... in any civilised country, contradictory terms would be ruled favour the consumer, in Casino/Casinomeister land this seems to not apply, why is that?
I'll do this one last time and then I'm done here:
The Terms are not
contradictory, there's no double standard here, no cover-up and no violation of international law or whatever else one might care to imagine or suggest. The Bonus Terms + the General Terms make it reasonably clear that a "list" of games cited in each of the Bonus Terms are "restricted" and that playing games from the restricted list will result in all winnings being canceled back to zero.
In the casino's General Terms it says:
Different bonuses have different restricted games, and it is the player's responsibility to review each bonus specific terms, for the restricted games list.
When you look at pretty much any of the bonus Terms at the casino it's pretty obvious that there is such a "list" of games which says something like:
Bets placed in Roulette, Craps, Baccarat, Bingo and Paigow Poker do not fulfill players' obligations with regards to the minimum wagering requirements.
In other words that is their list of "restricted" games for this particular bonus, so per the General Terms and the clauses that follow in the bonus Terms the "Wagering on restricted games will void all winnings" thing applies.
This isn't rocket science: it takes very little effort to see what the Terms mean and what reasonable conclusions can be drawn from them.
But this complaint has never been about "reasonable conclusions". From the beginning and in it's several incarnations the real point of this whole issue has been that the OP wants to take a single clause of a single term in isolation from everything else and say "I think that means such-and-such, I want to be paid". That's a bogus claim and we won't support it.
What the OP isn't saying is that he'll do pretty much anything under the sun to try and get his hands on his original winnings of $50,000+ regardless of logic, reason or anything else. He's reversed himself, denied the validity of earlier attempts, clutched at whatever straw he can think of and pulled this or that interpretation out of his ass in order to further his cause.
People are free to make up whatever fantasy interpretation of the Terms that pleases them but that's their thing, it's got nothing to do with reality or the Terms at hand. The bottom line is that this has been a rubbishy complaint since day one and it still is. Thanks to the OP continually banging away at this an inordinate and inexplicable amount of time and effort has been wasted including a colossal amount of our time.
The membership has now had a go at this, I've handled the PAB and since the OP didn't like those results we're back here on the forums again. Bryan has said the book is closed on this and I'm sure he meant what he said.
I'm fully aware of the fact that this issue is being debated off-site and I strongly suspect that the recent posts are a direct result of this. This is not a good thing so in Bryan's absence I am closing the thread before this gets out of hand. I'm sure he'll review it when he returns and do what he thinks best here.