Why should they if it's #1 in the terms and conditions? And it's not that a big of deal relatively speaking. This casino group has had this rule since 2006 as far as I know, and there has only been maybe four "student" issues that I'm aware of (including this one) since then...that's five years.
It's clearly written in the terms and conditions. If they were to have a check box for this one term, then (like I mentioned earlier in this thread) they ought to have a check-box for each term - which is just damn silly. Correct me if I'm wrong, one has to agree to the terms and conditions before completing the sign-up process, right?
I think a lot of players are just trying to find something to bitch about when I read threads like these. People need to take responsibility for their actions and quit blaming others for their mistakes.
Admin note: changed thread title from "didn't break terms" to "student issue" - that's a bit more accurate, eh?
The problem is that this is an "absolute" term, rather than a "relative" one.
A "relative" term is one that you needn't worry about if you are a "normal customer", which in the case of a casino is the average "recreational player".
Many players don't read the terms, but play recreationally, and end up not breaking them in any case.
An "absolute" term is different, and is like the one that players must be 18 or over. It matters not whether an underage player does not take bonuses, does not collude, and plays "in the spirit" of everything, the "absolute" fact of their age disqualifies them.
The argument could also be extended to AGE, why can this NOT be item ONE in the terms, and players have one FEWER box to tick, and the rule about 18 & over is CLEARLY in the terms, so a player age 17 who registers and plays without reading the main terms is JUST as foolish as the student, or any other player, who fails to read the terms.
"relative" terms do NOT need such prominence, since the ONLY apply in certain circumstances, and MOST "relative" terms ONLY apply when players use bonuses.
The student term is a one way ticket to loseville for those who ASSUME, rather than read, the terms; since players CAN deposit and play as students, and it is only when they WIN that they find out how foolish they have been. Surely the foolish need protection, and this IS all about the protection of the VULNERABLE is it not?
The "clever" student can even get away with breaking this term, because they will NOT let on during verification that they ARE a student. I wonder how many students DO bypass this rule because they are smart enough to know that CWC can't actually CHECK with any degree of accuracy, but have to get the player to "let slip" about them being students.
Only 4 cases, but why all of a sudden, rather than spread out over the 5 years this rule has been in place?
Protection of the vulnerable should NOT rely on them doing what they SHOULD do, but what they ACTUALLY do, which is WHY they are considered so "vulnerable" in the first place.
Problem gamblers are also vulnerable, and they SHOULD take matters into their own hands, close all their accounts etc. However it is CASINOS that are held responsible if this vulnerable group find a way to bypass the system and it is found the casino "could have done more" to prevent it.
CWC can CERTAINLY "do more" to protect students from their own stupidity in NOT reading "small print", as well as their stupidity in assuming the internet obeys the SAME rules as the B & M world.
). This is because the "trigger" of this circumstance coming to light is a withdrawal and not a deposit.
