Schankwart Vs. Cirrus Casino

[caruso]

HK, these culinary analogies are fun but not exactly to the point. In the first you were talking about a consumed item (food), and money is not comparable to this. Now you're talking about an irresponsible kiddie, which the player, at least technically speaking, is not. This is all blurring the boundaries.

That the emailing is "sloppy" is something that can be argued another day as far as Cirrus' email campaigns go (and if this is suddenly an extremely serious issue, then I have some useful information about Rich Boy Cloud and his spam-campaigns which I hope will be taken just as seriously, "probation" notwithstanding, and also about members of the Casinomeister recommended list, which might also turn an eyebrow) but in the circumstances the "sloppy" emailing is entirely out-weighed by the player's knowledge of his non-entitlement and subsequent clumsy attempt at blackmail. That latter fact seems to be shooting over everyone's heads - is blackmailing a casino with threats of exposure if the don't pay up what they don't owe in the first place acceptable? Fill me in please.

 

[eek]

- is blackmailing a casino with threats of exposure if the don't pay up what they don't owe in the first place acceptable? Fill me in please.

blackmail??
The crux is between those that put final responsibility on the Casino, and those that place it on the player when a deposit for a coupon is made.

Whether or not various emails were sent.
Whether or not various chat sessions occured.
Any or all of the above may or may not be falsified, or taken out of context.

Money is deposited by S as his acceptance for a contract using coupon XXX for playing at C casino.
C casino accepts this coupon as their part of the contract.
S plays according to the T&Cs, which are his contractual obligation.

S loses:-tough
S wins:- tough

but.......C casino invokes non-payment for events that may, or may not have occurred??

Yup. Now there's A great system for future chaos in bonusland.
---------------------------------

Mary is right BTW, altering database criteria is not difficult to do.
And getting your database criteria correct for that minority of VIP players is a cinch.

Its not just about THIS case.
Its about a bonus system that works as an industry standard.
In the real world a verbal contract for anything isn't worth diddly.
he said...she said... is definitely not the way forward

 

[maxlevine]

I don't believe it is the player's responsibility to consider which bonus he may or may not claim. He is a client, not an employee. The casino has the choice of taking him off the mailing list or blocking his bonus claims.

In the restaurant analogy, there would be no need for a special menu. When the waiter would place the order on his screen, he would get a message to not serve this specific meal to that patron and the order would never reach the kitchen.

But then again, there's really no need for analogies. The player's responsibility is to respect the T&C's, period. He doesn't work for that company. If his actions were considered to be unethical, he should then be barred. But then, would it be his responsibility to not enter and play that casino?

Max

 

[The Dude]

I gotta disagree. The police tell a drug addict not to take drugs any more. Then they offer the addict a drug, and the addict of course takes it..

I'm still not convinced, as you mentioned Schankwart is not an addict. He can read and he read 100% bonus and took this bonus knowing that Christine told him not to. According to Christine, he had taken other bonuses (25-30%) that same period (I'm assuming from the same ad - perhaps Schankwart can fill this in.)

I still say that anyone receiving this ad can see clearly that this is an ad for all players - remember it includes the first time player bonus (and didn't Christine state in the early chat session that Schankwart had tried this one as well?)

There seems to be an opinion among quite a few people that we should allow technology to make the decisions for us, as though we are not responsible enough to make it ourselves. Blame the friggin' computer - it wasn't my fault!!

I still say players should not act like sheep.

...and I am certain that if Schankwart had LOST, he wouldn't have gotten his money back, and they of course would not have applied this silly scenario in the first place.

I'm not sure about that. If would have come to me, (or anyone else for that matter) and said he made a mistake in claiming the wrong bonus, I'm sure he would have had his Neteller account credited promptly. An honest mistake is just that. I know I could have made that happen.

This type of things needs to be spelled out in black and white, as such:

If a player is sent an offer, and he takes it up, the casino MUST be bound by its conditions within a reasonable amount of time as specified in the terms of the offer. Failure to do so shall be labeled as deceptive advertising and the casino shall bear the consequences for its failure to honor the promo..

I agree somewhat - but this should be applied to targeting certain players. Everyone here probably receives general sweeping bonus offers from just about every casino group out there. I know not to take the "New Player Bonuses" when I'm already a player because I know that I am not eligible (if I've already signed up.). And I wouldn't use a bonus that I was told not to use as well.

That the emailing is "sloppy" is something that can be argued another day as far as Cirrus' email campaigns go (and if this is suddenly an extremely serious issue, then I have some useful information about Rich Boy Cloud and his spam-campaigns which I hope will be taken just as seriously, "probation" notwithstanding, and also about members of the Casinomeister recommended list, which might also turn an eyebrow).

If there are issues about spam-campaigns from the Crystal Palace group (or any other group) let's start a new thread - I'd be happy to entertain these

but in the circumstances the "sloppy" emailing is entirely out-weighed by the player's knowledge of his non-entitlement and subsequent clumsy attempt at blackmail. That latter fact seems to be shooting over everyone's heads - is blackmailing a casino with threats of exposure if the don't pay up what they don't owe in the first place acceptable? Fill me in please.

I thought that Schankwart denies that the chat sessions exist. So in a sense there is no blackmail, no player's knowledge of a limitation of a bonus, no wrong doing on Schankwart's part. Is that the deal?

 

[thesmiler]

Here is where I have a problem with faked chat logs: Chat logs are used by both players and casino to prove a point; I've rogued casinos over chat logs. If we are to entertain the notion that these chat logs are faked, then we must consider all chat logs are faked, and this would be detrimental for any player who comes forth in the future with their "chat logs" to prove a point.

Yes, but from casinos you can EXPECT to have a copy of the chat logs. And I don't know if there ever was a case of a casino denying that a chat-log was genuine. Of course it is easy for the casino to prove that a chat existed (because they have the IP which can be traced to the player, if the player himselfs accept), but not what was content of the chat. Schankwart didn't take a chat-log, but I agree, I sometimes didn't take a chat-log at Cirrus either, I never did except when they were hassling me or when I took up a bonus they offered me there.

Are you saying that they are still sending out these generic mailers??? Please send me a copy as soon as possible.

Yes they do, I sent you a copy --- and even I have sometimes nearly claimed the first-time players bonus. Only on second view, you sometimes see a (small) headline claiming "for new players". When this bonus was denied, Schankwart might have thought that every bonus he wasn't allowed to claim would be blacked out by the system.

Funny how he received the bonus offers, but not the email informing him of his ineligibility. Hmmmm.

Not so funny I think. Cirrus called me last week and they claimed that my e-mail was bouncing. I know my e-mail provider very well and what anti-spam or anti-virus measures they have (NONE if I don't activate them, which I didn't do), so either they have some serious problems on their side or they didn't want to e-mail me. I told them "this can't be true, I receive all e-mails, even the newsletters from you", and they told me: "that's correct, they are sent through another server". At that point I thought they were just trying to get me to deposit over the phone which they prefer to e-mailing an offer, but given this case, it might even be true that they might have serious problems with their outgoing e-mails. Now that even the Casinomeister doesn't get replies, and we are all three based in Germany, something smells fishy. If they wanted to get it right, they should have closed the players account, sent him the e-mail and asked him for confirmation that he received the e-mail before opening the account again. If they know they have some bouncing e-mails to Germany, they should really have done that.

This silence has only prompted me to take a walk down memory lane and dig up previous complaints/comments/postings, and other miscellaneous things from my archives. I'm beginning to notice patterns here which I don't like, and I'll be putting together a full blown-out report on this sometime this week.

Looking forward to seeing this, or hearing from Christine again about this. I might have some things to add if they fit in. Cirrus did have (and still has) some really nice employees however. Unfortunately, Brian, the German CSR guy, seems to have left the company and returned to Germany for some family thing. We chatted about various topics and I would really like to get in touch with him again, so if anyone knows him, please let me know.

 

[The Dude]

Yep, it's been confirmed that Cirrus Casino is still sending out these problematic "general" ads to their VIPs. Looks like they don't learn by past mistakes. Sheesh!

 

[The Dude]

And since Christine doesn't feel that it's necessary to answer my questions, here are some that I had answered by her back in December that I ought to post. This was about which bonuses did the player try to redeem beforehand (referenced in the first chat)

The 2 codes that he tried 2 redeem before were:

100%, no restrictions to NEW players. All other classes were excluded.

Second one was 100% plus 100% insurance to all players who have never cashed out.

All player classes were excluded from these 2 offers.

The 100% code that he used was not excluded from his player class as still some of the players that belong to his class were still eligible for such bonus. That is why ALL players are told personally by us if they have been moved to a different player status. Excluding the player's class from the 100% bonus he got would have excluded all VIPs as well as his current class is HighRoller.

 

[The Dude]

If they wanted to get it right, they should have closed the players account, sent him the e-mail and asked him for confirmation that he received the e-mail before opening the account again.

Damn! How come nobody else thought of that?

 

[thesmiler]

Damn! How come nobody else thought of that?

Perhaps I should manage a casino after all... No but really, that sounds like the obvious thing to me...

Oh, I just looked through the chat log again, and there's another obvious thing nobody mentioned yet, which is confusing. Lets assume the chat log is correct, then it all doesn't make sense:
Christine tells the player that the first coupon didn't clear because he's no first time depositor. Then she tells him that the second coupon didn't clear because he's a skilled player... Did nobody notice that? So there seems to be a "skilled player" class after all --- there WAS a coupon which Schankwart was denied not because of "first-time depositor" or "never cashed out", but because he was a skilled player, which was (if the chat session is 100% correct) the reason why he DID go into chat, because he supposedly sent an e-mail about 2 coupons which didn't clear. So why was it possible back then, but not a bit later?

If what Christine later told was right, that he claimed a "first time depositor" and later a "never cashed out" bonus, than she wouldn't have had to tell that the reason was that "skilled player thing". Why would she hold the info back until HE initiates live chat anyway, if the bonuses weren't blocked automatically? It should have been in HER interest to let him know as soon as possible, just that he doesn't claim any bonuses over 30% anymore.

It just all doesn't make any sense to me...

 

[mary]

Good points.

So...what we have is that the player recieved a sheet of offers and then systematically tried them all (starting with the best and moving down) until he got one the software accepted?

That behavior is consistent with:

*a player who doesn't know which ones he's eligible for or isn't paying a whole lot of attention

or

*a player who is angling for the best bonus

In either case, the casino's software settings don't support the instructions given the player.

We now know why, it's because out of the 41 VIP's Schwankie is the only one limited to offers of 30% or less. Or, at least, that is what Christine says; I really don't believe that to be honest. I've seen too many stories already about Cirrus and it doesn't make sense for any casino to tell the world how many VIP's of any sort they have, plus they want to underreport the number of people having their bonuses revoked.

Since Cirrus is continuing to send out promotional mailings like this, I think the scale tips ever further towards the player's favor, Cirrus is demonstrating bad faith in promotional design. It's a pretty stupid way to treat big depositors. Make them do the casino's bookkeeping and jump through hoops.

 

[dirk_dangerous]

All this discussion is pointless. It's very simple; if a casino accepts a bet, they must pay the bet.

Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesnt understand how the gambling business works.

Cirrus owes this player money.

 

[jetset]

If they wanted to get it right, they should have closed the players account, sent him the e-mail and asked him for confirmation that he received the e-mail before opening the account again.

Damn! How come nobody else thought of that?

Probably because it is too elegant and too professional a solution to have occurred to Cirrus!!

 

[The Dude]

Cirrus called me last week and they claimed that my e-mail was bouncing. I know my e-mail provider very well and what anti-spam or anti-virus measures they have (NONE if I don't activate them, which I didn't do), so either they have some serious problems on their side or they didn't want to e-mail me. I told them "this can't be true, I receive all e-mails, even the newsletters from you", and they told me: "that's correct, they are sent through another server". At that point I thought they were just trying to get me to deposit over the phone which they prefer to e-mailing an offer, but given this case, it might even be true that they might have serious problems with their outgoing e-mails.

I'm tending to believe that Schankwart did NOT receive the email stating he was ineligible for the bonus. More details later.

 

[jinnia]

Properties in one email I received from Christine:

Received: from smtp.cirruscasino.com ([216.193.212.76])
by sccqmxc94.asp.att.net (sccqmxc94) with ESMTP
id <20050307221652q9400j0mbke>; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 22:16:52 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [216.193.212.76]

Now look at this::

Received: from pc04 (unknown [196.40.67.46]) HMMM???

by smtp.cirruscasino.com (Postfix) with SMTP id
From: "Christine Jennings" <christine@cirruscasino.com>


Does the 'Received From' IP ( 196.40.67.46 ) look familiar to anyone?

I honestly believe there are no email problems.

 

[eek]

Bryan:

If would have come to me, (or anyone else for that matter) and said he made a mistake in claiming the wrong bonus, I'm sure he would have had his Neteller account credited promptly. An honest mistake is just that. I know I could have made that happen.

If that's the case then a world of bonus problems with 200 post threads is going to be the norm IMO.

If we assume that Cirrus made a genuine error, Shanky hasn't got a leg to stand on.

 

[The Dude]

..If that's the case then a world of bonus problems with 200 post threads is going to be the norm IMO...

I've dealt with this several times on a case by case basis with success. It's not often that it happens - but it happens. And it's up to me if I want to deal with this or not.

I think Shanky has a leg to stand on if the casino did not do due diligence to make sure everything was 110% clear. There are still some unanswered questions that I hope will be cleared up in the next few days.

 

[caruso]

I'm tending to believe that Schankwart did NOT receive the email stating he was ineligible for the bonus.

That changes nothing. He was informed. You cannot get around that fact - unless you want to go down the "faked logs" road, which I'm personally happy is an invalid assumption (already commented on that and don't feel like repeating everything sixty times). Other than that, whatever form the informing took it was the responsibility of this theoretically "responsible" adult to take note accordingly - as you've already pointed out.

Dirk - given a level playing field, I agree. The playing field here is not level, since there are large salient factors beyong simply put up money and wagering.

 

[thesmiler]

That changes nothing. He was informed. You cannot get around that fact - unless you want to go down the "faked logs" road, which I'm personally happy is an invalid assumption (already commented on that and don't feel like repeating everything sixty times). Other than that, whatever form the informing took it was the responsibility of this theoretically "responsible" adult to take note accordingly - as you've already pointed out.

Ok, assuming the logs weren't faked (as I said I'm not sure, it doesn't take more than adding 2 lines to make this conversation off one which makes much more sense than the one posted):

I still think it DOES make a difference if he got the e-mail or not.
I'm no native English speaker, but we learned in school that there's a different between can't, which means the same as to be not able to do something and mustn't, which means not to be allowed something. I also know that there might be cases where can't is something like the last case, but in general, not.

So, to resume the content of the live chat:
1. PLAYER goes to Live Chat because he was not able to claim a bonus --- please note again, this was a player-initiated chat. Why would the casino wait to tell the player about his eligibility until the player tries to contact the casino?
2. PLAYER asks why he couldn't (was not able to) redeem two coupons.
3. CASINO answers that he can't claim the second coupon because of him being a skilled player.

Out of this context, I would say "cannot" means, "is not able to", because in fact, the player was not able to claim the bonus before. Christine never told him he was not allowed to try to claim these bonuses, just that he couldn't claim the bonuses in the past because of his current status as a skilled player. So if not confirmed again via e-mail I think it is ok for the player to just remember that he wasn't able to claim the bonus this time, because it wasn't meant for him/they didn't want him to have it. Even if the 30% was there, it sounded more like an explanation why claiming this bonus wasn't possible.

If there would have been an e-mail afterwards for him, telling him to remember the contents of the chat or something, it might have been a bit of a different issue. It would still not be understandable why the player was able to claim this bonus later (after I assume he lost some money to the casino) when he wasn't able before, but at least Cirrus would have confirmed that they thought the live chat content was more important than some chit-chat.

 

[The Dude]

Just to be fair here, Christine resent the emails that had been sent earlier. Apparently Cirrus casino is having email issues that need to be resolved. But at least I know she wasn't ignoring my inquiries - so I can remove "suspicion of scandal" from the equation.

As for the chat question:
1. Live Help, the chat system that we use, previously will not let the player identify himself when chatting with any support representative, nowadays, the chat allows the player to enter his full name or username before he starts chatting with us... I believe that the last upgrade of the Live Help took place some time between the first and the second chat as the name of the player appears on the second and third chat transcripts

 

[schankwart]

Hello all!
I finally gained full access to the www again today after having been unable to work on this issue for a several days now.
I will try to not make too many statements for now as apparently Christine @ Cirrus has shown willingness to discuss this issue out with me once more.
I have told nothing but the truth in this whole thread and the facts are pretty clear. Unfortunately though I have not been able to collect the piece of proof that I still need in order to get this settled easier.

Unless Cirrus opens their mouth again now (which they seem to be doing) any theory does not bring this any futher.
I will update this issue on a frequent basis again now so everyone will stay informed.
Additionally I would like to thank my supporters for their valuable input here! Some of the posts are VERY intelligent and I appreciate your thoughts on this very much as they help others to form their opinion as well.

-to be continued soon-

 

[schankwart]

...still no reply from Christine...
But I will be giving her a bit more time once again.

 

[jinnia]

...still no reply from Christine...
But I will be giving her a bit more time once again.

Schank, may I ask on what reply is/was being waiting on from Christine at the time you posted this?
I'm a bit confused on that.

 

[schankwart]

Jinnia... I was waiting on Christine's confirmation/agreement on the solution, which she now has given.


I am hereby going to announce that Christine and I have agreed on a payment of 50% of the owed amount.

After all both of our parties may find this result to be acceptable due to the complication and difficulties of this issue.

I have understood my part of this very well now and regret the mistakes that I made. This thread however was not only in my own interest but just as well to inform other players of what they need to be aware of.

The big interest of the publicity has given me a very positive feedback and everyone who decided to state his opinion about this matter added his own part to this result.

Additionally I would once more like to thank Jinnia, Lanidar and all other supporters of this struggle! Your help meant a lot and my and my biggest kudos go to you.



-Thank you very much...!

 

[caruso]

The only people who are going to learn anything from this is other scamsters like you who will now realize how easy it is to blackmail casinos.

I'm not sure who I find more irritating: you, for scamming them, or them for giving in to your blackmail.

LOL. You both deserve each other.

 

[trick]

Me thinks Caruso is bored Let it go champ - don't think either party did anything just to irritate you.