Elena777 vs VideoSlots

[Fiekie247]

So what would the final verdict be in this case? VS asked her to open a PAB so they can review again and provide information from their side during the PAB process?
The fact that she already concluded the MADRE route and they ruled in her favour, is that now being ignored? I am confused now...

Anyways I seriously hope they would find mutual ground and come to a mutual agreement and conclusion.

 

[Fiekie247]

Oh Just remembered she not from EU correct? Which means Madre is not applicable to this case spefically or would she still fall under that license of the MGA?

@Elena777 - Where you from again?

Just checked she is from Russia according to her profile.

 

[The Viking]

I can certainly understand that. Some of the "commentary" in here has been distinctly adolescent.

exacly if i were a newbie and came in here asking for help, then get 2 pages filled with jokes and no comment from rep i would run somewere else
thankfully i know you guys so if i need assist sometimes at least i know what to expect

 

[Fiekie247]

I guess the reason why the first 2 pages high jacked the thread because of inadequate information that was provided from the start maybe?

If we look at the Casumo SOW thread that's been pretty active on the forum, there are no jokes really in there and I guess because proper information/facts was given upfront/from the start for all of us to give our 2, however with this case we can assume many things and not much up for discussion since we do not know all the facts, but I understand it does not make it right since she is a newbie who asked for help...

 

[Borgie]

exacly if i were a newbie and came in here asking for help, then get 2 pages filled with jokes and no comment from rep i would run somewere else
thankfully i know you guys so if i need assist sometimes at least i know what to expect

exacly if i were a newbie and came in here asking for help, then get 2 pages filled with jokes and no comment from rep i would run somewere else
thankfully i know you guys so if i need assist sometimes at least i know what to expect

Many of us involved in that have apologised already

 

[The Viking]

Many of us involved in that have apologised already

i know

 

[Fiekie247]

Many of us involved in that have apologised already

Yeah I saw that.

I am just thinking now, what would the next step be for the OP?

CM's PAB?

 

[Borgie]

Yeah I saw that.

I am just thinking now, what would the next step be for the OP?

CM's PAB?

As she has reopened her case at AG I doubt that she will raise a PAB here

 

[Jono777]

The 'jokers' have taken the rap on the knuckles and moved on.......

No need to drag this point on and on.

Had no jokes been made then the rep would have been getting it in the neck 10x over, always an excuse for some...

Bottom line is without ALL the facts no members can accurately say if, and or but.....

 

[chiya]

The 'jokers' have taken the rap on the knuckles and moved on.......

No need to drag this point on and on.

Had no jokes been made then the rep would have been getting it in the neck 10x over, always an excuse for some...

Bottom line is without ALL the facts no members can accurately say if, and or but.....

But had no jokes been made, maybe OP wouldn't have moved to AG. As far as first impressions go, this was a terrible display.

And this wasn't the first nor last time. There are certain people who's only purpose on this forum seems to derail and joke in every thread. It's really tiring frankly.

Even though moderator team in any forum relies mostly on reports, having more mods wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[goatwack]

I'm seeing the reason why so many members are deserting this site altogether and it's not for the reasons mentioned.

I'll be first to admit in hindsight that silly and irrelevant 'contributions' were made to this thread, and it snowballed from there.

It has long been acknowledged and accepted......but what is genuinely laughable is certain members piping up with their agendas to seemingly get others reprimanded, nay banned, when their sole contributions amount to nothing more than bile whenever I see them 'comment', and wanting to police the forum.

Apart from the initial points that were all taken on board I can see some members positively foaming at the mouth to get their digs in

I will say that overall more 'hands-on' mods at all hours could have nipped this in the bud there and then. Something like "Guys, let's go easy with the joking and see what the OP needs', although you'll find in most cases, it's fairly self-regulated. To suggest that every thread is hijacked is just nonsense.

But please, anyone else that wants to come forward to have a pop please do so, I mean half the thread is just that eh

 

[Jono777]

Given the fact that the PAB is closed and the OP still has not posted, nor contacted Max lets not use this to belittle or constantly nag on at time served respected members etc

Yeah ok, I should not have joked, especially as mine was the first response, taken on board, eating humble pie, kissing feet etc etc etc

Geez, I am a quick learner and don't need reminding every 'x' posts, I get it!

FTR: In my time here, I have provided a LOT more genuine, honest, accurate and helpful advice etc than I have been in these somewhat over the top reaction, somewhat pathetic situations.

I will leave it there and work on my timing for future banter, whit and humour, just happy inside that I am capable of them

 

[goatwack]

Given the fact that the PAB is closed and the OP still has not posted, nor contacted Max lets not use this to belittle or constantly nag on at time served respected members etc

Yeah ok, I should not have joked, especially as mine was the first response, taken on board, eating humble pie, kissing feet etc etc etc

Geez, I am a quick learner and don't need reminding every 'x' posts, I get it!

FTR: In my time here, I have provided a LOT more genuine, honest, accurate and helpful advice etc than I have been in these somewhat over the top reaction, somewhat pathetic situations.

I will leave it there and work on my timing for future banter, whit and humour, just happy inside that I am capable of them

You don't even need to explain yourself as it was the posts that followed that caused the furore, and at the same time anyone that knows you is aware of the person you are and that you meant no malice.

But ultimately it doesn't matter, so I'd save your apologising time and time again. Because it will never be quite enough for those embittered enough to not give you the benefit of the doubt. Plus I'm not sure they can hear you from up there on their soapboxes

 

[bebo67]

I'm seeing the reason why so many members are deserting this site altogether and it's not for the reasons mentioned.

I'll be first to admit in hindsight that silly and irrelevant 'contributions' were made to this thread, and it snowballed from there.

It has long been acknowledged and accepted......but what is genuinely laughable is certain members piping up with their agendas to seemingly get others reprimanded, nay banned, when their sole contributions amount to nothing more than bile whenever I see them 'comment', and wanting to police the forum.

Apart from the initial points that were all taken on board I can see some members positively foaming at the mouth to get their digs in

I will say that overall more 'on-hands' mods at all hours could have nipped this in the bud there and then. Something like "Guys, let's go easy with the joking and see what the OP needs', although you'll find in most cases, it's fairly self-regulated. To suggest that every thread is hijacked is just nonsense.

But please, anyone else that wants to come forward to have a pop please do so, I mean half the thread is just that eh

I've kept my mouth shut so far! Lol.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Oh Just remembered she not from EU correct? Which means Madre is not applicable to this case spefically or would she still fall under that license of the MGA?

@Elena777 - Where you from again?

Just checked she is from Russia according to her profile.

That is the part I questioned right from the start. The T&Cs quote "Players from Malta and those playing under the MGA licence".

Who exactly plays under the MGA licence because initially the licence was needed to offer gaming services within the EU.

This is another grey area IMO, same as when 21BET was displaying the MGA seal but only NetEnt games were running under MGA and the rest had no licence but they were allowed to have the MGA seal on the site simply because they had one provider that was licensed by the MGA.

That changed in 2019 as the MGA is now requesting that a casino with an MGA licence can only offer games which are in itself licensed by the MGA.

But that still does not answer the question who exactly is playing under the MGA licence. Is it everyone else that does not fall under UKGC, DKK, Swedish Spelinspektionen and other licenses where countries issued their own, e.g. Italy, Spain or Romania? Or only all other EU countries and the ROW is basically playing with no licence?

 

[paul7388]

Hopefully the OP will return and do a PAB and then we can all find out what happened maybe. Noone has a clue as to why VS has not paid after the ruling so everything here is all speculation. But fact is they have asked the OP to do a PAB so must be willing to share info with Max but unless OP does the PAB we will be none the wiser to anything that has happened.

As for all the comments about infantile behaviour well i have kept out of it. But let's just blame it all on that damned bear and move on lol.

 

[maxd]

As it happens the folks at VS considered the PAB to NOT have been closed because they received nothing from the player to indicate that it was.
ADR rules in the EU are that the complainant is free to close their case at any time BUT they must communicate that wish to the ADR. This was never done, the complainant simply stopped responding. In that context I have been discussing this case with them (VS) for the past hour or so. I can say that:

• the ADR's decision in this case was apparently given without including evidence VS wanted to present. As such VS did not feel compelled to respect the decision that was given. FTR per the EU rules the ADR is _compelled_ to accept evidence presented by the parties to the dispute. It's not optional. In this I can understand VS's decision to set the ADR's ruling aside.
• as is sometimes the situation with cases of this type there is a good deal of information that cannot be made public because to do so would damage the casino's ability to protect their business. Suffice it to say that the case presented by the player here is woefully incomplete and misleading. As such I will be changing the title of this thread to something better representing the actual dispute.
• based on what I know at this time I would say the VS's action against this player is justified and I support their decision.

So, there it is. The bottom line is that the debate here has been based on a vacuum of relevant information. As much as I understand the desire to support an innocent player being mistreated I submit that there is much, much more to this story than that.

 

[Borgie]

As it happens the folks at VS considered the PAB to NOT have been closed because they received nothing from the player to indicate that it was.
ADR rules in the EU are that the complainant is free to close their case at any time BUT they must communicate that wish to the ADR. This was never done, the complainant simply stopped responding. In that context I have been discussing this case with them for the past hour or so. I can say that:

• the ADR's decision in this case was apparently given without including evidence VS wanted to present. As such VS did not feel compelled to respect the decision that was given. FTR per the EU rules the ADR is _compelled_ to accept evidence presented by the parties to the dispute. It's not optional. In this I can understand VS's decision to set the ADR's ruling aside.
• as is sometimes the situation with cases of this type there is a good deal of information that cannot be made public because to do so would damage the casino's ability to protect their business. Suffice it to say that the case presented by the player here is woefully incomplete and misleading. As such I will be changing the title of this thread to something better representing the actual dispute.
• based on what I know at this time I would say the VS's action against this player is justified and I support their decision.

So, there it is. The bottom line is that the debate here has been based on a vacuum of relevant information. As much as I understand the desire to support an innocent player being mistreated I submit that there is much, much more to this story than that.

So is there a timescale for both parties to submit information within? Who sets that timescale and what happens if one party doesnt provide the info necessary for the ADR to make an informed decision. Does the case get to be decided on the basis that one party didnt submit any evidence. The OP mentioned the case had been with the ADR for 2 months. This may or may not be true. If it were true is 2 months not long enough for evidence to be provided? Just curious really .

 

[Harry_BKK]

Thanks for the update @maxd

At last, pitchforks can go back into the basement folks! As in most cases, there is always more to the case than we get told by an OP.

@Borgie AFAIK, the max is 6 months to make a judgement.

 

[Borgie]

Thanks for the update @maxd

At last, pitchforks can go back into the basement folks! As in most cases, there is always more to the case than we get told by an OP.

@Borgie AFAIK, the max is 6 months to make a judgement.

So that ADR closed the case too soon

 

[Harry_BKK]

So that ADR closed the case too soon

Depends if he felt that he was in a position to make a judgement. It is up to the arbiter to make that decision but usually, they will always wait to hear from both sides.

 

[colinsunderland]

As it happens the folks at VS considered the PAB to NOT have been closed because they received nothing from the player to indicate that it was.
ADR rules in the EU are that the complainant is free to close their case at any time BUT they must communicate that wish to the ADR. This was never done, the complainant simply stopped responding. In that context I have been discussing this case with them for the past hour or so. I can say that:

• the ADR's decision in this case was apparently given without including evidence VS wanted to present. As such VS did not feel compelled to respect the decision that was given. FTR per the EU rules the ADR is _compelled_ to accept evidence presented by the parties to the dispute. It's not optional. In this I can understand VS's decision to set the ADR's ruling aside.
• as is sometimes the situation with cases of this type there is a good deal of information that cannot be made public because to do so would damage the casino's ability to protect their business. Suffice it to say that the case presented by the player here is woefully incomplete and misleading. As such I will be changing the title of this thread to something better representing the actual dispute.
• based on what I know at this time I would say the VS's action against this player is justified and I support their decision.

So, there it is. The bottom line is that the debate here has been based on a vacuum of relevant information. As much as I understand the desire to support an innocent player being mistreated I submit that there is much, much more to this story than that.

So did VS not supply the evidence or did they supply it and the ADR decide not to use it, as theres quite a big difference there.
If they did send it then surely the ADR considered it and ruled it not admissible for some reason, in they didn't send it, then why not? Why don't VS's challenge the decision if they sent evidence and it wasn't considered?

I still say, Videoslots terms are very clear. Under £5k the ruling is binding. It doesn't say 'unless we don't agree with it'. Whats the point of having terms and conditions if they aren't going to be followed.

 

[nikantw]

Thanks @maxd for the update.

I learned one or two things from this thread so it was definitely useful

 

[spiker1977]

I still say, Videoslots terms are very clear. Under £5k the ruling is binding. It doesn't say 'unless we don't agree with it'. Whats the point of having terms and conditions if they aren't going to be followed.

Casinos will follow the terms and conditions when they favor the casino not the other way ..

 

[maxd]

... Whats the point of having terms and conditions if they aren't going to be followed.

As I believe I've already stated, extenuating circumstances apply here. Based on the evidence available I'm satisfied VS has acted fairly and reasonably. But thanks for the reminder, the OP's status here at Casinomeister needs updating.