Schankwart Vs. Cirrus Casino

[555YY]

based on what i read, i think posters are jumping on shank a little too hard similarly like others what jump on a casino

i know one thing, if it was me, i would NEVER write a public apology/admission of fault letter BEFORE i receive the promised funds. the reason is obvious: with cirrus's reputation, what's stopping them from negating the promised payment as soon as the player post his apology letter in public?

they would simply say, "hey! we don't need to pay. look, the player made public that is was ENTIRELY HIS FAULT. why should we pay again?"

anything detrimental to my cause, i would only do in this particular circumstance after confirmation of payment...

 

[Dirk Diggler]

To be fair to Schankwart he did post on the forum that he had agreed to the 50% - the thing is what was it that Cirrus wanted him to post on the furums to enable him to get his 50%?

If it was along the lines of an apology and admitance he was wrong (which would be my guess) I can understand him not been willing to do this if he feels he wasn't in the wrong. In fact why should there be any need to post anything other than the two parties had come to an agreement and the matter was resolved?

I think it's a bit harsh to attack someone for not been willing to post something they don't agree with (i.e. tell a lie in their opinion).

 

[m249a]

There's a player advocate that calls hissef Bethug.....perhaps he can help you now?

The advocate you speak of has already offered his help...since he cannot come on here to defend "hissef" (assuming that was a spelling error, and not intended to offend anyone) I will be more then happy to answer any questions, or fill you in on any details you might need. Since the entire world of online gaming, and player advocates are now sitting on the edge of their seats, wondering what "bagofmaggots" has to say.

Instead of attacking someone, why don't you offer something that might help the situation?

 

[bagofmaggots]

The advocate you speak of has already offered his help...since he cannot come on here to defend "hissef" (assuming that was a spelling error, and not intended to offend anyone) I will be more then happy to answer any questions, or fill you in on any details you might need. Since the entire world of online gaming, and player advocates are now sitting on the edge of their seats, wondering what "bagofmaggots" has to say.

Instead of attacking someone, why don't you offer something that might help the situation?

The whole world? Wow ! I thought I was offering something that might help? Please excuse my spelling, no offense intended.

 

[jetset]

There's a good point being made here (if we can forego the *commercials* and the personal comments for a moment or two)

Players with a legitimate claim shouldn't have to publish glowing testimonials of the casino that delayed their payment in the first place!

We've had similar hassles with the Royal Dutch management, who kept a player waiting for nine months and then expected him to praise them in return for payment. Being a principled man, he told them to what to do with that proposal, and the fight continues.

In Schankwart's case it is perhaps a little different because there is dual culpability, but even there I don't think the player should be forced to post anything more than "I am satisfied with the negotiated payment I have received and now regard this issue as resolved."

 

[bing]

I just read this entire thread and found it very interesting. But the last two pages of this thread really made me disgusted especially with the poster Jinnia. I know I dont have any credibility on this site as I dont really post here, so I will probably step on some toes here and catch some heat.

Jinnia, what is the matter with you? You are giving Schankwart an attitude because he didnt post what a great casino Cirrus is and how everyone should deposit there? Are you a person who would sell your soul to a casino for a few dollars? or $2100 to be exact? Because that is what you are expecting Schankwart to do. Kudos to you Schankwart for not giving in completely to their demands. Imagine a newbie who has no knowledge about online gambling comes and in and reads this thread and then see a post by Schankwart saying he was completley wrong and Cirrus was completely right. This unknowing newbie just might go play at Cirrus. Now wouldnt you feel bad Jinnia that you just helped lead a newbie to play at a casino that is known for being cons in the past?

I just cant emphasize enough how disgusted I am right now with Jinnia. So extremely disgusted that you can get upset at a person who won't hold their end of a deal, by praising a casino when he knows he wasn't at fault. And like someone else said a few posts above, only a casino that was dishonest and corrupt would hold a players money until they post good publicity for that casino. It's one thing to praise a casino when they go beyond the call of duty, or treat a player right, but to praise a casino just so you can get your money back, is simply sad. And to be angry at someone who didnt praise the casino because that was the "deal" is truly pathetic. I am glad there are still some people in this world who would not sell their souls for $$$'s.

 

[HKGambler]

[8] They said not until you posted

This condition as a part of agreement is reasonable in this case. Because Schan has claimed all along Cirrus did not notify him of the ineligibility and held the casinos 100% responsible. However, until I hear from Schan the exact mistakes he had made (maybe just a tactic, he really made none?), my stance remains Cirrus is held the final responsibility and therefore ought to pay for more.

[17] You finally posted in your own words and made it out as if Cirrus was in complete wrong doing, and no blame on you at all

Havent read the original posts before edited, so confused quite a bit. Then again, if Schan thinks he is not in the wrong, he CAN refuse to bend down (write a public post he is). In other words, he has the right to not accept an offer when he doesnt see fit. Remember that it should not be regarded as a mercy for Schan to accept the 50% settlement in this case.

I'm sorry Schank, but people becomes tired of being a pawn for you and trying to help, when you absolutely refuse to work at a negotiations!!

The hard work of mediators much appreciated! And I understand your sentiment completely. From the standpoint of the mediators- pushing, case closed & move on- is the best they want, especially when it is free of charge. (Side Note: I always think free of charge is not right. Mediators should charge a basic fee, more for successful. Then anybody does not owe anybody anything. No harm making some money where service lent.)

That said, I dont understand the sudden change of anger of Jinnia & Lanidar towards Schan of his unwillingness to settle. To me, Christine was also playing games when she demanded a 12-hour time frame for the public post and claimed she left on vacation after the expiry. (was she really on vacation nobody knows)

Now, the picture suddenly turns out to be Cirrus is being generous to make a 50% settlement where they are not required to? That, they are just under the pressure of publicity to do so where they are more right?

Confused is what I am!

 

[jetset]

QUOTE From the standpoint of the mediators- pushing, case closed & move on- is the best they want, especially when it is free of charge. (Side Note: I always think free of charge is not right. Mediators should charge a basic fee, more for successful. Then anybody does not owe anybody anything. No harm making some money where service lent.)UNQUOTE

I hope I am misinterpreting this statement, which suggests that no charge mediators are more interested in pushing quickly on than getting a fair settlement for the player.

That is wrong. Mediators who get involved in these disputes to help rather than profit do so conscientiously in my experience, carefully negotiating and truthfully reporting progress....and their recommendations, to the player.

This frequently involves several weeks or even months of activity - hardly "pushing, case closed and move on is the best they want."

 

[caruso]

There's nothing wrong with a pre-determined "clearing up" post acceptable to all parties - my disputes with both Angelciti and Cirrus included this. In the case of Angelciti, I simply gave my word over the phone that I'd post facts a, b, c and d; Cirrus was much the same, except that it involved Cindy in the middle. Since nothing was compromised at my end in the posts, ie. they were factual, I was happy to make them and the casino was happy to pay on the basis of their promised appearance.

And let's not forget that the player is in the wrong here. This seems to be getting overlooked. If Cirrus is requiring that he publically acknowledge his wrong, there is nothing wrong with that - I'd require the same. If they're requiring something along the lines of "I acknowledge the mistake was mine, that I was not entitled to bonus XXX because of reason YYY (although I maintain that based on the coupon's redemption I WAS entitled, clear and categoric warning received from the casino that I was NOT entitled notwithstanding) and I therefore appreciate the goodwill gesture on the part of the casino in agreeing on a settlement", then there is absolutely nothing wrong. If the player continues to insist in his petulant, bull-headed stubborness that he did nothing wrong, then of course he's entitled to nothing.

I can well see where Lanidar was coming from when he finally threw up his hands in frustration; in the circumstances he ran with this for a creditably long time.

 

[HKGambler]

- pushing, case closed and move on-

Hi Jetset & the mediators- this statement is not offense intended but it still holds true that pushing to make a case closed is really what happened with the mediation job. Otherwise a settlement cannot be reached in several weeks, it would take months. As to the point that no charge mediators are more interested in pushing quickly on than getting a fair settlement for the player, well its likely the reality, although not unethical. Their conscience to make it fair is what I believe, generally speaking. However, mediators getting paid is more patient & more eager to make a fairer deal is also what I believe. This is real life. Like it or not.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

However, mediators getting paid is more patient & more eager to make a fairer deal is also what I believe. This is real life. Like it or not.

Gotta totally disagree with that - if the mediator is paid by the player and getting a % of the agreed payment then I'm afraid they are far from interested in getting a 'fair' deal. The position then becomes a sales job where the mediator clearly has an interest in getting as much $ as possible. Even if they're not getting a % and a flat rate then they are still being paid to look out for the players interests, but still not at reaching a fair conclusion for both parties.

The only fair mediator is one that can be a truly independent and that has no affiliation to either side.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE Otherwise a settlement cannot be reached in several weeks, it would take months. UNQUOTE

Sometimes it does. This is exactly my argument - most of the successful mediators I know (Bryan and Spearmaster included) do it for free and it has no adverse consequence of a rush joib and settlement at any price.

That might be hard for a cynic to understand, but it is a fact.

 

[Casinomeister]

...if the mediator is paid by the player and getting a % of the agreed payment then I'm afraid they are far from interested in getting a 'fair' deal. The position then becomes a sales job where the mediator clearly has an interest in getting as much $ as possible...

I agree with this completely. Some mediators take a cut in the aggrieved player's settlement, which causes the mediator to overlook indicators that the player was a fraudster or whatever. The mediator goes for the throat and ends up looking like an ass.

And on the other hand, a player has a case that is already being dealt with by the casino, the mediator solicits the player stating "he'll make things happen", and in the end the player gets the settlement and forks over a percentage to the mediator who was never needed in the first place.

 

[KasinoKing]

And let's not forget that the player is in the wrong here. This seems to be getting overlooked. If Cirrus is requiring that he publically acknowledge his wrong, there is nothing wrong with that - I'd require the same.

Caruso,
I respect your views & opinions on most things you are normally spot on. But I can not understand why you are siding with the casino on this one, and I will never agree with your side of the argument. To repeat:

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.

Maybe we should run a poll to see what the other Meister Members think: Who is in the wrong the casino, the player, or 50/50?

 

[HKGambler]

That might be hard for a cynic to understand, but it is a fact.

Cmon Jetset, why are you so emotional? And theoretical?

Talking about fact. My opinion is based on my real life experience- that I was involved 2 to 3 times in some real estate conflicts that some third-party, non profit making community mediators stepped in to obviously push me for an early settlement which I deemed unfair. Such act is fully understandable and I, of course, can choose to accept or reject the rush.

I dont mean most mediators, free or not, are sacrificing fairness for rush. Of course I know Bryan & Spear had not sacrificed fairness needless to say. I was stating my opinion that it is quite likely where mediators are human & they have limited time & energy. This is not immoral even so. And no one is forced to accept a deal after all. Was I hurting anybody?

Mediators getting paid to look out for the players interests, casino managers already getting paid to look for the casinos interest and why not, they can still reach a fair conclusion. I think its feasible. Getting paid may or may not lead to partiality. Not necessarily. Depending who & how well the mediator is. A biased mediator would not be trusted & qualified as a mediator in the end. I personally feel more comfortable to pay for a mediation service dearly rendered.

Forgive me I could be wrong. Could be that I dont fully understand how the online mediation works. Since this is diverting the main topic, Id better not argue on this any longer.

 

[dominique]

if the mediator is paid by the player and getting a % of the agreed payment then I'm afraid they are far from interested in getting a 'fair' deal.

In real life, mediators are always paid and they are paid by both parties, half and half. Both parties will not engage in any publicity about the dispute, that is part of the point of mediation. Both parties promise to abide by the mediator's decision. That's mediation in real life.

Online, as usually, is reinventing the wheel.

I do mediations for free, but only for players who use my links. I feel responsible for what happens to them because it is my fault they went to this place in the first place. It's customer service to me. It's just good business.

Occasionally I hear of something that I can fix because I have good connections - so then I will do it regardless.

But I am not a watchdog like Bryan, who will mediate for free whether anyone uses his links or not (and you all should do so out of gratitude for the service being there.)

Lanidar and Jinnia did this mediation as a first - and something went wrong. This, of course, happens. Why it happened in this case - I don't really understand what went on. I think there are things I either missed or that are not public.

This particular mediation is kind of odd - Cindy worked with Cirrus for Caruso. Cindy also worked with Schankie regarding some other mediation - I forgot which. Would it not be natural for Schankie to go back to her, or for her to offer to help?

I am not entirely sure of what actually transpired here. But my take is that Schankie and Cirrus are equally responsible, and half the winning would be fair. This is based only on what I have read here.

If Schanke had been a newbie, I would hold Cirrus completely responsible, since it is quite normal to consider a piece of mail to be meant for the recipient. As far as I know there is no disclaimer about agreements reached otherwise. But Schanke is anything but a newbie and has had an ongoing relationship with Cirrus and Christine and should have been aware that they did have a verbal contract.

Regarding what Schankie was supposed to post - I haven't seen a copy. I am waiting for Schankie to return and explain this:

You have NO idea as Jinnia is not explaining/mentioning the parts of the agreement that I COULD NOT accept!
Additionally... Something here has become VERY fishy......

 

[caruso]

But I can not understand why you are siding with the casino on this one, and I will never agree with your side of the argument.

We can pointlessly repeat the same thing over and over; in the interests of bandwidth, I'll say for absolutely the last time: the moment the casino notified the player he wasn't entiltled to BONUS X, he forfeited his entitlement to BONUS X. The player had a responsibility to act as a functioning adult, with memory and logic faculties all in place. That he may not HAVE them is not the casino's problem - nor is it their problem if he decided to chance his arm, and if he won and got denied shovel out a little blackmail ("I'm going to post everywhere and blacken you forever") for good measure. The moment the casino notified him of his entitlements he forewent any rights to his non-entitlements.

Maybe we should run a poll to see what the other Meister Members think: Who is in the wrong the casino, the player, or 50/50?

That wouldn't be an appropriate way to go at all. Loads of blood-letting, all childish and pointless. Cirrus wouldn't be expected to take seriously anything eminating from something like that, and it would devalue the whole Meister setup.

 

[Casinomeister]

Like they say, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. Well, she's been singing for a while. S-man never had much of a chance. The chat sessions are real (remember he challenged these as being faked), he knew damn well what he was doing. Sure, the casino had sloppy marketing which opens them up to abuse (yes - I'm using the a-word). Schankhart abused this to his advantage and then we began to split hairs on whose fault is whose.

An unbelievable amount of time and effort has been put in to this by numerous people - all because of one guy's greed. As far as I'm concerned, this is over - it's like beating a dead horse with a D-handle. (old paratrooper term).

 

[slotchik]

Amen Bryan~~

 

[dominique]

it's like beating a dead horse with a D-handle.

What's a D-handle????

 

[Casinomeister]

What's a D-handle????

Sorry - it's a D-handled shovel. A tool for used for digging foxholes, filling sandbags, and beating dead horses.

 

[Casinomeister]

Sorry - it's a D-handled shovel. A tool for used for digging foxholes, filling sandbags, and beating dead horses.

Or used in such terms, "She/he's so ugly, looks like she/he was hit in the face with a D-handle."

 

[Casinomeister]

Or used in such terms, "She/he's so ugly, looks like she/he was hit in the face with a D-handle."

Actually, there are a bunch more - but I can't remember. Perhaps M249a can help me out - but he was infantry - I was a combat engineer.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE I dont mean most mediators, free or not, are sacrificing fairness for rush. UNQUOTE

No emotion here, HK Gambler - I was looking for that statement you have just made which was my point in the first place.

 

[m249a]

We called them e-tools (entrenching tools) A small shovel that folded up into a smaller, pain in the ass. It did alot of jobs fairly, and nothing well...lol

The d (thingy) is used only by engineers.....who were never around when you needed them anyway So if we grunts needed to dig a hole fast, we used shape charges and just blew the hell of it....not very tactical, but man can you make a DZ (drop zone) in a hurry with some det cord and c4....ahh the good ole' days.