eCOGRA Again

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
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Slotster! said:
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!

I'll try to answer this from my own knowledge, although it's probably better directed at eCOGRA itself, Slotster.

I reckon that eCOGRA is UK based for convenience - it's a central location to both Europe and the Americas, although something of a schlep to the Far East. It has every facility that technology can dream up, and that's important I guess when your dealing with fairly hi-tech companies all over the world. The current three software providers are all located in Europe, and two of the independent directors are in the UK (the third, Frank Catania is in the States.)

I asked eCOGRA about lobbying against a US ban once, and I was told that this is not one of their activities, although when requested Beveridge has travelled widely and given advice on the sort of sophisticated regulatory structure that he has developed at eCOGRA in consultation with leading international experts.

eCOGRA has also submitted detailed proposals to the UK Gaming Commission as part of its consultative process. And as you probably know, Beveridge has been a very active player in trying to bring international consistency to regulatory regimes elsewhere, something which is also close to the heart of Tessa Jowall in the UK.

However, US lobbying is not regarded as an eCOGRA priority because the principal focus of eCOGRA is on the player experience (the same applies to the affiliate sector, and that has caused a lot of ill feeling, but is unlikely to change)

IGC is the outfit that is more involved in this area, and it has built up political contacts over the several years it has been doing it. I would imagine that if eCOGRA was asked to demonstrate its contribution it would and certainly could do so.

To sum up, my personal perception is that eCOGRA is intent on concentrating its finite resources on a single overall objective - positioning the right standards of best practice and efficiency at Seal casinos in order to give the player a safer, fairer and more enjoyable gaming experience.

Before I get off the soapbox, I would like to make a point that I think is worth considering.

eCOGRA operations are amongst the most established and biggest in the industry and handle hundreds of thousands perhaps even millions of transactions, and tens of thousands of player experiences daily.

Whilst we all look for perfection - especially in others - there are humans involved and that means that there are screw-ups. Unfortunately, we tend to see the results of those misjudgements and errors concentrated in "Casino Complaints" here and that can give a skewed perception rather than a true picture which is that these complaints, however infuriating and inexcusable are a very, very small percentage of the total amount of activity going on every hour of every day at "Play It Safe" venues around the globe.

What eCOGRA is trying to achieve is the reduction even further of this small percentage. It was not set up to be an all-embracing Internet policeman; it was set up to better the player experience and create a more acceptable industry by improving casino management and conduct.

There are now 76 seal casinos and poker rooms, backed by the biggest software providers in the business and there will undoubtedly be more announced soon if I hear eCOGRA people right. This represents the majority of the available business, and the number of complaints should not be tolerated, but has to be seen in that context too imo.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Vesuvio said:
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.

It is your prerogative to disagree, Vesuvio, but if the cap fits... I think you are intelligent enough to know what I am talking about here, and the line between constructive criticism and malicious trashing. You, too for that matter, Soflat.
 

Vesuvio

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Location
UK
jetset said:
It is your prerogative to disagree, Vesuvio, but if the cap fits... I think you are intelligent enough to know what I am talking about here, and the line between constructive criticism and malicious trashing. You, too for that matter, Soflat.
Which cap? Please point out where I've "maliciously trashed" eCOGRA, before you start throwing around insults. Caruso as well, though blunt, always provided reasoned arguments and, as the interview and articles on his website show, explored this topic in depth. If anything the positive comments about eCOGRA on here have shown a more superficial understanding of their operation, often simply taking it on trust that all's well.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Vesuvio you really are being a little over sensitive, don't you think? I have not intentionally insulted you; I have suggested to you that you are smart enough to know where the line between constructive criticism and malicious trashing begins and ends, and I would think that a compliment.

And having established that if you still think there's a cap to be worn please go ahead and don it.

When you're not whingeing and banging on about bonus hunting I actually find your posts insightful, informative and interesting...but when it comes to eCOGRA I can only paraphrase your own opinion back to you:

"If anything the [negative] comments about eCOGRA on here have shown a superficial understanding of its operation."
 

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
Casinomeister said:
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.

This is something many, if not most webmasters overlook.

Whether you can actually talk to someone should a player problem arise is extremely important. IMO it is pretty much THE important thing, it is what makes the casinos you list safe for YOUR visitors to play.
 

The Watchdog

Dormant account
Joined
May 5, 2006
Location
Costa Rica
My last comment on eCogra

I don't have anything against them. Not respecting them is one thing, wanting to cause them trouble is another.

I have never started a thread complaining about them. When I see on of those threads, I enjoy reading people comments about them.

I learned about eCogra about 3 years ago. 1 year after, I had to make a research to compare our service (for the casino I was working for at that time) to other major sites on competition in order to make sure we were giving the best promos and providing best service than them.

I found out that eCogra had expanded their endorsed sites from the first time I learned about them. Well, basically I opened several accounts, to be honest: using fake names, using invalid info and also funding through several methods. (THIS WAS A PERSONAL MOVE, not from the company I was working for and to learn more about online casinos.)

What happened? I ran into several casinos who treated me like @#%@#. Honestly, I believe my CS experience helps me make a difference of what is good ans what is lousy service. Also I got bonuses denied, payouts delayed, etc... several things that showed me our operation was doing good.

This is when I told my boss, hey.. I have seen eCogra's seal on several sites, why aren't we endorsed by a site like them or them? I can't remeber the exact answer but it was like: Forget about it.. we don't need them. I didn't understand it at the moment, now I do.

So after some years, I see that more casinos have their seal. From time to time I enjoy opening accounts and see how the site works (not only eCogra's endorsed sites). As you may have read before I only play at pokertime.com and pokerstars from time to time.

Anyways, several things I have noticed. A lot of complains towards sites endorsed by these guys (eCogra) and recently a lot of people complaining about their operation.

I will not make any further comments of them, however I still believe their operation is not to be respected due to the things I have seen happening on several of their sites.

Some one said this recently:

eCOGRA operations are amongst the most established and biggest in the industry and handle hundreds of thousands perhaps even millions of transactions, and tens of thousands of player experiences daily.

I just can't understand it.

If I was running eCogra or an operation like theirs, my standard will be to have 10 guys running every sort of tests to sites requesting endorsment on all areas: CS, payouts, RNG functionability, Honesty, licenses, etc... And make sure that when I endorse a site, is because I will not be receiving complains for them.

Is real easy to give the seal to a casino and then take the following policy: OK, LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THESE CLOWNS AND HOW MANY COMPLAINS WE GET. Thats just mediocre.

Later I understood why my former manager didn't care much about some site endorsing and guaranteing "PLAY IT SAFE" type of stuff...

IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN ORDER TO SUCCEED WHAT TALKS ABOUT YOU and not who says how you are doing things.

That is why there are so much good operations in Costa Rica (WE ARE ALSO FLOODED WITH BAD ONES). They have built a reputation and don't need no site to give them a seal for approval. Customers have learned that they run a good operation and are loyal to them by sticking to their policies and by investing efforts on improving their service and systems.

Examples of these type of operations which are not endorsed by no watchdog and have proven to provide a loyal and professional service from which they have built their reputation imho are:

Bodog Casino
Pokerstars
Any Mainstreet Vegas Group Casino (Slots.com, Twin Aces, Vegasonlinecasino.com, etc)
CRIS Sports
ultimatebet.com
sportsbook.com
(for mentioning some)

As I said before, no more comments from my person regarding eCogra.

For me, an operation like theirs should have a policy like the one Bryan took with Caruso. 1st strike, 2nd strike, 3rd strike..YOU ARE OUT OF HERE...

:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

Vesuvio

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Location
UK
jetset said:
And having established that if you still think there's a cap to be worn please go ahead and don it.
The "if the cap fits" line is the sort of cheap rhetorical trick that replaces responding to arguments and reduces debate on here to the level of the playground. It's a shame we can't make something like this required reading before posting:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
:)

Anyway, thanks for perhaps the most backhanded compliment I've ever received! I'll try to keep the "whingeing and banging on about bonus hunting" in check :rolleyes:
 

Linus

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Location
TX
caruso said:
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.

I've often wondered about this. Real casinos offer a lot of advantages virtuals can't match - free drinks, other players, pretty girls, entertainment... even someone to clean up after you if you spill your drink. :) Plus, if you're a high-roller, or even just a regular regular, they might comp you with a free room, or a show.

Internet casinos offer instant access, and bonuses, and that's about it. The instant access is a mixed blessing - at best - for problem gamblers. And some affiliates would like to eliminate bonuses altogether, if they could.

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.

The "Isaac" incident is an example of a player who was clearly in the wrong. But the incident reflected poorly on Noble, too, at least in my opinion.

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 :).

After seeing your site, I'd think your chances of ever making any money on it are small. :) $86 is $86 more than I thought you would have made.

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.

I'm not sure about that. Ultimately, the player resource on the net will be one that doesn't accept any money from casinos at all. The trick is going to be figuring out how to develop an income stream from such a thing. (Don't ask me, because I don't know.)

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.
 

bb1webs

Webmaster
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Location
BondedCasinos.com
my 2 cents: *please correct me if I've misunderstood something as I am sometimes apt to do.

I've not said anything one way or the other about eCOGRA up until now because like many others here; I feel it is more help than hurt.

Now before I further my opinion I'd like to note that one of my websites is listed on eCOGRA by my initiation because I know I belong on such a site. Also please note that I don't do SEO so the fact that 888 has in the past and continues to support "black hat" seo, has little or actually no impact on my situation, other than the black hat part of things is likely guilty of scraping my sites since I'd fail to see how i got missed and so many others have been plagiarized. If you've ever been plagiarized then I think you can understand that even when it doesn't hurt you; it still isn't right to see someone else getting rewarded for your hard work.

So I can't seem to get past the fact that eCOGRA has taken JF's seal, but not 888s.

integrity is something that either is there, or isn't. I don't feel it is a subjectionable concept. By that: I am saying that whether or not 888 has always treated players right (and I don't think they have - more on that in a minute), there still is a matter of how they choose to conduct the other areas of their business. Theft is theft. Anybody who's ever been victim of theft ... well I need say no more. Anybody who's been lucky enough to never have felt the violation ... I am happy for you but you know not of what you speak until you've played the part of the victim.

And 888 is at very least guilty of supporting thieves, if not is actually behind the scraping in the first place. Follow the money and you'll find your answers. The money is going into 888's pocket, bottom line.

Also there are 2 incidents where players had money stolen out of their accounts by hackers .. one at pacific poker and one at 888.com.

Now even if I can overlook the situation where the player at CON had all his money lost to the casino after it was hacked/stolen and CON chose not to return the player's money - and I understand to an extent why, but I think that since this was a first time this sort of thing has happened that it is pretty obvious the victim player was not in on some sort of conspiracy to con CON but rather just wants things to return to where they were before he got hacked and became a victim. However once again CON has turned a deaf ear. ... even if I can overlook that incident ...

the next one is unforgivable and i could never in good conscience list any property even remotely related to

where the poor guy was hacked and had half his money stolen so he went to the trouble to contact pacific and request his account be frozen to allow time to figure out what to be done ... and he comes back a while later only to find that the hacker had re-entered his account and proceeded to lose the remaining half of ...... I think it was around 3 or 4k. Pacific made no gesture to replace the second half of the player's money even though he'd contacted them and told of the situation, and requested the account be frozen. To me; you can stop right the moment that pacific said they'd not be reimbursing the second half of the money that was stolen. I mean if you can't trust the casino/poker room to be competent enough to do that simple task of freezing your account for you ... and then when they fail ... not to take responsibility is outrageous in my book. I'm still flabbergasted how that worked out.

so to give 888.com a seal of approval but to take it away from another program for what in my book is a lesser evil ... it just destroys everything eCOGRA is striving to be all in one felled sweep.

And crap I'd like to be able to say that eCOGRA rocks! that it is spot-on: seeing as how I have a site listed in their approved portal section (I guess that's what they call it).

But if I did; I'd be no better than what eCOGRA is doing by Turing a blind eye towards the actions of 888.

IMHO there must be a set of rules which are lined out before hand; and then they must apply to all involved. Yes there is of course situations that must be approached on a case by case basis but there are also situations where what's good for the goose MUST be good for the gander without exception if you want to have credibility amongst the community.

And I think we can all agree that eCOGRA is more help than hurt at this point but I fear things are only going to slide further down the slippery slope rather than not ... just as way back when SafeBet first hit the scene. Even after it became public knowledge they were in fact a product of the very casinos they were suppose to police ... there remained hope that they would be able to do the job for which they were supposedly created ... but it just didn't happen. Too much influence, too much riding on outcomes for it to have been able to be effective.

I sincerely feel that in eCOGRA's case; this has already begun the downhill slide with their decision to not remove 888's seal.

now before i go: please note that I am still holding outside hope that eCOGRA will come about and make 888 take responsibility for its unethical actions so I have not removed anything about ecogra, and probably won't do too much about them as long as I feel they are being ... more help than hurt.

This situation is much like many others on the net in this niche. The good things always seem to have some kind of a taint to them when you look closer but when compared to ... well for lack of better words, .... otherwise: that is a heck of a lot better than your next choice.
__________________
 
Last edited:

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Vesuvio said:
The "if the cap fits" line is the sort of cheap rhetorical trick that replaces responding to arguments and reduces debate on here to the level of the playground. It's a shame we can't make something like this required reading before posting:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
:)

Anyway, thanks for perhaps the most backhanded compliment I've ever received! I'll try to keep the "whingeing and banging on about bonus hunting" in check :rolleyes:

You're welcome, it would be a relief!

As for your other rather petty comment, overstating the case to make a debating point falls pretty much into the same category I would say.
 
Top