Virtual VS bsilva028 : split from the Virtual Probation thread

[chuchu59]

Whether or not Virtual is framing BSilva will alter the outcome of the deroguing. Since BSilva is unwilling to PAB and this is something I have reservations on I urge Tawni to list out the number of accounts BSilva has at each of Virtual's properties and then ask BSilva whether he agrees to or denies them. Should this be disputed Tawni could request a special favor from Max to look into the evidence. I know this is then not a PAB but will clear the name of either one of the parties.

 

[jetset]

So you don't want a PAB in case you're proven to be at fault?

I think that's the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard.

Why don't you want to clear your name? It just doesn't make sense.

I don't believe that is what bsilva is saying in his post.

My reading of his post is that he is reluctant to launch a PAB because in a previous dispute he had deleted the relevant communications, and this contributed to his losing the case, an experience he does not wish to repeat. He is therefore not keen to press ahead in this case without being able to produce some sort of tangible 'documentary' evidence.

I think we need to be careful not to get too distracted from the main thrust of this thread by the individual issue surrounding bsilva's allegations; these are relevant but not necessarily critical to how Virtual emerges from this in general, imo.

And I remain unconvinced so far that Virtual has turned over a new leaf permanently this time around, or that its ownership has changed.

 

[Nifty29]

I don't believe that is what bsilva is saying in his post.

My reading of his post is that he is reluctant to launch a PAB because in a previous dispute he had deleted the relevant communications, and this contributed to his losing the case, an experience he does not wish to repeat. He is therefore not keen to press ahead in this case without being able to produce some sort of tangible 'documentary' evidence.

I think we need to be careful not to get too distracted from the main thrust of this thread by the individual issue surrounding bsilva's allegations; these are relevant but not necessarily critical to how Virtual emerges from this in general, imo.

And I remain unconvinced so far that Virtual has turned over a new leaf permanently this time around, or that its ownership has changed.

Perhaps.

I don't think this case requires him to have/supply any evidence etc, but rather the onus is on the casino to produce it to back up their claims of multiple accounts and previous advice regarding Portugal and multiply free chips. The only thing he could supply would be the SPAM (which turned out not to be) he received, which he has already posted in this thread.

Hence, I don't see any reasonable barrier to him submitting a PAB. It's really quite simple. The casino says he has 40+ accounts, and he says he has NEVER setup more than one account at ANY casino, including those in the Virtual/Ace group. As I said, someone is telling porkies....and looking at it objectively and leaving the passion out of it, I just don't see why Tawni would make all of this up for the sake of a small cashout from a free chip. It just doesn't add up. Why go to ALL the trouble of hiring Greedygirl and going public here at CM just to throw it away over a measly free chip.

I agree with your sentiments regarding genuine change. However, it doesn't mean that players can take bogus pot shots (generally speaking) to take out their past frustration or anger and misrepresent situations. All that does is make it harder for those with genuine issues that need resolution to both come forward in the first place and actually have issues settled.

It's a side issue, and it's not. The outcome may very well influence the future direction of this 'renaissance' from Virtual and whether any of it has any credibility at all.

I'm about as convinced as you are jetset, but lets at least let them either hang themselves or redeem themselves based on the truth, whatever that turns out to be.

 

[TawniVirtualAce]

One question, why is the rep not here. I know it`s weekend but she made accusation and then she went away.

As I stated yesterday, I’ve already PM’d Max and he is going to be reviewing everything we have regarding bsilva’s history and his current situation. I’ve not disappeared, but really, I believe it is best for Max to look things over and not speak about bsilva until Max has done so. And you’re right, it is the weekend and the last weekend before Christmas, at that.

 

[maxd]

the pab i simple dont want a repetion of what it was when i made against main street group, that i lost it because of my own fault, because i did not save the call that they have made me, and that was an error, before made some pab i want to have everything possible.

I think your memory of that previous PAB is somewhat distorted. If you go back and look at our email exchange you'll see that you lost the PAB because you had claimed that your WR should have been 40x -- if I recall correctly -- where the applicable Terms clearly specified they would be 100x for players outside of Canada+USA. Your response was "I did not read that". End of PAB as far as I was concerned.

You later claimed that someone had told you a different WR, or whatever, during a phone conversation. I could claim that Spock had called me and told me I was the new Captain of the Enterprise but without proof such a claim wouldn't be of much value, especially if they had other plans and knew of no such phone call. The same applied to your alleged phone call: no proof = not relevant to the case at hand.

So it was your failure to read and respect the Terms that was the issue, not something that may or may not have been said during a phone conversation.

As to your current issue(s) with Virtual/Ace I think we can pretty much say that the casino has filed a PAB against you. I'll examine the evidence they've submitted and proceed accordingly.

 

[incrediblestuff]

I stayed out of this thread mostly, but have been reading it, now that bsilva's rep is "threatened" i would like to jump in and say something.
First off, i am the last person to want to defend him as i have been a bit unhappy with his new and improved site, since i feel much of it is copied from my own by whomever wrote his texts there. So now that that is out in the open, i also feel the need to defend him in this matter, call it balance.

This group of Casinos we know as virtual and acerevenue, seriously has always been the school example of what is rogue, since before 2000.
Who cares someone made 100+ accounts there, they are an orginazation that borders on a criminal institution, or at least were so in the recent past.
Besides what also has been said by many posters, that they have been down this "redemption road" on more then one occassion, in the end they never got to Oz's castle... some people that were ripped off appeared to have been paid after years, well big whoop-ti ff-in doo, but that does not mean a damn thing, except to those persons.

They have been smart enough to hire some people that have some skills in communication and even with a good heart, which were themselves probably lead to believe their employers in their sincerity, however one of those already dissapeared into oblivion, i fear the same will be the case for good old tawni here.

I am not going into a discussion, let that be clear, but to me, this is a group that will always remain the bad apple, i thank them because i somehow needed them to show me what is wrong.

Anyway, the point i would like to make is that whatever bsilva has done in his past, this really is the one group i would believe to go as far as fabrication of false emails (not so hard if you have skills) and other data, just to strenghten their case. I even see them using an employee in portugal to sign up with an IP spoofer, pretending to be bsilva, and making 40+ accounts, and falsifieng the time stamps... THAT's how high i regard this group!
So whatever comes forth, out of this instance, let's give bsilva a break, and lets focus on what is important (good point @ jetset)
Don't give them any slack, they don't deserve it.

(im really wondering if i will be the next that is accused of multiple accounting)

 

[Nifty29]

I stayed out of this thread mostly, but have been reading it, now that bsilva's rep is "threatened" i would like to jump in and say something.
First off, i am the last person to want to defend him as i have been a bit unhappy with his new and improved site, since i feel much of it is copied from my own by whomever wrote his texts there. So now that that is out in the open, i also feel the need to defend him in this matter, call it balance.

This group of Casinos we know as virtual and acerevenue, seriously has always been the school example of what is rogue, since before 2000.
Who cares someone made 100+ accounts there, they are an orginazation that borders on a criminal institution, or at least were so in the recent past.
Besides what also has been said by many posters, that they have been down this "redemption road" on more then one occassion, in the end they never got to Oz's castle... some people that were ripped off appeared to have been paid after years, well big whoop-ti ff-in doo, but that does not mean a damn thing, except to those persons.

They have been smart enough to hire some people that have some skills in communication and even with a good heart, which were themselves probably lead to believe their employers in their sincerity, however one of those already dissapeared into oblivion, i fear the same will be the case for good old tawni here.

I am not going into a discussion, let that be clear, but to me, this is a group that will always remain the bad apple, i thank them because i somehow needed them to show me what is wrong.

Anyway, the point i would like to make is that whatever bsilva has done in his past, this really is the one group i would believe to go as far as fabrication of false emails (not so hard if you have skills) and other data, just to strenghten their case. I even see them using an employee in portugal to sign up with an IP spoofer, pretending to be bsilva, and making 40+ accounts, and falsifieng the time stamps... THAT's how high i regard this group!
So whatever comes forth, out of this instance, let's give bsilva a break, and lets focus on what is important (good point @ jetset)
Don't give them any slack, they don't deserve it.

(im really wondering if i will be the next that is accused of multiple accounting)

The ends don't justify the means.

You're basically saying it's OK to use fraudulent methods to get money from Virtual, because Virtual used similar methods to prevent players from cashing out. Well, if that helps you sleep at night, then great.

For me, doing the wrong thing is doing the wrong thing, regardless of who is doing it. I've been ardent in my criticism of Virtual et al, amongst other groups, for many years. The reason? Well, they have used unethical practices to lure players in only to rip them off. IMO, there is no solid reason for me to change my POV in that regard at this point.

You have no respect for Virtual due to their past, and fair enough, yet you seem to be comfortable with a player doing the same thing in reverse. I just can't grasp that way of thinking.

I actually don't think it would be a bad thing to split this thread. It might help keep the original discussion on track.

Insofar as "slack" is concerned, I don't think either party is getting any more than the other here. The facts/evidence are yet to emerge and/or be assessed. When that happens, we will either know that Virtual have not changed at all, or that we have all been lied to by a fellow member to further their own personal agenda.

 

[KasinoKing]

Why go to ALL the trouble of hiring Greedygirl and going public here at CM just to throw it away over a measly free chip.

Is this a FACT?

KK

 

[Nifty29]

Is this a FACT?

KK

Well, hiring someone doesn't always mean paying them.

I'd be surprised if she didn't at least have her expenses covered, given her time investment, but I'm happy to be corrected as usual.

 

[incrediblestuff]

The ends don't justify the means.

You're basically saying it's OK to use fraudulent methods to get money from Virtual, because Virtual used similar methods to prevent players from cashing out. Well, if that helps you sleep at night, then great.

For me, doing the wrong thing is doing the wrong thing, regardless of who is doing it. I've been ardent in my criticism of Virtual et al, amongst other groups, for many years. The reason? Well, they have used unethical practices to lure players in only to rip them off. IMO, there is no solid reason for me to change my POV in that regard at this point.

You have no respect for Virtual due to their past, and fair enough, yet you seem to be comfortable with a player doing the same thing in reverse. I just can't grasp that way of thinking.

I actually don't think it would be a bad thing to split this thread. It might help keep the original discussion on track.

Insofar as "slack" is concerned, I don't think either party is getting any more than the other here. The facts/evidence are yet to emerge and/or be assessed. When that happens, we will either know that Virtual have not changed at all, or that we have all been lied to by a fellow member to further their own personal agenda.

No Nifty, if what i said made you believe i encourage any sort of fraudulent activity i have maybe uttered myself poorly, but i do not condone it: what i was trying to say is i really don't care about the fact that a player would have done the same thing to them that they were doing to 1000's of players, and it's not really relevant to the actual topic, which is this group coming on here and trying to yet again pull this new leaf shit.

What i mean is that whatever the outcome of this case, it bears no relevance whatsoever towards the integrity of this group in my eyes.
And what i meant with the "slack", was that we should focus on the group's attempt, and let that PAB go in in silence until the outcome is known.
It's early, and sometimes i don't word myself all too well, it still isn't my native language, and i might have given a wrong impression as such.

To further elaborate my own perception of what is good and evil, the sole reason i started an affiliate site, is to be one of the few out there that guides new players towards the right casinos, and Virtual, Acerevenue, and Pamper and their sisters, are the main reason i even started thinking about fighting back/doing something to protect others from the same mistakes so many of us made.

And, let's go to the extreme examples, i wouldn't even flinch when a known abuser of innocent people get's abused himself by some criminal.
For example, would you mind when someone that has abused your child, gets abused in prison by some scary ass criminal?
Would you really? or would you think what goes around comes around?

If someone that rips off old ladies, of their scarce pension, would be assaulted by their grandson and in the process beaten to disability (accidently), would you really care or would you think "dark justice/karma" to the extreme?

I tend to think the latter.
As it is our justice system and the adherence of our basic human rights are lacking to say the least.
International gambling laws are more or less powerless yet, and in many of these cases that is exactly why casinos such as these have gotten away with their crap for so many years.

So yes, i don't really care one bit if someone made 100 accounts in an attempt to get some of their lost funds back, (a possible scenario) be it as futile as it may be. or just out of boredom or ignorance, whatever the reason, it does not pass my care meter in any way, since it is a group of criminals (in my eyes)
that's targeted. That does not mean i would do it, or i want to encourage others to do it.
Were it any other normal Casino, i would see things different.

But, i still am not convinced this is the case, and would rather ignore that topic untill maxd finds the real story, and i am also once again pointing out it bears no relevance to the actual topic. Since bsilva has already been summoned to tone down, and did so, it's for now no longer up to us to discuss this without proof, or facts. I agree with much of the sentiments you and other posters uttered towards him though, yet am convinced that whatever the case may turn out to be, it will not in any way influence the real question, which is rhetorical to me personally:
Can Virtual/Acerevenue be trusted?

As i am dangerously bordering in a huge off-topic myself, i will let this be the end of my post

 

[greedygirl]

They have been smart enough to hire some people that have some skills in communication and even with a good heart, which were themselves probably lead to believe their employers in their sincerity, however one of those already dissapeared into oblivion, i fear the same will be the case for good old tawni here.

If you're speaking of me as the person 'already disappeared into oblivion', you would be mistaken. I never wanted to have to come out publicly with my involvement, but I felt it was important when Bryan first pulled the groups out of Rogue and into Probationary status. I continued to comment publicly, only until Tawni could be brought up to speed on things. I have other work to do, completely unrelated to Virtual and Ace, with my top priority continuing to be GoneGambling. I will, however, post from time to time, as sort of a 'progress report.'

A discussion of 'hiring' has been mentioned. I don't feel it is necessary to address this beyond the point that it is fairly well-known that I have been consulting various brands throughout the years, mostly helping clean up messes. This is no different, although certainly the most challenging.

Anyway, the point i would like to make is that whatever bsilva has done in his past, this really is the one group i would believe to go as far as fabrication of false emails (not so hard if you have skills) and other data, just to strenghten their case. I even see them using an employee in portugal to sign up with an IP spoofer, pretending to be bsilva, and making 40+ accounts, and falsifieng the time stamps... THAT's how high i regard this group!

While I believe strongly bsilva's situation is something to be discussed by Tawni, Bryan and/or Max, I have to say this comment is laughable. bsilva made a withdrawal request of $180 (the max cash-out on the coupon he used was only $100). Given the fact that members here have screamed that CM members would receive some sort of preferential, expeditious treatment, would it make any sort of sense whatsoever that Virtual would go to so much trouble to not pay bsilva at least $100, if not $180? As bsilva made it public early on that he would report back to CM members how his withdrawal went, why on earth would Virtual go to such ridiculous lengths?

 

[incrediblestuff]

If you're speaking of me as the person 'already disappeared into oblivion', you would be mistaken. I never wanted to have to come out publicly with my involvement, but I felt it was important when Bryan first pulled the groups out of Rogue and into Probationary status. I continued to comment publicly, only until Tawni could be brought up to speed on things. I have other work to do, completely unrelated to Virtual and Ace, with my top priority continuing to be GoneGambling. I will, however, post from time to time, as sort of a 'progress report.'

A discussion of 'hiring' has been mentioned. I don't feel it is necessary to address this beyond the point that it is fairly well-known that I have been consulting various brands throughout the years, mostly helping clean up messes. This is no different, although certainly the most challenging.

I was not implying you, it was a person that was here on the last attempt of Virtual to make due.
I think Marty was his name.

While I believe strongly bsilva's situation is something to be discussed by Tawni, Bryan and/or Max, I have to say this comment is laughable. bsilva made a withdrawal request of $180 (the max cash-out on the coupon he used was only $100). Given the fact that members here have screamed that CM members would receive some sort of preferential, expeditious treatment, would it make any sort of sense whatsoever that Virtual would go to so much trouble to not pay bsilva at least $100, if not $180? As bsilva made it public early on that he would report back to CM members how his withdrawal went, why on earth would Virtual go to such ridiculous lengths?

Good that you find it laughable, but i don't, i think if you look into some of the stories that were told about Virtual (remember the one about the person that actually wentto their offices to get his money back and was severely manhandled?) i think it's more laughable that you would possibly throw away your good rep trying to defend this group?

If they have such low ethics, why would they not go to such lenghts? it's all about the money...

 

[maxd]

how does she knew my username?

... maybe shouldn't have written your name in your profile.

The casino rep apparently checked his account here in the forum (yes, he has his full name listed in his profile) ....

For the record:

 

[dunover]

If you're speaking of me as the person 'already disappeared into oblivion', you would be mistaken. I never wanted to have to come out publicly with my involvement, but I felt it was important when Bryan first pulled the groups out of Rogue and into Probationary status. I continued to comment publicly, only until Tawni could be brought up to speed on things. I have other work to do, completely unrelated to Virtual and Ace, with my top priority continuing to be GoneGambling. I will, however, post from time to time, as sort of a 'progress report.'

A discussion of 'hiring' has been mentioned. I don't feel it is necessary to address this beyond the point that it is fairly well-known that I have been consulting various brands throughout the years, mostly helping clean up messes. This is no different, although certainly the most challenging.



While I believe strongly bsilva's situation is something to be discussed by Tawni, Bryan and/or Max, I have to say this comment is laughable. bsilva made a withdrawal request of $180 (the max cash-out on the coupon he used was only $100). Given the fact that members here have screamed that CM members would receive some sort of preferential, expeditious treatment, would it make any sort of sense whatsoever that Virtual would go to so much trouble to not pay bsilva at least $100, if not $180? As bsilva made it public early on that he would report back to CM members how his withdrawal went, why on earth would Virtual go to such ridiculous lengths?

You're a brave woman, taking on the task of polishing a turd.

 

[mattsgame]

Given the fact that members here have screamed that CM members would receive some sort of preferential, expeditious treatment, would it make any sort of sense whatsoever that Virtual would go to so much trouble to not pay bsilva at least $100, if not $180? As bsilva made it public early on that he would report back to CM members how his withdrawal went, why on earth would Virtual go to such ridiculous lengths?

Nothing to do with bsilva case and nothing against you but this is what players have been asking for 10 years. Why do Virtual go to such lengths not to pay such measly amounts to players or take 2 - 6 months to pay players these same amounts with ridiculous excuses.

These are the kinds of things that are running through peoples minds here at CM I am afraid. You might say it is ridiculous of them (not saying they are doing it to bsilva, I am not getting involved there) but we have heard it all for 10 years from Virtual.

 

[vinylweatherman]

For the record:

View attachment 44211

This is rather careless!!!

I am sure Facebook allows you to set up a proxy "username", rather than use your real name (which Facebook insist you use for their site), when it comes to linking your Facebook to external sites. This should prevent people from trawling external fora to see if they can find the real people behind the posts. This is probably the least damaging use, a rep tracing a poster's account after they have made a specific complaint regarding their account at said casino.

From just this one test account, Virtual should have all the necessary personal details for bsilva, and as he states his innocence, this data will all be correct. The question now is whether they were right in making the link from this to those 40+ accounts from 5 years earlier.

Have they blighted the whole of Portugal with this "can never withdraw" term just because a couple of groups from there went on a mass gnoming spree at their casinos some 5 years ago? That's just laziness on the part of the casino, kick an entire nation to the kerb rather than deal with the small number of individuals from there causing the problems. This is an annoyance not just at Virtual, it caught Bsilva out before, and I am pretty sure it was Main Street due to the mention of the 100x WR. He lost the case because it was there in the terms, not because it was fair or right for them to have such a term. The term meant that Main Street didn't make the grade when they tried to get reaccredited a short while ago, something they lost because of excessive delays of 14 days in paying even non US players.

This is the main problem with the PAB process, you can lose "unfairly" if the casino has covered their ass properly when implementing an unfair policy.

 

[bsilva028]

vinyl
may iask a question that is and at the same not related not to my problem but to virtual and / or other brands

in a site, says that "companys licensed in costa rica are not allowed to take uk players due to the laws"
however, some companies accepts licensed there accept uk players.

this is true or false?

 

[Nifty29]

vinyl
may iask a question that is and at the same not related not to my problem but to virtual and / or other brands

in a site, says that "companys licensed in costa rica are not allowed to take uk players due to the laws"
however, some companies accepts licensed there accept uk players.

this is true or false?

You would be better to ask someone with a working knowledge of UK Law. Vinyl can only give a lay person's opinion at best.

The fact that some DO accept UK players kind of answers your question anyway, no?

@Cleveland

Restraint is far better when it comes to forum essays with little or no relevant content. Some of it might be interesting, and even accurate sometimes, but it's like me talking about the shelf life of UHT milk and trying to say it has something to do with multiple accounts etc i.e. it's immaterial.

It's a lesson I've learned, albeit slowly, as all that it evokes is a "Yes, but....." reply and the whole cycle starts again. Not worth it. I'll happily debate anyone who is prepared to listen and yield points, but I've better things to do than waste time with anyone who cannot.

 

[ChillBill]

I agree with Nifty's suggestion, to split the "bsilva" posts, to a new thread. Here we're discussing VCG/AR and it's convoluted enough already, without adding further twists and turns.

 

[ChillBill]

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

Then you shouldn't!

But, then you immediately contradict yourself and plant the following seed.

What I will say is that perhaps, when CM members get the full story, you may have a different opinion in this situation.

If you feel members are not giving you the respect you deserve, then maybe sticking to what you say, may change this perceived attitude... just saying

 

[vinylweatherman]

vinyl
may iask a question that is and at the same not related not to my problem but to virtual and / or other brands

in a site, says that "companys licensed in costa rica are not allowed to take uk players due to the laws"
however, some companies accepts licensed there accept uk players.

this is true or false?

I have seen that, but can't remember where. It's bullshit though, there is nothing in Costa Rican law specifying what other countries may be taken on by an operator. However, from December 2014 it will become illegal for an operator to take on UK players unless they have registered with the UKGC and been granted a secondary license. The problem is that the UK have little chance of enforcing this where the operator is based outside of the EU and uses the internet and spam, not the UK media, to advertise to UK players.

There are discussions taking place as to how this will be enforced if it turns out that operators are flouting the new regime.

It's a question for Virtual. Are they going to obtain a UK secondary license, close down operations for UK players, or carry on as they are despite it being illegal under UK law.


The above statement looks more like a site does not want the "smart" UK players, but wants to make it look like it's not their choice, but one imposed by government.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I can't even find that exact line on ANY site in Google, other than the one result which is this thread.


This is what I can find in terms of summing up the situation there:-

The internet gambling websites licensed and hosted out of Costa Rica are not allowed to take bets from local players. Instead, Costa Ricans must gamble at foreign-hosted sites. The local government does little to prevent players from gambling at offshore internet casinos, poker rooms, and other sites.

 

[bsilva028]

I can't even find that exact line on ANY site in Google, other than the one result which is this thread.


This is what I can find in terms of summing up the situation there:-

"Because of the lack of regulation in this jurisdiction, it does not appear on the white-list of the United Kingdom Gambling Commission. As such, gambling sites based in Costa Rica cannot market their services to UK residents."

Xhttp://www.gamblingsites.com/online-gambling-jurisdictions/costa-rica/

 

[vinylweatherman]

"Because of the lack of regulation in this jurisdiction, it does not appear on the white-list of the United Kingdom Gambling Commission. As such, gambling sites based in Costa Rica cannot market their services to UK residents."

Xhttp://www.gamblingsites.com/online-gambling-jurisdictions/costa-rica/

That doesn't stop them using things like spam, the internet, or direct mail. What this DOES mean is that media controlled by UK based companies are not allowed to carry ads for non whitelisted jurisdiction casinos, hence no TV ads or program sponsorship for groups like Virtual. However, they DO market to the UK, and have one brand specifically aimed at the UK market, Cirrus Casino UK. It's marketed via affiliate sites, and it is down to the owners of these sites to comply with UK laws if applicable. They are probably not, because no doubt the sites are not legally based in the UK, even if the webmaster controlling them is. Spam is beyond the control of law in any case. Much of what spammers do is illegal, so they may as well spam casinos that it isn't legal to market to UK players as well.

The whitelist system will be dead next year in any case, so operators now have to look at getting secondary licenses, and they may not necessarily have to be based in one of the current whitelisted jurisdictions because for UK players, they will be regulated under the secondary license, whatever regulation (or lack of) comes with their primary one.

 

[maxd]

This is the main problem with the PAB process, you can lose "unfairly" if the casino has covered their ass properly when implementing an unfair policy.

No, it's not a problem with the PAB process, it's a problem with any complaints-processing service that deals with internet gambling. If you disagree please feel free to elaborate -- under a new subject heading SVP -- and provide details to substantiate your accusation. Otherwise I think we can all write this of as more bombast from the Master Of Soapboxes.

[later: this post and any responses to it have been relocated here.]