Bogus Complaint Intercasino does not pay me

Finn

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Location
Finland
I verified my identity multiple times, there is no risk of me being fake or whatever.

Yeah, but intentionally providing any false information at any stage can and has led to forfeiting of winnings on many accredited casinos, even upon later verification. For example there has been PABs against some other casinos where player had provided obviously made up cell phone number because he thought that is just a nice way to avoid spam, and at verification he provided correct phone number, but that didn't help, he didn't get paid and his PAB failed.
 

Tobster

Banned User - Violation of rules 1.10, 1.11
PABnoaccred
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Location
Germany
With some feedback it can be very easy to get extra clarifications to be added to terms and conditions, whether they are necessary or not.

Let's look at the case of : Markus VS TradaCasino

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/markus-vs-tradacasino-viaden-gaming.48111/?t=48111

Terms and Conditions before this case clearly covered Markus' selfmade casino client hack.

But he tried to be a smart ass with comments like



Nowadays TradaCasino actually has exactly this specific rule. Does this mean that TradaCasino conceded that Markus was right when they copied this specific rule that Markus gave as an example. Of course not.

They are relying only on term 16, nothing else, so i dont understand why u compare my case to this thread. If intercasinos old terms wouldve had sth forbidding vpn they wouldve used that as a reason to not pay instead of taking the risk of adding an additional term forbidding vpn afterwards, risking to get caught like they did, which is obviously really bad for their reputation.
Also i am not trying to be a "smart ass", im just looking for help to get this solved. I really dont understand how you can act like what they are trying to do is okay.
 

patricius

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Location
Portugal
T & C exist to assure Casino/Players the level of safety and confidence one hopes to get from each other relation, in a regulated way ( online gambling in this example ).

Laws ( not common sense or moral ones ) are written and they (must) have a stamp of date/time to entrust those who fall by them in a time frame. If they are elastic they´re useless. Because a written word has a specific meaning not a future intended one ( that´s why laws, and terms change trough adaptation to new situations).

If there´s a clear violation of a term is one thing. Creating a new one to "accomodate" any specific situation not previously defined is changing rules without consent and prior knowledge off all, breaking trust.
 

paul7388

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Location
glasgow scotland
I am guessing you came here to get help.

If so then best thing to do is submit the PAB and Max will deal with your complaint quickly. If the casino is in the wrong you will get paid the money.

There is absolutely no point getting into any debate with the members here about whether you are right or wrong. Best thing is to read the rules on submitting a PAB then do it. And once you submit it you should make no more comments about the complaint until it is settled or it can affect your case.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
PAB received, I'll process it tomorrow morning.

@ Tobster : Please ensure that you have read and understood the Pitch-A-Bitch FAQ. It is required reading for all PABers. Among other things the FAQ details your responsibilities in the PAB process (section 3.11), including NOT posting on our forums about your issue while the PAB is in progress.

If you know and respect the FAQ things should proceed smoothly.
 

Finn

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Location
Finland
They are relying only on term 16, nothing else, so i dont understand why u compare my case to this thread.

Even if the CS rely just on that, it is probably because they don't know when that clarification was added, and can't be bothered to point all the other sections that ban using of any extra software that tampers with normal casino-pc interaction and sections that ban providing of false identity information.

My point is that not everything that is banned by terms and conditions is done in specific examples. Even if the acronym VPN was not mentioned in old terms and conditions, it was probably banned under old terms and conditions because of what the use of VPN is.

Using VPN involves VPN software. When you use VPN when playing at casino, you use a software to conceal your real IP from casino. Usually all casinos have T&Cs that ban anykind of tampering with the normal PC-casino interaction with any extra software and terms than ban providing false identification information. So use of VPN would be banned under most casinos' terms and conditions even if the word VPN is not mentioned.

VPN in private use has been usually associated with creating false identification information to avoid getting nailed for piracy or getting around country restrictions, so casinos haven't felt it necessary to mention it separately, but have thought that the general bans on providing false information and software tampering are enough. This trend of over-use of VPN for supposed extra security is relatively new, and it would be nice if more casinos added mention of VPN to terms and conditions, but most Terms and conditions ban VPN implicitly even if the actual word doesn't appear there.
 

patricius

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Location
Portugal
A possible definition of retroactivity:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Just to remember what another member said above about an open PAB: "And once you submit it you should make no more comments about the complaint until it is settled or it can affect your case. ".

Regards to all.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Even if the CS rely just on that, it is probably because they don't know when that clarification was added, and can't be bothered to point all the other sections that ban using of any extra software that tampers with normal casino-pc interaction and sections that ban providing of false identity information.

My point is that not everything that is banned by terms and conditions is done in specific examples. Even if the acronym VPN was not mentioned in old terms and conditions, it was probably banned under old terms and conditions because of what the use of VPN is.

Using VPN involves VPN software. When you use VPN when playing at casino, you use a software to conceal your real IP from casino. Usually all casinos have T&Cs that ban anykind of tampering with the normal PC-casino interaction with any extra software and terms than ban providing false identification information. So use of VPN would be banned under most casinos' terms and conditions even if the word VPN is not mentioned.

VPN in private use has been usually associated with creating false identification information to avoid getting nailed for piracy or getting around country restrictions, so casinos haven't felt it necessary to mention it separately, but have thought that the general bans on providing false information and software tampering are enough. This trend of over-use of VPN for supposed extra security is relatively new, and it would be nice if more casinos added mention of VPN to terms and conditions, but most Terms and conditions ban VPN implicitly even if the actual word doesn't appear there.

Scare marketing is being used by some VPN vendors in order to convince users that they NEED this extra layer of "security" on top of anti virus, firewall, etc. It doesn't help that thanks to Wikileaks it has emerged that a number of former tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories about "big brother" snooping on ordinary citizens have actually been true all along.

VPN is also used as a means to enforce the original specifications of the internet against the efforts of vested commercial interests who want to bugger it up for their own ends. It's only "piracy" because these commercial interests have defined the term's meaning, not because it actually IS something bad in all cases.

I don't think the VPN vendors are being honest with their customers about the NEGATIVE consequences of using this "security enhancing" product, as it enhances the security of one party at the expense of the security of another.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Based on good evidence that the casino's Term prohibiting the use of VPNs well pre-dates the OP's time at the casino we conclude that the casino's actions against the OP are fair and fully justified.

Those in doubt should check the same resource the OP used: Wayback. Look at Intercasino's Terms dated 26 March 2014. Clause 16 of the Terms is clearly there and most definitely prohibits VPNs. The fact that the June and July snapshots on Wayback show something different appears to be a failing of Wayback. It is very odd that the Terms are hacked off right at the point where the previous Terms showed a divider.

The debate about VPNs notwithstanding the OP violated the Terms, Terms that are common to most casinos in the business. Stupid mistake or sloppy fraudster, either way the axe fell and rightly so.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
I'm surprised it went this far. The "no VPN" term has been there for the past couple of years. The Wayback machine is not infallible. It doesn't archive everything - sometimes pages get truncated or skipped. But this term appears at least back in 2012:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Bottom line is never ever use a VPN when logging into a service that is limited to certain jurisdictions. There are obvious requirements between a casino and its licensing jurisdiction.
 

petro

Dormant account, per user request
PABaccred
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Location
Narnia
That concluded with a very strange twist in the story.
Maybe it was just a flaw in the wayback machine, it could have been hacked even.
 

Tobster

Banned User - Violation of rules 1.10, 1.11
PABnoaccred
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Location
Germany
Based on good evidence that the casino's Term prohibiting the use of VPNs well pre-dates the OP's time at the casino we conclude that the casino's actions against the OP are fair and fully justified.

Those in doubt should check the same resource the OP used: Wayback. Look at Intercasino's Terms dated 26 March 2014. Clause 16 of the Terms is clearly there and most definitely prohibits VPNs. The fact that the June and July snapshots on Wayback show something different appears to be a failing of Wayback. It is very odd that the Terms are hacked off right at the point where the previous Terms showed a divider.

The debate about VPNs notwithstanding the OP violated the Terms, Terms that are common to most casinos in the business. Stupid mistake or sloppy fraudster, either way the axe fell and rightly so.

First i want to thank you for your effort talking to the casino in my case. You are offering free help to players which is really nice, so i appreciate that eitherway.

Unfortunatly i find the way you are arguing stunning. Basically u are saying the screenshots before june and july in waybackmachine are legit, but the screenshots from june and july, there mustve been sth that went wrong or the machine didnt work well. really?? Like if its in the interest of the casino the machine is acceptable as evidence, but when its not, it must be a bug and cant be accepted? By the way, i knew the casino would come up with something like that, saying waybackmachine is not reliable, since it is the only evidence i can get a hold off. They know without this i have no chance of proving it. This is sad.

How could this ever be a bug? Like all terms and conditions of june and july screenshot are there, but only the last ones are missing, like someone copied them out or how could this ever be a bug? I guess its pretty obvious whats going here, but saying it out loud probably isnt a good idea, everyone can think for themselfs.

Anyway, thanks to everyone that participated in this thread. I will take my next steps now and keep fighting for my money.

If anyone knows a way to find proof about the terms and conditions of the 26th of june on intercasino PLEASE pm me
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
...

If anyone knows a way to find proof about the terms and conditions of the 26th of june on intercasino PLEASE pm me

What I was getting at earlier is that the Wayback machine is a useful tool - it is not 100% fool proof. Some pages may be incomplete or truncated. The licensing jurisdiction would have all copies of each and every terms and conditions page. You could contact them for this. We didn't since the Way Back machine confirmed that section 16 of their terms has existed for a least 2 years.
 

patricius

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Location
Portugal
The PAB ended. The result was ok because, IMHO, it resulted in the question of the wayback machine validity. And in this case it goes both ways. Honestly I hopped a compromise was attained. That was not the case.

Sometimes I ask myself how many people play at online casinos ( how many read the T & C fully?! ) and play trough proxies, tunneling, vpn, etc. and the casinos accept the money they lose and no money is returned, besides knowing the place ( IP address ) they are playing from...

If I make a connection to a site/internet address the same is traceable - even if to a VPN, etc. So If I as a player use a VPN there are ways to trace If I´m "tunneling" an address or not from the start. Since player deposit.

Many universities, workplaces, etc. only allow internet access trough them ( VPN, proxies, etc) . And not all casinos have SSL secure access ( and that also is not fully secured ) and if casinos want people to play everywhere ( tablets, smartphones, etc. ) they must adapt to time, and not the opposite.

Most sold tablets are Wifi only, and most people use Wi-fi in hotspots. Those change IP frequently and many times are protected trough VPNs ( a VPN is also used in corporate communication networks to secure data and avoid leakage). So I think I will only play online at home. And even there my SP changes IP sometimes ( dynamic IP are for regular/home costumers). Fixed IP are for companies.

Even some casinos won´t allow the creation of password longer than x characters, or with wildcards, minimizing OP protection.

In the link bellow you can check if your connection is trough a proxy and many more helpful info. Use it before playing online.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



Regards to all.
 
Last edited:

Beravek7

Dormant account
PABnoaccred
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Location
Prague
So the player identified himself through all possible ways yet he was not paid because he made a mistake (clearly unintentional) of using VPN service? Hmm... Anyway I am glad for Intercasino and congratulate them on inventing more new ways of increasing their casino's overall house advantage!
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
So player identified himself through all possible ways yet he was not paid because he made a mistake (clearly unintentional) of using VPN service? Hmm... Anyway I am glad for Intercasino and congratulate them on inventing more new ways of increasing their casino's overall house advantage over players!

Ok - we get it - you're pissed because your PAB failed. But you've become a troll. Either knock it off or take a hike. Thank you.
 

Beravek7

Dormant account
PABnoaccred
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Location
Prague
Ok jokes aside, it looks like the OP somehow sneaked into the past and changed the things there. Reminds me of "Back to Future" Spielberg's blockbuster.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The PAB ended. The result was ok because, IMHO, it resulted in the question of the wayback machine validity. And in this case it goes both ways. Honestly I hopped a compromise was attained. That was not the case.

Sometimes I ask myself how many people play at online casinos ( how many read the T & C fully?! ) and play trough proxies, tunneling, vpn, etc. and the casinos accept the money they lose and no money is returned, besides knowing the place ( IP address ) they are playing from...

If I make a connection to a site/internet address the same is traceable - even if to a VPN, etc. So If I as a player use a VPN there are ways to trace If I´m "tunneling" an address or not from the start. Since player deposit.

Many universities, workplaces, etc. only allow internet access trough them ( VPN, proxies, etc) . And not all casinos have SSL secure access ( and that also is not fully secured ) and if casinos want people to play everywhere ( tablets, smartphones, etc. ) they must adapt to time, and not the opposite.

Most sold tablets are Wifi only, and most people use Wi-fi in hotspots. Those change IP frequently and many times are protected trough VPNs ( a VPN is also used in corporate communication networks to secure data and avoid leakage). So I think I will only play online at home. And even there my SP changes IP sometimes ( dynamic IP are for regular/home costumers). Fixed IP are for companies.

Even some casinos won´t allow the creation of password longer than x characters, or with wildcards, minimizing OP protection.

In the link bellow you can check if your connection is trough a proxy and many more helpful info. Use it before playing online.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



Regards to all.

Well, this just shows how inaccurate geolocation is. I have the SAME IP address as yesterday, probably because I haven't turned the modem and router off, yet instead of CORRECTLY being located to Bracknell, this site erroneously has my IP address in POOLE, which is not even in the same COUNTY! It's about 100 miles away, but this was more than the 60 miles away that once tripped out my Neteller account for not looking as though I was not logging in from home (I wasn't, but with dynamic IP, it should not have made the difference).

For some, 100 miles could put them in a completely different COUNTRY. It's less than 30 miles from Dover to France, and this has certainly happened to mobile device users, and resulted in a big bill for "foreign use" even when they were using their device on the south coast of England.

Now, if mobile internet can't be told apart from VPN use, or come to that, work and university internet, then the current system could become unworkable unless casinos give up on the idea of "play on the go" and insist that people ONLY play from home, on their own internet connection, and it being the same connection they used to register the account.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
The thing with Wayback is that it is flaky. That's my own statement by the way, the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it.

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

So, Wayback. As long as Wayback has been around it has been a great resource but it has never been advertised nor promised as a full, formal and reliable copy of the pages it archives. Graphics are missing, links not preserved, pages not spidered correctly, etc.

The bottom line with Wayback is that if you can find the thing you are looking for and it's there before your eyes then yeah, there's a good chance it's worthwhile evidence. But if what you are looking for is not there, as in it is missing or broken or somesuch, then Wayback isn't particularly useful BECAUSE of it's well known history of problems. Are you looking at the full and complete page as it was on the date specified or is it a partial fubar'd copy? No way of telling and there are no guarantees made.

Years ago I contacted Wayback to ask about a page I thought was f'd up. They thought it was a joke that I had the brass to complain about it. "It's a free service," they told me, "what you see is what you get" and made no apologies for it.

So no, Wayback is not a particularly reliable resource. Interesting and often enlightening but NOT to be taken as iron-clad 100% proof of anything.
 
Top