RTG progressive malfunction - jackpots voided

[Deeplay]

RTG have two servers: a test one that is offline and a live one that obviously isn't. The technician simply logged into the wrong server. If you have a test server it would never cross your mind to isolate games on live while you test: that's the whole reason for having one!

A test environment is also only effective if it is the exact mirror of a live environment so they would have looked identical to the technician I suspect. As someone who has worked in IT most of my life as a programmer I can totally get why this happened but it's hard to explain to someone who hasn't been involved in development why this could actually be an easy mistake to make. Where I worked (a national bank) lots of stuff like this happened on a regular basis. I could explain "legacy" systems and stuff but I'd be wasting my breath- and boring most of you to death.

Doesn't change the fact that I'd be well pissed off if this happened to me and stories like this make me think if I do ever hit a JP, the "moment" will be spoiled as I'll be instantly thinking " is this an error?".

Granted understood and im also from an IT background .... but ... it does open the question if the live environment can be entered (even through error) then it could be entered and force any manner of manipulation. I am not saying they would but saying it is possible ... and now factual that this can be done as this error showed us when the tech logged into the live system. If they can force a jack pot live what else can be forced ?

I have no doubt this was human error and that in fact the OP did not win the JP (i would be pissed of to if them) but the issue here is not really that it is the other questions of what "could" be potentially done with intent.

 

[BMWSTACK]

One other thing crosses my mind: it was a network progressive right? So the funds are sitting there reserved for this occurrence, presumably in a segregated pot, so why not split the pots between the players affected as way of compensation and reset the jackpots. It's not like anyone will be out of pocket because all it is doing is pulling forward the dates each will next be hit anyway. I doubt any player is going to care if they are reset either plus it's excellent PR.

I think they could careless about PR. Take Jackpot Pinatas for example, going on for years and years and years. If they could just make it hit once or twice a year they would generate a lot of business not only for that game but also for the platform overall.

 

[winbig]

Granted understood and im also from an IT background .... but ... it does open the question if the live environment can be entered (even through error) then it could be entered and force any manner of manipulation. I am not saying they would but saying it is possible ... and now factual that this can be done as this error showed us when the tech logged into the live system. If they can force a jack pot live what else can be forced ?

I have no doubt this was human error and that in fact the OP did not win the JP (i would be pissed of to if them) but the issue here is not really that it is the other questions of what "could" be potentially done with intent.

It just goes to show you what type of business RTG is in if there are no safeguards in place when one enters a live environment.....ie: no visual cues before you enter, etc.

 

[Alfran]

mega mega ouch.... i dont know how i'd recover if that was me.... surely a lot of mental anguish caused by this error.
i would feel better if they paid a bit more.... how about just 1%

 

[jetset]

I don't like it either, but perhaps for different reasons.

Are there not some sort of safeguards in place? For instance, making accessing and changing the real jackpot so complicated and convoluted as to make it impossible to make such a mistake? Or perhaps require an observer/supervisor oversee the process, requiring his/her express approval (perhaps even enter a password or code unknown to the tech) before the real software is changed? I know I don't understand the ins and outs of what happened, but it shouldn't have been easy to make such a mistake.

My feelings exactly - you would think in such a critical area there would be separation and special precautions attached to the "testing" server and the "operational" server....I'll bet there are now at RTG though!

Under the circumstances I think that a paltry $1000 is better than just getting the deposit back, but it is still pretty low.

 

[gerilege]

I think this was not a software error, and there were no malfunction. The system behaved as it was designed. It was a bad manual configuration that caused the jackpot to hit. If this were not a relationship between a company and individuals, but rather between companies, there would be a good chance that the party making the misconfiguration would need to accept the responsibility and pay at least partially. Especially since the difference between the awarded amounts and the displayed jackpot amounts is not that different on a relative scale. Compare this to an error made in a trading platform for wheat for example. If someone is buying large amounts at 1.5x the price due to a human error, the trade would most likely stand. If someone is buying at 1500x the price due to a human error, that might be different. Also the interpretation on both sides needs to be taken into consideration.

Here the casino user was betting for a chance to hit jackpots. Although on the software provider's side the interpretation of the situation is drastically different due to the human error (i.e. the chance for an individual to hit the jackpot grew from 0.000...1 percent to 100 percent), on the user's side the interpretation is not that different (paying for a chance to win 1.5x jackpot instead of 1x).

I am not saying that these jackpots should be paid, especially not all 4 ones for the same winner. But in a business-to-business situation the current settlement offer might feel strange, and I do not think business-to-consumer relations needs to be treated that much differently.

I could also comment on potential practices that could have led to the situation, but I think the lessons were learned here already anyway.