Pinnacle/Galewind T's & C's

[Nifty29]

I play at casinos that have terms I don't agree with because:

a) I like to gamble

and

b) I can afford to lose the money if they steal it off me.

As such it's a calculated risk on top of a calculated risk. When I deposit money into a casino I immediately write it off, whether I lose it playing the games or lose it because the casino decides not to pay me for whatever reason.

You can dress it up however you like Chopley, but the fact remains that you continue to play at casinos that have this clause so it obviously doesn't bother you that much at all....and yet you expect everyone here to accept that it is such a vital and important issue. Your own behaviour just makes my point for me i.e. it is a non-issue.

The whole "I can afford to lose it if they don't pay me" line is just a cop out. You can't tell me that if an accredited casino, or any other casino, ripped you off you that you wouldn't post about it here and launch a PAB etc. So, make up your mind Chopley.....is it such a vital issue that accredited casinos should be rogued as a result, or is it something that obviously doesn't stop you from playing and hence isn't really that big a deal after all. Your behaviour contradicts your alleged convictions.

(Case in point would be an RTG or a Playtech casino (honestly can't remember which) that decided they wanted a whole raft of documentation when I came to make a withdrawal, it wasn't a withdrawal for a huge amount and was certainly less than I'd deposited there. I wasn't prepared to send documentation of the nature they requested to some godforsaken identity theft haven so I just reversed the withdrawal and played it out, and never played with that group of casinos ever again. As far as I'm concerned the casino stole my withdrawal off me, so it falls into category (b) above, but that's OK, 'cause I'd written the cash off anyway.)

The casino did not "steal" your money. You refused to provide the ID they requested (which you agreed to do when creating your account), and blew it all back. If you thought you weren't going to be paid, why bother playing the money to zero? Why not just uninstall and walk away? I'll bet if you won $10,000 you would have found the time and the inclination to send the requested documents.

Mind you, this statement about "stealing" explains why you hold the opinions you hold. It's so inaccurate and illogical I'm scratching my head as to why a person who tries to appear intelligent would even say it.

Since I am not privy to Red Flush's customer database and how they've interacted with all their customers past and present, no I can't.

Neither are you, and neither can you, for that matter.

The term is not just silly, it's rogue.

LOL. I didn't ask you to contact Red Flush and ask for their records.

Give me some examples from the CM forums, PAB's etc. I would strongly suggest that if Red Flush were in the habit of invoking this rule, we would be seeing it regularly in the forums.

Of course, I'm sending you on a wild goose chase, because there aren't any, because if there were, Bryan would have kicked them out.

If Red Flush did invoke this rule, then I agree it would be a bad choice. However, it is stated in their terms, so if you don't like the terms, don't play. Find somewhere that doesn't have that term.

Listing the term is silly, both because it is silly in itself, and because it is never used. It is not rogue....if it is, then so is the casino, and you are accusing Bryan of listing rogue casinos in his accredited list. Would you like to email him about that, given that you feel so strongly? Or would you prefer to just keep harping about it in the forums?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Goodness me Nifty that's about the most sublime 'Heads I win tales you lose' argument I've ever seen.

You explicitly asked for:

examples of current terms that are unfair, and how they could be made fair or better?

I replied that a clause whereby the casino reserves the right to void a player's winnings if he uses the software's built-in autoplay feature fitted that criteria, and you tell me that I'm 'silly' for listing that term as it's a 'silly' term in the first place.

A new player could easily break that term without even realising he was doing it, and even if he'd carefully read all the T&Cs in advance.

The 'AUTO PLAY' button is clearly labelled, but the 5X and 10X buttons are ambiguous, especially on a lot of MG slots where they're actually next to the coin size indicator and not the AUTO PLAY button itself.

So our hypothetical new player presses the 5X button, wondering what it does, perhaps thinking it's related to coin size, and in doing so immediately gives Red Flush the right, if they choose to exercise it, to void any and all winnings he may accumulate until such time as he tries to make a withdrawal.

You think that term is just 'silly'? Your logic appears to be that if a term has never been invoked then in some way it doesn't matter what it says, however daft or larcenous it may be - well I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. (In fact, can you give me one single solitary reason, anything at all, why that term even exists and what Red Flush felt they were protecting themselves against with it?)

In addition to that, I'm not 'accusing' Bryan of anything and I'd respectfully ask you not to distort my posts into something they clearly are not. My posts are my own opinions only and are expressed as such, I have not 'accused' Bryan of listing rogue casinos, I said that in my opinion the Red Flush term giving them the right to steal a player's winnings when he uses the software they provide as intended, is rogue.

 

[TheLastCylon]

There is a distinction that I decided against making in my previous post, but now think that it is important to bring up.

There are three variations of the catch-all term, and these correspond to three types of terms in general.

• The casino has the right to void games and confiscate all money.
• The casino has the right to void games and refund deposits.
• The casino has the right to reject membership for any reason.

The first is the worst, and is certifiably bat-shit. This term is ripe for abuse because it essentially says "the casino can do anything at all times." Truly, that is the ONLY term that they need, because it voids all other terms. The most salient manifestation of this is at Slotocash: The Company reserves the right, in its unfettered discretion, to void any winnings and confiscate any balance in your Casino account.

In the second, the player is at least getting their deposit back, but this has obvious abusive applications, such as when they are voiding a big win.

The third kind is free from my criticism. It is the standard rejection that any business is allowed. This is before the first bets have ever been placed. It's like a bouncer at a club entrance going "Sorry, you don't look enough like Ashton Kutcher to be allowed in." If bets have been placed, the casino would pay all balances and only then cancel the account.

As mentioned, these three variations exemplify three types of T&C's: bat-shit crazy, open to abuse, and casino's prerogative.

I'm obviously interested in the first two. They are the kinds that can be classified as an unjust law, and therefore are no law at all.

 

[binary128]

TheLastCylon,

OK, regarding T&C clauses which you have lumped together under the label "We don't like you":

Pinnacle/Galewind's Casino has nothing like that in their Ts&Cs. We have nothing like the example sentences which you have referenced. We have no "catch all" clauses of any nature, form, manner or intent. It is another instance of no "Then" to the "If". "If we don't like you, then we will do nothing."

(I'm going to go out on a limb a bit and comment that the words "... or irregular in any way" that close the quoted clause from Platinum Play have got to be the very definition of "catch all" phrases.)


I went to take a look at Pinnacle's generic Ts&Cs to see if there was anything in there. I found 2 clauses.

20. Pinnacle Sports reserves the right to suspend a client account without prior notice and return all funds.

21. You will not cause any transactions to be made at Pinnacle Sports that are not in good faith in an attempt to defraud the company, regardless of whether or not it actually causes us harm. If Pinnacle Sports, in its sole discretion, believes that any player, affiliate or marketing partner has intentionally acted in bad faith or has engaged in fraudulent activity, Pinnacle Sports reserves the right to take any and all steps it deems appropriate.


I think that you might call the first one a "We don't like you", but if so then the ramification is "Look, here's your money back, please go away."


I think that you could pick apart that second one. What is meant by "not in good faith", or "acted in bad faith"? And what is the definition of "fraudulent activity"?

I don't think, based on the wording, (and especially based on the Platinum Play example above) that you could call this one a "catch all", but you could certainly call it a "catch some". And again, the ramifications documented basically state - "We reserve the right to do something about it."

I am not trying to mitigate the above statement's applicability to Players. However, I believe that the inclusion of "affiliate or marketing partner" in this clause provides the reader with an insight into the "spirit of the law" in relation to the "letter of the law". (In contrast, both of the examples which you included in your post, one from SlotoCash and one from Platinum Play, dealt exclusively with the Player.)


Bottom Line:

I think that "We don't like you" is a completely acceptable clause. I think every business has a right to this statement.

If you were to include Pinnacle's Clause 20 above in this category, then I also consider this a completely acceptable response. To repeat - "We don't like you. Here's your money back. Please go away."

So, I believe that any issue with "We don't like you" lies in the response.

Given the 3 categories which you defined in a previous post (bat-shit crazy, open to abuse, and casino's prerogative), I'd put this clause into the "open to abuse" category.

However, I believe that the responses which you have provided in your two examples could accurately be called draconian.



And for a slight derail:

Personally, I found some of the posts in the Intercasino T&C problem to be hilarious. skiny's posts there were almost like an episode of MST3K.


Chris


Post Script

It is unfortunate that SlotoCash is getting included in most of these examples. I feel the need to explain that I included them as a reference in a previous post for no other reason than that I opened another browser tab, went to Casinomeister's home page, and clicked on the first Casino I found. I did not "single them out" with any specific intent. They were just at the top of the page.

 

[Nifty29]

There is a distinction that I decided against making in my previous post, but now think that it is important to bring up.

There are three variations of the catch-all term, and these correspond to three types of terms in general.

• The casino has the right to void games and confiscate all money.
• The casino has the right to void games and refund deposits.
• The casino has the right to reject membership for any reason.

The first is the worst, and is certifiably bat-shit. This term is ripe for abuse because it essentially says "the casino can do anything at all times." Truly, that is the ONLY term that they need, because it voids all other terms. The most salient manifestation of this is at Slotocash: The Company reserves the right, in its unfettered discretion, to void any winnings and confiscate any balance in your Casino account.

In the second, the player is at least getting their deposit back, but this has obvious abusive applications, such as when they are voiding a big win.

The third kind is free from my criticism. It is the standard rejection that any business is allowed. This is before the first bets have ever been placed. It's like a bouncer at a club entrance going "Sorry, you don't look enough like Ashton Kutcher to be allowed in." If bets have been placed, the casino would pay all balances and only then cancel the account.

As mentioned, these three variations exemplify three types of T&C's: bat-shit crazy, open to abuse, and casino's prerogative.

I'm obviously interested in the first two. They are the kinds that can be classified as an unjust law, and therefore are no law at all.

I won't add anything much, as Chris has put forward an excellent argument, which pretty much echoes what Bryan opined earlier.

One thing I will say though.....casino terms are not laws. You don't have to be bound by them. You make a choice by creating an account. Like I said to Chopley Turnip, if you really were as outraged and passionate as you proport to be, you wouldn't be playing online casinos. The fact that you continue to do so just forces one to think that you have another agenda, especially since you seem to only be interested in attacking the accredited list.

An accredited casino would only have to invoke this term once, and they would be not only kicked to the curb, but rogued to boot. The question is....why on earth would any of them do it? Well, the answer is they haven't, and they won't. The term exists to foil fraudsters and scammers......the average player has nothing to fear whatsoever.

In essence, it is a non-issue.

Tell me, have you ever been a "victim" of one of these terms, or had winnings confiscated by a casino? I'm just trying to ascertain why you continually take aim at CM accredited casinos. I don't expect a truthful response, as usual, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

 

[binary128]

I have been reading more examples of what TheLastCylon has lumped under the simple phrase "we don't like you". I've been doing this reading in TheLastCylons' "Meditations ..." thread, in other threads, and in the Ts&Cs of various Casinos.

I feel that my previous assignment of this clause to the group that TheLastCylon has labeled "Open to Abuse" is correct. As I said, I believe that any issue with this clause lies not in the regulation, but in the Casino's response to it. That is:

"We don't like you, so we will respond by doing this and that."


I assigned the following Pinnacle T&C:

"Pinnacle Sports reserves the right to suspend a client account without prior notice and return all funds."

to this "We don't like you" category because I couldn't find anything else at Pinnacle that even came close, and I felt it necessary to come back with something.

(To repeat: there is nothing like this in the Casino Ts&Cs.)

However, after doing the reading that I mentioned above, I would assign the Pinnacle T&C quoted above to the category "Casino's Prerogative", for the reason that I mentioned in my previous post. Specifically, their response:

"We don't like you. Here's your money back. Please go away."


For other Casinos, I would have to assign some to borderline crazy, and a few to full-blown bat shit crazy. In a few of them, I was truly left to wonder whether any action a Player might perform in playing a Casino game would fall outside of the limits of the clause as written. Platinum Play's words "... or irregular in any way" are, in my opinion, a good example of this.

Yes, all Players should read the Casino's Ts&Cs. Yes, in checking "I agree" the Player is bound by those Ts&Cs. However, after reading more of them, I don't think that the management of these Casinos really wants to say what their words are saying.

I've got to believe that many of them would welcome a constructive critique of their documents.

Chris

 

[TheLastCylon]

Binary,

Fair enough. To be sure, Pinnacle's language isn't ideal in my view, but it's not as bad as those that I'm singling out.

I don't want to linger on cash-out exclusions, for a number of reasons, but primarily I don't believe that you have anything to do with cash-out related processes. Is that correct? Or are you actually involved with the financial transfers?

Thus, since you didn't bring it up already, I'd like to move directly on to "Spirit of the casino." What's your policy/thoughts on that? Again, you can find examples in my thread. There were many more instances of this.

 

[Nifty29]

Binary,

Fair enough. To be sure, Pinnacle's language isn't ideal in my view, but it's not as bad as those that I'm singling out.

I don't want to linger on cash-out exclusions, for a number of reasons, but primarily I don't believe that you have anything to do with cash-out related processes. Is that correct? Or are you actually involved with the financial transfers?

Thus, since you didn't bring it up already, I'd like to move directly on to "Spirit of the casino." What's your policy/thoughts on that? Again, you can find examples in my thread. There were many more instances of this.

What do you mean by "cash-out exclusions", and why do you not want to linger on it?

Also, why do you want to "move direction" now that some credible counter arguments have emerged? I would have thought you would outline why you think they are wrong, unless you do agree, in which case you seem to have wasted a lot of words offering the opposite view.

Could you please answer the questions in my previous post? I think they are reasonable.

Your suggested new topic of "spirit of the casino" (should be "bonus", no?) should be a short one, because there is no such thing. You either follow the rules or you don't. Simple.

 

[Webzcas]

FAO Binary128. Please see this post by Bryan: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/slot-statistics-critiques-requested.49985/

Best run these posts past Bryan before posting any more links. Bryan can restore your post if he feels it is okay to do so.

Thanks

 

[binary128]

I see. I sincerely apologize. It was my intention to simply wrap up this thread. I used links to provide support for my statements. (I said that we said it, and here's where we said it.) The links went nowhere other than dead end Help files.

Again, I apologize.

I now view this thread as dead, and will not respond further.

Chris