| Archive for blackjake.myfastforum.org casino best links tips and tricks best bonus copons gamblers talk... |
| manger |
This post about Ecogra sums it upeCogra is nothing more than an elaborate marketing exercise, in my opinion.Quote: The current Facts: Fact ECogra start up costs were injected by John Anderson (CEO 888) and Roger Raatgever (CEO Microgaming™). Fact Both John Anderson and Roger Raatgever are non-executive independent Directors. Fact All non-executive independent Directors will always have control over board decisions. Fact eCogra suspended All Slots Casino Play It Safe seal for unethical SE practice. Fact 888 holds an eCogra Play It Safe seal. Fact eCogra have not suspended 888.com of it's Play It Safe seal, even though 888.com have been in direct violation of the same eGAP guidelines to which All Slots Casino had their Play It Safe seal suspended. Fact eCogra states on their home page: http://www.ecogra.com "eCOGRA is the independent standards authority of the online gaming industry, specifically overseeing fair gaming, player protection and responsible operator conduct. Prompt payments, safe storage of information, random games, honest advertising, and responsible behavior by the online casino and poker room operator are the primary concerns of every player, so that means they are also the primary concerns of eCOGRA, "eCommerce and Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance". Our goal is to deliver all of these player imperatives at quality sites carrying the eCOGRA “Play It Safe” Seal. Be sure to look for it, everytime you play. If it’s not there, your site may not be safe." Yet on the casino approved page they state this: http://www.ecogra.com/approved.aspx?OP=P "While eCOGRA does its utmost to ensure compliance with its principles, it cannot offer 100% assurance that the operation of any games at any given site is at all times in accordance with the eCOGRA requirements. Therefore eCOGRA cannot assume responsibility for the consequences resulting from the use of any Internet gaming site bearing the eCOGRA Play It Safe seal. eCOGRA is not liable to any person or group of persons, firm, company or entity for losses of any description that a user of an accredited site may suffer. Accredited sites are subject to regular monitoring of their operation." That btw is called a retraction*. These retractions are riff throughout the eCogra site. In essence eCogra does NOT stand by their Play It Safe seals. As far as eCogra being Transparent, I've searched high and low and cant not find anywhere where it states that eCogra was funded by John Anderson (CEO 888) and Roger Raatgever (CEO Microgaming™). The same gentleman who hold non-executive independent Director positions at eCogra. The same non-executive independent Directors who can over ride the eCogra Board decisions. By not acting on suspending 888 of its Play It Safe seal speaks volumes and should point to where eCogra's independence ultimately lays. eCogra is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. -------------------- * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retraction Rectraction (re·trac·tion) 1/ The act of retracting or the state of being retracted. 2 a. The act of recanting or disavowing a previously held statement or belief. b. A formal statement of disavowal. c. Something recanted or disavowed. 3/ The power of drawing back or of being drawn back Source __________________ Onlineplayersunion.com (We protect the players) |
| max |
eCOGRA is the independent standards authority of the online gaming industry
This is SUCH a crock to be parading at the top of a home page. It is blatantly INCORRECT. 1) eCOGRA "overseas" Microgamig and Cassava. eCOGRA does not "oversea" Playtech. Nor RTG. nor anyone else who is NOT Microgaming / Cassava. So can one of the eCOGRA advocates please explain to me HOW eCOGRA can therefore call themselves "the independent standards authority of the online gaming industry"? The only correct claim is "...of casinos running Microgaming and Cassava software". Why is making blatantly FALSE claims acceptable? 2) While Andrew Beveridge does, to his credit, acknowledge that the "non-idependent" nature of the "independent" directors is a problem (see the eCOGRA independence section of my site report), this acknowledgement does NOT make the fact any less pertinent. eCOGRA recently found in favour of Cassava when the software giant accused a player of "bonus abuse" and withheld his winnings - see the relevant WOL thread. eCOGRA have been silent on the site-scaping issue - and before anyone claims it's not a "player issue", of course it is when it targets members of the public who search for non-gambling matters and end up directed to Cassava, playing and losing! How the heck can this not be a "player issue"? The PR bandwagon will surge forward, we can be sure of that. The whitewash will be plastered on in bucketloads. Yet the questions remain unanswered. And until the issues are addressed, this will remain a PR excercise. A brilliant one, no doubt. But a PR excercise nonetheless, or an elaborate marketing excercise, as Damian calls it. |
| manger |
I've just looked at the CAP thread Damian quoted from above. Check this out:
http://www.ecogra.com/promo/oggs/ eCOGRA have a bunch of AFFILIATE LINKS for another portal - mouse over any of them and check out the code. These aren't eCOGRA affiliate links, these are affiliate links from one of their "approved sites" - see here: http://www.ecogra.com/reputable_portals.aspx? Sorry, but exactly what the hell is going on here?? eCOGRA are not only advertising portals, they're putting up those portals' own affiliate links - and the portal in question just happens to be the portal belonging to one of the Casinomeister moderators. What kind of incestuous nonsense is this? I have never before seen one portal put up ANOTHER portal's affiliate links - but this isn't any old portal, this is "the independent standards authority of the online gaming industry", and the portal in question is the one belonging to a close friend of a highly influential member of the online casino industry. What the blankety-blank is this about? This is blatantly absurd. Promotion of other portals per se is already inappropriate enough, but putting up those portals' affiliate links on their site is absolutely off the scale. How can ANYONE seriously invest this claim to "independence" with any credibility at this point? |
| den |
I was once blind but now I see.
Yep, the majority of the original links were mostly casinomeister regulars; no offense guys and gals just pointing out the facts: Simmo, Webzcas, Meister, Got2bet, GreedyGirl, Dominique, etc. eCOGRA is undoubtedly nothing but a marketing ploy and the last 6 months has or so has made everything so very clear. How can a casino watchdog who claims to be monitoring "the online gambling industry" which is supposed to have so much integrity show so much favoritism by sending players to a select few portals? "In seeking as wide a protection for the player as possible, eCOGRA has identified a number of portals where we are confident that players can benefit from the integrity and quality of the content, and the commitment to fair play and customer service of the portalmaster. " A few of those sites are nothing but banner farms. I never checked each site out, but it appears that some individuals have more than one site listed, maybe even as many as 3-4! As you've stated so much for independence! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| gege |
Perhaps because I am not involved in the affiliate world I am badly informed on this, but I can never understand why you guys have such a huge bee in your bonnets about reputable portals wanting to associate themselves with the player protective ideals of the eCOGRA initiative?
Where's the harm in any webmaster wanting to do that? You are aware, I take it that this is only done on the initiative of the webmasters concerned, who take the time to contact the eCOGRA CEO and seek to be associated with the site? It's not the other way around with eCOGRA canvassing their involvement. And it's open to all - even you guys could be considered despite being so thoroughly committed to bashing everything eCOGRA does and bitterly attacking anyone who takes an opposite view on it. I've been directed to a similar discussion to this one over at the Professor's site yesterday, and I note excerpts from it posted here so I guess you chaps are simply using WOL to spread your anti-eCOGRA message a little wider. At least the CAP discussion has the 888.com as the legitimate basis for discussion as opposed to this thread, which Bethug has characteristically started in order to have at eCOGRA yet again. And predictably you all fell into line to do what he wanted. Whilst we're on the subject of 888.com, one of the things that amazed me on my brief visit to the CAP thread was the fact that you guys seemed more intent on hacking away at eCOGRA than on rallying behind the Professor in his laudable efforts to resolve this blackhat SEO crisis by practical and self-assertive (affiliate) action. The Professor has clearly gone to considerable trouble to set up a dialogue with 888.com in a genuine attempt to resolve the black hat SEO crisis you have all been protesting so vigorously. I would have thought this was a time for unity and rallying behind him to achieve this rather than haring off at a tangent in your haste to throw more mud at eCOGRA. |