Debates between moderators and forum members

[swampwitch]

I would certainly hope that the Advocate would follow the spirit of the First Amendment and allow Westboro Baptist to buy ad space -- and, at the same time, publish articles showing that the church is both bigoted and wacko.

Horseshit. The Advocate isn't a publicly funded magazine. It has the right to accept or not any advertising. That has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, and you know it.

You can take advertising dollars from anyone you wish. You advertise known crooks. You make money from known crooks. Deal with it. Own it. You're not the first super affiliate with a schtick to do so, and you won't be the last.

But hey, good luck with your business model. Just because I personally would never use any of your links to join any casino because of your business model doesn't mean squat. I'm just one little old loudmouth. I'm sure you'll get plenty of business from the membership here.

 

[Steve Russo]

....but hey.....you'll promote them right? I mean, who gives a stuff about whether a legitimate player was denied their winnings, or whether the casino totally ignored you ? Sod that. .

Uh, I give "a stuff" -- that is why I posted the story.

If you had one ounce of integrity you would remove these casinos from your entire site.....just having them there with aff links is tacitly supporting their awful treatment of players over several years, and speaks volumes about the real philosophy behind your site.....MONEY.

Nifty, you are entitled to your opinion. I obviously disagree with it and that, too, is my right. Fortunately, Casinomeister allows us both to publish our conflicting views. That is not a right which you would grant to an advertiser you do not like.

AFAIC your attempts to portray yourselves as the "player's friend", whilst taking cash from the biggest screwers in the industry, is pathetic and makes me physically ill.

I do not portray myself as the "player's friend". More than once I have found that the player was completely at fault.

I am, however, sorry that it makes you physically ill. Perhaps you should see a doctor.

 

[Steve Russo]

Horseshit. The Advocate isn't a publicly funded magazine. It has the right to accept or not any advertising. That has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, and you know it.

Which is why I said "the spirit of the First Amendment" (as opposed to the letter of the law, which applies only to the government).

 

[bb28]

RE: The gambling grumbles website, the more I've thought about it, the more I'm repulsed by defending it in the way you have done. It's amazing how one can justify and rationalize when money comes into play isn't it? I took another look at the site and there is no great journalistic articles there, it's just another hyped up affiliate portal whose primary purpose is to make money as evidenced by all the ads with a small section for complaints.

I think Swampwitch is right, you need to own it.

 

[Nate]

Chuchu,
Any decent newspaper carried, in 2009 and 2010, scathing reports about Toyota and the safety faults in the cars. At the same time, they also ran advertisements from Toyota dealers.

Steve,

With all due respect, your logic has abandoned you. Toyota is a reputable brand and had a few major hiccups along the way. Toyota did not intend to stain their name - Virtual on the other hand doesn't care and has been repeating their behaviour for years. They are not is the same company as thieves. Mechanical faults or failure Vs. Deliberate Theft - Your comparison to that of the motor industry is flawed.

The Virtual Group are KNOWN Rogues, Thieves and Scum... (Add whatever else you like .... here). They have a long reputation of screwing players over and if you advertise them, you advocate them.

You see, advertising criminals is like advertising a 'Hitman' - You know that he is a criminal, but heck, nobody has complained so it must be OK?

At the end of the day, you would rather advocate thieves by advertising them in exchange for a few $$$. It is because of decisions like YOURS that Rogues stay in business and continue to screw players over. There's actually no defence for it... try as you may.

Nate

 

[greasemonkey]

At Steve,
Thanks for coming on here and being very professional and courteous even as a few have been incredibly rude to you.
I like your site very much. I think that you do a fine job reporting the entire situation as you can with the information given to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At everyone:
Who is "good" and "bad" is subjective. We all know that the virtual group screws players sometimes. We also know that InetBet screws players often but it is advertised here. Look at the complaints around the internet at different casinos. It is different than if you just look here for example.

Silver Oaks casino, which is considered to be related to virtual has very few complaints. I have played there since before I knew they were related to virtual and I have been paid every single time. They aren't super fast payers but the money comes. I see way more complaints online for InetBet than I do for silver oaks. On this site Inetbet is considered good (even though there have been nasty threads stating opposite) but elsewhere there are major complaints. Even at Gambling Grumbles there are more complaints about InetBet than just about anywhere else but they are ok here. The virtual Group is considered "OK" at other forums and sites. So taking up the battle against Steve, who obviously helps real players, against virtual is wrong.

I can see gently asking about the virtual group links but being so harsh in the statements to Steve is ridiculous. The guy helps people and reports what he knows. I don't think there is a real question as to his integrity at all. That being said, perhaps Steve will talk to his partner who actually handles the advertisements and see if they should change. Otherwise, Steve should still concentrate on his reports.

 

[Simmo!]

Wow. Sorry Steve, but you're not talking to gormless newbs who just came down with the last shower.



....but hey.....you'll promote them right? I mean, who gives a stuff about whether a legitimate player was denied their winnings, or whether the casino totally ignored you ? Sod that. The advertising is far more valuable than some joe who didn't get his money huh Steve?

Horseshit.

Please debate the issue properly and without the insults and disrespect.

Thank you.

Simmo!

 

[vinylweatherman]

The problem with separating advertising from content (and editorial opinion) is that when something is seen advertised on a website, it is seen as ENDORSED by that site's editorial policy. It comes across that you vouch for Virtual group as being generally reputable, and a group you can deal with for players with problems, and also a group that is covered by proper legal redress should mediation fail.

Whilst newspapers separate advertising from editorial content, they STILL get into trouble for certain advertisements. It is NOT OK for a newspaper to carry advertising on behalf of known "criminal organisations". For example, if a drug dealer came to the New York Times to buy a centre page spread extolling the virtues of his finest Columbian Coke as opposed to the crap sold by his rivals, the paper would NOT take the advertising no matter how much was offered, and would probably do it's civic duty and inform the police.

The impression online is that some websites don't even have this level of restraint when it comes to taking advertising from the legitimised fronts of criminal enterprises. There are stories that Virtual group have actually hired "thugs" to deal with irate customers who have turned up in person at their offices chasing their payouts. This is the hallmark of a true criminal organisation, rather than an honest, but inept, legitimate enterprise.

It might be possible to argue that inept casinos should still be allowed to buy advertising, but outright criminal ones can NEVER be argued to be acceptable. If Virtual group are prepared to relocate to Kahnawake, by all means give them space, but they hide in Costa Rica because there is NO regulation of online gambling whatsoever. Virtual just have to employ the locals, pay a fee to the government, and maybe a few "perks" to local officials, in order to carry on doing what they like without interference.

 

[Graeme]

Reply from Graeme Levin

Thank you for all the comments about Gambling Grumbles run by Steve and about my financial policy for The Gambling Portals network. Whilst very useful, some of the comments are not well-informed.

Steve and I have worked together for over 12 years through Gambling Grumbles from the time I owned Gambling.com. In all that time, I have never had a discussion on advertising with him. He operates Gambling Grumbles without ever having to consider any commercial aspects and has never even asked what my policies are.

I think from the postings, there is no question about his integrity and his independence from advertising concerns.

It seems the issue is my policy concerning banners and links to casinos that are reported in a bad light on Gambling Grumbles. So let me set out precisely how we operate.

At the outset, it is perfectly correct that my objective is to make a profit. My activity is directed at getting visitors to click on banners and links on my sites and to play at the casinos.
I’m in this for the long haul and am most interested in generating satisfied players who repeat their playing with casinos and who recommend my sites.
It’s therefore not in my interests to promote dishonest casinos.
It’s also not in my interests to stimulate adverse comments in forums because that reduces the chances of players using links on my sites.

I am not an altruist. However I’ve been in this industry longer than practically anyone else and I’m not so blind as not to recognise that its future is influenced by the confidence players have in the honesty and fairness of online casinos. I’m passionately proud of the industry and all the decent people in it. I detest the dishonest element that has always been present.

The objective of Gambling Grumbles is to mediate successfully between disputing parties. This is not necessarily the same as the objectives of other dispute resolution sites. We regard a success as having 2 satisfied parties, not in exposing and branding dishonest casinos or players, although that is clearly an important by-product. I’m very proud of Gambling Grumbles and the benefits it provides.

My sites do not accept advertising from any casino.
We work on a revenue share basis and I decide which casinos to display and to which to link.
I take the point that my selection could be a message to players about a casino so let me outline the essential elements (although it is sometimes more complex).

Firstly please visit the GamblingGrumbles.com website and go to the table of reports.
You will see we have no links to the casinos where the report has attracted a Skull & Crossbones or a Sad Face (The 2 lowest ratings). If you move your mouse over the Casino Name you’ll see a note “We do not link to this Casino”

On the question of serving banners, Steve is 100% correct about the principle of adverting.
However the comments in this thread also have great merit especially since the exposure of each casino is in my hands.

We have a complex formula that regulates the relative banner exposure of each casino. This is almost completely automated.
In addition every time a casino receives a Skull & Crossbones or a Sad Face in a Gambling Grumbles report, the allocated exposure is slashed. Subsequent negative reports result in further reductions. This applies to ANY casino large or small.

I don’t completely remove a casino with a bad Gambling Grumbles report because I’m not prepared to regard the situation as completely black or white. A bad report does not necessarily mean the casino is untouchable.
Take for example Rushmore or Lock. Both have responded in an exemplary fashion in cooperating with Steve’s mediation efforts. And both have also failed dismally in other cases. Some sites might (and do) remove such casinos. I simply reduce their exposure out of caution. In practice those casinos that receive only bad Gambling Grumbles reports have an extremely low exposure, sometimes very close to zero. So, whilst the principles raised by posters are often valid, the emphasis those posters are placing on the banner exposure is in most cases unfounded.

Having said all that, I should also point out that I do take down casinos that I decide are indisputably dishonest. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone found a truly rogue casino advertised on my sites. Perhaps a lot of ill-informed assumptions are being made by people who don't know me or my values. I don't make a big issue of this because that's not what my sites are about.
Please would the sceptics try to find any such banners and let me know.

I know from experience that forum members will have a field day poking holes in my posting. Of course others will value the insights offered.
I have gone to some length to explain so that at least further criticism will be better informed.

Graeme Levin
CEO: The Gambling Portals network
GamblingCity.com

 

[Nifty29]

Thank you for all the comments about Gambling Grumbles run by Steve and about my financial policy for The Gambling Portals network. Whilst very useful, some of the comments are not well-informed.

Steve and I have worked together for over 12 years through Gambling Grumbles from the time I owned Gambling.com. In all that time, I have never had a discussion on advertising with him. He operates Gambling Grumbles without ever having to consider any commercial aspects and has never even asked what my policies are.

I think from the postings, there is no question about his integrity and his independence from advertising concerns.

It seems the issue is my policy concerning banners and links to casinos that are reported in a bad light on Gambling Grumbles. So let me set out precisely how we operate.

At the outset, it is perfectly correct that my objective is to make a profit. My activity is directed at getting visitors to click on banners and links on my sites and to play at the casinos.
I’m in this for the long haul and am most interested in generating satisfied players who repeat their playing with casinos and who recommend my sites.
It’s therefore not in my interests to promote dishonest casinos.
It’s also not in my interests to stimulate adverse comments in forums because that reduces the chances of players using links on my sites.

I am not an altruist. However I’ve been in this industry longer than practically anyone else and I’m not so blind as not to recognise that its future is influenced by the confidence players have in the honesty and fairness of online casinos. I’m passionately proud of the industry and all the decent people in it. I detest the dishonest element that has always been present.

The objective of Gambling Grumbles is to mediate successfully between disputing parties. This is not necessarily the same as the objectives of other dispute resolution sites. We regard a success as having 2 satisfied parties, not in exposing and branding dishonest casinos or players, although that is clearly an important by-product. I’m very proud of Gambling Grumbles and the benefits it provides.

My sites do not accept advertising from any casino.
We work on a revenue share basis and I decide which casinos to display and to which to link.
I take the point that my selection could be a message to players about a casino so let me outline the essential elements (although it is sometimes more complex).

Firstly please visit the GamblingGrumbles.com website and go to the table of reports.
You will see we have no links to the casinos where the report has attracted a Skull & Crossbones or a Sad Face (The 2 lowest ratings). If you move your mouse over the Casino Name you’ll see a note “We do not link to this Casino”

On the question of serving banners, Steve is 100% correct about the principle of adverting.
However the comments in this thread also have great merit especially since the exposure of each casino is in my hands.

We have a complex formula that regulates the relative banner exposure of each casino. This is almost completely automated.
In addition every time a casino receives a Skull & Crossbones or a Sad Face in a Gambling Grumbles report, the allocated exposure is slashed. Subsequent negative reports result in further reductions. This applies to ANY casino large or small.

I don’t completely remove a casino with a bad Gambling Grumbles report because I’m not prepared to regard the situation as completely black or white. A bad report does not necessarily mean the casino is untouchable.
Take for example Rushmore or Lock. Both have responded in an exemplary fashion in cooperating with Steve’s mediation efforts. And both have also failed dismally in other cases. Some sites might (and do) remove such casinos. I simply reduce their exposure out of caution. In practice those casinos that receive only bad Gambling Grumbles reports have an extremely low exposure, sometimes very close to zero. So, whilst the principles raised by posters are often valid, the emphasis those posters are placing on the banner exposure is in most cases unfounded.

Having said all that, I should also point out that I do take down casinos that I decide are indisputably dishonest. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone found a truly rogue casino advertised on my sites. Perhaps a lot of ill-informed assumptions are being made by people who don't know me or my values. I don't make a big issue of this because that's not what my sites are about.
Please would the sceptics try to find any such banners and let me know.

I know from experience that forum members will have a field day poking holes in my posting. Of course others will value the insights offered.
I have gone to some length to explain so that at least further criticism will be better informed.

Graeme Levin
CEO: The Gambling Portals network
GamblingCity.com

I love the "forum members will have a field day poking holes in my posting" remark. Discrediting any and all contrary opinions and statements of fact before they are even posted. Very professional and a basis for a wonderful debate. It's almost as professional as the "perhaps you need to see your doctor" gag from Steve.

Anyhow, you said it yourself....you do continue to advertise sites that have ripped off players who have come to you for help. I think this is the worst part.....proporting to be a fair and honest mediator when it is clear you have vested interests.

You admit you have been around a long time. Well you must have been hiding under a very large rock somewhere for most of that time because some of the sites you promote, regardless of the degree to which you promote them, have been taking players to the cleaners for years and years. Surely you aren't saying that as long as your site doesn't receive these complaints, then they don't exist? Every man and his dog knows what has been going on, so I'm afraid you can't hide behind the "oh well they only have one skull and crossbones or sad face or winking eye or whatever" . You know full well how these guys operate, and you are complicit whether you like to think so or not. The idea of reducing banner rotations is pointless, as there are many text links that are permanent and unaffected.....and what is that really going to achieve anyway??

I appreciate you taking the time to post Graeme, but all you have done is made it even more clear that your site is all about the dollars, and doesn't care if players get screwed by your casino partners. How anyone can sleep at night sending unwary players to casinos that pay when, and if, they feel like it is beyond me.

IMO you have a real chance to walk the walk instead of talk the talk here Graeme. Show us that you have integrity and stop supporting the bottom feeders of this industry.

 

[kauphy]

I know I am a jerk when I am a jerk. I have done it and I know it. I just got back from a banning and I knew it was coming when I posted.

This is different though. I rarely catch GM being a jerk and it does appear that there is a different set of rules for his posts. Bryan has been sort of called out about being tough on him in the past. I thought it had been worked out but this whole inetbet issue resurfaced that tension. That whole scenario in the other thread was bizarre IMO. It didn't seem like an appropriate response to GM. I think GM is asking strong, pointed questions that deserved an answer. The response was, in fact, threatening towards him and he was basically told to shut up about it several times. Thats bull IMO. Then the thread was locked lol. Suppressing the whole issue further.

If anyone goes back and reads GMs posts, you will come away with the feeling that there is ill feeling about his posts from some mods. It is inescapable. Maybe CM doesn't dislike GM personally but he DOES get angry extremely often at his posts and lashes out with threats. That is from the political forums to the inetbet issue and going all the way back to the false accusation about GM's activities from Clubworld.
Regardless of what the truth may be, the appearance is a dislike of GM and I think it is unfair. I think he is treated unfairly often.

since they took away my thank you botton i will have to thank you this way. i agree with you 100%

 

[kauphy]

Guys, with all due respect, every single criticism here is met with dismissal and minimization. I really don't think some of you are taking what is being said at all seriously but it is how many feel. You can't just say "no your wrong" every time someone has an issue with the way things are handled can you? Not and be taken seriously can you?
obviously I like things about the site. I am still here and I still check in. That being said, I agree whole heartedly with bryand. Certainly people are treated differently here. Certainly it has much to do with how agreeable with max and bryan that they are. Some can be rude and crass while defending bryan/max and still be well received here. Others state opposition to something regardless of how calm they state it and are jumped on, silenced, threatened....etc.
Whether you think you are doing it or not isn't important. It is the perception of others and that is that you ARE doing it. Perhaps some could step back and take a harder look. It has been said enough that it must have some merit, right? Obviously many think it is fact, right? Perhaps just saying it isn't happening isn't the way to go. Maybe some looking at it from other's perspective is what is needed.

i again agree with you. some people are treated diffdent then others.

i know i have seen it time and time again where some people can say anything they want and not a word is said to them. but let others say anything and they get

jumped on like they are raw meat in the middle of a pack of wild dogs and nothing is being said to the people who do the jumping and most the time its the same people over and over again.

that is why i stoped coming to this site as often and don,t really post much anymore.

with that being said i,m out of here. try not to kill each other o.k

 

[bb28]

Thank you for all the comments about Gambling Grumbles run by Steve and about my financial policy for The Gambling Portals network. Whilst very useful, some of the comments are not well-informed.

I'll admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about the history behind gambling grumbles but frankly the history doesn't matter that much as viewing your site and what it is presently is the sum of it. If I happened upon your site as a newbie without knowing anything other than just what is there to see, I would see that you advertise rogue sites, so I would determine for myself that your site is lacking in ethics.

Steve and I have worked together for over 12 years through Gambling Grumbles from the time I owned Gambling.com. In all that time, I have never had a discussion on advertising with him. He operates Gambling Grumbles without ever having to consider any commercial aspects and has never even asked what my policies are.

I think from the postings, there is no question about his integrity and his independence from advertising concerns.

You and he may have this agreement, but someone viewing your site has no idea of the separation that you claim so in my view your statement is a moot point.


It seems the issue is my policy concerning banners and links to casinos that are reported in a bad light on Gambling Grumbles. So let me set out precisely how we operate.

At the outset, it is perfectly correct that my objective is to make a profit. My activity is directed at getting visitors to click on banners and links on my sites and to play at the casinos.
I’m in this for the long haul and am most interested in generating satisfied players who repeat their playing with casinos and who recommend my sites.
It’s therefore not in my interests to promote dishonest casinos.
It’s also not in my interests to stimulate adverse comments in forums because that reduces the chances of players using links on my sites.

To the above. What you say and what you are actually doing by having those ads on there is completely in conflict. It is quite simply black and white.

I am not an altruist. However I’ve been in this industry longer than practically anyone else and I’m not so blind as not to recognise that its future is influenced by the confidence players have in the honesty and fairness of online casinos. I’m passionately proud of the industry and all the decent people in it. I detest the dishonest element that has always been present.

The objective of Gambling Grumbles is to mediate successfully between disputing parties. This is not necessarily the same as the objectives of other dispute resolution sites. We regard a success as having 2 satisfied parties, not in exposing and branding dishonest casinos or players, although that is clearly an important by-product. I’m very proud of Gambling Grumbles and the benefits it provides.

My sites do not accept advertising from any casino.
We work on a revenue share basis and I decide which casinos to display and to which to link.
I take the point that my selection could be a message to players about a casino so let me outline the essential elements (although it is sometimes more complex).

I fail to see how you not accepting advertising makes you clean, it does not, you are an affiliate with links to rogue casino's on your site. Again, it's black and white, there aren't any gray area's.

Firstly please visit the GamblingGrumbles.com website and go to the table of reports.
You will see we have no links to the casinos where the report has attracted a Skull & Crossbones or a Sad Face (The 2 lowest ratings). If you move your mouse over the Casino Name you’ll see a note “We do not link to this Casino”

Just because you don't promote those that with a skull and crossbones means very little since you are still promoting the other rogues.

On the question of serving banners, Steve is 100% correct about the principle of adverting.
However the comments in this thread also have great merit especially since the exposure of each casino is in my hands.

We have a complex formula that regulates the relative banner exposure of each casino. This is almost completely automated.
In addition every time a casino receives a Skull & Crossbones or a Sad Face in a Gambling Grumbles report, the allocated exposure is slashed. Subsequent negative reports result in further reductions. This applies to ANY casino large or small.

I don’t completely remove a casino with a bad Gambling Grumbles report because I’m not prepared to regard the situation as completely black or white. A bad report does not necessarily mean the casino is untouchable.
Take for example Rushmore or Lock. Both have responded in an exemplary fashion in cooperating with Steve’s mediation efforts. And both have also failed dismally in other cases. Some sites might (and do) remove such casinos. I simply reduce their exposure out of caution. In practice those casinos that receive only bad Gambling Grumbles reports have an extremely low exposure, sometimes very close to zero. So, whilst the principles raised by posters are often valid, the emphasis those posters are placing on the banner exposure is in most cases unfounded.

Having said all that, I should also point out that I do take down casinos that I decide are indisputably dishonest. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone found a truly rogue casino advertised on my sites. Perhaps a lot of ill-informed assumptions are being made by people who don't know me or my values. I don't make a big issue of this because that's not what my sites are about.

Actually from looking at your site, the resolution part is just one small facade, it's clear to anyone that your primary motivation is making money. Making money is not evil in itself, but the ways in which one makes money can certainly be evil.

Please would the sceptics try to find any such banners and let me know.

I know from experience that forum members will have a field day poking holes in my posting. Of course others will value the insights offered.
I have gone to some length to explain so that at least further criticism will be better informed.

The above implies that you are dismissive of anyone else's opinion that doesn't jive with your own and it's also a bit insulting to members here.

Graeme Levin
CEO: The Gambling Portals network
GamblingCity.com

See bolded............

 

[kauphy]

First, I totally agree that flaming and personal insults should not be tolerated.

Jet, I believe you participated in a 'spirited' thread I started about global warming? Although I remember your comments as being respectful and open-minded (and not challenged by the mods), I was branded ignorant and even willful although my posts were reasonable and civil.

But when I posted to greasemonkey I was really referring to his political ideology. Leading up to the 2008 presidential election Bryan made it crystal crear that he believed Obama's party was the saving grace for online gaming. At the time, most of us FISCAL conservatives were treated with disrespect by mods and mod cronies alike. (Backhanded dig: I wonder how Pokerstars feels about Obama now?)

All do respect, Jet, I stand by my post.

100% agree

 

[kauphy]

Actually, speaking for myself, I don't think that is 100% off the mark for the same reasons as we talked about posters earlier. A casino or a poster: each builds up a reputation and everyone here forms an opinion. Every casino, every poster, makes mistakes or says the wrong thing once in a while. Might just be a CSR rep, might not.

That doesn't excuse it of course, but I for one certainly take in an "overall" impression of a casino into account when I am making judgements about individual issues and I certainly talk more favourably and give a bit more slack to both casinos and posters who I generally feel are safe and trustworthy. Again, it's largely subconscious but I know I do it.

Take Betfair or iNetbet, both of whom have had recent issues. I'll leave my opinons on each issue out of the equation to avoid a derail but when I analyse them I can't help but think that both casinos are "safe" places for players. Why should I think that after what's happened? Two reasons: the casinos' prior history and because I have strong feelings that the whole enticement bonus ethos damages the industry on a much wider scale than we have ever realised.

So yes, you are right where I am concerned: if the thread had been about a casino with a less than exmplorary track record I would probably have been less forgiving.



I'd take him up on that

As CM says, forums are fine 'n all, but you can't underestimate the value of a face-to-face.

 

[swampwitch]

It wasn't that long ago that Gamtrak was put through the gauntlet for promoting the same known rogues...an exercise in which I most gleefully participated. The equine excrement (better Simmo?) was flung from both sides, to the point that Gamtrak was finally banned, ostensibly for being an unremittant PITA. Yet it would seem the Grumbles Boys are to be treated with kid gloves while doing the same thing, albeit with prettier language and a bit of a holier-than-thou attitude (something I'm guilty of myself at times, so I know it when I see it).

So what's the difference between Gambling Grumbles and Gamtrak in this situation? I mean, other than the fact that Gamtrak STOPPED PROMOTING THE ROGUES.

 

[Simmo!]

... to the point that Gamtrak was finally banned, ostensibly for being an unremittant PITA

I don't intend to discuss the specifics of a member who can no longer post here however I will reiterate that posters are rarely, if ever, banned for their opinions. They are banned for how they put them across.

The issue of someone promoting bad operators (which is subjective anyway) *should* be discussed IMO.

 

[swampwitch]

I don't intend to discuss the specifics of a member who can no longer post here however I will reiterate that posters are rarely, if ever, banned for their opinions. They are banned for how they put them across.

The issue of someone promoting bad operators (which is subjective anyway) *should* be discussed IMO.

I neither implied nor said outright that she was banned for her opinions. It is my belief that people are NOT banned here for their opinions. I said she was banned for being a pain in the ass.

But if I have to sit through whining posts about how some people are treated better than others, then I see nothing wrong with pointing out that when it comes to this particular group of rogues we've been down this road before...and historically people don't get away with it. So why should the Grumbles Boys be any different?

 

[Simmo!]

I neither implied nor said outright that she was banned for her opinions. It is my belief that people are NOT banned here for their opinions. I said she was banned for being a pain in the ass.

But if I have to sit through whining posts about how some people are treated better than others, then I see nothing wrong with pointing out that when it comes to this particular group of rogues we've been down this road before...and historically people don't get away with it. So why should the Grumbles Boys be any different?

OK I may have misunderstood your reasoning for requsting us to ban Gambling Grumbles here...please accept my apologies Swampwitch. But - speaking personally - I don't think it would be right to ban any posters for a difference of opinion, which is essentially what this is. To disagree - certainly. But not to ban. The other mods may have an opinion of course - I only speak for myself.

 

[bb28]

OK I may have misunderstood your reasoning for requsting us to ban Gambling Grumbles here...please accept my apologies Swampwitch. But - speaking personally - I don't think it would be right to ban any posters for a difference of opinion, which is essentially what this is. To disagree - certainly. But not to ban. The other mods may have an opinion of course - I only speak for myself.

Did I miss something? Did SW ask for a ban?


And I agree with you, banning should not happen because of disagreement.

 

[swampwitch]

I don't think anyone should be banned for having an opinion, or even for promoting scum. I merely mentioned Gamtrak was banned, but it had nothing to do with my overall point...that the Grumbles Boys should expect the treatment from THE MEMBERSHIP that we would give anyone else that promotes rogues. I hope that's clearer for you Simmo.

 

[Simmo!]

I don't think anyone should be banned for having an opinion, or even for promoting scum. I merely mentioned Gamtrak was banned, but it had nothing to do with my overall point...that the Grumbles Boys should expect the treatment from THE MEMBERSHIP that we would give anyone else that promotes rogues. I hope that's clearer for you Simmo.

OK sorry - the bolded bit coupled with "...So what's the difference between Gambling Grumbles and Gamtrak in this situation?..." got me confused

 

[slotaddict]

The point has been brought up but many seem to be missing this valid and important point.

That point is that because you are a member here at casinomeister you see that virtual is "rogue". It is at other places too undoubtedly. However, InetBet is Rogue at several places and as you have seen here on this forum they are definitely taking players funds without just cause. However, because it is not rogued HERE you seem to think it is a great place and virtual is bad. That is very much a point of opinion. At Gambling Grumbles InetBet is not linked to (similar to a rogue here) and virtual is not. That is probably based on the complaints
that get lodged to steve russo. If they list virtual and do not get complaints but do get complaints when listing InetBet then they are doing the prudent thing and not linking to them any longer.

So it would appear that many of you are seeing this as a black and white issue with virtual being totally rogue. Maybe they are and you are correct. I have noticed inetbet getting far more complaints in different forums than virtual. Maybe because more people play inetbet, I really don't know the answer. I do know that just because one site lists a casino as good and another as bad that the whole world does nto agree.
The Inetbet example is perfect. They are actually accredited here and rogued elsewhere. I do not think that any of us think Bryan has lack of integrity for listing them either. They pay him, it is his decision and right. I am fairly certain that Bryan does this for money also. I do not believe it is altruism that keeps him putting up with this. Surely it is his way of earning great income for him and his family. That does not make his opinions and recommendations any less relevant.

The same can be said with gambling grumbles. They seem to be as honest and above board as any other site I have read.

If you are going to give Graeme and Steve a hard time about listing virtual then give Bryan the same hard time about inetbet or any other accused casino of being rogue or taking players funds.

 

[Nifty29]

The point has been brought up but many seem to be missing this valid and important point.

That point is that because you are a member here at casinomeister you see that virtual is "rogue". It is at other places too undoubtedly. However, InetBet is Rogue at several places and as you have seen here on this forum they are definitely taking players funds without just cause. However, because it is not rogued HERE you seem to think it is a great place and virtual is bad. That is very much a point of opinion. At Gambling Grumbles InetBet is not linked to (similar to a rogue here) and virtual is not. That is probably based on the complaints
that get lodged to steve russo. If they list virtual and do not get complaints but do get complaints when listing InetBet then they are doing the prudent thing and not linking to them any longer.

So it would appear that many of you are seeing this as a black and white issue with virtual being totally rogue. Maybe they are and you are correct. I have noticed inetbet getting far more complaints in different forums than virtual. Maybe because more people play inetbet, I really don't know the answer. I do know that just because one site lists a casino as good and another as bad that the whole world does nto agree.
The Inetbet example is perfect. They are actually accredited here and rogued elsewhere. I do not think that any of us think Bryan has lack of integrity for listing them either. They pay him, it is his decision and right. I am fairly certain that Bryan does this for money also. I do not believe it is altruism that keeps him putting up with this. Surely it is his way of earning great income for him and his family. That does not make his opinions and recommendations any less relevant.

The same can be said with gambling grumbles. They seem to be as honest and above board as any other site I have read.

If you are going to give Graeme and Steve a hard time about listing virtual then give Bryan the same hard time about inetbet or any other accused casino of being rogue or taking players funds.

Could you please provide examples of when Inetbet has denied a legitimate player their legitimate winnings? Can't wait for this one.

The fact that you are placing Inetbet and Virtual in the same category shows just how little you know about the industry. The likes of Virtual et al just loooove players like you. Why don't you go and play with them for a while and report back when you have a big win.....maybe you could even use Gambling Grumblers links? I'm sure if you run into trouble they will help you out just like they did with the guy who won $900+ and was refused payment for no reason....Virtual will never recover from having their banner impressions reduced so there's no way they will do it to anyone else

 

[Simmo!]

They pay him, it is his decision and right.

I know most people know this already but just for clarity to any newer members that are reading this, it should be pointed out that no-one pays to be accredited at CM. I'm sure that wasn't the intended inference from Slotaddict but the sentence above could be misinterpreted.