Schankwart Vs. Cirrus Casino

[jinnia]

I am no longer going to negotiate between these two parties unless one party asks me to contact the other with a possible new proposal.

I feel very badly that this has not come to a conclusion.

Then call Christine tomorrow (Thursday) lanidar.

 

[jetset]

Regrets if I missed something here, but I recall the core of this dispute was an argument that Schankie had been previously informed by the casino manager that he was no longer eligible for any bonuses over 30 percent.

This was in a chat session, but i.m.o. it should have been followed up by a personal email clearly confirming the ban. That could have been handled more efficiently at the casino end, obviating Schankie's claim that he didn't understand the ban to be in place when he went after the contentious bonus here.

Having banned Schankie from all bonuses above 30 percent, the marketing/promo department then sends him a general email offering a number of different bonuses, is that right? And Schankie went after the most attractive regardless or in ignorance of the ban.

So Schankie could have chosen the right bonus, had he been aware that he was restricted to offers under 30 percent. To me, sending a restricted player a choice of promos outside his ban sounds like sloppy work on the part of the casino.

Presumably the casino does not have that many players on it's *restricted bonus* list, and one would think there should be a means of enforcing that ban in a practical sense through flagging the account.

On the other hand I have the gut feeling that Christine Jennings did not fabricate the chat session that proved to me that Schankie knew he was banned from this bonus, so I have to conclude that he either made a genuine misinterpretation of the session, or deliberately chanced his arm in spite of it.

Schankie, in your position I would take the settlement offer and learn from the experience, and I'm sure the casino management will be tightening up the way they handle these multi-promos too.

 

[Casinomeister]

Hi all,

After speaking with RTG about this (the chat session) we are under the conclusion that this is legit. Cirrus had no idea if Schankwart had a copy of this chat or not, so it would be suicidal to produce a doctored chat session knowing that a genuine copy existed with the player. I still have difficulty believing that Schankwart does not have a copy of this chat. He is a very experienced player, and even the inexperienced keep copies of these. This still blows my mind.

To claim this chat has been fabricated borders on paranoia.

Schankwart WAS notified by email to include an excerpt of the chat sessions explaining his new bonus limits. This was posted in the copy of the "chat" post that I made. But Schankwart denies he received this mail.

I'm not sure if some of you are following this or not, but Schankwart was NOT singled out and received a bonus coupon - thus tricking him into playing it (this would have been a totally different situation), but he was sent a promotional email that most all of their players received. It was up to the player to decide which coupon to redeem. No one but Schankwart seems to have the problem in choosing the wrong bonus.

But Schankwart has a history of picking the wrong bonuses. Please note that Schankwart was being corrected at the beginning of the first chat session for attempting to use a "first time player" bonus.


Player: I tried to redeem 2 coupons and they both got rejected
Christine: the fact is that the 100% bonus no restrictions that you tried to redeem is only for first time players that is one of the reasons why it did not redeem
Christine: and the other one, well, what can I say
Christine: you have been labeled a skilled player..
Player: ...means?
Christine: that you cannot get bonuses but still you can play with us... with no bonuses at all or with bonuses of up to 30%, all non-cashable. You are not eligible for bonuses over 30% any more...
Player: you just not too long ago offered me to become a "vip"?
Christine: I still have an offer for you
Player: hmm

What the hell is that?

It is clear to me that Schanky has a history of attempting to redeem coupons regardless, and that he tried to do it again by denying that chat sessions and emails are fabrications. And that he was lied to by the casino.

All players must take responsibility for their actions. No one needs to have their hand held and told what to do. If you know you are not authorized a bonus don't try to take it to see if you can get away with it. That's exactly what happened in this case. What a waste of time.

 

[jinnia]

Ok, transcripts are said to be unaltered. That's good.

During the first chat on Nov. 11th, it shows this bit of conversation took place ---

Player: well, please just send me a couple offers via email
Player: the bonus does not have to be upfront as you said
Christine: well, if you do not tell me what you would like it will be difficult for me

[1] Player was told no bonuses over 30%
[2] Player then asked to be sent a couple of offers
[3] Player received an email with offers in it
[4] Player submitted one, it was accepted
[5] Player was allowed to play with this bonus

He was told no bonuses over 30% could he use, he then asked to be sent a couple of offers, they sent them, he submitted one, it was allowed to go through and played with.

People will always see things differently, draw their own beliefs. So on this issue, I for one won't make no more comments here at this forum until it is settled.

Oh stop clapping, gee!!

 

[jetset]

QUOTE: Schankwart WAS notified by email to include an excerpt of the chat sessions explaining his new bonus limits. This was posted in the copy of the "chat" post that I made. But Schankwart denies he received this mail. UNQUOTE

Oops! Missed that, and I accordingly withdraw that part of my criticism of the casino.

All the more reason for you to take the Cirrus offer and run, Schankie!

 

[dickens1298]

So all the chest-pounding and name-calling was for naught? All the indignation and fury has led to this - going gently into that soft night?

It's ironic that posters here have sworn that Cirrus was guilty, called the casino every name in the book, and swore that justice will be served, and - in the end....


...there is naught.


Here's my question - don't the actions of players contribute to the miasma of online gaming? If we are so quick to accuse the casinos of cheating, and so quick to possibly cheat them ourselves, do we not add to an environment that could lend itself to a player-unfriendly environment? If Schankie was indeed in the wrong - as Casinomeister is alluding - then I'm sure the casino in question is fuming. It did nothing wrong, yet had the integrity of its customer service staff questioned, and its own name dragged through the mud. How likely would it be to listen to the next customer issue - even one that has more legitimacy?

My hope is that Cirrus would be more careful in its customer communications in the future. My fear is that it would be less customer-friendly or remove bonuses entirely. Let's hope for the former.

 

[jetset]

Dickens, I would suggest you read this thread through again - you have clearly missed something.

 

[Simmo!]

Issues aside, rights and wrongs irrespective, informative though it is to read, this thread merely hammers another nail into the "bonus" coffin IMHO.

Think how much more respectable the industry would look without them - we could just watch the tumbleweed roll across this forum.

 

[schankwart]

Lanidar indeed has tried his very best to achieve a solution here but unfortunately he is unable to assist any further as his hands are tied as well.
My kudos to Lanidar! Thank you very much.


I am first going to address the Meister's note here as it honestly upsets me quite some...!

To blame me for an attempted cheat here is totally out of my mind! How are you getting the conviction that this chat is "legit" now?
Additionally I have never received the questionable "confirmation" email from Christine! -How can I prove this though???

I am not having any problems with "choosing the wrong bonus" either as you claim. The new player bonus that I tried to redeem did not have ANY restrictions posted to it to it anywhere, so why are you blaming me for trying to redeem it now? Oh yes... I have a "history in choosing the wrong bonus".......

I successfully played and lost on a several codes from the email Christine sent me and as soon as I won my earnings got voided! You are now hammering on me for being such a "bad and stupid person" but why do you not question at all what Cirrus is claiming here? I could bring as much proof to the table as they can... NONE!! -Only do I have the clear disadvantage that they do have MY money already and supplied you with "some chat".

I will keep fighting for my withdrawal here until this issue has been resolved. -Not only to get my money anymore but to also show you how wrong you are with this!


Bottomline: I have NOT saved any communication about this promotional-code as there was NONE! I have received the offer, played it and won. Now Cirrus has my money and does not pay.

 

[schankwart]

Thanks for your post Diggler, it is very well said!
Cirrus DID have the possibility to restrict me from the offer BEFORE playing and depositing, had they wanted!

Jetset, I can only empasize that I have never received any such email NOR got informed about the "30% rule for all future deposits" in the chat...!


t.b.c.

 

[caruso]

That is one thing that can't be proved - that an Email was sent - unless of course the casino kept a copy of the sent receipt and can prove it. However, sent or not sent, notification WAS GIVEN. Whether it was delivered by hand to the player's front door by the Queen Of Costa Rica herself or given by via live chat, notification WAS GIVEN.

Imagine what would happen if a marketing department of a company sent out a special offer to certain clients, including some they didn't want to receive the offer. The client that they didn't want to receive the offer then placed their order and paid for it.

If it were a generic mail, already preceded by clear notification to the various ineligible parties of their ineligibility for offers X, Y and Z, they'd be entitled to withdraw the offer if the ineligible client DID try to take up any of X, Y or Z. That's logical. How that would stand up in court if it were Sainsbury v. The Little Man, I don't know, but the fact that notification WAS GIVEN does not allow for any redress simply because the coupon redeemed, in my opinion. If notification WERE NOT given, as was the case for "Maxmax" in the Angelciti thread I gave a link to, he would be entitled - and I disagreed with Bryan on that one. In this case, the player was notified and it was DISCUSSED AT LENGTH - he was a bit pissed off. You can't argue that going ahead ANYWAY in the clear knowledge of ineligibility, with a "back up" strategy of blackmail, leaves the player with any rights in the matter.

Yes, he SHOULD take the money "and run" - and pat himself on the back for a job well done. Worth it for 1.5K?

If you constantly favour one side of the process you'll end up lacking credence with the other. Bryan has taken a lot of recent flack, for the perception of being too "casino friendly". It works both ways.

 

[Casinomeister]

I am first going to address the Meister's note here as it honestly upsets me quite some...!

To blame me for an attempted cheat here is totally out of my mind! How are you getting the conviction that this chat is "legit" now?

I never said you cheated. But the chat sessions stand their ground. No matter how many hairs you try to split, the chat session shows that they informed you that you were disallowed any bonuses beyond 30%.

To claim that this chat session was faked goes beyond any logical explanation. They did not know that you did not have a copy of this chat session when they produced it. If they had produced a doctored chat session - you, me, and the whole online gaming community would have been all over their asses - since you would have had the correct version waving in their faces. In my opinion, this chat session is legit.

You have no one to blame but yourself for this episode - you took bonuses that you weren't authorized to take. You produced this nightmare yourself, not me, not Jetset, not Caruso, RTG, nor anyone else who disagrees with you. Take responsibilties for your actions and don't blame others when you screw up.

If you are going to be angry, then focus this anger on Schankwart and make him a more cautious (read better) player.

And jessus x christmas - how long have you been a customer at Cirrus?? You know that they are a bit "problematic", yet when you have a problem with them, it's all a big surprise.

And now I'm the bad guy because I didn't jump on the "Let's Lynch the Casino" band wagon. Sheesh!!

And a quick address about Maxmax - his story is a bit more involved than was reported on the boards. He was a member of a group of fraudulant players (I can hear the moans already) that were banned industry wide.

My suggestion to Schankwart - take this to Montana disputes. That should have been your first step before you took it to the boards.

 

[m249a]

To claim this chat has been fabricated borders on paranoia

Paranoia is like a comfy old worn out blanket.....some see it as ugly, but I still like the feeling it gives me on those long lonely nights....

Here is my issue with the chat logs. Why are the ones provided by the casino, different then the ones I have saved on my cpu? Why are they different then the ones forewarded to me by (OMG) another RTG casino? The ones I have (RTG only) do not EVER show me listed as "player" in one chat session, and my full name/player handle in another. Does cirrus use a different chat program then the other RTG powered casinos?

Why is it so hard to imagine that they would never dream of fabricating something like this? Ok, lets say Schankwart did have the chat logs saved. The casino submits their version, and Schankwart submits his. It would then become a case of his word vs. theirs. Wait...........isn't already that? He says one thing, they say something else.

Does anyone, Bryan included, honestly think that Cirrus casino would have returned Schankwarts deposit had he used the same bonus, and lost?

Now before we all chuckle to ourselves, in that "you already know better than that tone" ask yourself this............. If it is a already a "given" that the casino will allow a player to deposit, claim a bonus, and as long as that player is losing, never give it a second though. But the very second that exact scenario turns into a win, the player is wrong and winnings are refused......remember that chuckle you had a few seconds ago.......why is it such a stretch then to imagine this honest, ethical and above reproach casino wouldn't fabricate some chat logs to justify their position in public? It carries the same odds of backfireing, as it does to allow players to claim bonuses they are inelidgeable for. There was a 50/50 chance that the player would have chat logs too. Just like there is a 50/50 chance the player would win off of his deposit and bonus. I think cirrus liked those odds, and in the end they made a good bet.

Paranoia? Maybe...........but paranoia has saved my life on more than one occasion.

 

[big_mac]

I would be interested to know if Schankwart can say exactly which part(s) of those chats are in dispute. Or maybe more precisely, which parts that are attributed to him did he actually write.

 

[Casinomeister]

Hey Schanky,

If they are offering you 30% of your winnings, take it man!

And then chalk this one up as a lesson learned. KEEP ALL CHAT RECORDS!! If you have a chat, and forget to copy it, Immediately ask for a copy. If you don't receive a reply, check your spam filters, return email address, or have them PM it to you here - there is no excuse NOT to receive an email from a casino.

This has been such a bummer of an experience, I want to see some good come out of it.

And a word for Cirrus TARGET YOUR PLAYERS WITH SPECIFIC ADS/COUPONS!! This generic ad shit is for the birds and CANNOT be condoned or accepted. Emails like this are just a sign of laziness - if you have the technology to target players - do it. And don't ef up.

 

[caruso]

...And then chalk this one up as a lesson learned. KEEP ALL CHAT RECORDS!!

I would say that the leeseons to learn are 1) don't claim bonuses you're not entitled to and 2) don't try to blackmail casinos when they don't play ball.

I expect neither to be "learnt" any time soon; in fact, considering the evident remarkable profitability of the excercise, I would say the opposite: that the doability of both 1) and 2) have been enforced.

 

[JohnGalt]

"considering the evident remarkable profitability of the excercise"

Playing a $1000 sticky bonus and then if you win getting 30% is remarkably profitable?????

Both sides are clearly at fault here. I think the settlement is fair.

I've never had any problems with Cirrus (though I think their 2-week cashout time is a bit excessive!) and hopefully they will learn something from this experience and become a better, more profitable casino and a more enjoyable gaming experience.

 

[KasinoKing]

My 2c, for what its worth. (Not a lot!)
Im not involved in the industry, Im just a player.
But I simply can not understand some peoples attitude towards this case, and I totally agree with Jinnia. The casino is the one with all the power here. Surely they have the ability through their software, to automatically block players from claiming coupons they are not entitled to?
Regardless of anything they did or did not say to him via chat or verbally, having allowed the player to redeem the coupon & play with the funds, the casino should pay his full winnings. Anything else is tantamount to theft.
But then, I shouldnt be surprised about this. In my 4-years experience to-date, RTG stands for Rip-off The Gamblers. I have yet to find any RTG site that feels fair, and that I can trust.
I did have one similar experience about 3-years ago with Windows casino, when I redeemed some coupons they then said I was not entitled to. But even they let me keep all my winnings, and then blocked my account AFTER paying me in full.
I only wish Cirrus would do the right thing in this case.

 

[Casinomeister]

My 2c, for what its worth. (Not a lot!)
Im not involved in the industry, Im just a player.
But I simply can not understand some peoples attitude towards this case, and I totally agree with Jinnia. The casino is the one with all the power here. Surely they have the ability through their software, to automatically block players from claiming coupons they are not entitled to?
Regardless of anything they did or did not say to him via chat or verbally, having allowed the player to redeem the coupon & play with the funds, the casino should pay his full winnings. Anything else is tantamount to theft.
But then, I shouldnt be surprised about this. In my 4-years experience to-date, RTG stands for Rip-off The Gamblers. I have yet to find any RTG site that feels fair, and that I can trust.
I did have one similar experience about 3-years ago with Windows casino, when I redeemed some coupons they then said I was not entitled to. But even they let me keep all my winnings, and then blocked my account AFTER paying me in full.
I only wish Cirrus would do the right thing in this case.

Actually, the technology can only go so far. Cirrus has the ability to use this technology to target specific classes of players. But their marketing department chose not to do this and sent a generic email to everyone. (check out the screen shot of the one sent as an example). When these emails are sent out, it is up to the player to know what coupon they are eligible for. The player was informed previously that he could not take a bonus over 30%, so it was up to him to chose the right bonus. He chose the 100% bonus and that's where the problem started.

The player denies that these chats and emails exist - but I tend to believe that they do.

If the casino is offering 30% - I'd say that's a fair resolution.

 

[KasinoKing]

Cirrus has the ability to use this technology to target specific classes of players. But their marketing department chose not to do this ...

My point exactly! So we could say that this is a 50/50 thing then, as both parties seem equally at fault.
So Cirrus should offer him 50%...

 

[lanidar]

For other than myself, I have never mediated before.
I truly believed that this would work out reasonably for both parties.
Apparently not.

I'm a very small fish in a very large pond. I don't have the respect nor the power that Bryan has.
My hat goes off to you, Bryan :notworthy. I didn't realize how difficult this could be.
And I certainly didn't think this would turn out as it has.

My first shot at negotiating ... and it turned out to be a debacle.
I created a Frankenstein with these threads.

It's Schankwart's ball and bat now ... it's his call to do what ever he see's fit.

 

[caruso]

Not your fault, lanidar. You weren't put fully in posession of the facts.

People can keep endlessly repeating "the coupon redeemed so he should be paid" irrespective of the facts of the matter ad inf. That's their prerogative. The facts of the matter are that the player was specifically informed, face-to-face (or computer to computer), of his ineligibility, chose to go ahead anyway, and subsequently tried a spot of ham-fisted blackmail, threatening "exposure" of the non-crime across the forums if they didn't play ball up.

It is JUST this behaviour which bollockses everything up from ALL angles for ALL parties. Someone mentioned earlier that this would have world-shattering implications on casino bonuses. That was an exaggeration, but of course there is an affect. When casinos get pulled up when they do wrong, correctly, but ALSO when they DON'T do wrong, of course they have to re-think and RESTRICT their bonus policies - being damned BOTH ways sucks. This is bad for the casinos, whose principle marketing tool is devalued, and bad for players, who lose out on the freebies. This was utterly selfish and thoughtless on the part of a player who should know better, who most likely DID know better, who went ahead regardless and who will most likely do it again.

It isn't so much players trying to put one over casinos that pisses me off - online casinos may be the entity least worthy of sympathy of any other out there based on their ten year track record; it's the subsequent ripple-effect which hurts everyone else - including me.

 

[dominique]

I don't have the respect nor the power that Bryan has.
My hat goes off to you, Bryan :notworthy. I didn't realize how difficult this could be.

Yes, you can't just walk up to a casino and declare yourself a mediator. You have to have a basis for communication. Bryan travels extensively to establish and maintain such relationships.

subsequently tried a spot of ham-fisted blackmail, threatening "exposure" of the non-crime across the forums if they didn't play ball up.

It is JUST this behaviour which bollockses everything up from ALL angles for ALL parties.

Agreed. Threatening exposure and subsequently making a lot of noise has worked in some cases. But it works less and less often - it is too reminiscent of blackmail. Evenhanded and cool negotiations are always best.

 

[lanidar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanidar
I don't have the respect nor the power that Bryan has.
My hat goes off to you, Bryan . I didn't realize how difficult this could be.

Yes, you can't just walk up to a casino and declare yourself a mediator. You have to have a basis for communication. Bryan travels extensively to establish and maintain such relationships.

I HAD a basis for communication. And I just didn't walk up to the casino and declare myself a mediator!
Bryan started with his FIRST negotiation before he made his second and third. CORRECT?
We all have to start somewhere....DON'T WE?

 

[chuchu59]

Offered 30% of winnings? Nope,if there was a 30% bonus,Shank would have started off with 65% of his actual bankroll and IMO if there were to be a settlement,he should be paid 65% of his winnings. This is proportional,isnt it?