Resolved Slotastic Voids $4800 Win With Spurious Invocation of Rule

[banned_user_20240523]

Deposited $150 and redeemed slot coupon. Met rollover, got to ~$4800 and requested payout. Slotastic claimed I violated their max bet rule and reset my balance to $150. They claimed 3 of my ~3500 bets were over the $10 limit. All my other bets were $5 or less.

Do not remember making any bets over $5, but it is possible I made a few by accident. Many games, when you reopen or refresh it, reset the bet to maximum which you may not notice immediately. However, if I had to guess, I toggled from a second browser back to my slot game and, in doing so, accidentally clipped a pay-line marker. If you do this, it activates every pay-line up to that pay-line which could give you 3 consecutive $11+ spins without noticing.

Their rule is worded, "The maximum bet for all bonuses (including cashback) must not exceed $10. Any winnings, plus bonus amounts derived from bets higher than this limit will be voided". All 3 of my over-limit bets were losers and thus I "derived" no winnings from them. I told them I was, from the beginning, aware of their terms and conditions and of the max bet rule. I had played all previous coupons according to them. I mentioned the ways that higher bets could happen by accident. I told them, "The second sentence of your rule implies that the repercussion for violating a max bet of $10 is that it voids all wins on such bets as well as all wins which can be concluded to have been "derived" from bets made from the money won on those bets. The fact that the second sentence of your rule is clearly designed to clarify the first sentence, implies that just having a bet on principle above $10 does not void your entire balance above the original deposit."

I suggested that they should be happy enough that I gifted them 3 automatic losers by accident. Their response was "Whether or not winnings were had from the specific bet, if bets above $10 are made when a coupon is active, the winnings are voided." They then chastised my "playing style", i.e., the 3 accidental bets, reiterated numerous times that I be familiar with the terms and conditions, and invited me to play their hottest slots.

When I escalated a ticket here at casinomeister. Slotastic simply echoed their position. Despite my admonishments, Slotastic has shown no interest in updating the wording of their rule to reflect how they actually act on it. Doing so could eliminate any ambiguity. Any ambiguity should benefit the party that didn't write the rules. Rules like a $10 max bet are designed to protect casinos from people who want to collect bonuses while minimizing the action they give back. They are not meant to be an arbitrary way to say "gotcha". I don't care what anyone says. Slotastic is not justified here karmatically or by the wording of their rules.

 

[hogexd]

so TLDR is they voided your winnings because of a few bets going above the max-bet limit during a bonus?

I’d suggest spacing out the post, it’s a bit difficult to read such wall of text.

 

[anddi32]

You violated bonus terms. It doesn't matter if you got the benefit or not.
Many casinos check everything about to players game history especially if the player has played with a bonus.
And then it's extremely important for the player not to give any reason for taking the money.

I personally recommend, that if the player accidentally violates the terms (like few spins over max bet) the player should stop wagering as soon as the error is noticed. Go to the chat and report about the mistake. Ask the casino if it's okay to continue or if the bonus will be rejected.
When the player acts like this an honest picture has given. And there will be better change that casino accepts the error and wagering can continue.

If the player doesn't report the error to the casino but tries to withdraw, it can be easily interpreted as an intentional violation of the terms. And in that case if the casino notices the violation it's absolutely certain that the money will be voided.

 

[hubbadubbadingdong]

Max bet $5; You bet over that - You broke a rule, take ownership of a mistake

 

[satchnz]

I don't care what anyone says.

I’m confused as to the purpose of your post then. It is only going to illicit responses from people here, and you won’t like what you are told.

 

[toms596]

He does have a point with the wording in my opinion.

If it said all bets over $10 will void bonus funds and winnings then they would be right to confiscate everything and not pay him.

 

[SpinUk]

Technically its here -> “derived from bets over this limit”.

If it said “derived from any betting over the this limit” then they would be in the right.

It’s not even contentious - it clearly confirms only winnings achieved will be discounted through the larger bet size are relevant.

The reason why it’s not been changed is because they make $5k when people do what you did. Good business isn’t it.

 

[bamberfishcake]

He does have a point with the wording in my opinion.

If it said all bets over $10 will void bonus funds and winnings then they would be right to confiscate everything and not pay him.

But the op admits they bet over the limit, not at the limit.

"All 3 of my over-limit bets"

This is a casino promotion with rules, and rules were broken. There is no question of fairness, ethics or business conduct.

 

[banned_user_20240523]

I never noticed any over-limit bets in real time so there is nothing I could have done. As far "not caring what anybody says", I am merely saying nobody is going to change what my assessment is. That does not mean you don't post. You get no leverage if you do nothing, and you warn nobody else. Really, has anyone felt motivated to open an account at Slotastic after reading this? If Slotastic really had an intrinsic justification for the confiscation, I don't think anyone would be deterred. I should also point out there is a motivation to be a bit trashy in your posts because it provokes replies which increases views which increases leverage if you make a valid point. Thus, God forbid I "not care what anybody says". If Slotastic were so concerned with the sanctity of their $10 rule they might, you know, pursue a lock on the software against such bets so they could never happen. One might think they actually want bets over the limit.

 

[toms596]

But the op admits they bet over the limit, not at the limit.

"All 3 of my over-limit bets"

This is a casino promotion with rules, and rules were broken. There is no question of fairness, ethics or business conduct.

Am I confused? It states "any winnings, plus bonus amounts derived from bets higher than this limit will be voided."

So he placed 3 bets over the $10 max but from the OP side his winnings were not the result of these over max bets. Hence his winnings are not "derived from bets higher than this limit"

I'm fine with promotion rules but they should be clear in their meaning such as "any bets over the max bet will result in winnings and bonus funds being void" if they had simply avoided using the word derived I would be agreeing with the casino.

In the event the OP bet over the max early on in wagering and then the winnings from this over max bet were the source of his winnings the casino would also be correct.

E.g

$20 balance places $20 bet wins $100.

Player then has balance of $100.

Player bets $10 for remainder of balance and wins $4800.

This balance is now derived from the original $20 over max bet specified in the terms.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Am I confused? It states "any winnings, plus bonus amounts derived from bets higher than this limit will be voided."

So he placed 3 bets over the $10 max but from the OP side his winnings were not the result of these over max bets. Hence his winnings are not "derived from bets higher than this limit"

I'm fine with promotion rules but they should be clear in their meaning such as "any bets over the max bet will result in winnings and bonus funds being void" if they had simply avoided using the word derived I would be agreeing with the casino.

I see what you mean, but rule 22 of the terms states 'The maximum bet must not exceed $10'.

For me, this is black and white - an open and shut case. OP bet over the max bet limit.

Maybe I am confused

 

[toms596]

In that case it is rather clear. it is the addition of the next line which causes the confusion

 

[bamberfishcake]

In that case it is rather clear. it is the addition of the next line which causes the confusion

Must admit, it could be worded better for sure, which I missed at first glance.

 

[toms596]

My attempts to clear this up with live chat weren't very successful ? they disconnected rather quickly

 

[jasonuk]

This is a tricky one for sure, and the ambiguity may be deliberate.

So the combined rule 22 has two parts - the first part dictates the requirement, the second part dictates the punishment.

For me, the ambiguity actually comes in the second sentence (rather than first to second) - "Any winnings, plus bonus amounts derived from bets higher than this limit will be voided."- because of the awkward punctuation, so examples could include:

• [Any winnings, plus bonus amounts] derived from bets higher... - the OPs standpoint, which would only void a few dollars
• [Any winnings], plus [bonus amounts derived from bets higher...] - the casino standpoint, which would void the entire amount except the deposit

If there was a comma before "will be voided" then I think the intent would be clear - which would be the casino's standpoint that "all winnings, ..., will be voided". Unfortunately when you break the rules, you are at the mercy of their arbitration - and in this case I don't think you're going to find a different outcome.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Come to think of it, by industry comparison, a $10 bet limit is rather accommodating. Most casinos I have seen state a $5 max bet limit.

 

[Avernite]

Unfortunately I think that they will stick with term 22, as they'll believe it covers them. You are right that the wording is definitely a bit grey. Have you raised a PAB? Perhaps a solution can be made there.

 

[banned_user_20240523]

All my winnings were from $5 bets (half the maximum). I did PAB and nothing changed. You are always at the mercy of the casino anyhow because none of the arbitration has legally binding power. So that point is academic. As I have said, legally, my understanding is that ambiguity should benefit the party that didn't write the rules. Otherwise, there would be a motivation to always write rules ambiguously. However, kind of academic because, again, there is no legal power in play here. Slotastic will pay me if they feel the loss to their reputation for not paying is > than $4800 and not otherwise. That is the only situation from their perspective. All they need to think is that the public thinks the situation is ambiguous or that the public thinks there is some technicality in their favor and they will continue to void the win. I find it hard to believe the situation is ambiguous though, that "winnings plus bonus amounts" would not be interpreted as one unit. If they are interpreted separately, then how does "winnings" connect to the 2nd half of the 2nd sentence? It would just be "Any winnings will be voided" without a proper connection to the 1st sentence. The fact that Slotastic has refused to refine the wording of the rule is very telling.

 

[Avernite]

I agree that the wording should be in your favor. They could have at least offered a settlement reflecting the minor breach (because I somehow doubt they'd return your deposit if you lost), but then again I'm exceptionally cautious when it comes to anything bonus related and often just play with my own money. Threads like these is why.

 

[hhhelllo]

I completely agree with OP.

The problem is that terms like that are made to be reassuring about their fairness and can be understood in any way that will give them the ability to take one side or another depending of which one screws you.

Don't you know that this casino will do exactly that in this situation.

Even softswiiss casinos block any spin higher than a max bet related to an active bonus.

Just forget bonus play anywhere except reliable casinos. Even then , if you win too much, they all become very aware of such possible interpretation of their own terms designed the bullsh1t you when needed.

It must hurt like hell. I feel you. Any slot player will stop gambling after that. That's why online casinos are on the edge of bankruptcy. I wish

 

[SuperTed88]

Surely not! A casino has ambiguously worded terms and this gives them the opportunity to interpret them how they wish. So when one of the staff is trawling through winners withdrawals trying to find any reason not to pay they have all the ammunition they need. Been going on since the dawn of online casinos I'm afraid. One must assume that they will do this, any reason to not pay you will be found, you must play within any terms else don't expect to get paid. However it must be said occasionally I have broken the odd rule when playing with a bonus (normally very similar to this scenario laid out by the OP - with the odd bet accidentally made over the limit) and been paid, so some casinos are a little more lenient than others, it's all in the lap of the gods I'm afraid.

 

[satchnz]

I never noticed any over-limit bets in real time so there is nothing I could have done. As far "not caring what anybody says", I am merely saying nobody is going to change what my assessment is. That does not mean you don't post. You get no leverage if you do nothing, and you warn nobody else. Really, has anyone felt motivated to open an account at Slotastic after reading this? If Slotastic really had an intrinsic justification for the confiscation, I don't think anyone would be deterred. I should also point out there is a motivation to be a bit trashy in your posts because it provokes replies which increases views which increases leverage if you make a valid point. Thus, God forbid I "not care what anybody says". If Slotastic were so concerned with the sanctity of their $10 rule they might, you know, pursue a lock on the software against such bets so they could never happen. One might think they actually want bets over the limit.

Keen for you to go into a bit more detail on the bold sentence above as your reply showed in my alerts as a response to my post.

 

[KasinoKing]

I completely agree with OP.

The problem is that terms like that are made to be reassuring about their fairness and can be understood in any way that will give them the ability to take one side or another depending of which one screws you.

Seconded!

Player says he made 3 accidental over-bets out of 3,500 spins. IMHO the casino is being TOTALLY UNREASONABLE in confiscating his winnings.
Things like this just make me sick ?

KK

 

[Betreels Casino & Sports]

@Affiliate Capital

 

[banned_user_20240523]

Keen for you to go into a bit more detail on the bold sentence above as your reply showed in my alerts as a response to my post.

You earlier derided my statement that "I don't care what anybody says." which I consider slightly provocative/trashy for me to put in. My response " I should also point out there is a motivation to be a bit trashy in your posts because it provokes replies which increases views which increases leverage if you make a valid point." means exactly what it means. Some people will quickly glance at the views and replies of a post before deciding to click on it. Thus, having more replies can stimulate further views. More views means more negative publicity for Slotastic which means better chance they reverse position. FYI your prediction that I won't "like what I've have been told" has simply not panned out.

 

[maxd]

... More views means more negative publicity for Slotastic which means better chance they reverse position. ...

You may want to re-read the Forum Rules , with particular attention to item 1.11:

1.11 - Please do not exploit this board to promote your own personal agenda: If the moderators (and members) feel that you are harassing members with agenda laden posts, or consistently ragging on a casino that did you wrong, etc., you might be counseled by the admins of the site (like me) and/or your account may be suspended. If you have a crusade to lead, there are plenty of domain names out there that you can purchase and create your own personal whinge site. Casinomeister's forum is not the place to do this.

In other words we're not here to provide you with a platform to bully the casino into changing a decision against you which we've already informed you through the PAB process that we support. IMO you've said you piece, opinion appears pretty divided and that's pretty much that. Any further attempts by you to pursue your agenda against the casino regarding this case will not be welcomed.

FYI your prediction that I won't "like what I've have been told" has simply not panned out.

I'd say that's exactly what has come to pass. You started this thread by saying, in part, "I don't care what anyone says." Obviously you didn't like what the casino told you so you came to us and filed a PAB. You didn't like what we told you in the PAB so you've brought it to the forums. The readers are more or less divided AFAICT and so you're trying to drum up "more negative publicity". Not here you won't (see above).

- Max

 

[maxd]

And, as it happens, I'm not the only person on the forums who feels your agenda-driven post(s) are a bit much. I've just received this as a Report on this thread:

... pretty much their entire history is this [same] MO:

• 2010 linking to a complaint on another site
• 2011 "Anyway I spread that complaint to many sites across the internet helping to cause a widespread "blacklist"
• similar again in 2012
• and 2021
• and now this month.

So yeah, enough of that, please and thank you. To that end your posts here at Casinomeister will now be Moderated, meaning we'll have to approve them __before__ they'll appear on the forums. Fair warning: any threads you may create in the future of a similar nature -- meaning violations of item 1.11 of the Forum Rules -- will likely be deleted without comment.

Hopefully you can find other reasons to visit and contribute to Casinomeister but if not, happy trails to you. As the man in the movie said, "it's been real".

- Max

 

[satchnz]

You earlier derided my statement that "I don't care what anybody says." which I consider slightly provocative/trashy for me to put in. My response " I should also point out there is a motivation to be a bit trashy in your posts because it provokes replies which increases views which increases leverage if you make a valid point." means exactly what it means. Some people will quickly glance at the views and replies of a post before deciding to click on it. Thus, having more replies can stimulate further views. More views means more negative publicity for Slotastic which means better chance they reverse position. FYI your prediction that I won't "like what I've have been told" has simply not panned out.

Ha, ok. Best of luck getting the justice you believe you deserve.

 

[shadow123]

There are quite a few games when the spin button is half way up the screen to the right of the reels and has the stake controls
as arrows very close to it,been caught out many times increasing the stake in error,If the bloody UKGC hadnt banned autoplay
it wouldnt happen
Also Pragmatics reloads the last feature total if you quit the game after a feature, you have to press the spin button to clear it,
very easy to spin the game on the wrong stake if it is actually in game mode.
Either of these could cause an spin at a stake prohibited by the bonus rules and you would have no defence

 

[Affiliate Capital]

Hello everyone,

We would like to acknowledge that there was a recent issue with our maximum bet rule and mcd68024’s voided payout. Upon further review, it has become clear that the wording of the rule was not as precise as intended, and the customer's claim is valid.

Our management team is actively addressing the situation and is in direct communication with the customer to discuss the matter and find a resolution, including compensation for the inconvenience caused. We appreciate the valuable input from all forum members, and we are taking steps to rectify the situation promptly.

We apologize for any confusion or inconvenience caused, and we are committed to providing clear and transparent terms and conditions to our customers in the future. We thank you for your understanding and support as we work towards resolving this matter.

 

[banned_user_20240523]

Update: Slotastic has reinstated half the winnings they voided ($2310). This is an indicator they are feeling some pressure and I would like to thank the people who took the time to respond to this post as I feel the response has been more positive than negative. This process is still ongoing. I told Slotastic that I still don't consider there to be ground to void even half the win and that I would still post about this elsewhere. In the meantime, I am not going to touch the $2310 as I would consider it acceptance of their offer.

 

[Avernite]

Update: Slotastic has reinstated half the winnings they voided ($2310). This is an indicator they are feeling some pressure and I would like to thank the people who took the time to respond to this post as I feel the response has been more positive than negative. This process is still ongoing. I told Slotastic that I still don't consider there to be ground to void even half the win and that I would still post about this elsewhere. In the meantime, I am not going to touch the $2310 as I would consider it acceptance of their offer.

Honestly I'd take it. You still technically breached their terms, and for them to meet you halfway is pretty good of them. That goodwill only goes so far though.

 

[toms596]

$2310 for $150 deposit? I'd take it and put it behind you

 

[hhhelllo]

Still post about it elsewhere? You can hold your ground and be patient so you finally get 100% of what you were suppose to if they were in the wrong 100% and they don't consider you bonus abuser.

What I don't understand is your attitude. You litterally just received 2000$ because of casinomeister and you response is terribly unrespectful. Taking things for granted with your uncle is something, with Max though... I wouldn't push it like that

 

[hogexd]

Update: Slotastic has reinstated half the winnings they voided ($2310). This is an indicator they are feeling some pressure and I would like to thank the people who took the time to respond to this post as I feel the response has been more positive than negative. This process is still ongoing. I told Slotastic that I still don't consider there to be ground to void even half the win and that I would still post about this elsewhere. In the meantime, I am not going to touch the $2310 as I would consider it acceptance of their offer.

Frankly speaking, I’d be more than happy with half of the winnings. Highly unlikely that they’ll end up being any more generous than that.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Looks like Slotastic has updated term 22.

Payment of half the winnings seems more than fair, but what do I know? I would have stood by the voiding of winnings due to clear betting over the stake limit for bonus play. But then again, I would also like to think I would have clearer terms to avoid any confusion.

Kudos to Slotatsic for listening and engaging, changing the term, offering to pay and also having a generous max bet limit of twice the industry average.

 

[jasonuk]

Looks like Slotastic has updated term 22.

Payment of half the winnings seems more than fair, but what do I know? I would have stood by the voiding of winnings due to clear betting over the stake limit for bonus play. But then again, I would also like to think I would have clearer terms to avoid any confusion.

Kudos to Slotatsic for listening and engaging, changing the term, offering to pay and also having a generous max bet limit of twice the industry average.

Agree, they've been much more reasonable than they needed to be. Given the strictness of the other bonus terms (and the rewritten term 22), their intent was to void the winnings outright, so in that sense anything is a victory - and 50% very much so.

If the player still believes they are 100% in the right, then they'll have their options - but if the casino has evidence of them exceeding the limit then it's obviously not 100%, and they wouldn't be the first player to push too far and end up worse off - thinking back to an ADR case last year where a player focused on pushing for more money and then missed the part where the casino had miscalculated the original award and ended up £200 worse off as a result.

 

[toms596]

So what was the outcome here? Did he accept the offer or carry on and get nothing?

 

[banned_user_20240523]

Thought I would give an update. Still haven't collected anything. Made it very clear to Slotastic that I would not settle for 48.3 cents on the dollar which is what Slotastic actually reinstated after I bothered to verify. I don't really expect anything to change as Slotastic has disengaged from the situation a long time ago. I have decided just to keep an idle account balance for a few years with token log-ins to avoid confiscation. This is not a strategical decision, and I don't expect it will gain any positive feedback. This is more about self respect. My account value will get chipped away by inflation and there is always a risk Slotastic will go out of a business and default. This is my way of saying that I would sooner lose more equity than validate this ruling. If I accept Slotastic's settlement offer, I feel I will lose any right to complain. Even so, I have become convinced there is no viable path forward to gain any further meaningful leverage in this situation. I haven't received any negative feedback on my 3 subsequent postings but, except for the positive feedback from the moderator at casino.guru, haven't received any feedback whatsoever. I will not be posting further on this subject, and I have concluded it would neither be a good use of time nor high conduct trying to piggyback in the comments section of other people's posts on Slotastic or its skins Grande Vegas and Jackpot Capital.

 

[Avernite]

Thought I would give an update. Still haven't collected anything. Made it very clear to Slotastic that I would not settle for 48.3 cents on the dollar which is what Slotastic actually reinstated after I bothered to verify. I don't really expect anything to change as Slotastic has disengaged from the situation a long time ago. I have decided just to keep an idle account balance for a few years with token log-ins to avoid confiscation. This is not a strategical decision, and I don't expect it will gain any positive feedback. This is more about self respect. My account value will get chipped away by inflation and there is always a risk Slotastic will go out of a business and default. This is my way of saying that I would sooner lose more equity than validate this ruling. If I accept Slotastic's settlement offer, I feel I will lose any right to complain. Even so, I have become convinced there is no viable path forward to gain any further meaningful leverage in this situation. I haven't received any negative feedback on my 3 subsequent postings but, except for the positive feedback from the moderator at casino.guru, haven't received any feedback whatsoever. I will not be posting further on this subject, and I have concluded it would neither be a good use of time nor high conduct trying to piggyback in the comments section of other people's posts on Slotastic or its skins Grande Vegas and Jackpot Capital.

Why not just take the money and move on rather than risk losing the lot? Time value of money my friend.

 

[shadow123]

Two sides to this ..they say the customers claim is valid, updated the rules and offered half the winnings, which indicates that they
admit they were wrong to void the winnings,but seems pointless hanging on for years waiting them to change their minds as
they have disengaged from the situation, chances are you will never get the full amount and It will just be a constant irritation.
I think I would take the offer and enjoy it,still a good profit but I do see where you are coming from

 

[The Dude]

Thought I would give an update. Still haven't collected anything. Made it very clear to Slotastic that I would not settle for 48.3 cents on the dollar which is what Slotastic actually reinstated after I bothered to verify. I don't really expect anything to change as Slotastic has disengaged from the situation a long time ago. I have decided just to keep an idle account balance for a few years with token log-ins to avoid confiscation. This is not a strategical decision, and I don't expect it will gain any positive feedback. This is more about self respect. My account value will get chipped away by inflation and there is always a risk Slotastic will go out of a business and default. This is my way of saying that I would sooner lose more equity than validate this ruling. If I accept Slotastic's settlement offer, I feel I will lose any right to complain. Even so, I have become convinced there is no viable path forward to gain any further meaningful leverage in this situation. I haven't received any negative feedback on my 3 subsequent postings but, except for the positive feedback from the moderator at casino.guru, haven't received any feedback whatsoever. I will not be posting further on this subject, and I have concluded it would neither be a good use of time nor high conduct trying to piggyback in the comments section of other people's posts on Slotastic or its skins Grande Vegas and Jackpot Capital.

How many PABs do you have under your belt? I count no less than seven - all unsuccessful except for two. What picture does that paint here? Most players never even need to use our PAB service - and look at you - I guess you're going for a trophy here

Seriously, you're pretty lucky that the casino operator hasn't closed your account and told you to take a hike. I would take the cash and go.

 

[banned_user_20240523]

How many PABs do you have under your belt? I count no less than seven - all unsuccessful except for two. What picture does that paint here? Most players never even need to use our PAB service - and look at you - I guess you're going for a trophy here

Seriously, you're pretty lucky that the casino operator hasn't closed your account and told you to take a hike. I would take the cash and go.

 

[banned_user_20240523]

Management has made clear to me that I have used the PAB service too many times relative to what I have given back in terms of forum postings, etc. That is fine and understandable. All the same, I do find this comment a bit reductive. I don't mind that you said it but, given that I have no desire to use your PAB service anymore, it would be nice to know that I would not be undercut on future postings based on nothing more than this. Some people gamble a lot more than others, at more places than others, and have done so for a very long time. This creates conflicts. If we got down to it, I doubt you'd really feel like defending a gloss over assessment like "unsuccessful" 5 times out of 7 in terms of characterizing the validity of my complaints. I am more intimately familiar with those complaints and would take the time to dissect each one and would view scrutiny as a thing that would work in my favor. I'd like to know that any baggage is gone from each side and that neither side would feel defensive moving forward. Casinomeister was harsher than most everyone else interpreting this Slotastic case and may have cost me a chance to win. I have moved on, but I would like to know things are squared away as even.

 

[jasonuk]

Is there a sale on spades right now? Seems like you really want to dig that hole again...

Management has made clear to me that I have used the PAB service too many times relative to what I have given back in terms of forum postings, etc. That is fine and understandable.

I don't know if Bryan or another staff member contacted you privately, but the observation from three months ago was that you were a significant outlier in terms of PAB usage. It's a free service provided to the community, but isn't free to operate - so there are going to be questions if someone is using the service disproportionately to the rest of the community (much like anything else in life).

All the same, I do find this comment a bit reductive. I don't mind that you said it but, given that I have no desire to use your PAB service anymore, it would be nice to know that I would not be undercut on future postings based on nothing more than this.

It's almost like you've ignored what @maxd said in April...

As with most forums your post history is public, and people can note that your infrequent contributions
are primarily intended as attempted leverage against operators that have - rightly or wrongly, intentionally or accidentally - taken negative action against you.

If we got down to it, I doubt you'd really feel like defending a gloss over assessment like "unsuccessful" 5 times out of 7 in terms of characterizing the validity of my complaints. I am more intimately familiar with those complaints and would take the time to dissect each one and would view scrutiny as a thing that would work in my favor.

Bryan is the owner of the website, he does a lot of work behind the scenes including supporting the PAB service - so "gloss over assessment" is a bold way of putting it.

I'd like to know that any baggage is gone from each side and that neither side would feel defensive moving forward. Casinomeister was harsher than most everyone else interpreting this Slotastic case and may have cost me a chance to win. I have moved on, but I would like to know things are squared away as even.

Then why bring it up again? Especially when you try - once again - taking potshots at CM members for being "harsher" on their interpretation of the situation. Many people picked up on the ambiguity but couldn't quite nail it down for you - which I did on April 21st.

The conversation that CM members had - combined with the PAB service - meant you were offered nearly half the money as a goodwill gesture, rather than nothing as you had previously. The casino then updated the rule to make it crystal clear that their intent was to void everything, which was their default position previously.

If your case was as watertight as you have repeatedly claimed, you'd have all of the money by now... that you've come back 3 months later to start digging again suggests you're looking for a scapegoat rather than accept responsibility. The PAB service is optional, and also doesn't restrict your other options (ADR, legal etc), so if you haven't got 100% of the money, then perhaps your case wasn't as watertight as you think (spoiler: it wasn't).

I hate aggressive bonus terms as much as the next person - but their house, their rules...

 

[maxd]

Management has made clear to me that I have used the PAB service too many times relative to what I have given back in terms of forum postings, etc. ...

Not true. As I recall you were told that your use of the forums was inappropriate, namely that you were only here to bully the casino people by using negative forum posts as the stick (which is a violation of the Forum Rules). Not the same thing and very much not the first time you've taken the facts and twisted them around to suit your own purposes.

Reference: see your Slotastic PAB, my post April 24 '23:

From what I can tell your sole purpose in using Casinomeister is to complain about your experiences at casinos -- 7 PABs to date if I'm not mistaken -- and use our forums to pressure various sites regarding your complaints. In other words you've done nothing here but exploit the forums to pursue your own agenda in direct violation of the Forum Rules, item 1.11.

... I'd like to know that any baggage is gone from each side and that neither side would feel defensive moving forward.

Passive-aggressive insult aside you persist in the mistaken view that what we've said or done in your PABs has anything to do with you personally. It does not, the PABs were decided based on the facts and evidence available in the case at hand, not to mention that violating the Player Arbitration Policies and Procedures (which you repeatedly have done) is a sure-fire way to kill a PAB.

Is it significant that 70% of those cases were decided against you? Yes, I'd say it was, particularly since you made a habit of abandoning your PABs while we were still working on them for you. Basically you've abused the PAB service and have little use for the forums other than to bully the casinos into giving you what you want. So do you now get a free pass simply because you want it? No, you do not. You have a history here and like it or not that's not going to be forgotten just because it would be convenient for you.

Casinomeister was harsher than most everyone else interpreting this Slotastic case and may have cost me a chance to win.

And therein lies the heart of the problem: from your point of view it was OUR fault that YOU didn't get what you wanted. It doesn't matter what the facts were or that others disagreed with your interpretation of the situation: if things don't go your way it's only because someone else -- in this case US -- did something bad to YOU. It's always someone else at fault isn't it?

Looking back over the record of our dealings with you there is a very distinct pattern and it's called narcissism. That is the primary reason you've had a rough ride here at Casinomeister, because dealing with such behaviour is invariably a lose-lose scenario. Neither we personally nor the forums as a whole need the aggro. Frankly I think you'd be happier elsewhere.

- Max

 

[banned_user_20240523]

Can we agree for now I did not set the tone I wanted to set? I really did not intend any insinuations or passive aggression. I obviously should have picked better words than "gloss over assessment". You may be incredulous, but when I said I had "moved on" from the Slotastic case I meant that quite literally. I came back to this post for no other reason than that this is where I remember certain comments being located and I thought it would be more efficient to respond directly so no special context had to be reestablished.

 

[maxd]

Can we agree for now I did not set the tone I wanted to set? ...

I would say you set the tone some time ago and have repeated that often enough that that's what we're going to have to live with.

If I'm not mistaken the primary point of your recent posts was "it would be nice to know that I would not be undercut on future postings". While it's not clear what you mean by "undercut" I can assure you that your future posts will be received in the full context of your previous activities here, PABs and otherwise.

- Max

 

[banned_user_20240523]

Rereading my post on 10/29/23, I will yield some parts were not well written. However, when I wrote "it would be nice to know that I would not be undercut on future postings" and "I'd like to know that any baggage is gone from each side and that neither side would feel defensive moving forward." I meant this in terms of this being a place I'd like to get to as opposed to being a place I should expect to be right now. When I wrote "Management has made clear to me that I have used the PAB service too many times" and "given that I have no desire to use your PAB service anymore" my intention was to acknowledge the overhead inherent to PAB's and state preemptively that I no longer intended to impose anymore upon you. There are a lot of outstanding comments I don't think I should respond to because it would imply that I can't let things go and yet there is counterpoint that could be made to get things in fairer proportion and to clear up failures in communication that have been misinterpreted. I really had and continue to have no interest in relitigating Slotastic or my other old cases. My mind is on future postings.

 

[maxd]

As previously stated, the record of your time here at Casinomeister is what we are dealing with, not an individual post where "parts were not well written". While I grant that it would likely serve you best if our focus was on that post alone I see no reason to forget that much has preceded that post -- over a decade here on the forums and in your PABs -- and all that remains quite relevant. Given your continued efforts to obfuscate the real issues and forget your past here at Casinomeister I have to repeat what I've already said: I think you'd be happier elsewhere.

- Max