Licensing question for Rep's

[Rusty]

Another question on this topic:

Should licensing authorities publish on their websites the broad details of complaints against licensees and the result of the consequent enquiry?

I will put forward my view, as I understand things, from the players perspective and perhaps some Reps could post from the Casinos.

Absolutely they should make available their findings for open scrutiny.
A transparent procedure and resulting judgment are the best way to earn player trust (If that were their aim) and it would provide a valuable service to players as an information source on Casinos.
After all should that not be a Licensing authorities ultimate aim, regulate the industry in a manner that protects the player from bad Casinos and rewards good Casinos by encompassing them with the honesty and fairness they prevail?
I do not see how a closed shop helps anybody.
It is a sad reflection and indictment of the current state of Online gambling that the player not only has to worry about whether he is playing at a respectable Casino but also if the authority they are licensed by have any integrity.

I do not believe details of complaints against Casinos should be published.
A name and shame policy as such though will never happen anyway.
Firstly it would be unfair to simply list Casinos that have complaints against them.
Secondly even if we consider the Licensing authorities only publishing Casinos with upheld complaints against them then it still will not happen.
This is because they actually only offer an arbitration service and their findings have no legal status.
This means that they would leave themselves open to be sued for defamation by their own members.
However giving open access to their judgments I do not believe could be seen as malicious by the courts.
(No doubt Casinomeister could impart some knowledge in this area)
The power of any licensing authority is therefor limited to sanctions over their members.
Now this is where the whole thing gets messy because the ultimate sanction is to revoke a Casinos license but said Casino can just pop down to the Gambling License Quicky Mart and be back in business before you can say "WTF?"

Those are my thoughts and no doubt there are other opinions that disagree with at least some of that.
So get posting.

[DiamondGeezer]

Rusty are you sure the findings of these jurisdictions have no legal status? It was my understanding that when you say play at a Malta registered Casino you are agreeing to be bound by their decision should a dispute arise. I do not know this to be a fact though. But I thought that was the idea behind the 2006 Gambling Bill for the EU - namely that in return for getting proper protection in EU jurisdictions players must accept the judgements or findings of the said jurisdictions.

It would at least be logical for that to happen. If you are say playing in the Uk at a Swedish firm based in Malta then any legal redress is going to be complicated. I thought the idea of these jurisdictions was to manage that process. It certainly would make sense. As a player you give up your rights to go to court but in return you get a free and impartial service. I can see how that would be a good solution for everyone. But ofcourse the reality is a lot different.

[DiamondGeezer]

I would like to ask operators in Malta this - when it is very public knowledge that a Malta based Sportsbook has been owing players a total over £100K for two years yet continues to trade, are you not a little concerned what players might conclude about that?

[Rusty]

Rusty are you sure the findings of these jurisdictions have no legal status? It was my understanding that when you say play at a Malta registered Casino you are agreeing to be bound by their decision should a dispute arise. I do not know this to be a fact though. But I thought that was the idea behind the 2006 Gambling Bill for the EU - namely that in return for getting proper protection in EU jurisdictions players must accept the judgements or findings of the said jurisdictions.

It would at least be logical for that to happen. If you are say playing in the Uk at a Swedish firm based in Malta then any legal redress is going to be complicated. I thought the idea of these jurisdictions was to manage that process. It certainly would make sense. As a player you give up your rights to go to court but in return you get a free and impartial service. I can see how that would be a good solution for everyone. But ofcourse the reality is a lot different.

I don't honestly know.
Some of what you say makes sense but I do not believe that any arbitration process would forfeit your right to access the courts.
How would that work?
I mean even if a court finds against you in most cases you have the right of appeal.
Do you have any documentation on this?

[Kerching]

I'm a little bit late on this one!

Our licence is in Alderney (through WagerWorks). I do find it pleasing that most players do seem to have faith in Alderney, and this matches our view as an operator, as we are very happy to be licenced there. The AGCC take great interest in operations under their jurisdiction (as they should do), particularly when it comes to testing of new systems, and this certainly helps ensure that such systems work well, and are thoroughly tested.

Our mobile games are operated under a UKGC licence.

[Rusty]

I'm a little bit late on this one!

Our licence is in Alderney (through WagerWorks). I do find it pleasing that most players do seem to have faith in Alderney, and this matches our view as an operator, as we are very happy to be licenced there. The AGCC take great interest in operations under their jurisdiction (as they should do), particularly when it comes to testing of new systems, and this certainly helps ensure that such systems work well, and are thoroughly tested.

Our mobile games are operated under a UKGC licence.

Thanks.

That is the way it should work.
A Licensing authority that is respected by the players and Casinos alike benefits all in the long run.

I have a general question of any Rep that cares to answer which cuts cuts straight to the heart of the issue of trust in the software and RNG's.

Just how proactive are your licensing authority in ensuring your games are fair and what measures do they take?

For example;
Is not only the RNG checked but also the software code on a random basis to ensure there is no manipulation of RNG results and how frequently on average does this occur?

What safeguards are there against the use of plug ins or software modules that could effect the return percentage of games?

I do not want this discussion to get too technical as I want it to be accessible to all so if you have someone from your technical department answer then please try to keep technical jargon to a minimum, many thanks.

(Malta we are watching you)

[Rusty]

Two weeks later...




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CB1tBjcWug&feature=PlayList&p=547E37E3A4C 8AB8D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4"]YouTube - Sounds of Rain and Crickets[/ame]