Greetings all,
Much of what is written below is a thought exercise, if you would like to skip this and get to the decision on the part of the casino it is at the bottom of this (rather lengthy) screed. 🙂
Casino.guru and their fair gambling codex are an amazing resource, historically it is very rare for us as an organization to disagree with them on the handling of players.
In this case we differ in one key aspect:
Casino.guru feels we should not be "allowed" to offer bonuses with rules beyond the spectrum of what we can mechanically control. That while a bonus is active the bonus rules must be physically and rigidly enforced by the mechanics of the casino.
On our end this would make it impossible to offer the bonus value our players love (and have come to expect).
It also opens the door (for the player, casino.guru, et al) to take any portion of the terms and conditions (of any casino) and ignore (or re-write) them however they feel is suitable.
We are not children here, and we feel this is a "net nanny" mentality. If a player is not responsible for or beholden to the terms they are playing under (and must be mechanically prevented from breaking them) are they responsible enough to play in the first place?
Unfortunately, usury, misdirection, and abuse of players do exist. There are bad actors in any industry, but none of those terms are applicable here and the casino has done everything within its power to assure that all parties involved have been properly informed and treated fairly.
After meeting with Punt management we agree that it is impossible to be flexible in this situation.
(As casino.guru has mentioned) There are also significant indicators that the player actually knew the terms they were playing under and tried to "work around" them through various actions on their part but on this point we digress…
The bottom line here are the three points below:
- The casino operates under published terms and conditions and has the right to dictate those terms, just as the player has the right of refusal (by choosing not to participate).
- At no point was the player misdirected or important information withheld.
- After denial of the requested withdrawal the player accepted the ruling of the casino. Accepting the cash deposit funds (then playing them as cash) constitutes a 2nd and binding contract between the player and the casino and eliminates any liability on the part of the casino for the initial deposit/play session (which included the deposit coupon and "non-allowed" game play in question).
For us, it is number 3 that stops this dialogue and leaves the subject of player versus casino responsibility (regarding bonus rules) for another day.
The deposited funds that resulted in a win, regardless of the validity of that win no longer exist.
In accepting the ruling of the casino and receiving the funds back (and playing them with the chance to win) the incident which is the source of this complaint no longer exists. Technically speaking, a secondary "contract" between the casino and the player was entered which cancels the initial agreement.
Ethically speaking, if we were responsible for paying any resulting win on the re-deposited cash funds accepted by the player (then freely played and lost), this becomes a case of "double jeopardy" for the casino. If both are valid, win or loss for the player, we lose either way.
The time for the "thought exercise" above was before that money was accepted and/or played back into the system. The player knowingly accepted the funds, played them, and there was no resulting win.
After this, the player chose to file a complaint.
In this situation it is clear to us that the casino has fulfilled its obligation (both ethically and per the terms of the casino) to the player and we consider the basis for this complaint to be null and void.
We understand that the complainant and casino.guru may not agree with this decision, but despite any insinuation otherwise we hold our obligation to the player sacred. Every spin can change fortunes. Had the player won 1000x the denied withdrawal in question while playing with pure cash and zero rules, the player would have gotten paid.
With utmost respect to all parties involved, the player willingly chose to take a chance and it didn't pay off. If it had paid off this complaint would not exist.
On those grounds, we deny any further obligation.
Hopefully this clarifies things for everyone.
Best wishes,
Nick and Punt ZA
Greetings all,
Much of what is written below is a thought exercise, if you would like to skip this and get to the decision on the part of the casino it is at the bottom of this (rather lengthy) screed. 🙂
Casino.guru and their fair gambling codex are an amazing resource, historically it is very rare for us as an organization to disagree with them on the handling of players.
In this case we differ in one key aspect:
Casino.guru feels we should not be "allowed" to offer bonuses with rules beyond the spectrum of what we can mechanically control. That while a bonus is active the bonus rules must be physically and rigidly enforced by the mechanics of the casino.
On our end this would make it impossible to offer the bonus value our players love (and have come to expect).
It also opens the door (for the player, casino.guru, et al) to take any portion of the terms and conditions (of any casino) and ignore (or re-write) them however they feel is suitable.
We are not children here, and we feel this is a "net nanny" mentality. If a player is not responsible for or beholden to the terms they are playing under (and must be mechanically prevented from breaking them) are they responsible enough to play in the first place?
Unfortunately, usury, misdirection, and abuse of players do exist. There are bad actors in any industry, but none of those terms are applicable here and the casino has done everything within its power to assure that all parties involved have been properly informed and treated fairly.
After meeting with Punt management we agree that it is impossible to be flexible in this situation.
(As casino.guru has mentioned) There are also significant indicators that the player actually knew the terms they were playing under and tried to "work around" them through various actions on their part but on this point we digress…
The bottom line here are the three points below:
- The casino operates under published terms and conditions and has the right to dictate those terms, just as the player has the right of refusal (by choosing not to participate).
- At no point was the player misdirected or important information withheld.
- After denial of the requested withdrawal the player accepted the ruling of the casino. Accepting the cash deposit funds (then playing them as cash) constitutes a 2nd and binding contract between the player and the casino and eliminates any liability on the part of the casino for the initial deposit/play session (which included the deposit coupon and "non-allowed" game play in question).
For us, it is number 3 that stops this dialogue and leaves the subject of player versus casino responsibility (regarding bonus rules) for another day.
The deposited funds that resulted in a win, regardless of the validity of that win no longer exist.
In accepting the ruling of the casino and receiving the funds back (and playing them with the chance to win) the incident which is the source of this complaint no longer exists. Technically speaking, a secondary "contract" between the casino and the player was entered which cancels the initial agreement.
Ethically speaking, if we were responsible for paying any resulting win on the re-deposited cash funds accepted by the player (then freely played and lost), this becomes a case of "double jeopardy" for the casino. If both are valid, win or loss for the player, we lose either way.
The time for the "thought exercise" above was before that money was accepted and/or played back into the system. The player knowingly accepted the funds, played them, and there was no resulting win.
After this, the player chose to file a complaint.
In this situation it is clear to us that the casino has fulfilled its obligation (both ethically and per the terms of the casino) to the player and we consider the basis for this complaint to be null and void.
We understand that the complainant and casino.guru may not agree with this decision, but despite any insinuation otherwise we hold our obligation to the player sacred. Every spin can change fortunes. Had the player won 1000x the denied withdrawal in question while playing with pure cash and zero rules, the player would have gotten paid.
With utmost respect to all parties involved, the player willingly chose to take a chance and it didn't pay off. If it had paid off this complaint would not exist.
On those grounds, we deny any further obligation.
Hopefully this clarifies things for everyone.
Best wishes,
Nick and Punt ZA