Hi all,
Great read as always...
We do refund players win or lose and please do put us to the test.
So this means that it is not just limited to bonus abuse or not, and personally I do agree with almost everyones comments that yes either way the player and the casino looses not just in the short term but in the long terms as well.
If a player can proof that he/she is allowed to player in that particular currency with the valid documentation that there would be absolutely no reason why we would not payout the players winnings.
Yes we all agree that the terms and conditions should be more visible and also one should be denied from even being allowed to register in the wrong currency.
The fact of the matter is that it is not very hard to code it in but this is not done by us as we do not write the software and only ask for an implementation like this on your wish list.
However I do agree that this should be stopped even before one proceeds to make a deposit and in the intern believe that the quickest and the easiest way would be once a player attempts to makes a deposit by simply rejecting it there and then.
This is not perfect but we are working on it.
Best regards
Mario
Quite, but it is YOUR CHOICE to have this nasty rule apply to non-bonus players. There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why you should believe that confiscating winnings is somehow made good because you also refund the deposits of losing players. This is exactly what rogue casinos do, they find excuses not to pay winners, but if pressed they will refund the deposits of losers. It is an unfair contract term, and would NEVER get past a UK court, but you get away with it because of how this particular industry works.
There is some justification for having this rule to prevent bonus abuse, but NOWHERE have you EVER come up with a reason why this rule is NECESSARY in order to protect the business from players who DO NOT TAKE BONUSES.
What is worse, you have bulldozed this rule through NOW, even though the software will soon have the capability to accommodate this automatically, and ensure that NO PLAYER would get caught out, whether having read the terms of not.
You agree that the terms should be more visible, so why haven't you done it from the first incident which raised this point (the player who played without a bonus).
I challenge you DIRECTLY to answer the simple question (which has been asked before).
Why is is NECESSARY (not merely desirable) to have this term for players WHO TAKE NO BONUSES, and it has been IMPOSSIBLE to hold off from doing this until the software can be upgraded to support it.
As far as some of us here are concerned, player's club is no better than Crystal Palace. This will also reflect badly on Grand Mondial, and will only serve to support the view that your white label initiative will only cause trouble for the player community. This tale is evidence of that.
If I were looking to play at a casino, and saw this tale (and the other one), I would avoid Player's Club like the plague. I would also avoid any casino that was associated with it.
This inflexible "jobsworth" approach to this rule has severely damaged the reputation of your group. The rule was designed to be applied with discresion to fight off forum based bonus abusers, but the impersonal approach of using it for every case, whatever the circumstances, innocent mistake or calculated advantage play, makes your business look like an uncaring, untrustworthy, and cold entity. Other businesses have been damaged by this kind of approach, and theb online casino industry is particularly at risk because it is based, for the most part, on trust, not legislation.
I have already drawn a comparison with how you can show understanding and flexibilty with the spamming affiliate, even though the terms THEY have signed up to are equally as clear as term 15 for players about currency.
WHY is this spamming affiliate being let off the hook by the rules being waived that require IMMEDIATE closure of their affiliate account, yet you are totally incapable of showing any flexibilty for PLAYERS by looking into the circumstances before imposing such a nasty rule.
In short, THIS player used a bonus, so you have reason to believe this was an attempt to manipulate the system on the balance of probabilities.
The former player had no interest in bonuses, but was just careless in selecting their currency, something the software allowed without offering any kind of advisory, and further the player was allowed to play with the problem only being picked up later. This is where the flexibilty and understanding you were so happy to show a spamming affiliate should be extended to a player, who is after all the CUSTOMER, and who pays your wages - the affiliate doesn't - they just recruit customers who MAY end up paying your wages if they are happy with the product.
Oh wait...that must mean I am a bonus abuser, even though I never took bonuses. 
