Trying to better understand?

[jetset]

FTR, I think an old blog post of mine has at least a little relevance here: Link Outdated / Removed.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

Max has voiced my own feelings on this with precision, and I have to say I'm more than a little suspicious of "Azzurri's" motives here.

 

[sueyh]

You can ask if CM gets any fees from accredited casinos, you can ask if CM gets any money for ads on their website-I believe it is called "the banner", because charging fees for the members and getting money from ads are absolutely ok to do.

What I don't understand is why you have to mention "AussieDave"'s false accusation to ask those questions? Couldn't you simply say "Hi, I'm just wondering if accredited casinos pay any fees here and CM gets any money for the ad on the website?"

What's wrong with those simple questions without mentioning CM got $7000 from the accredited casino to make the casino to be accredited which is absolutely a false accusation and nothing but "hearsay" from AussieDave?

If all you want to know and all you want to discuss is just simple "fees" and "money from ads", can you tell me why you posted what AussieDave said? What AussieDave said has nothing to do with fees and money from ads. What AussieDave said was "wrong-doing" from CM.

Did you want to discuss "fees" or did you want to discuss if CM is doing anything wrong here?

By the way, if you felt offensive with my post, I sincerely apology for that. I didn't meant to offend you, I just thought it was careless that you posted something that was not true.

 

[Azzurri]

You can ask if CM gets any fees from accredited casinos, you can ask if CM gets any money for ads on their website-I believe it is called "the banner", because charging fees for the members and getting money from ads are absolutely ok to do.

What I don't understand is why you have to mention "AussieDave"'s false accusation to ask those questions? Couldn't you simply say "Hi, I'm just wondering if accredited casinos pay any fees here and CM gets any money for the ad on the website?"

What's wrong with those simple questions without mentioning CM got $7000 from the accredited casino to make the casino to be accredited which is absolutely a false accusation and nothing but "hearsay" from AussieDave?

If all you want to know and all you want to discuss is just simple "fees" and "money from ads", can you tell me why you posted what AussieDave said? What AussieDave said has nothing to do with fees and money from ads. What AussieDave said was "wrong-doing" from CM.

Did you want to discuss "fees" or did you want to discuss if CM is doing anything wrong here?

By the way, if you felt offensive with my post, I sincerely apology for that. I didn't meant to offend you, I just thought it was careless that you posted something that was not true.

The reason I mentioned the AussieDave scenario is because this is what made me curious to ask the question.

As I stated, I did not understand what AussieDave was rambling on about, and as Bryan's response confirmed there were fees involved, it only served to further arouse my curiosity and hence I asked for clarification and a better understanding of what was actually being discussed.

I also posted those old threads to serve as a trail of how I got to this point of seeking clarification on these matters.

Had I not referenced those old threads and shown exactly why and where those questions came from, I have no doubt I would have been attacked further and asked why I was asking such questions. Hence I made it as easy as possible to see the how and why, yet unsurprisingly now this is an issue.

What's incredible is how no questions have yet been answered, but perhaps less incredible is the fact that some have once again managed to derail a discussion and turn this into another courtroom drama with me being the alleged criminal.

And jetset, I'm equally suspicious of your motives giving your position here and close friendship to my biggest fan.

 

[The Dude]

@ Azzurri

Any of those questions you posed could have been simply asked via a PM. That would have been the cordial and proper way to do it. Or better yet, why not ask the Accred iGaming reps what I charge for being listed as an accredited casinos. That would take me off the hook since it seems you have problems believing me.

Or even better, ask some of the casinos that were removed from the accredited section on why they were removed. Was it because they couldn't handle the fee?

Maybe you are confused with the fact that at one time - way in the past, before there were affiliate programs, we charged a monthly fee for banner advertising. This was only done after the casino met our standards. And Casinomeister was one of the first online casino portals that had specific standards that had to be met - this is what set us apart from the others. Max can vouch for that since he was working for WOL back then. How much was the monthly fee? It was lowest in the industry, I believe - starting off at about $800 - $1200 per month, and then I charged a fee for newsletter ads, which was about $50-$150 depending on the ad and how many. Like most businesses, we have to put food on the table and clothe our children. But regardless, that's a far cry from the $7K per month that AussieDave claimed I was charging.

In fact, AussieDave approached me as a white-label operator years before this, and I quoted him an advertising fee of 1200 per month, but I turned him down since GFed sites didn't qualify for accreditation.

Again, this was covered in one of those liks you posted.

And like I stated earlier, you could have simply asked me this in private.

As for your other question about sharing information with casinos. It's all covered in the FAQ, our forum rules, and Privacy Statements. If you PAB, obviously we share your info with the specific casino. I'll update our privacy statement to reflect that.

Each casino has their own privacy policies and we abide by those. Many casinos state in their terms and conditions that they will share correspondence and personal details with third parties if you are found to be either fraudulent or abusive. Again, read the casinos' terms and conditions and you'll find that this is a widespread policy.

If you send an email that qualifies as "fan mail", I will post the email - usually with everything to include the email address. Again, that is up to my discretion. If you spam this forum, I will report you to the appropriate affiliate managers and probably post your email address. Again, that is covered in our forum rules.

So what is the problem? What is there to not understand?

 

[Azzurri]

Thanks Bryan, that was exactly the response I was looking for, and I struggle to see why that was so hard to begin with?

It seems we have to cover all the customary Azzurri hate prior to just civilly discussing the topic at hand.

And why does this have to be a private conversation on a public discussion board?

Also, I hate to answer your final questions with questions, but was there ever a problem?

The only problem I could see was the same people chiming in with their bully tactics which derailed what could have been a fairly simple and straight forward Q&A.

And as I stated, from that past conversation within that old thread, there was a lot to 'not understand' hence my asking for clarification. I thank you for finally getting to the civil response and addressing my specific questions, which now I do understand quite clearly.

Wouldn't it have been interesting to see if the same rudeness and abuse would have transpired if anyone but I had asked these questions? I think we all know the answer.

 

[Azzurri]

And thanks for the infraction Bryan.

A nice touch to finish on, and message received loud and clear.

I'll choose my questions much more carefully in the future.

 

[The Dude]

Actually - the only one who was getting out of line here was you. No one was attacking you - some were a bit perturbed that you were giving credence to a guy who is bent on attacking this site at every chance he can get. And others felt that you were just trying to stir the shit. We can do without the drama here.

You were also given in infraction for being disrespectful to a moderator. Maxd is my employee, and he will be treated with respect in this forum.

This was your 12th infraction - you have more than any other member has at the moment, and it may behoove you to review your posting style. Obviously, something is not right.

 

[The Dude]

And thanks for the infraction Bryan.

A nice touch to finish on, and message received loud and clear.

I'll choose my questions much more carefully in the future.

What - you want another one for your passive aggressive sarcasm? Like I said, you are the only one who is posting disproportional responses. Did you not read the infraction?

For the record, here is what Azzurri's infraction stated - referring to Max's comment here.

Dear Azzurri,

This was a inappropriate and disproportionate response to Max's comment: "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."

Do not disrespect the moderators in this forum.

You may not be aware of this but you are acting highly passive aggressive, and this continued behavior is not only unwarranted, it won't be tolerated. You have been warned plenty of times in the past. I would recommend that you take another look at how you are posting and how this reflects upon yourself.

Sincerely,

Bryan

I don't appreciate the drama you inject in nearly every thread you participate in. The moderators and I will be reviewing your account over the next day or so and decide whether or not your participation in this forum is a good match.

 

[Azzurri]

Actually - the only one who was getting out of line here was you. No one was attacking you - some were a bit perturbed that you were giving credence to a guy who is bent on attacking this site at every chance he can get. And others felt that you were just trying to stir the shit. We can do without the drama here.

You were also given in infraction for being disrespectful to a moderator. Maxd is my employee, and he will be treated with respect in this forum.

This was your 12th infraction - you have more than any other member has at the moment, and it may behoove you to review your posting style. Obviously, something is not right.

Ok Bryan.

Yes I do have a lot of infractions, however is it just coincidence that most stem from your employee max who seems to have an obvious and often offensive dislike of me? I think not.

I have been nothing but respectful towards max, yet I'm constantly defending myself against his unprovoked jabs of being a troll and the like, yet this kind of rudeness directed at me is fine.

I could post comments about the sky being blue, and I can guarantee the results and backlash will be the same.

Has it ever crossed your mind to maybe suggest to your employee that his posting style and constant attacks on me are often unjust and could be eased up on? It gets a little boring when every time I make a comment I'm referred to as a troll.

I'll make it easy for you, and just won't post anymore, as it's clear where I stand here, and what can and can't be raised as a discussion.

I saw nothing untoward with my 'posting style' in this thread, yet those that revert to name calling and the like can say and do as they please, and the intended target must just put up and shut up. I've got that right?

Maybe you should be asking who derailed yet another thread I created?

I'm done.

 

[The Dude]

Ok Bryan.

Yes I do have a lot of infractions, however is it just coincidence that most stem from your employee max who seems to have an obvious and often offensive dislike of me? I think not.

I have been nothing but respectful towards max, yet I'm constantly defending myself against his unprovoked jabs of being a troll and the like, yet this kind of rudeness directed at me is fine.

I could post comments about the sky being blue, and I can guarantee the results and backlash will be the same.

Has it ever crossed your mind to maybe suggest to your employee that his posting style and constant attacks on me are often unjust and could be eased up on? It gets a little boring when every time I make a comment I'm referred to as a troll.

I'll make it easy for you, and just won't post anymore, as it's clear where I stand here, and what can and can't be raised as a discussion.

I saw nothing untoward with my 'posting style' in this thread, yet those that revert to name calling and the like can say and do as they please, and the intended target must just put up and shut up. I've got that right?

Maybe you should be asking who derailed yet another thread I created?

I'm done.

Again, more BS. What's with you and this thing "Max hates me"?

You have twelve infractions, and one (your first) was merely a warning - that was from Max.

Out of the remaining eleven infractions, ten were from me , one from Max.

You seem to like playing the role of the victim. And like Max said, if you bait the bear...

 

[Azzurri]

Again, more BS. What's with you and this thing "Max hates me"?

You have twelve infractions, and one (your first) was merely a warning - that was from Max.

Out of the remaining eleven infractions, ten were from me , one from Max.

You seem to like playing the role of the victim. And like Max said, if you bait the bear...

Ok Bryan, and it's very clear you can't defend yourself against a bear either.

Kindly close this thread and I'll get out of your way.

 

[suzecat]

Azzurri you are fortunate that Bryan owns this site and not me. There are certain forum issues that are just none of your (or my) freaking business! Being a shit disturber appears to be your passion in life. Good luck with that.

And before you post another "oh woe is me, XXX hates me" I'll save you the trouble. I do not care enough to hate you. Rather I deem you to be a royal PITA.

Sorry Bryan my fingers had a mind of their own.

 

[Azzurri]

Azzurri you are fortunate that Bryan owns this site and not me. There are certain forum issues that are just none of your (or my) freaking business! Being a shit disturber appears to be your passion in life. Good luck with that.

And before you post another "oh woe is me, XXX hates me" I'll save you the trouble. I do not care enough to hate you. Rather I deem you to be a royal PITA.

Sorry Bryan my fingers had a mind of their own.

Here they come from under their rocks.

Post reported, although I don't know why I bother.

And I highly doubt you have the intelligence or brain capacity to run a site like this, let alone own one, so probably best not to rate yourself so highly and embarrass yourself.

And shit disturber? Have to strain the brain to come up with that one?

Glass houses and all that pussy cat.

 

[mathsboy1975]

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 :

The thing is though Azzurri that these are not remotely random questions are they. I first looked at this thread this morning and after reading your initial post I had a private bet with myself about the direction that I thought the thread would take. Let's just say that my prediction was right.

You appear to go to great lengths to convey your intelligence, tolerance and unassuming nature with the articulacy of your posts, but this only serves to predetermine the direction things take.

Given your apparent level of intelligence, there are a few things that dont add up:

1. Your "confusion" about the matters in the old threads (essentially banned members sh*tstirring).
2. You state that maxd or Bryan are the only people who can answer the questions you have, then you proceed to raise the matter in a public thread.
3. Why you persist in provoking the people who have the authority to ban you.

Maybe you can enlighten me

 

[psychogene]

Mathsboy1975 and SueyH do have a good point -

I don't really understand the need to post a rather personal question directed at the webmaster when you could have got your answer in a private message. If anyone asked the same question the logical thing to do would have been to ask in private. Surely you would have anticipated the reaction of people if you posted in a public forum the nature of this topic - after all your not asking about another forum member but questioning the integrity of the people responsible for the site itself.

My opinion would be to ask in private and if you are not satisfied with the answer or in disagreement maybe go public after that if that is your choice. Your question about security of personal information is a valid question that does belong on a public forum but other than that the rest could have been done in private.

There is nothing random about the nature of the first question too. Its not something a random person would bring up for the sake of a discussion out of the blue. You should have known that was a private message and I don't think you would accept any answer given to that question anyway from forum members when you clearly know it would have been best answered by the webmaster.

Common sense would tell me if its a question for Max or Bryan, PM them. Anything else, post on the forum.

 

[jetset]

The problem for habitual trolls is that as they warm to their subject and respond to criticism they tend to give insights into who they might really be. I think Azzurri might have just done that.

 

[Tirilej]

But for now the Troll is gone, and I hope he NEVER will come back!!!

 

[syntynyt]

The problem for habitual trolls is that as they warm to their subject and respond to criticism they tend to give insights into who they might really be. I think Azzurri might have just done that.

you meant here that he may be AussieDave in disguise or character related?
anyway why nobody think that his questions have no agenda behind and are just questions derived from those linked threads. i agree that this maybe should have been asked in private but in the same time if other members had the same questions in their mind Bryan enlightened the situation now very clear. also i don't like how a man is attacked while lying on the ground by some with unhealed past scars that found the perfect opportunity to which if he will reply back(in the same manner) will be banned...

l.e: i might add that i have no personal relation. i judge neutral based on past events and what was written in this thread. i don't have any virtual friends here.

 

[bigjohn]

you meant here that he may be AussieDave in disguise or character related?
anyway why nobody think that his questions have no agenda behind and are just questions derived from those linked threads. i agree that this maybe should have been asked in private but in the same time if other members had the same questions in their mind Bryan enlightened the situation now very clear. also i don't like how a man is attacked while lying on the ground by some with unhealed past scars that found the perfect opportunity to which if he will reply back(in the same manner) will be banned...

l.e: i might add that i have no personal relation. i judge neutral based on past events and what was written in this thread. i don't have any virtual friends here.

As has been pointed out already in this thread there is a right way and a wrong way to phrase a question. There are also things that you just don't ask about because it's really none of your business and to pose such questions in public can put the questionee in an uncomfortable position, in their own house! If you don't have discretion and tact you should not pose certain questions.

Go into a bar that you are fairly new to and ask the owner how much he pays for a bottle of scotch, and how much he gets paid for the advertising banner on the wall, and why he kicked that guy out that seemed like such a nice guy......

There are also people that if you keep letting them up they continue their own attacks. I screwed up a bit early on here, I learned and I got let up.

 

[MissRuthless]

well that was an interesting read.

/eats more popcorn
/scratches head
/yawns

/shrug
/need more money
/bored!

 

[jetset]

you meant here that he may be AussieDave in disguise or character related?
anyway why nobody think that his questions have no agenda behind and are just questions derived from those linked threads. i agree that this maybe should have been asked in private but in the same time if other members had the same questions in their mind Bryan enlightened the situation now very clear. also i don't like how a man is attacked while lying on the ground by some with unhealed past scars that found the perfect opportunity to which if he will reply back(in the same manner) will be banned...

l.e: i might add that i have no personal relation. i judge neutral based on past events and what was written in this thread. i don't have any virtual friends here.

And I do not believe that a suspected habitual troll with malice clearly in mind (random curiousity my ass!) should be allowed to go unchallenged. Max was spot on in his earlier characterisation of Azzurri's posts i.m.o.

 

[Tirilej]

I found an old thread about Trolls with an interesting discussion if someone is interested.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/64147?t=64147