Ghostnipple

You can post your grievance in this forum or any other forum, if it is a legitimate complaint, reasonably presented, and factual then others who have had similar issues with the same casino, may be able to offer you some advice. More importantly there will be at least some public record of your grievance which is available to a search. One occurrence of bad practice is not going to prove anything either way, but a record of repeated bad practice by a casino operator, is going to seriously damage their reputation. I might just add that aside from @Afi4wins reply, it is surprising that nobody else here thought to take your comment seriously and to offer you advice. While I don't fully agree with your sentiment, considering the responses to your post, I can understand why you feel the way you do.

oh ok then, well have a good day.

HI, Sorry I've been busy lately, is there something you wanted to ask me?

Yeah you see the thing is the casino's are facing an ever changing landscape and almost on a daily basis they have to adapt to political, economical, social, technological and legal issues. The sector is highly competitive and the ability to adapt quickly must be in their blood to survive. The complaints AGCC's process is something they are adapting too and the way they are doing it is by moving most if not all potential complaint's under the umbrella protection of their Terms of Service. AGCCS does not entertain complaints that fall under ToS. So what is going to happen is that the AGCCs is going to become less relevant over time unless it also adapts. Part of the problem that is emerging as far as I can see is the inability to understand that someone can be both supportive and critical at the same time. However AGCCS can do what it wants. Personally I'm just trying to figure out is it worth my time.

I agree with you there but sometimes I have to go a long way around to make a point, apologies for that.

Apologies I have allocated 20 mins for forum discussion today, now I have other priorities. But rest assured your posts will get all the attention I believe they deserve. Its a nice sunny day here and I'm going to take the dog for a walk. You enjoy your day or evening there.

Sorry to go a long way about it. But do you see my point about the value of the complaints procedure over forum discussion? How it provides a level and fair platform for the player to make their arguments in a safe space and for those arguments to be judged on their merits against the casino's arguments. It has long been standard practice insome casino's to use their own staffing resources to derail undesirable forum discussion, make personal attacks and otherwise attempt to drown out a player's voice. This is unlikely to happen in the complaints procedure. It is also why I believe complaints relating to Terms of Service deserve a similar platform, as casinos seek to move all complaints under the umbrella of ToS.

It seems we agree, thank you for your support and for illustrating my point.

Im sorry I dont understand what you are talking about.

Well the discussion is enlightening, sometimes its not what is said that provides insight but how it is said that gives you your answer. As I have stated before the complaints process has value as it protects the single voice by being drowned out by those who have the gatekeeping access, the resources and those who can martial the numbers to drown out that voice. Personally I support the process for that reason, but that doesn't mean it can't offer more value to the player than it currently does.

Sir, I notice you have made no attempt to clarify your statements regarding the structure of the AGCCS team. I have asked you twice already. I'm not here to argue, I wish to be proven wrong and I'm inviting you do assist me in that. I'm looking for transparency and I'm look for details. If neither exist I want to be sure about that. Because again where money is concerned both details and transparency matter.

Sir, I notice you have made no attempt to clarify your statements regarding the structure of the AGCCS team. I have asked you twice already. I'm not here to argue, I wish to be proven wrong and I'm inviting you do assist me in that. I'm looking for transparency and I'm look for details. If neither exist I want to be sure about that. Because again where money is concerned both details and transparency matter.

Thank you for pointing this out, everyone benefits from transparency I'm sure you will agree. Let me just say that when money is concerned details matter. Please consider the following two statements: a: AGCCS is not sponsored by any gambling company. b: Members of the AGCCS team are not in receipt of any finances, or benefits in kind, either directly or indirectly, from any casino. If you don't see the difference between those two statements, let me know and I can elaborate for you. Otherwise assuming you understand the difference please consider which of those two statements do you think is more reassuring to a player submitting a complaint when a substantial amount of money is at stake.

Well this is a very useful discussion, thanks for your input. I should point out that deciding whether a complaint is accepted or rejected is very much a determination that is critical to the player making the complaint.

Thanks very much for the link you sent, I had previously reviewed that page but didn't see any reference to the team consisting of "members employed by Askgamblers". Unfortunately the sections aren't numbered, which would make referencing easier for everyone. However if you have a moment maybe you could direct me to the section which gives information about the make up of the team. Thank you for your time.

Could you elaborate please on this. What do you mean "members employed by Askgamblers"? Members of what? How are these individuals selected? What qualifies them to make any determination? any information you have on this would be very useful. Thank you.

When money is concerned it is standard practice for anyone involved to make a declaration regarding a conflict of interest. So Im not sure what your point is. Are you saying that it is better that the review team dont make a declaration? or it is not possible for them to make a declaration?

Sorry if I'm being unclear. A conflict of interest arises when an individual who is either directly employed by a casino or is in receipt of financial payments (or any other benefits) from a casino while at the same time is tasked with settling disputes between the same casino(s) and a player. In this situation it is both a fair and reasonable expectation for that individual to declare any financial interests they have that relate to either party in a dispute. If there are none then they should state that clearly. This is standard practice in any scenario in which a conflict of interest may arise. I can assure you that anyone who sits on the AGCCS Team knows exactly what a conflict of interest is, and would be more than happy to make a declaration, unless of course there is a conflict of interest.

Let me give a clear example of conflict of interest. Some of you may have come across The Crypto Gambling Foundation, or you may have seen this badge on the front page on a number of websites. Stake.com list this organisation under their licenses section of their website and state that "they are proud to be a member of their network". If you go to that site you won't see any list of the directors, they don't list the chairman or the secretary or give any information about the individuals that constitute The Crypto Gambling Foundation. The reason they don't give that information is because Stake.com created the crypto gambling foundation in 2018. They awarded themselves instant membership and they alone determine which casinos they give membership to. This is a deception, it gives the player the impression that a third party independent organisation has licenced Stake.com as a verified operator. Players regularly send complaints about stake to the crypto gambling foundation which are ignored because they go to staff employed by stake.com. This is what is known as misrepresentation (see points 2 and 4 above). So my point is when an organisation does not tell you anything about the individuals who make up that organisation or how or why those individuals are chosen. Then it's probably because they don't want you to know. Stating clearly who is actually involved or appointed to roles within an organisation is standard practice as it reassures stakeholders that there is no conflict of interest.

Ok well so long as they dont receive any money from casinos then there is no conflict of interest.

yes I'm not asking for their names. I'm just wondering are they all casino personnel or is it a mix of players and casino personnel or is it all players. I would hope for a balance between casino personnel and some players (who have no vested interest in a casinos financial success)

Terms of service is essentially a contract between the player and the casino. It is important that the player reads and understands the Terms of Service and wherever they have doubt, they should seek clarification from the casino before making a deposit. Agreeing to a contract without reading it could be considered as negligence on the players part and to my knowledge negligence is not a defence in any court of law. However assuming a player has read the Terms of Service and has understood them in what would be deemed as a reasonable understanding by a reasonable and fair minded individual, based on how the terms are phrased. There are a number of situations which may make the contract between a player and casino voidable: Fraud wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in the casino's financial gain. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation is a material misstatement of fact that induces a player to rely on a statement the casino has made. Duress Duress means the use or threat of force to convince a player to act according to the casino's wishes. Undue Influence Undue influence arises when one party unfairly takes advantage of another party by using a position of trust, influence, or confidence. Mutual Mistake A mistake by both parties regarding material facts or circumstances relevant to the contract. Unilateral Mistake A unilateral mistake about the basic assumptions of the contract will only make the contract voidable when the casino knew or had reason to know of the other player's mistake. If the same mistake happens repeatedly to a number of players and the casino does nothing to rectify the terms leading to the mistake, this can provide evidence that the casino had reason to know that the terms of the contract will most likely lead to player's being mistaken. -adapted from Voidability of a Contract - Explained, Gordon J., September 2021, https://thebusinessprofessor.com/ Can anyone tell me who are the individuals that make up the Complaints dispute team? Ignoring "best practice" considerations, it would be standard practice for this to be stated very clearly on site as it reassures readers that there is no conflict of interest in how decisions are made. Such a declaration is conspicuous by its absence, however it may simply be due to ignorance or a mistake. Please note, Im not a legal advisor and my opinions should not be taken as legal advice, I simply want to expose players here to some ideas and concepts that they may not have considered previously.

Well what they are doing is with senior VIP accounts in good standing, denying those players the ability to withdraw their own money when they have won. They are demanding Personal Identity data which has a market value of $350 US dollars, per account. Data which they stipulate in their privacy documentation, they can sell to anyone prepared to pay for it. Curacao does not currently require Casinos to implement KYC on player accounts, so there is no legal framework protecting the players data. To top it off the player database was compromised twice in the last 2 months internally. So the casino has demonstrated an inability to secure players data. No player in their right mind would give their personal data to Stake.com. So what happens in effect is the players money is held to ransom, "we may let you withdraw , your money but only if you give us what we want." I cant think of a better example of both coercion and extortion. The support staff inform the player they can't withdraw but they can keep playing with the funds, so they encourage the player to play with the funds which they willl eventually lose, and as soon as that happens, All requirements for KYC Verification documentation melts away. But because all of that behaviour stems from the casino's ToS, Askgamblers has already told the player they cant help them. So what Im saying is, if a player reads all that, they are not likely to deposit to that casino. But without the data players wont necessarily be aware of the trap they are about to walk into. BTW "mutual misunderstanding" is defined in contract law, and where it is proven to exist, it will invalidate a contract. So it is unfair of Askgamblers to suggest that a misunderstanding is the fault of the players, and they should just take that hit. "misunderstanding of the specific casino terms and conditions is not an excuse" https://www.askgamblers.com/submit-complaint/bonus-terms-violation It is established grounds to invalidate the service agreement, making the contract null and void. Knowing these things is very useful when you are dealing with casinos.

Consider this statement from a Terms of Service. then consider this statement from the management team who wrote to me specifically to inform me that verification is not compulsory. At least once a week they send the following: There is a contradiction here between the Terms of Service and the email communication. Stake will withhold a players funds demanding a range of documentation, stating that the player can't withdraw unless they provide that documentation, which contradicts the email from the team stating that verification is not compulsory. What it should say but does not say is: Verification is not compulsory unless you try to withdraw, then it is compulsory. This contradiction can easily lead to "mutual misunderstanding", and evidence of mutual misunderstanding will invalidate a terms of service agreement.

these are all valid points, and grounded in your experience, I have had some experiences that give me a slightly different perspective, and that perspective does not negate your own it just adds some insight, to an ever moving ill defined hard to pin down kind of problem.