Propose new Standards for Accredited Casinos

**binshakindown** · 30th May 2009, 08:22 PM

However, is it possible that making too many demands might make it where even a casino that may be worthy of accrediation and may not be rogue, end up choosing not to care any longer about being part of the CM checks and balances. Although there are some things I don't like about some casinos T&C's (like banned game play with bonus voids all winnings or weekly maximum cash paid out), I would hate to see the big picture being lost when it comes to having a good solid choice of casinos that more than likely won't rip me off. If this is off track I apoligize.

**Rusty** · 30th May 2009, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by binshakindown

However, is it possible that making too many demands might make it where even a casino that may be worthy of accrediation and may not be rogue, end up choosing not to care any longer about being part of the CM checks and balances. Although there are some things I don't like about some casinos T&C's (like banned game play with bonus voids all winnings or weekly maximum cash paid out), I would hate to see the big picture being lost when it comes to having a good solid choice of casinos that more than likely won't rip me off. If this is off track I apoligize.

That is a good point.
Certainly there is a balance to be struck even though I believe that all the suggestions I have read so far are perfectly reasonable but I see no reason why Reps can not be part of this discussion and give their point of view.
It would make for a very interesting open discussion.

**spearmaster** · 30th May 2009, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by binshakindown

However, is it possible that making too many demands might make it where even a casino that may be worthy of accrediation and may not be rogue, end up choosing not to care any longer about being part of the CM checks and balances. Although there are some things I don't like about some casinos T&C's (like banned game play with bonus voids all winnings or weekly maximum cash paid out), I would hate to see the big picture being lost when it comes to having a good solid choice of casinos that more than likely won't rip me off. If this is off track I apoligize.

To a certain extent, I agree. There is no way we can get a casino to agree to our every whim.

That being said - my initial list there contained items that I personally feel should be mandatory - though I bet the final list will not contain every one of those, and will possibly contain others from your suggestions.

Especially unlikely will be a requirement which is particular to a certain software - I would see those as quite difficult, in addition to usually being the responsibility of the software manufacturer rather than the operator.

Needless to say I highly encourage people to add their thoughts.

**Simmo!** · 30th May 2009, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by binshakindown

However, is it possible that making too many demands might make it where even a casino that may be worthy of accrediation and may not be rogue, end up choosing not to care any longer about being part of the CM checks and balances. Although there are some things I don't like about some casinos T&C's (like banned game play with bonus voids all winnings or weekly maximum cash paid out), I would hate to see the big picture being lost when it comes to having a good solid choice of casinos that more than likely won't rip me off. If this is off track I apoligize.

I agree. There'a s danger of over-complicating this. I've been out of the loop recently so may have missed something, but I think the way it works at the moment is adequate. It's a stamp by the Meister who I trust. It also means a lot more work for someone not only constructing a list, but checking all the points every day/week/month.

And what happens if a term changes and it's not picked up quickly? A player says it was accredited at Meister and therefore it must have been X when in fact it was Y. More mud to fling around.

Essentilly I see a casino as generally good, or generally bad. If I want more info I read the terms & conditions or do some research. An accreditaion like this encourages people to become lazy and not bother reading the terms and to take other people's word for it.

My suggestion. Leave it as it is, and when an issue arises, hold a vote of Meister Members where a 75% acceptance rate is required to retainn/revoke accreditation.

**Jasminebed** · 31st May 2009, 03:04 AM

Excluded countries should be denied registration during the signup process. Terms should list excluded countries in alphabetical order, and all in the same paragraph.

There should not be different wagering requirements for different countries.

Players should be able to choose the currency of their choice, even if a national currency is supported.

Links to terms and conditions and promotional terms and conditions should be made available from within the software.

Players must be notified at their registered email address of any changes to general terms and conditions, with notification of which term(s) are amended.

Only play against the terms and conditions would void winnings. No "bonus abuse" if the terms and conditions are complied with. Casinos are free to restrict a player from subsequent bonus offer or to close accounts AFTER the payment of winnings.

**Pinababy69** · 31st May 2009, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by Simmo!

I agree. There'a s danger of over-complicating this. I've been out of the loop recently so may have missed something, but I think the way it works at the moment is adequate. It's a stamp by the Meister who I trust. It also means a lot more work for someone not only constructing a list, but checking all the points every day/week/month.

And what happens if a term changes and it's not picked up quickly? A player says it was accredited at Meister and therefore it must have been X when in fact it was Y. More mud to fling around.

Essentilly I see a casino as generally good, or generally bad. If I want more info I read the terms & conditions or do some research. An accreditaion like this encourages people to become lazy and not bother reading the terms and to take other people's word for it.

My suggestion. Leave it as it is, and when an issue arises, hold a vote of Meister Members where a 75% acceptance rate is required to retainn/revoke accreditation.

Just curious Mr. Muppet, if you've read the almost 30 page Spin Palace thread? Far as I can tell, that's where this all stems from. I, for one, am 100% behind it....although I absolutely agree that it will be time consuming and will require a ton of work on the part of this site.

As for any input from myself, it sure seems to me like you guys have covered everything. Actually, Spear covered most of what I think is relevant in his opening post. The biggest issues for me are clear terms when a bonus is in play, and the arbitrary confiscation of winnings.

**thenmh** · 31st May 2009, 11:08 PM

Must not have T&Cs stating that they may punish player for promotion abuse even if play has been in compliance with the promotion terms, ex:

Management reserves the right to determine whether play has been deemed to be promotion abuse even though there may have been compliance with the above terms and conditions.
Must inform players whenever terms and conditions have changed and require them to accept the new terms before playing

**thelawnet** · 1st June 2009, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Jasminebed

There should not be different wagering requirements for different countries.

Problem with that is if you lose a lot of money to one country, why punish everyone else? Even Ladbrokes have a differential policy for different countries.

Players should be able to choose the currency of their choice, even if a national currency is supported.

Why? This seems like a valid business decision by the casino to me.