Elena777 vs VideoSlots

[goatwack]

One or two dimentional folk who can not deal with anything else easily.
That includes mods who are the first to dish out insults to anyone who dares to post anything that conflicts to what they are arguing and those who post rarely yet seem to make their objections appear to be the focus of the powers that be.
I love this site obviously because I still post in here.
But it's growth is stiffled by it moderation. Especially by those in the highest positions and their behaviour

I vowed not to further comment in this thr....

.......

.....

bugger

 

[geordiecolin]

PS. Just a one time very regular poster

 

[goatwack]

PS. Just a one time very regular poster

PS off you git

 

[geordiecolin]

PS. This has been a very serious thread as far as the OP is concerned and I wish to respect their continuing concerns in this thread. I suggest that you should respect that too

 

[goatwack]

PS. This has been a very serious thread as far as the OP is concerned and I wish to respect their continuing concerns in this thread. I suggest that you should respect that too

PS if you listen closely one can hear the clicky-clacking of furious keyboarders wanting to get this thread annulled.

I just wished I'd been of more help to the reddened OP, but I guess years of intuition and BS-detection probably led to subsequent reactions. Gut instinct eh, who'd have it

 

[lockinlove]

I have removed the word 'stole' from the title and replaced it with 'kept'. It's a more appropriate and less emotive word for the situation you describe. Thanks.

Next time try removing the entire first page or two of responses. What an absolute joke.

 

[samdog21]

Say all you want about vs they are truly the only casino that has paid me with no bullshit none.so I loyal and o withdrew a lot this year.

 

[Fiekie247]

Say all you want about vs they are truly the only casino that has paid me with no bullshit none.so I loyal and o withdrew a lot this year.

Congrats to you!

 

[ladyhawke]

I think Harry said earlier that there is a timeframe of 6 months for everyone to submit their evidence so it sounds like the ADR jumped the gun deciding on behalf of OP without it in a lot under 6 months

The OP indicated the complaint was ongoing for 4 months - under review for 2 months then 2 months later the ADR made the ruling, as VS did not respond. I would say under those circumstances, VS have proved to be their own worst enemy.

I have no love loss for VS, as everyone knows, BUT, if they were not able to provide evidence for what ever reason. Not enough time, or what ever, and the decision was made without their side, then I agree that they should not have to pay either. For them to come forward and say " submit a PAB", that allows for VS, to be able to tell their side of the story, and that is only fair. Clauses are there to protect both sides, not just the player, or the casino.

Sorry, I don't agree with this. Why should VS get carte blanche to ignore the requirement to provide whatever evidence is necessary, and then cry foul and go down another route to get the result they wanted, even though it appears as if they had at least 4 months in the first place to provide relevant information.

One or two dimentional folk who can not deal with anything else easily.

Whatever....but regarding this thread, I believe those 'one or two dimentional folk' were guilty of nothing more than trying to get a thread back on track.

Next time try removing the entire first page or two of responses. What an absolute joke.

Sounds as if you are trying to join me on the Humour Bypass Highway. Might get a little crowded.

 

[Jono777]

Yawn, stretch, sigh!

 

[Jono777]

lol, Just came online and see the same old. Maybe I got out the wrong side, who knows?

Point is there seems to be a criteria of being allowed membership here that every nth thread we have to spend 10 pages going around in circles.

 

[maxd]

Why should VS get carte blanche to ignore the requirement to provide whatever evidence is necessary, and then cry foul and go down another route to get the result they wanted, even though it appears as if they had at least 4 months in the first place to provide relevant information.

Sorry, there seems to be a major disconnect between what actually happened and what is being discussed here.

AFAIK VS wanted to submit a particular bit of evidence they felt was relevant to the case and the ADR would not admit that evidence.

For one that's not the ADR's choice to make. In the EU ADRs are expected to accept whatever evidence the parties in the dispute wish to submit. Whether they consider that evidence or not in making their decision is another matter. In the UK under the UKGC there are specific deviations from this -- certain types of evidence cannot be requested nor considered -- but we're not talking about a UK case here.

Two, the case began and concluded well within any applicable time limits so that's not relevant. I'm not sure how this whole "not submitted within the time limit" thing got started but AFAIK it's simply not applicable to the case at hand.

Finally, the evidence we're discussing was something I would have considered crucial to the issue at hand: with it the case strongly leans one way, without it the case could well go the other way. Pretty fundamental to a fair decision, IMO.

 

[paul7388]

Yawn, stretch, sigh!

You feeling tired today Jon. That 12 hours sleep not enough for you

 

[ladyhawke]

lol, Just came online and see the same old. Maybe I got out the wrong side, who knows?

Point is there seems to be a criteria of being allowed membership here that every nth thread we have to spend 10 pages going around in circles.

Just that the more anyone reads through the thread, the more confusing and contradictory some of the stuff that is being said appears. So of course, the temptation is to respond, rather than ignore....or as @goatwack didn't say when he was not going to comment any further....Oops! I did it again!.

Sorry, there seems to be a major disconnect between what actually happened and what is being discussed here.

AFAIK VS wanted to submit a particular bit of evidence they felt was relevant to the case and the ADR would not admit that evidence.

For one that's not the ADR's choice to make. In the EU ADRs are expected to accept whatever evidence the parties in the dispute wish to submit. Whether they consider that evidence or not in making their decision is another matter. In the UK under the UKGC there are specific deviations from this -- certain types of evidence cannot be requested nor considered -- but we're not talking about a UK case here.

As I mentioned above, this thread is full of contradictions. The OP said that VS did not respond to the ADR, but apparently VS wanted to submit something but the ADR refused? And even more confusing...The ADR didn't have to take into consideration evidence when making their decision, but it is not the ADR's choice to make as they have to accept any evidence submitted?

I really don't get this at all.

Two, the case began and concluded well within any applicable time limits so that's not relevant. I'm not sure how this whole "not submitted within the time limit" thing got started but AFAIK it's simply not applicable to the case at hand.

Mentioned somewhere in the thread that there was a 6 month window which the ADR had not honoured.

Finally, the evidence we're discussing was something I would have considered crucial to the issue at hand: with it the case strongly leans one way, without it the case could well go the other way. Pretty fundamental to a fair decision, IMO.

If true, then it sounds as if the ADR was biased, and perhaps should not be an ADR. However, if he was VS's approved ADR, then something is fundamentally wrong with the whole VS/ADR relationship. In a nutshell, something is rotten in the state of Denmark!

I am going to take my own advice and give this thread a miss. I don't need the grief.

 

[goatwack]

I'm completely at ease being name-dropped for what is now my favourite thread

 

[bebo67]

The OP indicated the complaint was ongoing for 4 months - under review for 2 months then 2 months later the ADR made the ruling, as VS did not respond. I would say under those circumstances, VS have proved to be their own worst enemy.



Sorry, I don't agree with this. Why should VS get carte blanche to ignore the requirement to provide whatever evidence is necessary, and then cry foul and go down another route to get the result they wanted, even though it appears as if they had at least 4 months in the first place to provide relevant information.


Whatever....but regarding this thread, I believe those 'one or two dimentional folk' were guilty of nothing more than trying to get a thread back on track.



Sounds as if you are trying to join me on the Humour Bypass Highway. Might get a little crowded.

I was not aware of the 4 month time span. I guess Max is only privy to what actually happened. Should we all trust that Max is doing is due diligence and not being bias? I would hope so. Otherwise no sense in sending him anymore PABS. In the end, if no one trusts VS, then be on your merry way and close your accounts. I have taken my argument outside the forum on Trustly. I trust Max, and will end it there.

 

[ladyhawke]

I was not aware of the 4 month time span. I guess Max is only privy to what actually happened. Should we all trust that Max is doing is due diligence and not being bias? I would hope so. Otherwise no sense in sending him anymore PABS. In the end, if no one trusts VS, then be on your merry way and close your accounts. I have taken my argument outside the forum on Trustly. I trust Max, and will end it there.

If only I had a VS account....

Also, the four month time span was mentioned in the OP's first post. I have no idea whether or not that is correct or not. And Yes, I do trust Max. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be challenged on some of his calls and rulings. Makes for a healthy forum.

 

[maxd]

FTR some of you may have missed the fact that I have updated the OP's status here at CM based on the evidence I have seen. To say the OP is an "unreliable witness" is putting it mildly.

 

[geordiecolin]

FTR some of you may have missed the fact that I have updated the OP's status here at CM based on the evidence I have seen. To say the OP is an "unreliable witness" is putting it mildly.

That may be the case but it does not take away from the fact that you treat both fools and intellects with the same degree of disdain if they dare to contradict your train of thought

 

[maxd]

That may be the case but it does not take away from the fact that you treat both fools and intellects with the same degree of disdain if they dare to contradict your train of thought

It seems to me that is a different conversation, no?
If you have concerns you are willing to elaborate on then feel free, but this particular thread is not the place.

 

[geordiecolin]

It seems to me that is a different conversation, no?
If you have concerns you are willing to elaborate on then feel free, but this particular thread is not the place.

I shall just finish by congratulating you on your bedside manner

 

[dionysus]

I actually had written out a long reply maybe, 2, 3 days ago (?) which saved as draft and ultimately deleted
came down to 2 things:
1. certain elements rubbed me raw
v
2. didnt have a horse in this race (not my circus, not my monkies)


so, my 2 (hardly worth) 2 cents are -
end of day I accept there's always things I'm not privvy too and therefore have to accept on the face of things
i balance that against what i do and do not know
the know won the day; i hold faith there's 'balance' here; take that for what it's worth

 

[nutnut]

Sorry this reminds me 100% of that decision when you sided with the casino through back end messages we didn't see THEN banned the poster before they could reply. If it wasn't for the likes of Colin and respected posters like Harry risking their forum status it would have been washed over just like you are trying with this thread Maxd, in the end after 99% of the forum turning on your decision only then did you relook at it.

I have no side in this story, the thread started might be a liar but right now you're asking us to just accept VS version of the story over a ADR decision? That doesn't sit for me.

You are a very defensive and aggressive person when your stance is challenged in a non aggressive way and the way you have spoke to Colin on this thread who I admit usually likes to throw a different opinion out 99% of the time but also at the same time he usually sticks his neck out when he rightly or wrongly disagrees but does it in a respectful if slightly obsessive way does not defend your style of replying back to him.

From a outsider we have another case of of a player being silenced, why always a instant ban on the poster AFTER your decision? Again goes back to my point about you not handling someone challenging your stance.

Anyway this is not my battle, but I feel the thread starter has been hard done by, if the Elena is a liar let her carry on posting and expose herself, if not let her try and challenge your theory. But for us to just accept she was in the wrong because they couldn't submit a single piece of evidence is frankly laughable.

 

[maxd]

"Frankly laughable"? Well, there's not much room for equivocation in that, eh?

I've said what I can about the case and I'm fairly confident I've treated the parties involved reasonably and with precedent. You obviously feel otherwise and you're welcome to it. Let's be clear though: you don't know bugger all about actual case details, yet you feel free to call my decision and the means by which I arrived at it "laughable". You're obviously happy with that so I'll leave you to it.

As to complainants getting banned after a decision is reached I can only offer two things:

• taking such action (where necessary) at any other time during a case -- before seeing the evidence for instance -- seems ill advised, at best.
• some complainants file a PAB because they feel they have been mistreated. Others may file a complaint because they feel they can use the complaints process as a weapon against the casino to get something they are not entitled to. Whether you acknowledge it or not we, and casinos, have to deal with a hell of a lot of the latter sort of cases and we do the best we can with it based on our experience. When you offer an arbitration service you'll be tasked with deciding your cases as you see best, as I am tasked with deciding mine. Good luck to us both.

 

[geordiecolin]

Sorry this reminds me 100% of that decision when you sided with the casino through back end messages we didn't see THEN banned the poster before they could reply. If it wasn't for the likes of Colin and respected posters like Harry risking their forum status it would have been washed over just like you are trying with this thread Maxd, in the end after 99% of the forum turning on your decision only then did you relook at it.

I have no side in this story, the thread started might be a liar but right now you're asking us to just accept VS version of the story over a ADR decision? That doesn't sit for me.

You are a very defensive and aggressive person when your stance is challenged in a non aggressive way and the way you have spoke to Colin on this thread who I admit usually likes to throw a different opinion out 99% of the time but also at the same time he usually sticks his neck out when he rightly or wrongly disagrees but does it in a respectful if slightly obsessive way does not defend your style of replying back to him.

From a outsider we have another case of of a player being silenced, why always a instant ban on the poster AFTER your decision? Again goes back to my point about you not handling someone challenging your stance.

Anyway this is not my battle, but I feel the thread starter has been hard done by, if the Elena is a liar let her carry on posting and expose herself, if not let her try and challenge your theory. But for us to just accept she was in the wrong because they couldn't submit a single piece of evidence is frankly laughable.

I am not challenging your post save to say that I suspect that videoslots integrity is not in any doubt in this matter