Virtual VS bsilva028 : split from the Virtual Probation thread

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
it was already said before that after the 180 days of probation will also have something to vote what we think of put them out of the rogue pit or not.

i asked to the reps clarify some good things, like until now nothing was answered neither changed in their rogue rules, i will not say more nothing about this.

when the vote happens i will give my vote
continue in rogue pit forever, it will be what i will vote.

[Max says: this post and the 100+ that follow were originally part of The Virtual Casino Group and Ace Revenue and were split off because it became a massive, fraudster-inspired derail. Apologies for any discontinuities that may have caused: thread splitting is not an exact science and there will be jagged edges here and there. If anything actually needs fixing -- moved from this thread to that or whatever -- please send me a PM with the details (post number, link, whatever) and I'll do what I can to make things right. FTR this post originally appeared here.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
me, like i said before, for me this is one more trick of them
however, and like when i started online gambling, (i didn´t know anything about best or worst casinos) in a search it appeared me one of their casinos, in that time i registered, i have made some deposites, when i tried to casout the 1st time i did not get paid in that time with stupid escuses, so since there until now i uninstalled them and never logged in again

yesterday, in 1 of their spams, it was a free chip, like it was free, not my own money, i played it, completed the playthrough and tried to cashout.
uninstalled again.

i am now waiting for the results.
i am not expecting to get paid so early, i only played it with test purposes, i want to see if they are really different (thing that i dont belive)
but let´s just see.

if i get paid in less than 1 month, i will post here, if i dont get paid in that time (thats what i belive it will happen) i will post also.
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
well, like i said before, i would post here the results

the withdrawal request was denied, asked live chat why:

excuse given:

"players from portugal can´t cashout from free chips"
so even if receive them in e-mail they cant cashout.

its more than proof:
this is a big trick of virtual to try get out and keep being the same as they allways was:
rogue rogue and rogue again.
i will not complaint with anything, like i also said before, i was not expecting to gat paid, this was only a test, the test results are the same as few years ago. they dit not changed and i dont belive that they will change never.

there are lots of other rogue casinos but, so rogues like this group? i dont belive.
they are really the shame of online gambling and they should disapear from the planet for a better online gambling world happen.
 
Last edited:

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
well, like i said before, i would post here the results

the withdrawal request was denied, asked live chat why:

excuse given:

"players from portugal can´t cashout from free chips"
so even if receive them in e-mail they cant cashout.

its more than proof:
this is a big trick of virtual to try get out and keep being the same as they allways was:
rogue rogue and rogue again.
i will not complaint with anything, like i also said before, i was not expecting to gat paid, this was only a test, the test results are the same as few years ago. they dit not changed and i dont belive that they will change never.

there are lots of other rogue casinos but, so rogues like this group? i dont belive.
they are really the shame of online gambling and they should disapear from the planet for a better online gambling world happen.

This is classic Virtual rogue behaviour. They decide not to pay, and then think up an excuse to justify it. If they were acting with honesty and integrity, they would not be sending players free chips in the first place if they could never cash out. You will probably find that the blame will now be shifted onto an affiliate having "spammed" you with that offer without regard to your eligibility.

If they have embarked on a programme of great change, it seems the memo has yet to reach the CS agent that you dealt with. This should have been addressed BEFORE they embarked on this publicity push, so that such embarrassing "test results" would not come to bite them on the ass.
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
This is classic Virtual rogue behaviour. They decide not to pay, and then think up an excuse to justify it. If they were acting with honesty and integrity, they would not be sending players free chips in the first place if they could never cash out. You will probably find that the blame will now be shifted onto an affiliate having "spammed" you with that offer without regard to your eligibility.

If they have embarked on a programme of great change, it seems the memo has yet to reach the CS agent that you dealt with. This should have been addressed BEFORE they embarked on this publicity push, so that such embarrassing "test results" would not come to bite them on the ass.


yes also belive that the excuse now will be: "its not our fault, its affiliate´s fault, affiliates are sending spams where they have acess to the username that the player uses in the casino, so its their fault not ours, we are honnest"


if they were really different they should say: lets honour what we sent, but with the guarantee that players from country a,b or c or or player 1,2 or 3 will no longer receive promotions and/or free chips
 

greedygirl

Purveyor of Onions
Joined
Jan 19, 2002
Location
Someplace other than where you're at
Debbee was this disclosed to you during any of the honest talks you had with virtual staff?

When I saw the posts by bsilva, I contacted the casino straight away to ask for the full story. I don't feel it is my place to discuss this, but I'm quite certain Tawni will be explaining things in detail. What I will say is that perhaps, when CM members get the full story, you may have a different opinion in this situation.
 

mattsgame

Meister Member
webmeister
CAG
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Location
Out Of Town
This is classic Virtual rogue behaviour. They decide not to pay, and then think up an excuse to justify it. If they were acting with honesty and integrity, they would not be sending players free chips in the first place if they could never cash out. You will probably find that the blame will now be shifted onto an affiliate having "spammed" you with that offer without regard to your eligibility.

If they have embarked on a programme of great change, it seems the memo has yet to reach the CS agent that you dealt with. This should have been addressed BEFORE they embarked on this publicity push, so that such embarrassing "test results" would not come to bite them on the ass.

Ok, first off I think everyone has seen and knows I am not the biggest Virtual Fan. But.... it is in the terms and condition that players from Portugal cannot withdraw from free chips. If the mail came from them it is a stuff up, but they would not be the first casino to send players free spins or bonuses to players from bonus banned countries, my bet though it will be from an affiliate but you should still check the terms regardless.

The one thing I do not like about this term is this little bit
We retain the right to lift these restrictions on an individual basis

I was going to stay out of this thread, dammit.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Ok, first off I think everyone has seen and knows I am not the biggest Virtual Fan. But.... it is in the terms and condition that players from Portugal cannot withdraw from free chips. If the mail came from them it is a stuff up, but they would not be the first casino to send players free spins or bonuses to players from bonus banned countries, my bet though it will be from an affiliate but you should still check the terms regardless.

The one thing I do not like about this term is this little bit

I was going to stay out of this thread, dammit.

This also relates to their other rogue practice of deliberately sending players offers they are not allowed to use. Mostly, it was the "back to back free chip trick" that got them the most flak. They would aggressively market free chips to players and many took the offers in good faith. They then sprung the trap later on when the player managed to win. Sometimes, it wasn't even a win from a free chip, but a win much later on that was confiscated because at some time in the past they had played back to back free chips.

If this offer came from the casino, they knew damn well where this player resided, and that this would render them ineligible. To make matters worse, they have the discretionary removal of the restriction on an individual basis. Of course, if a player receives such an offer direct from the casino, it is reasonable to believe that they have done so because they have had the restriction lifted.

Given that large offers and free chips are the fundamental business model used by this group, it is even more damning given that they vigorously defend the practice because "our players like it". Of course they do, except the ones that win and find out the whole thing was a clever illusion designed to fleece them.

Whilst they may have certain restrictions in their terms, it seems they are pretty random. Why single out Portugal seemingly at random for an extra special shafting:confused: Who else has been disadvantaged by some term or other that can change overnight without notice?

So far, it seems that nothing has changed, and the few members here that admit they have dipped their toes in to see if things HAVE changed appear to be finding out that nothing really has changed after all.
 

TawniVirtualAce

I-Gaming Industry Representative
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Location
Worldwide
well, like i said before, i would post here the results

the withdrawal request was denied, asked live chat why:

excuse given:

"players from portugal can´t cashout from free chips"
so even if receive them in e-mail they cant cashout.

its more than proof:
this is a big trick of virtual to try get out and keep being the same as they allways was:
rogue rogue and rogue again.
i will not complaint with anything, like i also said before, i was not expecting to gat paid, this was only a test, the test results are the same as few years ago. they dit not changed and i dont belive that they will change never.

there are lots of other rogue casinos but, so rogues like this group? i dont belive.
they are really the shame of online gambling and they should disapear from the planet for a better online gambling world happen.

There are definitely two sides to every story and this is no exception.

In the case of bsilva, at a quick first glance, it appears that he has created no less than 40+ accounts within six of our casinos, since 2008 (quite possibly, more). He has made a total of $80 in deposits (back in 2008). With each account, he has used free chips and has been denied winnings previously, four times, based on the fact that he resides in Portugal. He cannot claim he was unaware of this term.

In this particular instance, bsilva not only ignored the term stating he cannot withdraw on bonuses due to his location, but also he broke the term regarding multiple free chips without depositing. He accepted three free chips in succession, Dec. 17th.

He states:
yes also belive that the excuse now will be: "its not our fault, its affiliate´s fault, affiliates are sending spams where they have acess to the username that the player uses in the casino, so its their fault not ours, we are honnest"

This is patently untrue. We’ve looked up the origins of the coupons he used. Two of the three came from casinofreebees.com. The third came from the casino itself, a standard free chip offered to all its players.

As a result of what has occurred, I’ve spoken with management regarding making changes with the following:

  • We need to find a way to limit the number of accounts any player has.
  • We also need to find a clear way to prevent players from those countries with bonus limitations from redeeming free chips.
  • Additionally, we need to implement some sort of fix, preventing players from using multiple free chips without depositing, between.

Management is in full agreement with what I’ve described and will immediately look into how these fixes can be achieved. I will report back on progress on these items, in the coming days.

I wont comment on spam/ownership but on the subject of inactive accounts I do believe Virtual can go one step further. The dreaded term may have been removed but what about those innocent players who had their balances confiscated in the past. This is just so wrong so if you wish to act in good faith and give 'Virtual' a push literally thought should be given to restore the players' confiscated balances. Should Virtual feel, like many banks nowadays, that inactive/dormant accounts costs them resources in servicing they may consider slapping a fee of say no more than 5% of the balances. In other words, please consider returning at least 95% of the money back. In the long run, this will show your goodwill though monetarily speaking, it may be painful to part with others' money already pocketed.

I don’t disagree with this and I will speak with management regarding this, Monday. As Greedygirl mentioned early on, the resolution center has re-opened, so if anyone has had this term enforced, I invite them to please submit a claim to [email protected] (for the Virtual brands) or [email protected] (for the Ace brands).

We know who the previous owner was, and probably still is.

I think what would be a little comforting would be to know if there is a board of directors or the like that is going to handle the day to day operations and see to it that the players concerns have a little higher priority, which they haven't in the past.

Lack of information will lead to speculation and if the behavior of the casino supports that speculation it will be seen to confirm it.

Perhaps you could explain the chain of command and where our withdrawal requests would go once submitted and how it takes your casinos 7 days to do what the vast majority of others do in 1 or 2 days, or instantly. The long pending period suggests that the casino doesn't really want to pay.

This is quite a bit to address in one shot. This brings into play limitations due to difficulties with the U.S. I’m not trying to skirt things, but because this is going to require lengthy explanations, I’ll hold off until tomorrow. It’s been a very long day and I’d like to be thorough in my response to this.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
This is the most damning of all.

The third came from the casino itself, a standard free chip offered to all its players.

You have knowingly been sending such offers to players who are ineligible.


As a result of what has occurred, I’ve spoken with management regarding making changes with the following:

•We need to find a way to limit the number of accounts any player has.
We also need to find a clear way to prevent players from those countries with bonus limitations from redeeming free chips.
•Additionally, we need to implement some sort of fix, preventing players from using multiple free chips without depositing, between.


Er, try reading the RTG user manual - Club World can do it, and have been doing just this for some while.

Only the first is the tricky one, something all casinos have problems with, and something that the software cannot really get to grips with when faced with a player who is knowingly and determinedly trying to beat the system.

This is also a serious accusation against a CM member, and one that needs to be tested independently as to it's validity.

Unfortunately, Virtual in the past have pulled this "multiple accounts" trick before, and in some cases it has been bogus, merely a means to deny payouts.

I am also interested as to why Portugal has been singled out, it's just an EU member state, and a long standing one. It is considered no more or less "criminal minded" than any of the other long standing EU member states. one can understand such terms for countries that have a chaotic regime, or which have undergone dramatic changes, but only because this makes an easier environment for fraudsters and criminals to operate because the state structure is not fit to properly police the citizens.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
This is the most damning of all.



You have knowingly been sending such offers to players who are ineligible.





Er, try reading the RTG user manual - Club World can do it, and have been doing just this for some while.

Only the first is the tricky one, something all casinos have problems with, and something that the software cannot really get to grips with when faced with a player who is knowingly and determinedly trying to beat the system.

This is also a serious accusation against a CM member, and one that needs to be tested independently as to it's validity.

Unfortunately, Virtual in the past have pulled this "multiple accounts" trick before, and in some cases it has been bogus, merely a means to deny payouts.

I am also interested as to why Portugal has been singled out, it's just an EU member state, and a long standing one. It is considered no more or less "criminal minded" than any of the other long standing EU member states. one can understand such terms for countries that have a chaotic regime, or which have undergone dramatic changes, but only because this makes an easier environment for fraudsters and criminals to operate because the state structure is not fit to properly police the citizens.

The way I read it, Tawni meant it came from their website I.e. "available to all players"...NOT via email. Just like the other codes "came from" that other website.

I'm no fan of Virtual, but I am a fan of truth and accuracy in ANY discussion.

If bsilva is proven to have done what Tawni suggests, they should be banned from here for fraud IMO, or at least for deliberately misleading the membership.
 

dionysus

Good(w)ill Ambassador
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Location
the land of snow and maple syrup
The way I read it, Tawni meant it came from their website I.e. "available to all players"...NOT via email. Just like the other codes "came from" that other website.

I'm no fan of Virtual, but I am a fan of truth and accuracy in ANY discussion.

If bsilva is proven to have done what Tawni suggests, they should be banned from here for fraud IMO, or at least for deliberately misleading the membership.

I agree. It cuts both ways.
If the player knowingly is misleading the members in an intentionally misrepresented crusade to satisfy their agenda of bonus abuse and wrongful bad-mouthing, the axe!
If the casino is wrong, a huge apology is due and is set back in the forum eyes
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The way I read it, Tawni meant it came from their website I.e. "available to all players"...NOT via email. Just like the other codes "came from" that other website.

I'm no fan of Virtual, but I am a fan of truth and accuracy in ANY discussion.

If bsilva is proven to have done what Tawni suggests, they should be banned from here for fraud IMO, or at least for deliberately misleading the membership.

The implication is that it was an email offer:-

the withdrawal request was denied, asked live chat why:

excuse given:

"players from portugal can´t cashout from free chips"
so even if receive them in e-mail they cant cashout.

If Bsilva is proven to have been committing multi account frauds, then they should be sanctioned under normal policies, not given special leeway because "it's only Virtual". This would have to come via a PAB process, and this is something bsilva should be looking to do in order to clear their name.

I believe casino reps can approach Max and in a sense, PAB against a player in this kind of circumstance, as not getting to the bottom of this can also reflect badly on the casino, and players who know they have been caught out often decide not to pursue a PAB as it would likely lead to them getting named, shamed, and banned.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
The implication is that it was an email offer:-



If Bsilva is proven to have been committing multi account frauds, then they should be sanctioned under normal policies, not given special leeway because "it's only Virtual". This would have to come via a PAB process, and this is something bsilva should be looking to do in order to clear their name.

I believe casino reps can approach Max and in a sense, PAB against a player in this kind of circumstance, as not getting to the bottom of this can also reflect badly on the casino, and players who know they have been caught out often decide not to pursue a PAB as it would likely lead to them getting named, shamed, and banned.

We only have bsilvas word that this is what live chat said....and we don't even know what the question was.

It may have been a general comment, and it may have applied to the codes from the other website.
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
to greddy girl and tawny

1st: i dont have multipe accounts - thats another BAD EXCUSE FROM YOU

2nd: if i broke some rule of some get more than 1 free chip its BECAUSE CASINO HAS SENT THEM

3rd: if i am not able to my withdraw due to my locations, casino has my location so it shoulnt send the bonuses

4th: casino also knows that i am verified because when y have the 1st problem back in 2008, casino has asked for my docs

5th: how do you know which casino was?? i did not mention if was in some casino of virtual or ace revenue, i did not mention the name of the casino.
i was the only player in the world making a withdraw this week??

6th: its only virtual because i´ve never had problems in any other casino.

7th: i have proof, that only in 2008 cool cat has more than $300 in deposites, so, tawny is not speaking the true, its speaking the rogue side of the story

8th: another proof that its a lie, i dont even know the site: casinofreebees.com. and i can sent all the sites in historic to prove that i never was in that site.

acredited casinos that i never had problem:
MG: 32red group, fortune lounge, vpl, club red gaming, bellerock, roxy.

netent: nordicbet, redbet, whitebet, guts, maxino

playtech: paddy power, betfred, omni, fly, bet365, sports interaction

rtg: club world group, sloto cash, jackpot capital group.

rival: slots capital

other brands: inter casino, vip casino, 3dice

non-acredited casinos:

club gold (playtech), casino rewards (mg), miami club (wgs), liberty slots (wgs)

so i really dont need to play there.
another thing ONLY to tawny:

you continue to give bad and rogue excuses to dont pay the players:
you said, your words, that i didnt read that i couldnt cashout due to my location, once again, this was your words and are predatory!!! casino does not allow my location to make cashouts, so casino dont have to send the bonuses !!!! if they was sent, they should be honored.
 

bigjohn

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Location
Northeast Coastal USA
I am more inclined to take bsilva's word at this point.

Some of the things Tawni said don't seem to make sense or reflect a predatory nature. For instance, how does a casino leave someones account open if they believe that person has 40+ accounts?
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
another untrue of tawny:

the called "investigation" that she has made:

after she posts that "investigation" blaming me, and saying that i did not speak the true, i receveid another spam with another free chip:

what kind of investigation it was afterall?? so she investigated and AFTER that i continued to receive spams???

another thing that i did not post in previous post:
more casinos that i never had a problem with rules:
inetbet, and they have some bonuses that are strictly restricted to some games, and rules must be very well readen to dont be broken, and i never had problem
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
The way I read it, Tawni meant it came from their website I.e. "available to all players"...NOT via email. Just like the other codes "came from" that other website.

I'm no fan of Virtual, but I am a fan of truth and accuracy in ANY discussion.

If bsilva is proven to have done what Tawni suggests, they should be banned from here for fraud IMO, or at least for deliberately misleading the membership.


and no nifty, i did not make any fraude, you already read other posts, you also saw my activity since 2010 here, yes in the year that learned who was virtual and other rogues and when i discovered the true online gambling, it was here in cm.

i never defended anything when someone makes fraud
and like i said before, i dont even know the site mentionated by tawny. and if, in her side of the story, she said i claimed 2 free chips from a certain site and a 3rd given by the casino. (her words)

so after claiming 2 codes from another site the casino sends a 3rd code if they do not allow them?? specially that they know i couldnt got it??
so she is contradicting herself
she says: "bsilva claimed 2 free chips from a site, and a 3rd that the casino has sent" so the casino has sent the 3rd code after me claiming the 2 firsts???

again, like i said in another page, i did not was expecting to get paid, it was a test to check if they were really different, and by the excuse given they are not different, they sent a free chip to a player that couldnt cashout, THEY SENT IT, it wasnt me asking.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I am more inclined to take bsilva's word at this point.

Some of the things Tawni said don't seem to make sense or reflect a predatory nature. For instance, how does a casino leave someones account open if they believe that person has 40+ accounts?

It's Virtual remember. This was yet another predatory tactic from the past. They allowed accounts to remain open, taking deposits etc, but would use the multiple accounts violation as soon as the player won. This is probably why these 40+ accounts are still open. The turning over a new leaf exercise did not include making sure that historical multiple accounts were closed in line with the promised change to more honest practices.

The allegations are actually quite specific

In the case of bsilva, at a quick first glance, it appears that he has created no less than 40+ accounts within six of our casinos, since 2008 (quite possibly, more). He has made a total of $80 in deposits (back in 2008). With each account, he has used free chips and has been denied winnings previously, four times, based on the fact that he resides in Portugal. He cannot claim he was unaware of this term.

In this particular instance, bsilva not only ignored the term stating he cannot withdraw on bonuses due to his location, but also he broke the term regarding multiple free chips without depositing. He accepted three free chips in succession, Dec. 17th.

...........

We’ve looked up the origins of the coupons he used. Two of the three came from casinofreebees.com. The third came from the casino itself, a standard free chip offered to all its players.

So, despite this GROSS multi accounting from way back in 2008, his accounts are STILL open in 2013, and he is STILL being sent inducements to play.

Despite it being only $80, he IS actually a "depositing player".

Given how specific these allegations are, it should be easy for this to be proven to Max as a true account of what went on, and thus absolve Virtual of any wrong doing in this case.


Maybe Virtual should go back over their database and see how many other serial fraudsters have managed to remain undetected and thus still have access to their accounts. If any of these players start trying to play again, they will all end up having their withdrawals confiscated, and the ensuing publicity would be very bad news indeed for Virtual. Far better to close all such suspect accounts now so that any players who have been flagged will have to ask CS to reopen their accounts if they want to try again, at which point Virtual can say "no" if they have such specific evidence of multi account fraud as they do for bsilva.
 

maxd

PAB (Complaints) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
@ bsilva028 : please tone down the "lies and rogue Rogue ROGUE" rhetoric. If you can't discuss these issues without all the accusations and name-calling then maybe you should take a break to cool off for a while, or whatever form of "chill out" suits you. The point is that this can and should be done in a more civilised manner, please and thank you.
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
@ bsilva028 : please tone down the "lies and rogue Rogue ROGUE" rhetoric. If you can't discuss these issues without all the accusations and name-calling then maybe you should take a break to cool off for a while, or whatever suits you. The point is that this can and should be done in a more civilised manner, please and thank you.

sorry be the terms used, i belive they was not the more correct, but thats a thing that revolts me:

reading that i claimed a free chip from a site that i dont know, saying that i have 40+ accounts with $80 deposite, when i dont have that multiple accounts and deposites was above 300 in 2008, saying that i broke 1 rule because they sent that bonus without i ask for nothing, read that they have done an investigation and after that investigation i continued to received e-mails to claim more free chips and to broke more rules.

sorry by the words used
 

bigjohn

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Location
Northeast Coastal USA
It seems we are at an impass here.

The ball now seems to be in CM's court (since this is a probation) to gather the evidence from each side and determine where the truth lies. I would call on Tawni to submit her "multi accounting" evidence to Max or Bryan and bsilva to submit these e-mails so it can be determined where they came from.

As far as I am concerned, if what bsilva says is true and Virtual are willing to besmirtch a seniors members name to cover it then, indeed, the leopards spots remain unchanged.
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
It seems we are at an impass here.

The ball now seems to be in CM's court (since this is a probation) to gather the evidence from each side and determine where the truth lies. I would call on Tawni to submit her "multi accounting" evidence to Max or Bryan and bsilva to submit these e-mails so it can be determined where they came from.

As far as I am concerned, if what bsilva says is true and Virtual are willing to besmirtch a seniors members name to cover it then, indeed, the leopards spots remain unchanged.


the e-mails received until 11 am was already deleted but i am sure that i will receive more
however, the site that tawny mention, the "historic" section has not been cleaned from my browsers, so i sthill have the proof that i dont have the site mentionated, the multiple accounts also dont have, the deposites, to be honnest, i will check if neteller allows transactions of 2008, its also a pitty that my bank is not the same as it was in 2008, to have even more proofs that the deposites was not $80 but much more than that.

IMHO its not in cause the senior member or not, its the really fact of they not being different than what they were before, and, if i also had claimed 2 codes from a site (that i dont know) and casino has sent a 3rd code (tawni´s words in her post) so the casino knew that the rules was broken and they sent it anyway. a proof of they being different was they dont send anything to anyone that they know its not allowed to receive.
 

Cleveland

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Location
Texas
It's pretty simple. File a PAB. Max views the evidence submitted by both sides.

In terms of this thread. Personally I actually feel sorry for the virtual rep here. Not because of anything virtual has done but by all of the people in the thread that clearly would be happy filling the roles of judge, jury, and executioner. Some are seeking truth, but many seem content with using a "it's virtual" response to negate any truth the rep tries to present or to prove anything said by another player against virtual.

The fact of the matter is things change. People get multiple chances many times over. And this isn't about withstanding the fire of the CM membership. As I said it's clear some people's minds are made up....which is fine. But I personally wouldn't want those people sitting on the jury at my trial. Neutral voices are often best when looking at evidence and drawing conclusions. All the emotions add to a clouded judgement. I'm sure some will say they are being open minded in this :rolleyes:, but the words used in many of these post show otherwise.
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
It's pretty simple. File a PAB. Max views the evidence submitted by both sides.

In terms of this thread. Personally I actually feel sorry for the virtual rep here. Not because of anything virtual has done but by all of the people in the thread that clearly would be happy filling the roles of judge, jury, and executioner. Some are seeking truth, but many seem content with using a "it's virtual" response to negate any truth the rep tries to present or to prove anything said by another player against virtual.

The fact of the matter is things change. People get multiple chances many times over. And this isn't about withstanding the fire of the CM membership. As I said it's clear some people's minds are made up....which is fine. But I personally wouldn't want those people sitting on the jury at my trial. Neutral voices are often best when looking at evidence and drawing conclusions. All the emotions add to a clouded judgement. I'm sure some will say they are being open minded in this :rolleyes:, but the words used in many of these post show otherwise.

file a pab its a lot job to do and i dont have all the proofs needed,
all that i have actually is: e-mails that i will receive more for sure, and i dont know if neteller allows to go back to 2008 show the transactions, proving that was much more than the $80 deposited in that time.

and this was not a complaint, was a test to check if they were really different, well, they are not different.
the only complaint is i being acused from claiming codes from a site that i never visited, and being acused of trying to fraud the casino, which obvisously i didn´t.

and their words of "player has claimed 2 chips, and we sent a 3rd chip after that"- so they knew what they were doing

just checked neteller transactions now, they only allow me to go back until 2012 :(
 
Last edited:
Top