eCOGRA Again

AussieDave

Banned User
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Location
Australia
Pinababy69 said:
And what does red lighting mean?

Actually in the context as it's used here in Australia it means: to draw attention to.

As far as your suggestion I'm off sided over my other pen Wager2winUK being mentioned, I really couldn't give a r#ts ass.

As you'll see by this post being made after my last where I informed everyone publically to my pen name being Wager2winUK over at CAP.

No, I'm sorry to disappoint you or others, but the reason I used red lighting was in direct reference to my postings at CAP and why I didn't see the point other than an attempt to turn the mob onto me also. Which as it turns out doesn’t stray too far from the tree, eh, Pinababy69!
 

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
I informed everyone publically to my pen name being Wager2winUK over at CAP.

And where did you do that?

The more things make sense the more confusing they get....


Ahh, found it.

For those of you who have not viewed my posts over at CAP by all means be my guest (pen name Wager2winUK). I'll even give you the link:
XXXhttp://www.casinoaffiliateprograms.com/bb/showthread.php?t=12192
(remove XXX)

I am really surprised at you!
 

The Watchdog

Dormant account
Joined
May 5, 2006
Location
Costa Rica
MMMMMM

Chatmaster said:
Can you do me a favor and point me to those posts or hard evidence where they actually sided with casinos against players?

eCOGRA is not just Microgaming,... sigh... Why do I bother?

Look eCOGRA as far as I know has done allot for players thus far. Them actually acting on the JF issue is proof of this. The way they are acting very are serious. PWC are indipendent and one of the most trusted in their industry. I certainly would like some hard proof of anything you posted here. It is clear that you have no understanding of how serious this step is for JF, I assure you it is pretty serious, almost a case of be carefull of what you ask for...

I totally disagree with you, no watchdog site has done more for players than casinomeister.com.

I found eCogra's operation totally incompetent and unprofessional.

For me eCogra's seal, now days on a casino, equals to: IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS, WE WON'T HELP YOU AT ALL.

As I have stated before, they are probably charging $500 a seal and thats all they do.

My respect for eCogra can be compared to the respect I have for a filthy Taco Joint with no higine control in dowtown Mexico.

For me, they have not done one good thing to improve the tons of problems this amazing industry has. What I have seen, is thousands of people complaining on their incompetent way of handling issues.

I believe that if they were a decent watchdog site their purpose should be to endorse sites with no complains.

On a recent thread about eCogra someone said: "eCogra does an excellent work, they handle 1000s of issues and complains a day...etc" Am I the only one that sees the problem in that?? IF THEY ENDORSE A SITE, IS PROBABLY BECAUSE THIS SITE SHOULD BE WORKING 100% BY THE BOOK AND NO COMPLAINS SHOULD BE RECEIVED.

That statement only shows me that they endorse any moron who contacts them and wants eCogra's seal on their page. What happens next?? THE SITE IS SUCH A PAIN IN THE ASS that they need to handle 1000s of complains.

A proffessional watchdog site shouldn't even handle complains of its endorsed casinos... WHY? Simple: the watchdog has studied all the operation departments and services to make sure that complains won't be received, or at least keep them at the minimum amount.
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada
Trezz said:
Actually in the context as it's used here in Australia it means: to draw attention to.

As far as your suggestion I'm off sided over my other pen Wager2winUK being mentioned, I really couldn't give a r#ts ass.

As you'll see by this post being made after my last where I informed everyone publically to my pen name being Wager2winUK over at CAP.

No, I'm sorry to disappoint you or others, but the reason I used red lighting was in direct reference to my postings at CAP and why I didn't see the point other than an attempt to turn the mob onto me also. Which as it turns out doesnt stray too far from the tree, eh, Pinababy69!

Trezz, I don't know what you're so worked up about. I was just asking what red lighting meant...and taking my own guess, that's all. As to your other "handle" at CAP..yeah, I knew who you were and didn't think it was a big secret to anyone.

Exactly what mob are you talking about? You're entitled to your opinions on eCOGRA, Jackpot Factory, 888, whatever. I don't have to agree with them, nor you with mine.

In reference to your earlier post and eCOGRA, JF et al., I agree with part of it and disagree with other parts. I do think that eCOGRA took the correct measures with JF. As to 888, it is more of a webmaster issue as opposed to a player issue (that's just my opinion, not saying it's fact). I agree that what 888 is doing (ie. theft) is totally wrong, but am not sure if eCOGRA is the proper organization to be dealing with it. Comparing JF with 888 is like comparing apples to oranges, again JMO. While I agree that 888 is in the wrong, it affects webmasters in a monetary way (for the most part). What Jackpot Factory did affects ME as a human being, and I'm sure offended many others just as much for the exact same reasons. Money just doesn't come into it, nor should it. I don't put money and morality in the same ballpark.
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada
Trezz said:
As far as your suggestion I'm off sided over my other pen Wager2winUK being mentioned, I really couldn't give a r#ts ass.

No, I'm sorry to disappoint you or others, but the reason I used red lighting was in direct reference to my postings at CAP and why I didn't see the point other than an attempt to turn the mob onto me also. Which as it turns out doesnt stray too far from the tree, eh, Pinababy69!

Now that I reread this, if you couldn't give a rat's ass, why are your knickers all in a twist? And why the two "handles" to begin with? You're Trezz here, and it's served you fine. Why the need for an alias? I mean, I know lots of people do it, I'm just not sure I understand why. :confused:
 

mitch

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Location
UK
Caruso

Just an observation.

You have a website which earns you money from Internet Casinos and by direct analogy encourages people to gamble online with Internet Casinos.

No problem with the info on your site, it is excellent overall, and players following it are giving themselves a decent chance to not suffer real financial damage. Similarly the Casinos you recommend are very good and safe ones.

Yet you are one of the most negative people on this site about Internet Casinos in general.

In nearly every player issue you comment on you flame the casino.

On many occasions when members have posted in favour of a casino you have had no problem in questioning that members integrity.

You hardly ever post on threads where there are serious doubts about the players account of events and if you did comment would have to utter words in support of a Casino.

Why?

It seems to be the attitude of someone who has a love hate relationship due to a gambling problem. Love gambling but hate themselves for their weakness but express this as hate for the thing they actually love ie gambling.

It is a very well observed phenomenon.

But perhaps it's that you are so far up yourself that you never give respect to anyone else and their opinions and that is why, even though you are one of the longest standing members of this forum and are one of it's most prolific posters, you have never ever thanked a single post by any other member.

Sorry if I have disrespected you in this post, I don't generally take this approach and I am not saying I am right, but I honestly feel it would do you good if you did for once reflect on your attitude.

Mitch
 

Chatmaster

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Location
South Africa
The Watchdog said:
I totally disagree with you, no watchdog site has done more for players than casinomeister.com.

Mmmmmm this is interesting. Why do you say you disagree with me then?

The Watchdog said:
I found eCogra's operation totally incompetent and unprofessional.

For me eCogra's seal, now days on a casino, equals to: IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS, WE WON'T HELP YOU AT ALL.

Watchdog! You are slandering eCOGRA! There is not meaning about what you just said! I still need the evidence that you base this uninformed remark on,... Curuso spit some out you didn't even go that far... I believe it will be allot easier for you to actually find people whose problems and issues was handled and sorted out than you will find evidence to support your statements.


The Watchdog said:
As I have stated before, they are probably charging $500 a seal and thats all they do.

My respect for eCogra can be compared to the respect I have for a filthy Taco Joint with no higine control in dowtown Mexico.

Sigh.... Yyyyyyaaaawn..... ZZZzzzzzz

The Watchdog said:
For me, they have not done one good thing to improve the tons of problems this amazing industry has. What I have seen, is thousands of people complaining on their incompetent way of handling issues.

So when did eCOGRA refuse to help you with any player issue with any of their approved casinos?

The Watchdog said:
I believe that if they were a decent watchdog site their purpose should be to endorse sites with no complains.

Casinomeister is the only decent casino watchdog site I know of and I do not believe eCOGRA can be compared to a watchdog site in any way!

The Watchdog said:
On a recent thread about eCogra someone said: "eCogra does an excellent work, they handle 1000s of issues and complains a day...etc" Am I the only one that sees the problem in that?? IF THEY ENDORSE A SITE, IS PROBABLY BECAUSE THIS SITE SHOULD BE WORKING 100% BY THE BOOK AND NO COMPLAINS SHOULD BE RECEIVED.

That statement only shows me that they endorse any moron who contacts them and wants eCogra's seal on their page. What happens next?? THE SITE IS SUCH A PAIN IN THE ASS that they need to handle 1000s of complains.

A proffessional watchdog site shouldn't even handle complains of its endorsed casinos... WHY? Simple: the watchdog has studied all the operation departments and services to make sure that complains won't be received, or at least keep them at the minimum amount.

You know what! If you as a player want to go play at a casino and you know it is safe to go and play there surely you will rather go and play where you know there is an eCOGRA to assist if there is issues? No matter what your casino is, there will always be issues no matter who you are.

I worked at a casino before that had the eCOGRA seal. Believe me, what you are saying is uninformed lies! Their standards are high, very high! They ensure that players do not get into difficult situations by implementing certain procedures that infact uplift the operations of the casinos that carry their seal. If there is a valid complaint it gets attention very quickly! If there wasn't fast enough action the operator has to explain in detail why there was a delay! Watchdog I suggest that you change your name to restaurant critic because you post to taste not to facts!

I have one problem with eCOGRA and it is an issue some of webmasters disagree with completely, 888! I say the 888 issue do relate to players and not just webmasters others say that is not true as it only hurts webmasters. I am not going to discuss the 888 issue further as we will need a boxing ring for that.

What I do want to know is this, are these attack on eCOGRA based on facts or emotional criticism that has built up to unclear and unfounded judgments! Next time you criticize eCOGRA, do yourself a favor and think of exactly why you feel they are scum,... maybe you should wipe the scum out of your eyes instead.
 
Last edited:

Webzcas

Winter is Coming!
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Location
Block S25, South Stand, Ashton Gate, BS3
That statement only shows me that they endorse any moron who contacts them and wants eCogra's seal on their page. What happens next?? THE SITE IS SUCH A PAIN IN THE ASS that they need to handle 1000s of complains

Why don't you actually contact Andrew and find out firsthand what eCOGRA actually does. You may benefit from doing so, as you are completely misinformed.

The rest of your rant is not worth the time it will take to comment on. Just my opinion.
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada
Chatmaster said:
Watchdog I suggest that you change your name to restaurant critic because you post to taste not to facts!

Quote of the month for me!! :lolup:
 

Slotster!

I predict a riot.
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Location
Location, Location!
Whilst having no experience (or real opinion) on Ecogra as an organisation - this does interest me:

Trezz said:
Fundamentally I view the eCogra model as great for the industry in some aspects, whilst in others severally flawed.

For example what organisation in their right mind would allow those who contributed start up funds (and from rumour still carry eCogra) to holding positions of Directorship that entitle them to over rule Board rulings.

From a 'conflict of interest' perspective, how does this work? I reiterate, this is coming from someone who is neither for or against this organisation - and doesn't really understand how it works. I'm just fascinated that, as Trezz says, how directors of the member casino's can also sit on the board of the governing authority - particularly when one of the casino's is under scrutiny/review.

It wouldn't be allowed in the city, or rather the 'governing body' would rightly be viewed with suspicion. Of course there should be regular consultation with key figures in the industry from a knowledge sharing and information perspective, but I can understand fully why this doesn't sit well with certain parties.

From what trusted members of this community have said - I'm confident that Ecogra are everything you would hope of an online casino regulatory organisation. I'd be interested however in the opinions from those same trusted members of this community - in terms of how this perceived 'conflict of interest' can actually work for the greater good.
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
My comments for what little they are worth :)

1) No watchdog will ever keep everyone happy. The nature of the beast.

2) eCOGRA is still IMO the most likely of the current watchdogs to make a positive impact on the industry.

3) Instead of repetitively slamming eCOGRA publically, why don't people try and set up an alternative that stands a better chance of working if they feel so strongly about it? Or if that's too much like hard work, at least help to suggest constructive ways it could improve.

4) Caruso: seems like you spend all that time telling me (publically) who and who I shouldn't promote, laying into me and my site at Sucks for supporting eCOGRA, laying into affiliates and trying to discredit their opinions resultingly, and there you are marketing Microgaming casinos you've told people that you don't trust? Unbelievable.
 
Last edited:

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
Linus said:
Caruso - I just checked out your site; nice work, sir.

Thanks, Linus.

Let me quote Mitch in his entirity as he deserves an answer to all points.

mitch said:
Caruso

Just an observation.

You have a website which earns you money from Internet Casinos and by direct analogy encourages people to gamble online with Internet Casinos.

No problem with the info on your site, it is excellent overall, and players following it are giving themselves a decent chance to not suffer real financial damage. Similarly the Casinos you recommend are very good and safe ones.

Yet you are one of the most negative people on this site about Internet Casinos in general.

In nearly every player issue you comment on you flame the casino.

On many occasions when members have posted in favour of a casino you have had no problem in questioning that members integrity.

You hardly ever post on threads where there are serious doubts about the players account of events and if you did comment would have to utter words in support of a Casino.

Why?

It seems to be the attitude of someone who has a love hate relationship due to a gambling problem. Love gambling but hate themselves for their weakness but express this as hate for the thing they actually love ie gambling.

It is a very well observed phenomenon.

But perhaps it's that you are so far up yourself that you never give respect to anyone else and their opinions and that is why, even though you are one of the longest standing members of this forum and are one of it's most prolific posters, you have never ever thanked a single post by any other member.

Sorry if I have disrespected you in this post, I don't generally take this approach and I am not saying I am right, but I honestly feel it would do you good if you did for once reflect on your attitude.

Mitch

I do have a "gambling problem" insofar as I've never much liked gambling per se. I have little understanding of this oft-quoted "entertainment value" because I cannot figure for the life of me why sitting in front of your lonely computer spinning slot reels is remotely "entertaining"; shooting the shit over a blackjack table in Vegas, OK, I get that - accurate play at low stakes and you can get a laugh plus free drinks for as little at $2 an hour EV loss. But I cannot figure how computer-gambling is entertaining.

If you equate "problem" with simply indulging in an activity, for whatever reason, to a degree reluctantly, then I suppose this would qualify as a problem. I've never really seen it this way, and TBH "problem gambling" relates generally to loss-incurring gambling. From that point of view, or any other I've ever entertained, I can't say that I have a "problem".

However, I am not saying there is nothing in what you say. I'd have to think about it a bit more. Still, at the end of the day, I've achieved my objectives. This is quite a vindicator.

I do not consider myself "negative" per se. In fact, I would challenge you to find any stance I've taken which was destructively negative, as opposed to constructively so. I don't say "f**k you, asshole" (though occasionally tempted :)), I say "this is a pile of shit because of reasons X,Y and Z". I do not feel the need to thank casinos for act of PAYING - casinos are supposed to do this. If this then apparent imbalance appears as "negativity", well so be it. Injustices are happening on a daily basis right now - I hardly need to list them all. What am I supposed to do? - get all gooey over Ed Ware's act of unfathomable charity in browsing the forum whose website he makes a mint from with 32Red? Thank the Jackpot Factory manager for "apologising" for his SEO stunt that targetted the bereaved and cancer sufferers? Say "job well done" to eCOGRA for finally commenting on said matter after their eGAP procedures failed to pick up on any that stuff at any time during its fully year-old existence?? Or for finding in favour of Cassava on the basis of a player being a "bonus abuser", then apparently mediating an undercover payment backed up with a NDA?

If "positivity" equates to fawning and whitewash, I think we're well off without it.

It's also not true that I don't criticise players in the wrong. I do. It's just that players in the wrong are far outnumbered by casinos in the wrong. In fact, point out an issue in which a player was clearly in the wrong and the casino clearly in the right. At the moment, I can think of not one. And frankly, in the face of the rampant shit we've seen recently, one does lose the INCLINATION to criticise players even if they ARE in the wrong. It's very hard to support any aspect of an industry exhibiting the behaviour we're currently observing. Still, if a player is in the wrong I will always say so. It just hardly ever happens.

As to respecting others' opinions: since one is clearly entitled to express thoughts along the line of "your opinion is wrong", I suppose you're referring to some aspect of how this is done. That's fair enough. If I think you're wrong, I will say so; if you're having a go at me, you'll get that right back at you. THAT is fair.

If you want to quote anything I've said which you think unfairly disrespects another's opinion, please do so. However, simple disagreements do not count.

On the matter of earning money with HPG, I've to date made $86 :). Still, your point is fair and it wasn't exactly a small issue for me. At the end of the day, in order to assist players in playing well I need to tell them WHERE they can play. In order to do so, I need to list the casinos; if I just put up straight links with no affiliate basis, in the first place I have no clout with them, and in the second I don't see why ANY site should give casinos "free" advertising. If somebody clicks through my link, choses to ignore my advice and the casino makes a profit, it's fair that they pass on a part of that to the person who sent the player. Still, if you follow my advice and apply your own common sense criteria, I should not receive to much dirty affiliate commission from your account because you will not be losing much.

The "business partner" nature of affiliates was and is an issue to me. I justify it to myself on the basis of offering high-quality information on how to NOT lose money. You won't see me selling slots any time soon.

Finally, I do thank people, actually. I just use that crystal icon thing at the top of the post. If you log into your user CP, you'll see a little offering from me for your post above :). Still, I have to say I find the whole "thank" set up, with these positive and negative "reputation points", somewhat childish and open to abuse, and much prefer the no-frills WOL forum set up.

Hope that answers your questions.
 

Vesuvio

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Location
UK
Simmo! said:
3) Instead of repetitively slamming eCOGRA publically, why don't people try and set up an alternative that stands a better chance of working if they feel so strongly about it?
Yep, just give me a minute while I cook up a regulation body for the on-line casino industry - eye of toad, and tail of newt... :rolleyes:
Simmo! said:
Or if that's too much like hard work, at least help to suggest constructive ways it could improve.
That I agree with. How about this, for starters:

When supporting a casino's stance on a payment issue eCOGRA must outline the basis for its decision, detailing specific terms and conditions they deem to have been broken. It's unacceptable for players to be denied winnings while not actually being accused of anything.

This works both ways - if eCOGRA rule in favour of the player they must provide the casino with a full explanation, though somehow I imagine that's already the case.

In general, the basis of a dispute and the process of resolving it must be shared with the player. Otherwise eCOGRA does come across as being heavily biased in favour of the casinos it's meant to regulate.

On a related issue - eCOGRA must face up to the most likely source of future disputes - the "catch-all terms". They must come out publicly (and privately in communication with the casinos they regulate) and state that these are not a sufficient reason for players not to be paid. A clear-cut term must have been broken by the player (not, for instance, some general charge of "bonus abuse").
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Slotster! said:
Whilst having no experience (or real opinion) on Ecogra as an organisation - this does interest me:

From a 'conflict of interest' perspective, how does this work? I reiterate, this is coming from someone who is neither for or against this organisation - and doesn't really understand how it works. I'm just fascinated that, as Trezz says, how directors of the member casino's can also sit on the board of the governing authority - particularly when one of the casino's is under scrutiny/review.

It wouldn't be allowed in the city, or rather the 'governing body' would rightly be viewed with suspicion. Of course there should be regular consultation with key figures in the industry from a knowledge sharing and information perspective, but I can understand fully why this doesn't sit well with certain parties.

From what trusted members of this community have said - I'm confident that Ecogra are everything you would hope of an online casino regulatory organisation. I'd be interested however in the opinions from those same trusted members of this community - in terms of how this perceived 'conflict of interest' can actually work for the greater good.

What a pleasure it is to read an open-minded post like this one, Slotster! In recent times I have almost given up trying to present a positive perspective on eCOGRA to folks who revel in their lack of knowledge about the organisation whilst continuing to throw mud at it.

*Restaurant critic* Watchdog and his hysterical rants comes to mind immediately LOL.

I would like to try and give my perspective in answer to your valid question on conflict of interest regarding the eCOGRA board, because it is something that perturbed me too when it was originally announced.

I'll start with funding, because nothing of significance is possible without it, and the eCOGRA infrastructure and expert input is clearly not cheap.

Where would the considerable funds for an initiative aimed at protecting and improving the player safety and experience come from if you were setting up a cross-border standards and requirements organisation?

Not from any government, and not from the playing community. Definitely not from the affiliates, because they have not been able thus far to put their own regulatory body together. And if it was from the casino operators direct there would be cries of conflict such as we see in this thread.

eCOGRA's answer was to generate funding through any software provider that is prepared to commit to the eCOGRA ideals and requirements - and contrary to some opinions it is definitely NOT a closed shop.

Providers are at one remove from the (casino) licensees which lessens the potential for conflict, and to get involved with eCOGRA a software provider has to have a strong level of commitment to better operational practice...and a preparedness to invest in something your competitors are investing in, too.

There are 3 competing software providers, all major movers and shakers in online gambling, in the funding pool: Microgaming, Ongame and the ever contentious 888.com which has its own software arm. That competitive aspect imbues the structure with some natural checks and balances for starters imo.

When you're investing considerable sums of money into an initiative, it is not unreasonable to expect that you have a seat on the board to keep tabs on how your money is being spent and how effective the organisation is, so each competing provider has one seat on the board in what can accurately be described as principally an observer and consulting role.

These guys are all highly experienced executives at the top of their companies and their profession, and their experience is valuable.

But how do you structure the rest of the board to best avoid conflicts of interest even among directors who's companies are in competition with one another?

The nascent eCOGRA researchers consulted with experts and came up with the formula that pertains today, which is not unusual in business: balance the board by finding three highly experienced and thoroughly reputable, seasoned executives from the LAND gambling world and appoint them as totally independent directors with full control over all operational issues.

That includes day to day running of the outfit, liaison with external entities, the inspection and monitoring process, all "Play It Safe" seal awards and related issues, disciplinary issues and general administration by the CEO and FGA - the only two full time employees that eCOGRA has.

One of these independents, Michael Hirst OBE holds the chairmanship, and the full time CEO and the Fair Gaming Advocate report direct to the three independents on a daily basis.

I won't take up more of your time with the illustrious biographies of Messrs Hirst, Galston and Catania but I doubt anyone would contest that these are highly experienced executives of impeccable integrity, international respect and extensive management capability with a strong commitment to the player.

And anyone who has met them, as I have at conferences will certainly vouch for the fact that they are fiercely independent.

It is not a perfect arrangement in my personal opinion (as I have said repeatedly I would be happier if there was a freely elected player representative on the board as well) but it is the closest I can see that gives the necessary *distance* whilst retaining high levels of management and industry expertise.
 
Last edited:

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
caruso said:
...Bryan, I get the impression you're kind of trying to "expose" me by posting these links. The site is sitting in my profile here -

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/
This I believe you added last night before you posted.

caruso said:
...And FTR, the only reason you KNOW about it is because I told you when we met at the ICE. If you're trying to "expose" me here, you might want to think about that. If I were "embarrassed" about the site, I'm not sure this "exposure" would be the most ethical behaviour, do you?
It was on your name tag - most people that you met there made a mental note of this.

caruso said:
Would you be embarrassed or ashamed to have the kind of quality, player-helpful content I have? Are you trying to put me down at all?
What I am doing is pointing out to you and to the rest of the members that what you are doing is contradictory in nature. Publicly slag off a casino yet you are knowingly promoting them. Whether or not you have any traffic is beside the point - it's the action itself that counts; it's irresponsible.

caruso said:
My listing criteria are as tough as they get, and tougher than yours...
Tough maybe, but not really reasonable nor practical. But that's your call. Have you met the operators? Do you have a direct line to them in case your players have problems? I'm glad you have scruples on who and what to list, but you are lacking the factor of communication. I'm afraid that this is more important than you realize.

caruso said:
Ah baby, embarrassed I am NOT.

I started that site as a resource to help players find good games and play them well, ie. lose as little as possible to a tiny house edge, and even WIN. And now you're posting as some kind of "exposè".
It's your online behavior that I am bringing attention to - not your website. Any thread that pops up that eCOGRA is possibly involved with, you jump in and make accusations with half the facts. When a jilted player posts his/her complaint you're all over the casino like stink on cheese.
caruso said:
How much more wrong could this be?

1.6 - No "Libelous" Posts. Do not make posts that could be considered libelous, defamatory, or posting merely to cause harm to another's business. Opinions are expected, but do not attack others with accusations of criminal activity unless this has been proven in a court of law.

You keep referring to the CON incident and the bonus player.

caruso said:
Or for finding in favour of Cassava on the basis of a player being a "bonus abuser", then apparently mediating an undercover payment backed up with a NDA?

You state this like it is fact. You are basing this on a post over at WOL. Have you contacted anyone at Casava or at eCOGRA about this? You are basing this on hearsay and you are knowingly making an attempt to damage eCOGRA with this libelous comment. Yes, it's libel because it is not true. There was no deal - this player probably posted this BS to make it look like he was in the right. Or do your sources tell you anything else? I know what my sources say - and I'm pretty sure that my sources are a bit more deeper than yours.

What you are doing is totally irresponsible and unacceptable; you are abusing this forum with these repetitive antics.

You have been banned from this forum on two occasions - both for violation of rule 1.6 and you have been warned more than anyone else to tone it down, or to chill out. Well I'm glad you have your own website to run - more power to you. I just hope you come to realize that if you want to be effective in assisting players or providing useful information, you need to do your due diligence in finding the truth. Making defamatory remarks based on conjecture or hearsay on message boards is not the way to go and it will never happen here again.

26th October 2005 - Strike one
8th May 2006 - Strike two
21 June 2006 - Strike three you're out!

Good luck with your site - I wish you well.
 

Vesuvio

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Location
UK
Casinomeister said:
This I believe you added last night before you posted.
Caruso's website has been in his profile at WOL for at least a month now (when I first spotted it).
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
I would like to address the following accusation by Caruso, which he has twice made in this thread recently:

QUOTE: Or for finding in favour of Cassava on the basis of a player being a "bonus abuser", then apparently mediating an undercover payment backed up with a NDA? UNQUOTE

This did not ring true with me when he made it last night and again this morning, and I therefore put in a call to eCOGRA and spoke to Andrew Beveridge - the CEO.

I would like to see Caruso's evidence for the above claim, because Beveridge says that no such thing occurred.

Beveridge says, and I have found him to be a truthful man, that he checked this allegation with CON management after it appeared on the message boards, and was assured that no settlement was offered or made following any eCOGRA ruling, which in any case went against the player.

Perhaps the individual concerned has been in private communication with Caruso? If this is the case I think this needs to be explored further because somewhere, someone is being economical with the truth...and frankly I do not see eCOGRA "apparently mediating a settlement" as Caruso puts it when it had just made a ruling that rendered such a course unnecessary.
 

Slotster!

I predict a riot.
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Location
Location, Location!
Thanks for your response Jetset - very interesting stuff! I think the reason I'm intrigued by the setup is because I kind of know at the back of my mind industry people *have* to be involved for the whole thing to work, but couldn't make it fit how this could still be 'impartial'. Your eloquent response puts my mind at ease - specifically:

jetset said:
eCOGRA's answer was to generate funding through any software provider that is prepared to commit to the eCOGRA ideals and requirements - and contrary to some opinions it is definitely NOT a closed shop.

Providers are at one remove from the (casino) licensees which lessens the potential for conflict, and to get involved with eCOGRA a software provider has to have a strong level of commitment to better operational practice...and a preparedness to invest in something your competitors are investing in, too.

There are 3 competing software providers, all major movers and shakers in online gambling, in the funding pool: Microgaming, Ongame and the ever contentious 888.com which has its own software arm. That competitive aspect imbues the structure with some natural checks and balances for starters imo.

That includes day to day running of the outfit, liaison with external entities, the inspection and monitoring process, all "Play It Safe" seal awards and related issues, disciplinary issues and general administration by the CEO and FGA - the only two full time employees that eCOGRA has.

It is not a perfect arrangement in my personal opinion (as I have said repeatedly I would be happier if there was a freely elected player representative on the board as well) but it is the closest I can see that gives the necessary *distance* whilst retaining high levels of management and industry expertise.

I think that works... :thumbsup:

Excuse my ignorance again - but with eCogra seemingly being UK based, how does this impact 90% of online players that are from the States and the rest of the world; and subsequently the hotly debated HR4777 bill that's looming? Are eCogra being called in to demonstrate self regulation and the industry's move towards 'fair gaming'? I understand their influence from a player's perspective at an 'ecogra' casino regardless of their location - with such high profile representation, from the MAJOR software providers however, surely this is an ideal opportunity to elevate their importance across the board?

Thanks again!
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetset
The fact that detractors and complainants alike turn to eCOGRA when they hit hassles tells me that it continues to have credibility. Unquote

Vesuvio, I have to disagree with your comment in answer to the above: "It says nothing of the sort, unfortunately. If a casino's refusing to pay a player has little choice but to try everyone available option, however unpromising."

You may regard it as pragmatic, but I consider anyone who trashes an organisation at every turn but then runs to it for assistance when the proverbial hits the fan as a hypocrite.
 

Chatmaster

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Location
South Africa
The issue with the independent directors being casinos has always been a big issue I also had with the entire eCOGRA! In my short mindedness I never thought that it was actually a good thing! After the last 3 days I regret many of my posts I have made in the past about eCOGRA.

Jetset, I want to congratulate you on one of the best explinations I have seen about eCOGRA. For the first time I actually understand the concept as far as the involvement of casinos and software companies are concerned. Is it true if I say, this is actually where eCOGRA's power is?
 

Vesuvio

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Location
UK
I thanked Caruso's last post, because I felt it gave a very conherent and convincing response to Mitch's attack (I don't feel that word's too strong). Then I removed the thanks after noticing the one comment about eCOGRA mediating a response in the CON case, which does seem to be going too far, unless backed up with some evidence.

I don't think it was unreasonable to assume a settlement had been reached with the casino (not eCOGRA), as there's little we can do other than take people's word for things on forums, especially when there seems no reason to lie. Note jetset did the same (from earlier in the thread):

jetset said:
Subsequently the casino decided for reasons of its own to settle with the player. That could have been a goodwill issue or other commercial consideration at the discretion of management - who knows because it was a unilateral decision by the casino in which eCOGRA was not consulted and played no part.

I do still think, if the information available to us is accurate, that this particular decision of eCOGRA's was utterly wrong and sets a terrible precedent for the on-line casino industry.

As for banning Caruso - the above issue doesn't strike me as warranting it, though I can definitely understand your point of view, Bryan, and of course it's your choice. The argument over the website was a storm in a tea-cup - remember Caruso's not the only person who has strong views and expresses them bluntly :)
 

soflat

Experienced Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Location
Florida
jetset said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetset

You may regard it as pragmatic, but I consider anyone who trashes an organisation at every turn but then runs to it for assistance when the proverbial hits the fan as a hypocrite.

So don't criticize ecogra too much if you want the option of asking for their assistance if you ever need it?
 

Vesuvio

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Location
UK
jetset said:
You may regard it as pragmatic, but I consider anyone who trashes an organisation at every turn but then runs to it for assistance when the proverbial hits the fan as a hypocrite.
We'll just have to disagree. Are you really saying it's not possible to criticise (that is to present arguments, not "trash...at every turn") an organisation you might at some point have to have recourse to? Surely it's a terrible loss of freedom if, for instance, I can't criticise aspects of the UK court system because at some point I might require it.

The hypocritical (and perhaps pragmatic) stance would be to stay silent or praise eCOGRA in case it comes in handy later.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Vesuvio said:
...As for banning Caruso - the above issue doesn't strike me as warranting it...
Maybe that comment alone didn't seem so tough - but over the past year or two he has pushed me way too often. He is the only member here (and there are quite a few of them) that has been warned on numerous occasions to "watch it". And has been banned not once but twice for the same violation. He even beats Damian Dunlap's record of bannings and warnings.

I can only tolerate so much - and perhaps I've done the guy a favor since he has time to focus clearly on what he wants to do. He no longer has this forum to distract him. Perhaps in the future he'll thank me for this :D
 
Top