Schankwart Vs. Cirrus Casino

[Granny_Mae]

Lots of patience will still be needed with this case probably. I am prepared for it though.

i'm still wondering why this has not been asked, but what the heck kind of system do you have for pontoon that caused all this?

why not give pontoon lessons to make up for the $5k ?

 

[The Dude]

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.

Actually, I wasn't really mediating - I thought you were. I just saw Schankwart sitting by the side of the road with a flat tire, and I offered to help. He never really approached me - and it's been a while since Cirrus has answered any of my emails. I'm not cutting any deals with anyone. I'm just moderating the forum - that's about it.

Thanks for the hat, but you can keep it. When it starts to rain shit from the sky, you'll need it. (Jeeze, I'm speaking in metaphors tonight, aren't I). The hardest thing about mediating - or getting in the middle of a disgruntled player and a dissed casino - is that the public doesn't see or is privy to half of what goes on, and you can only say or do so much. If you see things from the casino's perspective - be prepared to be accused of being paid off and on the take. See things from the player's perspective? You're nothing but a fraudulent player advocate; a bonus hunter's tool for blackmail. And you think anyone's going to pay you to do it? Ha! (insert group laughter sound bite)

 

[schankwart]

Hello everybody,
my apology for not having posted here in over a day. I have unfortunately been very busy and did not find the time to take care of this issue.
Tomorrow morning I will travel out of town for a few days but hope to have an Internet-connection early next week again.

I will definetely keep this thread updated. No worries!

 

[dominique]

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?

Sorry Lanidar, I didn't mean it that way. Of course everyone has to start some place.

I know how trying a task it is also. Personally I found I can do well only with places where I am well known, so I stick with places I advertise. And since I work to keep the riff raff off my site, I don't have to mediate very often.

The comment was to point out that Bryan has put a lot of time and money into this - and most of it is not visible here.

 

[bagofmaggots]

Thanks for the hat, but you can keep it. When it starts to rain shit from the sky, you'll need it.

I'm going to borrow that quote

Lanidar.....getting a 30% offer here was quite a feat as well as a very generous offer by the casino. Given the circumstances here it surprises me they would offer that.:notworthy
Caruso......I agree with your two cents worth...... that makes 4 cents now.

 

[HKGambler]

Thanks for the hat, but you can keep it. When it starts to rain shit from the sky, you'll need it. (Jeeze, I'm speaking in metaphors tonight, aren't I). The hardest thing about mediating - or getting in the middle of a disgruntled player and a dissed casino - is that the public doesn't see or is privy to half of what goes on, and you can only say or do so much. If you see things from the casino's perspective - be prepared to be accused of being paid off and on the take. See things from the player's perspective? You're nothing but a fraudulent player advocate; a bonus hunter's tool for blackmail. And you think anyone's going to pay you to do it? Ha! (insert group laughter sound bite)

My first post here. An unwelcomed one.

Meister, you seem so contented with yourself joining the casinos band this time. Please dont. Whoever advocates you are, your judgement has got to be balanced and right..Now, the memory of the Pirates fiasco, together with Cipher & some others perseverance to help resolved, comes to mind.

Also, you seem to have avoided the points raised by Jinnia (post #79 ) and take your back-the-casino-discount-the-player position. You have not criticized the casinos part sending the invitation email and tried to shrug off the burden of their responsibility with ease.

OK, let me try another illustration if the aforesaid has not been clear enough:
There was a man, Florian, who was a skilled eater so that he had always been picking the most economical meal for himself. A restaurant, Cirrus, disliked his consuming behavior and one of the representatives (floor manageress) notified Florian over the phone that he no longer could get the 100% free dessert in his future patronage, only 30% free at most. At that point, Florian asked her to reconsider some better deals for him because of his VIP status already. The chat went no further and ended.

Soon after, Florian received an invitation card sent to his door from Cirruss another representative (marketing manager) that he was welcomed to patron their restaurant with various options of free dessert, 100% included. Even though a bit puzzled, Florian was so hungry and somewhat greedy by nature, still went forward for the invitation without reconfirming with the floor manageress. Why should he? Since he didnt know how many representatives were there in the restaurant, or who had higher authority.

So, Florian paid the cashier the entrance fee, passed the door guards security check, chose the set dinner with 100% free dessert and got approved by the headwaiter. Later, the food was offered by the bus boy and Florian ate through the whole course. As he felt full, he was about to leave. Unfortunately there he met the floor manageress at the exit, who discovered that Florian should not have eaten the 100% free dessert and forced him to vomit what has been unsupposedly eaten. Florian refused. He just could not vomit. Food eaten is eaten! He was then handcuffed & locked in a dark room by the bouncers, waiting for relief.

Meanwhile, the floor manageress rushed to the marketing manager, slapped him in the face and asked why the invitation card was sent without prior checking with her. The marketing manager kicked her back in the butt and refuted why she did not give him the blacklist in the first place. The fight lasted for many minutes inside their closely guarded meeting room, with the bling-blong sound effect in the background. However, they cannot change the fact that the invitation was really sent by their own organization and that Florian was allowed the whole process of eating.

Now, back to reality.

Even if Schankwart did receive the oral or written notification and still went forward to take the advantage, then he is just a bad, greedy customer who should be banned by Cirrus & their group in the FUTURE. But it does not affect the legitimacy of his winning THIS TIME. Because he did receive invitation from another representative, bought with his money and was given the chips, risked on the right game and won. Note: the fact that he is greedy does not make him a cheating player and taking advantage does not guarantee him a win, with gambling.

Meister, this case is not wasting anybodys time and should deserve deeper analysis, both casino and playerwise.

This is online gambling reality. There is every protection for the casinos when they lose. Terms and conditions on their website were written for their benefit, just in case. Now Cirrus wishes to pay 30% to have this case settled, good for them, because this reputable casino has succeeded to save themselves 70% to make higher profit. As for Schanwart, you are entitled to your win in full, but since you cannot prove Cirrus having altered the chat, and that your money is in their hands, you can consider a settlement of 65%, more if youre lucky. Yes, this is online gambling reality.

 

[spearmaster]

LMAO!

Long time no see, HKGambler.

I agree with this position - if the email was sent, then the player should be entitled to claim the bonus, especially since it has been approved by the system. And thus he should be able to cash out 100% of his winnings as well.

Sadly, Cirrus plays by a different set of rules.

 

[mary]

HK, now that is a classic post.

Greed is not solely on Shwankart's side. I'm struck in the chat transcript about how quickly after "You can't play over 30%" it moves to "what can we offer you to get another deposit?"

Schwankart must be a big depositor to not just get locked out...

I also am struck that surely the RTG software has been around long enough that it should enable casinos to send targeted offers to players or exclude players from the "one size fits all" coupon offers. Casinos depend on players behaving impulsively, taking a chance, seeing what they can get away with--that's the whole psychological impetus behind gambling--and RTG has had coupon issues for a long time. If Schwankart had deposited for promos in which he was ineligable and lost, he'd be just as valued a customer as if he'd limited himself to those promos for which he was eligible.

So I'm having a tough time feeling too much sympathy for Cirrus.

 

[amandajm]

When Schwankwart asked the lady after she limited him to 30% if she would send him some offers and she never refused point blank, she nudged the already open door.

Pay the man.

 

[The Dude]

My first post here. An unwelcomed one.

Meister, you seem so contented with yourself joining the casinos band this time. Please dont. Whoever advocates you are, your judgement has got to be balanced and right..Now, the memory of the Pirates fiasco, together with Cipher & some others perseverance to help resolved, comes to mind. .

Hi HKGambler what makes you think your post is unwelcome? Im used to being in the hot seat by now.

But dont think that Im sitting here gloating over siding with a casino Im just trying to get the facts straight, and present things in a clear and logical manner. I was deeply involved with the pirate fiasco and was privy to much more behind the scene issues than 99.9% of the public was. And Im sure if youd review that old thread youd realize that as soon as I was certain that the operator had lied, I was all over his ass (in a manner of speaking).

Also, you seem to have avoided the points raised by Jinnia (post #79 ) and take your back-the-casino-discount-the-player position. You have not criticized the casinos part sending the invitation email and tried to shrug off the burden of their responsibility with ease. .

My apologies didnt mean to avoid the post. But I disagree with the comment that I have not been critical about the casino sending out this ad. Its sloppy and they know it. I made this clear to Christine when this situation was brought to my attention a couple of months ago.

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
.

Sure, he was sent a generic email which I posted here
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/search

And I hope everyone who is making comments in this thread has looked at the screenshot of this ad. If not, please do it now. Yeah, it includes the 100% bonus for VIPs (that Schankwart took) but it also includes bonuses for first time users. If he took a first timers bonus would those who sympathise with Schankys case still feel the same way? I count seven bonuses on this ad the he was entitled to take.

OK, let me try another illustration if the aforesaid has not been clear enough:
.

Nice analogy, but it is clear I never strayed from the contention that both sides are at fault: Sloppy marketing confused and/or greedy player.

Now, back to reality.

Even if Schankwart did receive the oral or written notification and still went forward to take the advantage, then he is just a bad, greedy customer who should be banned by Cirrus & their group in the FUTURE. But it does not affect the legitimacy of his winning THIS TIME. Because he did receive invitation from another representative, bought with his money and was given the chips, risked on the right game and won. Note: the fact that he is greedy does not make him a cheating player and taking advantage does not guarantee him a win, with gambling. .

I would agree with this hands down, but the fact that he was given an ad that required him to make a decision (after being informed of his limits) then took the wrong offer well I feel that this lies in with the responsibility of the player. He knew he was not to take the 100% - but he did. It states on the email if you are not allow. Why is he the only one apparently who made the wrong decision in this instance? The email was sent to all Cirrus customers real players and play for fun (Im assuming here). Why is this only a problem for Schwankwart?

Meister, this case is not wasting anybodys time and should deserve deeper analysis, both casino and playerwise.

This is online gambling reality. There is every protection for the casinos when they lose. Terms and conditions on their website were written for their benefit, just in case. Now Cirrus wishes to pay 30% to have this case settled, good for them, because this reputable casino has succeeded to save themselves 70% to make higher profit. As for Schanwart, you are entitled to your win in full, but since you cannot prove Cirrus having altered the chat, and that your money is in their hands, you can consider a settlement of 65%, more if youre lucky. Yes, this is online gambling reality.

Okay, I take back the waste my time comment. Its Sunday, and I should be spending time with my kids but sloppy casinos and player greed take precedence (just kidding) .

What I meant about a waste of time is that I feel this is pretty clear cut case of a player taking a coupon he didnt deserve. He was told he couldnt take it right? And he took one. Going back to the restaurant analogy: if he was told not to order the steak and lobster dinner by the manager, and then the waiter hands him the menu that has everything on it including the steak and lobster would he be wrong in taking it? I think so, because he was told not to.

Now we could take this further. Here is what Schankwart is saying.

He took the coupon because he believed he was entitled to 100% VIP bonus. No one told him a thing otherwise.

Well call this situation B:

This means that the entire chat is falsified, there were no emails sent, and its a scandalous conspiracy.

If Schankwart wants to pursue this then he should contact Montana disputes. RTG has Montana set up primarily to handle these sort of things, and Im pretty much surprised that they have been left out of the loop on all of this, especially if there are issues of unethical practices of the casino operator.

If he contacts Montana, I will give my word that I will ride them hard to ensure that they turn over every rock and stone to see if these chat sessions have been faked. I want no half-assed shit here either Cirrus lied or they didnt.

Schanky, if this is the route you want to take, then lets do it. PM me or bang me out an email.

 

[The Dude]

I also am struck that surely the RTG software has been around long enough that it should enable casinos to send targeted offers to players or exclude players from the "one size fits all" coupon offers. Casinos depend on players behaving impulsively, taking a chance, seeing what they can get away with--that's the whole psychological impetus behind gambling--and RTG has had coupon issues for a long time. If Schwankart had deposited for promos in which he was ineligable and lost, he'd be just as valued a customer as if he'd limited himself to those promos for which he was eligible.

From the casino:
All players were sent the e-mail with offers for every one. Thing is that they all know what bonuses they can get. The player knew he was not entitled to the 100% bonus and he used it even knowing that fact...

...When the player started playing that same day he was taking bonuses of 25% to 30%, those were okay, When you have lots of players playing at the same time it is impossiblo to monitor each and every account. We have to trust the player will stick to the casno terms and redeem only the bonuses he knows he is allowed to do. It is the player's responsibility to stick to this terms otherwise he knows that the casino has the right to void winnings and send back the original deposit if he wins. RTG does have a system that allows the casino to exclude a certain player class from getting some offers. the player's class was not excluded from the codes cause it will still affect 40 VIPs that were still eligible to get any of the offers, besides, should the player be treated as a kid or as an adult that can be trusted when he has been told what he can and cannot do?...

 

[eek]

It's not very good publicity for anyone thinking about depositing.

How the heck do you know if you are eligible for an offer?

The only time you know you are not eligible.........
......is if you win a big wedge of $$$'s.......

yikes.

The alternative is to get an email confirmation for every offer you decide to participate in.
Don't forget, you might go on a roll and win $20,000.
So its a heck of a lot smarter to be safe than sorry.

 

[eek]

No wonder the industry struggles to get new players...

Bonuses...

You must confirm eligibility by email before you deposit.
You must take a copy of the T&C's at the time you deposit.
You must follow the playthrough requirements precisely.
You must supply various personal documents to receive any winnings.

....only true gambling rotorheads would bother....


play mode sounds more and more appealing

If you want to be entertained, use play mode.
If you want to entertain casino messageboard users. Deposit and win big.

 

[HKGambler]

Hi HKGambler what makes you think your post is unwelcome?

Im much more relieved hearing this, phew!

But dont think that Im sitting here gloating over siding with a casino

Frankly, I once thought so! Now, I have more understanding of the mindset & reasoning behind your position. My apologies.

I was deeply involved with the pirate fiasco and was privy to much more behind the scene issues than 99.9% of the public was. And Im sure if youd review that old thread youd realize that as soon as I was certain that the operator had lied, I was all over his ass

Agreed. What I really meant, mentioning the Pirates fiasco, was that you are the type of person who would correct & admit your judgement that is erred. You did it last time and I hoped you could do the same this time, if you think fit.

Going back to the restaurant analogy: if he was told not to order the steak and lobster dinner by the manager, and then the waiter hands him the menu that has everything on it including the steak and lobster would he be wrong in taking it? I think so, because he was told not to.

Your counter example does not apply to mine. In your example, he was told face to face not to order steak & lobster at the time of order. No time lap. No administrative incompetence. No bad tactics. No chance of confusion. Different scenario. Anyway, we have our points stated & shared.

Hi, Mary and Spear. Nice meeting you here!

 

[jinnia]

Your counter example does not apply to mine. In your example, he was told face to face not to order steak & lobster at the time of order. No time lap. No administrative incompetence. No bad tactics. No chance of confusion. Different scenario. Anyway, we have our points stated & shared.

I said I would not respond on this issue here again, but I'm going to...


If he was told no steak and lobster, and then he asked to be sent over a menu of what he could have, then whatever is on the menu that was taken to him, would be his for the ordering!

 

[m249a]

I am of the school of thought that says the chat logs were indeed faked. I feel I made my case, and even though it may be weak, it still raises some very good questions.

Bryan has made the sugestion, several times now, that Montana be brought into the loop here and be afforded the chance to act upon this issue.

Schankwart, you know I am on your side here.....but the question now is this. Why haven't you asked them (montana) for help? And are you going to now, that all other avenues have been exausted? You rejected the casinos offer to a payoff to make this situation go away. Ok, fair enough. Now its time to take it to the next level and see what can be done. Bryan said in very plain easy to understand terms, he will back your play. So make the play. Now.

 

[mary]

eek, you forgot the chat logs!

Bad, bad eek! No bonus for you!

So he couldn't be excluded from the promo mailing because it would screw it up for the "40 other VIPs in that class". Well, duh, create a new class. That's what databases are for. If the casino can't be bothered to keep track of Schankwart's "VIP only getting 30% offers", why should he?

People, you paid for the software, USE IT.

As for Schwankart's notification, we don't know how many chats he has with how many casino reps on how many days. Maybe he forgot. So what if they sent the notification via email, they should have verified that he got it. It's a lot easier to remember if one is a new player or not than to remember other limitations...

And there probably are a lot more players taking coupons to which they are ineligible than just Schwanky. It's just that they back down when the casinos says, "Bad player! no bonus!" in the hopes of still getting any offers.

Schwanky is unusual in his sheer chutzpah. He shot his folks and now wants mercy from the court for being an orphan.

Basically, I don't think the casino should get off with denying the bonus, and my thinking is this: there are a lot of Schwankarts out there. Some of them lose. The casino should not be rewarded for sending out "sloppy" promotions; they know damn well that they tempting *exactly the people they want to tempt: those subject to temptation.* As others have pointed out, this kind of practice degrades the whole industry.

We have come to consider acceptable that players shouldn't believe casino offers. Think about that. We consider it acceptable that casinos send out offers with no intention of honoring them as long as they are bundled with offers they will honor. That it is the player's responsibility to *figure out* if an offer applies. That's just wrong.

 

[spearmaster]

Sure, he was sent a generic email which I posted here
Old URL

And I hope everyone who is making comments in this thread has looked at the screenshot of this ad. If not, please do it now. Yeah, it includes the 100% bonus for VIPs (that Schankwart took) but it also includes bonuses for first time users. If he took a first timers bonus would those who sympathise with Schankys case still feel the same way? I count seven bonuses on this ad the he was entitled to take.

This skirts the fact that the system accepted the bonus request. And that he was indeed sent the email. If he was not entitled, the system should have rejected the request.

the player's class was not excluded from the codes cause it will still affect 40 VIPs that were still eligible to get any of the offers,

If they are going to differentiate between players within a class, they should have put him in a separate class. This is nothing but silly or lazy planning.

Going back to the restaurant analogy: if he was told not to order the steak and lobster dinner by the manager, and then the waiter hands him the menu that has everything on it including the steak and lobster would he be wrong in taking it?

This analogy really isn't that good. If he is sent a coupon for a steak and lobster dinner, and tries to redeem it at the restaurant and is allowed to do so, then he should be entitled to the steak and lobster dinner. But to hand him a menu and tell him he can only select items without asterisks next to them is silly. And even then, if he did select one with an asterisk, and the waiter takes the order and he is served, should he not be entitled to get the dinner?

There is zero excuse for the casino to apply this type of reasoning, especially when it can be applied selectively at their discretion. They have the ability to decide which offers he can and cannot get, they can choose whether or not to send him the email, and they have the ability to reject the request at the cashier.

Schankwart passed all three "tests" - he did not log in as a different player nor try to abuse the system through another account - he simply walked in the front door, presented his coupon, and collected his bonus.

There should be absolutely NO question as to his right to claim his bonus, his deposit and his winnings. If they (Cirrus) can't police the people coming through the door, they should take full responsibility for their inability to do so. Or else rewrite their policies so that the police CAN stop him at the door.

 

[thesmiler]

I have been quiet in this thread until now, but after me having my share of problems with Cirrus before, I'd like to comment on a few points.

a) I'm one of those who thinks that you can't be 100% sure if the chat is falsified or not. I say, it might be. And I don't see the excuse "You can't fake logs, because if the player kept the right ones, you can close your business". What if Schankwart had a chat log which said different things. Would it be a different situation? You still could say that his one is wrong, and the casino ones is right. I don't know.
b) I think you can't really blame Schankwart for trying this coupon he got sent. Cirrus often sends out e-mails where I normally do not know which coupons I'm allowed. Sometimes the "first-time players" is in another color, so you might not see it until you really look at it. Just today, I received a newsletter, and I was not sure if I would be eligible for the 75% bonus, because the headline is "WINNERS VIP CLUB". So does this imply: for current VIPs only? Or will you get VIP when you deposit? Or am I VIP right now? Or can anyone claim? I know they want my business, because they called me some times last week, but I'm still not sure which bonuses I can claim. However, I thought about asking on Live Chat if I was eligible, when I saw the term " March 2nd to March 4th" on the top of the newsletter, which was sent to me TODAY. So if I would claim this coupon now and it got accepted, would it be right that all the winnings are void?

I might have some other points, but I'm far to tired right now

 

[caruso]

You can skirt around the facts as much as you want. The player was plainly and specifically informed of his ineligibility - were they supposed to bang him over the head with a crowbar with "ineligible for 100% bonuses" written on it? How much clearer was it supposed to be? An Email, while an excellent back up, can get lost in the junk mail or otherwise overlooked. The live chat alternative is far more clear-cut, if less "official".

If players aren't expected to play fair, do not expect casinos to.

 

[mary]

There's players not playing fair, and then there's players not playing fair...Schwankart hasn't committed the worst of player sins (multiple signups).

The casino in its own best interest should pay him and then lock him out. Then he wouldn't be going after any more promotions and wouldn't be dragging the casino's name through the mud.

You argue that Schwankart should know better than to take a shot at a bonus he knows he might not get. Plays the same for the casino, the casino shouldn't be taking a shot at getting a deposit from a player who's snagged bonuses in the past (at least, that is what the casino is alleging.)

No innocent parties here; plenty of sauce to go around for geese and ganders to go witht eh steak and lobsters.

Quite an interesting discussion; I much appreciate the civility of all involved.

It is making me hungry though.

 

[The Dude]

Your counter example does not apply to mine. In your example, he was told face to face not to order steak & lobster at the time of order. No time lap. No administrative incompetence. No bad tactics. No chance of confusion. Different scenario. Anyway, we have our points stated & shared.

I'm throwing all the restaurant analogies to the dogs since this is live action, and with Cirrus we're dealing with cyber space (chat logs, emails, etc.). Bottom line is that the casino is claiming that Schankwart was told NOT to take a bonus and Schankwart did.

If he was told no steak and lobster, and then he asked to be sent over a menu of what he could have, then whatever is on the menu that was taken to him, would be his for the ordering!

This doesn't really work since Schankwart didn't request this specific email - it was obvious that it was an email for any player (sign up bonuses, etc). If it was personalized, "Hey Schanky - these are the bonuses you qualify for!" than that's a different story.

I am of the school of thought that says the chat logs were indeed faked. I feel I made my case, and even though it may be weak, it still raises some very good questions.

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. But if this can of worms needs to be opened - then lets open it.

The casino should not be rewarded for sending out "sloppy" promotions; they know damn well that they tempting *exactly the people they want to tempt: those subject to temptation.* As others have pointed out, this kind of practice degrades the whole industry.

Excellent point - tempting the people they want to tempt - irregardless whether or not it was intentional - Schankwart was tempted.

If they are going to differentiate between players within a class, they should have put him in a separate class. This is nothing but silly or lazy planning.

I have been saying this since day one. The sloppiness is sloppy, the laziness is lazy.

There should be absolutely NO question as to his right to claim his bonus, his deposit and his winnings. If they (Cirrus) can't police the people coming through the door, they should take full responsibility for their inability to do so. Or else rewrite their policies so that the police CAN stop him at the door.

I see where you are coming from, but I'm still not 100% convinced that it's the way to go. I still believe that players have an amount of responsibility to uphold themselves to. If you are told not to do something - you don't do it.

Cirrus often sends out e-mails where I normally do not know which coupons I'm allowed. Sometimes the "first-time players" is in another color, so you might not see it until you really look at it. Just today, I received a newsletter, and I was not sure if I would be eligible for the 75% bonus, because the headline is "WINNERS VIP CLUB".

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

The player was plainly and specifically informed of his ineligibility - were they supposed to bang him over the head with a crowbar with "ineligible for 100% bonuses" written on it? How much clearer was it supposed to be? An Email, while an excellent back up, can get lost in the junk mail or otherwise overlooked

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

I feel your pain Caruso - this is something I feel strongly about - players need to stop acting like a bunch of sheep - if you know what you are doing is wrong - it's wrong. Don't blame others for your screw-ups.

The casino in its own best interest should pay him and then lock him out. Then he wouldn't be going after any more promotions and wouldn't be dragging the casino's name through the mud.

They won't lock him out (I'm assuming here) because he's a big player. Even after all of these discussions - I bet he has his account still open ready to take his money. What a pitiful practice. They don't have the gonads to show him the exit even after all of this. Most casino managers would say they no longer want his patronage and tell him to leave. Schankwart, is your account still open??

Closing comment for this post. If what Schankwart says is true, that the chat logs and emails are faked, then we have a horse of a different color on our hands. I have been waiting for a response from Cirrus to address some of these issues, but they seem to have difficulty in replying to my emails. Ho hum.

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.

 

[jinnia]

This doesn't really work since Schankwart didn't request this specific email - it was obvious that it was an email for any player (sign up bonuses, etc). If it was personalized, "Hey Schanky - these are the bonuses you qualify for!" than that's a different story.

I do understand what you are saying, but he did tell Christine to send him a couple of offers, he received the email with some offers after that, he submitted one, it was allowed, even played with.

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.

After Schank emailed Christine (which she denies receiving one from him) about a settlement they could agree upon, that is when Cirrus (Christine) stopped responding to any emails about this issue.

 

[HKGambler]

- were they supposed to bang him over the head with a crowbar with "ineligible for 100% bonuses" written on it?.....
If players aren't expected to play fair, do not expect casinos to.

Caruso- too violent banging over the head using crowbar; a golf stick should be enough.

A boy, not too small, had an extremely bad habit with candies resulting in a full mouthful of decayed teeth. One time, the father warned him of no candies anymore, face to face. The message was clear. The boy was so against the message and begged him to be more lenient. The conversation was in vain.

The other day, the mother, who used to act the good character in the family, put different packages of chocolates: Cadbury, Maltesers, Melty Kiss as well as Ferrero Rocher in front of the boy, and said, Boy, you can choose one, this is the last time, and youll be obedient.

Jesuss, the boy took all four.

Ladies & gentlemen, who is ultimately to be blamed? The parents or the children? To tempt or to be tempted? Action or reaction? In law, the one who makes the first strike bears the final responsibility. The spirit of the law is to protect the to be tempted. The benefits fall onto the passive parties.

The question has to be less with the player playing fair or not. It has to be more with the casino striking the first strike, thereby bearing the final responsibility.

You guys seem to have been ignoring one critical point: the issue of final responsibility. In our commercial world, if an organization sends out a promo, deliberately or mistakenly doesnt matter, to the trusted or to the rotten customers doesnt matter, and then allows the customer to redeem, go through & complete the transaction, theres no alternative but to honor and eat it up. I cant think of any better interpretations than this.

 

[spearmaster]

I see where you are coming from, but I'm still not 100% convinced that it's the way to go. I still believe that players have an amount of responsibility to uphold themselves to. If you are told not to do something - you don't do it.

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.

Whose fault is that?

I'm not saying that Schankwart is an addict, of course - but if you KNOWINGLY make an offer, you should be bound to honor it. They can't even plead ignorance - 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.

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.

If anyone can come up with a better solution - or description - by all means please come forward. I cannot, however, buy the "responsibility" of player or casino to do whatever - no "moral" agreements either - spell it out in black and white like a contract.

As an example, I do NOT honor agreements made over the phone UNLESS they are confirmed in an email to me, and a contract signed, sealed and delivered.

 

[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" <[email protected]>


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.