Well to all the players that brought this issue to our attention! We did get an explaination from CB.UK. Question is? Is there any truth in what CB Corp is claiming? Now is the time to speak players. In the meantime! Myself and staff will be reviewing all the information collected on CB Sites that started in August 2006. When the review is finished we will post our finding. The truth will come out in this issue!

Yes its true that some of my family have/had accounts with these so called sites but we ALL have different addresses I have heard it all now omg DONT make me laugh !!!!!!!
This looks like discrimination to me.
Can they PLEASE define the rules REGARDING multiple accounts.
Is it against the LAW to have the same FAMILY playing NO i dont think so.!!!!

Doe's this explain the FACT that my partner has had his account DISABLED he has a different surname to me.

I am sooooooo sure they are concerned about gambling addiction. Maybe they are, but the path to take with that, if it is a valid concern on their part, is to request from the player a weekly/monthly deposit level and adhere to it to avoid any "risk" of player addiction becoming overwhelming and abusive to himself or his family.
There are alternatives to solving the "risks" they mention.
And why cant they tell why they have disabled accounts? They cant give real and concrete reasons why a player would have an account disabled without giving names? That letter is a series of monotnous double talk and rhetoric that says nothing at all but to assert the use of their "risk management" policy as a reasonable way to exclude certain players.
Multiple accounts can and should be clearly defined and stated as the reason for banning a player! No need to hide behind some corporate phrase that has no real meaning to a paying depositor. If a player has multiple accounts, show the documentation or evidence of that and tell the player that is why he has been disabled from the site. What is wrong with enforcing their policy in an up front and logical manner? Why hide behind some vague, nebulous term that indiscriminately removes players at a sites own discretion and without explanation?
If this is so important to them. perhaps they should make an effort to discover the particular player risk BEFORE they take their money. A player assessment form to ensure the true identity of a player and an evaluation by the operations management prior to accepting funds. Or would that be too much trouble to prevent identity theft and fraud?
Lets see what the comfort level is of your operators when depositing players start disappearing because of your willy nilly disabling of accounts.
You owe these players a valid and truthful reason why they have been disabled at your site, not lumping them into a "risk" group for your own protection and profit. Who will be next? One never knows,do they?

Another thing that popped up into my mind is the fact that MOST online sites have a "referral" program that entices folks to have their aquaintances and/or "friends and family" sign up for extra "bonus bucks" (aka no good money).

It looks as though when players DO this, perhaps they are cutting their own throats. I wonder how many "Smith's" and "Jones" are in their players membership? I still think the players , although treated like CRAP, are better off for this! I want to thank those that came forward and are still here standing their ground!! BPU is standing right beside you!

I would think that the players who deposit THEIR money ought to at least be given forwarning of some sort! At least a flippin chance of knowing what the hell is going on. or a chance to be "innocent until proven guilty"!!!!!!!!!

Yes, staff is going to "dissect" these threads. We are working on it diligently and thoroughly. It will take a little time, but for all parties involved, know that we will come up with a picture ANYONE can see!

CB CORP SAID IN WRITING: Secondly, the accusation that these individuals were disabled for posting on your forum is completely false as we were not aware of their postings until after we were contacted by you and the accounts were already disabled.

AND YET I WAS THE FIRST ONE TO POST HERE THAT ALPHABINGO AND BINGOSKY TOLD ME IN LIVE CHAT THAT THE REASON MY ACCOUNTS (WHICH WERE IN GOOD STANDING WITH NO MULTIPLE ACCOUNT ISSUES SINCE I HAVE NO FAMILY REGISTERED AT ANY ONLINE BINGO SITES) WERE CLOSED ABRUPTLY WAS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I WAS A MEMBER AT BPU.

Have those jerks look at my threads here "AlphaBingo's unwritten rule" and the "BingoSky unwritten rule" and then come back and explain how they could blatantly lie through their teeth in their email to you.

Have them explain why Jason is so high on that throne of his that he can't hear when players are asking for answers to the point that they are totally ignored by him as if they are peons serving their site strictly as depositors with no right to explanations, and yet we are told repeatedly by LiveHelp that HE is the almighty one that we need to correspond with.

Have them come and explain how it's only been in the last month or so that Risk Management has become the catch-all phrase and vague reasoning they are using for closing accounts that otherwise were in good standing enough that deposits were fine just the day before.

Have them come and explain how they could tell me one day in LiveHelp that AlphaBingo was NOT a sister site of CB Corp (and therefore Cyberbingo) when I specifically ASKED and copy/pasted the response here at BPU, state that my account was just fine at Alpha, and then totally disable the account three days after my posting that information at BPU, and use that posting as the reason for closing the account?

Have them explain to me how they knew I had posted anything about their site here at BPU in the first place if they hadn't gone on a fishing expedition here searching for usernames that matched their database? And ask them why they hadn't even bothered to read the posts regarding AlphaBingo and BingoSky to verify that I had said anything bad about their site, because if they HAD read the posts they would have discovered that I had said NOTHING disparaging against their sites UNTIL they told me they closed the accounts at those two sites BECAUSE I was a member here at BPU.

EXCELLENT POST TONI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been up all night researching BPU for facts that are pertinent to our accusations that the CB Corp are abusing their "risk management" rule. After reading and rereading the post by CB Corp, listening to input and requests for proof. I have limited this post to only complaints about these sites, and the outcome. I believe the "risk management" is such a blanket rule, that NO ONE has explained in a satisfactory manner to any players affected by it, that it could cover whatever does not have a "category". We have shown proof of one players accounts (NavyMom) closed. I have shown many players who never received their withdrawal requests for a number of reasons. Some never knew why they didn't get theirs because management never responded to them.

There are several who actually did get their monies, but had to jump through hoops and wait until the site involved was good and ready to pay them. If the following information is not enough to show someone how business is run at the CB Corp games, I guess I will have to dig deeper.

There are other issues that do not involve CB Corp, but believe me, I am compiling a list of all players who have been banned from chat or had accounts closed and for what reasons. Inquiring minds might want to know.

NavyMom:
Accounts closed by BingoSky specifically for being a member at BPU.

Dannyboy29:
Account closed by CyberBingo
your account(s) and all accounts affiliated to you (predominantly with the Dixon last name) have been closed from our website and all partner websites. Your account did not receive a favourable score from our risk management department after undergoing a risk assessment check.
Danny is still waiting for his pay out due to UNAUTHORIZED debits by CyberBingo on his account 110 Lira. Danny provided us with screen shots of his banking acct.

Golfnuts: BingoZest, CyberBingo and DailyExpress bingo.uk
accounts closed, reason given "Risk Management"
owed 2oolbs
No response from support AT ALL.

ANTZ: bingoexpress bingo.uk closed accounts of husband and wife
reason: because we said the site looked like another one we go in lol thats all, no warning nothing just got disabled

mozza: account closed at bingosky & bingo zest... she posted proof (email from manager Justin Clarke & email from Zest ANNA in support)
reason: risk management

westie: unpaid wins by bingozest I have proof in the form of emails to westie from Bingozest
Player won 1/2 of a TOH coverall. Amount $2500.00 (his part)
bingozest was emailed several times and westie finally got a reply saying it was an error and the wrong pattern had played. He was offered $250. as a token apology for a $2500.00 win. Zest implied that
Westie was aware it was a wrong pattern. At the time the game played, he was on prebuy and not even at his computer playing the game. His win was also listed in the newsletter as top winner for the week.
I never received ONE response from Jason on this issue and as far as I know Westie was never paid. Eventually his account was closed.

eveofpeace: BingoZest non payment of a $5000.00 win
Never a response of any kind from Jason the manager of BingoZest.
To my knowledge, she never received this payout.

I believe there were some statement(s) about me calling CB Corp site liars...
1/ Copied/pasted from LiveChat at Bingo Sky just a few minutes ago...

Breanna: Welcome to BingoSKY Support. How may I help you today?
you: Hi, I need some information about your site
you: I heard you were a sister site of Cyberbingo to which I also belong and am afraid I might be breaking a 'multiple accounts' rule if you are
Breanna: No, we are a stand alone site

2/ Posted proof message from Zest in response to a question about Zest being "related to any other sites "
"First off, there are no related called "sister sites" BingoZEST.COM is its own entity, we do not believe in the affiliate programme which saturates the industry. As regards the inconveniences you have experienced ALL of these are been followed closely since day one and FULLY investigated, promptly a response will be originated. Any inquiries regarding pay outs must be addressed directly through our management staff, where a very HIGH security breach is placed tracing multiple accounts.

Penguin: Complaint with BingoZest.. non payment of $100.00 win
Email Proof....
"Manager" at bingozest confirmed Penguin had multiple accounts and froze his payments. He was told it was "totally illegal" to have multiple accounts and that "by law" they should inform the gaming authorities and payment platforms about Pens actions. He was asked to apologize to CM's for "comments made" and to take FULL responsibility due to "your act in multiple accounts".

Next.. account disabled. Then opened... next chat disabled... reason...
"When there are no funds to play with chatting with your friends become pointless" said by CM to Penguin in trouble ticket.

The multiple account decision was overturned and put behind them.
He got his payout on March 12 for $114.95. the first request for withdrawal was made on or about Jan 22. It took almost two months and an incredible amount of time, perseverance and an incredibly shabby treatment by Zest management and support on this issue.

Josie: Express Bingo .uk complaint... non payment of winnings 100 Lira(email and tt proof sent by Josie)
first posted complaint Sept 22, o7....NO response from management .
She eventually did receive her payout Oct 20, 2007. Another month nearly to process a $100.00 payout!

Far King Oats: Complaint: BingoZest site closed with $278 in Far's account. June 10,2007
reason: When Zest "closed" Far was in the hospital. When trying to login to Zest, he was rerouted to Alpha Bingo. The same thing happened to me SEVERAL times. Alpha told him they had nothing to do with bingozest. He states that he sent "much correspondence since March (2007) to management and never received one reply.

Debbiemf: BingoZest complaint non payment of $5000. withdrawal request
as far as I know, she never did get paid, but according to other players, her name was also added to the
"winners" advertisement portion Zest site.

Kwinkle: complaint CyberBingo not paying out 4-13-07 ($200.00)
(according to player) Denial first because of multiple accounts.
Second denial was because she hadn't deposited. 25 minutes after she posted this
info at BPU, she states.."all of the sudden today I am able to deposit with a card I have tried to use over and over, since the new legislation and it was denied...all of a sudden it works? weird".
Never ONE response from management despite many emails and TT.


Martiman: BingoZest complaint non payment of 110. Lira withdrawal request
We had only one post from this member, but I feel it necessary and fair to listen to
what (s)he has to say. Also complaints of NON RESPONSE.

bingomamma: CyberBingo non pay complaint 3-23-07 $5000.00
Payment requested 2-26-07. Management told her on 3-01-07. On 3-08-07 she tells us her cashout
has FINALLY been approved and it would take 3-5 business days to get to her. Then she gets... NO response from her many emails. We are 2 days shy of a month waiting for her payout.
Her emails show that on 3-23-07 she was FINALLY asked for more banking information, while all the time looking at her picture and quotes as a HUGE winner rode on the winners page at Cyber Bingo. On 3-26 momma posted that she was informed her ATM card had been mailed to her and she "should get it this week".
(Second "runaround").
On 3-31-07 bingomamma received her ATM card. She emailed the manager to let him know and received a reply that her card was activated and funds were loaded. She went to ATM to withdraw and her transaction was denied. She checked the balance and it was negative $4.00. Emailed manager.. no response yet.
04-03-07 Funds FINALLY loaded on card. Took from 02-26-07 through 04-03-07.

PLEASE correct me if any of this is not straight. I am blind from reading all night but had to get the Proof that was already here, compiled for those who haven't been following this. Some do not understand that BingoPlayersUnion is a site for BINGO only. We are more involved in this territory than any other site I can find. I will stand behind what I post.. eat crow if my imperfections outweigh my fortitude, and keep on doing what I do. Cya thanks for letting me be a part of something that has become a very important piece of my life!

Wow sissy keep up the excellent work !!!!!!! But please get some sleep

Unfortunately, some bingo players feel like if a site proclaims they have the right to close an account for any reason and you sign up it implies your agreement, then they have that right, so what are ya bitchin about?
Many uk sites are taking the high road with the rules and being very creative in their personal discernments. This does not make it acceptable simply because they "say so"!
The rules regarding uk sites may be viewed at the site below.

http://gamblingcommission.gov.uk

************************************
Bingo sites have long sought to disable or close accounts at their option, but it is NOT without a procedural policy which some sites choose to ignore.
The gambling commission has specific rules regarding the decision to close accounts. For instance, gambling addiction. It is not up to the sites to arbitrarily close an account using the addiction theory without documenting, player communication, and offering a self exclusion option to all players.

This is part of the social responsibility provisions.

Quote:
• the specific policies and procedures required by the following provisions of section 2 of this code;
• a commitment to and how they will contribute to research into the prevention and treatment of problem gambling;
• a commitment to and how they will contribute to public education on the risks of gambling and how to gamble safely; and
• a commitment to and how they will contribute to the identification of and treatment of problem gamblers.
2.4 Customer interaction
Social responsibility code provision
Licensees must implement policies and procedures for customer interaction where they have concerns that a customer’s behaviour may indicate problem gambling. The
policies must include:
• identification of the appropriate level of management who may initiate customer interaction and the procedures for doing so;
• the types of behaviour that will be logged/reported to the appropriate level of staff and which may trigger customer interaction at an appropriate moment;
• the circumstances in which consideration should be given to refusing service to customers and/or barring them from the operator’s gambling premises.
*************************************************************

As far as I can see, NONE of the sites that have hinted at reasons why accounts have been disabled , with this gambling addiction being given as a possible cause, has shown logged evidence, initiated customer interraction regarding there gambling activities, or shown the actual circumstances that led the site to think there might be a gambling problem. There is no self exclusion policy at many sites, and no responsibility shown on the part of the site to contact the client regarding the suspicion that there might be a serious gambling addiction to seek a resolution. If any of this has occurred, the site is remiss in not noting this in the "explanatory" reasons to the client and the BPU as the cause for account closure.

This , nor any of the rules that are required as fair play standards by the gambling commission are not there to be dredged up and used as a blanket coverage to provide the site with plausible reasons to exclude any one they wish at their whim without documentation and communication with the client.

This is another portion of the social provision that has been ignored by too many sites.
Quote:

An accurate summary of the contractual terms on which gambling is offered must be made available to customers and set out in plain and intelligible language.
Customers must be notified of changes to terms before they come into effect.
************************************************************
Too many sites have a disclaimer stating that they have the right to alter or change the rules without notice. Does that disclaimer also negate the commissions rulings?

This is really GREAT info DW, but the CB Corp is not licensed in the UK, there fore I don't believe these rules apply to them.

These rules for the uk gov. have been around for a while. I am looking into the britain based online gambling sites as opposed to the foreign sites licensed elsewhere,but based in british territory with the newly imposed regulatory laws defining the particulars about this.


I posted mostly because many are going to the uk sites after hearing about the regulations imposed. Some sites state they are under the laws of england and Wales and that is where any dispute will be resolved, and some maintain a right to choose their own venue for dispute resolution or other issues that arise with clients.

I am just thinking...If I got a drivers license in NY (for example) and take a drive to ohio, how responsible am I to follow the traffic laws and rules of Ohio? May not be applicable here, but I cant help thinking about that.
It may be jurisdictional as far as following the rules of the actual licensing source (the laws contained in the licence), but does that mean you are not responsible to any other governing agents to abide by any existing rules that are imposed upon resident licensees?

Online gambling is relatively new and the U.S. deals with individual pertinent gambling laws on state by state provisions, as long as they do not supercede the federal laws. If the UK commands a uniform regulation for anyone that accesses their boundaries, whether it be concrete/mortar or wire (remote) gambling, then some rules will have to be followed regardless of where the license originated. I am trying to find some info on this now.

I will also send a copy of this in response to the email sent us by CB Corp. Management

Hello manager,
Thank you for your response, but I do have some questions.

You said:


You say "ONE of the primary reasons". Are there other "primary reasons"? If so did you take the time to advise this particular group of players exactly WHY their accounts were being closed before you closed them? Did you show them the stats in their accounts that made you come to this decision? These are their accounts and they should be privvy to all that is in there.


You also said "among other reasons". This is so vague it could mean almost anything, INCLUDING speaking on public forums. The fact of the matter is BPU has documented proof that two of your sites closed at LEAST one players accounts due to "forum membership".

You said:


And you would know THIS inaccuracy how? We most certainly were advised that several from a family and group of friends, had their accounts there. They never hid that fact.

You said:


Please elaborate on "these individuals". Which ones in particular are we talking about? Your sites have closed accounts for forum membership in the past and we have no proof whatsoever that you have not penalized "them" in the same way. When it comes down to "who's word" one will believe, how would you decide? The fact that you are an online gaming site holds no more punch than the person who comes to us with a complaint. We are neutral. We deal with facts and documentation.
Show us something that will make your story more believable!

You said:


Define "in one form OR another" please. I believe if you are going to have rules, they should be specific, not "generic". It may not be a new concept, but your site using this publicly FIRST as grounds to close many accounts will certainly bring you into the public eye enough that sooner or later you will need to provide some clear answers. Sooner works for me.

You said:


and also ...



Is there a reason why you do not monitor and recognize this information BEFORE you let these players deposit to play on your site? Is it fair to assume that if you would do this before a player can deposit, that ultimately, issues like the one being discussed in ALL the major forums at this moment will not be happening?

I agree not only that it is a very good policy for your sake but would be just as good a policy if the players were included in the same "protection" measures. Please understand I am not against this policy... I am just against letting people sign up, fund your site with their money and then shutting down their accounts with no warning whatsoever.

Your lack of response to player issues is known throughout the bingo playing world. Don't all "reputable" sites take care of their player issues? This would not put you into that catagory as you do not! Otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.

You said:


May I ask if you , in ANY way, insure the fact that your new members have read, understand and accept your rules? Do you have anything at all put in place that they can click "yes or no"? Is there an announcement of any size that would make it impossible for them to miss the fact that by simply signing up, they automatically agree to the rules? Can/will you put in place a link that will automatically redirect new members to the rules page?

It is common knowledge that these site operators can do what they want when they want. What you need to think about is your players for a change. Yes I know some of them are out to get as many bonus bucks as they can, which, by the way does them no good whatsoever. Those are designed to help the odds of house payouts and we both know that. So the fact that sites see it as abuse will always confuse me.

When a player plays on free bonus monies without depositing first, MOST sites do not allow withdrawals from those funds. All they CAN do with it is play. When they win, they cannot cash out, leaving paying players being the ones abused. Now I ask you, is that PLAYER abuse or is it SITE abuse? YOU give the bonuses.

You said:


I understand your rules. I do not agree, but do understand. Fair would be if a player were to decide RIGHT NOW they wanted to close their account and collect their winnings... RIGHT NOW. The same as you close accounts when you WANT to. As far as I can see fairness to the player is not written into these "industry standard " rules you use.

You said:


Call it what you will. You are in the ONLINE GAMBLING business. A rose by any other name is STILL a rose.

Disabling a players account without cause??? I am assuming "among others" and "primary" reasons are valid "cause" to your "risk management" team?

You said:


What about the other members with unpaid winnings issued that NEVER got their payouts? They/we either had very little response, NO response and most certainly NO satisfaction from any of your support teams. The "ring" of players you refer to.... did you offer them any "referral" bonus rewards? If the answer is yes, the picture I am getting is the fact that YOU enticed them to refer friends and family. When they did YOU closed their accounts because you do not "like the names" and addresses in their "circle of friends and family".

What about the documented fact that your site, Bingozest, on TWO occassions outright lied to questions from a player about being related to other sites under your management?


You said:


This does NOT satisfy my inquiries, nor the players I represent. Now we get to "Our Policy". We have a policy that does not allow content from our site to be deleted. If there comes a time when this issue has been satisfied, then and only then COULD it be relocated but never deleted. At this time I have not come across any "unjust" comments. When they are proven to be unjust, then removing them to archives might be discussed. Would you like for us to take the same amount of time you did in responding to player issues?

You said:


As we are required to show proof of our statements we would like to ask the same of you. Your word just is not enough considering your past history of closing accounts, paying some and not paying others. You are not dealing with "any bingo operator".

We are the BingoPlayersUnion (all one word) and we are not interested in how other sites view your policy at this time. We are interested in acceptable closure of many open issues concerning the management and operations in many areas of your sites.

Would you care to explain how you can have a .UK on the end of some of your sites and yet you do not have to abide by the new UK regulations? Several are working on this as we speak. We will get the answers from somewhere. A step in the right direction would be if they came from you.

Regards
Karen aka Sissy
Admin
www.bingoplayersunion.com
sissy@bingoplayersunion.com

Asked and answered.. thanks. These are for BingoZest and BingoSky.

Quote:


https://secure.bingosky.co.uk/?url=p...l/register.php


Quote:


(*) Required fields



https://secure.bingozest.co.uk/?url=...l/register.php


Quote:


Edited to add to information:
http://www.cyberbingo.com/register.asp
http://www.alphabingo.net/register.asp

CyberBingo & Alphabingo.net only have one link with a box you can check to "swear" you are over 18.
The fact that you are agreeing to rules and regs WITH simply signing up is not there.

https://secure.dailyexpress-bingo.com/? ... gister.php

Daily Express Bingo does have the links to rules and regs along with one to certify that you have no further accounts.