>Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:15:07 -0400
>From: crusher73@... (Steve Peattie)
>Subject: RE: Banned from Brantford Poker Casino for
>To: turmel2step@yahoogroups.com

SP: Wow, I didn't relised how crazy the place have running
since i got an e-mail reguarding about Mr.Turmel's banned
from the Casino. I've been working in the Casino industries
for 13 years and I've NEVER come cross to any casino that
NOT allow colors up rules for the players by any casino but
only Brantford Charity Casino.

JCT: Now that I've been banned from ever again coloring up,
if I ever get mugged after a win, you can bet I'll sue them
for turning me into a target that I didn't want to be.

Besides, you have to realize that I am usually the only
person at the table who has mastered the use of green chips:
quarters; so whereas most of the other players use 16 red
nickels for their $80 bets, I use one nickel and three
quarters. Where others use 32 nickels for their $160 bets, I
use two nickels and six quarters. So there was no way in the
world I was ever going to use the over 400 reds I'd recently
won and so I wanted to convert 20 stacks of reds into 4
stacks of greens.

Of course, this rule is based on the rule that players
can't take money off the table. But instead of just letting
the player inform the dealer or the pit boss that he's
coloring up to explain the decrease in his reds, in
Brantford, for some reason, they decided to refer it to
upper management for a decision so they might say no.

Again, it's a decision on a question that has never been
posed anywhere before. "Shall we prevent players from
coloring up" just never got asked in older casinos with
wiser management. Why would they need to prevent players
from coloring up? There is just no reason.

And yet, in Brantford, they not only gave management the
power to prevent players from coloring up but, for no known
reason, management has three times used that power to
prevent me from coloring up.

Think about that? Three different managers said no to
something they shouldn't care about. Which explains somewhat
why I just did it, without waiting for approval. It feels so
stupid asking for permission to color up. Just wait until
there's another game across the street and we'll see if they
keep banning people for such reasons.

I have no doubt they just wanted to give me a rough time.
But of course, I did flout their rule and they slapped me
down for flouting the rule, not for coloring up.

My point is that there shouldn't be rules that get people
riled up enough to flout them because they're so stupid.

SP: I have nothing to say but to feel ashamed knowing the
rule is wrong for the customers and the customers are right
when it comes to difference situations when occurred. I
would love to leave my name but it may cost my Job since
I've sign an oath that I can't talk about confidentially to
people outside the Casino.

JCT: None of this would have happened if they had not
threatened to bar me last year for soliciting when I brought
in a petition for a sound-proof door between the slot
machines beyond the entrance to the poker room. I'd have
drawn up a petition demanding the right to color up whenever
we chose and I'd bet most players would have signed.

When Trumps Taj Mahal in A.C. changed from a time-charge to
rake-off, (which is 50% more expensive @$10/$20), the
TajProfessor did a 140-name petition in one weekend. It was
no problem and they switched back. Of course, in the US,
there is freedom of speech. Here, I have to put my
suggestion in the Suggestion Box where they don't answer and
it gets ignored. And they prevent petitioning for change en
masse.

Imagine. A government-run operation has deprived me my right
to associate and solicit other citizens for agreement. You
can bet that I'd have not flouted any rule that I could have
petitioned against. By removing my right to petition for
change, it induced me into showing my anger by flouting,
rather than challenging, the rule. They gave me no other
choice. Then again, maybe there is something I can still do.

>Article #3573 (3574 is last):
>Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:04:35 -0400
>From: Peter Lizak <plizak@...>
>Subject: Re: TAJPROFESSOR: TURMEL: Banned from Brantford
Poker Casino for coloring up
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.john-turmel,rec.gambling.poker,
rec.gambling.misc,alt.gambling,can.legal,can.politics

PL: Funny, I have never had a problem colouring up there...
Mind you, I usually say sir to the floor staff, and please
and thank you. Politeness is often forgotten. P

JCT: Okay, I think it's more than that too. When you tried
to color up, did they take it to the upper management or did
the pit boss just nod okay (like some have done for me who
mustn't have known that coloring up was now a management
decision). Unless management just made it up to harass me. A
law suit would bring their management manuel into
examination, one great advantage of law suits. Still, this
week off has afforded me with the time to plan how I intend
to oppose the rules that are imbecilic and arbitrary.

Of course, after my complaints to the Ontario Lotteries and
Gaming Commission and the Ontario Minister in charge were
ignored and I didn't follow them up, they must think I was
bluffing when I said it wasn't over. And their pushing me
around let's me know they think I'm bluffing.
Stay tuned and I'll post what I do at my complaint page:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/olgc.htm



--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics