Quote from: actmyname on August 13, 2016, 07:10:24 PM

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 07:01:54 PM

It is relevant. It is not truthful to pretend that the rules for one game ("Greedy Goblins") apply to another totally different game ("The Glam Life") which has its own rules. The fact is that only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot as was specified in the rules of the REAL game "The Glam Life" and free spins are not max bet spins because "maximum" and "free" have antithetical definitions. Maximum: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum Free: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

See, when one knowingly bases their own information on information that is demonstrably false, then their own conclusions are already demonstrably false.

"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" was Betcoin's phrasing to attempt to solidify their argument of "free spins do not award jackpots".

They have that in the sentence prior: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses"

So, if the terms don't coincide with the game rules, then certainly there's a problem. Which one takes precedence?

My arguments have had nothing to do with Glam Life, by the way. I was only arguing about the Terms of Service and the game information. By linking these two, you clearly haven't fully understood what I was stating.

The terms state: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses pursuant to casino software provider rules. Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses." This--> "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses" and this -->"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" are not opposing clauses.

Free spins never qualified for the jackpot, in "The Glam Life;" otherwise, the jackpot would have dropped when the combination was hit on the free spin. If free spins don't qualify, shouldn't that be clarified for the player who doesn't understand the difference between "max" and "free" and the mechanisms that link the two to avoid future confusion?

Look: "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot." "Only," is a big word in law and logic. However, this is what the affiliate shills are trying to demonstrate that clause means: "only max bet spins, but sometimes free spins, qualify for the jackpot," but the word "only" actually really means "only"....it is exclusionary, not inclusionary.

But, this is my point....the affiliate shills, the competitor shills, and the pro-regulatory shills are manipulating the truth, confusing the facts, and recruiting the ignorant to further their own perverted agendas.

Quote from: game-protect on August 13, 2016, 07:14:08 PM

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 07:01:54 PM

It is relevant. It is not truthful to pretend that the rules for one game ("Greedy Goblins") apply to another totally different game ("The Glam Life") which has its own rules. The fact is that only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot as was specified in the rules of the REAL game "The Glam Life" and free spins are not max bet spins because "maximum" and "free" have antithetical definitions. Maximum: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum Free: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

See, when one knowingly bases their own information on information that is demonstrably false, then their own conclusions are already demonstrably false.

The spins were free for him because he won them, but they were still max bets, otherwise he would have not get the 1000 credits...max "award" and max "bet" are opposites.

He bet nothing on the spins that were "free" that's what "free" means, costs nothing, no risk, no bet. A "max bet" implies a max risk, thus the word "bet." There is no risk in something that is free. That's why the rules stipulated that "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot"....it literally meant that "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot." It is not hard to understand for most that "maximum" and "free" have opposite meanings. If the spins didn't cost anything then he wasn't betting anything and, therefore, he couldn't lose anything because it was not a bet.

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 05:40:27 PM

This guy is manipulating the truth again. The image above is not associated with the game in question....He is lying! The game in question was called "The Glam Life" and if you look closely, you'll find that there is no "Elfania sign" in the "The Glam Life."

This is because you do not know what logic is! If Elfania free spins qualify for the Jackpot, then The Glam Life or any other similiar spin game qualify as well. it is as simple as that.

Hah! I don't know what logic is? Shut up stupid! Stop trying to cover up your obvious attempt at deception by appealing to logic. Why do the games have different rules, then? Do you really think that your lies are being believed....You guys aren't going to find too many people to rip-off here because I would hope that this group is a little more intelligent than those you're used to scamming.

As I already explained to you, Betcoin has no juridical valid Terms of Service, but now we have at least a picture Wink

that confirims that free spins are eligible for Jackpots. Cheesy

The only thing confirmed here is that you are a sorry example of a scam artist.

Red font added by me in the above for brevity.