OK Bern, I agree that communication is extremely important when it comes to online casinos as they are faceless entities, and emails and phone calls are about as real as it gets when it comes to personal casino-to-customer contact. Pulver should have been told much earlier that the matter was in the hands of RTG and that they are not willing to provide any timeframe. Lock should then have promised to contact Pulver with any updates.
However.....I dont see the point of emailing him every day to say 'we havent heard anything yet' when he has been told that it is out of their hands and that they would contact him when the report had been received and examined....
That
would be absurd, wouldn't it??? LOL. Why I never said it. And since I just combed all of my posts in this thread looking for words that do not exist nor ever have existed, please excuse me if I don't bother top spend more time to post my
actual words, here,
again.
...Could it have been handled better by Lock initially? Yes. Is Lock deliberately trying to stall the payout? No. Is the whole delay situation down to Lock? No. Hence, IMO Lock are being lambasted when they are not responsible for the crux of Pulvers' gripe - the ongoing delays...
You answer each of your own questions, above, as if all the facts are in. And as they are not, I fail to see how your opinion, which can only be based, entirely, on your imagination, can possibly be considered to be "helpful." Your conclusion, that Lock is being
"lambasted" when the converse of every statement you made in support of that conclusion may very well be the facts, for all we know, personally, offends me, as a player. Unless you have personal motives for drawing such conclusions about the OP that you're not mentioning, I just don't get it.
Even if Lock had told Pulver on day one that they had no idea how long it would take to resolve the issue, IMO he would still have posted about the delay (and understandably so) so it would not have prevented this thread all...
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and I might be inclined to agree if only you weren't so wrong! That a thread
might exist by the OP, no matter what, I cannot disprove and was never my claim. I do maintain that
this thread would not exist and, moreover, I need offer no other proof than your own statement which you used as the sole basis for forming your opinion:
"...if Lock had told Pulver on day one that they had no idea how long it would take to resolve the issue..." "If" can only mean that something other than what follows "if" is what actually happened which can only mean that what, actually, follows "if" is entirely hypothetical. Furthermore, the hypothetical circumstances you cite are just that, hypotheses. Since Lock did
not inform the OP on day one, the facts which
might have prompted the OP to begin a thread under those circumstances never existed. The facts which inspired this thread are unique when compared to any hypothetical facts one might imagine - this you have just proved by your own statement. In conclusion, your statement,
"if Lock had told Pulver on day one that they had no idea how long it would take to resolve the issue" is, in itself, proof positive that this thread could not possibly exist under any other set of facts and, absolutely, would not exist had Lock informed Pulver on
"day one".
Might Pulver have started
some thread anyway? Maybe. But I don't know Pulver well enough to form such an opinion so any opinion I could possibly offer would, therefore, be entirely based on some combination of bias and/or prejudice.
Might have Pulver started
this thread under any different set of circumstances? By your own statement:
No way!