Is this strange or is it just me?

[chayton]

I was at a microgaming casino and reading the T&Cs for a promotion they're running and saw this:

The Designated Winners hereby agree that their first names may be used in any publicity material by the Casino.

The Designated Winners also agree that models may be used to represent them in any publicity material by the Casino.

I dunno, this just seems weird to me. And perhaps a bit insulting! Why would they not want to use a real photo of the person who wins? Are all online gamblers that hideous? I notice they use the word "may" - does that mean that if I win, I first send a photo of myself to see if I'm up to their standards?

It's not that I really care, if I won $10K they could use a picture of a plucked chicken and say it's me - but it still seems strange.

[jetset]

I don't think it's intended as any sort of insult - it's more likely to be a respect for player privacy and anonymity.

Many players do not want to be identified for a number of personal reasons, hence the use of names like IsabelN when describing a player who has had a big win on, for example a progressive, which merits publicity efforts by the casino.

The use of a model clause seems to go too far, however and I don't think that is necessary.

[tennis_balls]

Originally Posted by chayton

The Designated Winners also agree that models may be used to represent them in any publicity material by the Casino.[/indent]
I dunno, this just seems weird to me. And perhaps a bit insulting! Why would they not want to use a real photo of the person who wins?

have you ever seen a real photo of simmo?

[vinylweatherman]

When I won the trip to the World Cup final last year, this term came into play. One requirement of the prize was to cooperate with the publicity surrounding the winner. This was a simple matter of sending in a photo to be used (of my choosing & taking), to accompany an article about the trip, which they wanted me to put together from my point of view.
The clause about a "model" would apply if I needed to keep my "dirty little gambling habit" away from friends and family. In my case, it is well known in family circles that I spend my time trying to win money either from Fruit Machines or the internet (and rarely succeeding) - so no "model" was necessary. Most publicity seems to use a "silhouette" rather than an actual model for those winners who want to remain anonymous.
One reason I was given for the need for this term was to show that the prize had indeed been won by a "player", and not rigged like some of our UK TV phone-in contests
A mere 10K win just gets the usual "mention in dispatches", usually the newsletter or winners list.
None of my casino wins have been big enough to warrant more than this, the biggest being 16K, with a few over 10K. They tend to remark on individual payouts, rather than a longer winning streak, although Palace Group is an exception, winning streaks get a mention too! Nice to know "big brother" is watching your every move, even when playing at 4am

[Amigo]

I've had my name listed among one of the neteller winners when I won a casino set but no need for a picture :P

[cynthial]

Vinyl, do you have a link to your article? I would love to read it. And yes, see a picture of your choosing.

[happygobrokey]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

One reason I was given for the need for this term was to show that the prize had indeed been won by a "player", and not rigged like some of our UK TV phone-in contests

are you talking about the quiznation show? or those "text in with the correct answer to a blatantly obvious question" commercials?

melissa peachey is simply delicious, i might add.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by happygobrokey

are you talking about the quiznation show? or those "text in with the correct answer to a blatantly obvious question" commercials?

melissa peachey is simply delicious, i might add.

Neither, there is a new breed of UK "Quiz" show, and recently they were embroiled in a MASSIVE scandal. This involved things like the programme still urging callers to call in with an answer even though the final winner had already been selected & the lines effectively closed. The scandal is that there is a charge of up to £1-50 per phonecall, whether you win or not. It is effectively like selling tickets for a lottery that has already been drawn.
The other scandal involved rigged quizes, designed such that the answer was truly obscure, although there were many "obvious" answers that fitted.
One was "guess the animal from the letters in the grid". No-one got it, and the company made a fortune in call charges, the "animal" turned out to be "Tuna" - except there was NO "U" in the damn grid!!!
Lastly, a children's TV programme faked a winner to a phone-in by grabbing a kid from the studio and telling them to pretend they had phoned in, and they were even given what answer to say. This was to save face when technical problems prevented ANY of the real callers from ever being put through.
The regulators FINALLY acted earlier this year, and the shows have suffered very badly, and now most people believe they were the scam they have always been in my view.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by cynthial

Vinyl, do you have a link to your article? I would love to read it. And yes, see a picture of your choosing.

There is an edited version at "casinoaction.com", in the players club area. There are also articles about our Las Vegas trip last year, the winner of the car, and the lucky sod who got 5 wilds on Mad Hatters DURING free spins (This would be a full set x3 (middle reel expands) and also x the multiplier on the free spins too!)