inetbet Nightmare

[vinylweatherman]

When I roughed out the chronology perhaps I was being overly brief. I wanted it short and sweet so may have given the wrong impression.

What the "Casino to OP" email of Tuesday September 20 2011 actually said was:


From this I would not conclude that they received the email successfully. I would have inquired further before coming to such a conclusion.

Please note that at no time did the OP say "you want what? that's outrageous!". In fact no complaints whatsoever, other than allegedly sending things that were not received and/or acknowledged. This bumf about "bizarre requests", etc is editorializing long after the fact.

Update: the OP has provided comments (via email) on the chronology. I've asked for permission to post those here.



Please consider the possibility that the rest of us didn't find this entertaining, or even appropriate.

What I can't grasp is how they can know that an email is a certain size if they didn't actually receive it somewhere within their system. If they didn't have software good enough to handle the file, they should have GOT some, not placed the burden on the customer, who has no control over the verification process.

Who's responsibilty is it when my PC fails to run a piece of casino software that adheres to accepted standards. It is MINE. I am responsible for upgrading, or obtaining a PC capable of running the software. I should not expect that the casino will write a bespoke version of the software because, for example, my PC still runs Windows 98SE.

The similarity is that iNetBet appear to have the "Windows 98" equivalent of file handling systems. Fine back in the day when cameras were lucky to exceed 2 Mpixels, but hopeless with todays technology where even cheap phones come with 5 Mpixel cameras or more. Given that they ask for several documents, they should expect several attachments to arrive in reply to the request, and should have software capable of handling this type of correspondence from the customer.

They really should NOT be asking players to effectively "photoshop" their raw files in order to reduce their native size. Players have no idea what is deemed important, and what can be trimmed off. This then leads to problems when they trim off the wrong bit. I once was asked to resend a file I had trimmed in order to get the size down, and I had done nothing more than trimmed off blank areas, rather than reduce the resolution of the text. They were happy with the LARGER file created by trimming less off, but who on earth would expect blank areas to be considered "important", given that we are always being urged to ensure our files are as small as possible.

Sending files in separate emails seems to be the preferred solution, but this then creates situations where one or more of the individual emails goes missing, and only some of the documents end up being forwarded to the security team. This partly seems to be down to the fact that despite asking for separate emails, CS assume that everything the player is going to send is contained in the first one or two emails, which they forward to security, but then forget about processing additional emails, which means security never receive the rest of the files, and ask for them to be resent. This can look as though the files are being handled insecurely, and repeatedly being "lost" internally between departments. It is no wonder therefore that players often mistrust the verification process because it appears to be handled in such a cavalier manner by support staff given the sensitive nature of the documents involved.

This problem has been around for years, and so have the complaints, yet there has been virtually no progress towards a better managed and more secure system.

iNetBet are going to have a hard time convincing me that there is no readily available method for handling JPEG files of around 2.5 Mb a piece. I can do this on my old Windows 98 PC.

I should perhaps set up a few experiments to determine whether files of this size should have caused any problems, and if so, how hard they were to solve.

 

[macster]

An e-mail issue? This beggars belief. A time-wasting tactic? More likely. Once again, as someone new to online casinos, looking at their issues, I see very easy solutions. So why still an issue?

Saying that, the OP should accept responsibility for playing on (and hence balance decreased). After all, apparently, iNet would have paid out after sorting the (joke-of-an-excuse) e-mail issue. It's not like they held back funds and winnings of subsequent deposits (that did not invoke bonuses).

 

[LaHutti]

It sounds to me, like this casino is a perfect example of a place, where I would NOT want to send any personal info, based on their handling of e-mails in general.

derail ?
What I would really like to see, is for the software providers to take some responsibillity in this whole document cirkus, and I do have a few ideas, as to how it could be handled smoothly, and a hell of a lot safer, than it's being handled today.
As it is now, my personal information is floating around in, I don't even know how many places, because hundreds of casinos....not all of the purest breed, ask me to send it to them, and I really have no idea, how all of these places handle my personal info. Some of this info, can be used for identity theft, or to clean out my bank account, or my credit card for me, if someone with not so good intentions get a hold of it.
So therefore MG, RTG, PLAYTECH, and all you "big" software providers...(I'll use MG as example for the rest of this post, but it goes for all software providers) make a centralised register at MG so that I can send my documents to you, preferably uploaded through the casino software on a safe line, on my first attempt to make an account in any MG casino, provide me with a personal digital "key", so we make sure, that I'm me, and have the right to make new accounts in my name, at other MG casinos (something like the netbanking software security, where you need a personal "key" on your computer, to get access), and YOU will be responsible for keeping my info/documents safe, and let every single MG casino, that I sign up to know, that I provided my ID to you, and I'm "good to go" (check register, and my personal digital "key", and approve my attempt to make an account, if I excist in the register, OR ask me to provide my documents, if I don't excist in the register, and don't have a digital 'key" on my computer, already). Should there later be a problem in any MG casino, MG will have all relevant information stored, and NOT 100 different casinos. Register my ID in this register, BEFORE I can even be allowed to make my first DEPOSIT, not withdrawal, in ANY MG casino, and I, as a customer, will only have to do this ONCE. What a great service, and so easy, eh ?
No bullshit excuses from any casino about documents any more...
No confusion about the whereabouts of my personal info...
No shitty handling of e-mails containing my personal info...
All in all, that would make me a happier man.
/possible derail

 

[vinylweatherman]

An e-mail issue? This beggars belief. A time-wasting tactic? More likely. Once again, as someone new to online casinos, looking at their issues, I see very easy solutions. So why still an issue?

Saying that, the OP should accept responsibility for playing on (and hence balance decreased). After all, apparently, iNet would have paid out after sorting the (joke-of-an-excuse) e-mail issue. It's not like they held back funds and winnings of subsequent deposits (that did not invoke bonuses).

Yet, according to all the testimony, this really does seem like a communications issue, rather than a deliberate attempt to screw over players. It seems unbelievable from our point of view because they, as a BUSINESS, are technologically LESS able than us mere users with our CONSUMER technology, and "non critical" consumer internet and email services.

There was a discussion in the Virgin Media support forum where someone complained that their service was so poor that it impacted on their business run from home. The rep for Virgin Media said that if they wanted a more reliable service they should get a "business package", as a "consumer" package was not considered "mission critical".

I would expect all casinos to have the "business" packages of whatever services they are using, and would have "mission critical" levels of support, reliabilty, and functionality. Such a "business" setup should NOT be having all these problems of "lost" emails, inabilty to handle a wide range of email content and formats coming from customers. The setup should also have a proper arrangement for logging, tracking, and distributing communications between the different departments. There should NOT be such a high incidence of emails "disappearing in the works", or of conversation chains being broken up such that it is impossible for anyone dealing with the case to get a proper overview of the whole.

If a business DID suffer problems from third party suppliers of email and internet, they would seek to find an alternative supplier, and would ensure that appropriate penalty clauses exist to discourage poor performance.

 

[Nifty29]

What I can't grasp is how they can know that an email is a certain size if they didn't actually receive it somewhere within their system. If they didn't have software good enough to handle the file, they should have GOT some, not placed the burden on the customer, who has no control over the verification process.

Who's responsibilty is it when my PC fails to run a piece of casino software that adheres to accepted standards. It is MINE. I am responsible for upgrading, or obtaining a PC capable of running the software. I should not expect that the casino will write a bespoke version of the software because, for example, my PC still runs Windows 98SE.

The similarity is that iNetBet appear to have the "Windows 98" equivalent of file handling systems. Fine back in the day when cameras were lucky to exceed 2 Mpixels, but hopeless with todays technology where even cheap phones come with 5 Mpixel cameras or more. Given that they ask for several documents, they should expect several attachments to arrive in reply to the request, and should have software capable of handling this type of correspondence from the customer.

They really should NOT be asking players to effectively "photoshop" their raw files in order to reduce their native size. Players have no idea what is deemed important, and what can be trimmed off. This then leads to problems when they trim off the wrong bit. I once was asked to resend a file I had trimmed in order to get the size down, and I had done nothing more than trimmed off blank areas, rather than reduce the resolution of the text. They were happy with the LARGER file created by trimming less off, but who on earth would expect blank areas to be considered "important", given that we are always being urged to ensure our files are as small as possible.

Sending files in separate emails seems to be the preferred solution, but this then creates situations where one or more of the individual emails goes missing, and only some of the documents end up being forwarded to the security team. This partly seems to be down to the fact that despite asking for separate emails, CS assume that everything the player is going to send is contained in the first one or two emails, which they forward to security, but then forget about processing additional emails, which means security never receive the rest of the files, and ask for them to be resent. This can look as though the files are being handled insecurely, and repeatedly being "lost" internally between departments. It is no wonder therefore that players often mistrust the verification process because it appears to be handled in such a cavalier manner by support staff given the sensitive nature of the documents involved.

This problem has been around for years, and so have the complaints, yet there has been virtually no progress towards a better managed and more secure system.

iNetBet are going to have a hard time convincing me that there is no readily available method for handling JPEG files of around 2.5 Mb a piece. I can do this on my old Windows 98 PC.

I should perhaps set up a few experiments to determine whether files of this size should have caused any problems, and if so, how hard they were to solve.

The OPs issue has very little to do with email sizes.....the fact is that the casino CANNOT ACCESS the attachments on emails over a certain size, hence they asked the OP to resend.

The discussion about the casino getting better software etc is a side issue....the OP failed to successfully resend and made no effort to follow up because they were continuing to play and win. Anyhow, why should the casino invest in more software just because one person can't send docs in a reasonable format. Anyone who has used email for a while knows big files cause problems almost always.

The casino could not access the attachments. Hence, you were incorrect in your assumptions. Why continue to invent reasons to not be wrong, and just admit you made an error. We can't all be right all the time mate....given you post a lot and make a lot of assumptions it would be nice to see you be humble and admit you got it wrong occasionally (its not a personal attack btw I just think you are being unreasonable)

 

[secret2]

I had an issue arise when I requested my last withdrawal from them a few months ago. It was my first wire and they wanted a fresh set of docs. Understandable; my previous ones were outdated, and I had never used this withdrawal method before. Three days after submitting the withdrawal request, I had heard nothing from them, so I sent them an email asking what was up. They told me that they had sent "repeated requests" for documentation, none of which I had received.

So I spoke with Emily who told me that they were having issues with some Web-based email providers and suggested that I provide another kind of email address. So, I provided her with the one I got from my ISP, sent in the docs, and smooth sailing from there.

My only complaint was that I wish the back-and-forth emailing could simply be done more efficiently; I continue to only be able to enter into correspondence once a day.

Ahh,ok maybe the free email accounts such as 'Yahoo'...maybe that is why for me.

 

[maxd]

FWIW, most of my email accounts are limited to 5mb attachments. This is done to avoid having my emailer locked up by someone sending ridiculously huge attachments as has been done in the past. I don't want 100mb of crap no matter what it is, and assuming I do is rude and inconsiderate. Whether this is done innocently or not is irrelevant IMO, the end result is a locked up emailer and that's not something I want or appreciate. I can well imagine casino support being in a similar situation.

If someone tries to send something too big I simply get a "failed to receive" message and the thing gets tossed. This is typically configurable via ones email server or even the virus scanner you use.

 

[gaydave]

The OPs issue has very little to do with email sizes.....the fact is that the casino CANNOT ACCESS the attachments on emails over a certain size, hence they asked the OP to resend.

The discussion about the casino getting better software etc is a side issue....the OP failed to successfully resend and made no effort to follow up because they were continuing to play and win. Anyhow, why should the casino invest in more software just because one person can't send docs in a reasonable format. Anyone who has used email for a while knows big files cause problems almost always.

Let's be reasonable. Let's not fight but let's state some facts.
Apparently the OP did make an effort in different emails. You must know this if you have been reading the thread and are choosing to assume that it is a lie from the OP rather than waiting to find out like the rest of us. Further, your words are attempting to throw the OP under the bus. I wish you would not do that to fellow members before you have all the facts and have them straight. The OP states he/she did keep attempting to follow up to no response. The OP claims to have sent multiple times his/her documents.

Also, if it is not a matter of inet receiving emails but rather of them opening it then
A) how did they open the original email and its attachments?
B) why did they not follow up back with the OP telling him/her each time they sent single attachments that they still could not open even a single attachment and even though it was well below the size max.?
C) It is pretty clear that others have had the same issue in the past as it keeps getting reported.

 

[nonif]

Let's be reasonable. Let's not fight but let's state some facts.
Apparently the OP did make an effort in different emails. You must know this if you have been reading the thread and are choosing to assume that it is a lie from the OP rather than waiting to find out like the rest of us. Further, your words are attempting to throw the OP under the bus. I wish you would not do that to fellow members before you have all the facts and have them straight. The OP states he/she did keep attempting to follow up to no response. The OP claims to have sent multiple times his/her documents.

Also, if it is not a matter of inet receiving emails but rather of them opening it then
A) how did they open the original email and its attachments?
B) why did they not follow up back with the OP telling him/her each time they sent single attachments that they still could not open even a single attachment and even though it was well below the size max.?
C) It is pretty clear that others have had the same issue in the past as it keeps getting reported.




that's exactly the way i see it.

 

[Nifty29]

Let's be reasonable. Let's not fight but let's state some facts.
Apparently the OP did make an effort in different emails. You must know this if you have been reading the thread and are choosing to assume that it is a lie from the OP rather than waiting to find out like the rest of us. Further, your words are attempting to throw the OP under the bus. I wish you would not do that to fellow members before you have all the facts and have them straight. The OP states he/she did keep attempting to follow up to no response. The OP claims to have sent multiple times his/her documents.

Also, if it is not a matter of inet receiving emails but rather of them opening it then
A) how did they open the original email and its attachments?
B) why did they not follow up back with the OP telling him/her each time they sent single attachments that they still could not open even a single attachment and even though it was well below the size max.?
C) It is pretty clear that others have had the same issue in the past as it keeps getting reported.

The 10mb+ email ARRIVED but the attachments were blocked.

The other 4 emails with single attachments that the OP claims to have sent DID NOT ARRIVE AT ALL. How can the casino respond to an email it doesn't receive in the first place. The OP needs to check with his ISP who can tell him what happened.

Either way, after inet asked for the docs to be resent in smaller format, the whole attachment blocking issue became irrelevant because there was nothing to BLOCK because they didn't get the email.

I could imagine its possible for the casino to miss or overlook one email - nobody's perfect - but FOUR? Are you really insinuating that they totally ignored all four emails just to delay his payment? I don't see any other way it could be the casinos fault....and that is a very serious accusation which I hope you have some evidence to back (apart from the op saying "I sent them")

Don't forget, the OP waited nine days to even begin using other means e.g Emily to find out what was happening. If I didn't have an answer in 24-48 hrs I would be PMing the rep here because a reasonable person would KNOW something wasn't right. Of course, if i was winning more in the meantime I might not bother.......

 

[macster]

Yet, according to all the testimony, this really does seem like a communications issue, rather than a deliberate attempt to screw over players. It seems unbelievable from our point of view because they, as a BUSINESS, are technologically LESS able than us mere users with our CONSUMER technology, and "non critical" consumer internet and email services.

There was a discussion in the Virgin Media support forum where someone complained that their service was so poor that it impacted on their business run from home. The rep for Virgin Media said that if they wanted a more reliable service they should get a "business package", as a "consumer" package was not considered "mission critical".

I would expect all casinos to have the "business" packages of whatever services they are using, and would have "mission critical" levels of support, reliabilty, and functionality. Such a "business" setup should NOT be having all these problems of "lost" emails, inabilty to handle a wide range of email content and formats coming from customers. The setup should also have a proper arrangement for logging, tracking, and distributing communications between the different departments. There should NOT be such a high incidence of emails "disappearing in the works", or of conversation chains being broken up such that it is impossible for anyone dealing with the case to get a proper overview of the whole.

If a business DID suffer problems from third party suppliers of email and internet, they would seek to find an alternative supplier, and would ensure that appropriate penalty clauses exist to discourage poor performance.

Of course it's unbelievable. It's a joke.

1). It goes beyond "business package". Let's consider the UK. Providers like Virgin Media, BT, Exponential-e and the likes offers an enterprise (not home) Internet package. But a gaming provider like iNet needs waaaayyyyy more. Is iNet a big and well-known operator? Let's say they have a million customers worldwide (small number) and 10% of customers (100k) logged on onto iNet's software at any one time. This means, they have to handle 100k simultaneous TCP sessions. I am sure they have tens of millions of customers and a greater number of concurrent connections. What they must have is the main INet platform hosted on a data centre somewhere. A lot more technical bits to this, but let's just say that it goes beyond "business package". For a business like iNet to say that "they can't access e-mails...", that's a joke.

2). From posts below, I see that this e-mail issue is an outstanding one, which iNet have done nothing about. Firstly, this is really bad Customer Service. Secondly, since this is the only means for iNet to do ID verification (well, it sounds like the only way, sorry if not, but then why doesn't iNet promote an alternative way to solve ID verification), it's so clearly a delaying tactic - no more, no less. If ID verification is needed for withdrawals and iNet can't be bothered to improve this process, well, then it's self-explanatory.

3). My only experience so far is with InterCasino. I don't have such a problem. I registered an account, then registered a debit card. I am beginning to realise that Intercasino might actually be one of the better gaming outfits. Why is this not an issue with some gaming operators, but an issue with others (especially when it involves withdrawals)? Anyway, reading about all these issues on Casino Meister, how can anyone convince me now that patronising online casinos is a smart and safe thing to do? All I can say is that new players will definitely be put off. Even if I decide to given this a 2nd chance, do you think I'll even consider iNet?

4). From one of posts below, someone makes a great point about "security keys" and something new I learned, that there are a few big gaming platform vendors who sell these platforms to online casino operators. As mentioned earlier, this industry needs structural changes. Given that identity fraud is such a big problem, in no way will I give out personal ID documents to all and sundry. These online casinos can make use of credit/fraud agencies like Experian. Hmmm... for non-UK players where there isn't any Experian equivalent? Ask for ID from the outset!

Much more to say, but I'll stop here.

 

[jod5413]

Sorry for the derail....

Hey Macster,

Do you think you could leave a space between your paragraphs? It is impossible to read for this old broad without getting dizzy. Also, it is a bit presumptuous to make statements like "Of course it's unbelievable. It's a joke." when you have not taken the time to actually read the facts in the entire thread, rather than the speculations and general bashing of iNetBet that is going on. IMO only, of course.

Thank You.

end of derail...

 

[macster]

Sorry for the derail....

Also, it is a bit presumptuous to make statements like "Of course it's unbelievable. It's a joke."

end of derail...

Why do you say it's presumptuous?

I have actually read this thread. Indeed, I am new and trying to find out more, but I've come across so many issues.

It's not really "presumptuous". It is most definitely a joke.

If any company tells me:

1). That one of their major processes (in this case, withdrawal) fails regularly.

2). Despite it failing regularly, they don't have an alternative approach. In this case and as mentioned in my earlier above, yes, I assume they don't have an alternative to the e-mail handling of ID verification. If they do, I'm sorry, but then why don't they promote this? And why so many complaints of the same issue?

3). Does nothing about it, then it's both unbelievable and a joke. It's like doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. Einstein called this insanity - lol!.

Saying that, there may be a (not-so-flattering) reason for this.....

So yes, I have read this thread. Given suggestions as asked by Casinomeister. Realised that it's not an isolated case. If you think it's "iNet bashing", a translated saying goes, "The one who east the chilli, he/she will feel its hotness/spiciness.

 

[maxd]

An e-mail issue? This beggars belief. ....

How much experience do you actually have with this? Does your job depend on 100s of emails a day, with and without attachments? Perhaps not, understandably so, but it may be that your limited experience with these things is also limiting your understanding of the problem.

Over the course of the 1500-ish PAB issues I've handled I've sent something close to 100,000 emails. A non-trivial number of those cases involved exactly this "lost email(s)" issue, at a variety of casinos and/or PAB complainants. The bottom line is that email based communications, especially those including large attachments, is not a 100% reliable means of getting the job done. Far from it!

With PAB stuff I've had to go so far as to make a habit of saying "if you haven't replied please do, if you have please resend" because of all the emails that get lost, over-looked, spam-filed, whatever. It's routine, happens far more often than you'd reasonably expect, especially if someone is using the popular freebie services like Yahoo, Hotmail or AOL.

Email is cheap and easy but it's only moderately reliable. That's just a fact of life in the internet world. Large attachments only exacerbate the problems, many times over as it happens.

 

[Nifty29]

Why do you say it's presumptuous?

I have actually read this thread. Indeed, I am new and trying to find out more, but I've come across so many issues.

It's not really "presumptuous". It is most definitely a joke.

If any company tells me:

1). That one of their major processes (in this case, withdrawal) fails regularly.

2). Despite it failing regularly, they don't have an alternative approach. In this case and as mentioned in my earlier above, yes, I assume they don't have an alternative to the e-mail handling of ID verification. If they do, I'm sorry, but then why don't they promote this? And why so many complaints of the same issue?

3). Does nothing about it, then it's both unbelievable and a joke. It's like doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. Einstein called this insanity - lol!.

Saying that, there may be a (not-so-flattering) reason for this.....

So yes, I have read this thread. Given suggestions as asked by Casinomeister. Realised that it's not an isolated case. If you think it's "iNet bashing", a translated saying goes, "The one who east the chilli, he/she will feel its hotness/spiciness.

Where do you get the part about "withdrawals failing regularly" from?

iNetbet are known for having one of the fastest and most reliable withdrawals online.....I think maybe you should gain a bit more experience, and stop taking the word of the people in this thread with personal beefs against this casino, before you go around making outlandish claims like that.

In reality, there are very few issues with iNetbet. The problem is that the same group of members with an agenda turn every minor issue into a "they don't want to pay winnings" conspiracy.

The fact is that this IS a minor issue....it did NOT cost the player any money, nothing was confiscated, and the casino did not behave in an inappropriate manner. It just boils down to some emails that were claimed to be sent not getting through, and the OP could have solved it within 24 hours if they had really wanted to....the only reason they became upset and posted here is because they lost all their dough.

 

[macster]

How much experience do you actually have with this? Does your job depend on 100s of emails a day, with and without attachments? Perhaps not, understandably so, but it may be that your limited experience with these things is also limiting your understanding of the problem.

Over the course of the 1500-ish PAB issues I've handled I've sent something close to 100,000 emails. A non-trivial number of those cases involved exactly this "lost email(s)" issue, at a variety of casinos and/or PAB complainants. The bottom line is that email based communications, especially those including large attachments, is not a 100% reliable means of getting the job done. Far from it!

With PAB stuff I've had to go so far as to make a habit of saying "if you haven't replied please do, if you have please resend" because of all the emails that get lost, over-looked, spam-filed, whatever. It's routine, happens far more often than you'd reasonably expect, especially if you are using freebie services like Yahoo, Hotmail or AOL.

Email is cheap and easy but it's only moderately reliable. That's just a fact of life in the internet world. Large attachments only exacerbate the problems.

How much experience? I can safely say... more than you. Not in the online gaming industry, but across almost all other industries, who face very similar issues.

You have just justified my thoughts. Let's go through the issue again:
1. ID verification is required for withdrawal.
2. E-mail is used for the ID verification process.
3. E-mail is the only way to do ID verification. I am sorry if this is not correct, but in iNet's case, there is no mention of an alternative. Yes, I am new. I only know InterCasino. I had no such issue with them.

So, ID verification requires e-mail, which have been known to cause issues. Either fix it, or create a new ID verification process (or improve the current one). You talk about 100,000 e-mails. Fixing this process (a rather important process I might add) reduces the e-mail load. Fixing (or improving) the process also improves customer service, improves user experience and satisfaction (hence reducing churn), etc.

With PAB stuff I've had to go so far as to make a habit of saying "if you haven't replied please do, if you have please resend" because of all the emails that get lost, over-looked, spam-filed, whatever. It's routine, happens far more often than you'd reasonably expect, especially if you are using freebie services like Yahoo, Hotmail or AOL.

This is an example of you improving on a process, your very own PAB process.

What can't iNet (and others with the same issue) do the same? Why not improve the ID verification process, which incidentally, is required for withdrawals? Why not bring forward this ID Verification process forward? Have it at the registration stage? Helps with "fraud".

"Oh, a main process is not working. We know about it. But we're not doing anything about it". This sums up the situation. In any other industry, the company that does this would not survive. But then, the online casino industry is unlike any other, isn't it?


-Macster

P.S. Actually, I do get loads of e-mails daily. Presentations and proposals are done with PowerPoint and Word, so you can imagine.....

 

[macster]

I think maybe you should gain a bit more experience

No thanks. Once bitten, twice shy.

Where do you get the part about "withdrawals failing regularly" from? iNetbet are known for having one of the fastest and most reliable withdrawals online.....I

If ID verification fails (or if e-mail fails), withdrawal fails. Going through not just Casino Meister but other sites as well, this is not an uncommon issue, not is it just restricted to iNet.

Nifty, I suggest you get off you high horse and offer some suggestions (as requested). "New" does not necessarily mean "need experience". Companies very often get "new" people (external consultants) to look at issues they can't solve, because "old" people are not capable of solving them (or even offering suggestions for that matter!).

 

[Nifty29]

No thanks. Once bitten, twice shy.



If ID verification fails (or if e-mail fails), withdrawal fails. Going through not just Casino Meister but other sites as well, this is not an uncommon issue, not is it jst restricted to iNet.

Nifty, I suggest you get off you high horse and offer some suggestions (as requested). New does not necessarily mean "need experience". Companies very often get "new" people (external consultants) to look at issues they can't solve, because "old" people are not capable of solving them (or even offering suggestions for that matter!).

I did suggest a solution in an earlier post. If you're interested you can find it.

Thanks for the suggestion regarding my equestrian activities

 

[maxd]

How much experience? I can safely say... more than you. Not in the online gaming industry ....

As it happens I was using email before you had been potty-trained but whatever, we're talking about the gaming industry so gaming industry experience is particularly relevant here. It does make a difference (see the Pitch-A-Bitch FAQ section on email addresses for details).

 

[LaHutti]

It sounds to me, like this casino is a perfect example of a place, where I would NOT want to send any personal info, based on their handling of e-mails in general.

derail ?
What I would really like to see, is for the software providers to take some responsibillity in this whole document cirkus, and I do have a few ideas, as to how it could be handled smoothly, and a hell of a lot safer, than it's being handled today.
As it is now, my personal information is floating around in, I don't even know how many places, because hundreds of casinos....not all of the purest breed, ask me to send it to them, and I really have no idea, how all of these places handle my personal info. Some of this info, can be used for identity theft, or to clean out my bank account, or my credit card for me, if someone with not so good intentions get a hold of it.
So therefore MG, RTG, PLAYTECH, and all you "big" software providers...(I'll use MG as example for the rest of this post, but it goes for all software providers) make a centralised register at MG so that I can send my documents to you, preferably uploaded through the casino software on a safe line, on my first attempt to make an account in any MG casino, provide me with a personal digital "key", so we make sure, that I'm me, and have the right to make new accounts in my name, at other MG casinos (something like the netbanking software security, where you need a personal "key" on your computer, to get access), and YOU will be responsible for keeping my info/documents safe, and let every single MG casino, that I sign up to know, that I provided my ID to you, and I'm "good to go" (check register, and my personal digital "key", and approve my attempt to make an account, if I excist in the register, OR ask me to provide my documents, if I don't excist in the register, and don't have a digital 'key" on my computer, already). Should there later be a problem in any MG casino, MG will have all relevant information stored, and NOT 100 different casinos. Register my ID in this register, BEFORE I can even be allowed to make my first DEPOSIT, not withdrawal, in ANY MG casino, and I, as a customer, will only have to do this ONCE. What a great service, and so easy, eh ?
No bullshit excuses from any casino about documents any more...
No confusion about the whereabouts of my personal info...
No shitty handling of e-mails containing my personal info...
All in all, that would make me a happier man.
/possible derail

If I had my thanks button, and was able to thank myself ...I would thank me for this.
And add, that the only people with an agenda are the people helplessly trying to defend an absolute incompetent online business who I, and thousands of others, are supposed to trust, in keeping our sensitive personal information safe, when they can't handle an e-mail. These same people keep screaming that I have an agenda...yes I do. I want my personal information kept safe, and not randomly being thrown around, and misplaced. That's my agenda. For your information, I think I have a helluwa lot more experince than you, Nifty, when it comes to the workings of servers, both mail, intranet and web, and not least secure handling of sensitive information. probably even from when you were still wearing diapers.
Yes....it truly is a joke.

 

[macster]

As it happens I was using email before you had been potty-trained

Really? We used one of the earliest available, even before the days of Pine and elm. What did you use? Also, you can find my name associated with a number of telecoms and Internet standards.

we're talking about the gaming industry so gaming industry experience is particularly relevant here.

Relevant yes, but does not seem to be enough, huh? Especially when an old and outstanding issue can't be solved. But I have come to expect this now (in the short time).....

Reminds me of a time when I was managing a number of clients in the US. Was told, "You can't add value, you will only tell us what we already know, we have been doing this for a long time", etc. Something along those lines. With a bit of digging, analytics and cost transformation, ended up saving them 500m over 3 years.

Potty-trained? LOL!!! Reveals your character, maxd - or lack thereof.

Jurisdictions And Age Limits: There was a case recently where a player signed up to a casino from not only a country where Internet gambling is illegal, but also as an underage player. She won - quite big too! She knew she was underage, but because the casino let her sign up and play, she thought it was okat to carry on. Obviously this raised moral obligation issues and the casino suffered big-time in PR terms, but the upshot of it was that the player did not receive her money, as per the letter of the law. So be sure that you are old enough to play at the casino...some have 18+ limits, others are 21+. Check first!

Multiple Accounts from The Same Household: Pretty much all casinos say that you can only have one account per household. Some relax this if you ask, but this is generally there to prevent "bonus abuse", a fraudulent activity rife among the idiots who spoil it for all of us. These people are the reason bonuses are so tough on players these days. There was recently a case where a casino, subjected to an angry complaint from one player who claimed they refused to let her cashout the winnings after meeting all the criteria, revealed that there were some 300 accounts set up from the same IP address with similar information! What was more amazing was that the player had needed to try 250 times before she won! Now that's the time to give up gambling!

The above excerpt was taken from Simmo's guide. So I ask again. Why can't ID verification be done at the outset? Why can't this be imposed on new players? Why have this "waiting-game" when it comes to withdrawals? How long ago was this guide written? Why was the player allowed to open "some 300" accounts? Did the online casino happily accept 300* deposits? LOL! Simple question. Are these online casinos obliged to pay out withdrawals? Why are such obvious and outstanding issues not sorted?

Re-read the two paragraphs - one can then get all the answers.

 

[P.V.]

Chill, good debate turning sour. Be cool!

This has been a dilemma for quite some time concerning doc's. Requesting doc's isn't the real problem here, it's the interaction during sending and receiving of the documents.

I'm sure this group is a fine place to play as many have said but there does appear to be many members concerned about the process of sending and receiving their documents. E mail isn't secure, now further problems with file size and fax is a dinosaur IMO. Honestly can't believe any OC would ask for doc's by fax especially ID pic's.

The only way to correct all of this is the following and I've researched this for quite some time before entering into this area.

1. Gaming site's need a secure system for uploading doc's. What I don't like about this, with each site you're uploading to multiple servers and sites when one secure site, system is sufficient. Less exposure.

2. There needs to be a way for you, the player to know when your doc's were viewed and approved and or denied by the site in real time and also a clear line of communication if you need to send further documentation. This delays withdraws, if not a loss of your money if you should continue to play waiting like the OP.

3. Max has shared that he even has problems with email for PAB's, so clearly email has problems.

The best solution is some guidance concerning doc sending, approval guidelines and this should come
from CM within his accredited requirements.

 

[maxd]

Really? We used one of the earliest available, even before the days of Pine and elm. What did you use? Also, you can find my name associated with a number of telecoms and Internet standards.

This belongs elsewhere. PM me if you really want answers to these questions.

Back to the topic: as previously mentioned the OP had emailed me comments on the chronology that was posted up-thread (here). I post those here for the sake of the discussion at hand (OP's comments in blue):

1.Sunday September 18 2011: OP to Casino: "I am sending you the verification form."
2.Monday September 19 2011: Casino to OP: request for missing info (incomplete verification form).

I contest this. Documentation was complete. They asked for MORE and FURTHER UNUSUAL things like proof of how I funded my Moneybookers account. I had already sent them my ID, Bill and fax form. Nothing was missing or incomplete. That is not true. I supplied them multiple times with this proof even though it was highly unusual request. That is important as part of the hold up.​

3.Monday September 19 2011: OP to Casino: info sent, attachment size exceeds 10 mb.
4.Tuesday September 20 2011: Casino to OP: "attachments too large", request to reformat and resend.

WRONG! I sent the documents that VERY DAY! I sent them in 4 seperate emails titled "RE: Verification forms pt1, pt2, pt 3 and FINAL. " This was on the 20th after they told me my size was too large for one email. I checked the sizes and none of them were even remotely close to 10mb. On my last email I asked that they respond once they have approved all documents then I patiently waited. After hearing nothing I asked about them on the 26th again and again did not get a response.​

5.Sunday October 02 2011: OP to Casino: "stuff was sent on 20th September, please confirm".
6.Monday October 03 2011: Casino to OP: "sorry, docs not received, please resend".

THEY FORGOT TO MENTION that on the 3rd AGAIN after they finally responded I sent all 4 emails each with one attachment and none of them even close to being too large AGAIN!!! That very day. After I sent all 4 separate emails I then sent off a 5th email that was a reply to earlier emails that they had sent saying they didn't receive telling them that I sent it again and asking for them to give reciept. AGAIN they ignored.​

7.[between Oct 03 and Oct 11 OP accesses account, increases balance]
8.Tuesday 11 October 2011: OP to Casino: "WHY ARE YOU NOT ANSWERING ME?????", includes copies of msgs apparently sent on 03 Oct and 09 Oct.

RIGHT. I emailed them on the 9th and asked them what is taking so long and explaining that I had sent them in many times. AGAIN they ignore.​

9.Tuesday 11 October 2011: Casino to OP: "haven't received anything from you since our message of 03 Oct" ... "If the file is too large it will be blocked and not received."

AGAIN THEY FORGET SOME BIG IMPORTANT DETAILS!!! I responded directly to them and said that I sent them yet again and that I sent them in 4 separate emails right after they sent me this message above so that they were surely not too large. They just totally ignored all of the document emails and all of the emails I sent asking about them. Including this one that they did not include in their false chronology.
ALSO! very importantly they forgot to mention that they ignored my PM also and still have not responded.​

10.[OP again accesses his account, balance decreases]
11.Thursday 13th October 2011: OP posts "inetbet Nightmare" at Casinomeister

 

[vinylweatherman]

The 10mb+ email ARRIVED but the attachments were blocked.

The other 4 emails with single attachments that the OP claims to have sent DID NOT ARRIVE AT ALL. How can the casino respond to an email it doesn't receive in the first place. The OP needs to check with his ISP who can tell him what happened.

Either way, after inet asked for the docs to be resent in smaller format, the whole attachment blocking issue became irrelevant because there was nothing to BLOCK because they didn't get the email.

I could imagine its possible for the casino to miss or overlook one email - nobody's perfect - but FOUR? Are you really insinuating that they totally ignored all four emails just to delay his payment? I don't see any other way it could be the casinos fault....and that is a very serious accusation which I hope you have some evidence to back (apart from the op saying "I sent them")

Don't forget, the OP waited nine days to even begin using other means e.g Emily to find out what was happening. If I didn't have an answer in 24-48 hrs I would be PMing the rep here because a reasonable person would KNOW something wasn't right. Of course, if i was winning more in the meantime I might not bother.......

What planet are you on?

The CS at the average ISP would make any online casino CS look stellar in comparison. Ask my ISP, a HUGE company covering the whole country, has CS that wouldn't have the slightest clue how to address such a question. They wouldn't even understand it, let alone know what the problem was.

How do I know, I have contacted their clueless CS dozens of times over issues ranging from missing emails to the TV service. Their stock response is that email problems are ALWAYS down to the "recipient blocking your email, check with them".

No doubt, if this poster contacted his ISP to ask why his 10Mb email made it through, and the 4x 2.5Mb didn't, he would be told in no uncertain terms that the recipient's server had blocked his email, and would probably argue that since the 10Mb one actually got through, it was proof positive that his ISP was not blocking anything. We would then be right back to where we started.

When it comes to the argument about not wanting large files clogging up the system, it is the CASINO themselves that INSISTS that "images" are sent via email, so they should EXPECT that this will entail a great number of Mb of data coming through that particular route, and cater for it. If they don't want large image files going through the email, then provide an upload facilty on the website and/or the casino lobby in order to cut email out of the process. FTP based upload/download has no problems at all coping with files of this size, as it has been designed for this purpose, unlike email which was designed as a form of "digital letter", and was never expected to be used for bulk data transfer, hence all the problems that occur when it gets used for this purpose.

The lack of traceabilty within the email system means we can never know where the blame lies, so it is just as arrogant for the casino to assume that it must be the players' fault when their email fails to arrive as it is for the player to always blame the casino for anything that goes wrong.

These problems keep on cropping up because iNetBet are in denial that it could possibly be a problem at their end, so have not done anything about it. The intermittent nature of the problem means that it often clears itself with a "brute force" approach, such as repeatedly sending the same email until one makes it through.

If emails, and exact point of failure, could be determined exactly, I bet it wouldn't just be the players proved wrong.

 

[swampwitch]

Did the OP give a thought to faxing the faxback and docs? The fax number is listed on the page you need to go to download the faxback.

 

[Nate]

I have sent Inetbet verification documents in the past and never received a reply. I had deposited and didn't have a WD but wanted to get verified so I didn't have issues. I had to wait longer after I emailed them again to ask if they received it. They eventually replied and said they did not. The files were small because I DO NOT send large attachments as a general rule.

I never bothered asking again and later closed my account.

Nate

 

[macster]

This belongs elsewhere....

As are comments like "potty-trained". And more.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Did the OP give a thought to faxing the faxback and docs? The fax number is listed on the page you need to go to download the faxback.

This is even more archaic than email, and often leads to problems. Apart from this, who the hell has their own FAX machine at home. It would involve trying to find a public fax service, and most of these have shut down because the technology is obsolete. There have been complaints in the past where players have had to make several visits to a public fax service because when they get home and check, they are told to try again and again because of some technical problem or other. Because of this, advice has always been to use the email route, and forget about trying to fax anything. Unfortunately, in this case the email system cannot handle a data file that would normally be sent by a fax machine, nor it's newer JPEG equivalent it would seem.

It's not the players fault that the available systems are not fit for purpose. There are systems that ARE fit for purpose, and would work very well, but they have not been made available. Broadband internet is capable of transmitting a MOVIE between two parties without having a problem, and should cope with transferring a mere 10Mb in a few seconds, faster than email can transmit a one page letter.

Other casinos use email for documents, so why do we hear so much about problems at some, and virtually nothing about problems at others. The players are all going to have a similar range of facilities, it is the operators that will have a much larger variation in configurations, some of which clearly work better than others.

This should be an important consideration for new players when choosing a casino, and one that seems to get overlooked. The best approach is to get verified in advance, and refuse to buy in to the "do it now" atmosphere perpetrated by marketing that tries to get that first deposit out of you as fast as they can. If documents cause problems before deposits are made, the player can simply walk away, rather than struggle with the problem. Marketing like to get that first deposit in quickly because this is what they FEAR will happen. It is also theorised that CS are going to be making more of an effort to resolve a problem if the customer is not tied in. Once tied in, the customer loses the option to just walk away, and even if they decide to leave, they have to sort out the exit of their funds.

 

[Nifty29]

This is even more archaic than email, and often leads to problems. Apart from this, who the hell has their own FAX machine at home. It would involve trying to find a public fax service, and most of these have shut down because the technology is obsolete. There have been complaints in the past where players have had to make several visits to a public fax service because when they get home and check, they are told to try again and again because of some technical problem or other. Because of this, advice has always been to use the email route, and forget about trying to fax anything. Unfortunately, in this case the email system cannot handle a data file that would normally be sent by a fax machine, nor it's newer JPEG equivalent it would seem.

It's not the players fault that the available systems are not fit for purpose. There are systems that ARE fit for purpose, and would work very well, but they have not been made available. Broadband internet is capable of transmitting a MOVIE between two parties without having a problem, and should cope with transferring a mere 10Mb in a few seconds, faster than email can transmit a one page letter.

Other casinos use email for documents, so why do we hear so much about problems at some, and virtually nothing about problems at others. The players are all going to have a similar range of facilities, it is the operators that will have a much larger variation in configurations, some of which clearly work better than others.

This should be an important consideration for new players when choosing a casino, and one that seems to get overlooked. The best approach is to get verified in advance, and refuse to buy in to the "do it now" atmosphere perpetrated by marketing that tries to get that first deposit out of you as fast as they can. If documents cause problems before deposits are made, the player can simply walk away, rather than struggle with the problem. Marketing like to get that first deposit in quickly because this is what they FEAR will happen. It is also theorised that CS are going to be making more of an effort to resolve a problem if the customer is not tied in. Once tied in, the customer loses the option to just walk away, and even if they decide to leave, they have to sort out the exit of their funds.

You're still missing the point Vinyl.

It's not about what should be able to happen or what could happen if they did this or that......it's about what DID happen i.e. the 4 emails, along with some other assorted emails, were not received by iNetbet. The OP could find out from their ISP what exactly happened to the emails if they wanted to...I've done it before. It is also common sense that one needs to reduce the file size of docs before sending them, especially if there are multiple attachments.

I'm amazed that anyone would think the casino would deliberately ignore someone...unless of course they think that the casino is straight out lying, in which case they should offer evidence of such or apologise. My understanding was that it was unacceptable to make accusations such as this against operators (especially accredited ones) in the forum...?

 

[swampwitch]

Yes, faxing is a pita for some people. But if I was having as much trouble as the OP claims, I'd have still given it a shot. YMMV.

 

[macster]

It's not about what should be able to happen or what could happen if they did this or that......it's about what DID happen i.e. the 4 emails, along with some other assorted emails, were not received by iNetbet. The OP could find out from their ISP what exactly happened to the emails if they wanted to...I've done it before. It is also common sense that one needs to reduce the file size of docs before sending them, especially if there are multiple attachments.

I'm amazed that anyone would think the casino would deliberately ignore someone...unless of course they think that the casino is straight out lying, in which case they should offer evidence of such or apologise. My understanding was that it was unacceptable to make accusations such as this against operators (especially accredited ones) in the forum...?

Very convenient approach, where operators can simply quote missing e-mails.

Really? I'm using a 3UK dongle. Could they tell me what happened to my sent e-mails (SMTP) that were not received? Are you sure? What if I prove you wrong?

Of course one (I) would think that! Especially when that did happen!!!

 

[greasemonkey]

You're still missing the point Vinyl.

It's not about what should be able to happen or what could happen if they did this or that......it's about what DID happen i.e. the 4 emails, along with some other assorted emails, were not received by iNetbet. The OP could find out from their ISP what exactly happened to the emails if they wanted to...I've done it before. It is also common sense that one needs to reduce the file size of docs before sending them, especially if there are multiple attachments.

I'm amazed that anyone would think the casino would deliberately ignore someone...unless of course they think that the casino is straight out lying, in which case they should offer evidence of such or apologise. My understanding was that it was unacceptable to make accusations such as this against operators (especially accredited ones) in the forum...?

inetbet apparently did not even reply to the OPs PM. I suppose that just like the emails it got lost also and it is the OPs fault? ........ Orrrrrrrrr, was inetbet actually ignoring the OP, which is the way it is appearing the more I read.


ALSO, NIFTY... please quit saying that inetbet got the email but did not get the attachments. Certainly they did. On th e 19th they wrote back thanking the OP for his documents and admitting that they were received. The problem is that they then asked for bizarre things like proof of how the OP funded their ewallet account. That is where the problem started. If they weren't trying to delay or find a reason not to pay then why would they ask for more than is usual? Why did they get the original email with the docs but not the subsequent ones? Its called BS, Nifty. Casinos just don't go around asking for such personal info like "prove to us how you fund your moneybookers account" That is complete BS tactics and they were looking for way to get out of paying the OP IMO. It is fairly obvious. It is also asking way too much for us to believe that they suddenly stopped getting emails or PMs and had no idea that the OP was responding directly and on the same day. It is way too much to expect reasonable adults to believe that junk.

 

[macster]

This has been a dilemma for quite some time concerning doc's. Requesting doc's isn't the real problem here, it's the interaction during sending and receiving of the documents.

I'm sure this group is a fine place to play as many have said but there does appear to be many members concerned about the process of sending and receiving their documents. E mail isn't secure, now further problems with file size and fax is a dinosaur IMO. Honestly can't believe any OC would ask for doc's by fax especially ID pic's.

The only way to correct all of this is the following and I've researched this for quite some time before entering into this area.

1. Gaming site's need a secure system for uploading doc's. What I don't like about this, with each site you're uploading to multiple servers and sites when one secure site, system is sufficient. Less exposure.

2. There needs to be a way for you, the player to know when your doc's were viewed and approved and or denied by the site in real time and also a clear line of communication if you need to send further documentation. This delays withdraws, if not a loss of your money if you should continue to play waiting like the OP.

3. Max has shared that he even has problems with email for PAB's, so clearly email has problems.

Fundamental and structural changes are are needed, in order to convince me (and those like me) that online casinos offer a safe and enjoyable gaming experience like brick-and-mortar ones. Again, let's do some comparisons, etc.

1. If you want to gain entry into a land-based casino, you go in and register (if not already a member) at reception, show some ID, then get to deposit and play. It's not, go in, play, win, try to withdraw (cash in chips), get asked for ID. By doing things this way, land-based casinos prevent minors from playing, they know who their customers are, etc. Any right-minded person would tell you that this is the approach online casinos need to employ. Why is this not the case?

2. When you play at a land-based casino (or a cruise ship for that matter), when you win, you know you'll be able to cash out your winnings. I'm sorry to say this, there is no such confidence with online casinos.

3. Requesting for docs can be a problem if what the OP says is true, in that iNet asked for non-ordinary docs, e.g.,They asked for MORE and FURTHER UNUSUAL things like proof of how I funded my Moneybookers account.... What is the standard here? Proof and ID and proof of address? More?

4. Set a time limit. If there's an issue, guarantee that it'll be solved in, say, 3 days or so. Have SLAs!


The way I see it, there are not in-company standards. There are no industry standards. How would I do it? I would start with an industry framework. Based on that framework, I will effect my own casino's operating model. I will tailor it to suit my needs and that my my customers (e.g. solving issues within a set timeframe and keeping clients aware of what was happening). I will not, e.g., say things like "I promise to look into it...", then not give any update for 5 days.

 

[vinylweatherman]

You're still missing the point Vinyl.

It's not about what should be able to happen or what could happen if they did this or that......it's about what DID happen i.e. the 4 emails, along with some other assorted emails, were not received by iNetbet. The OP could find out from their ISP what exactly happened to the emails if they wanted to...I've done it before. It is also common sense that one needs to reduce the file size of docs before sending them, especially if there are multiple attachments.

I'm amazed that anyone would think the casino would deliberately ignore someone...unless of course they think that the casino is straight out lying, in which case they should offer evidence of such or apologise. My understanding was that it was unacceptable to make accusations such as this against operators (especially accredited ones) in the forum...?

I am not saying that they are deliberately ignoring players, but not EVERY ISP has helpful CS. Mine are in Mumbai or Bangalore, and can only stick to the script. If a problem is not on their script, they don't have an initiative at their disposal. Often, they will give the wrong information, which usually means following company policy of denying any fault, and blaming any third party to the problem being encountered. In the case of a recent 6 month TV issue, they spent over 6 months blaming the BBC until some customers called their bluff and contacted the BBC and OFCOM. The fault was eventually traced to THEIR server, but they then blamed some previously unmentioned subcontractor.

I have actually made formal complaints to my ISP about all the emails that kept failing to make it through to Jackpot Factory, and every time I was "reliably informed" that the fault lay with JF or their ISP, not Virgin. It is a lottery, and there is every chance that this complainant will be told it is iNetBet's fault, and having head this from their ISP, will be more convinced than ever that iNetBet are dicking them around.

The problem with saying that the player should work with what is available is a problem because iNetBet had the player's money, and wouldn't give it back even if the player wanted to "walk away" from the situation. The player's ONLY option when backed into this corner was to fight, and if necessary "fight dirty". I am sure that if you were doing business with someone, and they told you they couldn't work with the facilities you had, you would want to leave with your money and go elsewhere.

I didn't see ANY effort in the part of iNetBet to HELP this player "reformat" his files, they just expected him to second guess what their systems would cope with and just keep trying again and again. As a result, he did just this, and when he DID "reformat" from a single large file to 4 individual emails, iNetBet said there was now a different problem, and again offered no help in getting around it. They didn't make any suggestions, or even indications of what they needed to get the sizes down to. This lead to the player thinking that whatever they did wouldn't work, and that this could be due to the issue having been "contrived" rather than real.

I would have expected the 4 smaller emails to exhibit the same error, getting through, but the 2.5Mb files still being too large to open because the reduction had not been enough. The idea that at least the "header" and "properties information" made it through the first time, yet not even this much made it through on FOUR subsequent emails does not sound believable. My suspicion is that iNetBet's own systems simply threw these 4 emails away on arrival, but kept no record nor recorded any "reason code" that would aid in diagnosing the problem. Had the problem been earlier in the chain, the sender would have received a "bounce" notification with an error code, although this could have ended up in their spam folder, a check that should be done before stating that iNetBet definitely didn't respond. Similarly, it is a check iNetBet should do before stating that the player didn't send, or they didn't receive, the emails.

It should be possible to get the size below 2.5Mb, but unless one is told HOW, it is something many ordinary users would have little idea of how to achieve, and thus would EXPECT help from a department which is, after all, called "Customer Service".

 

[greasemonkey]

Big idea to improve doc verification.

I think that I have a possible solution that everyone here would love (I think).

This is serious. How about all accredited casinos here at CM Must agree to accept a player as legit if Bryan has their docs? The infrastructure is already here with the attachment option in PM. So then if I am a member here I PM Bryan (or an employee of his) and submit my ID, utility bill, a fax form of some sort and any CC, bank or ewallet info needed for proof of my deposit. THEN it is secure and not floating around cyberspace and being "missed" by support on emails. All that you would need to do is give your username here at CM to the casino and they could contact Bryan (and Bryan could charge a fee for this service to the casino and it would actually save them time/money too) and Bryan could tell them if you are verified and current. It would be safer, we all trust Bryan a heck of a lot further than any casino operator. The fee could make it worth Bryan's time and we would all feel better about playing at new casinos as we know we would not have lost documents or falsely called a fraud or any other such crap.

I am dead serious and I would love to see something like this implemented! What another fantastic reason to be a member here that would be!

 

[Nifty29]

inetbet apparently did not even reply to the OPs PM. I suppose that just like the emails it got lost also and it is the OPs fault? ........ Orrrrrrrrr, was inetbet actually ignoring the OP, which is the way it is appearing the more I read.


ALSO, NIFTY... please quit saying that inetbet got the email but did not get the attachments. Certainly they did. On th e 19th they wrote back thanking the OP for his documents and admitting that they were received. The problem is that they then asked for bizarre things like proof of how the OP funded their ewallet account. That is where the problem started. If they weren't trying to delay or find a reason not to pay then why would they ask for more than is usual? Why did they get the original email with the docs but not the subsequent ones? Its called BS, Nifty. Casinos just don't go around asking for such personal info like "prove to us how you fund your moneybookers account" That is complete BS tactics and they were looking for way to get out of paying the OP IMO. It is fairly obvious. It is also asking way too much for us to believe that they suddenly stopped getting emails or PMs and had no idea that the OP was responding directly and on the same day. It is way too much to expect reasonable adults to believe that junk.

Just one last time...

I didn't SAY anything about the ORIGINAL docs not being recieved.....they clearly were. Nobody has revealed how large the original docs sent on the 19th were but I would bet they weren't 10MB.

The casino suspected some kind of fraud....that is why they asked for further docs (which is their right), and that is what we have been discussing...nowhere did I mention the emails of the 19th. In your haste to "expose" iNetbet as the "evil-doers" in online gambling's "axis of evil", you are inventing things and putting words in my mouth.

The subsequent email/s were too large in the first instance, and then were never received in the second instance (the 4 the OP claims to have sent).

The casino says they didn't receive them. You say it's "BS" and they are lying and deliberately stalling payment.

Evidence exists only for the former, and IMO you are out of line with your wild accusations.

Re: your scheme for doc verification:

Are you seriously suggesting that BRYAN be responsible for verifying players from CM for accredited casinos? Just to accommodate the tiny percentage of players who refuse to use common sense and follow things up? Do you know how much work that would entail? Or how much responsibility would be placed on his shoulders? Who is going to pay him for it? The casinos? Why would they....their current system works 99% of the time now.

I'll give you credit for actually coming up with something, but this is pie in the sky stuff and completely unnecessary and unworkable.

 

[greasemonkey]

VWM, They may have lost those 4 emails with attachments but what about the 5th that had no attachments and was just asking for verification of the other 4? Why did they "not receive" that one? Like I said earlier, it has become too much to believe. If inetbet was this clueless then they would have been out of business long ago. The PMs don't work,t he email don't work.... c'mon

 

[greasemonkey]

Just one last time...

I didn't SAY anything about the ORIGINAL docs not being recieved.....they clearly were. Nobody has revealed how large the original docs sent on the 19th were but I would bet they weren't 10MB.

The casino suspected some kind of fraud....that is why they asked for further docs (which is their right), and that is what we have been discussing...nowhere did I mention the emails of the 19th. In your haste to "expose" iNetbet as the "evil-doers" in online gambling's "axis of evil", you are inventing things and putting words in my mouth.

The subsequent email/s were too large in the first instance, and then were never received in the second instance (the 4 the OP claims to have sent).

The casino says they didn't receive them. You say it's "BS" and they are lying and deliberately stalling payment.

Evidence exists only for the former, and IMO you are out of line with your wild accusations.

Nifty, please let us be civil and not have such a nasty edge when we respond to each other. I am interested in your opinion, not an argument please.

OK, back to our topic:

What about the 5th email asking for verification? What about the PM? What about the OP is stating that he didn't just send 4 emails or 5. He sent them several times apparently. He also clearly asks for help and information and is not responded to on a number of occasions. Why is this?

Evidence exists only for the former, and IMO you are out of line with your wild accusations.

Re: your scheme for doc verification:

Are you seriously suggesting that BRYAN be responsible for verifying players from CM for accredited casinos? Just to accommodate the tiny percentage of players who refuse to use common sense and follow things up? Do you know how much work that would entail? Or how much responsibility would be placed on his shoulders? Who is going to pay him for it? The casinos? Why would they....their current system works 99% of the time now.

I'll give you credit for actually coming up with something, but this is pie in the sky stuff and completely unnecessary and unworkable.

The casinos may save money by not needing the staff. Bryan would get a fee for this from the casinos as they have to pay someone to do it anyways.
Not sure what you mean by common sense. The OP sent in his docs the day he was asked.
No, I really don't know how much work it would entail. Do you know how much work it would entail?
it would seem to simply be a file storing issue. The infrastructure for secure upload is in place.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think that I have a possible solution that everyone here would love (I think).

This is serious. How about all accredited casinos here at CM Must agree to accept a player as legit if Bryan has their docs? The infrastructure is already here with the attachment option in PM. So then if I am a member here I PM Bryan (or an employee of his) and submit my ID, utility bill, a fax form of some sort and any CC, bank or ewallet info needed for proof of my deposit. THEN it is secure and not floating around cyberspace and being "missed" by support on emails. All that you would need to do is give your username here at CM to the casino and they could contact Bryan (and Bryan could charge a fee for this service to the casino and it would actually save them time/money too) and Bryan could tell them if you are verified and current. It would be safer, we all trust Bryan a heck of a lot further than any casino operator. The fee could make it worth Bryan's time and we would all feel better about playing at new casinos as we know we would not have lost documents or falsely called a fraud or any other such crap.

I am dead serious and I would love to see something like this implemented! What another fantastic reason to be a member here that would be!

There are problems with this. The main one being legal. In order to do this, Bryan would have to register as a "data controller" where he is based, and would have considerable legal responsibilties over the handling of the documents he was managing. This would be expensive, and unless casinos were willing to pay extra, he would have to charge the players. This would no doubt leave him with significant overheads and little in the way of revenue, since those players not encountering problems would take the "free" option of dealing directly with the casino.

It would need to be handled by a body such as eCogra, and would have to cover all sealholder casinos. Even this would cover only a fraction of the industry, and the fraction it did cover would be the one where problems such as this are rare.

It would really take regulatory action by governments who might impose such a condition on all operators wanting access to the domestic market, with a big enough "stick" to stop those unwilling to comply from operating, perhaps by having transactions blocked in a similar manner to UIGEA in the US. With a legal framework allowing players to play at compliant operators, they would be less likely to cooperate with the kinds of trickery being used to circumvent UIGEA when tried by those not wanting to comply with the standards.

 

[Nifty29]

Nifty, please let us be civil and not have such a nasty edge when we respond to each other. I am interested in your opinion, not an argument please.

OK, back to our topic:

What about the 5th email asking for verification? What about the PM? What about the OP is stating that he didn't just send 4 emails or 5. He sent them several times apparently. He also clearly asks for help and information and is not responded to on a number of occasions. Why is this?




The casinos may save money by not needing the staff. Bryan would get a fee for this from the casinos as they have to pay someone to do it anyways.
Not sure what you mean by common sense. The OP sent in his docs the day he was asked.
No, I really don't know how much work it would entail. Do you know how much work it would entail?
it would seem to simply be a file storing issue. The infrastructure for secure upload is in place.

Who's being nasty for goodness sake? I'm not the one making accusations of dishonesty without evidence.

How is Bryan going to know if ID's etc are legit? He would have to comb through each and every doc. Casinos have teams of specially trained staff to detect fraud....but now you're saying just Bryan should do it? Given the number of fraudsters who have passed through this site, and the number of undetected ones around right now (which I'm certain there are), it would be virtually impossible for Bryan to verify the authenticity of potentially '000s of players. It really is completely unworkable.

You're sudden interest in my opinions has been noted.

 

[Nifty29]

There are problems with this. The main one being legal. In order to do this, Bryan would have to register as a "data controller" where he is based, and would have considerable legal responsibilties over the handling of the documents he was managing. This would be expensive, and unless casinos were willing to pay extra, he would have to charge the players. This would no doubt leave him with significant overheads and little in the way of revenue, since those players not encountering problems would take the "free" option of dealing directly with the casino.

It would need to be handled by a body such as eCogra, and would have to cover all sealholder casinos. Even this would cover only a fraction of the industry, and the fraction it did cover would be the one where problems such as this are rare.

It would really take regulatory action by governments who might impose such a condition on all operators wanting access to the domestic market, with a big enough "stick" to stop those unwilling to comply from operating, perhaps by having transactions blocked in a similar manner to UIGEA in the US. With a legal framework allowing players to play at compliant operators, they would be less likely to cooperate with the kinds of trickery being used to circumvent UIGEA when tried by those not wanting to comply with the standards.

Maybe Bryan could hire Vinylweatherman Q.C. to handle all the legal stuff?

 

[The Dude]

20 pages so far - I thought this issue was more or less resolved on page 14
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-nightmare.46579/

An e-mail issue? This beggars belief. A time-wasting tactic? More likely. Once again, as someone new to online casinos, looking at their issues, I see very easy solutions. So why still an issue?

So you are new to online casinos...and I just jumped off of a boat from China. For a newbie poster, you sure seem to know quite a lot about online gaming and the machinations and personalities of this forum.

Nifty, I suggest you get off you high horse and offer some suggestions (as requested)...

Nifty is only stating his opinions based on his observances. I don't see any high horse he's riding on. Watch the flaming.

... Casinos just don't go around asking for such personal info like "prove to us how you fund your moneybookers account" That is complete BS tactics and they were looking for way to get out of paying the OP IMO. ...

Have you ever worked in the security/player fraud division of an online casino? If you had some more insight on what goes on behind the scenes I think you would change your opinion. Like I mentioned before, casino operators are vigilant on protecting their businesses. If a player has to jump through an extra set of hoops in order to get paid, that's what they will have to do. You can thank the multi-accounters, fraudsters, and other douchebags for this. Don't make assumptions that it's BS because it's not.

And no thanks on the ID check services here, I have enough fires to put out already

 

[greasemonkey]

20 pages so far - I thought this issue was more or less resolved on page 14
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-nightmare.46579/

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-nightmare.46579/ As you can see it got a whole lot more murky and doubtful on page 18.


Bryan, if they are asking for proof of how the OP funded their MB account then that is above and beyond normal. Why would they ask for that? Did they detect fraud again? The OP wasn't using a bonus, his ID and bill must have been ok. There was not an advantage that the player was using then to get over on the casino.... why did they want more? The answer MUST be that they were actively seeking a reason not to pay. Regardless if that reason was that they thought "maybe fraud" or not. If the docs match the signup info and there is no bonus involved then they are grasping at straws to find something... ANYTHING that they can think of not to pay. All of the multi accounting and stuff that you mentioned would be irrelevant in this case. The OP wasnt using an advantage. they apparently just gambled. What could the casino be protecting themselves against? A gambler whose docs are correct? I'm not buying it.

And no thanks on the ID check services here, I have enough fires to put out already

DANG. That would be sweet though (for players).

 

[The Dude]

...Bryan, if they are asking for proof of how the OP funded their MB account then that is above and beyond normal. Why would they ask for that? Did they detect fraud again? ...

I have no idea - I was making a widespread comment - generally speaking of course. The issue for us was trying to figure out what went wrong, and I made suggestions to iNetBet that I hope they might consider implementing. As far as I am concerned, that's about it.

 

[bb28]

Really? We used one of the earliest available, even before the days of Pine and elm. What did you use? Also, you can find my name associated with a number of telecoms and Internet standards.


Relevant yes, but does not seem to be enough, huh? Especially when an old and outstanding issue can't be solved. But I have come to expect this now (in the short time).....

Reminds me of a time when I was managing a number of clients in the US. Was told, "You can't add value, you will only tell us what we already know, we have been doing this for a long time", etc. Something along those lines. With a bit of digging, analytics and cost transformation, ended up saving them 500m over 3 years.

Potty-trained? LOL!!! Reveals your character, maxd - or lack thereof.



The above excerpt was taken from Simmo's guide. So I ask again. Why can't ID verification be done at the outset? Why can't this be imposed on new players? Why have this "waiting-game" when it comes to withdrawals? How long ago was this guide written? Why was the player allowed to open "some 300" accounts? Did the online casino happily accept 300* deposits? LOL! Simple question. Are these online casinos obliged to pay out withdrawals? Why are such obvious and outstanding issues not sorted?

Re-read the two paragraphs - one can then get all the answers.

These things really have little to do with the issue. Ever heard of strawman arguments?

This post is one.

 

[Diane]

@ Bryan ----

I believe it's time to shut this thread down and close it. (Yes, I know I could just "ignore" and I rarely play at the site so I don't have any feeling one way or the other)

But, seriously, I think it's time to "throw in the towel" and not devote any more CM resources to replying and monitoring this thread.

Bottom line no one was harmed. Money wasn't confiscated, no one refused to pay - OP chose to play back his winnings.

Enough already.

Diane

 

[bb28]

Fundamental and structural changes are are needed, in order to convince me (and those like me) that online casinos offer a safe and enjoyable gaming experience like brick-and-mortar ones. Again, let's do some comparisons, etc.

1. If you want to gain entry into a land-based casino, you go in and register (if not already a member) at reception, show some ID, then get to deposit and play. It's not, go in, play, win, try to withdraw (cash in chips), get asked for ID. By doing things this way, land-based casinos prevent minors from playing, they know who their customers are, etc. Any right-minded person would tell you that this is the approach online casinos need to employ. Why is this not the case?

NO land based casino that I've been to in the US ever asked you to register. The only time you get asked for id is a hand pay or I suppose you would if you looked underage.

2. When you play at a land-based casino (or a cruise ship for that matter), when you win, you know you'll be able to cash out your winnings. I'm sorry to say this, there is no such confidence with online casinos.

The above isn't true either, in the us you must have ID, then you get paid.

3. Requesting for docs can be a problem if what the OP says is true, in that iNet asked for non-ordinary docs, e.g.,They asked for MORE and FURTHER UNUSUAL things like proof of how I funded my Moneybookers account.... What is the standard here? Proof and ID and proof of address? More?

4. Set a time limit. If there's an issue, guarantee that it'll be solved in, say, 3 days or so. Have SLAs!


The way I see it, there are not in-company standards. There are no industry standards. How would I do it? I would start with an industry framework. Based on that framework, I will effect my own casino's operating model. I will tailor it to suit my needs and that my my customers (e.g. solving issues within a set timeframe and keeping clients aware of what was happening). I will not, e.g., say things like "I promise to look into it...", then not give any update for 5 days.

No one gives ID upon entering a casino here in the US, well except for a gambling ship. See bolded above.

 

[bb28]

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-nightmare.46579/ As you can see it got a whole lot more murky and doubtful on page 18.


Bryan, if they are asking for proof of how the OP funded their MB account then that is above and beyond normal. Why would they ask for that? Did they detect fraud again? The OP wasn't using a bonus, his ID and bill must have been ok. There was not an advantage that the player was using then to get over on the casino.... why did they want more? The answer MUST be that they were actively seeking a reason not to pay. Regardless if that reason was that they thought "maybe fraud" or not. If the docs match the signup info and there is no bonus involved then they are grasping at straws to find something... ANYTHING that they can think of not to pay. All of the multi accounting and stuff that you mentioned would be irrelevant in this case. The OP wasnt using an advantage. they apparently just gambled. What could the casino be protecting themselves against? A gambler whose docs are correct? I'm not buying it.

Holy cows! The reason they asked for the additional info is because OP registered with the wrong country. He had moved. Seems that fact keeps getting lost here.

DANG. That would be sweet though (for players).

See above.

 

[macster]

So you are new to online casinos...and I just jumped off of a boat from China. For a newbie poster, you sure seem to know quite a lot about online gaming and the machinations and personalities of this forum.

Casinomeister, I am sure you can access my details. You will then be able to to confirm that I am genuinely new.

I have been doing a lot of reading and perusing on here. And I have seen the nature of posts by members, so I do know an inflammatory post from an informational one. Unfortunately, I am not one to back down from a debate, especially when I know I am right. You talk about "inflammatory". I am sure you will see that there were many both before and after my posts (even recent ones!). So I must ask - why did you single mine out?

Know a lot? This is nothing! Try having to understand a new client, a multi-national company (that you're not familiar with) and its issues, provide findings and recommendations for improvement, schedules to effect these improvements, etc. in a 2 week engagement. You then have to handle executives who have been with the organisation for many years, but failed to see things from a different angle. You need their buy-in though. The best salespeople are not those who "build relationships". They are those that challenge their clients with new ways to improve top/bottom lines, etc. Such people ended up being liked more by the client and thus, end up building better relationships.

This is what I do for a living, so I'm sorry if I rapidly learned about the gaming industry because I wanted to play at an online casino and not look like a fool.

Sincerely,
Macster

 

[macster]

No one gives ID upon entering a casino here in the US, well except for a gambling ship. See bolded above.

Things work differently in the UK. Since US players are banned from playing online, it makes sense to follow how things are done in Europe, especially when the main online casino gripe is about "fraud", such as multiple accounts, multiple bonuses, underage players, etc.

If you do not agree that these suggestions can reduce instances of such "fraud", then you are obviously just being stubborn as any right-minded person (with no leanings, prejudices or interests) will concur to this!


P.S. Casinomeister, check out BB28's previous post. How is that not inflammatory?