IMO there is a hell of a big difference between saying (a) "casino X has this particular term in the T&Cs which is crappy/stupid/unfair/whatever" and (b) "all casinos should remove their T&Cs because they are evil and pointless and I don't like them".
AFAIC the "debate" thus far has pretty much been in the (b) camp. In my experience that is a misguided argument for the aforementioned reasons. It's also a pointless wank because casinos are NEVER going to ditch their entire Terms pages because a few -- or even a bunch -- of disgruntled players huff and puff and say they should. To suggest they will seems pretty much in the "you've been taking too many mushrooms" category if you ask me.
As for the (a) argument -- which you'll notice has only surfaced here very recently -- there's no question IMO that it can be a legitimate and useful effort: without a doubt there are shite Terms here and there that need a good dragging out into the open and exposure to the light of day and reason. Furthermore that approach can produce meaningful results if handled properly. We know this because we've seen it and done it before. Thumbs up all around!
If we're shifting this thread from a (b) thing (which it has been) to an (a) thing (which it should be) then bravo! "Rock on and more power to you" I say because good sense will have won the day. Not to mention the fact that you may actually accomplish something useful which will doubtless, in the long run, benefit us all.
So to be clear: "yes, bravo, and good work!" to exposing individual and specific Terms at specific casinos that need to be worked-over and re-tooled. The point here is be "specific": target something specific, make a clear case (in real-world terms) what the problem is, propose realistic alternatives, gather support for your case and maybe change can happen.
But "no" and "don't waste my time" to the notion that all casinos should abandon all of their Terms for ... well, for whatever ill-conceived notion gave birth to that idea in the first place. This approach is not specific, it is not based on real-world problems, it does not offer realistic alternatives and because of these things it will never produce meaningful results.
Finally, Nifty has a point: Cylon is being a bit of a hypocrite if he is presenting himself here, now, as the bringer of light when in fact he has been here before under a different name and is hiding his previous activities. History matters and he should be held to account for his, regardless of how politely he is trying to sneak back in, if that is in fact what is happening. "Answer the question" should be one of the first orders of business here, IMO.
