Resolved Mosse VS Slotwolf

[dionysus]

But i wont use anymore my time on this. Its enough i got my money from them.

content to have marked resolved?

 

[maxd]

I havent still got any explain from anyone (@maxd , @Slotwolf Casino )about why this all happened....

Not true. On March 4th I posted this in your Ticket:

I looked at the evidence and it solidly shows several accounts accessing the casino from your IPs. That's a violation of Terms and so the casino's actions against you are justified.

You immediately reacted to that, at some length, so you cannot claim to have been unaware of it.

FTR this isn't the first time you've misrepresented and/or distorted the facts in your case, as in previous cases we've handled for you. That in itself is a significant part of the problem. It's also why we've told you that your future access to the PAB process will be restricted.

 

[Mosse]

Ive told it now dozen times, I havent broken any terms. Slotwolf paid my money back. That itself tells to everyone that this so called "proof" has been nothing more than bs.

I asked you @maxd to show me any of this proof and wow what happened...you had just deleted all...thats no explanation of anything at all imo

So please honour thePOGG's result and better work for me than you did. I won the case. No violation of any terms anywhere. Period.

 

[Casinomeister]

Ive told it now dozen times, I havent broken any terms. Slotwolf paid my money back. That itself tells to everyone that this so called "proof" has been nothing more than bs.

I asked you @maxd to show me any of this proof and wow what happened...you had just deleted all...thats no explanation of anything at all imo

So please honour thePOGG's result and better work for me than you did. I won the case. No violation of any terms anywhere. Period.

That is a load of crap. You did break the terms: i.e you share the same IPs as other users. To say this is bullshit may be your opinion, but it is a fact that you do share IPs with other accounts.

And for the record, I was actually siding with the fact that IPs might be shared with folks on the same network and might not be an indicator of fraudulent activity. So this may have had an affect on the PAB - who knows? I was not in direct contact with the casino. That's Max's job. And by the way - nothing has been deleted. I have not a clue what you are getting at here.

And we have proof in this forum where you have shared an account on the same device. I confronted you with this some time ago. So if you value your membership here, I would suggest you drop this topic. Capiche?

Consider any future PAB privileges revoked.

 

[geordiecolin]

I am struggling to make head or tail about all of this tbh.

I mean,it begs the question of where should I go if I have an issue in future that requires such help?

My PAB a long time ago was rejected out of hand in here despite me feeling that I had a very strong case of a casino abusing their bonus terms by adding on further bonuses during the bonus in order to prevent me from making a withdrawal

 

[Casinomeister]

And by the way - nothing has been deleted. I have not a clue what you are getting at here.

Oh - I know what your getting at - this is the data removed by us RE GDPR. We're done with this.

 

[Mosse]

I dont share my ip with anyone. Thats the 100% fact!

Max himself informed me on my pabticket that he cant show me any proof cause after pab is closed all information is deleted.

If you keep shouting that I share ip addressed show me then the proof. So far no-one has shown one single proof of this. And also Slotwolf changed their mind. I think that speaks enough itself.

I think i have spoken enough here now. Everyone can read this topic and make their own decisions who is right here. Ive told all the facts.
Case closed.

 

[Casinomeister]

I know English is not your first language, so perhaps you are not following what I wrote above. I was siding with the fact that IPs might be shared with players and that it is not conclusive to shared accounts.

You got your money back, so why are you bitching about this so much?

But yeah, I'll play your little game.

Are you sharing your computer with this member - true or false?
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/hemmula.34045/

Don't bullshit me.

 

[Casinomeister]

I am struggling to make head or tail about all of this tbh.

I mean,it begs the question of where should I go if I have an issue in future that requires such help?

My PAB a long time ago was rejected out of hand in here despite me feeling that I had a very strong case of a casino abusing their bonus terms by adding on further bonuses during the bonus in order to prevent me from making a withdrawal

This really has nothing to do with Mosse having the same IPs as other players. So what question is being begged?

 

[Casinomeister]

So you have a matching IP in the forum with another user, this user has matching IPs with other users, so on and so on. And this goes for almost every member here. This is why match IPs are not conclusive evidence that foul play is at hand. And this is a possible reason why you got paid.

But you are badgering this topic to death which really causes me to question your motives.

 

[dunover]

View attachment 125694

So you have a matching IP in the forum with another user, this user has matching IPs with other users, so on and so on. And this goes for almost every member here. This is why match IPs are not conclusive evidence that foul play is at hand. And this is a possible reason why you got paid.

But you are badgering this topic to death which really causes me to question your motives.

Jeeze! I though he said he'd been refunded/paid so that was the end of the matter?

So what's he banging on about, aside from ingratitude for the efforts CM made on his behalf?

 

[geordiecolin]

Jeeze! I though he said he'd been refunded/paid so that was the end of the matter?

So what's he banging on about, aside from ingratitude for the efforts CM made on his behalf?

Do you not think that a person has every right to express the fact that he got his money in full via another avenue which seems to have exonerated his culpability? If that happens to conflict with his experience via CM then it is not really his fault

 

[geordiecolin]

This really has nothing to do with Mosse having the same IPs as other players. So what question is being begged?

It suggests that going down two different avenues that aim to provide the same goal can and does result in very different conclusions and outcomes

 

[colinsunderland]

View attachment 125694

So you have a matching IP in the forum with another user, this user has matching IPs with other users, so on and so on. And this goes for almost every member here. This is why match IPs are not conclusive evidence that foul play is at hand. And this is a possible reason why you got paid.

But you are badgering this topic to death which really causes me to question your motives.

But then thats surely at odds with

I looked at the evidence and it solidly shows several accounts accessing the casino from your IPs. That's a violation of Terms and so the casino's actions against you are justified.

Not taking sides as I don't know what else went on, but that from Max suggests that the reason he didn't get paid was due to the IP address?

On another note, surely N1 going through the PAB process and refusing to pay, then going through the same thing with another ADR and paying, undermines your service? Either they shouldn't have paid or they should have paid, but 2 different disputes result in 2 different results. That shouldn't be the case. If it were me I would certainly be questioning them on how a different outcome was achieved at a different ADR

 

[maxd]

I havent still got any explain from anyone ... Slotwolf didnt even tell anything to @ThePOGG . They just notified that my money was returned.

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.

... Slotwolf paid my money back. That itself tells to everyone that this so called "proof" has been nothing more than bs.

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.

... Slotwolf changed their mind. I think that speaks enough itself.

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.

 

[colinsunderland]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Lobo]

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]

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]

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.