Resolved Mosse VS Slotwolf

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
If a casino is going to confiscate winnings on the basis that someone accessed the site using the same IP as another account, even when they don't suspect multi accounting, they should be rogue in my view. Bryan has already said he sees it all the time on here. How on earth can two players using the same IP and no other evidence be grounds for confiscating money? Should all players pay for a static IP now?
 

Lobo

Repeated violations of rule 1.18 - being a PITA
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Location
Scandinavia
And again... that really tells how many other players Slotwolf has confiscated money from.
They tried it against Mosse, but found out he was not an easy target.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
If a casino is going to confiscate winnings on the basis that someone accessed the site using the same IP as another accoun ... Should all players pay for a static IP now?

As I'm sure you know we are aware that IPs rotate. While it may chafe the sensibilities of the haters the fact is that we, and the casino(s), do manage to be a little more nuanced in our examination of such evidence.

IPs don't rotate within minutes -- or whatever -- from one player to another player who coincidentally plays at the same casino, takes the same bonus and then suddenly the IP "rotates" back to the original player. Doesn't work that way, especially not multiple times.

If you persist in taking the position that we are either bent or stupid you'll find this conversation won't go very far.

And finally, as I'm sure you are also aware, the vast majority of casinos have "one player per household/IP" clauses in their Terms. Are they all rogues then? I think not. To belabour the point that's the grounds on which the PAB in question was decided in favour of the casino.

And with that I think I'll take my leave. The case is closed and finished, you've heard our reasoning, and we're getting dangerously close to counting angels on pinheads.
 
Last edited:

Lobo

Repeated violations of rule 1.18 - being a PITA
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Location
Scandinavia
As I'm sure you know we are aware that IPs rotate. While it may chafe the sensibilities of the haters the fact is that we, and the casino(s), do manage to be a little more nuanced in our examination of such evidence.

IPs don't rotate within minutes -- or whatever -- from one player to another player who coincidentally plays at the same casino, takes the same bonus and then suddenly the IP "rotates" back to the original player. Doesn't work that way, especially not multiple times.

If you persist in taking the position that we are either bent or stupid you'll find this conversation won't go very far.
To add: IP "evidence" is a very easy thing to make up, and make it look like "proof". And it will be very difficult to question the "evidence" other than say; "I did not do it".

If a casino want to try confiscate a withdrawal, they will find a way.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
If you persist in taking the position that we are either bent or stupid you'll find this conversation won't go very far.

wtf, just point out where I said that at all?
You said the casino said they didn't suspect multi accounting, therefore they were satisfied he didn't have more than one account. But they decided not to pay him anyway. Thats rogue behaviour.
 

Playford7

Permanent Ban: Too much flaming
MM
Joined
Jul 10, 2016
Location
North east England
You are awfully fond of saying "ThePogg proved this" and "ThePogg proved that". From what you've said above it doesn't sound like your case at ThePogg proved anything other than the casino was happier to drop the case than proceed.
What did the pogg say? Sorry reminded me of ‘what did the fox say’ song..
I’ll let myself out...


No, it tells everyone that the casino decided to settle rather than proceed. As you said, "Slotwolf didnt even tell anything to ThePogg". Obviously between the time I dealt with them and the time ThePogg approached them they decided it wasn't worth the hassle, and so they settled. It happens.

To repeat, I've seen the IP evidence, and it's not BS. Then again it's doesn't show anything other than more than one player accessing the casino from your IP. The casino told me they didn't think it was a case of multi-accounting, but it was a violation of the Terms which is the result I took back to you and closed the case based on that. I'd do the same again if the case was sitting before me, assuming the casino wished -- as SlotWolf did at the time I dealt with them -- to stick to and enforce that clause in the Terms.



Read into it what you like, the point is that we looked at and decided the case based on IP evidence. If the casino later changed their minds about sticking to that decision that is their business.

I'd like to add one last comment regarding the "two different services, two different results" thing. There are a good number of occasions over the years where someone has come to us because they got a decision from another service that they disagreed with and wanted us to have a "second" look at. We have and sometimes we've come to a different conclusion than was originally given. No big deal: different services have different guiding principles, different methods, different access to evidence, different resources, etc.

Most of us in the dispute arbitration business are mildly curious when this happens -- usually a professional curiousity if you missed or misjudged something -- but it's certainly not an occasion to burn the house down. If you think there's a kefuffle to be made over the fact that different services might reach different conclusions then you're a little late to the party because it's been happening for years, since the beginning really. I'd say it would be rather shocking if we all agreed all the time. And just to be clear, we agree on cases a hell of a lot more often than not.
 
Top