Disturbing- I've seen at least four thread titles edited by mods the past few days

JayC · Jan 17, 2006

What's with all of the title editing?

I have seen title's edited about Nine, Hollywood, and Bet365. I can't remember the fourth.

The original titles, while not very nice were not slanderous (word/sp?) or libelous. They were just posters who were upset about policies at said books. Nothing wrong with them.

"Nine.com is a joke" is not worthy of edit. It's one poster's opinion.

I think the edit fucntion should be used sparingly.

Acceptable edit:

Book X stole my money ----> Something else
If it is shown that the poster is wrong, if the poster can't make his case. If it is just some nut who is out of line go ahead and edit. Nobody expects you to leave lies and incorrect facts in titles.

Unacceptable edit:

Book X, customer service sucks
Book X, limits are a joke
Book X, ridiculous bonus police
etc.
etc.
etc.

TTinCO · Jan 17, 2006

Jay, as much as I respect you-in the "old days", you know damn well that those entire threads would have vanished into nowhere land faster than you can click your heels.

teazeman · Jan 17, 2006

TTinCO said:
Jay, as much as I respect you-in the "old days", you know damn well that those entire threads would have vanished into nowhere land faster than you can click your heels.

so this somehow makes the edit legit? please read your post and let me know if you find any logic in it.

ChuckSims · Jan 17, 2006

I have never seen this kind of editing, deleting of posts since 2001, when the idiot " STING" was a mod here.

BaseballGuy · Jan 17, 2006

TTinCO said:
Jay, as much as I respect you-in the "old days", you know damn well that those entire threads would have vanished into nowhere land faster than you can click your heels.

That is a logical fallacy.

That is like saying, "in the old days I killed thousands of people, but now I just kill a few". Like just killing a few is any better?

BTW, is that the new mod auto-response when people complain about posts being edited? Wil said the same exact thing yesterday.

freebie · Jan 17, 2006

Jay C said:
What's with all of the title editing?

I have seen title's edited about Nine, Hollywood, and Bet365. I can't remember the fourth.

The original titles, while not very nice were not slanderous (word/sp?) or libelous. They were just posters who were upset about policies at said books. Nothing wrong with them.

"Nine.com is a joke" is not worthy of edit. It's one poster's opinion.

I think the edit fucntion should be used sparingly.

Acceptable edit:

Book X stole my money ----> Something else
If it is shown that the poster is wrong, if the poster can't make his case. If it is just some nut who is out of line go ahead and edit. Nobody expects you to leave lies and incorrect facts in titles.

Unacceptable edit:

Book X, customer service sucks
Book X, limits are a joke
Book X, ridiculous bonus police
etc.
etc.
etc.

Not just threads being edited, but post being deleted also :icon_conf

edub69 · Jan 17, 2006

Obviously, part of a moderator's job description is to paint their advertisers in the most favorable light possible. It would be nice for the mods' sake if some of the advertisers didn't employ questionable business practices or provide disgraceful customer service.

wilheim · Jan 17, 2006

Edits

There have been three recently - two edited on one poster SCnit who started two threads siultanously - one about Bodog and another about Milenium.

Orinignal title:
Bodog spending player $ on advertising'

Edited because the charge is totaly bogus.. Nothing else to say - just not true.

I edited the title to simply Bodog and the thread stood Offshore for two days before it faded back to page two.

Original title;

'Millenium stop spamming me!!!!!!!!!!!'

SCnit recieved one email a week from a book he signed up with offering him a bonus and freeplay. He was offered relief in the thread by Millenium- it was then edited after that to simply Millenium and stood Offshore for two days before it faded back to page two.

The thrid thread about Hollywood was:

'If You Want To Deal With An Asshole At Hollywood Sportsbook.'

Was started by poster Tang.

You tell me -- is that appropriate? I changed it to simply Hollywood and let the rant stand in the thread.

There was no edit to any Bet365 thread that I can find.

I edit these thread titles for a couple of reasons.

1. if the title is profane or completely inappropriate.

2. title is unfounded internet hearsay and very dangerous regardless of what the subject is. eg. Bodog is spending customer funds on advertising.

3. If the issue is rectified and the poster is satisfied. This usually happens well after the thread has run it's course. This is the most common reason for an edit and usually OK'd by the poster in the thread or by email to me.

wil.

edub69 · Jan 17, 2006

There was another one about BetBug being a ghost town that was edited as well.

If you would simply announce somewhere in the thread that the title was edited and why it was edited, rather than just editing it and having someone from the peanut gallery like myself point it out, you would probably catch a lot less flak.

wilheim · Jan 17, 2006

I forgot to add the one that started this whole thing.

Poster PPeter's recent thread about Nine.com.

Original title:

'Is There a BIGGER JOKE Than NINE.COM?'

Edited to simply Nine.com

The thread is still at the top of Offshore on it's third day and nine.com is being called every name in the book because of lowering a player's online limits while allowing him to call in for extra if he wants. There was nothing out of line done by their CSD in the original post. The CSD clerk simply could not answer the questions aked by PPeter.

Here is a recent conversation with their customer service rep, who was as useless as a third tit on a boar when I wanted confirmation I had completed my rollover there and also wanted to know why they cut my limits to $100 a game...

Nick: Hello
you: hi
you: two questions
you: 1) why is my account restricted to $100 wagering limits
you: 2) how close am i to finishing my rollover
you: and for the record, i am a lifetime loser there
you: i lost my entire first deposit
Nick: One moment please.
Nick: Ok, Yes you Internet Wagering is restricted to $100 maximum, If you would like some more money on any game or line you need to give us a call to wagering department 1-800-214-0255.
you: I KNOW THAT
you: MY QUESTION IS WHY
Nick: You may need to talk to a Manger from Wagering tomorrow after 9am Eastern Standard Time.
you: well thats 3 am my time
you: have i completed my rollover?
Nick: From 9am to 6Pm Eastern Time
you: that you should be able to answer for sure
Nick: and for the roll over yo may need to speak with our Accounting Department... They are the ones with the access to see if roll over requirement is complete. From 9am to 5 Pm Eastern Time.
you: man what use is customer service
you: ok, i see you are completely useless, incapable of hitting a button to see my aggregate action
you: and you want me to CALL to get this info?
Nick: From 9am to 5 Pm Eastern Time.
Nick:
you: gottcha
you: ok have a good one
Nick: 1-800-213-3370 to Client Services and ask to speak with Accounting...
Nick: You too, Thank you.

After reading this exchange I didn't feel the title was being fair to nine.com.

wil.

wilheim · Jan 17, 2006

There was another one about BetBug being a ghost town that was edited as well.

yes that was back in mid December and was OK'd by the original poster later in the thread. BetBug replied in the thread and it ran it's course. The fact is BetBug is not a ghostown.

wil.

edub69 · Jan 17, 2006

I personally know nothing about BetBug, and I didn't mean to rehash an old issue. I just thought I would offer my two cents on how to avoid bad appearances, since I was the one who pointed out that the nine.com thread title had been modified.

bigbet1234 · Jan 17, 2006

How long's it been since RX staff has agreed with a player....

about a valid complaint about an advertiser. Being it Bodog, nine, bet365, hollywood.

It's the poster that make the site, not the advertisers. Fine, they are paying top $$$ for a spot above, but I think there needs to be new guide lines when editing post for a legitmate claim against some of the shit books you have on here.

The book should also know it is part of adervertising in a public forum, its called "contructive critisim."

Grant it, talking down to a CS rep is not called for(cough, cough, ppeter) but I can see his frustration. I have had my share of aggravating converstations with the offshore world. Hell, my 5 years old nephew would no more than some of them.

Overall, I think there should be some new guildlines in place. New posters signing up should be able to read(unedite) post, so they can make their own descison.

And yes, Wil. blatant lies should be corrected, but one personal experice with a advertiser should not.

BB

wmublows · Jan 17, 2006

Editing titles isn't a new or old practice. It is done all the time. Anytime someone says something about a book that advertises here, the title gets edited in favor of the book. I had it happen to me last summer. Again here is that nice little article about watchdog sites and TheRx isn't exempt from it.

Online Casino 'Watchdogs'
Sometimes Have Conflicts

By DAVID KESMODEL
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
December 15, 2005

The boom in online gambling -- along with concerns about sending money to Internet casinos that operate out of loosely regulated locales like Aruba, Costa Rica and Belize – has spawned a cottage industry: Web sites that purport to tell gamblers which operations they can trust, and which have reputations for cheating players.

These self-styled watchdogs publish reviews of online sportsbooks and poker sites, and maintain lists of recommended casinos. But gamblers may not realize that several of the watchdog sites have conflicts of interest. Many take advertisements from gambling operations, and some are paid commissions for driving traffic to casinos. One site, MajorWager.com, owns one of the sportsbooks it recommends.

The upshot: gambling operators sometimes get sparkling grades on watchdog sites where they have advertising or business relationships, while receiving poor marks where they don't.

CAST YOUR VOTE

Which type of Web site is most in need of greater government oversight? Participate in the Question of the Day.Some ratings sites have said "if you don't pay me money, I will write bad things about you," said Alistair Assheton, chief executive of Leisure & Gaming PLC, which is publicly traded in London and operates gambling sites such as VIPsports.com and VIPpoker.com. "It's very flattering to be very high on these lists, but it is not very flattering to pay $10,000 to be on the list." He said his company has been approached by sites that offered positive ratings in exchange for payment. He declined to name them.

Big Business

Revenue from Internet gambling will total $12 billion world-wide this year, according to research firm Christiansen Capital Advisors LLC. About half will come from Americans, Christiansen said, even though the U.S. government says three federal antigambling laws make online gambling illegal and several states have explicitly banned the practice.

Sites like MajorWager.com, SportsbookReview.com and OSGA.com -- the "Offshore Gaming Association" – have capitalized on consumers' concerns about betting on the Web by offering their own guidance on where bettors can safely gamble. The sites rate casinos using a combination of their own analysis and reports from users on factors like how quickly a company pays out winnings. Some of the reviewers say they visit the offices of the casinos in person.

But many of the review sites have close ties to the casinos. Consider MajorWager.com, a site founded in 2000 by Russ Hawkins, a 39-year-old who used to make his living as a gambler. Mr. Hawkins, who works out of his lakeside home in Southampton, Ontario, also owns MajorBetting.com, a small Internet sportsbook based in Costa Rica. MajorBetting.com is on MajorWager.com's list of recommended sportsbooks.

MajorWager.com doesn't disclose on its recommendation page that it owns the sportsbook, though users who click through to a review of MajorBetting.com are told about the relationship.

MajorWager.com discloses that all of its recommended sportsbooks are also advertisers.

Mr. Hawkins said he pays Royal Sports Group, a gambling company in Costa Rica, to manage MajorBetting.com. Royal Sports is also on MajorWager.com's list of recommended sportsbooks, and advertises on the MajorWager.com site.

Mr. Hawkins said MajorWager.com's business relationships do not influence its ratings of gambling sites "in any way, shape or form." There are "conflicts of interest everywhere" among the watchdog sites, he said. "We try to show it. We don't hide it." He said advertisers pay MajorWager.com a flat fee of $3,000 a month.

Varied Ratings

Royal Sports Group has a mixed reputation among ratings sites.

At SportsbookReview.com, Royal Sports gets a rating of "D-." Sites in that class have "poor customer service," with "some risk to players' funds," SportsbookReview.com says. When "players stop reporting that Royal will not pay them, we will gladly review their current rating," Shannon Donlea, financial controller at SBR Marketing Ltd., SportsbookReview.com's parent, said in an email message.

TheOffshoreWire.com, another review site, also has reported that Royal Sports is slow to pay winning gamblers. It rates the site a five out of 10, and includes it on a list of "high-risk sportsbooks."

Royal Sports does not advertise on either site.

But at OSGA, Royal Sports is endorsed both as a sportsbook and as a poker site. The review says, "Royal has been through the ringer the last two years but, as a very established company would, has come out smelling like a rose." Royal Sports advertises on OSGA.com.

Kevin King, general manager of Royal Sports, said the company has had occasional problems with payment processors that have delayed payments to players, but he said SportsbookReview.com and TheOffshoreWire.com have exaggerated the issue. He said Royal Sports used to pay commissions to SportsbookReview.com for linking customers to its site, and said the review site maintained a positive rating on Royal Sports during that time.

Meanwhile, the owner of TheOffshoreWire.com, Roberto Castiglioni, is a former executive at Royal Sports.

Mr. Donlea, of SportsbookReview.com, and Mr. Castiglioni both said their negative reviews of Royal Sports were based on complaints from gamblers, and not their own dealings with the casino.

Ratings of other online gambling sites also vary widely. BetonSports.com, whose parent, BetonSports Plc, is publicly traded in London, is not rated at MajorWager.com. It is endorsed at OSGA.com, where it is an advertiser. Meanwhile, it gets a "D+" at SportsbookReview.com, where it has no business relationship.

Objectivity of Reviews

SportsbookReview.com rates hundreds of Internet sportsbooks, and criticizes sites that have a reputation of not paying winning bettors promptly. The site says on its main page that it has "no sportsbook ads." But it features prominent links to two other sites it owns: a discussion forum for bettors, where there are ads for sportsbooks; and another site where SportsbookReview.com earns commissions for directing bettors to sportsbooks.

SportsbookReview.com's Mr. Donlea said these relationships don't influence the company's reviews. He said the company takes "player complaints seriously and [has] a no-nonsense approach to rating sportsbooks." The company has offices in Costa Rica, the Caribbean island of Curacao and near San Antonio, Texas, he said.

Other owners of ratings sites also defended their acceptance of advertising. "I wouldn't take money from an advertiser I wouldn't put my money at," said Jim Quinn, president of OSGA.com, which is based in Bala Cynwyd, Pa. The site recommends 40 sportsbooks, most of which pay to advertise on the site. "We actually visit these places," he said, adding that he has met in person with executives at more than 100 sportsbooks located in the Caribbean and elsewhere.

Write to David Kesmodel at david.kesmodel@wsj.com

Journeyman · Jan 17, 2006

bigbet1234 said:
about a valid complaint about an advertiser. Being it Bodog, nine, bet365, hollywood.

It's the poster that make the site, not the advertisers. Fine, they are paying top $$$ for a spot above, but I think there needs to be new guide lines when editing post for a legitmate claim against some of the shit books you have on here.

The book should also know it is part of adervertising in a public forum, its called "contructive critisim."

Grant it, talking down to a CS rep is not called for(cough, cough, ppeter) but I can see his frustration. I have had my share of aggravating converstations with the offshore world. Hell, my 5 years old nephew would no more than some of them.

Overall, I think there should be some new guildlines in place. New posters signing up should be able to read(unedite) post, so they can make their own descison.

And yes, Wil. blatant lies should be corrected, but one personal experice with a advertiser should not.

BB

Bigbet, before this turns into a lynch the mod fest, I am merging this post into the complaint about edits, that has already been started.

:nopityA:

bigbet1234 · Jan 17, 2006

No lynch the mod's fest. All about being able to express ones experience with adversiters above.

Also, I'd suggest changing Jay's post title back to his own. We aren't editing this early are we?:missingte

Journeyman said:
Bigbet, before this turns into a lynch the mod fest, I am merging this post into the complaint about edits, that has already been started.

:nopityA:

Journeyman · Jan 17, 2006

Oh brother, and to think we aren't even in the off season yet.

bigbet1234 · Jan 17, 2006

J-man, lighten up, it was a joke. Go have a coke, you have been a little edgey as of late :dancefool

BB

Journeyman said:
Oh brother, and to think we aren't even in the off season yet.

Dante · Jan 17, 2006

BB you are in rare form this AM my man:modemman: ...you should be praying palmer comes back for training camp or the bengal BOUNCE is in trouble:Sad Face:

seriously though this is an extremely HONEST group of mods here or I would not be a part of it....they always try there hardest

bigbet1234 · Jan 17, 2006

Dante:

Said nothing about the honesty of the mods. Just stating my opinion on what can and can't be said about advertisers.

I think mods do a hell of a job. Don't always agree, but a good job indeed.

BB