Hi,
We have 24 support agents and expecting us to compare each agents "style" to determine who the sender was is a task I am not willing to do. For the record: publicity was never a determining factor in resolving the query. We have always been on the NOT RECOMMENDED list, so remaining there would not have changed anything.
I will end off by saying that there would be no benefit to us in not finding the sender. I am however saying that none of our agents show any signs of aggression in their past week's work. They are all doing a pretty good job from what I saw yesterday.
Regards,
Duwayne
I am getting confused.
When the new owners first got involved, there were "no records" of the details surrounding this incident as it occurred under the old owners. Rival and Rival alone had these records, and they would have to be sent by them to the new owners of Tropica.
Now, you are saying that not having records of the offending email is proof that this was never sent by one of your agents by official means (casino controller). Since this took place under the old owners, it should be obvious that the most likely reason for not being able to find the offending emails is that they are also not on the current record, but as data from the old owners held at Rival, assuming they keep everything when an operator hands back it's skin.
You also said that your support is a mix between your own team and Rival central support. This offending email looks like the work of Rival central support, which presumably is a large pool of agents serving many Rival white labels. The emails were also sent in January, so reviewing the "last week" of your CS records is obviously not going to spot them, nor any CS agent that was "angry" back in January.
My confusion stems from the fact that you seem to have all the pertinent information at your fingertips, yet a while back most of this information was no longer held locally, and you had to wait for Rival to dig it out and send it, and they didn't appear to be in any hurry to do so.
Despite the claim that the player threatened to post on a forum, this must have stemmed from the casino doing something that the OP felt was wrong FIRST, such as non-payment.
I think the trigger for this was the non-payment for vague reasons not associated with any breach of the terms, followed by telling the player his money had been summarily confiscated and the case closed, alongside which these odd claims appeared to have been emailed by employees of Tropica and/or Rival.
Of interest too are the nature of the threats made by the OP, since you bring it up, so as well as evidence from the OP of these emails, along with headers, we also need evidence of the threats made by the OP to the casino as they may breach CM membership rules.
Given that Tropica is regulated in a jurisdiction that has no effective player complaints handling process, PAB has been blanket disqualified for all Rival white labels, and Tropica had reached it's final decision, the OP's options were severely limited, and there was no obvious "private" process available for an independent review of the case.
If the emails are thought to have nothing to do with Rival, what was the REAL reason for non-payment.
It does seem odd that after sticking to their guns for 3 months, the day Bryan posted that the rules had been waived and he would accept a PAB, Tropica did a total U-Turn and announced the player would be paid in full. It gives the impression that Tropica did not want this going through PAB where it would have it's own side reviewed just as thoroughly as the player's side. Could be coincidence, but we are talking the same day in a period of about 90 for the independent reaching of decisions that seem closely connected.
