Quote:
Originally Posted by Suit
1. The player is never going to feel fairly compensated without the casino going well above what they are willing to give.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora Tom
Took the words right out of my fingertips.
We are talking about an egregious mistake whose official explanation barely had a chance to stand before being torn apart by scrutiny. If a casino is making so many such mistakes that it would hurt to fairly compensate the aggrieved when they happen, then I understand why that casino wouldn't want to establish that precedence. They have some serious problems to work out.
But in even a half-decent room, mistakes like this should happen close to never. This is what close to never looks like. The question about fair compensation is open, but the assignment of blame is unanimous. That's pretty rare when it comes to these things, and so the casino should have no problem taking the bad end of what they think is "fair" at a rate of close to never.
I know how it is in reality. The whole "very bad business to refund buy-ins" thing reeks of a slippery slope argument and a passing of costs that you don't find in other customer service industries. Imagine if Disney World were in the habit of making similar excuses. "Well, who knows how long you would have stayed in the park after our corndog made you violently ill?"
Here we have a customer who suffered some unknown damages due to your negligence. You are certainly able to go above and beyond when you **** up this badly. You just don't want to.
Edit: I hope it's obvious that I am talking to anyone who actually can make those decisions, not to a room manager whose hands are tied or to the two people I quoted.