On Probation The Virtual Casino Group and Ace Revenue

[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.

Well you have it here. Many members here listen to views from both the casino and player before offering comments so what you state ie they wont get a fair hearing from many members is way off the mark.

 

[paul7388]

Yes many members do. And there is a lot that have stated also if you read through the various posts on virtual group that they don't want to even look into it and their mind is made up. There are also members that any time someone posts anything bad about virtual group will jump on the bandwagon right away without even waiting to find if there is any truth to it, And by stating that is not being disrespectful it is only stating an unbiased and truthful opinion. Others have posted similar to myself over the weeks but im guessing for some reason you have personally chose to comment on only my posts maybe because im a newer member or maybe for some other reason. Anyway im sure if I have truly disrespected the forum I will receive a warning for it. But I will leave it at that as you have your opinion and I have mine and I don't really wish to get into any sort of debate about it.

 

[Googobucs]

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.

To be fair to Tawni, IMO this is a very valid statement. How would other casino's handle this?
I would hope an accredited casino would pay the player since the evidence clearly shows no intent by the player to defraud. The funds were put into the players account and the account really could have been and should have been locked the moment the decline came through possibly avoiding all this mess.

But Virtual is not trying to be accredited. The are trying to get out of the rogue pit. So Is it fair to say that other non-rogue, possibly not recommended casino's would handle it the same way?
I think it's important to compare apples to apples.
In the beginning, I hated this group so much I would never vote yes, but over time I've grown to hate other groups equally
Those groups are not rogued and some are accredited, so my attitude has changes a little to put things into perspective and compare them to their peers....ie other groups I hate.

 

[rockycatt]

lets get real once the player won the $37,000.00 she was certainly in a postion to reimburse the casino from her winnings and this case should never have been placed on our the publics shoulders to decide (virtual escapes the spot light ) the problem was and is a in house one

I denote a fostering of well schooled rhetoric here (( come on 37 k)) how convenient

PS every b&m and a few online casino's that I know have casino credit available so in my outline above it wouldn't be out of line to accommodate the player, in Tawni's case outline I think the player qualified

 

[chuchu59]

..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.

I don't care whether people agree with me or not. Its just that Paul said that many members are not prepared to give Virtual a fair hearing because of their chequered past and on this point I don't think he is fair as many of us had given this outfit numerous opportunities to redeem themselves in the past. 'Once bitten, twice shy' certainly comes into mind. When you have been bitten several times you are only too wary of what may transpire. Over the years, after promising to come good they continue to rip off players so making them conform to higher standards is reasonable IMO. To some its just too easy to say 'Hey let's give them another chance' but for a repeat offender as Virtual we must be extra careful lest innocent newbies be ripped off.

 

[Tirilej]

I don't care whether people agree with me or not. Its just that Paul said that many members are not prepared to give Virtual a fair hearing because of their chequered past and on this point I don't think he is fair as many of us had given this outfit numerous opportunities to redeem themselves in the past. 'Once bitten, twice shy' certainly comes into mind. When you have been bitten several times you are only too wary of what may transpire. Over the years, after promising to come good they continue to rip off players so making them conform to higher standards is reasonable IMO. To some its just too easy to say 'Hey let's give them another chance' but for a repeat offender as Virtual we must be extra careful lest innocent newbies be ripped off.

Well, he still is entitled to that opinion and I share it with him.

Noone is saying we shouldn't be careful, but by letting them switch place to not-recommended doesn't make them look good either.

What is also a fact is that if we are giving them a chance they will have a reason to stay clean.
Then we can make them listen as soon as a complaint are raised, people will be able to get help here, and we can continue to keep an eye on them.
It wouldn't be the end of the world.

Innocent newbies also have a responsibility of their own, and they will NOT trust them because they are in the Not-recommended section. To believe that would be stupid.

 

[paul7388]

• Was not going to comment on this again but what the hell. Chuchu I actually agree with you about the groups past and I have never stated that I agree with what they have done and I have never stated that I actually want them removed from the pit as I know what they have done over theyears.

• And I also agree that why should a member forgive them and give them a chance. You yourself have stated that after what they have done in the past there should be no more chances. Which is exactly my point , because of their past there are many members who have gave them chances yourself included and been continually let down to the point they wont give them the chance to do it again and I agree why

.

• But like I posted before in my "disrespectful" post Tawni who was not with them at
• the time is fighting a losing battle. It is obvious that members having given them chance after chance are not willing to give them another chance and that indeed is why I stated they will not get a fair hearing now as they will never get judged only on what they are doing now but will get mainly judged on their past.

• If this was a new casino with no past people would give them a chance to sort things but obviously because of who they are it takes one mistake and everyone will automatically go see virtual will never change and they could be right. If I commit a crime I will get judged in court on only the circumstances of the crime I am accused so I would get a fair hearing but if the judge allowed every conviction I had ever committed to be mentioned then jurors would then think hes done the same crime 10 times before so they would probably make up their minds I was guilty before all evidence was present which is why in court only the crime you are accused of is allowed to be mentioned so you get a fair hearing

.

• But at end of day Bryan has decided to give them another chance maybe because even tho how bad the group has been they manage to survive so plenty people must still sign up and waste there money with them. So surely if a casino is not going to go away after that length of time it is better to have some contact with them to try and ensure they dont go back to ripping every customer off and to try and help people that are not getting paid.

• Okay so everyone here knows of them but there are many people that will start gambling every day that will never have heard of them, And I know members will say a simple google search will show but people not used to gambling will think online casinos are like their local bookies and are safe to use. Call it naivety or innocence but some people just don't get the fact that their are places that will rip you off which is why so many people send of money to all the places saying you have won a prize send money to claim it.

 

[suzecat]

been here before and done that ......

Could be the name of a club staring VCG players who found their way to this forum after some form of deceit/deception/whatever resulted in winnings not being paid. I remember being a noob and senior members told me to stay away from Virtual because ..... insert reasons raised in any thread where vcg want to turn over a new leaf .... and so here we are again.

Do I think it is possible for VCG to change .......... yes, if there is a change in ownership and no, if the status quo remains.

In memory of Spear, Pinababy and others I will continue the fight.

 

[zanzibar]

If this was a new casino with no past people would give them a chance to sort things but obviously because of who they are it takes one mistake and everyone will automatically go see virtual will never change and they could be right. If I commit a crime I will get judged in court on only the circumstances of the crime I am accused so I would get a fair hearing but if the judge allowed every conviction I had ever committed to be mentioned then jurors would then think hes done the same crime 10 times before so they would probably make up their minds I was guilty before all evidence was present which is why in court only the crime you are accused of is allowed to be mentioned so you get a fair hearing

Speaking of crimes and convictions, are you aware that these casinos are owned by a guy who has done jail time in the USA for defrauding people out of their homes? That may have happened back in the 90s and you may think it irrelevant to the present day situation but now you know that, would you trust them with your money?

His name has been removed from this site and many others, no doubt under duress, as part of an elaborate cover up campaign that has included making fake business and charity websites, entries for himself on wikipedia, IMDB, Last.fm and other high ranking sites to try to hide his convictions. I won't post his name here out of respect for the fear that the owners of this site have of him. No casino owned by someone with a past like that should ever be trusted, nor would they ever be licensed in any proper jurisdiction. Perhaps this can help you understand why long time members of this community have absolutely zero trust for a bunch of casinos owned by a criminal. They have had their second, third, and fourth chances already, they continue to prey on the unwary, and they do not deserve another.

 

[chuchu59]

Could be the name of a club staring VCG players who found their way to this forum after some form of deceit/deception/whatever resulted in winnings not being paid. I remember being a noob and senior members told me to stay away from Virtual because ..... insert reasons raised in any thread where vcg want to turn over a new leaf .... and so here we are again.

Do I think it is possible for VCG to change .......... yes, if there is a change in ownership and no, if the status quo remains.

In memory of Spear, Pinababy and others I will continue the fight.

Yes, I also had them in mind when I wrote my posts.

 

[jetset]

Speaking of crimes and convictions, are you aware that these casinos are owned by a guy who has done jail time in the USA for defrauding people out of their homes? That may have happened back in the 90s and you may think it irrelevant to the present day situation but now you know that, would you trust them with your money?

His name has been removed from this site and many others, no doubt under duress, as part of an elaborate cover up campaign that has included making fake business and charity websites, entries for himself on wikipedia, IMDB, Last.fm and other high ranking sites to try to hide his convictions. I won't post his name here out of respect for the fear that the owners of this site have of him. No casino owned by someone with a past like that should ever be trusted, nor would they ever be licensed in any proper jurisdiction. Perhaps this can help you understand why long time members of this community have absolutely zero trust for a bunch of casinos owned by a criminal. They have had their second, third, and fourth chances already, they continue to prey on the unwary, and they do not deserve another.

I think Zanzibar makes a very good point in the penultimate sentence of this post - how would proper regulators like the DGE in New Jersey or Nevada (for example) consider the probity of such a person applying for a casino licence?

 

[Tirilej]

I think Zanzibar makes a very good point in the penultimate sentence of this post - how would proper regulators like the DGE in New Jersey or Nevada (for example) consider the probity of such a person applying for a casino licence?

But that was back in the 90s? For me that's too long ago, and he did serve his time.

I would never defend what he or they have done, but I can't understand why noone doesn't seem to want them to get better either.
It's like a hate people want to keep and for me that is scary.

Whatever we say or vote here they will keep on their business.
Why would they listen if we don't?

 

[paul7388]

• 
  I know how bad there history is and who knows if they will ever change.
  But at end of day it all comes down to that old saying 'Keep your friends close but your enemies closer'
  But casinomeister has so many visitors and members but its only a small fraction of how many gamblers there are out there.
  This group has survived for so long now that they are never going to go away by the looks of it so surely its better to at least have some communication with them. They will never be accredited and members here will never play there but so many other unsuspecting people will and thats why they are always around.
  So surely any member would at least want someone who has not been paid that finds casinomeister while searching to at least have a chance of getting paid even if its very slowly.
  To say they will never change and we should toss them to the kerb will not stop people joining them it will only take away any chance of people getting help. As members have quoted theres so many been ripped of in the past and that can never be forgiven but why not at least try to help the many more that might still get ripped of as not every one knows there history.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.



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:



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.

Since the $100 was credited to the player's account by the casino, it is the CASINO that had the technical problem, and it was nothing to do with the player. Now the player is being blamed for not reading the email for a whole half hour after it was sent because they were too busy playing. A decent and honest casino would have frozen the players account as soon as the problem was realised, and then contacted the player with proposals to rectify the problem before the account was unlocked. In this case, the player should have been asked to deposit the money again, and the casino should have waited to ensure that the same glitch didn't cause that to fail before unlocking the account. I bet the player tried to withdraw because despite all of this, the account was NOT frozen, and play was allowed to continue. They then panicked because they assumed that they would be given no chance to rectify the issue in any case, so seeing the money had just bounced back to their casino account, they withdrew again.

To blame the player for what is essentially the risk of operating in the US market, a risk knowingly taken on by the casino group with full knowledge and acceptance of the fact that a significant number of transactions will go bad on them, is itself rogue practice.

Quite a contrast to how the casino group expects PLAYERS to behave when something goes wrong at their end with a payout. Here, players are told they must accept that payments will sometimes go bad, and should be fair in allowing the casino a second, even third, attempt to rectify the issue before taking any action.

If it's seen and treated as a rogue action by the player when a bank declines or pulls back a deposit that has been credited to the player's account, then it's also fair for players to blame the casino when they are issued a rubber check that then causes them all sorts of collateral grief with their bank. These players COULD react with the same level of zero tolerance by not giving the casino a second chance, and dropping them right in it with their banks by explaining why they ended up presenting the bad check, which would probably result in the bank assisting the player by charging back all the earlier deposits, passing on the details to the DoJ so that the processor can be traced and shut down, and probably then being seen by the bank as the suddenly enlightened victim of an internet scam, not someone who needs to have their account frozen.

US players suffer indignity at the hands of their banks because they are deliberately vague when asked questions by their bank, which then makes them look like conspirators, rather than victims. They do this to protect the casinos, and their own ability to carry on playing.

If casinos are so quick to throw the US player under the proverbial bus when things go a little astray, they may find an increasing number of US players prepared to return the favour.

It's only a big issue because the player just happened to win. There must be other times when this happens after players lose the lot, yet I'll bet the casino is suddenly keen to let them carry on as normal if they are able to get the transaction through another way.

However, from the more detailed timeline given, it would seem that this only got picked up when the withdrawal was requested, not whilst the money was in play. This suggests a possible means by which US players can avoid this kind of issue. If they win a significant sum, don't submit the withdrawal straight away, but wait until they see the deposit reflect at their bank, don't trust that the processor has done this check before crediting the funds for play.

It seems different here in the UK. Whenever a deposit attempt is declined by my bank or even Neteller, the funds are NOT credited to my casino account, instead, it becomes pretty obvious that something has gone wrong, and I am not put in the position whereby I can play and win a fortune, only to find it doesn't count after the fact.

It seems that Virtual are intentionally blocking these checks and balances, effectively allowing play without knowing whether the transaction has gone through. How can they expect the player to know this, rather than assume that because the money they just deposited shows up, it's OK to play right away.

 

[BMWSTACK]

But that was back in the 90s? For me that's too long ago, and he did serve his time.

Then in the 2000's he moved on to ripping people off through the casino, what a guy.

 

[Tirilej]

Then in the 2000's he moved on to ripping people off through the casino, what a guy.

Admit it felt really good writing that post

 

[BMWSTACK]

Admit it felt really good writing that post

Ok, you left it wide open for that in your post about the 90's

 

[gambler777]

Guilty by association with the Virtual Casino group, they have generated about one PAB in two years. I'm placing them in the Probation section with for [strike]30 days[/strike] six months. If they do not generate an unreasonable amount of complaints, then we will put it to a vote by the membership.

RoyalAceCasino.com
SilverOakCasino.com
SlotMadness.com
CaptainJackCasino.com
CatsEyeCasino.com
Planet7Casino.com
RingmasterCasino.com

If you have any issues with their casinos, please post here - and/or contact their casino representative:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

Old URL

Editor's note: modified probation time and process

Hi Casinomeister, Could not get link to take me to posting place so posting here to tell you about my experience with Planet 7. Planet 7 sent me an email for a $75 no deposit bonus. So I tried them out. Max cashout was $100.00. I was up to about $350.00 when I made playthrough and balance was automatically dropped to $100. I don't really like this method because (1) It drops while playing so of course 1 spin took me below 100.00 before I saw balance fall and minimum cashout is $100. I always know the terms so I would know when to stop anyways and this way makes it difficult because you have to watch balance after every spin.
I was able to work it back up to over $100 and then requested the max withdrawal. This was on June 10th, I sent my documents and withdrawal was approved on June 12th, I received my funds today, June 15th. Very good I would say, of course, only $100.
My only complaint would be that I did not receive one email through this whole process. I had to keep logging into casino to see where I was at and had to contact customer service myself when I saw it was approved to find out about my funds. I would most likely try them again with my own funds, however, I think the rep has to look into why there was no contact initiated by Planet 7. I am still a little leery of this group because I first found Casinomeister because Virtual Casino ripped me off for a large amount of money that they refused to pay. So I give a half thumbs up and will let you know how it goes when I have a bigger win. But so far, good follow through time, but bad on communications. Hope this helps.

 

[gambler777]

Didn't realize how old this original thread was. Can not contact rep here so I assume I am SOL for ever getting my money from Palace of Chance. So once again I will not be doing business with this group. I had thought this was recent, but it is not and obviously they were never taken from the rogue pit. Sorry for wasting your time, but at least I got a hundred bucks out of them. LOL

 

[gambler777]

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.

Would love to chuchu59, however, link to Tawni is not longer valid. I guess that Casinomeister never did change their rating and I am SOL. But it's been 7 years and it just would have been nice. thanks for your words of encouragement.

 

[zanzibar]

• 
  I know how bad there history is and who knows if they will ever change.
  But at end of day it all comes down to that old saying 'Keep your friends close but your enemies closer'
  But casinomeister has so many visitors and members but its only a small fraction of how many gamblers there are out there.
  This group has survived for so long now that they are never going to go away by the looks of it so surely its better to at least have some communication with them. They will never be accredited and members here will never play there but so many other unsuspecting people will and thats why they are always around.
  So surely any member would at least want someone who has not been paid that finds casinomeister while searching to at least have a chance of getting paid even if its very slowly.
  To say they will never change and we should toss them to the kerb will not stop people joining them it will only take away any chance of people getting help. As members have quoted theres so many been ripped of in the past and that can never be forgiven but why not at least try to help the many more that might still get ripped of as not every one knows there history.

• 
  
  Actually I see this current PR whitewashing process as an encouraging sign that their long term rip off business plan is starting to fail. A major factor is the regulation of the US market, because if that ever happens in a majority of states, casinos like this are toast. Mr Criminal owner is never getting a license to operate in the USA and he knows it. If they ever do apply for a license there will be a long list of information handed over to the authorities by many people who know who this guy is and what he is all about. They have ripped off so many people in the past that they are reliant on a steady flow of new unsuspecting customers, so I think the best course of action is to keep spreading the word about how bad they are and who owns them and with a little luck perhaps they go out of business or are sold off to someone a lot better. They are going down and now is the time to stick the boot in and kick them where it hurts.

 

[Diane]

So we are past the 6 month period. When do we get to vote and settle this status?

Diane

 

[chuchu59]

Yep ,more than 7 months and counting. Let's vote right now.

 

[The Dude]

Just to point out a few things about this thread. I know that there are some here that are adamant about Virtual being a rogue, and that it is fair game to relentlessly bash the casinos and its management. The problem is that there has been so much bullshit posted in this thread that it's lost its validity. So it's being closed with this last posting. There are a handful of members who have posted flat out lies - and were/are being busted out for it, which has resulted in a number of other members cherry picking what they want to read. It's an absolute sham.

two examples:

Pobeda - who was complaining in this thread about not being able to subscribe from emails from Virtual, was a multi-account fraudster. He had multiple accounts with differing names and email addresses. But by posting, he was the poor puppy being screwed over by an "evil" casino group. This is what he had to say about that (via email since he was banned):

...We both perfectly know, that casino you referring to is Virtual. Last time I touched that was before I knew or found CM, never since. Yes, I id have multiple accounts with them and played with free chip as many other amateur gamblers. So what? according to CM< they criminals, they never pay, they don't deserve a word (until recently),.

Ya think it would have been a bit more up front and honest to say, "Sorry, but in the past I had a crap load of accounts, here are the email addresses I probably used. Please don't send me any further emails. Thank you." Yes, that would have been the proper way to handle it. But no, this person poisoned the thread with bullshit.

How about this gem:

Agreed, those who were hired or brought onside to smooth this path, seem to have lost interest and given up trying...just saying

Or this:

Been MIA around these parts for a few months.

Returned today and couldn't believe this thread is still active and still with issues. Over five months down the track IMO it gives a clear indication VCG & Co aren't going to change anytime soon. And more than likely, it indicates an unwillingness to embrace the changes needed (repeated many times in this thread).

Their not a corporate giant with offices scattered around the world, with 1000's of employees. Their an online casino running out of Costa Rica. Policy changes for such a small operation, could be implimented, if, the desire to change was genuine. Instead, as past action demonstrates , they (VCG & Co) would rather play semantics and pass-the-buck, than knuckle down and fix their problems.

If a vote is called for, I know how I'll be voting!

That's not just Chillbill - that's AussieDave! Remember him? Trezz or glodge? He's a whacky affiliate from down under who has actually approached Gambling Wages to promote them heavily in Australia! Another poisoning of the thread.

There are so many posts in this thread (I don't want to count them) about how Virtual is hard up for cash and want to get out of the rogue pit, and will do anything to be redeemed. That's just a bunch of horseshit. It was my idea to begin with to start this thread, to clean up and update the Rogue section, to ensure that the information that I am responsible for (rogue listings etc.,) is balanced and is up to date.

And some of this was spilled over to elsewhere - forums where people are free to post nonsense and blackmail casinos in order to advance their scam. These multi-account shitheads are in the majority of casino complaints - I will stake my reputation on it. The rest are "slow pays" which are par for the course and should be expected if those players are in the US.

I stated that I would put this to a vote - that I was going to put this decision to move them to the reservation or not recommend section into the hands of the membership. But how could this vote be fair if there is so much nonsense being posted by players and affiliates?

I also don't think it's appropriate to conjure up the memories of deceased friends imagining what they would say. But I am confident that they would have supported me in my attempt to keep Casinomeister a balanced and informative website, and that my opinions posted in the rogue pit or elsewhere are based on valid observations and conversations.

I am in the midst of preparing for a roadtrip that might last a few weeks, so I'm putting this thread to rest for the duration. When I get back, I'll take another look at this and decide what I want to do. Thank you for your understanding.