An open letter...

[dominique]

This is a very interesting thread and I want to thank all the contributors.

All of these points come up here and there throughout discussions but rarely has any thread completely focussed on this.

There are so many good points and also things I would like to comment on that I can't put it in a message of reasonable length so I will try to cut myself short.

I have seen no evidence, the rest of your readers have seen no evidence and, in a court of law, hearsay evidence, as it is presented in this public forum, is inadmissible! When a group of people go behind closed doors and accuse, prosecute, judge and sentence someone without a public display of evidence it is referred to as a kangaroo court!

Ok, this one I have to disagree with. The readers of a board are not a judge or jury either, and publicizing details of what one thinks someone did or didn't do borders on possible slander. The integrity of all involved pepole has to be preserved. So far nobody has sued for slander and libel on the casino related web as far as I know. Having fallen victim to it myself I have seriously considered suing at the time and it is just a big mess. I do not think that publicizing findings during an informal investigation is a feasible nor adviseable thing. When I mediate it doesn't even make the message boards at all.

And you do not have the right to denigrate this Interabunchofnumbers dude, until you can and will present the facts….If you are going to have a public hanging at least include the public in the prosecution and defense. This guy is, most probably, guilty as hell. But we don’t have the right to even assume that without proof. Not someone’s word that they have proof.

There is no public hanging here. Bryan investigated and voiced his opinion. You can voice your opinion also. Bryan's opinion weighs in heavily. Why? Because he has a record of being fair. Because he has helped many, many players.

I will, however, stand by what I said about tilting toward the buttered bread side of the table.

There we go again. There are lots and lots of casinos online, they all want to be promoted by affiliates. You guys consistently get this story upside down. Come join me at one of the conferences and you will see people running after affiliates almost begging to be listed. Decent sites can be as choosy as they please. We definitely do NOT depend on any casino, or group of casinos, or even software.

Aso, the fact that there is an ad for the casino in dispute on the site makes it MORE likely that a resolution in favor of the player is reached. The casinos are quite motivated to keep a productive affiliate happy, and they will be very receptive to mediation. That is one reason why I only mediate for players coming through my own site - I know I have the clout to get things done.

And this is also what makes Bryan stand out in the crowd - over the years he has established relationships with many, many places - including those he would not tolerate on his site. His reach is very much farther than that of any other webmaster, hands down.

Well, maybe Spears is in the same league.

I have no problem with guys like you, Brian, capitalizing on the needs of both casinos and players.

Capitalizing? Mediating is a pain in the axx! Casinos see you coming and groan, players are impatient and prod, people get angry and yell at you and insult you - and nobody is paying you for it. More often than not you don't even get a thank you. This site and my site and many others on the web would and could do just as well if not better if they didn't mediate disputes. And it certainly would make for a life with less friction.

Yes, regulation is sorely needed. I am totally sold on that. But my bet is that even with regulation there will be plenty of mediation going on. It beats going to court on every instance - we do this in the brick and mortar world also.

[jpm]

Are you sure about this spear? I could swear that I remember reading about a case where someone in the US was being prosecuted for 'illegal' gambling by playing in an online casino and the courts ruled that they were considered to be playing in the jurisdiction of the casino when they placed their wagers and thus weren't guilty of illegal gambling.

This is not yet established. The US Gov't would like
people to assume that they are playing in their homes. The online gambling industry, of course, says that you are playing in the jurisdiction of the server location.

It's highly debatable either way - but a test of physical presence could cause a problem for the online gambling operators... and the lack of servers on US territory could cause a problem for the Gov't

[spearmaster]

I'd have to see which case/ruling you're talking about - but as it stands there is currently no accepted definition of where the bet is taking place.

I am not aware of an instance where an issue related to online casino gambling was taken to court. Sports betting, definitely - and that is another ballgame, with the Wire Act definitely considered to be applicable to sports wagers.

Until federal or local governments rule on the legality, illegality or lack of status of online gambling, the issue of "where" is moot in any case. Ultimately, it will probably be left to each state to form their own definition of location, and undoubtedly if online gambling is ruled illegal in that state, "physical presence" will play a big role.