32RED downgrades TAB/SE

[Harry_BKK]

Reading this above, one might assume they are the next Virtual or Betway with their massive marketing budget, yet drip feeding players their winnings at a paltry £/€/$4k a week.

Please let's put this in perspective. You may not like the methods how to SE. You may not like the removal of manual flushing. You may not like what had happened regarding TAB. But 32Red are not bad. Indeed they are nowhere near as bad as 99% of casinos you find online. Take a look at Online Casino City's listings of all online casinos in operation for clarity sake.

Whatever 32Red are, they are 110% trustworthy and it appears a victim of their own high standards.

Fair enough, i took a look at CC and chose UK, Pounds and popularity and got this result:

- 32RED in 29th place
> CC claims to evaluate every site
> Do they really think or have come to the conclusion 32RED is that unpopular
> A newbie will not go past the TOP 10 when he looks for his first casinos

 

[paul7388]

This thread is getting quite amusing and its the last thing it should be.

I understand full well why members would question the ways that are available to SE or TAB at 32RED now and why they would be angry at not having live chat etc.

I also think its a bad move the casino has made,

But reading the last several pages of this thread is a joke. Nothing wrong with posting opinions on why its wrong but some of the jokes and comments are really quite pathetic.

From being a serious discussion some peoples posts are like its young kids joining in and making daft wee jokes at someones expense just because everyone else is.

Sorry but some of these members are ones that have one time took everything free they could get from 32RED and some members have constantly took every opportunity in the last year to get another dig in against the casino.

This thread has really turned from a serious post from Harry into just another Bitch against 32RED. And the way some people are going on you would think 32RED will be bust and no longer existing soon which could hardly be further from the truth.

YES the casino is wrong over the options they have for SE ing etc. and members are right to complain and question it. Hopefully the casino will see error of their ways and fix it themselves or get made to fix it. But whether they are right or wrong some of the comments in this thread are way over the top.

Anyway don't give a damn who agrees or not but I seriously think some members should read their comments and think is that a fair post ive made.

Anyway sorry to interrupt the thread and your fun so have a good weekend all

 

[miksaxxx]

Sorry you are wrong, ask next time proof when you write this

32Red Player Experience Team <[email protected]>; 8:51 PM
From:
Mikko (mikko.ja****@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 4/1/2016 8:51 PM
To:
32Red Player Experience Team ([email protected]);
Hi,

I only want my accounts closed and be removed from all their mailing lists. I dont have gambling problem att all..

BR
Mikko Ja*****

From: 32Red Player Experience Team <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 6:38 PM
To: mikko.ja*****@hotmail.com
Subject: se [Incident: 160401-000501]


And Mark can confirm this email if he want..

Dont waste my Time.

You clearly went on chat to create a issue with no intention of closing it anyway, it' obvious from the half copy and paste chat you have put, Plus since you was the same person who pretended they offered you a bonus not to close, i find your contribution to thread nothing more than wanting to join in with bashing the casino without any worthwhile input.

Don't waste Marks time.

 

[paul7388]

Fair enough, i took a look at CC and chose UK, Pounds and popularity and got this result:

- 32RED in 29th place
> CC claims to evaluate every site
> Do they really think or have come to the conclusion 32RED is that unpopular
> A newbie will not go past the TOP 10 when he looks for his first casinos

View attachment 65679

The thing is tho that the majority of people that sign up to and use casinos will never visit a forum in their life. 32RED in UK is very well advertised and sponsors football teams, rugby horse racing etc. They will be bringing in a lot of new players all the time and I would imagine the amount of new customers from forums would actually be a very tiny % of all new players.

They are also pushing their sports site a lot and especially in UK that will be bringing them a lot of big gamblers who like to bet. Not sticking up for them or anything but not being in top 10 in lists on forums and casino sites will not drastically effect new sign ups

Anyway not going to derail this thread anymore as its meant to be about SE and TAB nothing else.

 

[maxd]

I've had more than one forum regular request that this thread be closed on the grounds that (a) nothing new is being said and (b) it's turning into a pointless "bash 32Red" lynch-mob thing. I don't disagree so I'm closing this up for the weekend.

If anyone has something new to contribute feel free to PM with the subject line "Keep It Open!" and a __brief__ explanation of what you have to add that hasn't already been said. Come early next week I'll have a look, total up the messages received and make a decision accordingly.

 

[maxd]

Ok, I received three requests to have the thread reopened but they were all from senior forum members so obviously merits particular consideration.

Reopening, but I would ask that this not be a "let's slag 32Red" session nor an endless repeating of the well-established complaints. If you have something new to add please do, if not then I'd suggest thanking the post(s) that made your point(s) for you.

What I'm really concerned about here is violations of the Posting Rules, specifically items 1.11 ("personal agenda") and 1.18 ("don't be a PITA"). In other words make your case -- or "thank" someone who has already made it -- and leave it at that: banging on about how 32Red has disappointed you/gone to the dogs/whatever is unnecessary and unwelcome.

 

[Jasminebed]

I'd like to point out that this was not a huge change, just a revert to previous procedure. I was critical of 32Red's need for a form as far back as Jan 2009, and I haven't changed my opinion that much. I don't wish to SE to make a point however, so I'd like to thank those that took one for the team so to speak to demonstrate the issue.

To have to confirm everything, request a form, PRINT IT (not everyone has a printer), sign it and then scan or photo it and return it is quite a bit of work for many people. I personally can attest to having blown back a withdrawal at RTG sites that require a form, and that was for a cashout. It's probably even worse for those players who use mobile exclusively.

As a non-UKGC player, I am not afforded the same rules, but at face it looks like same procedure.

Personally, I'd be good with a lock being put on the account immediately, and give the casino a chance to send you an email outlining what SE really means, and do you want to proceed.

Thank you for letting me have my say maxd.

 

[Deeplay]

Personally, I'd be good with a lock being put on the account immediately, and give the casino a chance to send you an email outlining what SE really means, and do you want to proceed.

Thank you for letting me have my say maxd.

I think the above actually is almost the perfect solution and very easy to implement. Which then would ensure as much as a casino can that any person going for SE understands fully the implications of taking such action
and at the same time giving immediate protection with the lock placed on the account.

 

[dobbul]

Perhaps Mark and others should have a chat with the new "Experiential Consultant" at 32Red (current TV Ad campaign running on almost every channel during every evening ad break); I'd love to know how low rolling and never hitting a feature/bonus round makes for a "Better player experience!" lol. Sorry, I know that's going off at a tangent but if you don't laugh........

 

[Harry_BKK]

News from the UKGC:

- they won't discuss the issue with me as i am not in the UK and hence not in their jurisdiction
- hence, i am out
- if somebody from the UK wants to take this to them, please do so.

Thanks to Max for re-opening the thread as i think RG is very important to a lot of players and it would be beneficial for all, players and 32RED alike, if the issue is finding an amicable closure

 

[simon1316]

Congrat's 32Red...

BY not responding after two hour to a TAB request... you have earned back a 15K withdrawal.
Everyting to delay.. and try to let you play all back..

Another one who joined the club of EX 32Red from now. 32Red is no more player friendly.. account closed and never going back.

And they also play with word now... i've asked earlier to TAB to another CS... she know i wanted my account locked.
Only after losing all back they tell me that if asked for SE.. my account should have been locked immediatly but for a TAB.. it's when they want to process it. But 32red know that on my first chat.. all i want is to have my account locked.
me: you can close my account..
me: lollll
me: that what i asked earlier..
me: but now..you do it instantly..
me: unbelievable..
Stuart: you didnt ask before to lock the account
Stuart: you have jyst asked now
me: a take a break.. = lock the account !!!!!!!!!
me: by taking a break...the account is locked no?

 

[simon1316]

2h58mins later got the message from 32red...

Congrat's 32Red...

BY not responding after two hour to a TAB request... you have earned back a 15K withdrawal.
Everyting to delay.. and try to let you play all back..

Another one who joined the club of EX 32Red from now. 32Red is no more player friendly.. account closed and never going back.

And they also play with word now... i've asked earlier to TAB to another CS... she know i wanted my account locked.
Only after losing all back they tell me that if asked for SE.. my account should have been locked immediatly but for a TAB.. it's when they want to process it. But 32red know that on my first chat.. all i want is to have my account locked.
me: you can close my account..
me: lollll
me: that what i asked earlier..
me: but now..you do it instantly..
me: unbelievable..
Stuart: you didnt ask before to lock the account
Stuart: you have jyst asked now
me: a take a break.. = lock the account !!!!!!!!!
me: by taking a break...the account is locked no?

 

[AlyLauren]

A lot of casinos are having bad reputation, and most of them are the same they don't give any feedback about whats happening or if they are going into a maintenance or system update. I guess finding the credible one is pretty much challenging nowadays

 

[itsover2014]

Congrat's 32Red...

BY not responding after two hour to a TAB request... you have earned back a 15K withdrawal.
Everyting to delay.. and try to let you play all back..

Another one who joined the club of EX 32Red from now. 32Red is no more player friendly.. account closed and never going back.

And they also play with word now... i've asked earlier to TAB to another CS... she know i wanted my account locked.
Only after losing all back they tell me that if asked for SE.. my account should have been locked immediatly but for a TAB.. it's when they want to process it. But 32red know that on my first chat.. all i want is to have my account locked.
me: you can close my account..
me: lollll
me: that what i asked earlier..
me: but now..you do it instantly..
me: unbelievable..
Stuart: you didnt ask before to lock the account
Stuart: you have jyst asked now
me: a take a break.. = lock the account !!!!!!!!!
me: by taking a break...the account is locked no?

Stuff like this makes me so angry.. Especially with 32red.

If you won that at a real casino, you would take it instantly, walk out and not go back.

But because they force you to wait all that time this situation becomes a real likelihood for many. TAB is instant most other places, but as you said, vote with your feet.

 

[Tirilej]

Have we come so far that we now don't even question if someone is telling the truth? Or what he have done?

We don't question the fact that someone is cashing out $15K, take the time to do go on and choose the Take a break option for a certain amount of time, but then can't control himself but manage to reverse all of that $15K and play it back.? In just two hours.. while waiting for the account to get locked? If he even asked for it the first time.
Then again take the time to talk to live chat.
If it had been about reversing and playing back this amount during 2 weeks I would have understood the frustration, but 2 hours

This TAB option didn't exist before and is nothing the casino even have to offer someone that's not from the UK. Still I see several of you directly put the blame on the casino. They didn't play it back for him.

 

[mac72]

@simon1316 Do you have the chat transcript from earlier when you asked to take a break?

 

[maxd]

Ok, some time ago -- sorry folks, busy busy -- I said I'd look into the claims that 32Red was in violation of the UKGC codes and practices regarding their Take-A-Break aka "TAB" facilities. I've now done that and my conclusion is that the claims that they were in violation are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms used by the UKGC in describing the operator's responsibilities.

The nub of it is this: I see no place in the UKGC LCCP (Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice) where an operator is required to provide instant access to a TAB facility or anything like it. What I do see is "Licensees must offer a ‘time out’ facility for customers ..." (Social responsibility code provision 3.3.4). There's nothing I've seen about how that facility be offered or any requirements that it be "automatic" or accessible by telephone, etc.

My strong suspicion is that there has been a fundamental misreading of the UKGC LCCP: when these documents use the term "remote" they (more or less) mean "internet based" (eg. "remote gambling equipment", "remote licenses", etc.). In the context of the "time-out" facility the only use of the word "remote" that I see is in the subheading of "Social responsibility code provision 3.3.4" which is "Remote time-out facility" which, if you are familiar with the LCCP, means "time-out facility applicable to remote operators" not "some means of remotely accessing the time-out facility". As understandable as the misinterpretation may be I would say that the fact that nothing further is said about "remote access" is a pretty fair indication that that is not what they are talking about.

In other words this entire thread has been based -- as stated in the original post -- on that misunderstanding. That and the fact that a feature was removed that many folks apparently wish hadn't. I respectfully suggest that 32Red HAS NOT been failing to "act responsibly" if by that we are supposed to understand that they are failing to fulfil their UKGC responsibilities. As previously stated, the 32Red guys know their shit and for them to deliberately put themselves in violation of UKGC rules is very, VERY unlikely.

Given this misunderstanding from the get-go I suggest the thread title be changed since it is fundamentally untrue. Perhaps "32Red downgrades Take-A-Break" or something of that sort would be more appropriate.

 

[Harry_BKK]

1. Have we come so far that we now don't even question if someone is telling the truth? Or what he have done?

2. We don't question the fact that someone is cashing out $15K, take the time to do go on and choose the Take a break option for a certain amount of time, but then can't control himself but manage to reverse all of that $15K and play it back.? In just two hours.. while waiting for the account to get locked? If he even asked for it the first time.
3. Then again take the time to talk to live chat.
If it had been about reversing and playing back this amount during 2 weeks I would have understood the frustration, but 2 hours

4. This TAB option didn't exist before and is nothing the casino even have to offer someone that's not from the UK. Still I see several of you directly put the blame on the casino. They didn't play it back for him.

1. Why should i question a poster who has been a long standing CM member for over 11 years and who had a successful PAB. CM would have banned him already if he was lying/bashing in his posts or submitting a fake PAB. This also confirms he has been a player for a very long time and knows about something like TAB features.

2. Why he couldn't control himself is not the question here (although debatable why not) and we are not in the position to question his loss of control, one time or another in the past it happened to all of us. It is the removal of the TAB feature by 32RED which was previously accessible to everyone.

This is perfect example why 32RED has removed the TAB feature in the software!!! Prevent players to use it easily and over time more will lose their winnings back. Absolutely no doubt in my mind.

3. The second contact to LiveChat was to close his account permanently. The first time he asked for a TAB.

4. It clearly existed, I used it just a few weeks ago.

In closing, no matter what Simon has posted, it can be easily verified by 32RED and an answer provided here whether it is the truth or not.

 

[mac72]

"Take a Break" is part of RG controls, if you query the need to use them why have them at all? It is obvious that he felt uncomfortable with the 15k withdrawal and wanted to protect himself and if the system hadn't been changed that 15k would be in his bank now as he would have had the account locked immediately.
It is blatantly obvious why this has been changed, it was used successfully by customers to protect withdrawals and they decided to put a stop to it.When i saw the response by 32red that people were "misusing" the TAB for this reason i had to laugh, thats like saying your misusing the corkscrew to open the wine!
I looked at what maxd has said about the UKGC rules and it would seem that they have employed someone with the same skill set as those that write casino t+c's to write their rules.They are amiguous when they should be crystal clear. What is the point in saying you have to provide a TAB facility without including a timeframe within which it MUST be implemented?? It just leaves it wide open for disputes like this to occur.

 

[itsover2014]

Agreed. That change saved them $15k from this one poster alone! I bet there are Hi-Fives all around in the office for whoever came up with the removal idea :icon_evil

 

[Harry_BKK]

Ok, some time ago -- sorry folks, busy busy -- I said I'd look into the claims that 32Red was in violation of the UKGC codes and practices regarding their Take-A-Break aka "TAB" facilities. I've now done that and my conclusion is that the claims that they were in violation are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms used by the UKGC in describing the operator's responsibilities.

The nub of it is this: I see no place in the UKGC LCCP (Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice) where an operator is required to provide instant access to a TAB facility or anything like it. What I do see is "Licensees must offer a ‘time out’ facility for customers ..." (Social responsibility code provision 3.3.4). There's nothing I've seen about how that facility be offered or any requirements that it be "automatic" or accessible by telephone, etc.

My strong suspicion is that there has been a fundamental misreading of the UKGC LCCP: when these documents use the term "remote" they (more or less) mean "internet based" (eg. "remote gambling equipment", "remote licenses", etc.). In the context of the "time-out" facility the only use of the word "remote" that I see is in the subheading of "Social responsibility code provision 3.3.4" which is "Remote time-out facility" which, if you are familiar with the LCCP, means "time-out facility applicable to remote operators" not "some means of remotely accessing the time-out facility". As understandable as the misinterpretation may be I would say that the fact that nothing further is said about "remote access" is a pretty fair indication that that is not what they are talking about.

In other words this entire thread has been based -- as stated in the original post -- on that misunderstanding. That and the fact that a feature was removed that many folks apparently wish hadn't. I respectfully suggest that 32Red HAS NOT been failing to "act responsibly" if by that we are supposed to understand that they are failing to fulfil their UKGC responsibilities. As previously stated, the 32Red guys know their shit and for them to deliberately put themselves in violation of UKGC rules is very, VERY unlikely.

Given this misunderstanding from the get-go I suggest the thread title be changed since it is fundamentally untrue. Perhaps "32Red downgrades Take-A-Break" or something of that sort would be more appropriate.

Thanks for your post and the time taken to look into the matter Max.

The paragraph in question is the one below. For me as a common reader I understand "remote time-out facility" like i can do it remotely. The designated operators are then in the second line - "all remote licenses....", hence your explanation is not really 100% applicable. Maybe the UKGC should have worded the paragraph more exact to avoid misunderstandings.

You can change the thread title as you suggested.

A "foul taste" will still remain for me as 32RED has done the downgrade with a clear reason.

 

[maxd]

I looked at what maxd has said about the UKGC rules and it would seem that they have employed someone with the same skill set as those that write casino t+c's to write their rules.They are amiguous when they should be crystal clear. What is the point in saying you have to provide a TAB facility without including a timeframe within which it MUST be implemented?? It just leaves it wide open for disputes like this to occur.

They do make specific reference to timeframes, I just didn't want to bloat my quote out with details. The section in question -- again, that's "Social responsibility code provision 3.3.4" -- reads as follows:

1 Licensees must offer a ‘time out’ facility for customers for the following durations:
a. 24 hours
b. one week
c. one month or
d. such other period as the customer may reasonably request, up to a maximum of 6 weeks.

FWIW I would personally recommend that people either (a) read what the UKGC LCCP actually says before you bash them for it or (b) just don't. In my opinion -- and that of respected collegues I might add -- the UKGC is doing a fairly decent job in a very difficult situation. They are neither fools nor toadies to anyone in the industry, as far as I can tell. What they are is over-worked, under-staffed and seriously committed to doing the best job with this that they possibly can. A little respect where respect is due would go a long way to making these discussions more factual and a lot less reactionary.

 

[mac72]

I respectfully suggest that 32Red HAS NOT been failing to "act responsibly" if by that we are supposed to understand that they are failing to fulfil their UKGC responsibilities. As previously stated, the 32Red guys know their shit and for them to deliberately put themselves in violation of UKGC rules is very, VERY unlikely.


Surely the title is quite correct?? If it had been "32Red acts outside UKGC guidelines" it would have been wrong but isn't the essence of the argument promoted here that the system in place before gave immediate player protection and a decision has been made to change that putting players at risk , and in my view that is irresponsible behaviour especially when it is for financial gain?
The fact that they are still "within" the guidelines isn't the issue, its the mindset of those in control.There are plenty out there that won't buy certain sportsbrands etc because of the use of sweatshops making the product,nobody is saying though that what those manufacturers are doing is illegal, but unethical and irresponsible quite possibly yes.
If the title of a documentary about those sweatshops was "XXXX sportsbrand failing to act responsibly" i don't think you would get many who could say it was worded incorrectly.

 

[maxd]

The paragraph in question is the one below. For me as a common reader I understand "remote time-out facility" like i can do it remotely. The designated operators are then in the second line - "all remote licenses....", hence your explanation is not really 100% applicable.

It is 100% applicable because it is based on a close reading of that document wherein multiple examples of what I describe appear. And again, NOTHING is said about "remote access", what it might be or how it might work. In effect, nothing is said about "remote access" at all! Certainly not in the current context. The only suggestion that they did came from you and I believe you were quite wrong for the reasons given. Nothing personal but you totally misread the document and its intent, perhaps (if I may say) based on what you wanted them to offer as opposed to what was really there.

Could that section have been clearer? No doubt, any government document probably could be clearer, but the point is that they said nothing about "remote access" so being clear about something they were not and had no intention of talking about seems a bit of a reach.

 

[mac72]

They do make specific reference to timeframes, I just didn't want to bloat my quote out with details. The section in question -- again, that's "Social responsibility code provision 3.3.4" -- reads as follows:


FWIW I would personally recommend that people either (a) read what the UKGC LCCP actually says before you bash them for it or (b) just don't. In my opinion -- and that of respected collegues I might add -- the UKGC is doing a fairly decent job in a very difficult situation. They are neither fools nor toadies to anyone in the industry, as far as I can tell. What they are is over-worked, under-staffed and seriously committed to doing the best job with this that they possibly can. A little respect where respect is due would go a long way to making these discussions more factual and a lot less reactionary.

So do the UKGC have a timescale as to when you must implement a 24hr break??? If its not immediate within what timescale must it be implemented? The very fact a TAB is available for 24hrs would lead me to the natural assumption that there is some urgency? If they have indeed clearly specified "TAB must be implemented and accounts locked within XX timeframe of first contact by the customer" then i got it wrong.

 

[Harry_BKK]

It is 100% applicable because it is based on a thorough reading of that document wherein multiple examples of what I describe appear. And again, NOTHING is said about "remote access", what it might be or how it might work. In effect, nothing is said about "remote access" at all! The only suggestion that they did came from you and I believe you were quite wrong for the reasons given. Nothing personal but you totally misread the document and its intent, perhaps (if I may say) based on what you wanted them to offer as opposed to what was really there.

Could that section have been clearer? No doubt, any government document probably could be clearer, but the point is that they said nothing about "remote access" so being clear about something they were not and had no intention of talking about seems a bit of a reach.

I read the whole document as well Max, more than once, it is not like i don't inform myself before starting a thread.

The SR code document has the paragraphs clearly designated, as you can see from the sample in Screenshot 1 below. IT is stated clearly after the paragraph title whether it is referring to remote or non-remote operators, if applicable.

The TAB paragraph looks different, see screenshot 2.

What shall a reader understand then. "Remote time-out facility" is remote, or is there any other explanation???

Screenshot 1



Screenshot 2



Further under item 3.5.3, paragraph 8, which handles SE procedures, it is clearly stated that operators have to provide an automated SE process using REMOTE communication. 32RED removed this appr. 2 weeks ago and does not provide it at this point in time and is, in my opinion, in breach of the UKGC regulation.



Everybody can make his own mind up about this, I quote you: "perhaps (if I may say) based on what you wanted them to offer as opposed to what was really there."

Facts are:

- the remote/online/self-usable TAB/SE facility is provided by MG to every operator and can be embedded in the VIPER client
- 32RED had them active in the VIPER client
- 32RED has removed them from the VIPER client 2 weeks ago as they, quote: "We constantly review all aspects of our operating procedures and it was evident that our approach to Self-Exclusion needed to revert to it being a more considered and deliberate action on the part of the player."

 

[simon1316]

1. Why should i question a poster who has been a long standing CM member for over 11 years and who had a successful PAB. CM would have banned him already if he was lying/bashing in his posts or submitting a fake PAB. This also confirms he has been a player for a very long time and knows about something like TAB features.

2. Why he couldn't control himself is not the question here (although debatable why not) and we are not in the position to question his loss of control, one time or another in the past it happened to all of us. It is the removal of the TAB feature by 32RED which was previously accessible to everyone.

This is perfect example why 32RED has removed the TAB feature in the software!!! Prevent players to use it easily and over time more will lose their winnings back. Absolutely no doubt in my mind.

3. The second contact to LiveChat was to close his account permanently. The first time he asked for a TAB.

4. It clearly existed, I used it just a few weeks ago.

In closing, no matter what Simon has posted, it can be easily verified by 32RED and an answer provided here whether it is the truth or not.

Thanks Harry_BKK. Of course, everything can be verified, why should i tell not the truth. Yes, everyone at least one time in the life reverse withdrawal and play all back... because sometime you seems to win on every bet you made. The problem here is when first asked to TAB.. they know i wanted to get my account locked for a period of time, but didn't act... ask me to send the e-mail form etc. If the CS be honest and tell me that SE is instant... i should have go with it. They are playing with word big Times in their favor... it's only when coming back and lost all that they say 'you never say to lock the account'.. a TAB request is not to lock an account for a period of time huhh?!? Also take exactly 2h58 to get a reply? Is really top of the queue?

 

[maxd]

... Everybody can make his own mind up about this ...

Indeed they can, and probably already have. My own mind is this: you made an assumption that "remote" in that particular context meant something that was never mentioned or referenced elsewhere in that or any other UKGC document (afaik). There was no supporting material in the document and nothing further to indicate that "remote" in that case meant "request by phone" or whatever.

You then proceeded to take 32Red to task for not offering such a "remote" service and claimed that the UKGC demanded it: you said they were "not acting responsibly" per their UKGC obligations.

Exactly NONE of that has turned out to be true.

As the saying goes "never assume because it makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'". A particularly puerile saying I'll admit but rather applicable in this case I would say.

 

[mac72]

They do make specific reference to timeframes, I just didn't want to bloat my quote out with details. The section in question -- again, that's "Social responsibility code provision 3.3.4" -- reads as follows:


FWIW I would personally recommend that people either (a) read what the UKGC LCCP actually says before you bash them for it or (b) just don't. In my opinion -- and that of respected collegues I might add -- the UKGC is doing a fairly decent job in a very difficult situation. They are neither fools nor toadies to anyone in the industry, as far as I can tell. What they are is over-worked, under-staffed and seriously committed to doing the best job with this that they possibly can. A little respect where respect is due would go a long way to making these discussions more factual and a lot less reactionary.

I have read the document maxd and i don't understand, you say that they make "specific reference to timeframes" but those are the timeframes for the take a break to last for, not the timeframe within it must be implemented (for which i can find no timescale whatsoever) which was precisely what i commented on and relevant to the issue at hand , have i missed something??

 

[Harry_BKK]

1. Indeed they can, and probably already have. My own mind is this: you made an assumption that "remote" in that particular context meant something that was never mentioned or referenced elsewhere in that or any other UKGC document (afaik). There was no supporting material in the document and nothing further to indicate that "remote" in that case meant "request by phone" or whatever.

2. You then proceeded to take 32Red to task for not offering such a "remote" service and claimed that the UKGC demanded it: you said they were "not acting responsibly" per their UKGC obligations.

3. Exactly NONE of that has turned out to be true.

As the saying goes "never assume because it makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'". A particularly puerile saying I'll admit but rather applicable in this case I would say.

1. Fair enough, it is not clearly demanded in the TAB paragraph.

2. I stated in my OP: "and in no way in line with "RG" guidelines" .... nowhere did I mention UKGC obligations, guidelines are not obligations

3. Partially agree. Where it might apply to TAB, although depending on how the text of the TAB paragraph is read and understood, however, it is true for the SE regulation, where the UKGC clearly demands, quote: "AN AUTOMATED PROCESS USING REMOTE COMMUNICATION".

That is not being offered by 32RED, crystal clear. They removed the automated process and now send you a form which you have to complete and return to 32RED and only then action is taken.

 

[mac72]

@harrybkk it says it is acceptable to include a further step (which will be the form) so im not sure that argument is going to hold. I think your confusing yourself a bit here, your pointing out something that is very very valid , the steps 32red have taken which make it more difficult for people to TAB which most everybody here agrees with you on but your falling into the trap of making out they are in breach of guidelines(which i don't know where these guidelines come from) which i don't think they are.
Does that justify their position , many won't think so

 

[Harry_BKK]

@harrybkk it says it is acceptable to include a further step (which will be the form) so im not sure that argument is going to hold. I think your confusing yourself a bit here, your pointing out something that is very very valid , the steps 32red have taken which make it more difficult for people to TAB which most everybody here agrees with you on but your falling into the trap of making out they are in breach of guidelines(which i don't know where these guidelines come from) which i don't think they are.
Does that justify their position , hell no

No Mac72 ... the additional step is similar as you would have to tick a box that you understood the T&C's. And by sending a form the process is not automated!!!

But won't be going on about it, beating empty bushes when it doesn't even apply to me as i am not in the UK, nor a player at 32RED anymore.

Good Luck everyone and no reversing!!!

 

[mac72]

No Mac72 ... the additional step is similar as you would have to tick a box that you understood the T&C's. And by sending a form the process is not automated!!!

But won't be going on about it, beating empty bushes when it doesn't even apply to me as i am not in the UK, nor a player at 32RED anymore.

Good Luck everyone and no reversing!!!

"the automated process may include an additional step" - this is my point harry the way that is worded is rubbish it COULD mean that
a) you must tick a box etc WITHIN the automated process to conclude
b) you may get a form OUTSIDE of the automated process to conclude

what it should say if it truly means it to be automated is "the automated process may include an additional AUTOMATED step" and then there would be no wriggle room.
All these things inevitably come down to how the t+c's are written should it be with the UKGC or online casinos. It is the inability to write them in a manner that locks the position down properly that continually pisses me off as i see it as pure negligence

 

[mac72]

They do make specific reference to timeframes, I just didn't want to bloat my quote out with details. The section in question -- again, that's "Social responsibility code provision 3.3.4" -- reads as follows:


FWIW I would personally recommend that people either (a) read what the UKGC LCCP actually says before you bash them for it or (b) just don't. In my opinion -- and that of respected collegues I might add -- the UKGC is doing a fairly decent job in a very difficult situation. They are neither fools nor toadies to anyone in the industry, as far as I can tell. What they are is over-worked, under-staffed and seriously committed to doing the best job with this that they possibly can. A little respect where respect is due would go a long way to making these discussions more factual and a lot less reactionary.

Ok i took time out to ring the UKGC. First person i spoke to said that TAB "should" be implemented when you tell the casino but she didn't sound at all sure so i pushed her on it a bit and she went off to clarify. When she came back the situation had changed somewhat "it will be put in place when the casino put it in place" was now the position.There is no timeframe.

So there you have it sports fans, we have a Commission looking after us in the UK that writes licence conditions and codes of practice that are completely ineffective and not fit for purpose.If i decide at noon today that i wish to take a break until noon tomorrow i may not be able to do so as said Casino may not decide to action that request for 2hrs,24hrs or a week and what conditions have they broken errr none
These conditions and codes are not written under pressure,people have days/months to come up with them, and the argument that they are overworked ain't cutting it with me either.If people are overworked they are still expected to do their job correctly and if you promote that ideal well then you know what the excuse is always going to be when anything goes wrong.
It is obvious from the way 32red had it on the viper software that that is exactly how it should be done,instanteneous with the customer in full control and that is the way EVERY Casino should have been made do it by the UKGC,they messed that up big time and i stand over my "bashing" of them on this occassion.
As i said to Harry earlier in relation to 32red i don't think they are actually breaking any rules/guidelines but there was an obvious thought process that went into them taking the decision to implement this and other changes and it will just be up to each individual to decide if they feel comfortable with the way things are and appear to be going.

 

[dunover]

32red are certainly innovative. Having already decided a significant (30%???) saving can be achieve on actioned withdrawals by introducing pending periods, they are the first casino in the 'accredited' section to spot that they can also retrieve withdrawals by removing not only flushing, but now self-set TAB.

The vast majority of casinos read the rules the same as most of us do. That the player should be in control, and the word 'immediate' appears a few times in their guidelines. So they virtually all install self-set instant RG controls, as indeed 32red USED to have.

The player who lost the 15k while applying to TAB has himself to blame ultimately as I'm sure people won't hesitate to point out. Despite that, I am white with anger reading his story. What a glowing endorsement of their decision, and vindication of their measures on RG!!

You are at you weakest after you've just won. That is the WHOLE reason pending periods are imposed. Savvy players have then (as we've already read) taken the explanation-unnecessary self-set TAB to relax while the slow withdrawal is processed.

32red have then thought "Can't have this, this makes our profitable pending withdrawal period pointless, the buggers will be prevented from reversing!"

So, due to the lack of definite provision in the UKGC rules (although I and it seems nearly all casinos read them otherwise) they have discovered they can get away with delays and lack of self-set. In fact they must have planned it carefully by consulting a lawyer or expert to decide if they could remove self-set as I can't believe they would do this ad-hoc without checking the legality of it.

Which brings me to my conclusion. I see a profitable casino with a hitherto decent reputation going out on a limb to minimize completed withdrawals. Actions speak louder than all the words they can spout or those of whom defend them.

Just start being straight with us all boys! Just add the missing 'G' and 'E' into the 32RED name.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The poster who lost the 15K would be the one who would have to make a formal complaint that had the TAB procedure that he usually uses in this situation not been removed, he would have been able to protect this win from himself.

The whole point of these rules and regulations is to protect gamblers from themselves, so if the UKGC are saying that it's up to the casino when they action a TAB, then the rules are pretty pointless anyway as the gambler is still expected to remain in control, and an in control gambler does not need the level of nannying that the UKGC seem to want implemented.


If people are having to argue over the meaning of the regulations despite having the text right in front of them, then the UKGC is guilty of producing an unclear set of regulations, but expecting players and operators to understand them fully.

The UKGC did say that their rules are "constantly evolving", so the only way to make them reconsider the rules is to provide the UKGC with case specific intelligence as to how their current rules are actually working, and then get them to consider whether this is what was intended.

I see little point in having a 24 hour TAB if the casino can decide to wait as long as it likes before actually implementing it. Perhaps the UKGC had the simplistic view that "of course it would be immediate", so saw no need to specify a time frame in the regulations. Had they known that casinos did not action TAB requests at front line CS level, they may have specified that it was to be actioned within a set time.

The UKGC may even have assumed that TAB would be an automatic function within the software, but this is not the case, and not just at 32Red, many other platforms do not support a full suite of RG measures for the player to access without having to contact CS at some point.

Future updates to the rules may well give us more clarity on the matters of TAB and SE.

 

[simon1316]

The poster who lost the 15K would be the one who would have to make a formal complaint that had the TAB procedure that he usually uses in this situation not been removed, he would have been able to protect this win from himself.

The whole point of these rules and regulations is to protect gamblers from themselves, so if the UKGC are saying that it's up to the casino when they action a TAB, then the rules are pretty pointless anyway as the gambler is still expected to remain in control, and an in control gambler does not need the level of nannying that the UKGC seem to want implemented.


If people are having to argue over the meaning of the regulations despite having the text right in front of them, then the UKGC is guilty of producing an unclear set of regulations, but expecting players and operators to understand them fully.

The UKGC did say that their rules are "constantly evolving", so the only way to make them reconsider the rules is to provide the UKGC with case specific intelligence as to how their current rules are actually working, and then get them to consider whether this is what was intended.

I see little point in having a 24 hour TAB if the casino can decide to wait as long as it likes before actually implementing it. Perhaps the UKGC had the simplistic view that "of course it would be immediate", so saw no need to specify a time frame in the regulations. Had they known that casinos did not action TAB requests at front line CS level, they may have specified that it was to be actioned within a set time.

The UKGC may even have assumed that TAB would be an automatic function within the software, but this is not the case, and not just at 32Red, many other platforms do not support a full suite of RG measures for the player to access without having to contact CS at some point.

Future updates to the rules may well give us more clarity on the matters of TAB and SE.

Do you consider that i should make a PAB?!

 

[Deeplay]

Do you consider that i should make a PAB?!

Personally no I dont as it would be a complete waste of time. As in the end you made the choice to play it back as hard as that will feel right now.
And for the record I dont agree at all with how 32red are doing things now and this whole thing stinks! But as for a PAB on this no matter what personal
feelings are - it would I think fail. In the end we are responsible for what we do and dont do.

Rather for the future choose a place to play at where they do have solid working instant RG settings available at the click of a mouse. ( along with fast withdraws regardless of time of time or day of the week )
Videoslots / RoyalPanda to name 2 of many who are on the top of the game in this respect.

Best thing is put this behind you as quickly as you can - a harsh lesson learned and one I learned the hard way up until a few years back.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Do you consider that i should make a PAB?!

I think VVM was referring to a formal complaint to the UKGC, not a PAB.

 

[simon1316]

I think VVM was referring to a formal complaint to the UKGC, not a PAB.

But like you, i'm not from the UK... so ukgc don't want to hear from me...

 

[Jono777]

Finally a post from me which is not jumping to the defence of 32 Red!!!!

I agree with all the points raised regarding SE and RG, I genuinely do

However I do have to ask a question,

When does the point come that we as players have to take some responsibility for our action, yes this has been mentioned but it is getting more and more apparent the moment a player drops a bollock we then see shouts of SE, Account re opened, should I contact 'ABC' etc etc

The risks within gambling are strong, as are the pitfalls of reversing, over spending and so on but the time comes players must at least take a degree of the onus of staying strong and not looking for a scapegoat now that there are more and more opportunities to do so.

Poor analogy maybe but If I spilt my pint every time I was pissed, I would not expect the land lord to replace it every time and would also expect a barring at some point.

Hope this makes sense and a few agree after my tantrum last week!

 

[Harry_BKK]

But like you, i'm not from the UK... so ukgc don't want to hear from me...

Probably not ...... I had no luck getting a clarification of the TAB paragraph but it might be different with a formal complaint.

 

[paul7388]

But like you, i'm not from the UK... so ukgc don't want to hear from me...

I understand why you are mad and am sorry you lost so much.

But seriously a formal complaint for what.

They have a TAB service which we now know is not instant. But its not designed for players to say ive won loads so ill use it so I don't reverse.

Its designed for players that want to take a break hence the name but don't want to close accounts or SE. Its there so players can think I need a break from gambling so they use it.

Waiting a couple of hours is nothing major to wait for a casino to apply it. Anyone that needs to use a TAB instantly to stop them reversing a sum of money that means a lot to them should seriously reconsider whether they should be gambling.

Sorry but theres nothing at all to make a complaint about.

 

[mimi26]

I understand why you are mad and am sorry you lost so much.

But seriously a formal complaint for what.

They have a TAB service which we now know is not instant. But its not designed for players to say ive won loads so ill use it so I don't reverse.

Its designed for players that want to take a break hence the name but don't want to close accounts or SE. Its there so players can think I need a break from gambling so they use it.

Waiting a couple of hours is nothing major to wait for a casino to apply it. Anyone that needs to use a TAB instantly to stop them reversing a sum of money that means a lot to them should seriously reconsider whether they should be gambling.

Sorry but theres nothing at all to make a complaint about.

Lets be fair here there should be no need for anyone to use the take a break button to deter themselves from reversing, there should never be a pending period, let alone a 24hr one. Its a weakness players have and one that 32red is capitalising on! I personally would like to see Casinos that have pending periods of more than 2 hours fail their accreditation status, there is absoultely no need for them

 

[paul7388]

Lets be fair here there should be no need for anyone to use the take a break button to deter themselves from reversing, there should never be a pending period, let alone a 24hr one. Its a weakness players have and one that 32red is capitalising on! I personally would like to see Casinos that have pending periods of more than 2 hours fail their accreditation status, there is absoultely no need for them

Exactly its a weakness. Players with so little will power should get a new hobby.

Besides chances are if someone cant wait 2hours without reversing all they will do is redeposit the withdrawal elsewhere anyway.

Millions in UK gamble mostly just using the major online bookies of which nearly all have several hours pending periods before processing withdrawals. I am sure most of the customers who have never even read gambling forums are happy to have had a great win and wait a few days for it to reach their bank.

Until the newer casinos started with the instant payouts it was no big deal to wait several hours. Now because some casinos do withdrawals instantly some people waiting on a withdrawal at a slower paying casino seem so impatient to wait they have to reverse.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Exactly its a weakness. Players with so little will power should get a new hobby.

Besides chances are if someone cant wait 2hours without reversing all they will do is redeposit the withdrawal elsewhere anyway.

Millions in UK gamble mostly just using the major online bookies of which nearly all have several hours pending periods before processing withdrawals. I am sure most of the customers who have never even read gambling forums are happy to have had a great win and wait a few days for it to reach their bank.

Until the newer casinos started with the instant payouts it was no big deal to wait several hours. Now because some casinos do withdrawals instantly some people waiting on a withdrawal at a slower paying casino seem so impatient to wait they have to reverse.

Please Paul stick to the facts.

It was 32RED that introduced

- auto-flushing after 2 hours
- 2 daily payment runs
- processing 24/7/365.

which they removed step-by-step again over the last years.

Hence, that cannot be accredited to the new fast-paying casinos. 32RED was itself that quick once when no other MG download casino was offering those kind of payments speeds.

In your previous post you referred that the TAB is not to be used to protect against reversals.

TAB is very much part of Responsible Gaming and among other, exactly for those kind of situations. Why would it be offered for only 24hrs if not for protecting the player from reversing??

DEPOSIT - WIN - WITHDRAW - TAKE A BREAK = RESPONSIBLE GAMING

 

[maxd]

For reasons previously debated the original thread title, "32RED not acting responsibly", is inappropriate and misleading. Now changed.

 

[Harry_BKK]

As previously mentioned the original thread title, "32RED not acting responsibly", is inappropriate and misleading. Now changed.

Max ... no problem with changing the thread title but as it has evolved the correct title would be "32RED downgrading Take-a-Break/Self-Exclusion" as both have been simultaneously and equally downgraded.

Would appreciate it if you could change it accordingly. Thanks in advance

 

[paul7388]

Please Paul stick to the facts.

It was 32RED that introduced

- auto-flushing after 2 hours
- 2 daily payment runs
- processing 24/7/365.

which they removed step-by-step again over the last years.

Hence, that cannot be accredited to the new fast-paying casinos. 32RED was itself that quick once when no other MG download casino was offering those kind of payments speeds.

In your previous post you referred that the TAB is not to be used to protect against reversals.

TAB is very much part of Responsible Gaming and among other, exactly for those kind of situations. Why would it be offered for only 24hrs if not for protecting the player from reversing??

DEPOSIT - WIN - WITHDRAW - TAKE A BREAK = RESPONSIBLE GAMING

It might be designed so people take a break for 24 hours so when their wages go in the bank they don't blow the lot.

I was sticking to the facts. I answered the question on whether they should make a complaint or not. everything else is irrelevant.

Anyway im out of this thread as its so long and just repeating itself for no reason and it seems to be same members making the posts about 32RED that do every time a 32RED thread appears yet they never bother so much if its a different casino. If I was cynical id say theres a reason behind it but good job im not cynical.

 

[maxd]

... the correct title would be "32RED downgrading Take-a-Break/Self-Exclusion" as both have been simultaneously downgraded.

Fair point but that title is too long and the text gets lost on the front page. Let's agree on "32RED downgrades TAB/SE" shall we?