The popularity, however, of an idea on how institutions that serve the public should behave is highly relevant. Ethical questions are not served well by truth values or validity tests, they are better served by consensus. So in this case the dramatic unpopularity of this casino's actions for the people it serves should be taken as a serious problem.
Excellent point and superbly stated!
Unfortunately we're talking about apples and acorns here. The statement that prompted my example was:
... I believe that many here believe that the OP has been treated unfairly and should be given his winnings.
I believe that there are two conclusions being drawn there, one factual and the other ethical.
In the first case, "the OP has been treated unfairly", we are dealing with a statement of fact (sort of), namely that the OP was treated different or harsher than others. I believe this is quite wrong. I don't see how the OP was treated differently than everyone else. Break Terms, expect repercussions. Hence the statement that the number of opinions on that subject don't change the facts.
The second issue, that the OP should be given his winnings, is clearly a matter of subjective opinion and I can certainly see that your argument is applicable there. That said, I still disagree with your conclusion that popularity of him being paid makes it necessary, or even right, that the casino do so.
The bottom line is that you could make this any casino and any remotely similar circumstance and the "consensus" would be the same: if there is money on the table players will side with players the vast majority of the time.
Over the years I have seen and dealt with countless cases where players dispute a casino's actions on the grounds that "it should be" done a certain way, usually a way that would benefit the player. This ignores the fundamental truth that casinos are not there to benefit the player, they are there to provide entertainment, to allow players to play games with money. And because it's money there are necessarily a lot of rules in place. "Should" and "ought to" and "popular opinion says" and all the rest of it are, more often than not, pretty much beside the point.
So, my point was and is that a lot of people saying one thing or another doesn't prove anything. Yes, it does indicate what the casino might do if it wants to win a popularity contest -- this second, there'll be a new one instantaneously -- but that is seldom a good way to make policy. This is true for many reasons not the least of which is that it says nothing of what makes sense in the long run.
Which brings us (sort of) back to the fundamental question here: is the casino responsible for a player saying "Yes" to Terms that he later wishes he had said "No" to? My point was and is that it is the player who must be responsible because only the player can protect himself from ending up in that situation over and over again.
It's quite possible to imagine an infinite number of crappy casino Terms out there. Who's job is it to protect the player from those? Primarily it must be the player's responsibility.
Notice that good advice often comes in a form somewhat like "don't eat yellow snow". The "here's where to complain if you don't like the flavour of the snow you've just eaten" version of that is much less useful because it is fundamentally flawed: people should not (generally speaking) eat oddly coloured snow. The responsibility for avoiding something unpleasant must always fall to the person who has the "yes" or "no" decision to put themselves there.
Of course there are exceptions and exemptions and extenuating circumstances and yadda yadda yadda. The point is that players must accept responsibility for not putting their tits in the wringer. This whole thing is going to go -- is going! -- to hell in a handbasket if players continue to refuse to accept that responsibility.
