I see some good points made about TravelMaxx's issue, though it's a bit ironic that Pangloss was pilloried for trying to highlight it in a separate thread (it was a bit clumsy, I know, but there's a good case for this thread splitting off into two or three different discussions).
As I stated in that thread, it's unnecessary for a member to start a new thread on behalf of a registered member who is capable of starting their own thread. TravelMaxx was given several "hints" in this very thread to go start their own.
At the time Pangloss made that post, Josh had long since posted he wouldn't be responding to the Neteller issue any longer, so actually this thread became available to VWM to make that new post and re-open discussion about advantage play versus fraud. As well, at this point, this threads contains all the previous discussion about TM that shouldn't have been here to begin with. It's here now, and VWM was just adding to what he already contributed in this thread.
It's all about perception of personality, isn't it? Pangloss has let it be known, quite loudly, that he is an instigator, a distraction to any thread. That's the persona he wanted to display, and it's the persona that we now have to deal with him on. Should we direct him to "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? If he wants to be taken seriously on these forums, why doesn't he contribute anything but piggy-back rants? Based on his past history of bashing a casino at any cost, what would anyone naturally see that post as? Just a vehicle for more casino hatred. Now I'm not loving this casino too much, obviously. But I'm not going to participate in a roast, and if I see a thread created that is so obviously designed for a roasting session, I'll ask a moderator to pass judgement and lock it up. That's what I did, and CM locked it in agreement. No conspiracy anywhere, we would just like the opportunity to stay on track with this particular casino's issue in one thread. If Jens files a PAB and wants to discuss it publicy without all of this side chatter, then Jens can make that decision and click the POST button.
Vesuvio, I do not intend to go off on another 3 page discussion with you that would end up yet another major distraction to this important thread, as you will obviously find flaws in my view. If you wish to discuss this further, please PM me, or if you so desire a public discussion on this issue, please start a new thread in Wildcards. I would be happy to join that discussion, and leave the issue of Prime in this thread. Thanks.
lojo said:
There's been so much drama and diversion in this thread I haven't been able to keep a train of thought long enough to contribute, but here's what I see today:
Prime made a mistake, admitted it, remedied it, and have changed their policy. What else is to discuss about them?
Good to have you back in some of the serious discussions again, Lojo
Well, they have changed their policy verbally. That's not good enough for me to ever recommend them at this point. If I see anyone post questions about the casino, I will certainly warn them and direct them to this thread so that they can make an informed decision before they deposit. It is wisdom to say "get it in writing", and it is a much-repeated phrase around gambling Fourms. For some reason, we should not get this one thing in writing?
lojo said:
Were I a casino manager, I would not tie my own hands in regards to 'reverse chargebacks' by explicit T&C. Nothing but a weakness to exploit.
OR it could end up a strength to the wrong casino manager. If a player cannot initiate a chargeback without being blacklisted and publically humiliated by a casino, why should a casino be able to chargeback a customer with no repercussion?
lojo said:
Of course in a perfect world all transactions would be audited perfectly, but it's not a perfect world. There is a level of trust in any business arrangement.
I agree with that, if we are referring to a street corner hot-dog cart. But in a business like this, contracts are everything, and everything is documented as to what both sides are responsible for, and what both sides can and cannot do. As I stated earlier, if we are going back to the trust route, then abolish all T&C's, as if one term is not needed to be in writing, none of it is!
Ah, but no casino would do that... that would lead to exposure again. Well, anyways, T&C's are not there to protect one side. They are there to protect BOTH sides of the contractors involved.
Let's say the we allow good old fair 'n' square Josh to be the sole arbitor in whether or not a casino-to-customer chargeback is warranted. Let's say he never needs to pull that trigger. What happens if he quits and a new manager takes over. Ok, let's say (LOL!) that Chistopher D'Angelo takes over as manager of Prime. I think you're gonna want that in writing real quick, aren't you? In other words, it's not about Josh's personal integrity or ability to be fair or not (but I don't want to have to test that either..), but it's about a
company's overall policy that covers ALL of their employees.
lojo said:
Prime probably has no special arrangement with NT, any casino can do this if Prime can. The problem is with NeTeller and as others have mentioned, that is where the players' focus should be to affect any real change in security.
We have nothing but rhetoric on this subject so far. Only someone able to get this information from Neteller will be able to put facts to these questions. We will have to wait. But in the meantime, statements like "any casino can do this" are invalid until we know for sure under what conditions (or even none) a casino can initiate a thef.. err.. chargeback.
Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.
Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.
It gives rogue casino managers an extra chance to snatch back the money if the player turn out to be the member of an international bonus abuser ring.
Hi XXLClub - thanks for your contributions here. Please know they are appreciated... I compliment you in how you've handled yourself on these forums for quite awhile now, not just in this thread.
Anyways, my thoughts on your question basically come down to: why should we have to
guess why or how a rogue operator might use this? It just simply needs to stop, period. Good casinos should take care of their security issues and audits up front and should NEVER need to do this post actual funding. Since they should NEVER need to do this, it should be an addition to T&C's. Does it stop at Neteller? Maybe there are other current e-wallets that are vulnerable in this way? If not, what about future ones? If these things are written into T&C's, then the player is protect from all current and future internet banking schemes a rogue outfit might try to pull.
It may just come to one day that this is a very important thing for a player to look for in a rogue operation. Someday Bryan may need to add it to "How to spot a rogue".
- Keith