Suggestions for the "no student" clause

[Casinomeister]

In the spirit of this thread, I would say the term needs to be clarified, if it will not be removed.

Full time ACTIVE students, age 25 or younger, who are enrolled in College or University, are not allowed to participate in real wagering in the casino. This includes breaks between semesters and holidays. If a student is found to be making real wagers, then all possible winnings can be voided and deposit will be returned, account will be locked until education is proven to be completed, or student has reached the age of 25.


Although I agree with the concensus of many here about it not being their business, if they are determined to have such a rulling, then it should be fine tuned, so as not to cause grief to a potential long time loyal player in the future. Players over the age of 25 that may be schooling should not need to be concerned about this clause in the T&C's...

Thank you Mavin for staying focused and actually giving some constructive advice.

For those of you that want to turn this thread into a circus, please feel free to do this elsewhere.

Seriously, if you can't agree to disagree and get all twisted into a knot, what the hell? What good is it having a discussion? Some of you are bullying anyone who disagrees with you. You need to step back and take a few chill pills. Thanks!

[silcnlayc]

Focusing....

The question is, what did CWC want to accomplish with this rule and
What was the purpose of this rule?

That is a need to know question before any true discussion can be done.

A little more info would help in making suggestions on the wording if it will not be removed.


.

[Luckylizzy]

I agree with Mavin who worded it perfectly. If Club World insists on having the term, than that would be a suitable way to re-word it to clarify exactly who is and is not permitted to play.

Also, when signing up for the casino there should be a button to check specifically for this rule since it is so unique. It should say the player is not a student as specified in the T&Cs and that if found to be a student, any winnings would be confiscated by the casino and the account suspended until the schooling is finished. Then the player would have to agree to it knowingly.

I understand them wanting to protect education because it is very important and these games can be pretty addicting. All laws are put in place to protect and that is all Club World is trying to do in my opinion.

Also, I see the other side of it where us adults should be responsible enough to make our own decisions on these issues. After all, none of us like to be told what we can and cannot do.

[darkpixie]

If we could all agree to disagree then this would not be much of a discussion.
If removal of the term is COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION and we are not allowed to comment on reasons for removing it, then perhaps something to that effect can be mentioned in the original post.

Given that that seems to the road you are heading down on this here is my constructive comment on how to rewrite this term:

1. The Player acknowledges by depositing and playing no way guarantees that winnings can be withdrawn and that the Casino reserves the right to discriminate against the player for any reason is deems appropriate at the time and shall reserve ultimate right to confiscate any winnings and deposits as it sees fit. Caveat Emptor

Might as well just jump all the way down the road.

[ksech]

Ya know, I took a chance and asked Bryan in the very long Club World thread what we could do to try to get the term changed. I THOUGHT this was a mature group of people who were so against this heinous term, that AS a group, maybe, just MAYBE we could make a difference as a united front. Some of you have proven me wrong and I am sorry to have asked.

We've been given a chance to maybe persuade CW to eliminate, or clarify with no chance of debate, a clause which is biased, unfair, ambiguous, or however you freakin' want to classify it. BUT, it just goes to show that negative will win over positive if you allow it.

I'm ashamed for asking for the chance, but I'm extremely disappointed in the ones who wish to do nothing more than contrive ways to throw everything BUT what needs to be done to the wind. You want to rant and rave over injustice? Well newsflash! BRYAN isn't the one who wrote the term. Bryan has stated numerous times he doesn't condone the term. He's allowing us a chance to try to right a wrong so someone else doesn't fall into the same trap.

I am so very, very disappointed...
And words fail me now.

[Casinomeister]

...
1. The Player acknowledges by depositing and playing no way guarantees that winnings can be withdrawn and that the Casino reserves the right to discriminate against the player for any reason is deems appropriate at the time and shall reserve ultimate right to confiscate any winnings and deposits as it sees fit. Caveat Emptor

Might as well just jump all the way down the road.

If you're attempting to turn the thread into a bash fest, take it elsewhere. This is a serious issue and juvenile comments will take this thread into a downward spiral.

You want to make a change? Then act like an adult and maybe some one will listen to you.

[takethemoney]

You have to be a legal aged adult to register, correct?

In that case, I believe if someone is old enough to register, then they are old enough to make an adult decision without regard to whether they are a student. I feel this clause needs to be removed, as it's a slippery slope that can also lead to other bogus restrictions, such as disabled, only working part time, etc. I take the same stance with military people and alcohol. If they are old enough to die while fighting for their country, they are old enough to drink.

The key word here is "adult". You are either an adult or not and being an adult you should be able to make unrestricted adult decisions. Would a land based casino bar someone on the merits that they are a student? No. This just does not stand up to the test.

[darkpixie]

<sorry derail>

No I am not attempting to put this thread into a bash fest.
I have not bashed a single member of this forum in this thread.
Nor do I see anyone bullying anyone on either side of the fence in this thread.
I do however often use a little humor and sarcasm to get my point across. (I will totally cop to that)

I see persons in discussion on a pretty important issue. Discussion is healthy because it lets people consider all of the information so that they can make informed decisions. Maybe I haven't thought of something against my opinion, and so I hope that members with good information come on here and provide it.



I asked for clarification if we are allowed to discuss removal of the term in this thread. If we are not allowed to discuss removing the Term, again please edit the original post.

[silcnlayc]

Casinomeister: You want to make a change? Then act like an adult and maybe some one will listen to you.

I am realy wondering what the point to this is thread is. We were asked to give our "input" but when we do, we get slammed for giving it saying "that is not an option" on the input given....so, I too am done with this since the minds have already been made up and this has become a one sided conversation...there really was no plan on giving any "input" any consideration I believe , the offer was just a token...to move on..

The in put we were asked to give was not offered in the way it was meant IMO..it was offered to appease...

NO CHANGE will be made except for what the casino wants anyway. again IMO.....so again, what is the point of this thread??

IMO, there is no point to this thread..the decision has already been decided...

Done...


.

[vinylweatherman]

When evaluating things its always good practice to look at its origins, so I took a little gander at the way back machine and here are my findings....



2005 till February 23, 2007 (no older site history)

http://web.archive.org/web/200702230...ermsOfUse.aspx

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater.



March 9, 2007 - Oct 11 2007 (CWC has blocked the WBM from its pages in October 2007 and changed its terms to ban students under 21)

http://web.archive.org/web/200703092...ermsOfUse.aspx

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students aged 21 years old and under that are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.


Present day - CWC has since cast a wider net and removed the 21 years of age and under portion of the clause.

http://www.clubworldcasino.com/TermsOfUse.aspx?Curr=USD

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino



So I AM curious. How OLD is DanL?

From this, it seems the intent was to ban UNDERGRADUATE students on their FIRST degree level or equivalent course. They dropped the "21 or under" because most students turn 21 BEFORE taking their final exams. I took a 3 year degree course, very much the norm, but reached 21 in March, yet only graduated in June. Clearly CWC did NOT intend to allow students to play in the same period that they were supposed to be concentrating on their final exams. Some courses are longer though, and this is another loophole with the "under 21" restriction, with those on 4 year courses being able to study during their last year.

Removing this "under 21" seems to be the natural evolution of the term to remove these loopholes, and have ALL undergraduates banned.

It seems that this term was NEVER intended to hit "adult students", but only students progressing through to the end of their first degree course, where they would be dependent on others to fund their living and study expenses.

The DanL case seems to have broken with this idea, and indicates that the term really does mean ALL students, whatever their age. DanL had graduated from the usual degree course, so must be at least 21, an adult in EVERY jurisdiction. You can legally be a parent with school age children at 21, having conceived (or fertilised) a 16 year old mother of that child. They are deemed fit to be in charge of a small child unless evidence to the contrary arises.

The other problem is the very narrow definition of the students they are banning, which is not ALL students, but ONLY those who are "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University"

Although DanL was a student in the wider sense, he was NOT "enrolled in a College or University" between graduation, and the end of the following September, so as written, the term DID allow him to play, albeit only for about 3 months. He was also not "full time" during those three months, probably spending around zero hours attending classes until the end of September.

Focusing....

The question is, what did CWC want to accomplish with this rule and
What was the purpose of this rule?

That is a need to know question before any true discussion can be done.

A little more info would help in making suggestions on the wording if it will not be removed.


.

This is the problem, they haven't said what their aim is in adding this term other than to say it is to keep students who still depend on their parents from playing as a means to protect them from the perils of gambling away their study funds.

However, their implementation has strayed outside of these aims, and now it is not at all clear what classes of student they are trying to keep out.

It is also going to be next to impossible to enforce this rule fairly. A student is something you do in your "B & M life", which to many is separate from their online life.

The ONLY way they are going to catch a student is to get them to ADMIT they are one. The problem is that students are ADULTS, they have ALL the relevant records, rights, and responsibilities as any other adult in any other occupation.

The ONLY way to enforce this rule is to ROUTINELY require a declaration of occupation (with documentary proof) from players, in order to prove that they simply don't have the TIME to be "enrolled full time in a College or University".

DanL had everything he needed to avoid getting caught. He had a drivers license, was more than old enough to gamble, and as an adult over 18 would have been on the electoral roll, something that can be checked independently, and IS usually checked when validating ID documents provided by players.

CWC probably have MANY players who would qualify as "full time students" according to the CWC definition, and if they were determined to play, they would simply use their "regular" credentials during verification. They would NOT send in a student ID, nor would they play on campus, or give their campus address to the casino. ALL students have a "home", even if this is with their parents.

The ONLY thing they will be able to come up with by "digging" is that the player lives with their parents, and does not work (or cannot prove it). Such players are NOT banned though, so being unemployed and living with your parents is NOT against the terms. The only option for CWC then would be to say "prove you are not a student". Well, you can't really do this, but you can prove you ARE a student, and it would be up to CW to do this to refute any evidence produced by the player that they were merely unemployed and looking for work.

Even when they get this term as close as possible to the intent behind it, it is going to be hard work enforcing it against students who KNOW they are banned, but are determined to play anyway, without indisriminately confiscating winnings and banning players that "might be students" because of some "gut feeling" belief. This kind of enforcement would have a negative effect on reputation, and would make players fear that confiscation of winnings was done "on a whim", which would then scare them away.

CWC need to ensure they can ENFORCE such a term against ALL the students they want to exclude, and this would mean having some INDEPENDENT means of checking whether someone was a student that was ACCURATE to the same degree as the other verification checks.

The ONLY way this could be done would be to check players' details against the records of all the institutions concerned. If this is how they are doing it, we should be asking whether this is being done LEGALLY, since such details are covered by the data protection act, and are NOT made available for "commercial purposes", but only to authorised bodies.
Students should perhaps ask their college whether it is indeed possible for "just anybody" to check with these records to determine whether or not they are students. If it is, THIS would be one way CWC would seem to "just know" despite this not being revealed by the player, with the player then being challenged to show that these official records are wrong, rather than that their "gut instinct" got it wrong.

IF CWC can enforce the term as above, they must also have a term informing players that they are accessing and using their information in this manner, since this use is NOT anything to do with "verification of identity", so CANNOT be covered by the term that allows use of third party information for ID verification.

The nearest I can think of is

Students who have ever started a full time course at <full description of covered institutions> may not play until such time as they have completed all their planned courses, and have become available for full time employment, and may be asked to provide proof of this. Students who have completed one course, but are due to start another at a later date, are still deemed ineligible to play regardless of their current employment status