No need for the rude asides, here Caruso - please try to debate like an adult.
You are imo becoming quite obsessive about this issue, to the exclusion of reason and your accusations need to be brought into line with reality.
QUOTE Yes, posting the same facts about this fit-up "verification" job. While they remain valid, will continue to do same." UNQUOTE
So much for your assertion that your behaviour does not constitute "spoiling tactics" And we still await evidence that your "fit-up job" is a fair and accurate comment. I personally doubt that we will see much in that line from you beyond mere posturing. And you have already illustrated that that is about all you're prepared to do to improve things in the industry.
"Do you actually read anything I write, or do you just see I responded, post and hope for the best? I said "Good questioning from Draymann". Necessary translation for Jetset: "I thought it was conducted well."
Indeed I do Caruso, although it takes a great deal of patience and occasionally your sarcasm and subsequent back-offs as is the case here does make the subtext fascinating. My point is made - Max did a good job on the interview, and eCOGRA did not hold back in its answers, even regarding the stalemate on your TGTR hobby-horse.
QUOTE (Me) The information is private because it suits Ecogra that it be private...All we have is PWC doing what they always did - rubber stamping figures handed over by Microgaming and gleefully banking the bucks.
"What factual evidence can you produce that justifies such a statement?"
"Duuh, the fact that it's all done in private? UNQUOTE
The accusation of unethical conduct inherent in that statement is clearly intended. But again it is without foundation or fact. The fact that PwC as an independent contractor regards it's proprietary testing process as confidential does not in any way constitute evidence of this or your other irresponsible and totally unsubstantiated comments alleging that "there is no data, there is no process"
But then you seem to feel that there must be some data after all, because PwC are accused of simply rubber stamping it. You go on to top your previous outlandish accusations about eCOGRA, it's members and PwC by referring to their acceptance of a professional and proven outsourced test system as "...the corrupt endorsing the corrupt"
You continue to irresponsibly throw these ridiculous slurs around when there is nothing to support such unreasonable statements, and your implication that eCOGRA, the Seal casinos and PwC (and presumably Microgaming and CON too judging by the above) are corrupt and fraudulent are preposterous.
QUOTE Oh well, that's that sorted. The corrupt endorsing the corrupt. Must be true then. LOL. UNQUOTE
Doesn't cut it. Where is your proof of corruption and the detail thereof - the fact that an independent, outsourced and reputable testing group refuses to bow to your demands that it opens up it's proprietary technology?
But this is old and repetitive argument. There is a stalemate because PwC do not seem to have moved from their position, and your personal view that their refusal to do so invalidates the whole eCOGRA initiative and makes all involved corrupt is certainly not shared by everyone.
Yet you are personally striving, fortunately without too much success to destroy an honest and well structured effort to improve things for the player and the industry. You are not prepared to show the strength of your convictions in a constructive manner by gathering solid player support and trying to change the status quo.
I'm with JPM on this one - your analogy does not hold water and certainly does not clarify the existing situation.
Grandmaster.
QUOTE Ecogra could have insisted that the methodology be public, and if PwC did not like it, then maybe Ernst&Young or one of the other firms could have done it. Even Microsoft will allow governments to inspect the source code for its software, if it want to win contracts.UNQUOTE
We are not talking about government here - we are talking about a private initiative involving major industry companies with good records trying to bring some safety and order to an unregulated industry that spans international boundaries and clearly has problems.
I interpret the interview to convey the fact that eCOGRA's Board sees no reason to consider a replacement of their independent and outsourced service provider as you suggest because as an organisation they have trust and confidence in the specialised skills and integrity of PwC. You mention Ernst and Young in your post, and this similarly respected and independent international body serves C.O.N. where there was inevitably some interaction between these two respected names in the eCOGRA process.
QUOTE Game fairness is an issue on which ecogra made a mistake which cannot be rectified easily. Outcome based testing can never prove absolute fairness, only that the results are consistent with the games being fair, so it would be important to know what the tests measure and how thorough the they are. This is also something which does not lie in the traditional area of expertise of an accounting firm. UNQUOTE
In your opinion. I am not sufficiently expert in this field to argue your that here, and as I do not know what your field of expertise is I must respect your statement that "...Outcome based testing can never prove absolute fairness, only that the results are consistent with the games being fair..".
But that, I would suggest is what most of us are looking for?
eCOGRA has already said that it consulted widely with experts on the formulation of its eGAP, and its advisers felt that the TGTR method for assuring games fairness on an ongoing basis was the way to go.
I believe the point has been previously made that like other major international financial and business services groups, PwC's expertise is not confined to being simply "...an accounting firm"
However, you seem from your postings to have some special expertise in this area so perhaps we can move on from the deadlocked transparency issue and explore some of the areas that Caruso has previously left unanswered in the other thread on this issue.
What in your opinion is the main objective here - is it to provide reassurance that PwC's TGTR system is honest and provides an acceptable level of comfort for the player that the games being presented are fair, or do you have some other and higher benchmark in mind? If so, what is it and how can it be achieved and judged?
If outcomes based testing is not in your opinion the answer, what is? Are you recommending the traditional testing laboratories and do these have access to the source codes of the software companies whose products they are testing? How is the confidentiality issue of this critical proprietary company asset protected - by NDAs? Do you consider this to be sufficient protection?
Is the testing carried out on a "one-off and here's your certificate" basis, or is there ongoing monitoring, top-up inspections and supervision of every access to the software? How is that achieved?
What "fourth party" validation do these traditional outsourced testing laboratories provide ie who is testing the testers? Is another testing lab contracted and if so how is the danger of collusion avoided? If there is such validation does the laboratory being tested open up all of its testing and analytical processes to the testing laboratory? Again, how is confidentiality assured?
Do you accept that in online gambling there may be practical difficulties to implementing traditional test procedures used in the land casinos ie chip handling security and inspection? Access to the software is frequently necessary for a variety of legitimate reasons in the industry, I am informed - how can a validation/inspection/test system be applied so as not to cause delays but still enforce the required level of independent supervision?
Do you have suggestions on any other testing methodology that might provide the sort of result you think regulation should be aiming for?
Speaking hypothetically, if proof of widespread and significant player distrust in PwC's system was adduced, and PwC were to seek another layer of validation, how could this be achieved whilst still guaranteeing the confidentiality of their critical TGTR asset?
Is there an alternative to the open public inspection that Caruso demands, for example a mutually agreed and relevantly qualified and respected neutral person who's validation would be accepted by all parties?
__________________