Trying to better understand?

[Azzurri]

Hi all,

My question is quite random, and actually came about quite randomly, lol.

I noticed a recent thread regarding starting up an online casino, and as this is an area that interests me, I followed the link posted by another member to an older thread which I found quite interesting:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...-to-start-run-an-online-casino.32688/?t=32688

Now this is where it gets a little random.

While I was reading this thread, I noticed a couple helpful posts were from banned users who were members for quite a long time, and also seemed like regular and trusted contributors.

With my curiosity now well and truly ignited, I couldn't help but delve further and see why these obviously much liked and respected members were suddenly whacked with the dreaded banned stick, and I must say, what I found was very interesting.

The two members in particular that I'm referring to are AussieDave and LotsO. AussieDave stuck out the most mainly due to the comical description Bryan had now placed under his name, lol, and it's after researching his profile that I came to ask a few questions.

I was led to this thread, which was obviously the reason for his ban, although it could probably be classed more as a resignation :

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/37787?t=37787

Obviously this thread came about as a direct result of this thread which he links :

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/vip-cashback-still-no-playtime.37696/

Now like I said, it was all a fairly random and unexpected journey, however I'm glad it eventuated, as the two latter threads raised some very interesting questions I'd now like to find the answer to, as I am a huge advocate of fairness and transparency not only within the industry, but also as it should apply to this forum and others like it.

Not sure if any members can help with the answers, or maybe Bryan or maxd are better placed to respond themselves, but here are my pretty random questions :

1. In AussieDave's 'Goodbye' thread, he mentions a $7,000 fee that changes hands between CM and accredited casinos, and although Bryan states the fee as being less, it seems like Bryan is fairly pissed that AussieDave disclosed this information, hence it reads as if this isn't exactly information Bryan would have liked to of gone public.

Now, this confused me on a few levels, hence I'd appreciate clarification, as I'm not sure exactly how it reads.

What is this fee that was mentioned, and what is it paid for, and by whom?

Do casinos pay this fee to CM to become accredited, or does CM pay the casino to be associated with the site and accredited list?

Factoring the threads age, is this still relevant, ie. Is this still practiced?

I find these questions really important, as I was always under the impression that CM was funded and reliant on members signing up via the CM affiliate links to keep the site going.

I have no issue if for example CM charges casinos a 'sign on' fee, or even an annual fee, as it actually makes smart business sense to me, however I think it's important information for members to know, as it can raise concerns of casino bias when Bryan and Max chime in to arguments and debates, and even to a greater extent when dealing with PABS.

Obviously I have never had a PAB or even a low level disagreement with a casino that required Bryan or max's intervention, so I personally have had no reason to question anything prior to now, however I actively read most threads, and think in the interest of total transparency and clarity, most members could appreciate some answers to these questions. Especially seeing as it seems Bryan and max's allegiances are often questioned when decisions go in favor of the casinos and against the disgruntled player.

Another question that was raised in the TonyT vs. Lockcasino thread, is the one of member privacy, and I guess this is much simpler to ask, and probably best answered by Bryan and Max personally.

Have you guys improved your privacy practices since that ordeal, or does this type of information exchange still occur between you and the casinos, whether pertaining to what can be considered relevant purposes or not?

If it does occur, for what reasons could you justify this practice, and do you think the member in question should be notified?

If it no longer occurs, how can we members be reassured this is true, and our personal information is in safe keeping?

Anyway, that's my very random, but hopefully relevant and thought provoking post. Sorry if it's a little long, but I personally think they are some important questions I'd like answered, so worth the time to write, and I hope other members agree worth the time to read.

Sorry mods if this is posted in the wrong section, and please feel free to move it.

Interesting observation: Anyone else notice how many long term members with good reputations are now banned in that TonyT thread?! What the heck is up with that??!! Lol.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to your comments.

 

[Casinomeister]

Seriously Azzurri, you have about 1/8th of the story.

I'll make this as brief but as concise as possible since this has been discussed a number of times in either the public fora or newsletters, or elsewhere.

The $7000 was made up bullshit. He posted this to try to make it seems like I was on the take. Honestly if I was, you'd think that after nearly 17 years in the business someone would spill the beans, yes? There has never been a fee to become accredited.

Aussiedave has a history here - and elsewhere - and has been banned from most forums for a number of reasons. He was banned from here no less than three time - once for borrowing $$ from members and disappearing, another for posting a bunch of inflammatory bullshit not only here, but elsewhere. And he has also reappeared as a disgruntled Virtual Casino player - trashing them in public, yet trying to cut an affiliate deal behind the scenes. He's has serious personal issues that I care not to discuss at the moment.

Lots0 is another guy who used to be somewhat a level headed webmaster, but for whatever reason, he got a bee in his bonnet and became a toxic poster.

4ofakind was banned a number of times for being a serious troll. It's all here somewhere.

Just because someone "appears" to be respected doesn't mean they are. Some of these guys get nasty off-site, and this I have no reason to tolerate.


By the way, did you not read my response here?
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/37787/

 

[Casinomeister]

Actually, I'm questioning why you have brought up these threads. It seems you didn't read any of my responses at all.

And all of these banned members were banned for damn good reasons - and not necessarily for their statements in the threads. You can always get a good idea why someone is banned by looking up their last exchange here. Most of these banned members were either trolls, charge backers, fraudsters, and had multiple accounts in the forum.

 

[miso]

Thanks for explaining that, Bryan. I have wondered as well as to why are some names with 1,000s of posts in red, but I always believed there was a valid reason. People change and more so when there's money involved. Skiny's case comes to mind, there can be stuff going on behind the curtain that we're not aware of.

Sometimes we just can't get all along. The way I see it, when I log in here, I am a guest in your house and should behave accordingly. Keep my shoes off the carpet and be nice

 

[Azzurri]

Hey Bryan, thanks for the response.

I'm well aware that I was only seeing one side of the story, and it was also obvious that something else went down behind the scenes regarding AussieDave, as his reaction seemed disproportionate to the issues raised. In saying that however, they were very serious issues that you didn't deny, hence obviously exist.

To be honest, I could not care less about any of those past members, or their individual mental problems or personal vendettas. What aroused my interest is the fact that mental or not, serious issues were discussed, and serious questions have now been raised as a result.

Just for the record, I'm not passing judgement or pointing fingers, I'm only seeking clarification on those issues raised that you did acknowledge as factual.

Sorry, but my question regarding the fee probably wasn't worded correctly, as I noticed in the old thread you did say then that you don't charge for accreditation. So to be more specific, can you explain the 'advertising' fees you did acknowledge? What are these charged for, and what does that fee get a casino?

Can you also address the privacy and information exchange questions I asked?

Thanks.

 

[Azzurri]

Actually, I'm questioning why you have brought up these threads. It seems you didn't read any of my responses at all.

And all of these banned members were banned for damn good reasons - and not necessarily for their statements in the threads. You can always get a good idea why someone is banned by looking up their last exchange here. Most of these banned members were either trolls, charge backers, fraudsters, and had multiple accounts in the forum.

And there's no need to get defensive Bryan. I've made it very clear how I got to those threads, and I've also made it very clear why I brought them up and the valid questions they led me to.

I also read all your responses, hence I'm asking for further clarification.

There are two major issues raised here Bryan, and I'm asking for a mature discussion without the need for anyone to get defensive, or let personal opinions of each other disrupt or deflect from the real issues raised.

I'll say again, whilst I found it interesting and amusing, the banned members and reasons for those bans are of little importance to me or the true issues I'm attempting to discuss.

It would be great if we could now move past those members, and focus on the questions I asked regarding the issues you yourself previously acknowledged as existing.

 

[cncas123]

I have to say that I have read a lot of threads here that belong to the people in red, just looking out of curiosity and a lot of the times you can see obvious reasons as to why they are banned. On the thread that was highlighted, why shouldnt it be put into the forum the language used to reps in personal emails by someone who on the face of seems well balanced and fair? If the casino has furnished this email to CM, why shouldnt the other members know that side of the story? I have only been here a few months, but have enjoyed reading the threads, seeing the different opinions and gaining knowledge about various aspects of both online gambling and accredited and non accredited casinos. From what I have seen, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and CM will give a fair airing to each and every view and let the forum members decide for themselves. I wish I had joined this site earlier, but I will make up for lost time now that I have found CM, which I honestly believe to be a fair forum, an open forum and most importantly a non judgemental forum were members old and new can learn from each other.

PS, the truest saying from all the old threads I have seen is from CM himself " its my site and my decision is final" and why shouldnt it be??

 

[weesie]

Sorry, but my question regarding the fee probably wasn't worded correctly, as I noticed in the old thread you did say then that you don't charge for accreditation. So to be more specific, can you explain the 'advertising' fees you did acknowledge? What are these charged for, and what does that fee get a casino?

Can you also address the privacy and information exchange questions I asked?

Thanks.

Seeing as how this IS Bryans' site/forum, I don't see where he has to answer any questions by you or anyone else here.

I, for one, would be interested in WHY you need to know any of it.

Has Bryan ever INTENTIONALLY steered you or any of the members here in a bad/wrong direction? To a rogue casino? I seriously doubt it.

 

[maxd]

FTR, I think an old blog post of mine has at least a little relevance here: Link Outdated / Removed.

In case it's not clear I'm suggesting that it is not unusual for once active contributors to the forums -- ours or anyone else's -- to evolve over time to become authorities unto themselves, at least from their perspective. Many folks who run their own sites now started out as forum members somewhere else, and almost invariably outgrew their original stomping grounds. It's part of the scene folks, a story that has repeated itself time and time again over the years.

... I'm asking for a mature discussion without the need for anyone to get defensive....

I've said this to you publicly and privately before: if you bait the bear don't be surprised if you get bitten. You may think -- or wish to present yourself -- as mearly asking simple questions in the common interest but the truth is that you are asking them as thinly veiled accusations with (afaict) the intent to smear. If that's your thing then that's your thing I guess but you're basically being a troll, those same questions could have been asked in a infinitely less defamatory manner. We all know where this leads.

 

[Captain Chaos]

If you break the rules, you break the rules. No matter how many posts you have and such. Once you cross the line too many times, that's it, bye bye. While I've always wondered this myself, I hadn't thought to question it. Why? Because there is no doubt a good reason for it. Anyone can see this is one of the best run and most respected forums on the internet of it's kind. Quite why that guy was trying to claim that Bryan is on the take I have no idea. Why would he risk his entire reputation for a few quid? It's clear from the effort that gets put into running things on here that he believes and cares about what he does. To have his integrity and honesty questioned is absurd.

 

[maxd]

It's clear from the effort that gets put into running things on here that he believes and cares about what he does. To have his integrity and honesty questioned is absurd.

At the risk of being woefully taken out of context I'd say that it's fine to question integrity and honesty if that's what you are really doing. In other words question, gather real evidence, make a fair call. That is not at all the same thing as pretending to ask the question when you (a) have some other agenda and (b) are doing it as a ruse to accuse. Tone and intent matter hugely, something the garden variety troll will deny and obfuscate over until the cows come home.

 

[Matti]

Hi Azzurri,

Often you can accomplish the same thing but in different ways.

If I ever had question of this nature I would PM Bryan and ask him directly without posting a thread.

You're initial insinuations are not ok in my book.

 

[Casinomeister]

And there's no need to get defensive Bryan. I've made it very clear how I got to those threads, and I've also made it very clear why I brought them up and the valid questions they led me to...

And if you had read my answer back then (about the accreditation "fees"), you wouldn't have asked here. No one pays to be Accredited.

 

[dunover]

I have often (like Azzurri) had a delve into the archives here and I share some of the same fascination as to how established members appear to have suddenly entered a race to the bottom and 'turned red'.
In every case following the thread(s) left me in no doubt as to why.

In fact, had I been in charge here some would've been dropped into Room 101 far quicker than they were. The Admin show a remarkable level of tolerance in the face of confrontation and provocation; it would exceed my patience! If a person is warned and warned again, then they seal their own fate.

It is also prudent to remember that some banned members play the 'Trojan Horse' strategy and strike out at a specific juncture which they consider to serve their own personal agenda or interest. Some clearly have histories before members like myself ever joined, and in these cases we should let those with better knowledge judge.

So I can understand Azzurri being curious as I and no doubt many others have been. I do feel it necessary to say that talking about money and CM income is slightly impertinent and akin to asking the guy next door how much he earns and where from? It's Bryan's business and I can't see the relevance to us members. We should enjoy staying in the house, rather than wondering how the guy who built it makes his money.

 

[syntynyt]

PS, the truest saying from all the old threads I have seen is from CM himself " its my site and my decision is final" and why shouldnt it be??

because is not fair. is not like banned players are automatically detagged from affiliation yet they still continue to generate income if signed up on CM and if they happen to have issues they have no help line to report them. is this fair? a vote through CAG to act like a jury would be a better decision before ban and to keep a open line for them as a gratitude, business POV. my parents lived in communism half of their life and the worst of that system were the one-man decisions.
also permanent ban looks like life sentence in my book and from this should 'benefit' only the fraudsters. all others deserve a second chance with sentence of maximum 365 days. but this is of course how i would run if i would be in his place.

 

[chayton]

Regarding the question about ad revenue, this is what I've gleaned over the course of the time I've been a member here. Casinos CAN'T pay to become accredited. For a casino to become accredited, they have to go through the standard vetting process and the BBF that we're all familiar with. IF a casino passes and becomes accredited, THEN they can approach Bryan to advertise on the site, but casinos that AREN'T accredited CAN'T pay for advertising.

There were a couple of instances where (former) members here had a problem with a casino and when their PAB failed (or they were outed as fraudsters) they started shouting about how Bryan is on the take and will always take the casino's side and casinos pay him money to look the other way and blah blah blah. AussieDave I believe had a problem with 32Red, he went on a big losing streak and got this idea - and supposedly had 'proof' - that the games were crooked. He complained on lots of forums about it and finally offered to pay one of the math geniuses (was it Jufo?) to look through the data. The genius went through it and found that guess what - it was totally normal. I don't believe that the genius ever got paid as promised because they didn't deliver the validation that Dave wanted, and perhaps even they were branded as being in the casino's pocket.

 

[dunover]

because is not fair. is not like banned players are automatically detagged from affiliation yet they still continue to generate income if signed up on CM and if they happen to have issues they have no help line to report them. is this fair? a vote through CAG to act like a jury would be a better decision before ban and to keep a open line for them as a gratitude, business POV. my parents lived in communism half of their life and the worst of that system were the one-man decisions.
also permanent ban looks like life sentence in my book and from this should 'benefit' only the fraudsters. all others deserve a second chance with sentence of maximum 365 days. but this is of course how i would run if i would be in his place.

Well this thread has certainly stirred things up as intended. To compare CM with any arbitrary decisions made by an Autocracy like Communism is frankly ridiculous. 365 days is a lifetime anyway in forum-world. Read the archives - many of the dastardly deeds by banned members certainly do not warrant any second chances.

Anyways, this thread isn't serving any good and is getting very near the quicksand in my opinion, so over-and-out.

 

[weesie]

I found CM years after I started playing on line. Yes, I belonged to "other" forums over the years.

I WISH I could go in somehow, and switch my membership to those casinos that I joined through those sites to CM.

I asked a casino one time. They said no.

If any site gets "affiliate" fees (I would call them earnings), I would much rather CM get them.

IMHO, this is the best forum out there.

Bryan deserves kudos, not speculations.

 

[syntynyt]

Well this thread has certainly stirred things up as intended. To compare CM with any arbitrary decisions made by an Autocracy like Communism is frankly ridiculous. 365 days is a lifetime anyway in forum-world. Read the archives - many of the dastardly deeds by banned members certainly do not warrant any second chances.

Anyways, this thread isn't serving any good and is getting very near the quicksand in my opinion, so over-and-out.

10-12 years ago when internet cafes were full and people obsessed with counter strike all bans given for cheats were for 1 year on most servers. IPs were fixed so there was no way to bypass the ban and play on the best servers. we played a lot in LAN and patiently waited for bans to expire. so 365 days is ok for the ultimate felony in a forum and some may wait if are given this chance. permanent ban must require attempt of/proved fraud, ddos attack, caused stroke. all others deserve a second chance because people behavior is changed by time, age and life experience to good or worse.

 

[Casinomeister]

because is not fair. is not like banned players are automatically detagged from affiliation yet they still continue to generate income if signed up on CM and if they happen to have issues they have no help line to report them. is this fair? a vote through CAG to act like a jury would be a better decision before ban and to keep a open line for them as a gratitude, business POV. my parents lived in communism half of their life and the worst of that system were the one-man decisions.
also permanent ban looks like life sentence in my book and from this should 'benefit' only the fraudsters. all others deserve a second chance with sentence of maximum 365 days. but this is of course how i would run if i would be in his place.

Actually, there are three moderators besides myself. So in a case like a long-time member getting the ban hammer, we talk about it. Also please bear in mind that immediate permanent bans are reserved for shitbirds, fraudsters and spammers. If you are a normal member, you would have the three-strikes-n-yer-outta-there policy in effect. For more information, please read the forum policies on banishments and spankings here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum-faq/forum-policies/

 

[Tirilej]

10-12 years ago when internet cafes were full and people obsessed with counter strike all bans given for cheats were for 1 year on most servers. IPs were fixed so there was no way to bypass the ban and play on the best servers. we played a lot in LAN and patiently waited for bans to expire. so 365 days is ok for the ultimate felony in a forum and some may wait if are given this chance. permanent ban must require attempt of/proved fraud, ddos attack, caused stroke. all others deserve a second chance because people behavior is changed by time, age and life experience to good or worse.

Edit: Then of course Bryan himself had posted just before me

 

[spoton]

There's nothing wrong to being alert and not naive, but if you've been a member here for some time one can see that CMs integrity ain't for sale thinking of all the huge casinos that haven't been accredited or that even have been rogued. Betfair is a good example, most places they have a pretty good reputation and they would probably generate loads of revenue, but Bryan and Max haven't forgot what they once did.

 

[Azzurri]

So some old threads gain my attention and bring up some interesting questions I wouldn't mind knowing the answers to, and I am now labelled as a troll posting defamatory comments?

Very mature Max. A perfect example of someone letting their personal opinion of a member get in the way of what could have been an interesting discussion.

I would love to know how you came to the conclusion that my op was asking questions in a defamatory and trolling manner? Why you're at it please also point out where in that op I was disrespectful or defamatory towards Bryan? They were simple questions based on simple truths that Bryan had acknowledged in those past threads. I wasn't making anything up to start trouble, merely asking for clarification, as I felt they were important things to know being a member here.

Instead I'm once again attacked by you in a defamatory manner and publicly shamed. Nice.

Seeing as no one is actually going to address my questions, and Max would rather turn this into another 'let's get Azzurri banned thread', I see no reason for this discussion to go on. Please feel free to close the thread Max, and I can go back to not posting as it's clear this is your preferred outcome judging by the further abuse you're once again happy to throw my way.

You have a real chip on your shoulder over me mate, and it amazes me that anytime I say something you may not like or agree with, I am automatically labelled as an agenda driven troll. It honestly astounds me.

In all honesty, I think Dunover should be nominated as a mod, as he seems to be the only rational experienced member here who sees discussions for what they are, and responds accordingly without the back handed nastiness.

If you didn't want to answer the questions, or felt they were intrusive, then you could have just said so without once again referring to calling me names and being rude. You may be surprised that when you do actually take the mature route in addressing an issue, the other party may be able to accept your approach in an equally mature way and move on. I didn't think there was anything wrong with my questions, as Bryan himself had made the information public already.

It seems getting defensive, making wild allegations, and reverting to childish name calling is always your preferred method. You really need to get over that deep seeded resentment you harvest towards me mate as I am really sick of your constant bullying and public shaming, for no other reasons than your personal dislike of me.

Carry on all. Back to the winner screenshots and casino complaint threads.

 

[sueyh]

A perfect example of someone letting their personal opinion of a member get in the way of what could have been an interesting discussion.

Just wondering what made you think it is going to be an interesting discussion? It might be interesting discussion for you, but I don't see it is interesting for Bryan and Maxd.

They were accused of wrong-doing without any solid evidence on public forum.

I know you are not the one who started that accusation, but even if all you are doing is bringing up old post, don't you think you should be more careful to make sure that it is not going to damage other people?

This is something about the old post from someone who doesn't have any evidence. If you want to mention something that could damage other people based on "hearsay", I think you should be more careful.

As Matti said, if I were you, I would send PM to Bryan and/or Maxd, instead of putting the matter on the public forum.

I disagreed with Bryan and Maxd a few times, but I'm with them on this matter. No matter they are guilty or not-I'm pretty sure that was a false accusation-, IMHO, nobody should be mentioned on public forum regarding to their wrong doing when there is no evidence to support the accusation.-though I think they can be asked in a private manner like PM-

 

[Azzurri]

Just wondering what made you think it is going to be an interesting discussion? It might be interesting discussion for you, but I don't see it is interesting for Bryan and Maxd.

They were accused of wrong-doing without any solid evidence on public forum.

I know you are not the one who started that accusation, but even if all you are doing is bringing up old post, don't you think you should be more careful to make sure that it is not going to damage other people?

This is something about the old post from someone who doesn't have any evidence. If you want to mention something that could damage other people based on "hearsay", I think you should be more careful.

As Matti said, if I were you, I would send PM to Bryan and/or Maxd, instead of putting the matter on the public forum.

I disagreed with Bryan and Maxd a few times, but I'm with them on this matter. No matter they are guilty or not-I'm pretty sure that was a false accusation-, IMHO, nobody should be mentioned on public forum regarding to their wrong doing when there is no evidence to support the accusation.-though I think they can be asked in a private manner like PM-

I'm not sure what 'hearsay' or accusations you are speaking of?

I'm also not sure how the questions I asked can be deemed damaging?

Both sets of my questions are in direct relation to the information Bryan himself stated in those past threads. How can this be hearsay?

Bryan stated there is a fee involved for casino advertising. I asked who pays who, and what this fee entails and grants the paying party.

There was also an issue regarding a members privacy and the exchange of personal information. Again, an issue Bryan stated his involvement in. This isn't hearsay. I then asked if this practice is still common here, or if that past incident changed the way they now approach member privacy.

My questions were clear and to the point, based on the information Bryan himself offered in those threads.

There was no hearsay, no accusations, and no attempt to 'damage' anyone.

As a member here I think I have a right to ask for clarification regarding the security of my personal information, whether or not others find the same issue important to them. As it has been raised in the past to be an important issue to some, I thought it could be a useful topic to discuss publicly for the benefit of everyone who may find it important /interesting. Likewise the issue of any fees that change hands.

I can respect the fact some may not care or be interested in the discussion, and by all means feel free not to engage, however, I think likewise those people can respect that it may be an interesting or important discussion for others.

Attacking me with false accusations and hearsay is out of line, especially when all I have done is ask for clarification on some issues I regard as important, and based those questions on nothing less than 100% factual and truthful facts from Bryan himself.

Again, I invite you to please highlight where I have based any of my questions on hearsay, or made any damaging accusations of any kind?

I actually find your accusations that I have done so extremely offensive.