1. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
  2. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. You can find out more by following.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Sister site to Casino Max launches

    Roaring 21 has just launched - sister casino to Casino Max, and they have a special promotion for you!! .They are in the Baptism by Fire - you can check them out here: Roaring 21 BBF and special promo.


    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

BGO Exclusive Promo: 25 free spins with No Wagering on Archangels Salvation

Get Up to 25 free spins on Archangels: Salvation
No wagering requirements and No Max Win cap!

New Depositing players ONLY.
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

When I'm wrong I'll admit it!!!

Discussion in 'Casino Industry Discussion' started by AussieDave, May 31, 2007.

    May 31, 2007
  1. AussieDave

    AussieDave Dodgy whacko backstabber

    Occupation:
    Gaming SEO Specialist & Casino Webmaster
    Location:
    Australia
    Hi all,

    To bring everyone up to speed on this...

    When I discovered that CM was promoting Playboygaming.com on site I was disappointed. I've always held the strong belief that porn (soft or otherwise) should not be part of online casino's.

    I did however feel that if I raised this topic here I would be set upon by the zealots of this forum. Hence I chose to gain some feed back over at the GPWA.

    Due to confidentiality I'm unable to post or directly comment on extracts I posted to the Private member area(s) of the GPWA. However I will state here that I started a thread about my disapproval of CM promoting the Playboy Brand.

    To cut a long story short, I was very vocal about my views, not in a disparaging manner, but one based on how see CM and the role taken over the years as a watchdog site.

    Today it was posted that CasinoCity, the company that owns the GPWA in fact is also promoting the Playboy Brand.

    Apart from feeling like a total idiot...I have been left with no other alternative BUT to hand in my private membership to the GPWA.

    The stand I took against CM for promoting the Playboy Brand, is still something I wont back down on. IMHO casino's and porn shouldn't be connected.

    In regard to my Private membership at the GPWA, it would be unfair and it would certainly be unjust if I was to still hold membership, given the outcome I've learnt today.

    I wont be part of an organisation that is happy to obviously be content to sit on the side lines and allow a member to post a thread about another webmaster (CM) whilst knowing full well that they are also doing the same thing, and not disclosing this in full.

    The GPWA with its new seal states that no site will be approved for the SEAL if they are: (take from xxxhttp://certify.gpwa.org/verify/slotsgallery.co.uk/ )

    The Seal of Approval linked to this page signifies that the operator of the site is a current GPWA member in good standing who has agreed to abide by strict criteria designed to ensure that the highest ethical standards are upheld at all times and in all situations.
    An investigative team headed by GPWA's Fair Gaming Advocate has determined that this site:
    Is managed independently of the online gambling websites it provides information about or promotes.
    Respects and upholds copyright standards.
    Does not send spam email.
    Does not use malicious search engine optimization techniques such as posting spam-like comments in forums and interactive blogs.
    Does not promote or display pornography.
    Provides consumers with information extending beyond banner advertisements and links.
    Acts professionally and respectfully in its business activities.


    However, the above seal also resides on the front page of xxxhttp://online.casinocity.com/

    Which is clearly not in accordance with the above seal charter.

    One of the rules of Private membership states that a webmaster can not be connected to or promote pornography whilst holiding private membership to the GPWA.

    Rules are rules & a charter set out for one is a charter and rules set out for all.

    If these are (and it clearly is here) to be overlooked for some then it makes not only my posted thread a BIG joke, but, anything said a farce.

    Hopefully those reading this thread will understand why I've chosen to post here, and why I've chose to hand in my Private membership of the GPWA.


    Regards

    Dave (Trezz)
    GPWA - AussieDave


    PS For those of you who feel the need to trash me go right ahead, to say I wont feel disappointed is not true, I will. But, if you feel the need to do so, that's your prerogative. Mine is to know the knowledge that I can hold my head high in the fact that I hold no alliances, I'll state it it as I see it and will state so in a public forum for all to see.
     
    8 people like this.
  2. May 31, 2007
  3. hunterduke

    hunterduke Full Member

    Occupation:
    production control
    Location:
    new hampshire
    ive personally never been to the playboy casino so i have no idea how graphic it is. but my motto is..live and let live
    since i live in the "live free or die state" i guess that reflects my attitude on personal choice. if what other people choose doesnt effect me why should i care? i care as much as if they are gay..straight or both...zilch
    it simply does not effect my life in any way.
    i do respect your freedom to voice your displeasure as much as you want though
    but i think your issue can be easily solved
    just dont go to casinos that offend your own personal values

    id never go to the drown a puppy casino myself

    hunter
     
    2 people like this.
  4. May 31, 2007
  5. Da_Gambla

    Da_Gambla Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Code Monkey
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Being completely comfortable as a human being, I have no problem with human sexuality. It's been proven a zillion times over that one's sexual outlook and health affects one's outlook on life in general, and maybe judging by Hef, one's longevity as well.

    Are they actually mixing Porn with gambling, or just nudity? You are clearly willng to lump nudity into the definition of Porn, but that's not reasonable for the vast majority of civilized thinking. No offense, but someone that offended by simple human nudity might want to maybe seek some professional help.

    Lastly, Playboy is a brand. A very successful, as well as international brand. Will probably be an interstellar brand in a few thousand years. Any sound business person would be a complete idiot not to promote a brand that is so able to maintain dignity whle offering a valid product line.

    Nudity is not a bad thing. Sometimes I even shower without clothes. :thumbsup:

    - Keith
     
    2 people like this.
  6. May 31, 2007
  7. lojo

    lojo Banned User - repetitive violations of <a href="ht

    Occupation:
    Tradesman
    Location:
    USA
    I have to respect you making a sacrifice for what you believe in, Trezz. However, I'm of the mind that there should be alot more 'excitement' in some games. Especially online it is an adult business, this gambling thing. (Sure in a B&M a kid could walk by a machine)

    Adults get to make their own choices as long as they don't infringe upon another's dignity, liberty, or property (the only definition of 'crime' that I accept) or at least they should be able to if they don't live in a draconian, puritanical, victorian, or talibanistic society.

    Kudos for standing up for what you believe in, whether I agree or not. But the choice is yours to not enjoy a little mammory with your chips, and it ain't nunya bidness if I do, I'm sure you'd agree.

    Being a yank I can't play there, but I always keep a box of tissue next to my 'puter anyway, cuz I tend to cry when I lose.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. May 31, 2007
  9. dominique

    dominique Dormant account

    Occupation:
    webmistress
    Location:
    The Boonies
    I have never seen the casino, but as far as the magazine goes, I don't consider it porn.

    Personally, I can do without looking at nude women. :p But if someone wants to, it's none of my business.

    I would kinda consider it distracting if I was to play a game which one wants to play with good strategy, like BJ.

    Like I said, I have never seen it, but I doubt it's real porn. Everyone has a choice, go there or don't.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. May 31, 2007
  11. luckydabberbingo

    luckydabberbingo Full Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    webmaster
    Location:
    In A shoe
    Tell the truth Dominique ,you are waiting for Playgirl Casino to launch LOL
     
  12. May 31, 2007
  13. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    Matter of personal choice imo.

    If you feel it's pornographic and offensive to you then you're right to stand by your principles and have no truck with it, Dave. But does the same apply to your membership here?

    FTR I don't personally think it's a good idea for online gambling to be associated with real porn and I therefore think the general GPWA rule is not misplaced.

    Taking a quick look at the (Playboy Gaming) site I don't find it pornographic and I doubt that the authorities in Australia or most other Western countries would regard it to be so, but that's a subjective opinion.

    Clearly CM and GPWA feel the same way, or they wouldn't accept it.

    I'm missing something here, though - other than making your personal stand public what was the point of posting here about your GPWA resignation? Was it to vindicate your criticism of Casinomeister at the GPWA?
     
  14. May 31, 2007
  15. BBKPoker

    BBKPoker halfway to busto PABrogue3

    Occupation:
    None
    Location:
    Edinburgh, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Auckland
    Dictionary.com defines pornography thusly:

    "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit."

    I certainly think Playboy magazines do not fall under that category, unless you think the human body is obscene, that is (I don't).
     
  16. May 31, 2007
  17. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Hi Trezz,

    Sorry, but this is idiotic. If you feel that "Playboy Magazine" is porn that's your prerogative, but simply it's not. By most definitions, pornography is obscene with graphic displays of sexual insertions and body fluid. Playboy magazine has none of this. The only thing you're going to see uncovered are boobs, butts, and on occasion pubes. Playboy Casino by the way is only connected by the brand - there are no nudies there. As for articles, Playboy magazine is about as obscene as Cosmo.

    When is the last time you've been to an art museum? Nudes are common in sculpture and paintings for the past several hundred years. Do you find this obscene?

    Have you been to Europe? At most beaches, tops are optional for women, and there are many nude beaches as well. Soap commercials on television commonly show women in the bath unclothed. Is this obscene?

    When Playboy casino was launched, pornography never crossed my mind since Playboy is not porno. It's a huge brand powered by crypto that is backed by a very respected and well funded public company that has been around for over fifty years. That is my concern - safety and security of the player.
     
    7 people like this.
  18. May 31, 2007
  19. suzecat

    suzecat Dormant account CAG MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    California
    Playboy magazine is not porn, IMHO. Debbie Does Dallas..........well that's another story! :D
     
  20. May 31, 2007
  21. Vesuvio

    Vesuvio Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    Actually they have their own slot [sic] machine with scantily clad/naked women - and for instance the info panel with your balance links to a video... or so I've been told *cough* :)

    Playboy's clearly soft porn (your definition's for hard porn, Bryan). It's a matter of personal choice if you think that's a problem or not. I can completely understand your point of view, Trezz, though personally I think online casinos (and their promotion) are more of an issue than online pornography.
     
  22. May 31, 2007
  23. Da_Gambla

    Da_Gambla Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Code Monkey
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    There are clearly two types of porn defined by my cable TV company.

    Hard core is anything that shows penetration from -any- angle, and/or bodily fluids being exchanged.

    Soft core is any depiction of any sexual situation, but without seeing any actual penetration. For the actors and actresses in soft core, there isn't any actual sex going on, it's all simulated.

    Then you have the lowest common denominator: nudity

    Nudity is neither hard core or soft core, it's just nudity. The instant nudity takes on a sexual tone, it becomes porn and can be classified as hard or soft core.

    And there you go right there. If there's some nudity at Playboy casino, oh well... but I guarantee you there is no porn. I will also guarantee you that any nudity is extremely limited and quite tastefully done, or they would be threatened to lose quite a few potential female patrons (and yes, the gambling world has quite a few!).

    Much ado about nothing there. You really gave up your private membership over this... :what: You said there was a thread offsite from here.. did they not explain to you that nudity is not porn?? :confused:

    Just when you thought you heard it all, something like this gets posted...
    Thank goodness you didn't chop off your "little friend" in protest!! A private membership I guess you can live without... :D

    - Keith
     
  24. May 31, 2007
  25. Vesuvio

    Vesuvio Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    You really think the nudity at Playboy has no sexual tone :confused: Sure, it's nothing much in this day and age and I certainly don't mind it, but that's a crazy statement. Someone would lose their job at Playboy if it was true :)
     
  26. May 31, 2007
  27. Da_Gambla

    Da_Gambla Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Code Monkey
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    You might need to re-read what I said. I never said the nudity in Playboy the magazine was non-sexual. I was surmising that the nudity (if any) at the casino would be non-sexual in nature; just plain ol' vanilla nudity.

    But thanks for attempt number 14 at twisting my post and then labeling it 'crazy'. If you brushed up on your reading comprehension, I'm sure you would make qute a few less wild assumptions with people's posts.

    If there is any simulated sex depicted at the casino, then I would stand misinformed. If not, my post stands as-is.

    - Keith
     
  28. May 31, 2007
  29. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    What Vesuvio said :p

    PS. Trezz: just saw this: admirable post in sticking to your principles.
     
  30. May 31, 2007
  31. Vesuvio

    Vesuvio Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    Since when does there need to be simulated sex for it to be soft porn? My reading comprehension may be a bit shoddy, but unless I'm very much mistaken you define porn yourself as nudity which is "sexual in tone".

    Showing a naked woman when you hit a combination of symbols on a slot machine, or encouraging you to click on a link to a video of a woman slowly undressing in front of a shiny car - how in the world can that not be intended as sexual? It's not called "Naturist World Casino".

    I know you think I've got some sort of vendetta against you, but I'd respond in the same way if anyone else posted the same thing.

    p.s. if you'd read my earlier post you'd have noticed I mentioned a slot machine - you don't get many of those in the magazine - so yes, strangely enough on a casino forum, I'm talking about the casino.
     
  32. May 31, 2007
  33. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    Just a definition as an FYI to add to the debate:

     
  34. May 31, 2007
  35. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Funny how you never bothered to email me to let me know how you felt before getting bent out of shape about this in public. A heads up would have been appreciated.

    Ditto.

    Agreed but it's not porn - and it's really silly to take a stand against me or Casinomeister on this. The casino is branded with Playboy, you don't click the banner and get pummeled with spread eagled nudity or giant erections - it's a casino - pretend it's at the Playboy Club or whatever. It's not pornographic.

    I don't appreciate the way you are trying to posture yourself here - it's absolutely unnecessary. Further, I feel you're being way too judgemental on this - and you know what they say about throwing stones...

    ...think about that one for a few minutes.
     
  36. May 31, 2007
  37. Da_Gambla

    Da_Gambla Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Code Monkey
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Your reading comprehension gets worse by the post. No, that is not MY definition, I said it was the definition of our cable TV locally. They have to submit standards to city councils, and so therefore they have to try and "define" what content is what. Movies come with ratings. Anything showing nudity will get an R. Anything with repeated FULL-FRONTAL nudity will get a NC-17. Anything that simulates actual sexual intercourse will get a MA (designates soft core). Anything that shows penetration will start receiving X's.

    These are not MY definitions, they are standards where I live. And from what I gather compared to European countries, our standards are pretty damn strict. The bottom-line is, nudity is nudity, and not considered sexual. Put a girl against a car, in a forest, on a beach, doesn't matter. It's nudity. As soon as she touches herself in a sexual way, or a second person is in the picture and performng anything sexual or simulated, you've now gone into porn. There have also been definitions tested with regards to men in nude pictures. If he's flaccid and just posing, it's considered nothing more than nudity. If he's erect at all, it then turns into soft-core porn. There has been argument that maybe if a woman's nipples are erect, the same should apply? Nope, the people who dictate morals AROUND HERE say no, it's not the same, since a woman's nipples can become erect from the cold, or a breeze, and not necessarily from excitement.

    I don't know.. ask someone else. You bore me silly with your useless rants about really nothing at all. Why we're even having this discussion is beyond me at this point. Calling nudity "sexual" under any terms is not reasonable. The term "sexual" doesn't mean it causes excitement necessarily. There are certain guys who might get hard looking at a bikini picture. Are those now sexually explicit too? No... and like Bryan said, topless and nude beaches are quite accepted in european countries. Should we start boycotting Spain and France? Rediculous notion that all nudity is sexual! It becomes sexual when someone does something sexual!

    Right. It must be coincidence. A shame really.. you appeared to be one of the more intelligent people at one time... someone I thought I would probably get along with. But then you went off into this Bonus Hunter crap, and since you wear it on your sleeve everywhere you friggin' go, it's impossible to be a friend to you. That's fine... you know, I'm actually more used to being stalked by the female variety, which is why I'm uncomfortable with this situation. If I clarify that I'm in no way shape or form homosexual, will you finally bugger off? :what:

    Well, here's the post I answered:

    Nope, nothing that says slots there! I can take your word that that's what you meant, but if you don't say what you mean, don't get upset if the other person makes a mistake in responding to it.

    - Keith
     
  38. May 31, 2007
  39. henryVIII

    henryVIII Dormant account

    Occupation:
    teacher
    Location:
    UK
    Hilarious.

    Saying this in the middle of a half page rant.

    Of course teenage girls in lingerie flashing their breasts and bending over in front of sports cars is a type of soft porn. Were you brought up in a bordello or something?

    You are hilarious though.
     

Share This Page