WARNING Affiliates Who Target Problem Gamblers

[Harry_BKK]

There's no 'faux outrage' here at all. The bottom line is, you have people specifically aiming gambling at those who may be, or have been, in dire trouble through problematic expenditure. These people are no better than dealers who target schoolkids drugs, knowing that their activities are highly likely to mess their customer's lives up sooner or later. Or like people peddling fake vodka, a product made and sold outside the government's regulatory framework to avoid taxes and which has potentially life-changing health effects.

The pros and cons of the Gamstop system are not the issue at all, rather than the fact it's exposed some absolute scum who disgrace an industry that whilst isn't perfect is making efforts to assist the vulnerable in refraining from their habit. They're nothing more than amoral, greedy saboteurs who don't think regulation applies to them.

Geez Gazza, do I have to make myself clearer? .... How do players end up needing GAMSTOP???

The vast majority by signing up directly or via "ethically correct" affiliates at "ethically correct" and regulated casinos, isn't it? To use your drug dealer metaphor.....this thread is like the drug dealers complaining about other drug dealers flogging their stuff in front of an addiction help centre.

The amount of money flowing into casinos after GAMSTOP by signing up through such "ethically questionable" affiliate sites is totally negligible compared to what players have lost up to the moment where they needed GAMSTOP.

I am not accusing the gaming industry because I and all others here are part of it but we should openly acknowledge that we are all part of and responsible for this "razzmatazz".

Pretty much all addiction programs are geared towards treating an addict instead of being geared at preventing people to become an addict in the first place. That is one reason why IMO GAMSTOP is mainly a show program to "calm the masses".

 

[dunover]

Geez Gazza, do I have to make myself clearer? .... How do players end up needing GAMSTOP???

The vast majority by signing up directly or via "ethically correct" affiliates at "ethically correct" and regulated casinos, isn't it? To use your drug dealer metaphor.....this thread is like the drug dealers complaining about other drug dealers flogging their stuff in front of an addiction help centre.

The amount of money flowing into casinos after GAMSTOP by signing up through such "ethically questionable" affiliate sites is totally negligible compared to what players have lost up to the moment where they needed GAMSTOP.

I am not accusing the gaming industry because I and all others here are part of it but we should openly acknowledge that we are all part of and responsible for this "razzmatazz".

Pretty much all addiction programs are geared towards treating an addict instead of being geared at preventing people to become an addict in the first place. That is one reason why IMO GAMSTOP is mainly a show program to "calm the masses".

Geez Harry, have you never heard of the term 'with intent'??? For a very good reason it's quite a big thing in the legal systems and laws of most developed countries. Now do you get it?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Geez Harry, have you never heard of the term 'with intent'??? For a very good reason it's quite a big thing in the legal systems and laws of most developed countries. Now do you get it?

Geez Gazza, all affiliates advertise casino offers with the "intent" to get people to sign up and lose their money. There is no other reason as that is the basis for our income. Now, do you get it?

I do not question the ethics behind the people doing the GAMSTOP trap, it is immoral, no doubt. But we should clean in front of our houses first before complaining about the dirt in front of other people's houses. (old saying in my language)

 

[pinnit2014]

Just so I don't feel left out:

Geez.

 

[Borgie]

Geez @pinnit2014 you have to muscle in

 

[pinnit2014]

Geez @pinnit2014 you have to muscle in

The only thing i feel i can contribute, in terms of muscles, would the the eye rolling variety in homage to Harry.

 

[BetBlocker]

Geez Gazza, do I have to make myself clearer? .... How do players end up needing GAMSTOP???

Then surely what you're actually advocating banning gambling altogether because it causes harm to some people?

Many activities can be harmful to people. Yet we still allow engagement for two reasons:

i) Freedom - just because a subset of society can be harmed by an activity doesn't mean that all the rest of us should not be allowed to engage.

ii) Prohibitions do not work - any time we try to ban something all we do is drive it into the black market. We do not reduce or remove the demand for the band item/activity. We just allow a situation where criminals will exploit the demand without any oversight what-so-ever. Look at the still significant US and Australian online gambling markets.

Of course any group working within the gambling industry is likely ultimately to profit from addiction indirectly. The unidentified addict gets in trouble and we profit before anyone can or could get a hold on it. There is no pretty way to dress that up. But what's going on here isn't indirect in any way, shape or form.

Anyone who produces or distributes alcohol ultimately indirectly profits from alcohol addiction. They don't set out with the intention of facilitating alcohol addiction but it is a byproduct of what they sell. That's the truth. But I don't personally view the fact that Asda sells alcohol as immoral. If however Asda sent employees out with crates of vodka to hang around outside alcohol addiction rehab centres and try and sell to recovering addicts, that wouldn't just be immoral, it would be flatly evil. It would be singling out and specifically targeting those they know to be harmed by the product they are selling. Those who they know will have problems refusing the product.

And that is exactly what is going on here. The effectiveness of Gamstop isn't relevant to this conversation. The fact that the people conducting the types of Google searches that these affiliates are specifically trying to rank for are almost without question going to be those that at some point identified as having addiction issue is. In fact they are likely to be those people who Gamstop actually has worked for as they wouldn't need to search for 'non Gamstop Casinos' otherwise. These affiliates are not just generally advertising gambling to everyone, they are singling out addicts who have tried to seek help and plying them with the very thing that they struggle to control.

I'm sorry to hear that you think the outrage expressed over this issue is in any way disingenuous or cynically duplicitous. But honestly, I think you've mis-read the sentiments involved and the genuine anger and outrage that many of the people here have expressed. Perhaps you feel that it's hypocritical to get upset about gambling addiction if you profit from gambling in any way. It's not a position I agree with, but one that many would find valid. Personally though, I find the difference between generally marketing gambling and singling out addicts to be night and day.

BB

 

[bamberfishcake]

In short, Gamstop and its effectiveness is a different discussion to people targeting the weak and vulnerable.

In my book, a drug dealer sat at home waiting for punters is different to one waiting outside the rehab centre. Just saying ...... theres law and then theres morality and this is a morality issue.

Disclaiimer: I dont endorse drugs! Just Say No!

 

[Harry_BKK]

Then surely what you're actually advocating banning gambling altogether because it causes harm to some people?

Many activities can be harmful to people. Yet we still allow engagement for two reasons:

i) Freedom - just because a subset of society can be harmed by an activity doesn't mean that all the rest of us should not be allowed to engage.

ii) Prohibitions do not work - any time we try to ban something all we do is drive it into the black market. We do not reduce of remove the demand for the band item/activity. We just allow a situation where criminals will exploit the demand without any oversight what-so-ever. Look at the still significant US and Australian online gambling markets.

Of course any group working within the gambling industry is likely ultimately to profit from addiction indirectly. The unidentified addict gets in trouble and we profit before anyone can or could get a hold on it. There is no pretty way to dress that up. But what's going on here isn't indirect in any way, shape or form.

Anyone who produces or distributes alcohol ultimately indirectly profits from alcohol addiction. They don't set out with the intention of facilitating alcohol addiction but it is a byproduct of what they sell. That's the truth. But I don't personally view the fact that Asda sells alcohol as immoral. If however Asda sent employees out with crates of vodka to hang around outside alcohol addiction rehab centres and try and sell to recovering addicts, that wouldn't just be immoral, it would be flatly evil. It would be singling out and specifically targeting those they know to be harmed by the product they are selling. Those who they know will have problems refusing the product.

And that is exactly what is going on here. The effectiveness of Gamstop isn't relevant to this conversation. The fact that the people conducting the types of Google searches that these affiliates are specifically trying to rank for are almost without question going to be those that at some point identified as having addiction issue is. In fact they are likely to be those people who Gamstop actually has worked for as they wouldn't need to search for 'non Gamstop Casinos' otherwise. These affiliates are not just generally advertising gambling to everyone, they are singling out addicts who have tried to seek help and plying them with the very thing that they struggle to control.

I'm sorry to hear that you think the outrage expressed over this issue is in any way disingenuous or cynically duplicitous. But honestly, I think you've mis-read the sentiments involved and the genuine anger and outrage that many of the people here have expressed. Perhaps you feel that it's hypocritical to get upset about gambling addiction if you profit from gambling in any way. It's not a position I agree with, but one that many would find valid. Personally though, I find the difference between generally marketing gambling and singling out addicts to be night and day.

BB

Of course I don't advocate banning gambling altogether. It has been around since homo sapiens came along.

Personally, I have been gambling online since the very start, opening my first account in Dec 1997 on a laptop with a 9" screen, 2GB harddisk and a 56k modem. Hence, I think I have not only a relatively good overview where the industry was and where it is now but also as a player I have been through all highs and lows. In the beginning, sites didn't even have a warning or links to GA, it was the "Wild West" akin the Klondike Gold Rush.

The industry, including all peripheral contributors (e.g. affiliates), are starting to change in the right direction but until now most of it is rather cosmetic to "pacify the masses". I give you one example. Advertising tobacco is not allowed at sporting events, on TV etc. (addiction prevention) but the places are plastered with gambling site/alcohol adverts (addiction promotion). It will take another few decades until we will get to that point and realize that gambling addiction is on the same level as any other addiction. Until now, most think ..."Aah, having a flutter can't be bad".

Around the turn of the century, I did voluntary work in an addiction centre for about 4 years and have seen very clearly what addiction does to people. Needless to say, I despise affiliates who are targeting addicts.

A combination of GS and BB would be a step forward but I question myself why has the UKGC not thought of it themselves. Why launch a protection program with such blatant weaknesses? Is that the best they could come up with? Because if it is then the UKGC is pretty much a useless bunch of licence fee collectors.

 

[Mining Might]

@BetBlocker what an excellent and eloquent post, Nail on the head right there.

 

[BetBlocker]

The industry, including all peripheral contributors (e.g. affiliates), are starting to change in the right direction but until now most of it is rather cosmetic to "pacify the masses". I give you one example. Advertising tobacco is not allowed at sporting events, on TV etc. (addiction prevention) but the places are plastered with gambling site/alcohol adverts (addiction promotion). It will take another few decades until we will get to that point and realize that gambling addiction is on the same level as any other addiction. Until now, most think ..."Aah, having a flutter can't be bad".

We're totally in agreement about this. The issues with gambling addiction are far larger in scale than society has become cognisant of yet. The fact that everyone has a bookie/casino in their pocket at all times has changed the paradigm entirely and it's going to take at least a decade to see the full consequences of that. And I could not agree more - you cannot do anything without being confronted with gambling advertisement these days. Just about every site has some level of gambling advertisement and UK TV is covered in it.

A combination of GS and BB would be a step forward but I question myself why has the UKGC not thought of it themselves. Why launch a protection program with such blatant weaknesses? Is that the best they could come up with? Because if it is then the UKGC is pretty much a useless bunch of licence fee collectors.

I understand why some players feel let down by GamStop, but I think there is a differential between intent and public expectation here. The intent was to offer an additional tool to help people control their gambling. The expectation seems broadly to be a guarantee that the individual will not be able to access gambling again. As it goes GamStop does meet the intent - forums get a skewed sub-set of feedback where it is those the system hasn't worked for that are most vocal. BetBlocker's no different - our Play Store reviews are heavily populated by those users who have experienced difficulty but give no context as to the number of people using the service without issue. GamStop can and does work for a large number of people, but I would agree that there is work to be done to try and bring the intent of the system into closer alignment (perfect is not possible) with the expectation/demands of the public.

It's not my place to speak for the regulator so anything I say should be considered as unreliable rumour until the point in time that the UKGC choose to make their own position clear but my current understanding is that this line of thinking has already been considered within the appropriate departments and there may be movement in a similar direction to that which you suggest as/when appropriate public consultations have been concluded.

BB

 

[dunover]

Geez Gazza, all affiliates advertise casino offers with the "intent" to get people to sign up and lose their money. There is no other reason as that is the basis for our income. Now, do you get it? View attachment 112898

I do not question the ethics behind the people doing the GAMSTOP trap, it is immoral, no doubt. But we should clean in front of our houses first before complaining about the dirt in front of other people's houses. (old saying in my language)

When was that fact ever in dispute?

People, including us, earn money from the industry. Thanks for that revelation.

Can you read the thread title again - it seems you've forgotten it. It is about 'targeting' the vulnerable gamblers. There's no way you are so obtuse that you cannot see the difference here. I do not aim my pitch at problem gamblers. Nor do you presumably. Nor would any decent human being.

If you are suggesting that the responsible affiliate, promoting properly-regulated casinos is somehow of the same magnitude of vileness as these scumbags I can't really reason with you, an exercise in futility. We'll leave it a that then - I don't and will never accept that I'm the same as them, your misplaced altruism suggests you believe you are to some degree. That's just our differing perspective.

 

[geordiecolin]

Everyone who makes a living out of gamblers are making a living out of the vulnerable and problem gamblers by default. Those who argue otherwise are simply absolving themselves from guilt

 

[Nordog]

But its a difference in stopping when you know the gambler in question has a problem, these guys looks for gamblers that has tried to block themself and target them.

 

[chuchu59]

Good job Bryan.

 

[dunover]

 

[Mining Might]

You may be interested in a thread on a the gambling community forum.

Cliffs

1. Fruityslots slot streamers and affiliates, had a targeted page for non Gamstop casinos and explaining how to circumvent the restrictions.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

2. Fruityslots have admitted that it was wrong and removed the page blaming their SEO guy and content writer.

3. An affiliate manager has now asked them to withdraw all their sites and will no longer work with them.

Yet another terrible day in casino affiliation.

 

[dunover]

You may be interested in a thread on a the gambling community forum.

Cliffs

1. Fruityslots slot streamers and affiliates, had a targeted page for non Gamstop casinos and explaining how to circumvent the restrictions.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

2. Fruityslots have admitted that it was wrong and removed the page blaming their SEO guy and content writer.

3. An affiliate manager has now asked them to withdraw all their sites and will no longer work with them.

Yet another terrible day in casino affiliation.

Yes, interesting read and I'm glad at least one aff manager has had the nous to abandon these people. SEO and content writer, my arse! What webmaster allows people to publish stuff without checking first or has this tool got renegade employees?

 

[nutnut]

I think Harry's point is being missed by Dunover and probably on purpose.

Shoot me if I'm wrong Harry, but I think his point is you ALL contribute to making future gambling addicts. The idea it is disgusting to target problem gamblers whilst you legally create the next generation of problem gamblers is all bit.................ODD.

Whether you like it or not, as a affiliate your sole aim is to ENTICE people to sign up and lose money, when you'e in that gravy train you are part of the problem, maybe not the same level as targeting actual gamblers with problems but it's all connected at the end.

If you are that outraged by this I don't see how you can promote casinos in the first place, knowing that some of your sign ups will likely lead to a gambling problem.

I myself would happily do affiliate if I had the time, but if I was doing it I would realise I'm part of the problem. Least that what I picked up from Harrys post. Which I agree with 100%.

 

[nutnut]

Everyone who makes a living out of gamblers are making a living out of the vulnerable and problem gamblers by default. Those who argue otherwise are simply absolving themselves from guilt

Missed this post but makes my gibberish more concise. Spot on.

 

[colinsunderland]

Yes, interesting read and I'm glad at least one aff manager has had the nous to abandon these people. SEO and content writer, my arse! What webmaster allows people to publish stuff without checking first or has this tool got renegade employees?

Totally agree, they didn't know about GameStop, yet managed to write a very good article about circumventing it.
Also, FS say they get given a topic then, basically, copy other sites. So who gave them the topic?

Not seeing many casinos removed from these sites yet either.

 

[The Dude]

Well, I disagree lumping all webmasters together. Sure there are affiliates who may wish folks to "lose" in order to generate their share of the casino's revenue. There are others that hope that they are providing a useful product or service.

I look at it as someone running a specialty beer shop or a pub - sure drinking is a vice, but I would never pander to the addict, or someone who clearly has had too much to drink. I would hope that my beers would bring libatious pleasure. And that a pub would bring people together - like this forum does, to share ideas, to meet folks from around the world with common interests. Sure, folks would be drinking my beers, but if they were getting wasted and causing harm (to others or themselves) they would be asked to leave.

At Casinomeister, I understand the complexities of problem gambling with having a community. This is one reason why we have the quit gambling group, and I was one of the first portals anywhere that had a groups like this and a section on quitting gambling.

No pub or beer shop creates drinkers - people will drink anyway. And no website creates gamblers just the same. The mission behind Casinomeister is to give you the tools you need to make smart decisions when it comes to choosing online casinos. And this is a mission we've stuck with for 21 years.

 

[BetBlocker]

I think Harry's point is being missed by Dunover and probably on purpose.

.....

If you are that outraged by this I don't see how you can promote casinos in the first place, knowing that some of your sign ups will likely lead to a gambling problem.

No, I don't think he did at all. He's just not taking such a black/white view where anyone who works in the industry is immediately devoid of any right to feel outrage on any practice associated with problem gambling.

Should every pub, brewery or shop that sells alcohol shut up shop because they contribute to alcoholism? Should they simply be excluded from any discussion regarding management of alcohol addiction? Millions of adults all over the world engage with alcohol in an responsible manner every day. Should no-one promote or sell alcohol because a small subset cannot engage with it safely? Would it be wrong for a manufacturer or distributor of alcohol to find a business specifically trying to sell alcohol to children morally unacceptable? Is their opinion invalid or any action they take to stop this immediately suspect because they sell alcohol too?

I would suggest that anyone who considers marketing gambling should consider the social harm that can occur to a subset of the people that will see their material and should actively look to approach the entire endeavour from a position of minimising said harm where feasible. I'd actually go further than this and suggest that it is actually part of an industry looking to behave in an responsible fashion to call out those who would explicitly target the vulnerable.

Holding to the absolute where if you have made money from the gambling industry you are immediately categorised a hypocrite for holding any opinion on these sorts of practices would, if accepted as fact, result in these practice going on unchallenged. The simple fact is that often it is participants within the industry that call out the bad practices and shut these groups down.

BB

 

[nutnut]

No, I don't think he did at all. He's just not taking such a black/white view where anyone who works in the industry is immediately devoid of any right to feel outrage on any practice associated with problem gambling.

Should every pub, brewery or shop that sells alcohol shut up shop because they contribute to alcoholism? Should they simply be excluded from any discussion regarding management of alcohol addiction? Millions of adults all over the world engage with alcohol in an responsible manner every day. Should no-one promote or sell alcohol because a small subset cannot engage with it safely? Would it be wrong for a manufacturer or distributor of alcohol to find a business specifically trying to sell alcohol to children morally unacceptable? Is their opinion invalid or any action they take to stop this immediately suspect because they sell alcohol too?

I would suggest that anyone who considers marketing gambling should consider the social harm that can occur to a subset of the people that will see their material and should actively look to approach the entire endeavour from a position of minimising said harm where feasible. I'd actually go further than this and suggest that it is actually part of an industry looking to behave in an responsible fashion to call out those who would explicitly target the vulnerable.

Holding to the absolute where if you have made money from the gambling industry you are immediately categorised a hypocrite for holding any opinion on these sorts of practices would, if accepted as fact, result in these practice going on unchallenged. The simple fact is that often it is participants within the industry that call out the bad practices and shut these groups down.

BB

With your comparison, if you run that legal pub selling alcohol and you see same face come in everyday spending money in your pub you won't turn him away even if you suspect he has a problem. He he helping you make a living.

Same with legit affiliates, if you have a player deposit 500 a day and losing you won't contact the casino and say hey this play might have a problem. These are type of players you want signing up, not likes of me deposit £10 once a day or a couple of days.

The whole industry is a mess, yes social media, TV adverts, affiliates all play a equal role in encouraging more gambling.

Why is it only addicts are "vulnerable" I would argue we are all vulnerable in gambling because we all one rage loss away from doing our nuts.

Morally gambling is vile, but I love it and don't want it banned, but sure as hell won't defend the industry. It exists to take as much money as your willing to lose, it's not a nice or caring industry. It is what it is.

 

[bamberfishcake]

It is a strange industry. No other like it that I can think of.

Fact remains that if you target people in this way you are 'knowingly' preying on the weak and at some point, you will have considered your target market, not just opened up for business or generally advertised. I think thats the real difference.

Your right Nutnut, its easy to take the morale high ground and not look at your own actions but I guess to a lot of affiliates we are numbers, thats the business they are in and I get that. Direct traffic - Get rewards!

I just think this is one step too far - to target those particular people in that particular way.

 

[BetBlocker]

With your comparison, if you run that legal pub selling alcohol and you see same face come in everyday spending money in your pub you won't turn him away even if you suspect he has a problem. He he helping you make a living.

Same with legit affiliates, if you have a player deposit 500 a day and losing you won't contact the casino and say hey this play might have a problem. These are type of players you want signing up, not likes of me deposit £10 once a day or a couple of days.

The whole industry is a mess, yes social media, TV adverts, affiliates all play a equal role in encouraging more gambling.

Why is it only addicts are "vulnerable" I would argue we are all vulnerable in gambling because we all one rage loss away from doing our nuts.

Morally gambling is vile, but I love it and don't want it banned, but sure as hell won't defend the industry. It exists to take as much money as your willing to lose, it's not a nice or caring industry. It is what it is.

Your example doesn't work.

As you specifically say - a pub owner "sees" the same face and is specifically aware of how much they are drinking. They can specifically quantify how much that individual person is drinking and assess how that is impacting them physically. They can draw other rough conclusions about their health, mental state and finances from the direct interactions. They can observe behaviours over an extended period of time. The pub owner has more information than any an remote gambling operator has about the customer. The pub owner has several orders of magnitude more information than the two degrees removed affiliate.

An affiliate is not given nearly enough information to make any assessment of any player. Ordinarily they have no direct contact with the player and are given limited information, generally amalgamated with all their other players, about activity on their account. They have nothing with which to assess the affordability of any transaction for an individual and largely don't know about transactions individually till well after the fact (if at all). Their ability to assess or intervene in the situation is extremely limited and retroactive. Even where they were to try, ultimately it is the operator's decision whether to act or not.

A far more apt comparison would be to fault The Sun or Daily Record for alcohol addiction because some of their readers drank too much after seeing an advert on their site or in their paper. Or perhaps Whiskey Advocate Magazine because some of their readers will become alcoholics (given the closer comparison to a gambling affiliate as they are specifically targeting those who want to consume whiskey). While there is an argument that any advertisement of these products is morally reprehensible and should be stopped, if this is to be viewed as a legitimate position then communities like this one wouldn't exist full stop. There has to be some reasonable consideration given to the information available to the party being 'held responsible' before deciding that they should be expected to take direct action in any individual situation.

Interestingly, I would suggest that what's happened here is exactly affiliates trying to directly influence a responsible gambling issue from a broad 'industry wide' pov. In this instance they had information, didn't like what they saw and took action.

And in fact what you are suggesting in terms of the industry having to make assessments of the vulnerability of individuals proactively is exactly what the UKGC is current pushing operators to do as operators do have frontline contact with players (albeit not nearly as much opportunity to 'read' a player in social situations as a face-to-face interaction allows). I would certainly agree it's a work in progress that needs improvement and oversight, but steps are being taken in that direction.

I genuinely think looking to tar everyone in the industry with the same brush does nothing but discourage those parties who would try to protect players from stepping forward next time. What's the point in any affiliate taking the risks required to call out bad practice if they're all going to be shouted down as hypocrites or lumped in with the practices they are drawing attention to simply because they work in the same industry?

I guess some will always see it as black and white. Personally I have nothing but respect for Bryan and CM in what they've done here.

BB

 

[Scott1baird]

Okay, I see what everyone is saying and throwing fault around, taking blame, avoiding blame. But to me the whole question is Gamstop and Gamban in the first place, if these are so easily circumvented in the first place never mind sites that don't use is it really a practical tool to use in the first place? All I see here these days is "I used gamban but was still able to open and deposit can I get my money back?" Perhaps another way of stopping this would be for UKGC to start handing out fines or removing money attained by using these casinos. One example, say I used gamban then went to a casino through an affiliate link managed to sign up and lost, whose to blame? The casino, the affiliate, gamban or the customer? Its all four there needs to accountability on all sides of the dice. One the casino has the deposit removed two the affiliate looses his or her cut three gamban should be forced to use the Max identification required by law, the customer should be made to have his IP blocked going through any website. Don't say its not possible as it is with current tech available. Sites that do no have gamban or GameStop should just be blocked from advertising anywhere in the UK, if not then the government needs to look at fining the countries of the sites that do.

 

[paul7388]

Reading all this is interesting.

But i do not think pubs and casinos have any comparison at all.

Okay alcohol and gambling can both be dangerous.

But someone that visits a pub a few times might drink a lot but they are not alcoholics yet.

Someone could have years ago, and probably could at some less reputable joints make one visit to an online casino and blow everything including life savings and many loans in one days session.

The harm that can be done quickly at a casino is much worse than a pub.

And as people have pointed out. Many people in the industry affiliates etc. are trying their best to help problem gamblers and have better regulations in place.

But as they know many also have made an absolute fortune over the years due to peoples gambling addictions.

It is like any way of life you sell or promote to make a profit. End of the day you are doing it for money. I am sure very few if any affiliates set up accounts and after a year saw all these sign ups and the money rolling in and thought to themselves i hope this money has not came from people with addiction that have lost everything. Of course they don't they collect their money as they are obliged to do .

But there is a market for it and it is a perfectly legal way to make money so why not. None of the affiliates is now going to think too many people are getting addicted to gambling so i will just forget the money i am making and stop doing it.

 

[Slottery]

No, I don't think he did at all. He's just not taking such a black/white view where anyone who works in the industry is immediately devoid of any right to feel outrage on any practice associated with problem gambling.

Should every pub, brewery or shop that sells alcohol shut up shop because they contribute to alcoholism? Should they simply be excluded from any discussion regarding management of alcohol addiction? Millions of adults all over the world engage with alcohol in an responsible manner every day. Should no-one promote or sell alcohol because a small subset cannot engage with it safely? Would it be wrong for a manufacturer or distributor of alcohol to find a business specifically trying to sell alcohol to children morally unacceptable? Is their opinion invalid or any action they take to stop this immediately suspect because they sell alcohol too?

I would suggest that anyone who considers marketing gambling should consider the social harm that can occur to a subset of the people that will see their material and should actively look to approach the entire endeavour from a position of minimising said harm where feasible. I'd actually go further than this and suggest that it is actually part of an industry looking to behave in an responsible fashion to call out those who would explicitly target the vulnerable.

Holding to the absolute where if you have made money from the gambling industry you are immediately categorised a hypocrite for holding any opinion on these sorts of practices would, if accepted as fact, result in these practice going on unchallenged. The simple fact is that often it is participants within the industry that call out the bad practices and shut these groups down.

BB

When you read some self-exclusion topics it here, it seems more and more that YES, gambling and many other things probably should be shut down because there are very small part of total consumers who have gained their addiction to that point that they do almost anything to get there.

Big majority of people can handle their alcohol, gambling and many other habits there can be where you have risk (quite easily as these are recognized as problems and addictions and have campaigns and tools to prevent problem users to use them and are widely discussed so let's make line to these possible addiction which are widely recognized like alcohold, illegal drugs, gambling etc...) to get in severe addiction by time, small amount of whole population is not able to control themselves and different types of support and help is needed and should be provided, we can include these gambling limits, self-exclusions etc. and with them big part of these addicted people are able to live their life without getting in too deep trouble.

Then we have again very small part of these severe addicted people who are not able to control themselves in anyway even shorter periods. To this group of people these self help tools, provided support and help don't help as their addiction is so strong that they do anything they can to get their hands in what they want. When there is something implemented trying to prevent access to your addiction source, there for sure will be found way to get around that.

So even how long and extended we bring this philosophic conversation, in short, there is and there always will be very small tiny amount of people who are not able to control themself when majority of people can do that. Most of the people don't want to live in world where everything is somehow restricted because of very small amount of people are not cabable to control themself and as democracy have gone so far in most of countries, we are still allowed to drink and gamble even there always will be this very small part of people who are harming themselves with things others don't.

It can be made black and white or any amounts of colors in middle, but i assume everybody understand what is what, both ways work and in theoretical level, we all set our own morals what is right and what is wrong. Many people have opinion that gaming companies are ruining people life and do everything they can to get last penny out from vulnerable people pockets, many of us then think that majority of gambling companies are operating in fair and ethical way until that point they are expected. We see many people who are carrying blankets that eating meet is murder, that's their opinion which they have right to have, but big majority disagree and have their beef in the evening.

Black&White, Many Colours in middle, in the end of the day we all have our own opinion and will (hopefully) let others have their own. There are many people who have opinion that everyone anyhow related to gaming industry is part of ruining peoples lives.

These shoulds and woulds are where conversations are starting from when people are questioning each others and things are nice to be discussed, we all have very strong feeling that our opinion is right one and it is, for ourselves and others have right ones to themselves and if starting to support your opinions by different arguments, doesn't matter how strong well made they are, it's never ending debate (or until one get tired or loss battery to reply on post).

 

[Slottery]

As you specifically say - a pub owner "sees" the same face and is specifically aware of how much they are drinking. They can specifically quantify how much that individual person is drinking and assess how that is impacting them physically. They can draw other rough conclusions about their health, mental state and finances from the direct interactions. They can observe behaviours over an extended period of time. The pub owner has more information than any an remote gambling operator has about the customer. The pub owner has several orders of magnitude more information than the two degrees removed affiliate.

An affiliate is not given nearly enough information to make any assessment of any player. Ordinarily they have no direct contact with the player and are given limited information, generally amalgamated with all their other players, about activity on their account. They have nothing with which to assess the affordability of any transaction for an individual and largely don't know about transactions individually till well after the fact (if at all). Their ability to assess or intervene in the situation is extremely limited and retroactive. Even where they were to try, ultimately it is the operator's decision whether to act or not.

A far more apt comparison would be to fault The Sun or Daily Record for alcohol addiction because some of their readers drank too much after seeing an advert on their site or in their paper. Or perhaps Whiskey Advocate Magazine because some of their readers will become alcoholics (given the closer comparison to a gambling affiliate as they are specifically targeting those who want to consume whiskey). While there is an argument that any advertisement of these products is morally reprehensible and should be stopped, if this is to be viewed as a legitimate position then communities like this one wouldn't exist full stop. There has to be some reasonable consideration given to the information available to the party being 'held responsible' before deciding that they should be expected to take direct action in any individual situation.

Interestingly, I would suggest that what's happened here is exactly affiliates trying to directly influence a responsible gambling issue from a broad 'industry wide' pov. In this instance they had information, didn't like what they saw and took action.

And in fact what you are suggesting in terms of the industry having to make assessments of the vulnerability of individuals proactively is exactly what the UKGC is current pushing operators to do as operators do have frontline contact with players (albeit not nearly as much opportunity to 'read' a player in social situations as a face-to-face interaction allows). I would certainly agree it's a work in progress that needs improvement and oversight, but steps are being taken in that direction.

I genuinely think looking to tar everyone in the industry with the same brush does nothing but discourage those parties who would try to protect players from stepping forward next time. What's the point in any affiliate taking the risks required to call out bad practice if they're all going to be shouted down as hypocrites or lumped in with the practices they are drawing attention to simply because they work in the same industry?

Should have read whole thread before puking my two cents already, but referring to my last post, can't really call if somebody is right or wrong with their opinion. There's no such a thing than wrong opinion, once opinion turn to be wrong, it's a fact and then it can be simply categorized to be right or wrong.

Now we see many very well argumentations to support opinions which is always great for conversation but these opinion differences don't stop existing and still giving my vote to that everybody have right to have their own and it's not more or less right or wrong than my own (even i would happen to think it is).

 

[hitopz1]

I have signed up to this forum simply to comment on a number of things which have been said in this thread. I am a gambling addict who has used gambling to escape from suicidal thoughts and daily depression. This battle is real and addiction is real. Addiction is not something you can simply turn off. It's a symptom of a deeper problem - in my case, a feeling of worthlessness and isolation. Addiction controls you. Some here have commented that addicts need to get on top of their behaviour. I agree. But everybody who struggles with addiction does not set out to deliberately hurt themselves. This particular addiction provides release from pain, hurt, anger and many other things. It provides false hope - yes, when I win, I am higher than a kite - and it ruins your life. If you have never had an addiction, you won't understand what I have just said.

I have used Gamstop and it has been fantastic. It may have its faults but it has genuinely helped me to bring my addiction under control (note - not abolished - yet). I accept the criticisms that have been made of it but don't judge it to be useless - it has genuinely made a difference to me.

Second, the Curacao based casinos are terrible. I have signed up to both Bronze and Spin Up. A small deposit on each occasion. The slots are SO bad that I have closed both accounts. These two sites and other similar ones are not seriously interesting. Fruit Slots has been careless not criminal. These casinos are not worth playing at.

Third I do have an account at Conquestador. This casino is far more in the muck than the Curacao ones. The range of slots is the usual range and they have slots I want to play. I have even had a withdrawal although, of course, I am down ten times as much as I have deposited. Are they playing to my vulnerability? Yes. I am writing this calmly and knowing that I am a fool to get tempted. Days nearer payday, however, set the hares running - payday dominates my thinking for at least a week before it happens. I find it hard to sleep. I am thinking: "Can I do the right thing and pay all the bills as soon as I get up? Or will I think 'just a small deposit can't hurt, surely?'' Do Conquestador care? No. If they did, they would be on Gamstop.

I hope this puts the thread into a bit of human context. Thank you to the site for letting me express my deeply personal thoughts.

 

[Nicola]

Third I do have an account at Con********. This casino is far more in the muck than the Curacao ones. The range of slots is the usual range and they have slots I want to play. I have even had a withdrawal although, of course, I am down ten times as much as I have deposited. Are they playing to my vulnerability? Yes. I am writing this calmly and knowing that I am a fool to get tempted. Days nearer payday, however, set the hares running - payday dominates my thinking for at least a week before it happens. I find it hard to sleep. I am thinking: "Can I do the right thing and pay all the bills as soon as I get up? Or will I think 'just a small deposit can't hurt, surely?'' Do Con******** care? No. If they did, they would be on Gamstop.

Con******** prey on problem gamblers and have no intention of joining GAMSTOP. The man behind the operation is more than clued up on what he is doing.

Today I e-mailed twenty or so affiliate sites that promote them and the majority of them have removed the links or rogued them after being informed they were not on GAMSTOP.

 

[TravellingRecluse]

Con******** prey on problem gamblers and have no intention of joining GAMSTOP. The man behind the operation is more than clued up on what he is doing.

Today I e-mailed twenty or so affiliate sites that promote them and the majority of them have removed the links or rogued them after being informed they were not on GAMSTOP.

Hopefully there will be more people like me who are taking them to the UKGC. They are the most sham UK licensed casino I have come across.

Saying that misleading wording in emails is basically a learning curve for them.

They will let you gamble without adequate verification processes and then blag a few lines of UKGC terms that could be interpreted in a number of ways.

A pre requisite of a UK license has to be mandatory enrolment into national exclusion schemes.

If they can get away with not having GS, who knows hat else they are getting away with.

 

[Nordog]

This casino didnt recommend me to sign up if i had a gamstop ban. But even if i said i had it and also had gambling problems they said its my choice to deposit and play. Atleast thats what the chat agent told me. So clearly they dont follow uk nor mga guidelines. Ps i dont have problems, i just tested their chat.

 

[Supababe]

I have signed up to this forum simply to comment on a number of things which have been said in this thread. I am a gambling addict who has used gambling to escape from suicidal thoughts and daily depression. This battle is real and addiction is real. Addiction is not something you can simply turn off. It's a symptom of a deeper problem - in my case, a feeling of worthlessness and isolation. Addiction controls you. Some here have commented that addicts need to get on top of their behaviour. I agree. But everybody who struggles with addiction does not set out to deliberately hurt themselves. This particular addiction provides release from pain, hurt, anger and many other things. It provides false hope - yes, when I win, I am higher than a kite - and it ruins your life. If you have never had an addiction, you won't understand what I have just said.

I have used Gamstop and it has been fantastic. It may have its faults but it has genuinely helped me to bring my addiction under control (note - not abolished - yet). I accept the criticisms that have been made of it but don't judge it to be useless - it has genuinely made a difference to me.

Second, the Curacao based casinos are terrible. I have signed up to both Bronze and Spin Up. A small deposit on each occasion. The slots are SO bad that I have closed both accounts. These two sites and other similar ones are not seriously interesting. Fruit Slots has been careless not criminal. These casinos are not worth playing at.

Third I do have an account at Conquestador. This casino is far more in the muck than the Curacao ones. The range of slots is the usual range and they have slots I want to play. I have even had a withdrawal although, of course, I am down ten times as much as I have deposited. Are they playing to my vulnerability? Yes. I am writing this calmly and knowing that I am a fool to get tempted. Days nearer payday, however, set the hares running - payday dominates my thinking for at least a week before it happens. I find it hard to sleep. I am thinking: "Can I do the right thing and pay all the bills as soon as I get up? Or will I think 'just a small deposit can't hurt, surely?'' Do Conquestador care? No. If they did, they would be on Gamstop.

I hope this puts the thread into a bit of human context. Thank you to the site for letting me express my deeply personal thoughts.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Also a ‘well done’ for recognising a problem, taking responsibility and being proactive in helping yourself to deal with it.

Just out of curiosity, I wondered if you would mind pondering the following questions for me....
1. does a casino refusing to be part of GAMSTOP yet holdibg a UKGC license appeal the most to you? Especially over casinos accepting UK players with other licenses? Is it a lightbulb to a moth?

2. In your darkest hours, would you be tempted to seek out an affiliate site like the one mentioned in Bryan’s original post?

 

[trancemonkey]

To be honest, I am aghast at the "faux outrage" in this thread. After all, we (including me) are all earning our income on the back of peoples' weaknesses, be it a regulated or unregulated site. We can admit that openly. Other industries are built on the same, so no big deal.

I would venture to say that there are plenty of unregulated casinos who treat their players better than regulated casinos and vice versa. Unregulated does not necessarily mean that they don't have a good RG procedure in place. IMO, the main difference is that the one side is paying taxes on their revenue and has to go through costly procedures while the other side evades all of that.

GAMSTOP is a "show project" for the regulators and industry to prove that they are doing something. It has so many deficiencies and loopholes that it is actually a farce, or better said, a piss in the face of problem gamblers because it gives them the feeling of security whereas it offers very little.

Some examples:

- Gaming operators have to sign-up to take part in the program, hence, GAMSTOP disregards all the rest which is the majority of online casinos.
- People can execute a SE for 6 months! Please show me one recovery program for any addiction where after six months the addict is considered "clean". Two years should be the absolute minimum if the regulators are serious about combatting gambling addiction.
- GAMSTOP puts the onus nicely on casino operators, yet signed-up players are not asked to do anything else after they execute a GAMSTOP period, e.g. joining GA or similar, putting someone in control of their finances, designate a trusted person (sibling, partner, spouse etc) to monitor the progress. They can go on gambling in any other way not covered by GAMSTOP. How is that gonna help an addict?
- GAMSTOP should come with a mandatory installation of blocking software that does not allow access or financial transactions to a gambling site, e.g. NetNanny or the like
- .... list by far not complete.

Anyone seeing GAMSTOP as more than just a tiny wheel of an entire program that would be needed to seriously protect addicts has his/her head up in cuckoo land.

As for the ethics aspect of the sites promoting a list of non-participating casinos, well, they found a "loophole" and are using it. Just shows one of the blatant weaknesses which the regulators allowed to exist (on purpose?). Has happened in the past and will happen again. We people are all opportunists.

I would entirely disagree with most of your list. There are many people (me included) who have used GamStop to take a break (ironically to save up to go to Vegas!). Forcing a 2 year minimum on everyone who wants to take a break would mean people wouldn't do it, and could actually mean less people sign up. Plus it doesnt automatically restart after the time elapses anyway.

Of course, there are people who use it as part of a complete stop and of course there are other tools that they could also use, but if you make something like this too restrictive, you run the risk of it not being used at all.

 

[Slottery]

I would entirely disagree with most of your list. There are many people (me included) who have used GamStop to take a break (ironically to save up to go to Vegas!). Forcing a 2 year minimum on everyone who wants to take a break would mean people wouldn't do it, and could actually mean less people sign up. Plus it doesnt automatically restart after the time elapses anyway.

Of course, there are people who use it as part of a complete stop and of course there are other tools that they could also use, but if you make something like this too restrictive, you run the risk of it not being used at all.

Agree that it's handy self-help tool to remind you that you decided not to play and stop you, nothing wrong in that. When it's coming to point that it's daily topic in this forum how player have been allowed to register with different details which were not matching to GS database and casinos should be responsible for that, tool is in my opinion in incorrect use obviously not being that strong tool than expected by many.

In that i partly agree with KK that it have been made with huge publicity to cheer up UKGC as high moral regulator to protect vulnerable people with this tool which as promoted (or at least how it's seen in publicity when it's been spoken a lot) stop problem gamblers to be able to access gambling.

It works in this kind of self help reminder which is ok and help many people who make a plan to save for example to Vegas trip and is there to remind them about their decision when impulsive moment is coming. People in deeper addiction and problem who are looking to sign up with incorrect details with purpose are group who this kind of tool itself really can't help a lot. Using other person details (which actually can be quite easily done with cooperation with other person), adding little bit incorrect details that is getting through that check etc... Don't get stopped of this or other such a blocking tools but when these tools get publicity to be stronger than they are, trust that their close ones who are suffering from fo severe addiction, are safe when signed in GS.

Self-exclusion tools, limits and so are great to have but when your addiction is bad and strong enough to end up circumvent these tools you are able to do that or if not, sign to these non licensed casinos who are not part of it but are providing you possibility to play slots even though their site, game selection, rogue terms etc... exist, these who with biggest problem are not saved by these tools.

In reality it's more like your alarm clock which ring which alert you that you should do (or not to do) do something but it's not very hard to turn of when you have your weak moment of laziness and decide to turn it off. I have passed my alarm few times and skipped my responsibilities and got problems (at least to bad feeling to myself that i didn't do something or decided to be "sick" etc..). Not comparing skipping something because of weakness for laziness to gambling addiction, but in both you have your "stopper" and you are after all able to get around it, how much you end up doing it it's about how strong control your weakness have on you and manage to win your originally decided will.

We have read many posts about disappointed users of this tool as it haven't been preventing people from gambling which quite strongly suggests that it's not working as expected, not because tool itself (except these major flaws which are pointed but once fixing these there is again one next step to get around) but because expectations for that simple tool are way too high compared to what it actually is capable even after next and next development in it, disappointed users will exist.

 

[colinsunderland]

Very easy for gamstop to fix their problems, they just don't seem to be doing anything to do so.

 

[Harry_BKK]

No, I don't think he did at all. He's just not taking such a black/white view where anyone who works in the industry is immediately devoid of any right to feel outrage on any practice associated with problem gambling.

Should every pub, brewery or shop that sells alcohol shut up shop because they contribute to alcoholism? Should they simply be excluded from any discussion regarding management of alcohol addiction? Millions of adults all over the world engage with alcohol in an responsible manner every day. Should no-one promote or sell alcohol because a small subset cannot engage with it safely? Would it be wrong for a manufacturer or distributor of alcohol to find a business specifically trying to sell alcohol to children morally unacceptable? Is their opinion invalid or any action they take to stop this immediately suspect because they sell alcohol too?

I would suggest that anyone who considers marketing gambling should consider the social harm that can occur to a subset of the people that will see their material and should actively look to approach the entire endeavour from a position of minimising said harm where feasible. I'd actually go further than this and suggest that it is actually part of an industry looking to behave in an responsible fashion to call out those who would explicitly target the vulnerable.

Holding to the absolute where if you have made money from the gambling industry you are immediately categorised a hypocrite for holding any opinion on these sorts of practices would, if accepted as fact, result in these practice going on unchallenged. The simple fact is that often it is participants within the industry that call out the bad practices and shut these groups down.

BB

BB, I am sure you know that you cannot compare alcoholism directly with gambling.

The processes in the brain that lead to gambling addiction are completely different to alcoholism. Gambling, especially slots + Live Casino, is based on instant gratification/pleasure/adrenaline.

Plus mobile gambling has taken the entire industry into a new dimension. The danger to overspend and become addicted has grown exponentially. As you mentioned, we have a casino in our pocket at all times.

My main argument was that we, who work in the industry, have to openly accept that we are part of the problem, not the solution, no matter if we do it with integrity or not. We all promote a potentially "dangerous drug" and to date, I have not seen nearly enough responsibility and care in the gaming industry.

As I mentioned, we are moving in the right direction but we are miles away from anything that is really effective. Hence, again my opinion that GAMSTOP is primarily a "show tool" to calm the masses and prove that the industry/regulator is doing something. It has so many loopholes/deficiencies that, for myself, I had to question what was the real objective to launch it. However, it is a start which I can only hope will further improve.

Sites who do the "non-GAMSTOP" trap should be heavily fined just like the casinos and all casino operators should instantly stop working with them. Because if they don't feel the pinch this time, somewhere down the line there will be another "loophole" and we will have rinse & repeat.


EDIT:

One part we are leaving out of the discussion are game providers but they do play a major role in the entire process. All games are to a degree engineered to make them addictive. I can show you operator game sheets where that is actually advertised, of course not in the clear words but anyone with some knowledge, e.g. casino operator, understands exactly what is meant.

Some examples:
- why do game providers employ psychologists?
- why are near-misses/teaser spins and their occurrence rate engineered and programmed?
- why the big "brimborium" on even the smallest wins?
- why the endless slowing down of the reels on teaser spins?
- ....list by far not complete

I don't see the UKGC, Malta etc do anything or very little on that side yet IMO they are a major part of the process that leads to addiction. In my view, they are the brewer/distiller/tobacco company who supply the product, the casinos/affiliates etc. are the 7-11s/pubs selling the product.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I would entirely disagree with most of your list. There are many people (me included) who have used GamStop to take a break (ironically to save up to go to Vegas!). Forcing a 2 year minimum on everyone who wants to take a break would mean people wouldn't do it, and could actually mean less people sign up. Plus it doesnt automatically restart after the time elapses anyway.

Of course, there are people who use it as part of a complete stop and of course there are other tools that they could also use, but if you make something like this too restrictive, you run the risk of it not being used at all.

Geez, GAMSTOP is primarily for people with gambling problems not for holidays. And for those with a problem, 6 months are not near enough. Have you ever spent time in an addiction help centre? Have you ever experienced the erratic behaviour of an addicted gambler who hasn't had his fix for some time? Easy to say for you maybe... "oh I am going on holiday so I'll do a GAMSTOP." The real addiction does not know what a holiday is.

But your answer is very typical of someone in the industry. Don't make any rules/regulations too strict as it might chase people away. The same was said of 100 autospins limit/no autospin, session reminders, spin delay etc., yet the growth of the industry is unabated.

 

[pinnit2014]

Harry’s eyes must be sore : he’s replaced the rolling with the Geez’ing

 

[Harry_BKK]

Well, I disagree lumping all webmasters together. Sure there are affiliates who may wish folks to "lose" in order to generate their share of the casino's revenue. There are others that hope that they are providing a useful product or service.

I look at it as someone running a specialty beer shop or a pub - sure drinking is a vice, but I would never pander to the addict, or someone who clearly has had too much to drink. I would hope that my beers would bring libatious pleasure. And that a pub would bring people together - like this forum does, to share ideas, to meet folks from around the world with common interests. Sure, folks would be drinking my beers, but if they were getting wasted and causing harm (to others or themselves) they would be asked to leave.

At Casinomeister, I understand the complexities of problem gambling with having a community. This is one reason why we have the quit gambling group, and I was one of the first portals anywhere that had a groups like this and a section on quitting gambling.

No pub or beer shop creates drinkers - people will drink anyway. And no website creates gamblers just the same. The mission behind Casinomeister is to give you the tools you need to make smart decisions when it comes to choosing online casinos. And this is a mission we've stuck with for 21 years.

With all due respect Bryan, but it is very naive to compare alcoholism with a gambling addiction and you should know better.

Why on earth is the gambling industry always trying to compare gambling to alcohol consumption? Is it to play down the dangers of gambling because drinking is more of a social thing?

For one, gambling is a "hidden" addiction, people around the addict mostly do not realize it until it is too late. And even then the addict is inventive enough to fool people for another period (e.g. salary is late, will pay rent next week, then next week etc).

Second, gambling is all based on psychologically influencing specific parts of the brain and you sure know that the industry has worked decades on perfecting their techniques. You sure know as well that the industry has and still fights lock, stock and barrel against any regulation that will limit their market. Hence, any changes towards RG are a drip-feed of what should be done.

"Sure there are affiliates who may wish folks to "lose" in order to generate their share of the casino's revenue."

Affiliates and anyone else involved (e.g. me as a content writer) are making money ONLY if a player signs up, deposits and loses. The business model is based on that, there is no doubt about it. And that is OK, it is not much different in other areas. Sure providing a service is part of being affiliate/forum but CM and others (and me as a writer) would not exist if players would not lose money.

I stand by my comment, we are all part of the problem. The main difference is that we do it with more diligence/care/integrity, but that does not absolve us of being part of the problem.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Harry’s eyes must be sore : he’s replaced the rolling with the Geez’ing

Fixed

 

[Harry_BKK]

Harry’s eyes must be sore : he’s replaced the rolling with the Geez’ing

I actually meant I fixed the previous post!

 

[Harry_BKK]

Totally agree, they didn't know about GameStop, yet managed to write a very good article about circumventing it.
Also, FS say they get given a topic then, basically, copy other sites. So who gave them the topic?

Not seeing many casinos removed from these sites yet either.

To be honest (not defending FS in any way) but I have written articles for about 40 companies in three different languages (incl adidas, Vodafone, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, T-Mobile, Samsung, StubHub and more) and quite often didn't have a proper clue what I was writing about. ... I was writing marketing articles mainly for SEO purposes, so wouldn't need to know every detail. Still, I would always have an understanding of what the article is about.

But, and these are quite some "buts":

- I would receive a short brief with the length of the article, keywords, main technical/material/etc details, keyword density, SEO guidelines etc.
- Any article I wrote would go to an editor first before being published.
- Assuming FS uses WordPress, they would need to give either the SEO person or the writer access to the site to publish directly. Now, you don't do that with a new writer/SEO person who you cannot trust. You give access though once they worked for you for some time and know their "in's and out's". So again, the excuse that the writer had no clue does not hold water.

According to FS, there was a SEO person and a content writer involved. That none had a clue about GAMSTOP, nor any knowledge of the issues and that after working for a site that promotes gambling is rather far-fetched and more like "throwing" someone under the bus who is not known publicly.

 

[bamberfishcake]

@hitopz1 well done for coming forward and being so honest. Hope you continue to find your way and replace that buzz with a healthier one.

 

[hitopz1]

Thank you for sharing your experience. Also a ‘well done’ for recognising a problem, taking responsibility and being proactive in helping yourself to deal with it.

Just out of curiosity, I wondered if you would mind pondering the following questions for me....
1. does a casino refusing to be part of GAMSTOP yet holdibg a UKGC license appeal the most to you? Especially over casinos accepting UK players with other licenses? Is it a lightbulb to a moth?

2. In your darkest hours, would you be tempted to seek out an affiliate site like the one mentioned in Bryan’s original post?

Thank you for your support - much appreciated. I think the thing which draws me is the quality and range of slots offered. Mainstream slots providers (Netent, BTG, Push Gaming etc) have the best games so a site which could allow access to these would be attractive. Probably worth saying that slot providers design and construct their games to pull you in to playing so they are not without responsibility either.

 

[trancemonkey]

Geez, GAMSTOP is primarily for people with gambling problems not for holidays. And for those with a problem, 6 months are not near enough. Have you ever spent time in an addiction help centre? Have you ever experienced the erratic behavior of an addicted gambler who hasn't had his fix for some time? Easy to say for you maybe... "oh I am going on holiday so I'll do a GAMSTOP." The real addiction does not know what a holiday is.

But your answer is very typical of someone in the industry. Don't make any rules/regulations too strict as it might chase people away. The same was said of 100 autospins limit/no autospin, session reminders, spin delay etc., yet the growth of the industry is unabated.

The bottom of your list is a pointless list of stuff that has arguably no bearing on RG - although i'm sure the UKGC think it does.

Anyway, why should people not use GAMSTOP for gambling breaks? You want RG, and yet you seem to be arguing against the ability for people to choose to take a break - and yes, many many years ago (before i was in the industry, ironically) i went to GA for a period of about 6 months. It helped a lot, but to be honest, compared to some of the people there, my addiction was really mild - but i've seen it, and been a part of it. So please don't try and tell me i know nothing about addiction - you know nothing about me. I've seen it from both sides, and continue to do so. I'm in control of my gambling (now) and GamStop has helped me take a break when i may not have been able to do so any other way.

It is not a perfect system, this is true, and anyone who is suffering from a severe gambling addiction should be able to GAMSTOP for ever if necessary - but that does NOT mean that people who want a break should be excluded from the service. I just don't understand how you can say it is "not for holidays" when it is surely perfectly acceptable for people to use it to take a break. I can't think of any reason you would want a system that excludes people from being able to take short breaks if they so require it.

In a completely different way, there is almost an argument for enforced GAMSTOP for people that are severe gambling addicts - but that's a whole moral argument i'm not sure we want to get in to!

 

[BetBlocker]

With all due respect Bryan, but it is very naive to compare alcoholism with a gambling addiction and you should know better.

Why on earth is the gambling industry always trying to compare gambling to alcohol consumption? Is it to play down the dangers of gambling because drinking is more of a social thing?

Well at this juncture I think we diverge in opinion to the point of being irreconcilable. The comparisons/similarities between gambling addiction and other substance based addictions are well documented and plentiful:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Scientifically they are far from dissimilar and to suggest that 'hiding' addiction or that substance abuse (specifically alcohol) is 'social' as the principal differences separating gambling addicts ignores large volumes of the more severely addicted substance abusers who go to great lengths to hide their substance addiction issues from friends and family. While online gambling may not be a 'social' activity for healthy users this particular comparison isn't of healthy users and substance addiction often takes on the same 'hidden' qualities as gambling addiction.

At no point have I questioned your position that 'we are part of the problem'. Anyone involved in the industry in any way is clearly part of a system that harms some. But that's not what's been contested. From the outset you looked to represent the concern expressed in this thread by all those in the industry as fake and self-serving (

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

). I find that to be not only faulty in terms of your 'cause and effect' analysis (being in the industry does not preclude having basic human social concern for those whom the industry may damage) but also (mildly) offensive, devaluing to zero the concerns of anyone you view to be 'compromised' by involvement with the industry.

You are entirely entitled to your opinion, but mine would be that in taking this position (which paints with a very broad brush) you've belittled the concerns of a large number of participants in this conversation, implied that those participants are disingenuous in their intent and potentially put other affiliates off from trying to use their influence for social good in the future. I've little doubt that you would be right to suggest that some only care to be seen to do the right thing publicly, but I could also point out several involved in this conversation whose outrage was anything but artificial. I would also suggest that this conversation - which admittedly I have been a willing participant in and as such share in any blame - has shifted the focus of attention away from actually addressing this issue to whether or not affiliates have any right to comment. That discussion is likely to achieve far less on a practical level.

Anyway - one of my goals for this year was to disengage with forums as I don't feel the time spent is delivering optimum returns. I'm self-sabotaging by continuing to post! So I'm going to leave it hear. The last addition to the conversation I will make however is to say that since Saturday we have seen sign-up rates for the Android version of BetBlocker over triple. This could be nothing more than a blip that has no bearing on the ongoing dialogue on a number of sites. Or perhaps the attention drawn to this issue has had some positive impact. I'd like to think the latter.

BB

 

[Harry_BKK]

The bottom of your list is a pointless list of stuff that has arguably no bearing on RG - although i'm sure the UKGC think it does.

Anyway, why should people not use GAMSTOP for gambling breaks? You want RG, and yet you seem to be arguing against the ability for people to choose to take a break - and yes, many many years ago (before i was in the industry, ironically) i went to GA for a period of about 6 months. It helped a lot, but to be honest, compared to some of the people there, my addiction was really mild - but i've seen it, and been a part of it. So please don't try and tell me i know nothing about addiction - you know nothing about me. I've seen it from both sides, and continue to do so. I'm in control of my gambling (now) and GamStop has helped me take a break when i may not have been able to do so any other way.

It is not a perfect system, this is true, and anyone who is suffering from a severe gambling addiction should be able to GAMSTOP for ever if necessary - but that does NOT mean that people who want a break should be excluded from the service. I just don't understand how you can say it is "not for holidays" when it is surely perfectly acceptable for people to use it to take a break. I can't think of any reason you would want a system that excludes people from being able to take short breaks if they so require it.

In a completely different way, there is almost an argument for enforced GAMSTOP for people that are severe gambling addicts - but that's a whole moral argument i'm not sure we want to get in to!

If you have seen what is going on, all the more you should know that 6 months is too short for a SE to have a real impact on an addict.

I have seen all sides of it too and I stand by my comment that the short period is not enough to stabilize a heavy addict.

Maybe there should be two versions, I don't know, a TAB-SE and a SE. I simply do not see 6 months to be enough, it never will. The addict (that absolute majority) will be back in the hole within a few days after the six months if there is no support system and very few will have that.