Ghostnipple
-
Posts
94 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Ghostnipple
-
-
oh ok then, well have a good day.
-
On 3/25/2023 at 9:51 PM, cocopop3011 said:
I’ll check when I’m home. Although I’m shocked! Maybe I was not clear enough in my replies to him. And if it is him, maybe this is why he was banned from the previous forum.
HI, Sorry I've been busy lately, is there something you wanted to ask me?
-
41 minutes ago, pinnit2015 said:
First and foremost, whilst you can't eliminate the risk you need to use a complaints process you can reduce the need by due diligence on both the casino and the terms ( and i do agree with you on the points of unenforceable terms possibly being rolled out)
Subject of ADR's v 'Informal' processes - i prefer the latter. I think it is more transparent than faceless ADR rulings. I also think, you get a good rep like Olle at Bitstarz you'll have a better chance of getting heard than a faceless ADR - bare in mind as well, where we can see the casino reply to complaints (on either a forum and/or a complaints process) it helps: true, the casino may be playing a PR exercise but it allows them to demonstrate they're not always the bad guy - players have a convenient tendency to leave out critical information.
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. -
18 hours ago, pinnit2015 said:
Quick point about conflict of interest declarations....they're generally limited/useless as a control against wrong doing.
Fine, if you're an employee with no intention of doing malfeasance, managers don't want employees having their integrity questioned (and therefore go: you can't look at this because that's your brothers company so i'll give it to John instead etc), use by HR in disciplinary cases.
Years ago we were looking at a fraud and connections between people/companies: ah, there's CoI declarations, why wasn't that picked up? Because you'd have be be pretty thick to declare an interest and then engage in skullduggery (or, maybe genius: of course he wouldn't say that and do that: it's too obvious)
I agree with you there but sometimes I have to go a long way around to make a point, apologies for that.
- Blackjax and pinnit2015
-
2
-
5 minutes ago, Blackjax said:
Why do you feel so? Why do you think the casino is always wrong and the player is always right?
Lets talk about your case and the reason why you are here. Our forum only has admin who belongs to AG and rest of us are independent forum members.
Share with us your case we will talk about it and share our input. You are the person asking about AG's transparency without being transparent yourself. I have read your first post where you are saying why you should share your personal details in order to get money. Now you are saying everything needs to be transparent where money is involved. You are jumping both ways. That is not how discussions happen. Be transparent yourself and all of us here will guide you.
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.
-
On 3/10/2023 at 4:04 PM, Afi4wins said:
@Ghostnipple Are you referring to Askgamblers' AGCCS Team?
If so, then only an admin staff ( @cocopop3011 or @ValDes ) can give you an answer. We members do not know who the team are.
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.
-
17 minutes ago, Blackjax said:
To further assist you please tell me what terms did you break at the casino because where money is concerned both details and transperency matter.
It seems we agree, thank you for your support and for illustrating my point.
-
1 minute ago, Blackjax said:
I have made it clear multiple times how the structure works within AGCCS, its your inability to not understand. Its called playing victim card. You know you broke casino terms and you are now beating around the bush to find loopholes in a system which is transparent.
I would like to repeat myself. Please tell me what terms did you break because where money is concerned both details and transperency matter.
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.
-
19 hours ago, Blackjax said:
@Ghostnipple what was your conflict with the casino where you broke terms or you think that casino was unfair to you?
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. -
20 minutes ago, Blackjax said:
@Ghostnipple what was your conflict with the casino where you broke terms or you think that casino was unfair to you?
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. -
28 minutes ago, Blackjax said:
Bro you are not a baby that needs to be spoonfed everything. You should make some effort to go through the site.
Let me do you a small favour
https://www.askgamblers.com/complaint-guidelines
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. -
11 minutes ago, cocopop3011 said:
AskGamblers DO NOT make the determination! The end result of a complaint, once opened depends on how the casino or player responds.
AskGamblers staff are trained to decide whether or not conplaints are accepted or rejected based on the guidelines you see when you try to submit a complaint.
BUT once that complaint is open - it’s down to the casino and player to communicate with each other. Both parties must provide evidence to jack up their side of the argument.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.
-
45 minutes ago, Blackjax said:
The complaint review team consists of members employed by Askgamblers. These members review each complaint manually and if these complaints are not breaking casino terms
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.
-
35 minutes ago, Blackjax said:
The complaint review team consists of members employed by Askgamblers. These members review each complaint manually and if these complaints are not breaking casino terms then they are sent to casinos representative.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Blackjax said:
How on earth are you even taking to the conflict of interest point. Do you have any idea how many casinos are there? Is it possible to have people from casinos to be made part of AGCCS team?
The complaint review team consists of members employed by Askgamblers. These members review each complaint manually and if these complaints are not breaking casino terms then they are sent to casinos representative. That is the time when casinos get involved. Then the complaint is open and all dialogues baring ones with sensitive information can be seen by everyone.
You should go to the complaint section and read one active and one resolved issue to get a better idea.
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?
-
19 hours ago, cocopop3011 said:
What do you mean by casino personnel? AG staff do not work at or employed by any casinos.
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.
-
23 minutes ago, Afi4wins said:
@Ghostnipple Are you referring to Askgamblers' AGCCS Team?
If so, then only an admin staff ( @cocopop3011 or @ValDes ) can give you an answer. We members do not know who the team are.
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.
-
Fraud
-
2 hours ago, Afi4wins said:
Your points taken @Ghostnipple
However, the ToS states RESERVES the right...meaning, they can do it at anytime or whenever they need to, although is it NOT compulsory, not even upon any withdrawal request other than the 1st withdrawal.
The correct way to state that ToS would be 'reserves the right to carry out additional KYC verification purposes AS AND WHEN NEEDED, AT OUR DISCRETION, for any withdrawal.'
If an account is already verified, it doesn't make one more KYC verification procedure compulsory upon a withdrawal request, UNLESS, the last verification was done over 1 or more years ago, or the casino's management team feels that one new verification is needed (at their own discretion).
This sort of nuisance has happened to me at some casinos before, but luckily not at all casinos. Only fussy casinos tend to do this.
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.
-
On 3/5/2023 at 10:02 PM, Afi4wins said:
@Ghostnipple I don't know if you are aware or not, but such complaints levied against any casino can be viewed and read by clicking on the casino review section, then scrolling down to the complaints list near the bottom of the page, then clicking on any one of the listed complaints. There's also a 'COMPLAINTS' button at the top where anyone can search for the type of complaint that they want to get info on. There's really no need to duplicate or replicate such info in the forum. Below is just one quick example of a complaint against Bitstarz casino that was rejected by the AGCCS Team.
The next question is...how many readers (new or old) would even bother to search for such info just for knowledge's sake, unless they are caught in a similar situation?
Experienced AG members would know how to get such info, ie, by clicking on the relevant casino review and looking through the complaints list, but new readers wouldn't know how to go about it, even if AG could publish a comprehensive list of complaints somewhere in its website for readers' reference. Nonetheless, I bet not many would bother to go through such a hassle to get the info they want.
It's a lot easier for them to simply put forward a question in the forum, albeit a new topic, which would get much quicker responses and answers from AG and its members.
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.
What to do when you can't even trust askgamblers?
in Suggestions and Feedback
Posted
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.