I'm truly shocked

[Simmo!]

I would never post on a site that put me on moderation. It is humiliating, and I don't believe any person with an ounce of self-respect would post under such terms.

I think the psychology behind forums is fascinating, especially how they can play such an important role in people's lives. And that can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. You see, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I can choose to be anonymous anyway and it's just a mesage board on the Internet at the end of the day. I enjoy interacting and discussing but I'd never really worry about how I was perceived by - with the greatest of respect - a load of people using fake names who I have never met and am never likely to LOL.

I agree it is easy to get sucked in though: I sometimes feel annoyed/angry/frustrated reading forums when actually, it really, really doesn't matter.

I also think the anonymity a forum makes people behave very differently online. Again, not always a bad thing, but it means they get braver because they perceive that they don't have to face any consequences. I bet if ChopleyIOM had met Bryan face-to-face he wouldn't have used those words. Although if he had, it may have come over better because F2F is far easier to convey the meaning of a message than in writing. You can smile and make light of a tough situation which in writing, is hard to do.

That's why I think you get more confrontational posts on forums and when you get an emotional topic like gambling then obviously the touchpaper is easier to light.

 

[visaria]

I have PMd Aaron, the Betfred rep here, asking about a refund of my losses from playing HiLo in 2008. I've not heard anything back.

Just PM'd him again.

 

[just play]

Please, let's not have more derails taking away from the real thrust of this new thread, which is the question of a cheating game...not the pros and cons of a post made in anger.

Has there been any news?

 

[thelawnet]

I think the psychology behind forums is fascinating, especially how they can play such an important role in people's lives. And that can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. You see, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I can choose to be anonymous anyway and it's just a mesage board on the Internet at the end of the day. I enjoy interacting and discussing but I'd never really worry about how I was perceived by - with the greatest of respect - a load of people using fake names who I have never met and am never likely to LOL.

Sure.

I agree it is easy to get sucked in though: I sometimes feel annoyed/angry/frustrated reading forums when actually, it really, really doesn't matter.

Exactly, that is why I would not continue to post at a forum that did that to me. It doesn't matter, so why should I demean myself on someone's online blather board?

 

[thelawnet]

I'm spluttering at this:

https://www.casinomeister.com/casino-awards/year-2012/

"Betfred did a doozie. They uploaded a help file for Reel Deal and HiLo Gambler which stated that the game had a 100% RTP, when in fact it was programmed for 96%. This meant that those who played were expecting an even odds game, but they received the opposite. It was discovered here in this thread which spiraled into a massive debate concerning the fairness of these games.

It's an ongoing issue - and it's addressing the competence and reliability of not only the casino's administration, but the licensing jurisdiction's as well. "

WTF???

Is this BS line still being promulgated?

This is not a fricking helpfile issue.

And I'm not sure that the issue is so much that they did it (and not in 2012 either), but the cluelessness of their response. Other casinos offered the same fed-up games, but only Betfred displayed such a no-clue-about-how-online-casinos-work response.

 

[Borgie]

I have PMd Aaron, the Betfred rep here, asking about a refund of my losses from playing HiLo in 2008. I've not heard anything back.

Just PM'd him again.

Now this is of concern if players have not been reimbursed.

 

[dunover]

I think the psychology behind forums is fascinating, especially how they can play such an important role in people's lives. And that can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. You see, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I can choose to be anonymous anyway and it's just a mesage board on the Internet at the end of the day. I enjoy interacting and discussing but I'd never really worry about how I was perceived by - with the greatest of respect - a load of people using fake names who I have never met and am never likely to LOL.

I agree it is easy to get sucked in though: I sometimes feel annoyed/angry/frustrated reading forums when actually, it really, really doesn't matter.

I also think the anonymity a forum makes people behave very differently online. Again, not always a bad thing, but it means they get braver because they perceive that they don't have to face any consequences. I bet if ChopleyIOM had met Bryan face-to-face he wouldn't have used those words. Although if he had, it may have come over better because F2F is far easier to convey the meaning of a message than in writing. You can smile and make light of a tough situation which in writing, is hard to do.

That's why I think you get more confrontational posts on forums and when you get an emotional topic like gambling then obviously the touchpaper is easier to light.

Yes, many valid points there indeed. I must add that it is not quite as black-and-white as you state. Yes, it is what it is, a forum posted to by people mostly using aliases. In the case of some however, including Chopley, they have vested many hours and much thought into adding their posts over a period of time so cumulatively have put a fair bit of work in. Vinyl for example. Then add all these up, and you have your forum. The forum is the sum of all it's contributors and although you guys have provided the land, we've built the house so to speak. A 'house' which gets in hits for it's much varied content, which brings traffic, gives people answers and ultimately earns the site extra commissions via that traffic. Good for all in other words. I can see both sides, you feel slighted by his words then he's made to stand outside the classroom like an errant schoolboy.
To summarize, in this instance it is quite unusual such an established member has used words that strong, but I say 'Before you pass sentence m'lud, let us bring the defendant's previous good character into consideration....'

 

[labeled]

I think the psychology behind forums is fascinating, especially how they can play such an important role in people's lives. And that can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. You see, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I can choose to be anonymous anyway and it's just a mesage board on the Internet at the end of the day. I enjoy interacting and discussing but I'd never really worry about how I was perceived by - with the greatest of respect - a load of people using fake names who I have never met and am never likely to LOL..

You'd kind of expect that to go both ways.

 

[maxd]

I would never post on a site that put me on moderation. It is humiliating, and I don't believe any person with an ounce of self-respect would post under such terms.

Fair enough, I reckon I'd say pretty much the same if asked. But just out of curiousity when was the last time you went on one of your regular sites and started posting along the same lines Chops did, that the site was toast and the site admins should curl up and die, not to mention the sarcasm etc. My guess would be "not recently" because you have a habit of conducting yourself very reasonably on the fora. And that's exactly the point: those who can behave reasonably and with a measure of respect are treated as such and would never, should never, be Moderated or any such thing. Only those who cannot or will not act responsibly get, or need, such treatment. And so it was in this case.

To repeat, there is a big difference between a messenger delivering a message you don't like and a messenger who shits on your doorstep while delivering that message. I think your average person would see the need to respond somewhat differently to those two visitors.

 

[Simmo!]

To summarize, in this instance it is quite unusual such an established member has used words that strong, but I say 'Before you pass sentence m'lud, let us bring the defendant's previous good character into consideration....'

Totally agree. Which is why - in my opinion at least - it was just a slap on the wrist. But obviously it can be interpreted in different ways. Hopefully chopleyIOM will see it like i do and return with gusto

You'd kind of expect that to go both ways.

I'm not quite sure what your point is to be honest labeled but if it's what I think it is then yes, absolutely. As I say above, people will interpret things in different ways and are entirely entitled to do so. That's exactly what the whole 'respect for other people's opinions' thing is all about.

 

[Casinomeister]

I'm spluttering at this:

https://www.casinomeister.com/casino-awards/year-2012/

"Betfred did a doozie. They uploaded a help file for Reel Deal and HiLo Gambler which stated that the game had a 100% RTP, when in fact it was programmed for 96%. This meant that those who played were expecting an even odds game, but they received the opposite. It was discovered here in this thread which spiraled into a massive debate concerning the fairness of these games.

It's an ongoing issue - and it's addressing the competence and reliability of not only the casino's administration, but the licensing jurisdiction's as well. "

WTF???...

Ongoing means ongoing. That Finsoft thread got ripped to shreds by the GRA. And so far, this is the only thing that the GRA has confirmed.

Over the next few days and into next week, I'll be picking the raisins out of that thread to make some sense out of it. Again, you are looking at one side of the coin - I'm obligated to look at both. I'll be meeting with people next week to get to the bottom of the issue. As you can see, I've been busy.

As for Chopley, his account has been fully reinstated. But I don't see it mattering much since he said he quit the forum.

 

[labeled]

I'm not quite sure what your point is to be honest labeled but if it's what I think it is then yes, absolutely. As I say above, people will interpret things in different ways and are entirely entitled to do so. That's exactly what the whole 'respect for other people's opinions' thing is all about.

Just that I feel this has been blown way out of proportion and to be blunt...man, this was what i redacted above, but... it made the incident seem to have more "teeth" than if it'd just been treated with "Dude, chill, I'm going to add an 'under investigation' note, and good catch.. but chill the heck out." It just looks bad. And as the saying goes, perception is reality.

I'm glad to see that Bryan's reinstated Chopley, whether or not he comes back.

eta: I hope that comes across the way it's meant - not confrontational, in the least.

 

[Jufo]

Casinomeister, Betfred's accredited page says:

Finsoft/Spielo Games - there was an issue posted here concerning the fairness of some of the games that Betfred (amongst others) were hosting on their site: specifically “Reel Deal” and “HiLo Gambler”. It turned out the RTPs listed on the games' help files were not correct. The files were replaced and affected players were reimbursed. This is an ongoing investigation. Results will be posted here.

We have a player here who has played an involved game in 2008 and said he/she hasn't been reimbursed. So you should probably correct the bolded statement above as long as it isn't true. Given that we have first-hand evidence of players still not being reimbursed, I would think that the majority of people here would say that putting Betfred back on the accredited is not okay at the moment.

 

[Casinomeister]

@ everyone.

My apologies if I've come across indifferent or distracted the past few weeks concerning this issue. I've been busy.

Betfred's accreditation has been suspended until further notice. I'll be meeting with them next week and I'll have an agenda for them to work on.

 

[thelawnet]

Fair enough, I reckon I'd say pretty much the same if asked. But just out of curiousity when was the last time you went on one of your regular sites and started posting along the same lines Chops did, that the site was toast and the site admins should curl up and die, not to mention the sarcasm etc. My guess would be "not recently" because you have a habit of conducting yourself very reasonably on the fora. And that's exactly the point: those who can behave reasonably and with a measure of respect are treated as such and would never, should never, be Moderated or any such thing. Only those who cannot or will not act responsibly get, or need, such treatment. And so it was in this case.

I'm not talking about anyone's behaviour, just pointing out that 'on moderation' is a de facto ban.

 

[thelawnet]

Ongoing means ongoing. That Finsoft thread got ripped to shreds by the GRA. And so far, this is the only thing that the GRA has confirmed.

I presume you are going to leave us guessing as to what 'ripped to shreds' means?

Over the next few days and into next week, I'll be picking the raisins out of that thread to make some sense out of it. Again, you are looking at one side of the coin - I'm obligated to look at both.

No, I don't think so.

You can (I wouldn't, personally) leave the issue of exactly how and why the game was 'goofed' open, saying something like 'The games Reel Deal and Hi Lo Gambler did not operate in the way players were entitled to expect.', but describing it is as a help file issue is definitely taking only one side of the coin.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

As I'm now able to post again without being moderated I'll chime back in here if I may.

1) I owe an apology to Bryan and the team here at Casinomeister. Whatever my frustrations at the time of posting there was no need to take a cheap shot like that. I do take issue with some of the retrospective 'garnishing' of my intentions/motivations, (stuff which most certainly wasn't going through my head when I posted), but the fact remains it was a shitty move to pull - and for that I apologise.

2) As for the (far more important!) issue of the gaffed games themselves, the jury is still 'sort of' out on that one as far as I'm concerned. Betfred have been back on and then off the accredited list two times since all this kicked off. Whilst I think Bryan is correct to pull them off the list again the fact they found their way back onto there is borderline unbelievable - because this whole thing hasn't been resolved by a long chalk.

I suppose (1) and (2) are linked. I have a very strong belief in fair play. I have no problem with casinos and gambling, as an honest transaction between casino and player. We pay our money, we take our chances, sometimes we win, sometimes we lose - over time we lose more than we win, but the idea is that along the way we get some entertainment and some thrills 'n spills.

The casinos don't have to do anything other than be competent and fair to make money, they're running random games with a built-in house edge, just be honest with us as to what the house edge is, be competent, don't cheat us, don't play dirty, and everyone's happy.

Betfred broke that golden rule. They didn't play fair and they were incompetent. And they admitted that they weren't playing fair.

Nothing, and absolutely nothing can erase the statement that Betfred made here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

And lest we forget Eliot Jacobson's response here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

Now that's not to say that Betfred should be cast into the pit of eternal peril or anything like that, but until that casino sorts out all their games from top to bottom (a proper and verified audit process), publicly demonstrates that they have reimbursed every last penny lost on the cheating games, and publicly states that they pledge to never, ever run a cheating game again (and they should also get their asses well and truly kicked by their regulator) - they shouldn't get within a million miles of anyone's recommended list, let alone the Casinomeister Accredited List, in my humble opinion.

So when I saw Betfred back on the accredited list with the dreadful 'help file explanation', yes, I was very disappointed, and my original post to this thread was a reflection of that disappointment. Not anger or rage or wanting to 'smash the place up' or 'discrediting the site' or whatever else it is I've been accused of.

Now it may well be that the whole truth is still to come out, maybe it'll be so compelling and game-changing that we all just stand back and say 'Woah, I wasn't expecting that, it looks like Betfred are in the clear after all', maybe, maybe not.

However, in the interim, we the players, we the viewing public, can only see what is on display in the public domain, and make our judgements based on that. This constant drip-drip of 'there is more to this story' and 'you don't know what we know', whilst Betfred slip back onto the accredited list again, just looks strange, at best.

Anyway, essay ends I'll get back to my normal CM posting routines and repeat my apology to Bryan for the uncouth nature of the opening post of this thread.

 

[aceking123]

welcome back choppers .

 

[maxd]

... just pointing out that 'on moderation' is a de facto ban.

In. Your. Opinion. In fact it isn't -- person can still post, access the forums, use the PM system, be fully reinstated as has just happened -- but I can understand how some would take it that way, obviously including you. Chopley didn't take it as a ban (at first) because he posted and I cleared it. Same has been true for many, many others over the years. I'll keep in mind that you would take it that way should the situation ever arise, which I seriously doubt.

/end derail.

 

[thelawnet]

In. Your. Opinion.

Well yes. It was my post.

I'm just pointing out that moderation activities are likely to be construed negatively by those affected.

 

[dionysus]

Well yes. It was my post.

I'm just pointing out that moderation activities are likely to be construed negatively by those affected.

Isn't that rather the point? It isn't put in place as a reward system.

 

[Simmo!]

welcome back choppers .

Glad you came back in Chopley. I like having you around too

Isn't that rather the point? It isn't put in place as a reward system.

LOL. That did make me laugh. I feel I ought to put you in moderation as a thankyou

The Finsoft issue is a big issue, we all know that. Some people hate waiting, some can't, some have stuff they need to get off their chests but until everything is clear, what is the point of bashing around accountability isues? It will all come out at the end - it always does - and the right actions will be taken I'm sure. If nothing else, everyone should have enough info to form their own opinions.

You can't take actions without all the information or you end up chopping and changing your mind and far more people would lose their respect for CM than the few who think the blame-game should start now. In. My. Opinion.

 

[thelawnet]

Isn't that rather the point? It isn't put in place as a reward system.

As I personally perceive it the purpose of moderation is to maintain the quality of a web forum rather than some sort kindergarten-style naughty step.

If a particular poster is a negative presence overall then you would want to get rid of them, and if they are a positive presence then you wouldn't, but you might delete any negative posts.

But obviously there are different perspectives on this issue.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

In. Your. Opinion. In fact it isn't -- person can still post, access the forums, use the PM system, be fully reinstated as has just happened -- but I can understand how some would take it that way, obviously including you. Chopley didn't take it as a ban (at first) because he posted and I cleared it. Same has been true for many, many others over the years. I'll keep in mind that you would take it that way should the situation ever arise, which I seriously doubt.

/end derail.

I should just note for the record max that I was put onto the moderated users list whilst I was typing the post you linked to earlier, as such I wasn't aware I was moderated when I started writing the post, I only found out I was moderated when I submitted it, at which point there was no option to 'recall' it or suchlike.

I personally do feel that it's a de facto ban which is why I haven't submitted any posts since Sunday, and only posted again when I was taken off the moderated users list.

 

[Nifty29]

I'm not talking about anyone's behaviour, just pointing out that 'on moderation' is a de facto ban.

I speak from experience here when I say that being placed in the moderated group is actually an acknowledgement of one's previous contributions, as it usually occurs as a consequence of post/s that, under normal circumstances, would attract a suspension/ban.

In other words, had it not been someone like Chopley Spinach, who has been a valuable contributor, it is quite possible that we wouldn't be seeing them again.

I've been moderated before, and it initially pissed me off like it did Chops, but at the end of the day, I deserved it and it gave me a few days to think about my attitudes and behaviour. I've also been suspended (mng time ago), and that pissed me off far more than being moderated.

It doesn't matter if one is a newb or an old hand. We should all be held to the same standards. The only thing longevity should entitle one to is perhaps a little more slack, and I believe in Chopleys case, that's exactly what he was given.