I thought this was a discussion, not a torch and pitchfork session attacking what we try to accomplish here.
This is a very complex situation that many of you seem not to fathom. What we have are most casinos with what some may call FU clauses (I think I coined that phrase BTW
). These clauses are there to protect the casino against whatever player activity they feel threatens them. These clauses are also used at the casino's discretion, and as soon as you sign up and say "Yes" you have given them the license to use this how they see fit. In other words you
trust them to treat you fairly.
Speaking only for myself, it is a discussion....I hope you don't view any of my comments as attacking this site or you personally. We obviously have a major difference of opinion here, but I also know that you're open to civilized debate, or else we wouldn't be here. You also know that I DO respect what you try to accomplish, and what you have accomplished.
I think some here are under the misconception that you are a player advocate, and nothing else. IMO, that is only one of the roles that you play. This site is here to try and create a level playing field for ALL, and that includes the casinos, and I get it. It's not just about players, or in this case, one player....it's about making things better for everyone in the long run.
Regarding the FU clause, you are exactly right. When we sign up at a new casino we trust them to apply their rules in a fair and ethical manner. That probably does happen the majority of the time...otherwise we'd be in this exact same position a whole lot more. But Bryan, you have to admit that players also have an expectation that if a casino is on your accredited list, you are also trusting them to apply their rules in a fair and ethical manner.
I guess this is where the difference of opinion comes in. Do you believe that Spin Palace applied this term fairly? I know that I don't. The term, as it was written at the time, was impossible to abide by. If the term itself is inherently unfair, how can it be applied fairly? Totally illogical to me.
But it wasn't the full moon or other celestial events that caused the casino to yank this guy's winnings, it was his play activity - which was covered in the terms and conditions. The casino made the decision to confiscate his winnings. On the other hand they could have looked the other way and let him cash out hoping he'd come back. Who knows? But this just wasn't an action of some evil casino manager trying to get over on a player. The casino felt it was in their right to act this way.
Okay, so I was being a smartass (again, lol). But it may as well have been due to celestial events, as the term they applied was impossible for the player to adhere to.
Please keep this in perspective: this term has been in place for over a year, and so far not many have had problems with this. Spin Palace has been around for ages - it's not some fly-by-night operation.
Completely agree on all of the above, and that's why I'm so beyond disappointed and shocked. If you read my other posts, I have always held this group in the highest regard. I have no previous issues with them, no bone to pick, I thought they were one of the absolute best that online gaming had to offer and would have gladly sent anyone there to play, no hesitation.
But you're right about a "precedence" that this could set. Who knows what's going through these operators minds - take a look at these:
Which follows a whole series of punishments. I didn't see waterboarding mentioned at all. No worries there
What action? Sounds frightening...
At its own discretion - at all times.
These are top notch casinos - I'm sure we can all agree to that. Do we agree to allow them to use their "discretion"? Yes we do when we accept their offers.
Would the OP have run into the same problem at one of these casinos? Good chance that he would have.
Each one of these terms could be "abused" by a manager having a bad day. Each one of these could be considered unfair. We
trust that these casinos treat us fairly and not use these arbitrarily.
That is the crux of this issue.
I do agree that they are all good casinos. But I'm not sure how you can make the leap to say that the OP would have run into the same problem at all of the above. How can we know? Unless you've asked for their opinion, and they told you they would have acted in the same manner?
Why is it that 32Red have never had an issue similar to this posted on this forum, or any other (that I'm aware of)? Is there anyone who thinks that they haven't been hit by groups of advantage players? Or by one player who played in the same fashion as the OP in this case? Of course they have. The difference is that I would almost guarantee what happens is they pay the player(s), and then tell them that their business is no longer welcome, or simply exclude them from any further promotional mailings. I use 32Red as an example, because it's where I play, and I'm familiar with them. But I just as easily could have used Ladbrokes, Roxy Palace, Intercasino, Virgin...or others. The difference between a good operator and a bad one..is exactly what Bryan has stated....we trust these casinos to apply their terms fairly and not arbitrarily. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I'm not sure if you're making fun of me in re: setting precedence? The waterboarding comments, etc....I take it as tongue in cheek, and I get the humour. I just wasn't sure if you were making light of me saying this whole issue was setting a precedent that I didn't like.....I'm going to assume you weren't, not your style.
In order to clarify my comment re: precedent, maybe if I give an example of what I was thinking? Let's say the manager of XYZ Casino (who is accredited here and holds an eCOGRA seal) decides to sit down and read through this thread. He says to himself "wow, we had the EXACT same situation here last week. We realized our terms as written weren't clear enough, amended them, and paid the player. We also decided that we just wouldn't offer him any more bonuses, because this isn't the type of player we want". He's thinking this over, and he's wondering why he bothered to pay this player at all. This other casino didn't pay the player, and there were no consequences to deal with, other than a bit of bad publicity for a while. And that always dies down, given enough time. The other casino is still on the list of good casinos, is still being promoted by webmasters in general, and still has their eCOGRA seal.
The point I'm trying to make is how you can list a casino that arbitrarily confiscates winnings, alongside those casinos that don't? And what message does it send out to the good guys, who try day in and day out, to do the right thing, treat the players fairly, and act in an honourable fashion?
All those examples you list just highlight the point I made above. By allowing Spin Palace to do this, it sends the message that it's okay to invoke those FU clauses at will....and just look at how many of them there are. Even the good guys have them.
Did the casino use this arbitrarily - without reason? I'm inclined to think not.
This is the sticking point isn't it? You think they didn't, I 100% think they did.
If ANYONE, and I mean anyone, can give me one reasonable scenario in which the OP could have played this bonus (and won) and NOT broken the term in question (short of grinding the whole thing out on small slot bets and getting lucky very early), I will shut up. You can list games, or a pattern of play, whatever. Tell me how he should have played it to adhere to the term of not betting the majority of his balance at one time. When his balance was down to $1 or less, how could he have avoided breaking the term? He couldn't, impossible. Obviously, if he got lucky early in his session, we wouldn't be here. It's when his balance starts to dwindle, that the term really comes into play. So after he lost his first 4(?) bets, what should he have done to ensure adherence to the T&C's?
Which leads us to the question of......if he had lost that last bet, would Spin Palace have sent his original $150 deposit back to him for breaking their impossible term? We all know the answer to that.
So, where do we go from here? Does the Casinomeister membership have any helpful suggestions or constructive criticisms, or are we just going to continue the tired mantra of "pay up or rogue 'em"?
That's a fair question Bryan, and one that deserves answers. I don't have any quickfixes this second, but I will think about it...seriously think about it.
I always take heat for my opinion, especially when members breeze through my comments and fail to understand them. Many people speed-read the thread and then jump in with a "rogue" comment. That's par for the course, ain't it?
Pet peeve here as well, people who don't read the whole thing. I've been guilty of skimming in the past as well, but I wouldn't jump into a thread like this, without having read it through. But yeah, you're right, and I bite my tongue and sit on my fingers sometimes.
As for eCOGRA - this is my site, not eCOGRA's. If the OP felt that his case was treated unfairly or incorrectly, he could have rebutted the decision. I don't think he did anything, he just came over here.
Actually the OP posted that he did appeal eCOGRA's decision, which is part of the reason why I mentioned them. I realize that your sites, and goals, are independent of each other. I've written Andrew to express my feelings, and will leave it at that.
So back to the point, if any of these casinos had exercised the same "discretion" as Spin Palace did and withheld the OP's winnings, would this have been considered unfair?
How can we ensure that this does not happen again?
In reply to the first paragraph, yes absolutely. As big a supporter as I am of 32Red, and the way they conduct themselves...if they pulled this, I'd be writing them asking wtf are they doing? And I'd be contributing my thoughts to that thread as well. I know that, and so do they. Fair is fair.
Like I said above, a good question....and I hope that maybe we can find some answers. I really do. I don't enjoy threads like this, especially about casinos that I held in such high regard.
:notworthy
