Quote from: actmyname on August 13, 2016, 08:29:37 PM

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 08:24:04 PM

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.

Yet again you fail to see my point. The game rules for Greedy Goblins shows that the jackpot can be won with a freeroll. There is the sentence, "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" under the freeroll section. The terms of service, however, state that, "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses". Hence, the game rules are contradictory with the Terms of Service. What is so hard to understand about this?

First, the statement "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" means that the jackpot cannot be multiplied....whatever other assumptions one insinuates from that clause is just an assumption and in noway a statement of fact. Second, "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" is not contradictory to "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses." In fact, they are complementary statements.

This is actually what 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." http://archive.is/XcDrD (Text bolded by me)

Yes, it may be confusing to some when you omit information, but when you re-insert the omitted information, then it unsurprisingly makes sense again. Notice the bold in the above....omitting that information changes the clarity of the argument.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on August 13, 2016, 07:42:05 PM

Quote from: actmyname on August 13, 2016, 02:26:05 PM

What information was inaccurate? Betcoin's, right? Because they only implemented the rule about max bets after jasonort began to complain.

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

No, Twitchy lied to you there too....

Please stop making shit up about me.

The max bet rule didn't change.
They added the following to their terms:

"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."

These "software provider rules" that disqualify Jackpots during bonus rounds and freespins are not made public and likely don't actually exist.
Of course, it's tough to prove this when Betcoin ignores anyone who asks and Betsoft has a policy of not communicating with players.
I suspect whoever wrote this new term doesn't realize that many of their progressive jackpots can only be won during a bonus round.

Quote from: actmyname on August 13, 2016, 02:26:05 PM

Betcoin altered the ToS without changing the "Last updated" date to try and stealthily sneak in some rules. That's a serious problem.

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

The complaint was already submitted, recorded, and was being negotiated so there was no retroactive manipulation. The rules needed to be clarified so that nobody else would think that "maximum" meant "free."

JasonOrt satisfied all requirements for the progressive jackpot according to the rules at the time.
They changed the rules retroactively and did not pay him the jackpot.

Maximum means the greatest or highest amount possible. JasonOrt bet highest amount possible for the denomination specific jackpot. In other words, he bet the maximum.

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

I don't have all this free time to engage in weird debates, gamble, and do whatever I feel like because I'm dumb and poor....

Just because you're dumb and poor now doesn't mean you will be forever. I believe you are capable of creating a less dumb future for yourself where you enjoy a less poor lifestyle. I hope you do.

https://www.casinolistings.com/forum/gambling/online-casinos/28043/questioning-betsoft-jackpots?page=1

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

"Good Girl, Bad Girl" is designed to function within those distribution frequencies

When you make a claim like this, you should explain how you know it to be true. Otherwise, it would be silly for anyone to believe you.

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

....If you dig a little deeper, you'd realize that it's not like other games....the jackpots are mutually exclusive by design.

Each denomination has 2 independent jackpots. You can't win them both in a single spin. This means they are mutually exclusive.
Is that what you meant? I think you might be confused.

It's really nothing unique for a game to offer multiple proggressive jackpots. Most of the time, these jackpots are "mutually exclusive". It's just another way of saying you can't win more than one jackpot in a spin.

At the copa offers 3 progressives. You can't win more than one in a single spin. They are mutually exclusive.
PartyPoker offers "The BigOne" slots. It's 5 independant progressives. You can't win more than one in a single spin. They are mutually exclusive.
Any time you see a "Mini" "Medium" "Max" type progressive game, they are almost always mutually exclusive.

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM

Here look at the game: http://casinogamesonnet.com/?game=good-girl-bad-girl&id=742 THE JACKPOTS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE BY DESIGN!

lol^^^

Okay...I'm going to ignore the misquotes because I know that you cannot help yourself and it is second nature for you to fabricate information to suite your argument.

However, in the study conducted by casinolistings.com their regression studies only considered Betsoft progressives and they treated the two jackpots on that same game, in that study, as though they were independent events, then they concluded that something must be wrong with the software because some jackpots weren't won at all while others were won at higher frequencies. Do you know why? Because the mother fuckers were mutually exclusive! If you're playing for one, it is impossible to win the other! But, no, they didn't consider that fact, so they concluded:

"Firstly, jackpots on certain games and specific coin sizes are never won at all at Bovada, despite being won many times a week at Slots.lv, even though the numbers show that the amounts being wagered and contributed to these jackpots are much higher at Bovada. It does indeed look as if some of these jackpots are "locked" or unable to be won. The odds of this just being random luck are astronomical." (https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games)

LOL....Really? Isn't it funny that the only game he found in his study that demonstrated such behavior is the only game in his study that is designed to demonstrate that behavior? They're "locked" because people are playing in "Bad Girl" mode! <--- Look at the data!

And, the difference between the other games on the other sites you mention (which weren't included in casinolisting's study, I might add) is that "Good Girl, Bad Girl" let's the players decide which mode to play....it's not random! That means that it is not only mutually exhaustive, but it is also collectively exhaustive in most modes!

Do you understand what that means, or are you just totally incompetent of rational thought altogether?