What to do with the fraudsters

[The Dude]

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but over the past several months the forum has been getting hit up by a lot of newbie fraudsters posting bogus complaints, or at times oldtimers (or semi-oldtimers) drifting to the darkside of scam-city.

I'm looking for a creative solution to this besides the traditional banishment. Here are a couple of ideas, but I'd really like to hear something from you all:

a) keep things as they are. When a member posts fraudulent complaints, they are banned and never allowed back. Tschss!

b) place them into a user group that identifies them as a fraudulent player. They are permitted to continue being a member of the Casinomeister community, but it is obvious that they are a fraudster - kind of a permanent scarlet letter.

I'm just wondering if there is a way to deal with this besides the way it's being dealt with now. Suggestions - ideas?

 

[jinnia]

I voted to let them stay, but mark them as being a 'faudster', IF it is absolutely deemed that they are. And, right along with any casino owner/operator/manager who is a member that is also found to be a fraudster (defrauding the player).

 

[caruso]

I'm going to put the horse before the cart. I know it's a hard call for you, but it would assuage some of the hostility which has been generated in recent times to have an idea of just how categoric the evidence is that leads you to the conclusion that the player's a cheat in the first place. For example, Crystal Palace: do you know, or is it on oath? I don't find "oath" from either the Cloudster or RTG particularly convincing - are your chains possibly being yanked or is it categoric? And then, there were aspects of that case which are still unclear and haven't exactly left RTG with glowing halos over their heads (the password issue). That's remains all a bit nebulous, to my mind. Then there's the other matter that's got itself excalated to serious nastiness recently: is it "word of oath" on the multi-account issue from the manager who pulled out the half-baked "robot play" excuse (remember Hampton, lol) and hardly put himself in a convincing light, or did you get clear verification to your own satisfaction, but NOT based on heresay? I mean, evidence in hand - or as near as can be? (That's a rhetorical question in the circumstances)

I know you can't reveal certain matters of WHAT goes on for fear of exacerbating the problem, but if there were more clarity on these matters it would go some way to solving the problem. The question that you put is a kind of request for a headache pill - removing the symptom but not the problem.

Yeah, I know that's not exactly the answer you were looking for.

 

[rfg45]

------

 

[vgyhnji]

Bryan

You do a great job just as it is.

I have noticed something also, that of late, just as the level of these 'fraudsters' has risen, you have been equal to the task and 'smelled a rat' pretty darn quick.

If proven to your satisfaction as 'fraudsters', then keeping them as members in some 'cage' for show would achieve nothing more than a degrading of this excellent forum. They would probably only abuse any ability to post by spewing out more rubbish anyway!

Just ban them to hell and let them eff up someone else who is not as sharp as you.

As regards 'oldtimers' thats a more complicated issue which you have to negotiate with your judge/jury/executioner hat on.

The only scope for improvement as I see it, is that instead of accepting the full burden of responsibilty for a banning decision yourself, you create a panel of posters, (based on their previous records for sensible behaviour) who are given the facts behind any individual case and decide the outcome by a vote.

Choose an even number and if its a hung decision you can still have the final say!!

Keep up the good work either way.

 

[lanidar]

Jinnia is my partner and just once in a while we don't see eye to eye.
That's what a partnership is about. Working together and coming to an amicable decision.
She and I discussed this thoroughly and came to the same conclusion.

My point is that I completely agree with Jinnia.
Let the "fraudster" stay, though I think he/she probably wouldn't be too vocal.

BUT, the casino owner/operator/manager who is a member MUST also be termed a "fraudster" and treated in the very same fashion as the individual.

I don't feel that there should be a class differential. Both "fraudster's" in the same category.

Remember the movie "The Scarlet Letter"...well, these people will be remembered as if they were wearing
"The Scarlet Letter"!

 

[universexf6]

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but over the past several months the forum has been getting hit up by a lot of newbie fraudsters posting bogus complaints, or at times oldtimers (or semi-oldtimers) drifting to the darkside of scam-city.

I'm looking for a creative solution to this besides the traditional banishment. Here are a couple of ideas, but I'd really like to hear something from you all:

a) keep things as they are. When a member posts fraudulent complaints, they are banned and never allowed back. Tschss!

b) place them into a user group that identifies them as a fraudulent player. They are permitted to continue being a member of the Casinomeister community, but it is obvious that they are a fraudster - kind of a permanent scarlet letter.

I'm just wondering if there is a way to deal with this besides the way it's being dealt with now. Suggestions - ideas?

Allowing them to stay while labelling them publically as "fraudsters" is more cruel than just banning . That's why I voted for it.

 

[grabherp]

Dumb Question

I wonder what bars a banned forum user from registering with a different username? Of course he cant fill out another pitch a bitch as there he has to reveal his identity. But nevertheless he could sign up with a different username and can discredit some casinos...

So therefore I would be for marking a fraudster, but not banning him!

cheers
grabherp

 

[555YY]

i agree with caruso and jinnia

imo no poster should be labled without rock solid evidence, all i can think of is how the poor pirate would've felt if this rule was in place when he came calling

other than that, it's not fair to let casinos off the hook any easier than fraud players. if there's solid evidence that the casino has done wrong under the circumstance, why do they get a free pass?

why do some casinos get so much leniency for all the wrong doing they did in the past but if you're labled a fraudster then you're out for life?

 

[maxlevine]

I agree with keeping the fraudster. They will usually just leave anyway. If not, they'll give you more reasons to be banned. On the other hand, if there were misunderstandings, it'll give them an opportunity to prove their case.

As for the voting process by a panel, I think that was done before with very little success and a lot of resentment. I prefer one decision maker... and a bunch of posters criticizing him

Max

 

[chandra8000]

I am very new to this forum so my posts do not carry much weight, but I do search for the opinion's of others on the casinos that I intend to send my money to. When someone post a major complaint against a casino that affects their winnings or withdrawals it pretty much removes that casino from my list of places to play. I would hate to scrap a potential casino on a fraudlent claim. I would rather see the evidence kept available along with the poster clearly labeled. Giving everyone a chance to explain their side poster, casino. you and members that might help resolve the issue.
I truly value the information that I find here and the accuracy of that info is what makes me want to support this site.

 

[Simmo!]

I say "Just Ban Them" CM. Job Done. Life goes on.

It'll save you a whole load of threads about it in the future: "fraudsters" complaining about their status, people arguing over whether branding is good/bad, slander issues blah blah.

Probably best we don't even know they were here

 

[Vesuvio]

I agree with some of the comments saying that players shouldn't be unfairly labelled if casinos are going to be avoid such a distinction. In any case, I think anyone who's found to have been committing fraud will already have damaged their reputation on here sufficiently whether or not 'fraudster' gets attached to their name. Forumites tend to have a long memory!

Another issue is the degree of fraud. It's one thing to have been been setting up accounts in false names or engaging in credit card fraud, but quite another to have, say, helped your sister to play at a casino. Sometimes the response on here can be a bit over the top considering the severity of a 'crime' - and all the shades of grey in this industry on both the player and casino side (e.g. personally I see all Microgaming casinos as being complicit in fraud for refusing to correct the errors in their BJ autoplay settings).

That said, I do understand how frustrating it must be to have wasted time on player complaints that subsequently turn out to be fraudulent.

 

[The Dude]

Thank you all for some very constructive comments. As you can see this is a very complex issue, and there are no easy answers. I usually uphold the philosophy "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and will probably keep things the way they are at the moment.

A fraudster in my opinion is someone who knowingly is breaking the casinos' terms and conditions and uses this board to blackmail a casino into giving into their demands. It is also a player who knowingly is breaking the casino rules, is untruthful and makes damaging false statements against a casino. Fraudsters are also those who knowingly give casinos false IDs whatever, pretending they are someone else, or open a series of accounts pretending they are several people in or to take advantage of sign-up bonuses. In other words, fraudsters are ones who commit fraud knowingly.

A fraudster is NOT someone helping out their sister/aunt/boyfriend/pet dog with opening an account. A fraudster is not a bonus whore playing bonuses to the "t".

The term fraudster is applied to players; evil casinos get rogued.

Labeling someone as a fraudster has no joy in it, and I won't ever do it unless I'm damn sure he/she is up to no good. Under normal circumstances, I do NOT only take the casino operators word on it - but check it out using other means/3rd parties/whatever. I do my "due diligence" and don't just throw labels around for the sake of trying to cause a stir. My main concern is to protect this board against abuse.

I say "Just Ban Them" CM. Job Done. Life goes on.

It'll save you a whole load of threads about it in the future: "fraudsters" complaining about their status, people arguing over whether branding is good/bad, slander issues blah blah.

Allowing "fraudulent" players to continue to post would just lead to bashing I'm afraid, and that's one thing I want to avoid. It's easier to just ban someone - and I could explain in some detail by updating their signature. I have no problem in explaining why anyone is banned by the way. Come to think of it, when a player gets caught out, they rarely ever come back to me pleading their innocence. There is a reason for that.

The question that you put is a kind of request for a headache pill - removing the symptom but not the problem.

What I can do is to ensure that fraudulent posters are unwelcome here. Even though I do this already, I'm still looking at ways to improve this. That's the purpose of this thread.

Again thanks for the input. I am always open for interesting suggestions on how to prevent abuse of this forum.

 

[chucho]

I agree with some of the comments saying that players shouldn't be unfairly labelled if casinos are going to be avoid such a distinction. In any case, I think anyone who's found to have been committing fraud will already have damaged their reputation on here sufficiently whether or not 'fraudster' gets attached to their name. Forumites tend to have a long memory!

Another issue is the degree of fraud. It's one thing to have been been setting up accounts in false names or engaging in credit card fraud, but quite another to have, say, helped your sister to play at a casino. Sometimes the response on here can be a bit over the top considering the severity of a 'crime' - and all the shades of grey in this industry on both the player and casino side (e.g. personally I see all Microgaming casinos as being complicit in fraud for refusing to correct the errors in their BJ autoplay settings).

That said, I do understand how frustrating it must be to have wasted time on player complaints that subsequently turn out to be fraudulent.

I agree with that. There are different levels of fraud. Someone who uses fake ID's if far worse than a bonus pimp who plays for friends and family. I don't even think a bonus pimp is a bad person, he is just trying to help his people. But technically he is not playing by the terms so according to some hie is the scum of the earth. If you use labels, I think you could you a few different ones as to distinguish from the lovable bonus pimp to the super evil fake ID types. Personally speaking, I would be proud to have the words "bonus pimp" next to my name

 

[The Dude]

... Personally speaking, I would be proud to have the words "bonus pimp" next to my name

Done

 

[jetset]

Now all we need is an appropriate avatar for Chucho!

 

[Simmo!]

Now all we need is an appropriate avatar for Chucho!

one idea...

.

 

[chucho]

Done

That is too sweet! That really made me laugh I feel very special being the one to have the 1st label. My mother is going to be so proud, I finally made something of my life!

 

[jetset]

That's pretty good (and fast) Simmo, but we really need to do Chucho proud with his new image. I had in mind long white hairy greatcoat, big wraparound diamond studded shades, many rings and maybe one those big old American cars with bling bling hubcaps and perhaps a cool magenta colour scheme!

 

[The Dude]

That is too sweet! That really made me laugh I feel very special being the one to have the 1st label. My mother is going to be so proud, I finally made something of my life!

Not to derail the thread, but anyone can change the "registered user" listing to whatever you want. Click "User CP" and Edit Profile - you're given an option to change this - just fill in the blank

 

[chucho]

That's pretty good (and fast) Simmo, but we really need to do Chucho proud with his new image. I had in mind long white hairy greatcoat, big wraparound diamond studded shades, many rings and maybe one those big old American cars with bling bling hubcaps and perhaps a cool magenta colour scheme!

There is only so much one can do with and avatar and I did my best. I drive an Audi TT Roadster with stock hubcaps and I drive around with Celine Dijon at full blast, bonus pimps have come a long way. I think that the "fraudsters" should take it upon themselves and put their own lables so we could all know who/what they are and then laugh at them. After all, if you can't laugh at other people, who can you laugh at?

 

[philipfromparis]

Hi there,

I've read in a previous thread someone proposing that you, Bryan, should charge a fee with every "pitch a bitch" posted. This should help you avoiding fraudster's posts

Philipfromparis

 

[The Dude]

Hi there,

I've read in a previous thread someone proposing that you, Bryan, should charge a fee with every "pitch a bitch" posted. This should help you avoiding fraudster's posts

Philipfromparis

I'm against charging fees, and a fraudster's fee would probably bounce anyway

 

[arbster]

For my on topic contribution, I say leave them on the forum but badge them as fraudsters if they've genuinely tried to defraud a casino, rather than simply "abused" a bonus by playing to the letter of the T&Cs.

Not wishing to take things off topic, but...

I see all Microgaming casinos as being complicit in fraud for refusing to correct the errors in their BJ autoplay settings

Personally, I don't mind this as much as the fact that they have errors in their autoplay settings for Jacks or Better! At least it's possible for a player to fix the settings for BJ.