1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Stuff we don't get to hear much - the casino side.

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by chayton, Nov 16, 2011.

    Nov 16, 2011
  1. chayton

    chayton aka LooHoo CAG PABnonaccred webmeister

    Occupation:
    Freelance Designer
    Location:
    Edmonton Canada
    We see a lot of players coming in and complaining about online casinos. If there's a PAB sometimes we get to hear the casino's side of the story but not often, and not really in any depth. Occasionally we get a chance to see a snippet from a player's email or chat where the player is abusive or threatening, but again, not that often.

    On a couple of instances when a casino rep actually responds and says something about the player, then everyone gets on their case about privacy issues. I can understand nobody wants their playing history or personal info to be made public, but it's kind of lopsided. A player can come in and talk crap about a casino as much as they like and the casino reps can't really clear the air because of the privacy thing.

    I remember several instances where a player came in and told some sob story and got a lot of support from the members here and then they did a PAB and suddenly that player's name went red. But unless the player starts a PAB, nobody (not even Bryan) gets to see the evidence that the casino has, and that person can run around to forums and cause damage to the reputation of the casino. It doesn't seem fair to me.

    There was something I heard awhile back about a player (who used to be a member here) who either had or was linked to 80 accounts with one casino. The player hasn't been a member here for awhile, but interestingly they weren't banned from here for player fraud, it was something else. But while that person was a member here, they could come in and badmouth that casino and people would have assumed they were telling the truth, because the casino couldn't have responded with their side.

    I understand that there are privacy policies for a reason, and when I sign up to a casino I expect them to keep the dealings I have with them confidential. But if I'm commiting fraud by depositing with a stolen credit card or opening multiple accounts to take advantage of bonus offers or charging back deposits, then coming in talking trash about the casino that outed me, why shouldn't they have the opportunity to tell their side of the story?

    Fraudulent players make things tougher for the rest of us, we get more complex terms and more bonus restrictions and more issues with document verification because of it. If a casino finds out that a player is a fraud, they'll confiscate the winnings and close the player's account and that's as far as it goes. As far as I'm concerned, player privacy is the player's personal information, their address, transaction history and even play logs. If the player commits fraud then their fraudulent act shouldn't fall under the 'player privacy' umbrella anymore.

    Thoughts?
     
    15 people like this.
  2. Nov 18, 2011
  3. dazlazz

    dazlazz Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Prophet
    Location:
    London, UK
    Hi Chayton,

    example of privacy policy :

    "We may also disclose your personal information to a third-party that alleges that you have infringed their intellectual property rights, subject to reasonable verification of such claims"

    So...
    "If the player commits fraud then their fraudulent act shouldn't fall under the 'player privacy' umbrella anymore."

    Most gaming operators have a clause in Privacy whereby if a player is fraudulent, their privacy goes out the window.

    When i worked in igaming fraud 10 years ago - we regularly exchanged personal information of 'fraudulent' with other gaming operators.

    Regards,

    Daz
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Nov 19, 2011
  5. jstrike

    jstrike Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Programmer & Designer
    Location:
    Europe
    I know if one of my players took on my site's reputation in public, I'd answer them in public. And since my whole site's history's out in the open anyway, I've got no reason to hide it. One guy lost $2.70 on our roulette table and publicly accused the site of being rigged. Here's an example a lot harsher and more privacy-busting than anything you'll usually see from a rep:

    You must register/login in order to see the link. (2nd or 3rd post)

    I broke down exactly what he did and also how he'd lied in his claim. All the numbers for that day were already published, there were a couple hundred spins that day and he said he'd lost ten times in a row, but he'd actually only spun six times. While it's true he was unlucky, he also lied and exaggerated how many times he'd spun and fudged what actually happened, trying to make us look bad.

    I knew that with custom software I'd have to go to bat for our fairness before I started, so I went way out of my way to set up lots of public records and always have evidence right next to me that would stand up in court, showing the site's fair.

    You're right, the court of public opinion's always slanted to the player, and maybe it should be that way. After all, players take the most risk. But if someone accuses my games of something, they're accusing me of it, and in that case I've got no problem calling them out if they're lying, just like I'd have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt and refunding their money if there was anything remotely amiss. If that guy had lost ten times straight I'd have given him his money back just out of feeling bad for him. But as it is, he bluffed, I called him on it, and it was the right thing to do.
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page