I feel like you are talking as if Casinomeister can somehow make CR change their minds. He does not make the rules. As I understand it, the service is a FREE one in which Max and Casinomeister liaise with the casino on our behalf when there is a problem. If the casino can point to their rules or provide some reasonable explanation then there is nothing they can do and say so. This would occur even if the rules they point to suck! As has been said before, the casino has the right to make up their own rules. Whether the CR casino has labeled you a bonus abuser is beside the point. They have managed to point to some behaviour or stupid rule that means MaxD could not find them at fault enough to take further action. Even if he may not agree with the rules or how they are used. Now when I say further action, I don't mean they can do something officially as, I say again, they have NO control over the casinos. The futher action is to inform others on the site that CR is not so safe to play in (e.g., rogue pit).

Part of the FREE process of this site is also the posting from the players. It seems clear (by using this wonderful FREE site) that CR is not an overly honest or safe place to play. Casinomeister presents a place where this information can be disseminated and discussed. Sometimes it is someone's simply beligerient complaint, sometimes it is more serioius an many complaints are noted. Casinomeister often takes this further when multiple complaints are noted, to warn other players (recalling rival white label casinos issues). In this way he provides a service, and space for others to inform of issues, where it's told how it is (e.g., no pap from the casinos but what is actually happening). So again I do not see how you can somehow be blaming this site for this issue. As I see it 1) It isn't casinomeister calling you a bonus abuser but the CR casino using their rules as they interpret them (not saying they are nice rules), and 2) casinomeister has provided a free service to liaise with CR on your behalf attempting to find out what was wrong. How is this bad???? I am really sorry that you have found this site not to your liking but like CR casinos, you have the right to walk away. You have not paid for this service so you have lost nothing.

Sigh, my quick comment went long, sorry. My advice, wait until Monday and get into discussion with MaxD and Casinomeister. Personally, I think they fulfill their mission statement admirably.:D
 

luckyvegas77

Dormant account
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Location
Malta
cant blame casinomeister

Hi all,

This is one of those never ending issues. most of the time it boils down to the fraud analyst's interpretation of the T&C and his knowledge of what he is looking at. At a minimum if you have done something similar on other skins with other accounts that would count against you. So you have to look back at what you have done in this brand's various skins. What I would request is that another analyst review your case and provide specific examples of what you did wrong and quote the exact term you breached. casinomeister is just the messenger so what he is told he passes on. Hope this helps.
 

Bencuri

Experienced Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
May 13, 2009
Location
Hungary
I dont get it, is this 8 page discussion about the op not getting a bonus from CR? And he PAB about it? about not getting free money? Not for not getting his winnings?

hmm, i agree with Casinomeister, there are more serious issues then this since we all know that casinos do not HAVE to give us bonuses if they dont want... I think the OP should be glad that they eveb agreed to look into it again - if it was me... i wouldnt!!

Have a good weekend...

The thread was started because I felt accoarding to my own experiences that the Meister's Mission is only for display. Why? I presented my own story for that. I think this is what feedback means. What made me start the thread? That I experienced similar things on and on. For me it is strange that Meister blames casinos, when a player doesn't read a rule, and because of that his money is confiscated for breaking the rules. Yet, when I present proof about that I tried to accomodate to the rules, I did my best to do so, yet the casino cheated me, and I present clear proof of all this, the staff agrees with the casino. At the same time, when even if I had broke some rules (which, let me emphasize it again: is not the case), accoarding to the Meister's Mission statement the staff shouldn't have done so. Not because the casino can't do what it would wish, just because this would show they are faithful to their mission. Somebody who posts a mission philosophy, makes a note about a phenomenon, and then agrees on the opposit, that person is not a serious person in my eyes from the aspect of being loyal to his own mission (let me emphasize, from that aspect!). So yet, in opposition to the mission statement as well, the staff agreed with the casino (that max wrote me), and posted a summary about my PAB describing me as if I was some dumb who missed the rules but yet crying loudly. Well, in my opinion this is not what means following a mission. And this made me write this feedback. I had a problem, the staff acted strangely, I presented the problem, I presented what made me write the complaint, and this complaint serves as a feedback. That's all about the starting of this thread. This is my own opinion about how things are going here, accoarding to my own case. On eBay, if you buy something, and feel cheated, you can reflect this in the feedback. Is there a feedback section here? Yes. Did I participate in a PAB? Yes. Did I like how the staff dealt with my problem? Not at all. So I posted a feedback. I think that is the essence of feedback.
 

Temperance Fox

New Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Location
Nowhere
Ksech!

'6. After making your deposit, the Casino will credit your casino account with your bonus. Please allow up to two hours for this to take place.'

The casino presented false information. So he was misleading me.

And if this is still not enough for you, I asked the Live Chat to confirm I will get the bonus. They said yes. So even if I missed any rules, I asked for confirmation,

1) about OP:didn't read before ...it's the same situation I have had.Same steps and same sentence " you're an abuser"
I think, we are not the only 2 treated in the same way.
As I wrote I know a player who complained to Ecogra, and they said she was on the wrong side.
So we are 3

I think that some answers are ironic and too easy. This is a gambing forum.
Also a not given bonus is important
also to be called abuser is important
and if this happens to many players is a serious question. Seriously in relation to this "gaming world".

2) about psychological matter : Afterwards maybe Bencuri extremizes and doesn't remember that good things done here are much more, and I think itsn't right to judge the entire site/stuff in this so negative way.But maybe this is his strategy to be listened

But,in the meantime, I see posts regarding the OP and who is on the same line against CR behaviour is called follower....His name's is Bencuri not Jesus.
And Bencuri now is quite angry.So if he's right let's think how to help him, if he's wrong let's treat like a person with his dignity
This my opinion about the manners used to interact of some members.

From my professional point of view (interpersonal relationships), more balanced behavior is just from those (CM owners and mods) under attack.
They're giving a great lesson of fairplay
 

maxd

PAB (Complaints) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Ok, I've dug up the details of the OP's case (09 Nov 2009) and as far as I can see there are several factual errors which the current "Complaint about Casinomeister" thread is based on:
  1. (As I recall) the OP said I called him a "bonus abuser" and that was somehow a violation of the Casinomeister mission statement, or somesuch. For the record this was my email to him regarding our decision on the case:
    Hello,

    I have reviewed your case and the material I have from the casino. As far as I can tell your complaint regards bonuses you want from them.

    As I'm sure you are aware their Terms, item #18, state that they will suspend bonuses to any player whom they deem to be bonus hunting and who has not shown "any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play".

    It is fully within their rights to do this and we don't see it as an unreasonable or unfair policy.

    If I understand the situation and have described it correctly above then I see no grounds for your complaint: they have decided you've received enough bonus money and they're free to do so.

    If there is something else please state it briefly. Otherwise there is no case here and your PAB will be closed.

    Regards,
    Max @ Casinomeister.com

    The bolding is for clarity here, not included in the original email. The point it that I said nothing in this email about the player being a "bonus abuser". What I said, and what the casino's actions against the player were based on, was that the player was a "bonus hunter". The casino provided ample documentation of that claim and since it is both in their Terms and fully within their rights to withhold their services from whomever they like (assuming no outstanding balance, etc) I stood by their decision to deny the player further bonuses.
    .
  2. I've gone through the rest of the case's correspondence and I don't see a single instance where anything was said about "bonus abuse". If there is confusion between the term "bonus abuse" and "bonus hunter" then that's another issue, but "bonus hunter" has nothing to do with the Casinomeister stance on "bonus abuse", hence nothing to do with the Mission Statement, IMO. Just to clarify: anyone can be a "bonus hunter" and they're welcome to it. If the casinos they frequent have no problem with this then everyone is happy. If the casino does have a problem with it then the player is pretty much out of luck because no casino is under obligation to give bonuses to a customer they do not wish to.
    .
  3. Speaking of corresponence, the OP claimed that I had ignored his emails, or something to that effect. Again the case records do not support this: every email I recieved I responded to except at the end where I told the OP (again) what my decision was, that I would forward a final message from him to the casino if he provided same, and that I had to move on to other things. This came after repeated emails from the OP attempting to press his complaint in spite of my explanations to him that I found no grounds for that complaint. As far as I can tell he did not respond to this offer.

    I should add that the case notes indicate that he started PM'ing me his messages because (apparently) he was not receiving my emails. Perhaps that was the source of his impression that I was ignoring him but in fact that was not the case and if necessary I can provide the email dates and times to prove it.

So, the bottom line is that I don't see what grounds the OP has for his "Complaint about Casinomeister". If he'd care to clarify then perhaps we can proceed from there.

PS. I don't recall it having been mentioned earlier but here is the OP's original thread from which the PAB followed: Casinorewards restricted my rewards account.
 
Last edited:

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
This is the Casinomeister mission statement that was created in 1998:

"Trust is what it's all about. Our mission at Casinomeister is to provide solid information; information that enables players to make smart choices. Since trust is spawned by information, the more players know about online casinos, the more at ease and safer they will be

I feel that this thread underscores this statement. Bencuri felt that we sided with "cheaters" and he was attempting to "martyr" himself - thinking we would quickly ban a dissenting viewpoint. That's not how it works here. We provide information - and we encourage debate.

Even though Bencuri's issue seemed more of a sour-grape fueled agenda to me, I feel that it is crucial that he has a voice here - as long as he remembers whose house he is in. :D Both Max and I (especially Max) have spent a considerable amount of time dealing with this issue, and I think the outcome of this issue was a fair decision - and that there was no "breach" of our mission statement and philosophy.

From the Philosophy statement:
Advantage Players
Advantage players are players who use bonuses and other legal ways in order to gain a mathematical advantage while gambling. Some casinos label these players "bonus abusers" which is a misnomer. Players can't be considered an "abuser" if the bonus has been legitimately offered to them. If casinos don't want bonus "abusers" then they should not offer these individuals bonuses. If a casino feels that a player is taking advantage of their "generosity" - pay the player and then stop offering bonuses.

Like Max mentioned, Bencuri's PAB had nothing to do with bonus "abuse." It would have been a different situation altogether if the casino had offered him a bonus, let him play, watched him win, and then say "Hey, you're a bonus abuser, we're not paying you." That's what the above statement is referring to - this doesn't apply to Bencuri's PAB.

There were no funds confiscated. There was no real loss. Bencuri didn't get a bonus; that's about it.
 

Bencuri

Experienced Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
May 13, 2009
Location
Hungary
Okay, now let's summarize it again:

1. You wrote me:
'It is fully within their rights to do this and we don't see it as an unreasonable or unfair policy.'

What is that rule?

'In the event that Lucky Emperor Casino deems a Player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign-up bonuses, will be suspended until such times as the Player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the Casino.'

So if we just consider the rule itself, I am not treated unfairly, because the rule doesn't fit my case. It writes 'any'. I fulfilled any. It writes 'or'. This or this. So one part of the requirements is enough. I fulfilled any: so the conclusion: my reward points are on lock without legal reason. Moreover, if after this you also insit on serious intentions (that will make the rule faulity as I described in the opening thread, but okay let us agree on a faulty rule, and let's consider that), I have wagered in Casino Action 6000-8000with deposited money included, and then come the other places, sometimes with ND bonus, sometimes with bonus + deposit, sometimes with deposit alone, so alltogether maybe 10000. I don't know, I haven't couted that strictly. So you say the rule is fair to be used in my case. That means: for you 10000 in wager is unserious? Well, it is ridiculous? What is the serious intention accoarding to you then? Deposit and loose?

So let's see what you say is fair, so far:

1.There is a faulty rule, and it deosn't fit my case anyway, yet I am restricted because of this rule. In spite of it you agree on that I am restricted, when the rule doesn't fit my case, and it is faulty.

2. You don't consider 10000 in WR serious intentions. When 10000 is way way!!! much more than my deposit and bonus sum, and my bonus + deposit ratio is 50-50% approximately.


Excuse me, but for me this acceptance of fairness the same time when these things are present doesn't corresponds to your mission in my opinion. So if you think the act of the casino fair with these added, I cannot look on you as somebody who is following his own mission. Moreover, if you say the casino is fair with these facts added, it means the same as if you would deem me an abuser too. If wouldn't, you wouldn't agree on the fairness here.

Let's go further, to the second level:

We arrived to the core of the problem: the sepcific case when that Lucky Emperor bonus was denied. What happened?

1. The casino writes: '6.After making your deposit, the Casino will credit your casino account with your bonus. Please allow up to two hours for this to take place.'

So there was this rule. There was the fact that even if my reward account had been locked long before, I received deposit bonuses meanwhile. So there was no reason for me to stay away for the reward ban, because the deposit bonuses worked. So I decided to deposit, to receive the Lucky Emperor bonus, just as in case I received it at Casino action, Captain Cooks, etc. at the same time when my reward account was locked. To make sure I will get the bonus (I often ask for such confirmation in any casino before I deposit, just to make sure I am 100% eligible, this is my regular custom!), what happens?:

2. The Live Chat operator confirms I am eligible for the bonus at Lucky Emperor. Eligible!

So he also confirmed I will get a bonus. I have posted the transcript about it, and sent it to you. And he must have seen all my balances (reward too), becasuse the support described me much later when making complaint, that the reward balance is part of the casino balance (I also have the confirmation letter about this). So no excuse to the operator, he had to see everything. If I ask him about my bonus, he had to consider both balances, because they are the same.

Yet, after the deposit, no bonus. And in spite of it, you write:

'It is fully within their rights to do this and we don't see it as an unreasonable or unfair policy.'

After all the misleading, you don't find they were unfair. They mileaded me, there is proof, yet that doesn't interest you, and think the casino was fair.

Well, again, anyhow I look on it, I cannot discover the sign in this reaction about that you follow your mission. If you don't find these unfair, that you agree with them, so you find it okay if they mislead me. Well, this doesn't correspond to your mission in my opinion.

Let's go fruther to the next level:

So what we have so far?

1. The casino uses a faulty rule against me, that rule doesn't fit my activity. So they are not correct. However, you find this fair.
2. The casino posts info about a process, they confirm it on live chat, then the opposite happens, and I have loss because of this (not because I lost my 100, but they offer the 100% bonus, so I was expecting to have 100 balance after my losses, and I can continue playing if I get it, maybe win back my loss, I would have had more chance to win with the plus 100, etc., so I deposited in this faith). Yet, in spite of the clear proof of misleading, you find it okay if the casino treats me as it treated.

And, as a summary of all this, you post this PAB summary: ''Player reported that they were an active player at the casino, didn't like that they had been bonus banned. Player had a history of hooving up bonuses but depositing very little. Closed.'

So, again: the casino misleaded me, the casino uses a faulty rule that doesn't fit my activity as a reason for it, but in spite of this this is all the things you can conclude. And even this conclusion is dodgy. Why? Because it suggests that the casino treated me fairly because of my behaviour. Is this okay if the summary sggests this? No way! Why? Because accoarding to the rule little play is not a problem already. It says 'any'. So if you suggest that everything is okay, because I deposited little (that is also not true), the summary is faulty. Based on little, you are not right. Moerover with such a summary you say: I agree on looking a ratio of 50-50% for deposits and bonuses to be considered little deposit amounts. So someone who deposits an almost equal amount to what he received in bonuses has deposited little amount compared to the bonus amount received? Accoarding to the summary, yes. Well, this is far from being yes in my opinion. So all in all, the casino misleads me, excludes me unrightfully, yet you agree on it and present me as a dumb. Thank you!

So, again, with these added, I am even more on the opinion that you don't follow your won mission. Once again, why?:

1. The casino uses a rule against me to exclude me from what was promised to me. The rule is faulty anyway.
2. The casino clearly misleaded me, both with written info, and both by live chat.

In spite of this you write:

''It is fully within their rights to do this and we don't see it as an unreasonable or unfair policy.'

There were cases when there were written rules, the player didn't follow them, lost money, complained, and no matter that the casino presented rules, you blamed the casino. Okay, there are ethics. But how is it then that there is written info, there is live chat confirmed info, I follow these, and the casinos behaves on the opposite way, yet you agree with them, so my complaint is not legit then accoarding to you. So, it seems, for you if a player is making complains because he lost money, however there were written rules that he broke, that is okay for you, but when a player is making complaints about that he received info from the casino, he followed it, yet the casino behaved on the opposite way than the one presented in the info, then you don't find that complaint rightful, but consider the casino fair.

Excuse me Meister, but anyhow I consider these, these things and your behavior don't reflect to me that you follow your mission. I am unable to see that case the opposite way with these things added. And that's why I felt it rightful to make a complaint. Not because I want to be a marthyr, just because I felt that your mission statement is only for display. If I started my thread the way as I did it, it was not because I wanted to be the marthyr and show I am brave and dare to stand against you here on your playground, but because of my disappointment. My disappointment about something that seemed true for the first sight, but when I participated it turned out for me it is not. I think this is why people write feedback. Has an experience, and write good or bad. I had a bad experience, and I reflected this.
 
Last edited:

Bencuri

Experienced Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
May 13, 2009
Location
Hungary
This is to MAX:

Even if you insist on this bonus hunter thing, I don't feel it rightful you took the casino's side. Simply because they used a rule that doesn't fit me, even if I am just a hunter and not an abuser, so even if I worded my text using the wrong term. And sinply because they lied, yet you find their move rightful. Well, let me say again, if you agree with the casino when they lied to me, and they eclude me based on a fulity rule that doesn't fit my case, proves you don't follow your mission. I cannot see it any different way. And I make a complaint.

Anyway, bonus hunter and bonus abuser is the same in this case. Why? Bonus hunting is on the okay level, that is right, but you forget that the casino excludes me. And from the point they are excluding me, it means I am over the limit they consider as a fair player's limit, so from this point I am considered a bonus abuser and not a hunter. If a child playing with toygun, and shoots his friends, that is game, but when the still 'child' uses a real gun, and shoots his friends, that is not playing any more, but crime, and the person who was child for a while became a criminal. I was bonus hunter until the casinio excluded me, and from that point they consider I went over the 'spirit of the bonus' level, and I am an abuser. If I was not an abuser, I wouldn't be excluded. And from that time on, if you agree with them, you agree on that I am an abuser. You try to play with the words here, and that is different in the mission and in the events happened, but what you forget the content is not. The meaning is not. And that is what counts in this sense.

Your mission:
'Advantage players are players who use bonuses and other legal ways in order to gain a mathematical advantage while gambling. Some casinos label these players "bonus abusers" which is a misnomer. Players can't be considered an "abuser" if the bonus has been legitimately offered to them. If casinos don't want bonus "abusers" then they should not offer these individuals bonuses. If a casino feels that a player is taking advantage of their "generosity" - pay the player and then stop offering bonuses. '

My starting thread passage:
'All the bonuses I received at Casino Rewards was offered and credited to my balances (rewards or casino balances) by the Casino, and every redemption was in correspondance with the terms. There are no rules about the use of no deposit chips either, ones like appear in RTG terms, that say you cannot use them in consequence. There is not a line in the terms about how you should use bonuses, but it is written that you will be titled as an abuser if the casino thinks you didn't use the bonuses in the siprit of the bonus. This is unfair.'

Yet you find it rightful that the casino excludes me. Excuse me, again, many times now, but I am unable to see this as if you are following your mission. You see, I acted on the way that your mission protects. Yet, you agree with the casino, who acts in a way that is blamed in the mission. I cannot see it differently, but only in the way you don't follow your mission. I played in a fair way (fair, because you say it in the mission), the casino excluded me, but they were still offering bonuses (the live chat confirmed it), that were not given to me finally, because of being an abuser in their opinion. It is against your mission statement. They offered the bonus, yet they didn't give it. Accoarding to your mission, the fair is: I contact the live chat, they say sorry, you are abuser, so no bonus. Is this what happened? No. Yet, you agree. I can only see this as if you are not following your mission. MAybe my wording is not correct, but the meaning and content is, and that way I cannot consider your case differently.
 
Last edited:

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
Bencuri.

The decision has been made. It's time to move on now.

I'm with most others here.....I can't believe this whole shebang has come about due to someone being denied a bonus at Casino Rewards. AFAIK you haven't lived until you have been denied a bonus at Casino Rewards. It is par for the course and, as CM and Max stated, it is within their rights.

If you really want to hurt CR, then don't ever play there again.

The fact that you are completely ignoring the conclusion that CM and Max have arrived at after a lot of time and effort just shows that it has become a personal vendetta of sorts, which is becoming more distasteful by the hour.

You have been given a fair hearing once again and it's time to accept the outcome.
 

rainmaker

I'm not a penguin
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Location
-
Bencuri.

The decision has been made. It's time to move on now.

I'm with most others here.....I can't believe this whole shebang has come about due to someone being denied a bonus at Casino Rewards. AFAIK you haven't lived until you have been denied a bonus at Casino Rewards. It is par for the course and, as CM and Max stated, it is within their rights.

If you really want to hurt CR, then don't ever play there again.

The fact that you are completely ignoring the conclusion that CM and Max have arrived at after a lot of time and effort just shows that it has become a personal vendetta of sorts, which is becoming more distasteful by the hour.

You have been given a fair hearing once again and it's time to accept the outcome.

Yes, I agree with you here. Time to move on now :cool:
 

Bencuri

Experienced Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
May 13, 2009
Location
Hungary
Bencuri.

The decision has been made. It's time to move on now.

I'm with most others here.....I can't believe this whole shebang has come about due to someone being denied a bonus at Casino Rewards. AFAIK you haven't lived until you have been denied a bonus at Casino Rewards. It is par for the course and, as CM and Max stated, it is within their rights.

If you really want to hurt CR, then don't ever play there again.

The fact that you are completely ignoring the conclusion that CM and Max have arrived at after a lot of time and effort just shows that it has become a personal vendetta of sorts, which is becoming more distasteful by the hour.

You have been given a fair hearing once again and it's time to accept the outcome.

Nifty, can't you see that you are talking about something different than the essence is here? You are right in what you say, but the case is not about this. This is the background, but not the reason for the complaint. The reason for the complaint is that I feel Casinomeister has a mission, and they acted on the opposite way. And that is an essential thing.

What is the case here?

1. The casino deems me an abuser. (Okay, hunter, but the meaning is the same in this case, else they wouldn't restrict me.) The rule they base this on is faulty and don't fit my case. Casinomeister finds this okay.

2. The casino misleads me, there is proof. They act in a way that is described as unfair accoarding to the mission statement: they think I am abuser, yet they offer bonus, and when I deposit they deny it - the mission blames this bahevior, it say: think he is an abuser, but stop offering bonuses! - did they stop? No! But, they confirmed I can get the bonus! So they acted in a way that is described as unethical accoarding to the mission. A misnormer. Yet, Casinomeister says this is okay.

So Casinomeister finds it okay if the casino sanctions players based on nothing, based on a rule that doesn't fit the specific case, and he finds it okay that a casino misleads a player. And posts a summary that is suggesting the player is a dumb, when the behavior of the casino is clearly against the mission statement. You find it okay Nifty, and something as marginal?
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
I'm sorry I have to say this, but this is imo no longer a reasonable debate; it's degenerated into a repetitious, wordy and kind of politely insulting beef that seems to be increasingly about semantics as far as I am concerned.

I can't grasp exactly what it is that the OP expects to be given to him to makes things right, if indeed anything at all can achieve this.

It really does not appear to be going anywhere, given the seemingly deeply entrenched perceptions of the OP, and having spent a good hour on it this afternoon I'm opting out of spending any more time on it.
 

Bencuri

Experienced Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
May 13, 2009
Location
Hungary
I'm sorry I have to say this, but this is imo no longer a reasonable debate; it's degenerated into a repetitious, wordy and kind of politely insulting beef that seems to be increasingly about semantics as far as I am concerned.

I can't grasp exactly what it is that the OP expects to be given to him to makes things right, if indeed anything at all can achieve this.

It really does not appear to be going anywhere, given the seemingly deeply entrenched perceptions of the OP, and having spent a good hour on it this afternoon I'm opting out of spending any more time on it.

I doubt it is not reasonable. If the Meister agrees with misleaders, it is reasonable for me to stay on the debate. I see for you such a thing is not essential, but for me it is. I came here in the faith that the mission means something here, but it seems it is for display. So if the founding philosophy of a place is already questionable, that is a reason for staying on the debate for me. It seems however, that for you it is indifferent that the place you are present at is based on a fake philosophy. Well, if it is okay for you, let it be.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Please do not put words in my mouth. I do not accept your argument that this site and its owner are lacking in integrity - quite the contrary in fact.

I am saying that you have now had a very generous opportunity to repeatedly voice your opinions, courtesy of the very man you are criticising and perhaps even denigrating. You have used that opportunity to the full in expressing your personal opinions.

I am asserting my right here to similarly express my opinion, and that is that this thread is ill-founded, repetitious and is now bordering on the tedious.

And that really is my final contribution to it.
 

Bencuri

Experienced Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
May 13, 2009
Location
Hungary
Please do not put words in my mouth. I do not accept your argument that this site and its owner are lacking in integrity - quite the contrary in fact.

I am saying that you have now had a very generous opportunity to repeatedly voice your opinions, courtesy of the very man you are criticising and perhaps even denigrating. You have used that opportunity to the full in expressing your personal opinions.

I am asserting my right here to similarly express my opinion, and that is that this thread is ill-founded, repetitious and is now bordering on the tedious.

And that really is my final contribution to it.

I am not putting words in your mouth, I am just translating to common sense what the overall meaning of your comment (not necessarily intentional meaning) is. And if we examine this meaning, it sounds odd that you insist on stopping that much. That's all.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
I doubt it is not reasonable. If the Meister agrees with misleaders, it is reasonable for me to stay on the debate. I see for you such a thing is not essential, but for me it is. I came here in the faith that the mission means something here, but it seems it is for display. So if the founding philosophy of a place is already questionable, that is a reason for staying on the debate for me. It seems however, that for you it is indifferent that the place you are present at is based on a fake philosophy. Well, if it is okay for you, let it be.

Bencuri - I'm a pretty tolerant and patient man, but enough is enough.

You didn't get the bonus - get over it.

Sure, they may have offered you a bonus in chat, but they changed their minds when they checked out your play history - they saw that you were not willing to play without a bonus. That is clearly in their terms - the terms YOU agreed to when you signed up.

You are badgering me and Max, and anyone else who doesn't see it your way.

You've wasted enough of our time with this silliness.

Thread closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top