The law requires that the machine be inspected by the Gaming Commission with any win over $25,000. So yes, it does only happen when someone wins a big prize. Smalls wins aren't checked.
It's also important to know that the casino did not claim that the machine malfunctioned. The casino received a claim for an amount over $25,000, and turned the machine over to the Gaming Commission, as they are required to do by law. The Gaming Commission examined the machine, determined the correct payout, and the casino paid it.
To be clear, the machine was not examined for an error because the casino wanted to challenge the payout. The machine was examined for an error because the law requires it. Even if there were no question about the correct payout, the machine still would have been turned over to the Gaming Commission for inspection prior to the claim being paid.
Last, there are signs explaining this policy posted at the entrance and on every single machine. The signs explicitly state that the machines will be checked and any malfunction will be decided in favor of the house. By playing, you agree to this. This isn't just a house rule; it's the law.
So you see, not so evil. More like an unpopular call by a ref in a game with a team you hate and an likely underdog.
Actually, it's partially the responsibility of the Gaming Commission. And the biggest error here was the player seeing two numbers and attempting to use public opinion to demand the larger number.
You're right. The bank analogy doesn't completely follow through, but it does show that the opposite view can still be tenable.
You're wrong in your comparison of the signs to EULAs. These signs are different from EULAs in many ways. One difference is that you can read the sign before you put down any money, which you can't do with a EULA. Another large difference is that most EULAs attempt to reduce what your rights are under the law, while these signs simply explain the law. Not casino policy. The law.
Next, the machine did not indicate a payout of $11 million. It indicted a payout of about $1,500 and then showed what the next payout would be. The player saw the two different numbers, and assumed that the larger number was the payout.
It's also important to know that the business didn't claim that the machine malfunctioned. The casino received a claim for an amount over $25,000. Per law, they turned the machine over to the Gaming Commission. The Gaming Commission determined the correct payout, and the casino paid it.
To be clear, the machine was not examined for an error because the casino wanted to challenge the payout. The machine was examined for an error because the law requires it. Even if there were no question about the correct payout, the machine still would have been turned over to the Gaming Commission for inspection prior to the claim being paid.
Yes, the casino has very limited liability in these cases. Why? Because a large liability isn't necessary. Nobody is hurt if someone loses a jackpot, or receives a smaller amount than they would have liked. Errors in a casino are not like errors in a vehicle, a bank, or in an operating room. Errors in a casino don't cause harm for a player, so there simply isn't any reason to create large liabilities for the casinos.
Yes, any equipment failure over $25,000 is ruled in the casino's favor. Don't like it? Gamble elsewhere. And remember, any error under $25,000 is decided in favor of the player, making this policy relatively benign.
And last, the player agreed to the rules before playing the game. The rules included machine examinations by the Gaming Commission for large wins. So really, we're talking about someone who played by the rules, lost, and now wants to whine about the rules. And this is who you're arguing in favor of?
No, you're incorrect. The player in question didn't have a chance to win $11 million bucks on that machine. Further, it didn't tell the player that they had won that amount of money. It switched back and forth from the actual win to the larger number, and was obviously malfunctioning. Now the player is whining that it malfunctioned. Well, boohoo for him.
Next, get your facts. The casino didn't claim that the machine malfunctioned. It seems like many of you think that the casino said, 'Oh, hell, that's a ton of money! Let's get out of it! Error! Error!'. That's not what happened.
The casino said, 'Oh, it's a jackpot over $25,000. Let's turn the machine over to the Gaming Commission, as state law requires, after which we will pay out however much the Commission tells us to.'. And they did. So how evil is the casino now?
Yes, any equipment failure over $25,000 is ruled in the casino's favor. Don't like it? Gamble elsewhere. And remember, any error under $25,000 is decided in favor of the player, making this policy not as evil as you seem to think.
And last, the player agreed to the rules before playing the game. The rules included machine examinations by the Gaming Commission for large wins. So really, we're talking about someone who played by the rules, lost, and now wants to whine about the rules. And this is who you're arguing in favor of?
I'm going to repeat what the commentator below said:
If the computers at your bank have a glitch that tells you there is $11M in your checking account, should they have to make good on that? Or do you chalk it up to error?
That's not correct. You're assuming that the player won the bet, and the Casino is attempting to renege on that. It's simply not the case.
It's as though you were playing poker with six decks, and when everyone showed their hands, there were thirty aces on the table. Obviously, there's been an error, and the player with the winning hand didn't actually win anything.
In some cases, the player didn't win the bet. They lost the bet but thought they won, and now they are sad. I bet Dewey was sad, too, when he thought he won. Unfortunately, when the ballots were checked, he lost.
In this case, the player did win the bet, but not for as much as they thought they did. The analogy in the comment below is a very good one:
If the computers at your bank have a glitch that tells you there is $11M in your checking account, should they have to make good on that? Or do you chalk it up to error?
I'd also like to point out that $11 millions dollars seems like a good reason to cheat to us, but it's a drop in the bucket to a casino. It's just not a good reason to cheat, especially when the house always wins, anyway. :)
...it seems that most of these commentators aren't even remotely familiar with casinos.
In Oklahoma, just like in most states that allow gambling, machines are checked for accuracy with every jackpot of $25,000 or more, so it's not a case of a casino attempting to renege on millions. I realize that to someone outside of the industry, it sounds hokey, but it's what happens every time, and there are very few errors.
In addition, there are signs posted at the entrance and on every single machine. The signs explicitly state that the machines will be checked and any malfunction will be decided in favor of the house. By playing, you agree to this. This isn't just a house rule; as a part of Title 31, it's the law in Oklahoma.
Regardless, these machines are so tightly tracked that there aren't that many errors. The fact that this error is newsworthy shows you how rare an error of this magnitude is. Complain about programming all you want, but there are no perfect programmers, and there is no perfect code, especially not in complicated machines.
About the 'theft', how can you steal something that someone never owned? And how is it stealing when you're following the procedure and rules that you had to agree to before you played?
I'm all for the little guy, but this isn't a case of Little Guy vs. Big Guy. It's Little Whiny Guy vs. Big Fair Guy.
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
You miss the point. (As you usually do.)
David Gerrold isn't in the business of activism, he's in the business of making money. The industry in question isn't a non-profit activist organization like PETA or the EFF. Their job isn't to fight the good fight for a moral reason. Their job is to sell entertainment to make money.
So there is no "REAL" reason for a business to fight piracy.
First, it's silly to ask the commentors questions, because it's been three months since anyone else has commented.
Second, your feelings don't legally matter. The laws aren't based on your feelings, which is a damned good thing, because feeling are generally irrational.
Third, we didn't say that the suit was illegal, we said it was stupid. We mocked Summit because punishing your fans in the middle of your franchise is stupid. If they punish these fans, do you think that they're going to want to see the next movie, or buy a Summit-funded T-shirt? Nope. So what they're doing is legal but stupid.
Fourth, yes, this is absolutely about your right to free speech. These people created a journalistic product, like any other magazine, with the intention of making money, like any other magazine. They used the media kits that Summit made available to magazines, with permission, and then were slapped with a suit. Summit's argument seems to be that if you're making money, it doesn't count as journalism, which s entirely nonsensical, much like your post.
Fifth, there isn't a trademark issue here. Summit hasn't mentioned trademarks, and neither has anyone else.
Sixth, trademarks aren't given so the owner can make money. Trademarks are granted for the protection of the consumer. This mgazine wasn't attempting to make people think that they were Summit, so no trademark involved. God, did you even graduate from high school and why don't you understand the basic concepts that drive trademark laws?
She plays Radiohead on the ukelele half-naked. So... Yeah. It's amazing what people will endure to see other people half-naked. That being said, aside from the ukelele thing, I adore Amanda Palmer.
Yes, I read that, but it's not enough information.
I doubt that small restaurant owners would have paid to have a font created. It's more likely that they were shown several samples and went, 'Hey, honey, that looks like my signature! Let's choose that one.'. And now they are truthfully stating that they chose their logo because it resembled her signature. :)
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: A "glitch"? Yeah right...
The law requires that the machine be inspected by the Gaming Commission with any win over $25,000. So yes, it does only happen when someone wins a big prize. Smalls wins aren't checked.
It's also important to know that the casino did not claim that the machine malfunctioned. The casino received a claim for an amount over $25,000, and turned the machine over to the Gaming Commission, as they are required to do by law. The Gaming Commission examined the machine, determined the correct payout, and the casino paid it.
To be clear, the machine was not examined for an error because the casino wanted to challenge the payout. The machine was examined for an error because the law requires it. Even if there were no question about the correct payout, the machine still would have been turned over to the Gaming Commission for inspection prior to the claim being paid.
Last, there are signs explaining this policy posted at the entrance and on every single machine. The signs explicitly state that the machines will be checked and any malfunction will be decided in favor of the house. By playing, you agree to this. This isn't just a house rule; it's the law.
So you see, not so evil. More like an unpopular call by a ref in a game with a team you hate and an likely underdog.
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: casinos
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: pay up - too bad for the casino
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: $11 million worth of bad publicity
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: Banks don't "sell" bets
You're wrong in your comparison of the signs to EULAs. These signs are different from EULAs in many ways. One difference is that you can read the sign before you put down any money, which you can't do with a EULA. Another large difference is that most EULAs attempt to reduce what your rights are under the law, while these signs simply explain the law. Not casino policy. The law.
Next, the machine did not indicate a payout of $11 million. It indicted a payout of about $1,500 and then showed what the next payout would be. The player saw the two different numbers, and assumed that the larger number was the payout.
It's also important to know that the business didn't claim that the machine malfunctioned. The casino received a claim for an amount over $25,000. Per law, they turned the machine over to the Gaming Commission. The Gaming Commission determined the correct payout, and the casino paid it.
To be clear, the machine was not examined for an error because the casino wanted to challenge the payout. The machine was examined for an error because the law requires it. Even if there were no question about the correct payout, the machine still would have been turned over to the Gaming Commission for inspection prior to the claim being paid.
Yes, the casino has very limited liability in these cases. Why? Because a large liability isn't necessary. Nobody is hurt if someone loses a jackpot, or receives a smaller amount than they would have liked. Errors in a casino are not like errors in a vehicle, a bank, or in an operating room. Errors in a casino don't cause harm for a player, so there simply isn't any reason to create large liabilities for the casinos.
Yes, any equipment failure over $25,000 is ruled in the casino's favor. Don't like it? Gamble elsewhere. And remember, any error under $25,000 is decided in favor of the player, making this policy relatively benign.
And last, the player agreed to the rules before playing the game. The rules included machine examinations by the Gaming Commission for large wins. So really, we're talking about someone who played by the rules, lost, and now wants to whine about the rules. And this is who you're arguing in favor of?
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Next, get your facts. The casino didn't claim that the machine malfunctioned. It seems like many of you think that the casino said, 'Oh, hell, that's a ton of money! Let's get out of it! Error! Error!'. That's not what happened.
The casino said, 'Oh, it's a jackpot over $25,000. Let's turn the machine over to the Gaming Commission, as state law requires, after which we will pay out however much the Commission tells us to.'. And they did. So how evil is the casino now?
Yes, any equipment failure over $25,000 is ruled in the casino's favor. Don't like it? Gamble elsewhere. And remember, any error under $25,000 is decided in favor of the player, making this policy not as evil as you seem to think.
And last, the player agreed to the rules before playing the game. The rules included machine examinations by the Gaming Commission for large wins. So really, we're talking about someone who played by the rules, lost, and now wants to whine about the rules. And this is who you're arguing in favor of?
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re:
If the computers at your bank have a glitch that tells you there is $11M in your checking account, should they have to make good on that? Or do you chalk it up to error?
Remember, there is a limit to liability.
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: Re: Wow...
It's as though you were playing poker with six decks, and when everyone showed their hands, there were thirty aces on the table. Obviously, there's been an error, and the player with the winning hand didn't actually win anything.
In some cases, the player didn't win the bet. They lost the bet but thought they won, and now they are sad. I bet Dewey was sad, too, when he thought he won. Unfortunately, when the ballots were checked, he lost.
In this case, the player did win the bet, but not for as much as they thought they did. The analogy in the comment below is a very good one:
If the computers at your bank have a glitch that tells you there is $11M in your checking account, should they have to make good on that? Or do you chalk it up to error?
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: Wow...
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: Re: Wow...
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Wow...
In Oklahoma, just like in most states that allow gambling, machines are checked for accuracy with every jackpot of $25,000 or more, so it's not a case of a casino attempting to renege on millions. I realize that to someone outside of the industry, it sounds hokey, but it's what happens every time, and there are very few errors.
In addition, there are signs posted at the entrance and on every single machine. The signs explicitly state that the machines will be checked and any malfunction will be decided in favor of the house. By playing, you agree to this. This isn't just a house rule; as a part of Title 31, it's the law in Oklahoma.
Regardless, these machines are so tightly tracked that there aren't that many errors. The fact that this error is newsworthy shows you how rare an error of this magnitude is. Complain about programming all you want, but there are no perfect programmers, and there is no perfect code, especially not in complicated machines.
About the 'theft', how can you steal something that someone never owned? And how is it stealing when you're following the procedure and rules that you had to agree to before you played?
I'm all for the little guy, but this isn't a case of Little Guy vs. Big Guy. It's Little Whiny Guy vs. Big Fair Guy.
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
David Gerrold isn't in the business of activism, he's in the business of making money. The industry in question isn't a non-profit activist organization like PETA or the EFF. Their job isn't to fight the good fight for a moral reason. Their job is to sell entertainment to make money.
So there is no "REAL" reason for a business to fight piracy.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.
There has never been, and will never be, a world without what you call piracy.
On the post: Writer Splits From Murdoch's Times Of London To Avoid Being Hidden Behind The Paywall
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Copyright Group Says ISPs Who Don't Cough Up User Names May Be Guilty Of Inducing Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: But he's blustering for audience of attorneys,
On the post: Summit Entertainment Shuts Down Twilight Fanzine For Infringement
Re: Twilight fanzines
First, it's silly to ask the commentors questions, because it's been three months since anyone else has commented.
Second, your feelings don't legally matter. The laws aren't based on your feelings, which is a damned good thing, because feeling are generally irrational.
Third, we didn't say that the suit was illegal, we said it was stupid. We mocked Summit because punishing your fans in the middle of your franchise is stupid. If they punish these fans, do you think that they're going to want to see the next movie, or buy a Summit-funded T-shirt? Nope. So what they're doing is legal but stupid.
Fourth, yes, this is absolutely about your right to free speech. These people created a journalistic product, like any other magazine, with the intention of making money, like any other magazine. They used the media kits that Summit made available to magazines, with permission, and then were slapped with a suit. Summit's argument seems to be that if you're making money, it doesn't count as journalism, which s entirely nonsensical, much like your post.
Fifth, there isn't a trademark issue here. Summit hasn't mentioned trademarks, and neither has anyone else.
Sixth, trademarks aren't given so the owner can make money. Trademarks are granted for the protection of the consumer. This mgazine wasn't attempting to make people think that they were Summit, so no trademark involved. God, did you even graduate from high school and why don't you understand the basic concepts that drive trademark laws?
On the post: Mom Who Used Son's Facebook Account Found Guilty Of Online Harassment
Re:
On the post: Pentagon: If You Don't Let The US Gov't Spy On Your Network, You Place American Lives At Risk
On the post: Time To Live In Reality: People Are Going To Copy; So Build A Better Business Model
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused Between A Huge Luxury Retailer And A Small Roadside Cafe?
Re: Re: Design Firm Or Hollands?
I doubt that small restaurant owners would have paid to have a font created. It's more likely that they were shown several samples and went, 'Hey, honey, that looks like my signature! Let's choose that one.'. And now they are truthfully stating that they chose their logo because it resembled her signature. :)
Next >>