ID idea

[kangamick]

Just an idea i've got.

If this wouldn't be to much work for Bryan or Max.

We can send in our ID to CM knowing it can be trusted with Bryan or Max. When it is approved we get a CM member number or a tick next to our user ID or something. Then if we sign up to a new accredited casino and we make a withdraw and get asked for ID, we can then just quote our CM numer xxxxxxx or give our CM username. The casino can then check we have been verfied with CM.

This would mean we would never have to send ID ever again if we stick to accredited casinos and casinos would know our ID has been checked by a 3rd party that can be trusted.

Good or bad idea?

 

[Repro]

Just an idea i've got.

If this wouldn't be to much work for Bryan or Max.

We can send in our ID to CM knowing it can be trusted with Bryan or Max. When it is approved we get a CM member number or a tick next to our user ID or something. Then if we sign up to a new accredited casino and we make a withdraw and get asked for ID, we can then just quote our CM numer xxxxxxx or give our CM username. The casino can then check we have been verfied with CM.

This would mean we would never have to send ID ever again if we stick to accredited casinos and casinos would know our ID has been checked by a 3rd party that can be trusted.

Good or bad idea?

I don't think Bryan or the casino's will ever go for this. As much as i like CM, it's not an OFFICIAL medium (legally speaking).
It can only work if all the accredited casino's and CM would sign a contract for this.
Also CM has to become a paid service, which will screw up the "INDEPENDENT FREE SERVICE" idea.

 

[secret2]

I don't think Bryan or the casino's will ever go for this. As much as i like CM, it's not an OFFICIAL medium (legally speaking).
It can only work if all the accredited casino's and CM would sign a contract for this.
Also CM has to become a paid service, which will screw up the "INDEPENDENT FREE SERVICE" idea.

That makes sense.

Geesh, I can imagine the extra scrutiny,etc.

 

[The Dude]

Sorry, but I'll pass on this one. This is something a professional security agency or licensing jurisdiction should be doing. We are not set up for this. Each territory, state, province, country, etc. has their own way of producing IDs for their inhabitants. There is no way that I would want to commit any time or effort to research each and every ID to ensure it's legit or not.

It's Casinomeister - not IDmeister

Thanks for the suggestion though - much appreciated

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sorry, but I'll pass on this one. This is something a professional security agency or licensing jurisdiction should be doing. We are not set up for this. Each territory, state, province, country, etc. has their own way of producing IDs for their inhabitants. There is no way that I would want to commit any time or effort to research each and every ID to ensure it's legit or not.

It's Casinomeister - not IDmeister

Thanks for the suggestion though - much appreciated

Well, casino operators use professional security agencies, but this arrangement is BAD for players because the fact that players can have the SAME documentation accepted at some casinos, yet rejected at others, demonstrates that even these professional agencies make mistakes. The problem then is that players have neither redress nor the ability to pass a "once and for all" in depth ID verification process that will always work to the SAME standards wherever they play. What is needed is cooperation between all the operators and regulatory agencies to set an overal standard and set of procedures that ALL operators and verification agencies have to follow. This would produce consistency for players, so that even if they were subjected to routine "update" verification requests, they can be assured that they won't suddenly get accused of submitting fake documents just because something "under the bonnet" has changed, such as their country changing the format of a document, or moving to a different set of documents for it's citizens. The procedures should be robust enough that routine matters such as moving house, with the inevitable mismatches due to datasets having a delay in registering the new details, do not result in a player being determined a fraud with no chance of appeal (the "final decision of management" situation, even if external appeal may be possible).
It would then only be the rogue casinos that would screw innocent players over documentation, and thus they would stand out more.