Announcement from the GRA concerning Hilo and ReelDeal games

[The Dude]

I've just received the statement from the Gibraltar Gambling Commission concerning the Hilo and ReelDeal games.

Please bear in mind that commenting is to be expected, but members who chose to turn this into a self-serving forum circus will be dealt with appropriately. I am out this week, but the moderators will be monitoring this for any questions or valid comments. Thanks!

Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner’s response to allegations on Casinomeister in December 2012/January 2013 (repeated elsewhere) regarding Hilo and ReelDeal games.

I must first make clear that, given our knowledge and experience of our licensees, their content suppliers and their testing/test house procedures, this case never had any of the dishonest elements referred to by the thread, which seemed to take over its focus, and were repeated in the thread and elsewhere as if established fact. Whilst we keep an open mind on such issues, and have seen in other jurisdictions that it is possible for dishonest operators or software producers to enter the remote gaming industry and thrive, in Gibraltar we proactively guard against this by a very restricted licensing policy (only 25 licensees, all leading European/US suppliers). As a consequence we are able to start from the position that all of the operators involved in this incident are well known to us, are well established and subject to respected corporate and personal licensing regimes here and/or elsewhere. That said, here and elsewhere, mistakes can happen, bugs do occur.

Equally so, it was apparent to us from the moment the ‘katie91’ thread was initiated that the author was involved in some form of fraudulent activity. The posting simply did not ring true and should have set off the alarm bells of any experienced reader or regulator. Again, that does not preclude the author from making accurate or useful observations, but what it does do is render his credibility and the credibility of his evidence as close to useless, especially in the context of regulatory action. Anything such a witness says has to be taken with a huge degree of scepticism. If you doubt this, play the facts back against yourself: you are wrongly accused of dishonesty by a person who is dishonest; how should the regulator react? Dishonest complainants get little sympathy from us, they are not a platform on which you can build regulatory action. Indeed, they mean you have to cross check and double check absolutely everything, because you don’t know where the lies start and end.

A third important element was the contributions to the thread by people with biased perspectives. This is why we asked Elliot to take it down (which he declined). The words ‘kangaroo court’, ‘hysterical witch-hunt’ and ‘stoking the flames’ come to mind when reading many contributions. This is aggravated by us knowing who some of the contributors are, the irregular practices some of them engage in themselves, and the agendas that some of them are pushing. These comments do not apply to all of the contributors, but many of them reading this will know that they too have ‘dirty hands’ in terms of their own account activities, or were pursuing private agendas rather than properly assessing the merits of the complaint.

Fourthly we, as a public authority, must operate within the law. We must apply the rules of natural justice, and give any named parties accused of regulatory failings the opportunity to research and explain how and when the alleged failure occurred. We must then test and check that explanation, which is likely to lead to more questions, and the process may repeat itself a number of times as each party becomes satisfied that the explanation ‘makes sense’ and all other notions can be discounted. This process may also lead to us reviewing our own requirements in terms of how the game error got through the testing and reporting process and how we investigated it; indeed, due to a small but unacceptable number of incidents during in 2012 where game bugs were discovered or reported to us later than we expect, we have amended our own processes, as have a number of our operators. During the lifecycle of this complaint we have also had to deal with numerous other licensing cases and regulatory issues where those parties were at least equally able to claim our time and attention as were the drivers and issues in this matter.

Turning to the game itself. We have had detailed and repeated conversations with all the suppliers involved and with advisers outside that circle. The origins of the discrepancy between Play for Real (PFR) and Play for Fun (PFF) and the paytable error on PFR rest in the creation of the games. The HiLo game was created in 2003/4 and is derived from a well established machine game. Reel Deal is a skin of the game and was created a few years later but uses the same underlying programme. The games have always been supplied as PFF and PFR.

In the period 2004 - 2008 and beyond there was no overt requirement by regulators for PFF and PFR to have identical features and performance. Indeed, in some jurisdictions this is still the case, but since 2008 more and more regulators have made this a stipulation, generally, with the alternative that if the games are not identical, this should be made apparent in the game rules. The upshot of this situation is that apparently identical games on PFF and PFR can have different performances if the rules make this clear. So differences are not absolutely disallowed, but they should be identifiable and should not mislead the player of the game in a material way. That said, most European licensed operators have moved towards making PFF and PFR ‘identical’ or as close to as practical.

It must also be recognised that PFF is a relatively little used feature of most operator’s facilities when compared to PFR, and most if not all players realise that PFR games are weighted for the house to win overall, with most customers losing, and only a small number of customers making wins of any scale. Let us not delude ourselves that PFR games are designed so that the house doesn’t win but the players do. The reality is that the house, overall, and a small number of players, will win, the rest will lose.

The original HiLo game used an RTP/maths methodology known as ‘Fixed Price’ but with different RTP and RNG’s for PFF (100%) and PFR(96%); in very simple terms, the PFR game logic amounted to each customer choice producing an RNG number between 1 and 10,000, with numbers below 4800 winning and numbers above, losing, creating 96% RTP entirely randomly and a house win of 4%; the PFF gave a 50:50 chance. The RNG’s themselves were different for PFF (Flash) and PFR (Server integrated) as the games did not need to be identical.

In 2006 a second version of the game mechanic was produced but using a different game logic known as ‘Fixed Odds’. In this case the game logic for both versions was 50:50 on the player’s choice, but the payout for winners was less than evens, again producing an overall house win of 4%. As the payout was less than evens both PFF and PFR versions had RTP’s of 96% and the versions also used different RNG’s.

Operators were able to offer either the Fixed Odds versions or the Fixed Price versions. Both games were in use with a very small number of operators.

We have studied the use of these games and in both versions, to the overwhelming majority of customers, they are low priority, low interest games, but they can produce a positive income stream to operators. I will also make the point at this stage that any material variation of theoretical RTP created by the game mechanic is invariably reflected only in how long the customer’s deposit lasts, rather than his or her eventual losses or winnings. Some players may end their game session ‘up’, but games like these, with low turnovers and relatively low prize values, do not produce, and bugs do not prevent, ‘jackpot winners’, because there are none in the game structure. These are ‘churn games’ played by legitimate players for entertainment, with occasional prizes, but overall with players re-spending and ultimately losing their deposits. Shading up and down the RTP only extends or shortens the play time, with the possibility of more players stopping playing or moving games whilst in credit the nearer the RTP is to 100%. Even with an RTP of 100%, every player will not win or even break even, though their money may last a little longer.

These games, in all versions, have been subject to independent testing and do behave entirely randomly, they are not ‘adaptive’ or illegal in any way. They do not ‘misrepresent’ the players’ chances. The error was in the production and presentation of a discrepancy in the paytables.

The discrepancy occurred over an extended time frame and due to an initial error not being detected, and it allowing a second error to occur. As is the case with errors, the record of the errors occurring is not precise. That this was ‘an error on an error’ has also made it difficult to reverse engineer and isolate the mistakes. That said, neither error affected the performance of the PFR games but they did affect the apparent performance of the PFF games and ultimately the content of the paytable for Fixed Price PFR.

In the first instance, a decision was made to put all the game versions on the same server based RNG rather than using the Flash version for PFF. The RNG change was done successfully. However, when it was done, the PFF on the Fixed Price version still operated at 100% RTP game logic, as it had been assumed at the time of this change that all the games used the same game logic (96%). Whilst this error made no difference to the random performance of the games, it meant the Fixed Price versions continued with different RTP’s.

Subsequently, the content of the games’ paytables were upgraded from static to dynamic. This was when a second error occurred. Both Fixed Price Help Files were linked to the PFF outcomes (100%) and so the Fixed Price Help File indicated that both versions had an RTP of 100%, when PFF was still 100% and PFR was 96%. This meant that, as was alleged by Katie91, a player could form the belief that the PFR game had an RTP of 100%. As I have already said, whilst this is a technical possibility, it is a commercial ‘impossibility’, it would be an error, as a PFR game returning 100% would be doomed to commercial failure. Katie91 sought to exploit this error and complained when his bot produced large losses.

Now my analysis and explanation is not going to please those who felt they had a fox (or a fix) in their sights, but in our view katie91, who we have spoken to and has admitted his actions, used false details to ‘multi-account’, and was using a bot, indeed, he writes and sells bots, so he was knowingly and deliberately in breach of the operator’s T&C’s on at least two significant matters, in an effort to obtain money in a way he knew he was not entitled to. If katie91 had used his real identity he would have run the risk of being declined or discovered; if he had asked ‘can I use a bot’ he would have been declined; so the katie91 account should never have existed, the game play should never have taken place. katie91 is the ‘villain of the piece’ whereas the thread held ‘her’ up as some kind of puritan victim of a corporate conspiracy. These were not minor breaches of T&C’s, they are fundamentals. If you want to support other players making fundamental breaches of T&C’s in order to win, or make them yourself, then you are asking for the end of the legitimate industry.

In dealing with the operators, we have expressed our disappointment to them that the game carried the defect. We have reiterated our policy of ‘bugs may happen, but they must not happen very often, or else’. The ‘or else’ being a ramping up of expensive testing processes to higher levels, delays or down time for games, lost revenues, weaker offers, nothing gained by anyone, as bugs will still occur. We have also reminded intermediary suppliers of games who perform upgrades that when things go wrong, liability isn’t split, it is multiplied – everyone in the supply chain has to take responsibility, not just the writer, not just the intermediary and not just the front end operator. They have all taken a hit from this.

Finally, whilst there are 60+ pages of thread to respond to, I am not going to do that. It is unfortunate that we have taken 4 months to publish our conclusions, but the game was taken down as soon as the error was discovered and we have had to work through the unlikely explanations and discount them, as well as the likely explanations and confirm them. The customer loss/operator gain is not significant and we see no case for reimbursements; the supply parties have been disturbed by the case and have felt the discomfort of regulatory interventions. You might want to dissect my points and continue to debate the issue, but the case is now closed, everyone needs to learn from it and move on.

Phill Brear
Gambling Commissioner
May 2013.

 

[Richas]

I've just received the statement from the Gibraltar Gambling Commission concerning the Hilo and ReelDeal games.

Please bear in mind that commenting is to be expected, but members who chose to turn this into a self-serving forum circus will be dealt with appropriately. I am out this week, but the moderators will be monitoring this for any questions or valid comments. Thanks!

I will try to be constructive here despite being disappointed that the awaited statement tells us what we knew already
1) the original poster was a bad un
2) a mistake was made in the software help file
3) The play game differed from the real money game

and seems to add one new bit of information - that the regulator is disappointed with the error but is taking no action. Indeed it is offering a defence of its licencees against malicious allegations rather than taking any action.

It is a bit of a none statement really.

As a constructive approach I suggest a list of the questions outstanding from the thread and this case. Some are direct to this one instance, others are about the regulatory weaknesses it has highlighted.

1) Why did the certification not catch this problem? How will this change in future?
2) Was the RTP of the fixed price real money version altered (varied) without notification to players?
3) Can the RTP be changed by a supplier without recertification or notification to players?
4) Can the optimal play of a game be altered without recertification or notification to players?
5) Which parties testing failed? Was it the licencee or the supplier? Indeed did the licencee do their own test as required by the licence?
6) Why do the mandatory quarterly checks of returns from games not include reference to the advertised RTP? Is it clear that these checks happen at all?
7) What measures have been put in place to prevent a re-occurrence?
8) What refunds to players will be made?
9) What happened to the extra money won compared to the advertised RTP? The UKGC precedent for a FOBT machine was that it went to problem gambling research/help but here the players are identifiable.
10) Is it possible for the fixed price available for the same brand of game to differ between licenced suppliers? (Under the same certification)
11) Is it possible to have different optimal play for the same brand of game using the same certification at different sites?

Feel free to improve the above questions or add to them.

 

[Balthazar]

Holy sh*t, the BIGGEST issue was that it's a card game that doesn't behave like a real deck of cards, and they didn't address it?

 

[spoonboy]

GRA: "If katie91 had used his real identity he would have run the risk of being declined or discovered; if he had asked ‘can I use a bot’ he would have been declined; so the katie91 account should never have existed, the game play should never have taken place."

So what? Does that mean it was ok for Betfred/Finsoft/Spielo/Gtech et al and many others to scam their punters for 4 or 5 years?

Thank goodness that Katie did break their terms and bring this cheating to the public's attention, otherwise we would not have concrete proof that BF, GRA etc are crooks - we would have only suspected it. By releasing this statement the GRA have admitted they are crooked.

 

[Balthazar]

1) the original poster was a bad un

No one gave a crap about the OP, he's irrelevant. He could be the most dishonest man on Earth and it wouldn't change a damn thing. I can't believe that they spent that much time talking about him and what he did. Very unprofessional.

This statement was as disappointing as I was expecting it to be.

 

[spoonboy]

Is Betfred going to stay on the accredited list even though they have been shown to have cheated players by offering an unfair game for several years and have refused to reimburse the affected players.

If I were an affected player I would now be suing them.

 

[Przecinek]

First of all thanks CM for posting this statement as soon as you got it.

Now what we see here is not a cover up but simply lack of understanding of what constitutes as an 'adaptive game'. We have misinterpretation of real life symbols here - namely cards. This has been brought up before, it's all written down in GCAs rules.

Just one quote
:

The original HiLo game used an RTP/maths methodology known as ‘Fixed Price’ but with different RTP and RNG’s for PFF (100%) and PFR(96%); in very simple terms, the PFR game logic amounted to each customer choice producing an RNG number between 1 and 10,000, with numbers below 4800 winning and numbers above, losing, creating 96% RTP entirely randomly and a house win of 4%; the PFF gave a 50:50 chance. The RNG’s themselves were different for PFF (Flash) and PFR (Server integrated) as the games did not need to be identical.

So instead of having different cards in a high low game, we have an arbitrary number. For a 52 deck shoe each card should have approx. 192 numbers assigned of out 10.000 (or simply 100 out of 5200). Instead the system first determines if we lose or win and then if we lose it will give as a loosing card even if we have an ace and decided to go for a lower card. How is that not 'adaptive'? This is essentially the definition of a perfect adaptive game. This is very sad and

It seems that anyone can create a rigged 90% RPT roulette and GCA will happily accept that as long as casino can prove that you had a 45% chance of win. I feel speechless, powerless etc.

 

[questa]

That is the most unprofessional thing I have ever read.

It does not read as an objective, unbiased analysis, to put it mildly.

In fact, that statement is the most disturbing part of this whole seedy affair, imo.

 

[shapesy]

the words carpet, brush,and under spring to mind

 

[deucebag]

As others have mentioned, the most important problem wasn't even addressed: We're dealing with a card game that does not behave like a card game. This is even in contravention of the GRA's standards.

I guess we already knew it, but this again shows that gaming regulators don't really care about "fair play".

 

[pokeraddict]

It is clear that GRA seems to focus on how they and their licensees were caught and not what they were caught doing. Silence would have been better.

 

[Richas]

So instead of having different cards in a high low game, we have an arbitrary number. For a 52 deck shoe each card should have approx. 192 numbers assigned of out 10.000 (or simply 100 out of 5200). Instead the system first determines if we lose or win and then if we lose it will give as a loosing card even if we have an ace and decided to go for a lower card. How is that not 'adaptive'? This is essentially the definition of a perfect adaptive game. This is very sad and

It seems that anyone can create a rigged 90% RPT roulette and GCA will happily accept that as long as casino can prove that you had a 45% chance of win. I feel speechless, powerless etc.

Worse they are not obliged to tell the player what the RTP is and even if they do tell them a RTP% and it is wrong they still face no sanction, no requirement to compensate, nothing. For any card game they are not obliged to explain the game or have the deck act as a deck......this is the GRA not inmposing their own rules. To be honest it is hard to see how they can have a high rating as a regulator when their written rules are ignored and the attitude to players is that they are fraudsters and cheaters. As a reminder this is what the commissioner told the DCMS select committee:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The issue of confused customers has been grossly overstated. Where confusion arises it is often because the brand is a UK “High Street” name, or simply because the language used is English and the customer has failed to read or react (click) to the information on the webpage indicating the relevant regulatory body. Additionally, it is universally the view amongst regulators that the large majority of complainants are remorseful losers seeking to recover losses, or customers who have knowingly breached terms and conditions in their efforts to obtain free bets and other bonuses. When these bets win, the win is declined as the customer has “cheated”. The customer then complains.

This is a regulator rated as High? High for who?

 

[binshakindown]

I am confused

I thought that the original thread was about software not behaving as stated in the help/pay tables.

I appreciate that Casinomeister posted this statement as promised.

For some reason, I don't understand the first 40% to 50% of the statement. I think the statement should be re-stated by the regulators, since I'm not clear as to what the regulators intended to state about the actual stated facts and whether the statement made by the regulators stated emotional appeal to make their statement less stating. Simply stated of course.

 

[MisterBJ]

Accredited or Not avoid those places that uses the software. Withdraw any money with them. Tell all your friends and family to do the same. Don't ever go back to them. Let them play with themselves. Games are easily rigged because they are programmed to do so. I bet if a harder look was taken. You would find it all across the board.

 

[mrmark21]

Happy I stopped playing online two weeks ago. How can I trust anything the GRA "claims" to regulate when that's the attitude they take when problems arise? How can I be sure I'm getting a fair game... Talk about brushing under the carpet.

 

[Mousey]

Thanks to Bryan for posting this statement promptly.

But... I've said in the other thread and I'll say it again (ad nauseum) it wasn't about the OP, it wasn't about the goofy paytable, it's about a CARD GAME that doesn't behave like a 52 card deck card game. It's a freaking slot machine.... or carnival game... or sideshow game... or whatever you want to call it. **tearing hair out**

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

We see that one of the most important regulatory agencies is willfully silent on the key issue -- a game that used a virtual representation of a physical device was programmed to have that device behave in a deceptively biased fashion. Biased dice. Biased roulette wheels. Biased decks of cards. By its failure to sanction, the GRA has left the door open for companies that offer online casino products to abuse the public's trust. Shame on the GRA.

 

[dunover]

Whitewash.

Quoted text black, my comments blue:

I must first make clear that, given our knowledge and experience of our licensees, their content suppliers and their
testing/test house procedures, this case never had any of the dishonest elements referred to by the thread, which
seemed to take over its focus, and were repeated in the thread and elsewhere as if established fact. Whilst we keep
an open mind on such issues, and have seen in other jurisdictions that it is possible for dishonest operators or
software producers to enter the remote gaming industry and thrive, in Gibraltar we proactively guard against this by
a very restricted licensing policy (only 25 licensees, all leading European/US suppliers). As a consequence we are
able to start from the position that all of the operators involved in this incident are well known to us, are well
established and subject to respected corporate and personal licensing regimes here and/or elsewhere. That said, here
and elsewhere, mistakes can happen, bugs do occur.

So, being a 'well known name' means no mud can stick? Jimmy Savile was a 'well known and respected' name. Please.

Equally so, it was apparent to us from the moment the ‘katie91’ thread was initiated that the author was involved in
some form of fraudulent activity. The posting simply did not ring true and should have set off the alarm bells of
any experienced reader or regulator. Again, that does not preclude the author from making accurate or useful
observations, but what it does do is render his credibility and the credibility of his evidence as close to useless,
especially in the context of regulatory action. Anything such a witness says has to be taken with a huge degree of
scepticism. If you doubt this, play the facts back against yourself: you are wrongly accused of dishonesty by a
person who is dishonest; how should the regulator react? Dishonest complainants get little sympathy from us, they
are not a platform on which you can build regulatory action. Indeed, they mean you have to cross check and doubl
check absolutely everything, because you don’t know where the lies start and end.

Indeed the author thought he had spotted an opportunity with an 100% RTP game to use bonuses and mutliple accounts
to gain free cash. He would have done if the game was playing according to the help file in the PFF version. So the
author was bent. Bit like saying if a burglar in the act of breaking into a house spots a rape being committed, the
rapist can't be guilty, or his guilt is lessened somewhat. Tosh.

A third important element was the contributions to the thread by people with biased perspectives. This is why we
asked Elliot to take it down (which he declined). The words ‘kangaroo court’, ‘hysterical witch-hunt’ and ‘stoking
the flames’ come to mind when reading many contributions. This is aggravated by us knowing who some of the
contributors are, the irregular practices some of them engage in themselves, and the agendas that some of them are
pushing. These comments do not apply to all of the contributors, but many of them reading this will know that they
too have ‘dirty hands’ in terms of their own account activities, or were pursuing private agendas rather than
properly assessing the merits of the complaint.

Ah, so two wrongs make a right? Deflection by mudslinging I call it.

Fourthly we, as a public authority, must operate within the law. We must apply the rules of natural justice, and
give any named parties accused of regulatory failings the opportunity to research and explain how and when the
alleged failure occurred. We must then test and check that explanation, which is likely to lead to more questions,
and the process may repeat itself a number of times as each party becomes satisfied that the explanation ‘makes
sense’ and all other notions can be discounted. This process may also lead to us reviewing our own requirements in
terms of how the game error got through the testing and reporting process and how we investigated it; indeed, due to
a small but unacceptable number of incidents during in 2012 where game bugs were discovered or reported to us later
than we expect, we have amended our own processes, as have a number of our operators. During the lifecycle of this
complaint we have also had to deal with numerous other licensing cases and regulatory issues where those parties
were at least equally able to claim our time and attention as were the drivers and issues in this matter.

Ah, chat until a general consensus is reached and the story can be gotten straight.

Turning to the game itself. We have had detailed and repeated conversations with all the suppliers involved and with
advisers outside that circle. The origins of the discrepancy between Play for Real (PFR) and Play for Fun (PFF) and
the paytable error on PFR rest in the creation of the games. The HiLo game was created in 2003/4 and is derived from
a well established machine game. Reel Deal is a skin of the game and was created a few years later but uses the ame
underlying programme. The games have always been supplied as PFF and PFR.

In the period 2004 - 2008 and beyond there was no overt requirement by regulators for PFF and PFR to have identical
features and performance. Indeed, in some jurisdictions this is still the case, but since 2008 more and more
regulators have made this a stipulation, generally, with the alternative that if the games are not identical, this
should be made apparent in the game rules. The upshot of this situation is that apparently identical games on PFF
and PFR can have different performances if the rules make this clear. So differences are not absolutely disallowed,
but they should be identifiable and should not mislead the player of the game in a material way. That said, most
European licensed operators have moved towards making PFF and PFR ‘identical’ or as close to as practical.

It must also be recognised that PFF is a relatively little used feature of most operator’s facilities when compared
to PFR, and most if not all players realise that PFR games are weighted for the house to win overall, with most
customers losing, and only a small number of customers making wins of any scale. Let us not delude ourselves that
PFR games are designed so that the house doesn’t win but the players do. The reality is that the house, overall, and
a small number of players, will win, the rest will lose.

The original HiLo game used an RTP/maths methodology known as ‘Fixed Price’ but with different RTP and RNG’s for
PFF (100%) and PFR(96%); in very simple terms, the PFR game logic amounted to each customer choice producing an RNG
number between 1 and 10,000, with numbers below 4800 winning and numbers above, losing, creating 96% RTP entirely
randomly and a house win of 4%; the PFF gave a 50:50 chance. The RNG’s themselves were different for PFF (Flash) and
PFR (Server integrated) as the games did not need to be identical.
In 2006 a second version of the game mechanic was produced but using a different game logic known as ‘Fixed Odds’.
In this case the game logic for both versions was 50:50 on the player’s choice, but the payout for winners was less
than evens, again producing an overall house win of 4%. As the payout was less than evens both PFF and PFR versions
had RTP’s of 96% and the versions also used different RNG’s.

Operators were able to offer either the Fixed Odds versions or the Fixed Price versions. Both games were in use
with a very small number of operators.

In use with very few operators? That's more by luck than design. PFR games are designed for the house to win
overall? Well I never! PFF is little used? How do you know? There are no logs kept on free games for a start, and
secondly I would say almost all players use free games to get a feel for the play, i.e. 'window shop' before they
spend money. What a load of assumptive nonsense. The fact is if this were any industry operating in the UK under our
direct laws, rather than a remote 'convenience' licensor, displaying one item and letting the customer buy it via
that display, and supplying a different item would be illegal. The fact that this went undetected from 2008 at least
until katie's post is disgraceful.

We have studied the use of these games and in both versions, to the overwhelming majority of customers, they are low
priority, low interest games, but they can produce a positive income stream to operators. I will also make the point
at this stage that any material variation of theoretical RTP created by the game mechanic is invariably reflected
only in how long the customer’s deposit lasts, rather than his or her eventual losses or winnings. Some players may
end their game session ‘up’, but games like these, with low turnovers and relatively low prize values, do not
produce, and bugs do not prevent, ‘jackpot winners’, because there are none in the game structure. These are ‘churn
games’ played by legitimate players for entertainment, with occasional prizes, but overall with players re-spending
and ultimately losing their deposits. Shading up and down the RTP only extends or shortens the play time, with the
possibility of more players stopping playing or moving games whilst in credit the nearer the RTP is to 100%. Even
with an RTP of 100%, every player will not win or even break even, though their money may last a little longer.

Again, although this paragraph is true enough, some players quit while ahead and it goes without saying if you play
on and on you will lose. What's the relevance?

In the first instance, a decision was made to put all the game versions on the same server based RNG rather than
using the Flash version for PFF. The RNG change was done successfully. However, when it was done, the PFF on the
Fixed Price version still operated at 100% RTP game logic, as it had been assumed at the time of this change that
all the games used the same game logic (96%). Whilst this error made no difference to the random performance of the
games, it meant the Fixed Price versions continued with different RTP’s.
Subsequently, the content of the games’ paytables were upgraded from static to dynamic. This was when a second
error occurred. Both Fixed Price Help Files were linked to the PFF outcomes (100%) and so the Fixed Price Help File
indicated that both versions had an RTP of 100%, when PFF was still 100% and PFR was 96%. This meant that, as was
alleged by Katie91, a player could form the belief that the PFR game had an RTP of 100%. As I have already said,
whilst this is a technical possibility, it is a commercial ‘impossibility’, it would be an error, as a PFR game
returning 100% would be doomed to commercial failure. Katie91 sought to exploit this error and complained when his
bot produced large losses.

This contradicts what you state above, "Even with an RTP of 100%, every player will not win or even break even,
though their money may last a little longer" In fact a 100% RTP would mean all players break even over a period of
time, and with the example of '10,000 outcomes in the RNG'you gave it would be quite quick compared to a slot. All
katie did was deposit based on a false description, whatever 'her' intentions. This shows the GRA's naivety.

Now my analysis and explanation is not going to please those who felt they had a fox (or a fix) in their sights, but
in our view katie91, who we have spoken to and has admitted his actions, used false details to ‘multi-account’, and
was using a bot, indeed, he writes and sells bots, so he was knowingly and deliberately in breach of the operator’s
T&C’s on at least two significant matters, in an effort to obtain money in a way he knew he was not entitled to. If
katie91 had used his real identity he would have run the risk of being declined or discovered; if he had asked ‘can
I use a bot’ he would have been declined; so the katie91 account should never have existed, the game play should
never have taken place. katie91 is the ‘villain of the piece’ whereas the thread held ‘her’ up as some kind of
puritan victim of a corporate conspiracy. These were not minor breaches of T&C’s, they are fundamentals. If you want
to support other players making fundamental breaches of T&C’s in order to win, or make them yourself, then you are
asking for the end of the legitimate industry.

Well, it's a bloody good job the katie91 account DID exist! As for the chicken and the egg aspect, katie91 only
existed BECAUSE of the wrong game file. This is more obfuscation with smoke and mirrors; the game was wrongly
misdescribed. Also, I must point out katie91 is not attempting to sell the gambling public online games nor is 'she'
bound by GRA terms. It seems your whole foundation for defending the operators is that they 'poached from a poacher'.

In dealing with the operators, we have expressed our disappointment to them that the game carried the defect. We
have reiterated our policy of ‘bugs may happen, but they must not happen very often, or else’. The ‘or else’ being a
ramping up of expensive testing processes to higher levels, delays or down time for games, lost revenues, weaker
offers, nothing gained by anyone, as bugs will still occur. We have also reminded intermediary suppliers of games
who perform upgrades that when things go wrong, liability isn’t split, it is multiplied – everyone in the supply
chain has to take responsibility, not just the writer, not just the intermediary and not just the front end operator.

They have all taken a hit from this

Finally, whilst there are 60+ pages of thread to respond to, I am not going to do that. It is unfortunate that we
have taken 4 months to publish our conclusions, but the game was taken down as soon as the error was discovered and
we have had to work through the unlikely explanations and discount them, as well as the likely explanations and
confirm them. The customer loss/operator gain is not significant and we see no case for reimbursements; the supply
parties have been disturbed by the case and have felt the discomfort of regulatory interventions. You might want to
dissect my points and continue to debate the issue, but the case is now closed, everyone needs to learn from it and
move on.

Wow! If ever a paragraph showed the massive schism between the public and stuffed suits this is it.
You've 'expressed your disappointment'. I'm sure that has the operators quaking. 4 years plus this 'error' occurred
and you're 'disappointed'!

They've all 'taken a hit' from this. Crikey, they may have even had to take a strongly-worded letter or e-mail too.

The last piece is truly shocking. 'Customer loss/operator gain is insignificant'. Insignificant to whom? So one
customer loses 10k and overall that's very significant. If 100 customers lose 100 each, then that's not significant?
I don't understand the logic here - a thief is not a thief if the amount he steals is 'insignificant', is that what
you're assuming? So, you're admitting the operator made an 'insignificant sum' from this error. And no loss to them
as a result.

This demonstrates how on every occasion the GRA merely chooses to place more emphasis on those buying
licences rather than players, and the default mode of thought is that 'the customer is always wrong'.

I would summarize this by stating that the GRA's have neither the wherewithal to understand issues nor the will to
protect those which fund the whole damn industry, viz-a-viz the players. I can only hope that in future UK customers
can only play at UK licensed casinos whereby the licensor is also in the UK and not offshore, and those licensors
are compiled from the necessary elements of software analysts, legal experts, mathematicians and players'
representatives so that a proper system of timely analysis of problems and complaints can be mooted which caters for
all sides.

So we are left, as before, with a situation where the player solely relies on the integrity of the casino and little else.
CAVEAT EMPTOR

 

[mattsgame]

Firstly I am going to reiterate my thread Losing My Faith in The Industry

I was going to write a large post but most of what I am thinking has already been said.

What a load of word spinning, off focus deflecting crap. They haven't addressed any of the issues that were raised in the thread including Elliot's summary of the game itself. It is all about the player and other mumbo jumbo, like trying to tell us how RTP works and players wouldn't have lost out.

The GRA have done no one in this situation any favours, Betfred, Finsoft and themselves look worse and more and more like a farce or they seriously think we are all fools. Anyway, thanks for putting it up Bryan, what is your own conclusion?

 

[daywalker]

So because katie91 was guilty of multi-accounting and using a bot they think it's fair to let it all be swept under the carpet and let the casinos and software operators off with nothing more than a don't let it happen again warning?
Disgraceful.

 

[everyday]

Well if this doesn't say "Play at your own RISK" in the highest sense of the word then nothing will. Soon enough we will be back to complaining about the trees because we really don't want to see the forest. We enjoy our gambling too much.

 

[hakapuku]

This is called a license to cheat.

 

[manuels58]

Firstly, thanks to Casinomeister for bringing this document out for our knowledge and so quickly after having received it.

This "response" (as the Commissioner calls it), couldn't be an official statement, nor even a declaration from the Gibraltar Gaming Commission (GRA).
At least it can never be a serious conclusion of the problem analysis.

And why can't it be a statement of an official entity?
I will refrain from commenting the technical aspects of the document (others have already made it and let clear the document is quite poor about those aspects, actually), but I have to point out the irregularity that it shows, in regards to what should be its main purpose:

Being a "a public authority", the GRA was created and intends to be a regulator and a supervisor of the operators, in order of preventing the players - the world-wide citizens whom here are the consumers/customers who maintain this specific business active - to be deceived.​

This means that the GRA exists to accept and to investigate complaints from players against operators, and not to defend their licensees from the players.
It is the operators' responsibility to present proofs to the GRA to defend themselves.
That's how things work with the "public authorities" whose sole mission is supervising specific entities to abide by law.

It is unacceptable that the document tries to "judge" the player (and even "threatens" others!), instead of clearly states the conclusions and the consequences in regards to the several operators involved - the entities which the Commission should have investigated.
Of course the "human error", or simply the "error", is always a way-out, but to try and clear the all thing saying "those who had profits keep them, and those who had losses because of a dodgy game... we are pity", well, it's simply something I would never expect from a public entity, at least in a civilized society.

The document simply shows that the "Commission" is unable to analyse the fundamental issue that was raised and, instead, tries to whitening the faults and "bad practices"* of some (or all) of the operators involved.
* I couldn't find another classification to the lack of procedures in order of testing the games they sell and, not least, tests which the operators have the obligation to perform under their licence.

With such behaviour from a "respected" regulator, how can we players trust this industry?

In Portuguese we say "A montanha pariu um rato"!
Hope in English has the same meaning: "The mountain delivered a mouse"!

It seems to me that the "Commission" tries to pass the idea that the player/OP is the guilty one here.
Because of him, a "bad boy", all these problems of dodgy games were brought to the public knowledge, something that should have never happened for all our sakes... because "errors happen" you know!

... Shame on the GRA.

Absolutely agree.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Firstly I can only agree with all that's been said already.

Secondly I saw this one coming back in January - https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

I smell a whitewash on the horizon here, the original complainant has been bought off, we can already see the direction the 'explanation' is going to come from (human error + wrong help file), all the boxes get neatly ticked.

The OP has been branded as being guilty of 'player fraud' when he actually just breached the casino's T&Cs which they conveniently got to write for themself, and a damning editor's note has been added to discredit the thread from the start.

And we still have casinos running cheating, licence breaching games nearly a full month after the thread was started and the issue was brought to light. (Free play and real play behaving differently. And Betfred have never addressed the core issue of them buying in a 'fixed price model' for a card game in the first place.)

Make no mistake guys, this one's done, this one's toast.

I have to say that the GRA have spectacularly failed to meet even the most modest of expectations that anyone could have had of them.

Their 'official announcement' reads like the meanderings of a petulant teenager, particularly their need to dedicate an entire paragraph to discrediting and slurring the original complainant, which is breathtakingly unprofessional and has nothing to do with their actual role or indeed the entire substance of the problem they were supposed to be addressing.

As to the substance of their statement, there's an an inordinate amount of meaningless waffle in there and they completely fail to address the core issue of this being a cheating, adaptive card game that threatens to debase the entire principle on which trust between the player and casino is founded.

They then have the sheer brass neck to imply that if we as the players do not accept their nonsensical findings, we are somehow complicit in wishing to bring about the end of a 'legitimate industry'.

I was expecting to be profoundly disappointed by the GRA's response, but they have managed to go far beyond that and truly shock me with their incompetence. I'd hesitate to use the word 'corruption', but it's certainly on my tongue.

Finally, as far as I am concerned the GRA should be immediately removed from Bryan's 'high' category and busted straight down to Costa Rica status (or worse). Any casino that licenses itself out of Gibraltar should IMO think very carefully about the sham of a regulator it is sullying its name with, because as far as I can see - the GRA is slightly less use than the proverbial chocolate teapot.

32Red for example are licensed out of Gibraltar, which given what we have seen over this fiasco, means they are effectively completely unregulated. I'm not sure I want to play at an unregulated casino, however much I might trust the casino itself.

Let's face it people, if any of us here had a problem with a casino licensed in Gibraltar, how many of you would fancy your chances of getting any help from the GRA?.......

 

[Richas]

Seems to me this could be nick named the proverbial "S*** sandwich statement" or SSS for short given how well it is going down here.

 

[just play]

32Red for example are licensed out of Gibraltar, which given what we have seen over this fiasco, means they are effectively completely unregulated. I'm not sure I want to play at an unregulated casino, however much I might trust the casino itself.

This brings out my curious mind...I'm wondering how many of us will still play at these casinos?

Will players close accounts now, or will it be business as usual?

 

[maphesto]

This brings out my curious mind...I'm wondering how many of us will still play at these casinos?

Will players close accounts now, or will it be business as usual?

I don't think that 32red will lose any players at all. Maybe Chopley.

As we can see among members here, many play at unlicenced (or hidden/secret...who knows ) Lucky Club Casino and Liberty Slots.

We can hope that serious business (as 32red) move to better places.

 

[Richas]

This brings out my curious mind...I'm wondering how many of us will still play at these casinos?

Will players close accounts now, or will it be business as usual?

Oh most will play and in terms of the reputable sites most are in Gib. The bit I don't get is that the GRA is failing so miserably here that they have just stuffed the potential legal challenge by their licensees to the UK Governments Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill that is coming in ahead of the point of consumption tax on UK players.

Please contrast this statement from the GRA with this press release from the UKGC on a very similar issue where a FOBT was run with a falsely advertised RTP (oh yeah and a requirement to give a RTP figure). I will quote it in full just to show the contrast to the GRA.
Old / Expired Link

Joint press release on behalf the Gambling Commission, Inspired Gaming Group and William Hill Organisation Limited

Press release Date: 14 February 2013

Inspired Gaming Group and William Hill Organisation Limited:

Gaming Machine Supplier Inspired Gaming Group (“IGG”) and William Hill Organisation Ltd (“William Hill”) have agreed to make a joint ex gratia payment of £300,000 to the Responsible Gambling Trust; to be used at the Trust's discretion.

The payment, which is being made with the agreement of the Gambling Commission, relates to a self reported notifiable event which occurred when an updated version of a Category B3 game, Reel King (developed by Astra Games) was uploaded to the William Hill retail estate in May 2012. As a result of a technical fault the return to player (RTP) percentage advertised in the game help pages did not reflect the actual average RTP percentage of this random B3 game. Once the technical fault was confirmed, an immediate report was made to the Gambling Commission, but the displayed return to player was not corrected until the fault was rectified by the end of July 2012.

Whilst individual customers are unlikely to have been significantly disadvantaged, it is recognised by both parties that there has been a breach of the technical standards, as the required integration testing was incomplete, and that as a result customers were given incorrect information as to the intended RTP, which persisted after the error was identified. While the impact on individual customers would have been minimal, this was not in accordance with the licensing objective to be fair and open, nor with our corporate policies and priorities, which require adherence at all times and in all respects to the licensing objectives.

Both IGG and William Hill regret this incident, which revealed some deficiencies in the way in which our corporate commitment to social responsibility was reflected in practice. This has since been remedied and William Hill apologises unreservedly to those customers who may have been affected. Both companies re-affirm their commitment to comply with their regulatory obligations, particularly those around ensuring customer fairness at all times.

Matthew Hill from the Gambling Commission said:

"The Gambling Commission (“the Commission”) acknowledges that both Inspired Gaming Group (“IGG”) and the William Hill Organisation Ltd (“William Hill”) reported the fault, as required, at the earliest opportunity and kept the Commission closely informed with the progress of investigations. The Commission welcomes the way IGG and William Hill reacted once they became aware of the issue and commend the remedial efforts they have taken to ensure that the licensing objectives are given proper priority. The Commission welcomes the ex gratia payment that has been made in recognition that they would not wish to benefit commercially from this event and their agreement that the lessons learnt from this episode should be shared with other operators.

The Commission would therefore like to take this opportunity to remind all operators that:

It will hold Boards and key PMLs accountable for making sure social responsibility and adherence to the licensing objectives are central considerations.
Operators will not be permitted to benefit commercially from any failures to give proper priority to social responsibility.
Operators should be open as early as possible with notifiable events (as IGG and William Hill were) and as required by licence condition on key events or they will exacerbate the risk of regulatory sanctions."
Ends

 

[just play]

I don't think that 32red will lose any players at all. Maybe Chopley.

As we can see among members here, many play at unlicenced (or hidden/secret...who knows ) Lucky Club Casino and Liberty Slots.

We can hope that serious business (as 32red) move to better places.

What about the 3 casinos in question?

 

[LaHutti]

It's sometimes called smoke.

No one gave a crap about the OP, he's irrelevant. He could be the most dishonest man on Earth and it wouldn't change a damn thing. I can't believe that they spent that much time talking about him and what he did. Very unprofessional.

This statement was as disappointing as I was expecting it to be.

 

[maphesto]

What about the 3 casinos in question?

Ah...I saw that you used 32red in the quote from Chopley...maybe I misunderstood.

Well, I don't play at those casinos in question. There´s my answer to the question in mind.

 

[just play]

Ah...I saw that you used 32red in the quote from Chopley...maybe I misunderstood.

Well, I don't play at those casinos in question. There´s my answer to the question in mind.

No, it was me who worded (or quoted wrong)

I did mean 32Red, but I also meant the other 3 as well. Sorry.


If other casinos are licensed out of Gibraltar, what makes them different? What happens if down the road someone finds out about a gaffed game at one of them? The same will happen no? (I am very naive about casinos licenses, what that even means, my mind is always racing, so the questions just poor out of it, lol.)

 

[GOCC]

Did it really take 6 months for this?

 

[gloria460]

I can't believe that statement came from a regulator. He sounds like somebody who is in business with the casino defending them against a person who has soiled their name. This statement is unbelievable.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Interesting reading.

Old / Expired Link

Old / Expired Link

 

[questa]

He didn't even bother to run a spell checker on his ridiculous statement.
The level of contempt shown for players is breathtaking.

 

[Balthazar]

He didn't even bother to run a spell checker on his ridiculous statement.
The level of contempt shown for players is breathtaking.

His statement in a nutshell:

-The OP was a crook.
-The casino is supposed to win and you're supposed to lose
-There was an error in the PFF mode

Not a single word on the real issue: the rigged card game.

Since the GRA approves rigged card games, there's no reason to believe that they don't approve rigged roulette, rigged keno, rigged blackjack and so on.

These commissions make money from the casinos (by licensing), they will do whatever they can to keep their cash cows. They are paid to watch the people that pay them, it cannot work.

 

[Nifty29]

For one of the first times ever I'm speechless.


I can't believe this would come from any professional entity, let alone a Licencing Authority of a major Industry that involves a level of consumer trust.

Take out the tirades about the OP and who supported the OP and you're left with a few lines about what is common knowledge already. I can't believe nothing about sanctions or reimbursement or any punitive or restorative action was mentioned.

Beyond that, I just don't know what to say, but IMO Richas et al have raised some very good questions that need to be answered.

 

[dionysus]

A third important element was the contributions to the thread by people with biased perspectives. This is why we asked Elliot to take it down (which he declined). The words ‘kangaroo court’, ‘hysterical witch-hunt’ and ‘stoking the flames’ come to mind when reading many contributions. This is aggravated by us knowing who some of the contributors are, the irregular practices some of them engage in themselves, and the agendas that some of them are pushing. These comments do not apply to all of the contributors, but many of them reading this will know that they too have ‘dirty hands’ in terms of their own account activities, or were pursuing private agendas rather than properly assessing the merits of the complaint.

You might want to dissect my points and continue to debate the issue, but the case is now closed, everyone needs to learn from it and move on.

well,aren't those nasty little slaps in the face.

 

[Balthazar]

edit

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Elliot does provide licensing if I'm not mistaken.

This is false. I provide software auditing only.

 

[bigjohn]

So, basically, according to the GRA, if there is a problem with a game as long as nobody notices it or mentions it there is no problem. The only problem arises when they are required to act. If licensees pay their fees and players keep their mouths shut there will be no problems. Amazing.

 

[MisterBJ]

Im sorry, but you guys would be fools to support GRA casinos again. Draw a line in the sand, and make those casinos change the way they do business. Or they won't be getting your business any longer. GRA thinks they can treat you any kind of way. There are enough members here a CM to make GRA buckle. Please DO NOT allow them to get away with this. This could be the turning point. In which the players can show them enough is enough. We want a fair gambling environment with fair terms and fair gaming. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!

 

[mrmark21]

Finally, as far as I am concerned the GRA should be immediately removed from Bryan's 'high' category and busted straight down to Costa Rica status (or worse). Any casino that licenses itself out of Gibraltar should IMO think very carefully about the sham of a regulator it is sullying its name with, because as far as I can see - the GRA is slightly less use than the proverbial chocolate teapot.

Couldn't agree more... The GRA should be removed from the 'high' category and thrown right into the pits. Problem is though, how's that going to look for accredited casinos?

The statement from the GRA is disturbing. They sound as though their idea of a resolution is the following:

1. Blame the fraudulent player.
2. Ignore all the important questions or palm them off.
3. Give the casinos a slap on the wrist.
4. Then carry on taking fees from licencees and not regulating much of anything (which is exactly what the GRA is supposed to be doing REGULATING)!
5. Pretend all's well that ends well...

IMO the GRA is a sham: The proof is in the pudding.


P.s. As a player at these GRA "regulated" casinos I'm angry. I think we should all be. We expect a fair game. IMO there are probably more gaffed games where that came from. We just don't know about them (YET). We have all witnessed first hand what happens when these issues are reported to the GRA.

 

[mattsgame]

Interesting reading.

Old / Expired Link

Old / Expired Link

View attachment 39864

So the GRA or Mr Brear has had dealings with complaints and Betfred before?

Albeit these players went further and sued, I guess players that are aware of this situation and played the said games maybe should look at the same course of action?

Will any of this affect the licensed casinos out of GRA to accept U.K players in the future? surely the U.K regulators are not as stupid?

 

[jetset]

Like many others here I am shocked and astonished at the unprofessional presentation of this report and the arrogant, apprently biased attitude of a man who is supposed to be the independent and fair chief of a respectable regulatory body.

Can it really be that the GRA is incapable of seeing the problem at the heart of this affair - essentially a card game that doesn't behave like a 52 card deck card game? Or is that central issue being deliberately ignored and buried in a morass of accusations and equivocation?

To not even deliver a slap on the wrist not only insults the consumer, but carries the danger of setting a very dangerous precedent among operators licensed by this regulator.

This communication will do little to earn respect for the GRA as a reliable and impartial regulator, and could provide useful ammunition for lawyers countering the threatened Gibraltar litigation against the forthcoming British point-of-consumption tax. I cannot imagine the UK Gambling Commission pushing out something as unprofessional as this.

The aggressive, partisan and judgemental attitude is entirely inappropriate for what should be an impersonal, professional assessment of a set of genuinely questionable circumstances, and the strikingly negative opinion and lack of respect for consumers comes through clearly - in sharp contrast to the writer's almost subservient respect for his licensees.

Previous posters in this thread have said it all, and I find myself in agreement with most of them - if this is the attitude of this regulator, it should not be classified on CM as "high' in reliability or capability.

 

[Webzcas]

Like many others here I am shocked and astonished at the unprofessional presentation of this report and the arrogant, apprently biased attitude of a man who is supposed to be the independent and fair chief of a respectable regulatory body.

Can it really be that the GRA is incapable of seeing the problem at the heart of this affair - essentially a card game that doesn't behave like a 52 card deck card game? Or is that central issue being deliberately ignored and buried in a morass of accusations and equivocation?

To not even deliver a slap on the wrist not only insults the consumer, but carries the danger of setting a very dangerous precedent among operators licensed by this regulator.

This communication will do little to earn respect for the GRA as a reliable and impartial regulator, and could provide useful ammunition for lawyers countering the threatened Gibraltar litigation against the forthcoming British point-of-consumption tax. I cannot imagine the UK Gambling Commission pushing out something as unprofessional as this.

The aggressive, partisan and judgemental attitude is entirely inappropriate for what should be an impersonal, professional assessment of a set of genuinely questionable circumstances, and the strikingly negative opinion and lack of respect for consumers comes through clearly - in sharp contrast to the writer's almost subservient respect for his licensees.

Previous posters in this thread have said it all, and I find myself in agreement with most of them - if this is the attitude of this regulator, it should not be classified on CM as "high' in reliability or capability.

Succinctly put Jetset. I would imagine also that most of the operators licensed in Gibraltar are incensed at this report from Mr Brear. A report that took around half a year to cobble together. The GRA have it seems blown off both their feet with this report.

 

[ThePOGG]

Petition

I've spent some time thinking about this over the last day and I've come to a couple of conclusions. Firstly, while many legitimate concerns appear to have been overlooked by the GRA, this in no small part seems to be validated by the GRA's low opinion of message board communities. Alongside this I feel that the GRA may be unaware of just how extensive the damage they are doing really is - the simple facts of the matter are that for every one person who reads a message board thread and posts, there are likely many more who don't post.

In an effort to convey the true extent of unhappiness about this decision, I've written an open letter to the GRA and set up a petition which can be found at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

I'd like to encourage as many people as possible to get on board, sign the petition and let as many people as possible know about it. Perhaps this is insanely naive but if everyone gets involved, maybe we can do something about this.

ThePOGG

 

[Richas]

I've spent some time thinking about this over the last day and I've come to a couple of conclusions. Firstly, while many legitimate concerns appear to have been overlooked by the GRA, this in no small part seems to be validated by the GRA's low opinion of message board communities. Alongside this I feel that the GRA may be unaware of just how extensive the damage they are doing really is - the simple facts of the matter are that for every one person who reads a message board thread and posts, there are likely many more who don't post.

In an effort to convey the true extent of unhappiness about this decision, I've written an open letter to the GRA and set up a petition which can be found at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

I'd like to encourage as many people as possible to get on board, sign the petition and let as many people as possible know about it. Perhaps this is insanely naive but if everyone gets involved, maybe we can do something about this.

ThePOGG

You need to tidy this up if it will fly. A summary of what happened and a specific request are a minimum for a petition, linking to an open letter just does not work.

 

[ThePOGG]

You need to tidy this up if it will fly. A summary of what happened and a specific request are a minimum for a petition, linking to an open letter just does not work.

Sounds good and I'm open to suggestions - if you forward some on to me I'll make the necessary changes. It's a rather involved topic to summarize without sounding like an attack and there are several things I can think of that I'd like to happen. You know my email address.

ThePOGG

[EDIT] I've taken another look - see what you think.