- Joined
- May 22, 2012
OK, I start this thread not in reference to any particular case, but just what I see as a glaring omission in the T&C's of many accredited (or otherwise!) online casinos. We know CM will not tolerate 'vague FU terms' but I feel that a casino not listing sister casinos and also their stance on 'take a break' or 'self exclusion' is exactly that - an FU clause.
It's so simple. The casinos as part of their criteria for accreditation should:
(In fact the LGA's should insist on this but as usual lag behind where common-sense and progress are concerned.)
1. List ALL sites they consider related and would therefore affect a player's bets should he/she have SE'd from one or more of those sites.
2. Be distinct on how they treat SE or 'take a break'.
Example>>>>
"ACME Casino's Responsible Gaming Policy:
We try to prevent accounts being opened by players who have requested self-exclusion/permanent closure for gambling-related issues at any of our other site(s) for the duration of that exclusion.
Shagnasty Slots.
Donkeydong's Den
GayBar Games
Vadge Vegas
Penile Poker
If, under these circumstances a player should however open another account at our site(s) they will not be paid winnings, all bets will be voided and deposits returned and the account closed by us.
This does (or does not depending on policy) apply to the self-administered 'break' facility we offer in the player's banking or account section at our sites."
SIMPLE!
To this end, I would also suggest if this ever gets implemented which I hope it does eventually whether through CM or regulation from the industry then:
IF a casino can be shown they did NOT have a complete, patent and inclusive list in their terms the day the player made the deposit and then later used the 'SE'd at a sister site' FU in order to not pay winnings, then if a PAB or ECOGRA complaint was lodged it would automatically go against the casino.
For the sake of trust and integrity I feel that casinos should have to disclose to the player in their terms specifically which other casinos could affect the player's potential to cash-out.
It's so simple. The casinos as part of their criteria for accreditation should:
(In fact the LGA's should insist on this but as usual lag behind where common-sense and progress are concerned.)
1. List ALL sites they consider related and would therefore affect a player's bets should he/she have SE'd from one or more of those sites.
2. Be distinct on how they treat SE or 'take a break'.
Example>>>>
"ACME Casino's Responsible Gaming Policy:
We try to prevent accounts being opened by players who have requested self-exclusion/permanent closure for gambling-related issues at any of our other site(s) for the duration of that exclusion.
Shagnasty Slots.
Donkeydong's Den
GayBar Games
Vadge Vegas
Penile Poker
If, under these circumstances a player should however open another account at our site(s) they will not be paid winnings, all bets will be voided and deposits returned and the account closed by us.
This does (or does not depending on policy) apply to the self-administered 'break' facility we offer in the player's banking or account section at our sites."
SIMPLE!
To this end, I would also suggest if this ever gets implemented which I hope it does eventually whether through CM or regulation from the industry then:
IF a casino can be shown they did NOT have a complete, patent and inclusive list in their terms the day the player made the deposit and then later used the 'SE'd at a sister site' FU in order to not pay winnings, then if a PAB or ECOGRA complaint was lodged it would automatically go against the casino.
For the sake of trust and integrity I feel that casinos should have to disclose to the player in their terms specifically which other casinos could affect the player's potential to cash-out.