<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="vinylweatherman" data-source="post: 449440"
class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">
<div class="bbCodeBlock-title">
<a href="/forums/goto/post?id=449440"
class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump"
rel="nofollow"
data-xf-click="attribution"
data-content-selector="#post-449440">vinylweatherman said:</a>
</div>
<div class="bbCodeBlock-content">
<div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent ">
It looks like Gambling Grumbles contacted iNetBet but received no reply, hence cast judgement based on only the players evidence. Gambling Grumbles also cast judgement on the other case being mentioned a fair bit here (AliceK) based on the evidence given to them by iNetBet as well as by the players. Bryan then said that iNetBet did not give Gambling Grumbles ALL the evidence that was given to him, and taking this additional evidence into account made the difference, with Bryan agreeing that the case was one of fraud.<br />
<br />
This case seems one of communications breakdown, followed by the player losing their winnings back due to frustration at the lack of progress.<br />
<br />
Apart from this case, it seems the problems with the email system at iNetBet are endemic, with many reports of players either not getting a reply at all, or them getting replies that bear no relation to the questions asked (i.e. a "cut & paste" rather than actually reading and understanding the email, and providing a well thought out reply tailored to the specific needs of the player).<br />
<br />
Since there is ONLY email available, these issues MUST be addressed, since players have no other way to chase up missing replies other than to send more emails in the hope that at least one gets replied to.<br />
<br />
Someone needs to dig around under the bonnet of the iNetBet email system and find out exactly what is happening with these emails that are sent, but never make it as far as the CS desk. They should also verify that all emails received by CS are properly logged and dealt with by a reply where necessary, including a confirmation of receipt as a matter of routine when documents have been received by CS and forwarded for approval.<br />
<br />
<br />
Almost all the recent complaints about iNetBet stem from communication problems, with these then creating a big issue over something that starts out being relatively minor.<br />
<br />
<br />
I find this comment about Gambling Grumbles rather telling:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It suggests that operators have little trust in them, and don't recognise them as a legitimate mediator as they do the likes of Max and Bryan's service here. This is unfortunate since Gambling Grumbles has a long history, and have inherited a "stellar" reputation from the days of Julie Sidwell that they are now trading on. This means that their "reports" carry considerable weight among a significant portion of online players, and no matter how dubious, have to be taken seriously by operators.<br />
<br />
Gambling Grumbles have come under fire here for their policy of promoting casinos such as the Virtual group, with it being suggested that they are prepared to take "blood money" from a group that pays well, but regularly screws over players. I suggested that it is this policy that has lead to operators losing trust in them, and being unwilling to cooperate as fully as they are with the PAB process here. This is demonstrated in the AliceK fraud ring, where iNetBet were not prepared to trust Gambling Grumbles with key evidence that showed what had been done, and how; evidence they trusted Max with when he processed AliceK's PAB, and found her to be part of a fraud ring.<br />
<br />
It would be better for operators to explicitly tell Gambling Grumbles that they are no longer prepared to share their evidence with them, rather than simply not replying. This is similar to the "no-can-do" list here, where operators have explicitly opted out of the PAB service, so that no-reply does not get interpreted as anything suspicious in a particular case.
</div>
<div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote><br />
VWM, I don't think that inetbet's response is indicative of the entire online community. I think most transparent casinos would at least tell GG what the charges are if you read through all of the complaints.<br />
<br />
inetbet is saying "mediator" and "report" in quotes not because they doubt their mediation per se but because nothing was mediated. Since inet did not respond they are saying there can be no mediation. GG didn't mediate that, they simply reported what happened. What happened was that they did not get a response. I would think this would be more than a day or two that they tried to get a response also. It seems to me upon reading the reports at GG that they help a large % of people get paid and they also are a good warning station as you can see casinos going down hill as they get more complaints lodged against them.<br />
<br />
The fact that GG refused to keep something secret doesnt make them less trustworthy in my book. It makes them more transparent which is badly needed in this industry.</div>