startpage wrote on 22/02/2020 at 00:34
From GJ's point of view, the lapse was the biggest one you can get away with, namely to a call for a boycott or a
Call to rate that casino poorly. There it goes to the core of making money here. This makes ratings a farce, and therefore uninteresting for casinos to be listed here
to be listed here. That is just a supergau from an entrepreneur's point of view. The insults are in my opinion not at all
so relevant. Sure, they don't have to be, but you don't have to block for that. But it can be just
wonderfully push forward.
My goodness you write a lot of manure
Good morning everyone!
Do you really think that, for example, the new casinos that we have included are grateful for Christoph's reviews and pay us well because of it?
We ourselves rate the casinos honestly and objectively. You can earn money on the Internet if you don't focus on making money all the time.
Of course, we earn money by advertising casinos, but from a financial point of view, we don't care which casino is at the top or bottom.
Just take a look at this:
Does this look like a well-paid promo?
Bones wrote on 21.02.2020 at 14:54
I can't find this right now, but I had a discussion about this here on the forum some time ago
The problem is this: Of course, the quality of a casino is measured by various factors. On GambleJoe there are currently 6 criteria for evaluation. I do not know if all these criteria in the same ratio result in an overall rating. For the moment, I'm going to assume that they do.
Suppose I play in the new casino XY. Casino XY has 7000 slots from 100 manufacturers. They are all nicely sortable by filters, run flawlessly and additionally there are hidden Bonuses for achievements like "4 wins in a row" or "3 times free spins triggered" to be found in many games. Then there is also a revolutionary Cashback system without turnover and for the first 3 deposits 50 free spins each without turnover requirements. For the first withdrawal I have to verify and the support is super helpful and nice, just says it can take a while. Then the harassment starts and I have to constantly submit any documents that make no sense at all. Notarized proof of registration for example. Or information about my income. In the end I also violated very strange bonus rules like betting more than 5% of the bonus amount on one line or playing a Jackpot game that doesn't have a progressive jackpot. They want to deny me the payout.
Now how do I honestly rate the hypothetical Casino XY?
Fun factor: 5 (due to smooth performance and hidden bonuses)
Game selection: 5
Bonus: 5
Support: 4-5
Initial payout: 0
Subsequent payout: -
Cut: 4
Thus, a very good casino
I can't think of a direct solution to this. A weighting perhaps. The problem is, if a casino has a relatively poor selection of games and, for example, only 5 major providers for slots in the program but for it smoothly and within an hour verified and paid out, then that is worth much more than a super broad casino with which you have trouble for weeks. Even if the point game selection is certainly important, it can not be rated the same as first payout. The point support is also difficult. That depends partly very much on the individual employee and says little about the casino itself. The fun factor is very spongy. If I am only losing, I have little fun but the casino has no influence.
And last but not least, the huge problem that Christoph himself has addressed here in the thread: Spinia has no game selection of 0.5 stars. But if the casino really does not pay out at all and crosses the casino has also not earned an average rating of 2.5 - 3 stars, only because of the super selection and the great layout of the page. These are absolutely negligible points when it comes to dubious casinos. These points should find weighting when everything else runs TOP. Otherwise, it is somehow completely indifferent.
Thanks for your detailed example, is understandable what you write.
We will discuss this on Monday at the team meeting.
and then really come some and try to defend that because he once brought good comments?
In professional life, you are also directly out if you try to pee on the company's leg
By the way, it is well known that after 3 warnings you simply get a timeout
He can be glad that he was not completely blocked
Find that in this case, everything was done right
I don't understand the discussion either. It does not matter who it is about. Members were insulted and announced that in the future so handzuhaben further.
Since a ban is understandable
it's a matter of weighing up the costs and benefits.
The benefit GJ has from a user like Marc and his contributions, is imho significantly higher than the cost or the trouble he causes by a somewhat rougher choice of words. In addition, his choice of words was not even extremely offensive, rather direct and adapted to the level of some (not all!) Fellow discussants
It was a mistake to ban him. Also the warnings were already exaggerated. Sure, you should keep to a certain netiquette, but you're not here in a pink strawberry world, where you have to pampern the people so they do not start to cry.
Begbie wrote on 22.02.2020 at 09:58: it's about weighing, cost/benefit.
The benefit GJ gets from a user like Marc and his posts is imho much higher than the cost or trouble he causes by a slightly rougher choice of words. In addition, his choice of words was not even extremely offensive, rather direct and adapted to the level of some (not all!) Fellow discussants
It was a mistake to ban him. Also the warnings were already exaggerated. Sure, you should keep to a certain netiquette, but you're not here in a pink strawberry world, where you have to pampern the people so they do not start to cry.
Yes, that's true, but you don't have to start crying because a user of a gambling forum was banned for a month. Nobody wants to expel him from the country or something like that....
More I have to say about it also not, one should stop then also again about a user to speak, which cannot express itself at present to it
Begbie wrote on 22.02.2020 at 09:58: it's about weighing, cost/benefit.
The benefit GJ gets from a user like Marc and his posts is imho much higher than the cost or trouble he causes by a slightly rougher choice of words. In addition, his choice of words was not even extremely offensive, rather direct and adapted to the level of some (not all!) Fellow discussants
It was a mistake to ban him. Also the warnings were already exaggerated. Sure, you should keep to a certain netiquette, but you're not here in a pink strawberry world, where you have to pampern the people so they do not start to cry.
So I find it more than "a little rough" and inappropriate when he calls GambleJoe employees parasites.
In this case, he was referring to me. By the way, since he continued to dish it out that day, he got his 1st warning.
And yes, we have house rules, we don't tolerate that. A ban for 30 days is appropriate from our point of view.
Begbie wrote on 22.02.2020 at 09:58: it's about weighing, cost/benefit.
The benefit GJ gets from a user like Marc and his posts is imho much higher than the cost or trouble he causes by a slightly rougher choice of words. In addition, his choice of words was not even extremely offensive, rather direct and adapted to the level of some (not all!) Fellow discussants
It was a mistake to ban him. Also the warnings were already exaggerated. Sure, you should keep to a certain netiquette, but you're not here in a pink strawberry world, where you have to pampern the people so they do not start to cry.
Look my friend, it's simple. If you have a problem with the way GJ acts, you can always delete your account and you don't have to do this to yourself anymore. Alternatively accept how they handle it here because at the end of the day you are the guest on this forum. So behave like it. Because what is a mistake here or not is ultimately decided by Gamble Joe. House right and so...;)
stammuser? again and again falls this word in the context --> sure everyone has a different idea of what you can call a stammuser
10 posts a day, whether perceived as good or bad, can not justify this designation then strkie would also have to be a stammuser, under different circumstances, comes again and again although constantly locked.
would also not call myself a stammuserin and thus want to stand out as something better than some (real) newcomer here.
since you are all just arguing again (maybe because we is) --> fire free and tschau cocoa, icke go shopping, stroll, solarium, cafe, once with and once without, etc etc
Iseedeadpeople wrote on 22.02.2020 at 12:36 pm: stammuser? again and again falls this word in the context --> sure everyone has a different idea what you can call a stammuser
10 posts a day, whether perceived as good or bad, can not justify this designation then strkie would also have to be a stammuser, under different circumstances, comes again and again although constantly locked.
would also not call myself a stammuserin and thus want to stand out as something better than some (real) newcomer here.
since you're all just arguing again (maybe because it's we) --> feuer frei und tschau kakao, icke geh shoppen, bummeln, solarium, cafe, once with and once without, etc etc
Member blocking
Liked this post:
Dutch78
My goodness you write a lot of manure
Good morning everyone!
Do you really think that, for example, the new casinos that we have included are grateful for Christoph's reviews and pay us well because of it?
We ourselves rate the casinos honestly and objectively. You can earn money on the Internet if you don't focus on making money all the time.
Of course, we earn money by advertising casinos, but from a financial point of view, we don't care which casino is at the top or bottom.
Just take a look at this:
Does this look like a well-paid promo?
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Liked this post:
Stromberg
Thanks for your detailed example, is understandable what you write.
We will discuss this on Monday at the team meeting.
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Liked this post: Anonym, G****e,
Klempo77, 
Matthias, 
Nik89, 
RebellYell, 
sippi, 
snopsim, 
Stromberg
called for boycott
and then really come some and try to defend that because he once brought good comments?
In professional life, you are also directly out if you try to pee on the company's leg
By the way, it is well known that after 3 warnings you simply get a timeout
He can be glad that he was not completely blocked
Find that in this case, everything was done right
Good job, Gamble Joe!
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Liked this post: Anonym,
Klempo77, 
Nik89, 
RebellYell, 
sippi
Since a ban is understandable
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
The benefit GJ has from a user like Marc and his contributions, is imho significantly higher than the cost or the trouble he causes by a somewhat rougher choice of words. In addition, his choice of words was not even extremely offensive, rather direct and adapted to the level of some (not all!) Fellow discussants
It was a mistake to ban him. Also the warnings were already exaggerated. Sure, you should keep to a certain netiquette, but you're not here in a pink strawberry world, where you have to pampern the people so they do not start to cry.
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
Yes, that's true, but you don't have to start crying because a user of a gambling forum was banned for a month. Nobody wants to expel him from the country or something like that....
More I have to say about it also not, one should stop then also again about a user to speak, which cannot express itself at present to it
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Liked this post: Anonym,
Nik89, 
sippi
So I find it more than "a little rough" and inappropriate when he calls GambleJoe employees parasites.
In this case, he was referring to me. By the way, since he continued to dish it out that day, he got his 1st warning.
And yes, we have house rules, we don't tolerate that. A ban for 30 days is appropriate from our point of view.
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
Look my friend, it's simple. If you have a problem with the way GJ acts, you can always delete your account and you don't have to do this to yourself anymore. Alternatively accept how they handle it here because at the end of the day you are the guest on this forum. So behave like it. Because what is a mistake here or not is ultimately decided by Gamble Joe. House right and so...;)
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
10 posts a day, whether perceived as good or bad, can not justify this designation then strkie would also have to be a stammuser, under different circumstances, comes again and again although constantly locked.
would also not call myself a stammuserin and thus want to stand out as something better than some (real) newcomer here.
since you are all just arguing again (maybe because we is) --> fire free and tschau cocoa, icke go shopping, stroll, solarium, cafe, once with and once without, etc etc
This post has been translated automatically
Member blocking
Nobody has liked this post so far
Will you bring me something? Please....
This post has been translated automatically