At the risk of seeming to butt-heads with the webmaster, which is in my experience a counter-productive activity...
casinomeister said:
Maybe because I tire of the negativity, that's why. Recently, I'm seeing a lot of it.
You have some valid points BUT you ought to understand that you are seeing things from a players perspective whereas I am seeing it from several sides. I'm the one who goes out and meets these people - if you were to join me and meet with some of them, you would perhaps not be so aggressive in condemning them.
My problem: it's not the operators or CEOs who are dealing with the players directly in most cases, but the CR and frontline managers. And sometimes people eff up.
I don't like what happened, and I made this clear to Kiwi. But I believe it was a case of poor judgement, and not something that calls for a decapitating "off with their heads" battle cry.
I get this a lot, the "negativity" thing, and I always say the same thing in response: negativity is just fine as long as it's factual. Casinos are
supposed to pay, so I'm not about to get excited about the fact when they do - I don't think it's comment-worthy. When they screw around, THAT'S comment worthy. You perceive this as "negativity". What can I say? - that's the difference between us. Long Live Factual Negativity - it's done a lot for a lot of players in the past (not just mine, of course). Long may it continue. It seems to work.
My view is VERY balanced. I frequently take the casino side. My opinion as above is based on the facts of the case presented in this thread - which I'm not going to backtrack over, for all our sakes. I am not seeing it as "a player" - if I were, that would be consistent of all my opinions. I try hard, and succeed, in seeing things from a balanced perspective. I challenge anyone to show me any stance I've taken that has been unfairly biased towards casino or player.
As to meeting people: people can and will say one thing to your face and do another from behind their computer screens, as you know. If I met the Kiwi folk, I've no doubt I'd find them good people. That wouldn't change the fact of what happened here. I put no store in what people say other than for what it's worth. If they go and behave atrociously once they're back behind their computers, then their upfront appearances, smiles and compelling talk all go for nothing. I don't soften my opinion because I've met them and liked them - that is weakness.
My own opinion here was that, based on the clear evidence of the thread, and Kiwi's words, there was no error of judgement: the casino took a clear stance, then when the player complained, the casino said that the "clear stance" was, in fact, a non-consideration, and "fraud" factors - previously unstated - had been the reason. This, to me, is a complete nonsense. And, it was to everyone else who commented. Every single person.
Of course, whether or not that is a reason to "decapitate" them is up to the individual. I consider this evidence of extreme untrustworthiness, and as such have to "decapitate" them myself. But then, I take a hard line - and hopefully a consistent one - on these matters. And I reiterate that this relevant historical data does not lessen, or devalue, with age or repetition.
