On Probation The Virtual Casino Group and Ace Revenue

[TawniVirtualAce]

Hi all,

Yes, after my extended absence, I am back. As Greedy mentioned, I had some personal issues I had to tend to. I could not have imagined I would have been out as long as I've been, and I appreciate Virtual/Ace's support of my situation. I know the obvious question will be why did no one fill in for me. The truth in this is that we believed at this point, members have gotten to sort of 'know me' and dare I say, even trust me. We felt by bringing someone else in to cover for me, more conspiracy theories would arise, which would take away from whatever real issues were here to be discussed. Was this the best route to go? Maybe/maybe not, but it's the truth.

During this period of time, I was dealing with issues that pertained to individual members, which were sent to me via PM or elsewhere. Essentially, anything that related to a player on a personal level (not relating to policies, terms, etc.), I was handling.

There was no avoidance here, no ducking and dodging. Just a very difficult time for me personally, which made it tough for me to keep my head into anything other than what was essential. I'm sure everyone has had a moment in their lives such as this, so I would hope there will be some understanding where this is concerned.

There is much for me to read through, catch up on and reply to in this thread, which I promise I will get onto, immediately. I will give thorough answers to everything in the next day or so, you have my word on this.

Tawni

 

[chuchu59]

I hope you are well Tawni and that your personal issues have been solved. Personally, I don't really see Virtual having the will to turn over a new leaf. I would say the efforts Virtual makes to derogue themselves need to be triple or quadruple the efforts of other casinos to redeem themselves given its chequered past. 'One swallow does not make a summer' and I think it applies to Virtual's case. You need to convince us that you have turned good not just temporarily as you had too many times in the past promised to become good only to rip off players when the players won big. Only by behaving well on a consistent basis will it mean anything to most of us but honestly I cant see that happening with Virtual. What I do see are half-hearted attempts aimed at deroguing yourselves. I am sorry if it sounds harsh but this outfit had been given too many chances in the past and frankly I don't believe it dserves another. The bar that is set for Virtual to climb out of the rogue pit should be set much higher than others IMHO.

 

[The Dude]

I hope you are well Tawni and that your personal issues have been solved. Personally, I don't really see Virtual having the will to turn over a new leaf. I would say the efforts Virtual makes to derogue themselves need to be triple or quadruple the efforts of other casinos to redeem themselves given its chequered past. 'One swallow does not make a summer' and I think it applies to Virtual's case. You need to convince us that you have turned good not just temporarily as you had too many times in the past promised to become good only to rip off players when the players won big. Only by behaving well on a consistent basis will it mean anything to most of us but honestly I cant see that happening with Virtual. What I do see are half-hearted attempts aimed at deroguing yourselves. I am sorry if it sounds harsh but this outfit had been given too many chances in the past and frankly I don't believe it dserves another. The bar that is set for Virtual to climb out of the rogue pit should be set much higher than others IMHO.

Hi Chu,

Unfortunately, we aren't getting a clear picture of what is and has been happening behind the scenes at Virtual with this thread. It has been muddled with false accusations and some real bullshit from players. Some members are distorting their stories trying to make things look worse than it really is.

The amount of complaints concerning these properties is infinitesimal. Many of the Accredited Casinos here churn out more complaints than these guys. We really need to keep things in proper perspective if we want things to be balanced and fair.

 

[anniemac]

I haven't commented on this thread, mainly because no matter what, I don't intend on playing at these casinos as long as it takes a month or longer to get paid.

Being in the US, RTG is the main software I can play. So why would I chance depositing and winning at a casino that's going to take forever to pay when I can play at one that will pay in 3 days?

If Virtuals reputation were sterling, I still am not going to wait a month for payment. Not gonna happen.

 

[BMWSTACK]

Hi Chu,

Unfortunately, we aren't getting a clear picture of what is and has been happening behind the scenes at Virtual with this thread. It has been muddled with false accusations and some real bullshit from players. Some members are distorting their stories trying to make things look worse than it really is.

The amount of complaints concerning these properties is infinitesimal. Many of the Accredited Casinos here churn out more complaints than these guys. We really need to keep things in proper perspective if we want things to be balanced and fair.

Yes indeed what you say makes complete sense. I do understand that the reputation has already had many discredit them from the beginning. I have certainly done my fair share of not being supportive, but I do base it upon facts. The facts are based upon complaints elsewhere. I am able to separate fact from fiction in terms of the complaints, and if I wasn't seeing anything legit I wouldn't be commenting. But from the time of this probation, I have seen multiple issue where Tawni has had to go get players paid. Most were slow pays and only got attention when posted in public. So now I have seen factual information that delays are still happening, and then need to make the assumption that there are plenty more that are sitting quietly not knowing the option of help from a forum.

 

[mrmark21]

Well we will just leave it to a vote... I know how I'll be voting :sniper:

 

[JackMack]

I have sort of speed read through this so forgive me if I have got any details wrong or missed anything but about the player who was denied $30+k because the bank allegedly charged back the deposits.
If I read correctly the player won the $30k in quick time so I am wondering if a jackpot was won?
If it was and the cashout denied where did the $30K go?
Also why would the bank make a chargeback without contacting the card holder, especially on relatively small amounts and just a couple of transactions when they had prior knowledge the card would be used abroad?
I assume the player was in contact with the bank to see if this were true?
It sounds like very dodgy behaviour to me.

If this casino group has been so bad in the past and pulled similar PR stunts before then I'm surprised they are being given another chance without having new ownership at least - the way I understand it these are the same people that have blatantly ripped off players in the past so are we to believe they have had a change of heart because they say so?
If this website has power enough to adversely affect a casinos business (and what is the point of the rogue pit if it doesn't?) then surely this is proof that the policy of placing crooked casinos in there is working - hurting them and slowly putting them out of business. Why reverse policy now and let them off the hook?
It's good if this site puts crooked casinos that have hurty players and the industries reputation out of business isn't it?

Look, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but to me the people who vote should be the people who have been wronged by these casinos. It seems to me they are the only people who can decide whether to forgive and justice would be served in a way.

 

[zanzibar]

IMHO the missing 37k is an open and shut rip-off case that has been swept under the rug.

These casinos operate under the ridiculous rule that when you make a deposit you then have to wait at least 2 weeks to confirm that your deposits were received before you are allowed to play and win anything. Oh wait... that's not right, no they don't. You can deposit and win and 2 weeks later you can be told "sorry we didn't receive your deposits so your winnings are void, thanks for playing."

Regardless of whether you believe the casino's story that the bank cancelled the deposits, or that the casino just made it all up to avoid paying a big winner who only made a small deposit, there is no reason why anyone sane would play at a casino under those rules.

 

[bigsmile]

I know I keep saying that I like this group and some say I am crazy. But this feels like a witch hunt on many levels. Many don't seem to be giving this the open minded attention it deserves. This group is doing fine IMO and from my experiences. I like them a lot. Your just missing out if your not trying them with an open mind.

 

[bigjohn]

The only thing that is going to tell is time.

If they are not generating legitimate complaints they should be moved to the reservation if that is what the people who can see through the BS believe should be done.

If it's going to be determined by a vote from the membership you might as well throw away the key. JMO

 

[Nifty29]

In any other casino, if your deposits were charged back......by you/the bank/santa claus/whomever...then the winnings are void.

If this is the case here, and it appears that it is, then why the big hoo-hah?

At the end of the day, chargebacks cost the casinos a FORTUNE. The fee per CB transaction is exorbitant, and if the number of CBs breaches a certain percentage of the overall transactions, the processor loses it's rights to process VISA/MC/Amex etc.

Remember, we only have the player's word that they "didn't know" about the chargebacks and it was their bank that did it "without their knowledge". Over here, I get an SMS if anything like that occurs (e.g. returned payment, suspicious activity etc), and sometimes even a phone call. At the very minimum, I get a letter and email within a day or two.

It's quite possible that the player was attempting to "freeroll" the house, which is a very common tactic used by fraudsters and other n'er-do-wells in our society.

Surely the correct course of action is for the player's bank to provide a certified letter explaining that the chargebacks had nothing to do with the player and that they had no knowledge, AND they did not request them at ANY stage. I would think a good operator, perhaps 32Red or something (just speculating based on a long association here), would examine such evidence with an open mind. Provided the evidence is genuine and not open to interpretation, then I could see such a good operator agreeing to pay the winnings MINUS the deposits AND any associated fees and charges and fines from the card companies.

I too have speed read most of the stuff, but I don't remember seeing anything where the player provided official evidence or correspondence from their bank stating categorically that the bank was totally responsible for the chargebacks. So, I have to assume, based on plenty of time passing in which this could be provided, that the player DID have some involvement in the chargebacks.....and, hence, should have their winnings forfeited just like any other chargeback case.

I have to wonder if the same carry-on would happen if a different casino/group made this decision.

I have NEVER been a supporter of the Virtual/Ace Group since their shady activities came to light many years ago, however I am forced to agree somewhat with Bigjohn in that there seems to be a lack of open-minded and objective discussion and debate going on in this thread, and a whole lot of old wounds being opened and fingers being pointed.

I am NOT saying they should be removed from the Pit. I don't have enough information to form a view on that yet. However, if we are going to have a debate, it should be about FACTS and not about conjecture and what happened in 2006 etc. If these groups HAVE changed for the better, the onus is on THEM to prove it IMO, but I cannot see how they have any chance of doing so while some people just automatically take every player complaint as gospel and get out the pitchforks.

I know Greedygirl personally and I can vouch for her honesty and integrity. She wouldn't be involved in this campaign if there were not a positive side for the industry as a whole, and that's enough for me to put my past prejudices aside and at least hear them out. What I will say though is that there seems to be a lot of stuff to "hear" thus far, but not a hell of a lot to "see". IMO, more positive and obvious direct action is required if these groups have any chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of this amazing site and it's members.

 

[The Dude]

I just wish Chillbill would chime in. I heard he has a lot of interesting things to say about this subject.

 

[gambler777]

The reason I found Casinomeister was because of being ripped off by Virtual casino group, I am pretty sure it was palace of chance, but I never remember receiving anything asking me about this. At the time, Casinomeister could not help me because they were a rogued casino. But it was a large amount of money, if I remember correctly. Has been so long I cannot remember all the details. However, recently Planet 7 gave me a $75 chip that had max cashout of 100.00. Well I have requested the payout I will let you know how it all goes.

 

[chuchu59]

The reason I found Casinomeister was because of being ripped off by Virtual casino group, I am pretty sure it was palace of chance, but I never remember receiving anything asking me about this. At the time, Casinomeister could not help me because they were a rogued casino. But it was a large amount of money, if I remember correctly. Has been so long I cannot remember all the details. However, recently Planet 7 gave me a $75 chip that had max cashout of 100.00. Well I have requested the payout I will let you know how it all goes.

If you cant recall the details dig them out especially if its for a large amount. Since they are still interested in being derogued you can send a pm to Tawni and see how she handles it. You might never get this opportunity again so use it please.

 

[Jasminebed]

The reason I found Casinomeister was because of being ripped off by Virtual casino group, I am pretty sure it was palace of chance, but I never remember receiving anything asking me about this. At the time, Casinomeister could not help me because they were a rogued casino. But it was a large amount of money, if I remember correctly. Has been so long I cannot remember all the details. However, recently Planet 7 gave me a $75 chip that had max cashout of 100.00. Well I have requested the payout I will let you know how it all goes.

Gotta agree with chuchu, follow up on it now. Some people have been paid thousands they were owed for years. Even if you don't recall the exact date or account number, your real details like name, birthdate and address should be enough for Tawni to investigate.

 

[JackMack]

In any other casino, if your deposits were charged back......by you/the bank/santa claus/whomever...then the winnings are void.

If this is the case here, and it appears that it is, then why the big hoo-hah?

At the end of the day, chargebacks cost the casinos a FORTUNE. The fee per CB transaction is exorbitant, and if the number of CBs breaches a certain percentage of the overall transactions, the processor loses it's rights to process VISA/MC/Amex etc.

Remember, we only have the player's word that they "didn't know" about the chargebacks and it was their bank that did it "without their knowledge". Over here, I get an SMS if anything like that occurs (e.g. returned payment, suspicious activity etc), and sometimes even a phone call. At the very minimum, I get a letter and email within a day or two.

It's quite possible that the player was attempting to "freeroll" the house, which is a very common tactic used by fraudsters and other n'er-do-wells in our society.

Surely the correct course of action is for the player's bank to provide a certified letter explaining that the chargebacks had nothing to do with the player and that they had no knowledge, AND they did not request them at ANY stage. I would think a good operator, perhaps 32Red or something (just speculating based on a long association here), would examine such evidence with an open mind. Provided the evidence is genuine and not open to interpretation, then I could see such a good operator agreeing to pay the winnings MINUS the deposits AND any associated fees and charges and fines from the card companies.

I too have speed read most of the stuff, but I don't remember seeing anything where the player provided official evidence or correspondence from their bank stating categorically that the bank was totally responsible for the chargebacks. So, I have to assume, based on plenty of time passing in which this could be provided, that the player DID have some involvement in the chargebacks.....and, hence, should have their winnings forfeited just like any other chargeback case.

I have to wonder if the same carry-on would happen if a different casino/group made this decision.

I have NEVER been a supporter of the Virtual/Ace Group since their shady activities came to light many years ago, however I am forced to agree somewhat with Bigjohn in that there seems to be a lack of open-minded and objective discussion and debate going on in this thread, and a whole lot of old wounds being opened and fingers being pointed.

I am NOT saying they should be removed from the Pit. I don't have enough information to form a view on that yet. However, if we are going to have a debate, it should be about FACTS and not about conjecture and what happened in 2006 etc. If these groups HAVE changed for the better, the onus is on THEM to prove it IMO, but I cannot see how they have any chance of doing so while some people just automatically take every player complaint as gospel and get out the pitchforks.

I know Greedygirl personally and I can vouch for her honesty and integrity. She wouldn't be involved in this campaign if there were not a positive side for the industry as a whole, and that's enough for me to put my past prejudices aside and at least hear them out. What I will say though is that there seems to be a lot of stuff to "hear" thus far, but not a hell of a lot to "see". IMO, more positive and obvious direct action is required if these groups have any chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of this amazing site and it's members.

I stopped reading when it became apparent you hadn't read the thread. after the firsts sentence pretty much.
The chargeback came after the player won 35K (in about 30 mins) and had made a withdrawal request and the casino accept the payer didn't make a chargeback it was done by the bank.

You really think someone is gong to put 35k at risk to chargeback $200?

Any potential fraudster would only chargeback on losses and then they would make a bigger deposit to make it worthwhile.
I find it very strange when people want to take the side of casino and call out a player even against all the evidence and doubly so when the casinos have a long history of abusing players and none payment.

 

[Tirilej]

I stopped reading when it became apparent you hadn't read the thread. after the firsts sentence pretty much.
The chargeback came after the player won 35K (in about 30 mins) and had made a withdrawal request and the casino accept the payer didn't make a chargeback it was done by the bank.

You really think someone is gong to put 35k at risk to chargeback $200?

Any potential fraudster would only chargeback on losses and then they would make a bigger deposit to make it worthwhile.
I find it very strange when people want to take the side of casino and call out a player even against all the evidence and doubly so when the casinos have a long history of abusing players and none payment.

Do we know that that was what happened or is that only what the player have told?

Sorry, I don't know this story so just asking.

 

[Nifty29]

I stopped reading when it became apparent you hadn't read the thread. after the firsts sentence pretty much.
The chargeback came after the player won 35K (in about 30 mins) and had made a withdrawal request and the casino accept the payer didn't make a chargeback it was done by the bank.

You really think someone is gong to put 35k at risk to chargeback $200?

Any potential fraudster would only chargeback on losses and then they would make a bigger deposit to make it worthwhile.
I find it very strange when people want to take the side of casino and call out a player even against all the evidence and doubly so when the casinos have a long history of abusing players and none payment.

It's very clear that you didn't read past the first sentence. If you had you would realise that I was NOT taking ANY side.....it was a balanced view of the situation with a solution suggested.

Hence, your opinion is irrelevant to me.

Thank you.

 

[JackMack]

It's very clear that you didn't read past the first sentence. If you had you would realise that I was NOT taking ANY side.....it was a balanced view of the situation with a solution suggested.

Hence, your opinion is irrelevant to me.

Thank you.

Balanced view?

You go on for a few paragraphs ignoring the facts and framing the player before stating.

"So, I have to assume, based on plenty of time passing in which this could be provided, that the player DID have some involvement in the chargebacks.....and, hence, should have their winnings forfeited just like any other chargeback case."

The end of the post was more balanced and I'm sorry you found my view irrelevant because most of what you wrote was irrelevant to the case - common sense alone tells you that people don't make a chargeback for $200 when they are having a cashout of $35k+ processed. Like I say that type of fraud is reserved for losing deposits and usually large deposits. Other chargebacks for smaller amounts can be for all sorts of reasons from bad losers to genuine grievances.

I know you are probably trying to take a balanced view and not take sides but you ended up doing just that and for a casino with a long history of rogue behaviour which is what I find strange. Especially since you yourself accuse people of just taking sides and not looking at the facts as further evidence of how this poor casino group is being ganged up upon by those nasty players by writing this;

"However, if we are going to have a debate, it should be about FACTS and not about conjecture and what happened in 2006 etc. If these groups HAVE changed for the better, the onus is on THEM to prove it IMO, but I cannot see how they have any chance of doing so while some people just automatically take every player complaint as gospel and get out the pitchforks."

You were prepared to make assumptions and use conjecture yourself, even when it went against common sense, to make a case for the casino ahead of the player so again I think your opinion was prejudiced.

I am a little prejudiced too because I don't think people who have deliberately and calculatingly ripped people off for profit should be allowed to say sorry and try to profit from their apology in the same business. I can see a valid counter view that everybody deserves another chance but I don't agree with that in a business where the only motive is profit. It would be different if this were some guy who had served his time and seen the light, this guy didn't serve any time but the people he ripped off will probably always feel bad about it.
But making excuses for them and vilifying those they have ripped off goes too far, I can't not speak out against that whether you see it as irrelevant or not.

 

[chuchu59]

I stopped reading when it became apparent you hadn't read the thread. after the firsts sentence pretty much.
The chargeback came after the player won 35K (in about 30 mins) and had made a withdrawal request and the casino accept the payer didn't make a chargeback it was done by the bank.

You really think someone is gong to put 35k at risk to chargeback $200?

Any potential fraudster would only chargeback on losses and then they would make a bigger deposit to make it worthwhile.
I find it very strange when people want to take the side of casino and call out a player even against all the evidence and doubly so when the casinos have a long history of abusing players and none payment.

Purely based on logic, no player in his/her right mind would do a chargeback of $200 to risk missing out on $35K. That said, I am not privy to what exactly transpired so we must, for the sake of fairness, allow the casino to present its version of the story. There is also the slight possibility, albeit illogically or insanely however you want to put it that this player has a habit of doing chargebacks and he/she did so out of habit. However much I detest Virtual, chargebacks are a no-no in this industry and should it be proven that it was done by the player, the winnings should rightly be confiscated. However, Virtual has, in the past, been very sleazy on many issues and for $35K they might just pull something out of thin air to deny winnings.

 

[Nifty29]

Balanced view?

You go on for a few paragraphs ignoring the facts and framing the player before stating.

"So, I have to assume, based on plenty of time passing in which this could be provided, that the player DID have some involvement in the chargebacks.....and, hence, should have their winnings forfeited just like any other chargeback case."

The end of the post was more balanced and I'm sorry you found my view irrelevant because most of what you wrote was irrelevant to the case - common sense alone tells you that people don't make a chargeback for $200 when they are having a cashout of $35k+ processed. Like I say that type of fraud is reserved for losing deposits and usually large deposits. Other chargebacks for smaller amounts can be for all sorts of reasons from bad losers to genuine grievances.

I know you are probably trying to take a balanced view and not take sides but you ended up doing just that and for a casino with a long history of rogue behaviour which is what I find strange. Especially since you yourself accuse people of just taking sides and not looking at the facts as further evidence of how this poor casino group is being ganged up upon by those nasty players by writing this;

"However, if we are going to have a debate, it should be about FACTS and not about conjecture and what happened in 2006 etc. If these groups HAVE changed for the better, the onus is on THEM to prove it IMO, but I cannot see how they have any chance of doing so while some people just automatically take every player complaint as gospel and get out the pitchforks."

You were prepared to make assumptions and use conjecture yourself, even when it went against common sense, to make a case for the casino ahead of the player so again I think your opinion was prejudiced.

I am a little prejudiced too because I don't think people who have deliberately and calculatingly ripped people off for profit should be allowed to say sorry and try to profit from their apology in the same business. I can see a valid counter view that everybody deserves another chance but I don't agree with that in a business where the only motive is profit. It would be different if this were some guy who had served his time and seen the light, this guy didn't serve any time but the people he ripped off will probably always feel bad about it.
But making excuses for them and vilifying those they have ripped off goes too far, I can't not speak out against that whether you see it as irrelevant or not.

It is also very clear that, by your own definition, you are unbalanced and biased.

It's becoming obvious that you have some kind of agenda/angle here. Time will tell if I'm right.

You've already made up your mind. I haven't....because I don't have all the facts. You obviously do, and were obviously privy to everything that went on....perhaps you know this person? Perhaps you can fill in all the details that weren't posted?

See, you're an example of why I've mainly stayed out of this thread. People like yourself aren't interested in a balanced discussion, only a witch hunt. My post presented BOTH sides, and shows that IF the player had absolutely NO part in the CB, then the casino SHOULD PAY minus all fees and fines. Can't see how that's unbalanced.

How do you can say that the OP couldn't possibly CB for that amount? Maybe they were short on cash, or their spouse found out, or they had cashflow problems and knew it would take weeks to get paid. Who the hell knows? One things for sure....there's endless possibilities and nobody can discount them all.

Here's a question/challenge for Tawni:

Do you have irrefutable evidence that it was the BANK that initiated the chargeback?

If YES......show that the new leaf has been turned and PAY the player.

If NO.....then give the player 7 days to produce certified documents to that effect, and a direct contact at their bank for verification....and if it checks out, then PAY the player.

If you have irrefutable proof that it was the player who initiated the chargeback, then please provide it to Bryan or in this thread.

Either way, this needs to be settled ASAP IMO.

Words and intentions are great. Time for action. Do what 32Red or 3Dice would do and look at evidence and intention, and take the logical steps to close the case once and for all.


P.S. Any payment should be minus any and all costs related to the chargeback. I would also think the player might consider a donation to a CM charity of a reasonably generous sum via deduction from the payment.

 

[zanzibar]

The 37k ripoff has all been covered before earlier in this thread and I agree, there's a few opinions here that show that they haven't read it, or more likely they have but it was a while ago so they forgot.

The player informed their bank that they would be using their card for an overseas transaction before making their deposits, specifically to avoid having them declined. These are the actions of a reasonable person, not a fraudster. They got the ok then deposited, the casino accepted their money, credited their account and they shortly after won $37k. 2 weeks later after being congratulated by casino staff and waiting through the ridiculously long withdrawal process they get told that the bank cancelled the deposits and they can kiss their $37k goodbye. Unlucky or entirely too convenient?

We do have evidence that the player did not charge back, straight from the horse's mouth. This was confirmed by the rep and discussed here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

and here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

 

[Nifty29]

The 37k ripoff has all been covered before earlier in this thread and I agree, there's a few opinions here that show that they haven't read it, or more likely they have but it was a while ago so they forgot.

The player informed their bank that they would be using their card for an overseas transaction before making their deposits, specifically to avoid having them declined. These are the actions of a reasonable person, not a fraudster. They got the ok then deposited, the casino accepted their money, credited their account and they shortly after won $37k. 2 weeks later after being congratulated by casino staff and waiting through the ridiculously long withdrawal process they get told that the bank cancelled the deposits and they can kiss their $37k goodbye. Unlucky or entirely too convenient?

We do have evidence that the player did not charge back, straight from the horse's mouth. This was confirmed by the rep and discussed here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

and here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

OK....assuming that the player WAS "new to online gambling"....and I would think this would be relatively easy to confirm one way or the other.....AND everything posted above is true.....then:

Here's a question/challenge for Tawni:

Do you have irrefutable evidence that it was the BANK that initiated the chargeback?

If YES......show that the new leaf has been turned and PAY the player.

If NO.....then give the player 7 days to produce certified documents to that effect, and a direct contact at their bank for verification....and if it checks out, then PAY the player.

If you have irrefutable proof that it was the player who initiated the chargeback, then please provide it to Bryan or in this thread.

Either way, this needs to be settled ASAP IMO.

Words and intentions are great. Time for action. Do what 32Red or 3Dice would do and look at evidence and intention, and take the logical steps to close the case once and for all.


P.S. Any payment should be minus any and all costs related to the chargeback. I would also think the player might consider a donation to a CM charity of a reasonably generous sum via deduction from the payment.

IMO that is a fair and equitable resolution if, as it appears, it WAS the bank that stopped the charges. It is, of course, possible that the player KNEW the bank would do this, but this would depend on the above question about how familiar they were with online gambling. As I said, there are a myriad of reasons why someone might do such a thing, and we hear new forms of fraudulent behaviour every day. Still, if everything is above board as the player states, then I see no obstacle to paying their winnings as per above.

Let's see what Tawni can do.

 

[SlotsLover]

chargebacks

I am not in any way saying or implying that the OP is not telling the truth. However, I just want to state that I have been using multiple credit cards at least 50x each week (maybe I should go to GA) since NT went down and I have only had one instance of a bank canceling a deposit and that was to a sports book for $1000. Not saying it didn't happen this way, but my banks never cancel the deposits once they are made. They do often block the cards or block deposits, but not after the fact, at least in my experience.

 

[chuchu59]

The 37k ripoff has all been covered before earlier in this thread and I agree, there's a few opinions here that show that they haven't read it, or more likely they have but it was a while ago so they forgot.

The player informed their bank that they would be using their card for an overseas transaction before making their deposits, specifically to avoid having them declined. These are the actions of a reasonable person, not a fraudster. They got the ok then deposited, the casino accepted their money, credited their account and they shortly after won $37k. 2 weeks later after being congratulated by casino staff and waiting through the ridiculously long withdrawal process they get told that the bank cancelled the deposits and they can kiss their $37k goodbye. Unlucky or entirely too convenient?

We do have evidence that the player did not charge back, straight from the horse's mouth. This was confirmed by the rep and discussed here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

and here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

Thanks for the info. If the deposits had been cancelled by the bank due to concerns on the player's transactions in a foreign country then some casinos will jump on this to deny winnings and remember this is Virtual not some reputable outfit like 32RED or 3Dice. The way I see it, the player can only have solid claims to the money if the bank reversed the charges due to something initiated by the casino eg it sent a signal to the bank that raised red flags. This is a possibility especially with payments by credit cards as the bank could view some transactions as dubious and they act to protect the customer. I wont have time to read everything again but really want to know whether the player had contacted the bank stating she was going to make a couple of transactions in a foreign country. Should Tawni be right about this I honestly don't believe a bank will act against a customer's will and unilaterally reverse the charges. It must have been an act from either the player or casino that triggered this. By an act I don't mean the act of the player in contacting the bank she was going to charge her card for transactions in a foreign country. Usually, this only facilitates the transactions and wont raise red flags as Tawni claims.

 

[LHofsdal]

I have had banks block our credit cards while on vacation in Europe BECAUSE WE DIDN'T CONTACT THEM letting them know we would be using it out of the country. Our first trip to Germany, we used our card for dinner, and then went to use it for breakfast the next day and couldn't. We went back to the hotel and called them and they did in fact ask us if we used it at the restaurant and we had to provide the amount of the transaction and they took the block off and processed it. They asked us how much longer we would be there and we told them, never had another problem. Now we call the day before we leave to let them know and we have never had another problem.

So I am not sure why calling the bank would set off any red flags because they do want to know if it is going to be used in another country to prevent any unwanted hassles.

LH

 

[SlotsLover]

blocked vs. chargeback

Don't credit cards often block but once a payment is accepted, how does it get blocked at a later time? I've had numerous deposits blocked but never after a casino has accepted the deposit.

 

[suzecat]

UIGEA brought about many changes in how CC charges were coded and sent for processing. I recall that VCG used to somewhat guarantee they could get deposits through on your card. My bank called me routinely to ask about the recent charges made from a foreign country. I also remember making internet searches of the vendors listed on my statement and finding the business named ,,,, knowing that the charge was really for casino deposits, not merechandise.

 

[paul7388]

Funny enough I got my debit card blocked by my bank the other week as security could not contact me. Reason was I hade made several transactions to different places on the same day. Was a bit mad about it as none of them were huge and they were all to places id used before and all well known sites. Anyway after going to bank they unblocked it right away but point is even if I hadn't contacted them they wouldn't have charged anything back to card unless id told them I didn't make the transactions they just blocked it so I couldn't make any more. Maybe it works different at other banks but mine just stops the use of card after a few uses if they think its unusual pattern so think its a bit weirs that a bank would chargeback themselves after a deposit is accepted if customer never asked them to.

 

[BMWSTACK]

I know I keep saying that I like this group and some say I am crazy. But this feels like a witch hunt on many levels. Many don't seem to be giving this the open minded attention it deserves. This group is doing fine IMO and from my experiences. I like them a lot. Your just missing out if your not trying them with an open mind.

Well Im sure you understand the reason why people say your crazy for playing there. Why does a repeat offender deserve an "open minded approach" Approaching this with an open mind would be absurd. They have had chance after chance. This is like having an open mind on letting a repeat convict, who is a thief, handle your bank accounts.

Don't credit cards often block but once a payment is accepted, how does it get blocked at a later time? I've had numerous deposits blocked but never after a casino has accepted the deposit.

Yes they don't go reverse a transaction after it was approved. Once it is approved then it will go through unless the customer has it reversed. The block can come after lots of things such a too many charges in an area far from your home, certain websites, etc.

 

[Tirilej]

Approaching this with an open mind would be absurd. They have had chance after chance. This is like having an open mind on letting a repeat convict, who is a thief, handle your bank accounts.

Why is it absurd?
I am one of them who are willing to give them a chance.
I won't play there, but I think it's better if players can get help here than having to go somewhere else.
Those players maybe will stay learn more in here.

I know many see me as too kind but I can assure you that there isn't a convict that can't change. I've seen it happen so many times in real life so why not online?
I really hope you all doesn't look at real criminals the way you do with these.
I also trust that Bryan knows what he's doing.

Yes, I have a clear open mind and It doesn't feel absurd.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I have had my debit card blocked from time to time at places I regularly use. It's just the bank being cautious. However, the transaction does not and never has been processed. I have always had to repeat the transaction to complete it. I have never had the bank do a chargeback on a casino. God knows why they would.

 

[BMWSTACK]

I know I keep saying that I like this group and some say I am crazy. But this feels like a witch hunt on many levels. Many don't seem to be giving this the open minded attention it deserves. This group is doing fine IMO and from my experiences. I like them a lot. Your just missing out if your not trying them with an open mind.

Why is it absurd?
I am one of them who are willing to give them a chance.
I won't play there, but I think it's better if players can get help here than having to go somewhere else.
Those players maybe will stay learn more in here.

I know many see me as too kind but I can assure you that there isn't a convict that can't change. I've seen it happen so many times in real life so why not online?
I really hope you all doesn't look at real criminals the way you do with these.
I also trust that Bryan knows what he's doing.

Yes, I have a clear open mind and It doesn't feel absurd.

I give all people chances. A majority of people I hire have had issues in the past. I don't judge. There is good in everyone, but there is a point where people get chance after chance . That is why I specifically put "repeat" in my analogy. Virtual fits in this category to where they have chance after chance. Chances have to run out sooner or later.

 

[Tirilej]

I give all people chances. A majority of people I hire have had issues in the past. I don't judge. There is good in everyone, but there is a point where people get chance after chance . That is why I specifically put "repeat" in my analogy. Virtual fits in this category to where they have chance after chance. Chances have to run out sooner or later.

No they don't! I belong to those that never give up hope.
You should try it. You could be pleasently surprised

 

[maphesto]

I am one of them who are willing to give them a chance.

Even after that 6 months period is over?

We are waitning for answers about this:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

 

[Tirilej]

Even after that 6 months period is over?

We are waitning for answers about this:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

When every question is answered of course.
I don't think it will be any voting until all is cleared up.

Tawnie, it's time to start answering now.

 

[rockycatt]

lets see if I got this strait a person goes on a life of [crime] by deceiving unsuspecting people [customers] and when there bank roll gets fat enough to want to walk with the honest successful people of the same [culture ie. back ground], they get to ask for forgiveness .

ok I think in my mind that a penalty phase is missing for the crimes that they say there responsible for [like all the $$$ they hood winked unsuspecting players out of ]

I agree that a repented criminal is much better for society than a non repented one so a probation with a clause
that they will refund any money that any player can prove that was clipped from them

and I hope that the upcoming vote on there fate has some caveats to it

thank you R C

 

[BMWSTACK]

No they don't! I belong to those that never give up hope.
You should try it. You could be pleasently surprised

I certainly do try it all the time. I have had hope to the point of being taken advantage of on numerous occassions. Thats why I draw a line in the sand.

Also I kind of look at it a little different because we are talking about a business and not directly about a human being.

 

[JackMack]

It is also very clear that, by your own definition, you are unbalanced and biased.

It's becoming obvious that you have some kind of agenda/angle here. Time will tell if I'm right.

You've already made up your mind. I haven't....because I don't have all the facts. You obviously do, and were obviously privy to everything that went on....perhaps you know this person? Perhaps you can fill in all the details that weren't posted?

See, you're an example of why I've mainly stayed out of this thread. People like yourself aren't interested in a balanced discussion, only a witch hunt. My post presented BOTH sides, and shows that IF the player had absolutely NO part in the CB, then the casino SHOULD PAY minus all fees and fines. Can't see how that's unbalanced.

How do you can say that the OP couldn't possibly CB for that amount? Maybe they were short on cash, or their spouse found out, or they had cashflow problems and knew it would take weeks to get paid. Who the hell knows? One things for sure....there's endless possibilities and nobody can discount them all.

Here's a question/challenge for Tawni:

Do you have irrefutable evidence that it was the BANK that initiated the chargeback?

If YES......show that the new leaf has been turned and PAY the player.

If NO.....then give the player 7 days to produce certified documents to that effect, and a direct contact at their bank for verification....and if it checks out, then PAY the player.

If you have irrefutable proof that it was the player who initiated the chargeback, then please provide it to Bryan or in this thread.

Either way, this needs to be settled ASAP IMO.

Words and intentions are great. Time for action. Do what 32Red or 3Dice would do and look at evidence and intention, and take the logical steps to close the case once and for all.


P.S. Any payment should be minus any and all costs related to the chargeback. I would also think the player might consider a donation to a CM charity of a reasonably generous sum via deduction from the payment.

Ha ha, funny post.

It is obvious I have an agenda because I called you out on your post? LOL
So you back up your argument that you had a balanced opinion and don't slur people you disagree with by making yet more accusations without any basis whatsoever.

You then go on to say you stay out of the thread because of "people like me" and back this up by replying to all my posts in this thread which you were already posting in by the way. Not a very good record for integrity so far.

You then state I am part of a witch hunt against this group of casinos simply because I don't join you in thinking up every possible scenario of how the casino might be in the right?
I mean I just posted in a thread that was already here and I am just stating my opinion, how do you define that as a witch hunt?
I think a closer definition would be what you posted based on your wild assumptions against the player who we neither know nothing about.
There is a slim chance they are a fraudster somehow but we have zero evidence for that yet we have lot's of past evidence of this casino being fraudsters yet you want to take their side, why?

You say your post which I responded presented both sides, that is laughable. Point out specifically how and where it took the side of the player.
You disingenuously state that your post shows "that IF the player had absolutely NO part in the CB, then the casino SHOULD PAY minus all fees and fines" when what you actually wrote was
"I would think a good operator, perhaps 32Red or something (just speculating based on a long association here), would examine such evidence with an open mind. Provided the evidence is genuine and not open to interpretation, then I could see such a good operator agreeing to pay the winnings MINUS the deposits AND any associated fees and charges and fines from the card companies." which I think is sensible but hardly the same as saying you think they should pay the player if it is proven they didn't make the chargeback.
Especially sine you spent the previous paragraphs vilifying the player as a potential fraudster
"It's quite possible that the player was attempting to "freeroll" the house, which is a very common tactic used by fraudsters and other n'er-do-wells in our society.") "
and your opening line was,
"In any other casino, if your deposits were charged back......by you/the bank/santa claus/whomever...then the winnings are void."

I think the probable reason you contradict yourself is because you have a natural bias toward the casino and against the player but halfway through your post thought that it was too obvious so decided to try and add some "balance" - that or maybe you just aren't very logical person.


I haven't already made up my mind on that specific case actually but based on the balance of what we know so far I certainly wouldn't be going out of my way to think up scenarios of how the player may have cheated this cheating casino as you did. I never said I know they could not of possible made a chargeback (yet another strawman from you) What I said was that it defies common sense that the player would make a chargeback after making a withdrawal request for 35K and the casino has not stated the player requested the chargeback. You can come up with as many possible asinine explanations you wish but why bother if you haven't an agenda is all I am saying.

The one thing I personally have my mind made up on is that proven cheats and fraudsters (and I include players) do not deserve repeated chances to carry out the same fraud and cheats. This is not the same moral situation as a thief serving time in prison and looking for a job and us wondering whether they should be given a chance to prove themselves so that they can make an honest living. Some people will feel differently, fine, matter of opinion and I guess the only opinion that really counts is the one of whoever decides whether they should get another chance on this site.

If the player is a fraudster then they deserve all they get though I wouldn't have much sympathy for a fraudulent casine being defrauded just as I wouldn't have much sypathy for mugger being mugged.

Only you know your true motives Nifty29 and we don't have to get along, clearly we don't, and I won't pretend to respect your opinion on this, it makes little sense to me but let's agree to avoid this degenerating into a personal slander match. You need to stop throwing out wild and spurious allegations and then saying your view was balanced.

We might even be closer than we think in our positions anyway. We both agreed with ChuChu's post for example so clearly there is a middle ground for us.
If your position truly is the player should be paid if it can be shown the bank initiated chargebacks, rather than boohoo tough luck, probably a fraudster anyway, I see that as fair minded and balanced.
I am certainly for players getting all they deserve if they try to defraud casinos, I don't make any distinction between cheats.

 

[dunover]

Banks do not do chargebacks. They either block transactions in real time or they don't. The only way they can chargeback a transaction AFTER it is made is if the card was reported lost/stolen and transactions were (allegedly) made between the time when they cardholder last had it (or said they last had it/used it) and the time they reported it lost/stolen or used fraudulently.
NO card company charges back ex-post facto WITHOUT involvement of the cardholder to protect both vendor and cardholder.

 

[JackMack]

Banks do not do chargebacks. They either block transactions in real time or they don't. The only way they can chargeback a transaction AFTER it is made is if the card was reported lost/stolen and transactions were (allegedly) made between the time when they cardholder last had it (or said they last had it/used it) and the time they reported it lost/stolen or used fraudulently.
NO card company charges back ex-post facto WITHOUT involvement of the cardholder to protect both vendor and cardholder.

I expressed much the same sentiment earlier, there is something amiss somewhere though there may be cases where transactions are blocked but there is a technical fault that cause the transaction to be processed. I'm no expert so I wouldn't know but I do know the banking system is not flawless.
Nifty29 suggested that the player should get confirmation from the bank that any non payment or deduction was down to them and the player made the transaction in good faith. Then it would be up to the casino from there which seems reasonable.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The difference might be down to UIGEA, which seems to take control from the cardholder and places it with the bank. However, the US is the key target market for Virtual, so they should be fully aware that UIGEA causes all sorts of odd problems. Funny then that when UIGEA screws up a player, it's 100% the players' fault, yet when UIGEA throws a spanner in the works that prevents the casino from paying as promised, they get to use it as an excuse and expect players to be understanding as it's "out of their hands".

If there is zero tolerance one way, it should apply the other, and players should not accept the "UIGEA excuse" when payment isn't received as promised, but say it's 100% the casinos responsibility as they choose to operate in such a market, and that rather than all the delay, they should use extraordinary means if necessary to make sure they live up to their obligations.

Under UIGEA, it is also unwise for players to put pressure on their banks, it can make things even worse for the industry. The player was deliberately vague about notifying the bank that they were intending to use the card overseas, and did so to prevent their bank seeing the change of behaviour as a red flag on the account. It seems more likely that there is a list in the banking industry of overseas merchants believe to be used to front gambling deposits, and that the casino used one that the banks had already cottoned on to. This would not be a chargeback in the usual sense, but the bank obeying UIGEA procedures by unwinding a prohibited transaction to cover it's own ass, so of course the cardholder would have no say in the matter. If anything, some US banks have dealt with the cardholder as an accomplice to the crime by freezing their accounts and holding the balance hostage whilst they conduct a thorough investigation.

This isn't something we see outside of the US when it comes to retail banking. If someone gets stung by a dodgy website, they are treated as a victim, and the bank would phone them first to advice them that the transaction had been blocked because of the concerns, and give the customer the chance to confirm that they want to go ahead despite the risks.

It's also possible that Virtual were operating a Full Tilt style policy of crediting players without having any certainty that they would be getting the money from the processor, choosing to eat the losses when the player lost anyway, but not so keen when it offers the opportunity to save over $30K in payouts.

 

[TawniVirtualAce]

Hi all,

Before jumping into the big issue (the $37,000 player), I want to follow-up on what Maphesto has been asking about.

Regarding the bingo sites, those terms were actually changed across all our bingo properties, a couple months back and now is as follows:

Winnings derived from no-deposit bonuses (free chips, BBs or other free monies) may be withdrawn. The maximum amount that may be withdrawn is 2x the value of the No-Deposit Bonus unless the value of the No-Deposit Bonus is inferior to $100; in all such cases the maximum withdrawal amount will be $100.

* No-Deposit Bonuses are non-cashable, meaning that the value of the bonus will be deducted from the withdrawal amount​

Now on to the $37,000 elephant in the room.

IMHO the missing 37k is an open and shut rip-off case that has been swept under the rug.

While this may be your opinion, it is completely inaccurate.

I have already furnished Bryan with the casino’s transaction logs pertaining to this player. I will try to run through things line by line in an attempt to better explain what occurred:

January 15th, the player opened an account (7:18 PM). At 7:23, the player deposited $100. At 8:15, the player’s balance reached zero and at 8:17, the player deposited another $100. At 8:36, the player was NOTIFIED that the transaction was declined by player’s bank. At this point, the player’s balance was $100.10. The player read this message at 9:02 and it was between 8:17 and 9:02 that she had amassed those great wins.

She was further notified that the second deposit was declined at 9:34 and that message was read at 10:03. At this point, the player stopped all play and sent in her faxback documents (Jan. 18) and requested a withdrawal. Yes, her documents were approved (Jan. 21), but it is important to understand that these documents go through security and not finance—there was no reason for security to be connecting dots pertaining to the activity in her account, pertaining to a withdrawal.

Following submission of her documents, her withdrawal request went into the queue, just as any other player’s request would have. It was not until her request came up in the queue that finance was aware of what had transpired (Jan. 26th). That same day, the player was notified that the withdrawal would not be honored, and the reasons for it. Until the funds were ultimately removed from her account (later in the day), the player attempted to withdraw again.

Much has been discussed about a “chargeback,” which was never the case. Here is what I wrote, previously:

Upon further investigation, it was learned that the player contacted her bank PRIOR to depositing. She notified them that she was going to be making a couple of charges on her card, that would be to a foreign country. The player was new to online gaming and she believed this was the right action to take, when in fact, what it did was set off a red-flag with her bank. Again, it was HER bank that took the action, reversing the charges AFTER authorizing them. While the player herself did nothing wrong, in essence this was the same as a chargeback on our side.

Perhaps I should have been clearer by saying “in essence this has the same EFFECT on the casino as a chargeback.” What happened is that an authorization was obtained when the player deposited and then once the wheels were in motion, the bank refused to honor that authorization. It would be incumbent on the player to sort out what happened on this, as the casino would not be able to dispute this with the bank. I have no idea why her bank refused to honor this, and one can only speculate that it may have been her contacting her bank prior to making these purchases. I just don’t know.

This has been a difficult situation from our perspective. If we paid the player the $37k, it would have been viewed that we were only pandering to the Casinomeister crowd. If we don’t, then we’re viewed as being no better than we were. If this were a different casino group, I don’t believe we would see the sort of scrutiny being pointed our way. We did what we believed was right and fair in this situation, irrespective of how it would be perceived publicly. Our decision came about with care and concern. It would appear the player was understanding of the situation, as well, as she made two subsequent cash deposits into the casino, just late last month.

I know there is more to address, but I wanted to try and bring about some clarity regarding the two issues I believed to be most pressing, before tackling anything further.

 

[mattsgame]

Hi all,

B

January 15th, the player opened an account (7:18 PM). At 7:23, the player deposited $100. At 8:15, the player’s balance reached zero and at 8:17, the player deposited another $100. At 8:36, the player was NOTIFIED that the transaction was declined by player’s bank. At this point, the player’s balance was $100.10. The player read this message at 9:02 and it was between 8:17 and 9:02 that she had amassed those great wins.

If it was declined how did she have the $100 in her account? This makes no sense to me, If it was declined how or why did you or your processor put $100 into her casino account? Am I reading this right?

This is completely different to a charge back, a charge back would not be done 19 minutes. Edit: Sorry I didn't see you already explained it was not a chargback.

Perhaps I should have been clearer by saying “in essence this has the same EFFECT on the casino as a chargeback.” What happened is that an authorization was obtained when the player deposited and then once the wheels were in motion, the bank refused to honor that authorization. It would be incumbent on the player to sort out what happened on this, as the casino would not be able to dispute this with the bank. I have no idea why her bank refused to honor this, and one can only speculate that it may have been her contacting her bank prior to making these purchases. I just don’t know.

Was the player given a chance to rectify it at all? Since I am still at a loss on how it was declined yet she had the $100 balance to go on an play with and it seems this is no fault of the player at all.

 

[chuchu59]

OK was this a decline by the bank or a chargeback? It seems to be the former and clearly the player is not at fault. Tawni said the player was informed right in the middle of the period when she had won that great sum the bank relayed the message to her that the transaction was declined so if the message was relayed through email the player could not possibly have known about it. Let's put it this way. The casino noticed that the player was winning big and used this as an excuse to not pay out.

IMO Tawni tried to mislead us by stating the player contacted the bank prior to doing those transactions as if the player had led the bank to decline the transactions. Without going to the root of the problem the casino simply assumed this was the player's fault and in so did not pay out $37k. Frankly, if this were a technical fault on the bank's side its totally different from a chargeback because the player has an intention to honour payment.

Suffice to say, this incident shows Virtual is a long way off from not being a rogue.

 

[paul7388]

Okay dont think anyone on here will agree with me but to be fair I see where you are coming from Tawni. Its already proven that from you casinos past a lot of people will never give you a chance. If there is a genuine reason why the player didn't get paid the $37k then no other casino would pay it either but everyone looks at it and goes its virtual so they look for any excuse and a leopard will never change its spots. I don't know the details so neither know if you are right or wrong but I agree if you pay it when you did no wrong it looks like you are doing it because of all the kick up in here and if you don't its because you were roque and always will be. Sorry I don't play at your group and never have so ive lost nothing but from reading posts on here Bryan and Max are willing to give you a chance but its going to be put to a members vote which in my opinion means you will never get a fair hearing from many members tho there are a few that will take everything into consideration and not just your past.

 

[maphesto]

Tawni, this is almost ridiculous!

I have been very clear about things, I have told you in this thread that a player can have his winnings voided because of T&C's at another casino/bingo brand.

This is written by me here!

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

Today, over one month later, I checked both the mentioned brands and it's the same as it was when I checked it the last time.

Check for yourself!

xxhttp://www.123slotsonline.com/rules

xxhttp://www.breakthebankbingo.com/rules/

This time I will be even more precise, I will take myself as example.

I am labeled as skilled (at least what your casinos have told me) at your brands and if I sign up at breakthebankbingo and use a bonus ALL my winnings are voided because of a rule at the other brands. It does not say this in breakthebankbingo T&C's. I can't know it.

Now, If I win 100 000$, this will be a bigger issue than the 37k issue. I had to make that comment because you seem to think that the bingo issue wasn't so big.

If you want help with adressing these bingo rules you can have my email address and then give it to the ones who write T&C's at your brands.

Hi all,

Before jumping into the big issue (the $37,000 player), I want to follow-up on what Maphesto has been asking about. You can send me a PM if you want my help.

Regarding the bingo sites, those terms were actually changed across all our bingo properties, a couple months back and now is as follows:

Winnings derived from no-deposit bonuses (free chips, BBs or other free monies) may be withdrawn. The maximum amount that may be withdrawn is 2x the value of the No-Deposit Bonus unless the value of the No-Deposit Bonus is inferior to $100; in all such cases the maximum withdrawal amount will be $100.

 

[chuchu59]

Okay dont think anyone on here will agree with me but to be fair I see where you are coming from Tawni. Its already proven that from you casinos past a lot of people will never give you a chance. If there is a genuine reason why the player didn't get paid the $37k then no other casino would pay it either but everyone looks at it and goes its virtual so they look for any excuse and a leopard will never change its spots. I don't know the details so neither know if you are right or wrong but I agree if you pay it when you did no wrong it looks like you are doing it because of all the kick up in here and if you don't its because you were roque and always will be. Sorry I don't play at your group and never have so ive lost nothing but from reading posts on here Bryan and Max are willing to give you a chance but its going to be put to a members vote which in my opinion means you will never get a fair hearing from many members tho there are a few that will take everything into consideration and not just your past.

I don't think you are being fair to the CM community and tough I refrain from calling you disrespectful you are not far from it.

I have lost count of how many times Virtual has had chances to redeem themselves. They were rogued, promised Bryan they would turn over a new leaf only to revert to their own ways when it became apparent that it would be costly not to rip off players. Don't think of the CM community of being naïve or unsympathetic. When you give them that many chances only to find that you have been fooled yet again you raise the bar and need them to conform to a higher standard. Several years ago they employed a respected figure called Marty Davis to clean up their acts. He paid quite a number of players what Virtual owed them and it did seem they really wanted to mend their ways. However, after accumulating such vast amounts of 'debts' over the years the payments could not be sustained and Marty left the establishment whereas the group resumed its old ways. If I recall correctly, Laurie 'our southern belle' got paid several thousand dollars by Marty and maybe she can attest to what I said.

With Virtual. deroguing them is a dangerous act IMO as they will likely fleece players once their profit lines are hurting. If it does turn out that way this wonderful forum will be lambasted for removing them from the rogue pit.

 

[Tirilej]

I don't think you are being fair to the CM community and tough I refrain from calling you disrespectful you are not far from it.

..and I don't think you are fair to those who don't agree with you now.
The reason people don't dare to speak their mind in here is because they often get attacked.
You didn't attack me or my post but his. That was certainly not fair chuchu.

One of the reasons I am willing to give them a chance is also that they are getting too much focus.
Have you all looked around you and seen how many new casinos there are popping up everywhere?
New casinos that are really really bad, and rogue from the very start.
I rather put in a lot of power to stop them then to haunt shadows from the past, but that's me.

 

[paul7388]

chuchu how am I being disrespectful to the forum. Bryan who runs the forum himself stated he wants to give them a chance so is he being disrespectful. I merely stated that whether they get out of the pit or not which I never said I wanted them to as personally I think before they ever got out of it they should pay all the people they have ripped of and change the way they are ran a hell of a lot. But fact is many members will never give them a chance to prove themselves and they have stated that themselves. If someone posted tomorrow that they had been denied winnings of a £1000 and they were totally lying so many in here would be so quick to slate the casino without having any facts to whether story is true or not just because of who the casino is. So if I am being disrespectful in your opinion by stating it how it is then so be it. But to be honest I have never once been disrespectful to any member of this forum and just because I have a different view from you you think I am.