Metro wouldn't pay $6600

[sdaddy]

one more thing, "permitted" could be taken to mean simply that the software won't stop you from doing so. read it like this "you can play these games, but doing it before the wr is met is not cricket". read 'not cricket' as 'prohibited', as 'not allowed' or as 'does not contribute', which we've come to realize means prohibited.

Man, what a tortured way to turn language saying something is "permitted" into the exact opposite. You guys are working hard to discredit this player's case, I'll give you that.

This is really starting to bring back memories of Bill Clinton's argument that he was not lying when he testified about Monica Lewinsky because "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

 

[lojo]

Man, what a tortured way to turn language saying something is "permitted" into the exact opposite. You guys are working hard to discredit this player's case, I'll give you that.

This is really starting to bring back memories of Bill Clinton's argument that he was not lying when he testified about Monica Lewinsky because "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

What we say won't influence what Bryan will do if the guy PaB. Afaik, he's still all about the black and white of the matter.
If you look again you'll see that Happy seems to swing both ways on this one, and SlotWizard has said 'half a dozen times' the terms are ambiguous. The ChuChu and Gerilege posts seem very well reasoned.

When someone comes along with a complaint that doesn't look 'exploit' related on the surface I'm almost always 50/50 leaning toward the player. But when dealing with someone who seems to practice the bonus craft, I flip easily.

If your premise is that any ambiguity should favor the player, and that's the only way to get casinos to tighten and straighten up their T&C's, then I may have to take another look. But if you are in the end, only defending bonuscraft, we're in opposite camps on the broader issue.

 

[sdaddy]

If your premise is that any ambiguity should favor the player, and that's the only way to get casinos to tighten and straighten up their T&C's, then I may have to take another look. But if you are in the end, only defending bonuscraft, we're in opposite camps on the broader issue.

Actually, my position is that this is not about ambiguity favoring the player, but that the language in the terms clearly allows what the player did. In that sense, it's irrelevant whether or not I am trying to defend bonus chasers. But since you brought it up, the truth is that I rarely play with bonuses these days, so I'm not approaching this as someone just defending a narrow self-interest.

This is about whether or not casinos - or players for that matter - should have to follow the rules as they're written, simple as that. If we start moving to an environment where application of rules is "flexible" or "discretionary," then it's not just bonus chasers who are going to be affected, all of us eventually will.

 

[happygobrokey]

it's been established many times over that "doesn't count for wagering" IS ambiguous (different casinos treat it differently) and warrants clarification before embarking on a potentially damning course of action.

in this instance it says "permitted" but immediately after it says "but playing on these games before wagering is met", and sure the next part is "won't count for wagering", but once wagering is met it obviously doesn't matter if the play counts for wagering or not. if the middle part weren't there, and it said simply "permitted but not counting for wagering" makes it clear you can play it, but it still leaves you open for the casino to say "doesn't count" means "not allowed while bonus wr is unfulfilled".

so "won't count for wagering" is ambiguous in itself, "but playing them before wagering" seems to imply there might be trouble with playing them before wagering, and "permitted" alone does not indicate when or under what conditions the permission holds. i do not find this to be a "clear" statement at all, and i think a reasonable person would want to investigate what the words are really meant to mean.

it IS ambiguous all over the place (i gave three different examples earlier), and it is NOT "crystal clear" by any means. i just think asking for a "yes you can" is prudent instead of believing that no "no you can't" is a green light in this circumstance.

 

[lojo]

Actually, my position is that this is not about ambiguity favoring the player, but that the language in the terms clearly allows what the player did. In that sense, it's irrelevant whether or not I am trying to defend bonus chasers. But since you brought it up, the truth is that I rarely play with bonuses these days, so I'm not approaching this as someone just defending a narrow self-interest.

This is about whether or not casinos - or players for that matter - should have to follow the rules as they're written, simple as that. If we start moving to an environment where application of rules is "flexible" or "discretionary," then it's not just bonus chasers who are going to be affected, all of us eventually will.

I totally respect that. I can see your position from your challenge to PlayShare, the fact that you don't 'automatically' jump on the side of the player, and some other past posts.

(whether you play with bonuses might not be a point if you are an affiliate or have other unannounced interests in casinos or patrons 'winning' or 'losing' these conflicts)

I understand the mentality of a public defender taking on a known crook to make sure the law of the land is upheld for everyone - there is no law of the land, only fair and unfair for now. That's what I'm looking at. I don't have a better argument than you, or CasinoMeister have for 'it is up to the casino to make the rules (IN PLAIN LANGUAGE) and accept a bet or not.'
I don't.

I guess I go for motive when thinking these things through. I don't know BM from a BM, but I figure they're bushcrooked somehow because we yanks can't play there, and I figger the OP was out to do someone's money in cuz he thought he was clever. Condemn the fux who promote slithering around the bonuses and then I will truley believe you are on the side of right and reason.

See ya in wildcards?? not yet.

 

[guymiz]

Thank you for your responses.

When you use the words allowed, permitted in english you mean one thing.


This is why I said obvious. When a casino says play any of out other games is permitted and then says but it won't count towards the wagering , it means... permitted .... or allowed or feel free... BUT.....

The combination of such a phrase with the but invite to play other games, it is like saying...

Feel free to play any of our game, but wager in slots in order to be able to cashout any of your winnings.

Any attempt to say, permitted by the software but not by the casino people... permitted to play but not to win so much... permitted to play but it is like spitting on your boss... permitted to play but why would you do that , it is calling for troubles.... is irrelevant.

I have also something to say to the people who does not lilke the way I play.

I still risked $1500 of my funds depositing the casinos in the group.

I played in that way from my experience in slots , it is hard to win and the wagering was huge for Israeli player.

It is established that when it says does not count towards the wagering, try not to play those games.

I don't agree on that phrase as well, since does not count towards wagering means only count towards wagering it is not.. bla bla bla... but here the SITUATION IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT

IT SAYS play any of our OTHER GAMES IS PERMITTED.... it is different.

I don't need to ask for clarification when I see that term.

For people I think I am aggressive, well I contacted the casino many many time trying to resolve the issue explaining I came to play and win and not to give metro the bad publicity... but they insisted there... they stopped responding to my email.... why would not I be aggressive ?

I got a PM from someone who lost there and want his deposit back and asked for some emails from me, he played the same way ? why to let the casinos rob people like that ? why would'nt I be aggressive ?

 

[jod5413]

Hi fellas! Not to bore you with my inadequate usage of long words, I'd like to throw in my honest opinion, if you'll bear with me (it's worth what, 2 cents?)
You all have valid points, you all have different opinions and beliefs in what is or should be right and wrong. What it ALL boils down to is the OP NEEDS to file a PAB and wait. The only smart thing AND the only possible way to a solution, whether it goes his way or not. That's it, that's the ball game, is that NOT what will ultimately make the FAT LADY SING? No sense getting each other so riled up, enemies are tiresome.

True or am I just an ijit?

Jod

 

[KasinoKing]

First off I have not read all of the above posts - but I don't need to.

To me the terms are crystal clear;
You can play any games you want, but only the 3 games mentioned count towards WR.
It's there in black and white!

By confiscating the winnings citing only play on certain games as the reason and not claiming any specific 'bonus abuse', the casino is breaching it's own terms.

Pitch a Bitch!

I promote Metro (and it's sisters), but if they don't pay this player I promise I will remove them from my site - this is blatant rogue behavior.

KK

 

[guymiz]

You are right , no more bad words, I pitched a bitch and hope they pay and everything is fine with everyone Metro group and me.

After all I enjoyed playing there, just pay and I consider this case done.

 

[guymiz]

Bryan, any update reg my pitch a bitch ?

 

[Casinomeister]

Bryan, any update reg my pitch a bitch ?

I'm on it now.

 

[cyprean]

Did this issue ever get solved?

I received a reload bonus from Metro this morning. Not sure if I wanna risk it after reading this.

 

[maxd]

You do realize that thread is over a year old, yes?

 

[uungy]

You do realize that thread is over a year old, yes?

I am quite interested in this too. They seem to be going a little down the pan, A little search around, shows they may be paying issues and bonus abuse / bit issues.

I know management has changed, however the question is if this was sorted, even once the new mnanagement have come in

 

[Jasminebed]

You do realize that thread is over a year old, yes?

Even if it is a year old, perhaps especially since it is a year old, that the PAB was or was not resolved is relevant for a player looking to take a bonus offer and deposit their hard-earned money.

Thanks for the hard work you do here maxd.

 

[maxd]

Fair enough, I'll check with B. This one would have come in a little before my time here.

 

[uungy]

And they bite the dust.

I know its a year old, but didnt think its worth opening a new thread for this.