eurobet / ongame locks $60,000, investigates, finds me guilty, then re

[runner4life7]

I read most of this and havent found a "sorry" yet, I could have missed it and if I did then I'm sorry. All I am reading is bull [censored] excuses and trying to say that you have this awesome security technology that locks people's accounts and is wrong. Really secure, please tell me how I can get a lot of money on your site that doesn't seem to respect their players.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
In not one of of all of our posts have we disagreed with the negative impact of lack of information. We have repeatedly stated if that is the case, then you have been mistreaded by our operators.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since some of your 'operators' seem to be giving your company a huge black eye, perhaps it would be in your best interest to ensure that your operators meet certain standards and follow certain protocols when it comes to players who are under investigation?

Instead, we get cases like the OP's, where he is given a half-dozen different stories and passed from CS rep to CS rep and finally told that he's SOL (only to have his account suddenly re-opened with no explanation).

It's all fine and good for you to claim that Eurobet is at fault here, but their actions are a reflection on OnGame. Players are avoiding ALL OnGame sites due to the actions of Eurobet. Whether you like it or not, this is something that OnGame needs to deal with.

[smak]

This case is much different than the normal case.

The player's account is frozen, then they are told it's being closed, that they're a filthy cheater, and there money is being confiscated, and then they are told, whoops our bad, your account is open.

And that doesn't deserve an apology?

What happened between the time their money was confiscated and released, who was responsible for it, and how many people's accounts that were closed for no reason didn't get further looked into and reopened.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
It's sort of like a car dealership finding out that the car manufacturer has started sealing deals with car buyers in their name without their consent and hold the dealership to those deals. Sort of like that.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, its really nothing at all like that.

[OngameClassic]

This will probably be our last post in this thread,

Reading through it indicates that it is impossible for us to have a creative dialogue in here at this time.

Fair enough.

Our presence in here is not in any way related to trying to "defend" cases of insufficient customer service by our operators, yet that's how it is interpreted regardless of what we actually state.

You read into our posts that we somehow are laying blame somewhere else, which isn't the point (but to some extent, an effect of it). We are just attempting to right a misconception that is making it very hard for us to launch this Ombudsman service.

Yes, you are all consumers of our product, and yes, by default (whether you believe or not) have to care deeply for your rights and wishes, but no, you are NOT actually our costumers. You are our costumers customers. Hence it is up to our operators to take care of you and make sure you get the best available treatment they can. We cannot bypass them in that process.

It's OUR job to take care of the operators and make sure they get the best available service we can give them, so that they in turn can service you.

Should we fail in our service towards any site and hence making it hard for them to service you, then, that is our fault. Of course it is our fault. And we certainly expect our operators to make that known to us when it happens.

Some quotes from our previous posts:

"But on occasion, things will not be handled as promptly as we or our operators would like. And delays like that and the lack of information that may come with the delay, in so far that we are responsible for it, is of course something we deeply apologize for."

"Totally agree. This information should and in most cases is provided. By our operators. Not us. From a network perspective we manually investigate many cases over the year and gladly share our findings with our operators. Down to the last action in the last hand history. Sometimes that process takes too long though in which case we are solely to blame for that."

" You are absolutely right that the requirements we enforce as a basic minimum for the entire network should be available for you as players as well. Making it so is a vital part of the upcoming Ombudsman Service."

" But most importantly we are here to make sure key cases are resolved swiftly and adequately between you the players and our operators - and regulate them should they not abide by the rules and standards we have set."

"It does not reflect well upon us that the above player has obviously had some major issues with one of our operators."

"What seem to have been interpreted as a defence of business practises that it is not our roll to have, is merely us trying to put things straight."

"Those lapses are our responsibility..."

And some recent player quotes:

"Since some of your 'operators' seem to be giving your company a huge black eye, perhaps it would be in your best interest to ensure that your operators meet certain standards and follow certain protocols when it comes to players who are under investigation?"

Precisely. We have numerous means of regulating our operators. But we have seen the need to strengthen that process. Enter the Ombudsman.

"This case is much different than the normal case."

Very much so. Hence we are investigating it. If a player has been informed by an operator that his account will be closed without explanation, cause or later on compensation, then that is totally unacceptable.

For now,

The Ombudsman
Ongame Network

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are all consumers of our product, and yes, by default (whether you believe or not) have to care deeply for your rights and wishes, but no, you are NOT actually our costumers. You are our costumers customers. Hence it is up to our operators to take care of you and make sure you get the best available treatment they can. We cannot bypass them in that process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you get to pick your costumes, or do your operators choose them for you? Alternatively, can we make costume suggestions? I bet we can think of a few...

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[OngameClassic]

Lol,

How on earth did we miss that?

Oh well..

Bobo Fett vs Ombudsman 1-0...

Thanks for pointing it out through.

Sincerely,

The Ombudsman aka Zorro

[El_Hombre_Grande]

I think the dialogue was actually quite constructive and quite informative, at least from my point of view. I have in the past been very, very, cynical towards player posts of this nature, believing that the player was probably scamming the site AND this forum. Your comments have made it quite clear that (at least at ongame supported sites) players may have to endure "probably" temporary seizure of thousands of dollars in assets by an entity that is incompetent, nonresponsive, and offshore, possibly without even an explanation. I could care less about an apology, and I could care less about whether you perceive it as your responsibility or the sites'. I care about the security of my funds, and this thread has convinced me that they are far less secure then I ever realized. Oh, and chip dumping is a site problem, not a player problem. I would have thought that the millions of dollars of rake sites make would be incentive enough for them to find an effective solution to their problem without terrorizing customers.