My phrase "Who certifies the certifiers" was a play on words. The phrase to which it refers - "who polices the police" - was in the title
from April of 1965. (The phrase could go back further than 50 years - I only did a quick search - but it has certainly been used many, many times since then.)
When used, this "police phrase" was not spoken facetiously or pedantically (as in overly concerned with unimportant details). Indeed, quite the opposite. It was typically spoken at those times when
significant police corruption was under investigation. (The 1965 Time article dealt with civil rights abuse. To quote: "The fuss is about ... a series of Negro complaints about mistreatment by white policemen")
In addition, neither the question nor the need for an answer was ignored. Police departments created Internal Affairs divisions. The Time magazine article I referred to concerned a "civilian review board". And so forth.
So, in short, the question "Who polices the police" was seriously asked, and its asking was not considered rhetorical or superfluous (as in unnecessary or more than required).
As to the potential impact of this thread, or other Casinomeister threads, on the issues at hand - I'm reminded of
something that Bryan said earlier:
"I'm not about to put this site in jeopardy to appease those few who want blood."
I believe that Bryan makes it very clear here (and in his earlier post from today) that statements or conclusions, even speculation or extrapolation, about these subjects represents
the potential for (serious?) harm to this, Bryan's, web site. That strikes me as some major damage from a tiny ripple.
From dictionary.reference.com:
- The definition of jeopardy (within a legal context): "the danger or hazard of being found guilty, and of consequent punishment, undergone by criminal defendants on trial."
- The definition of speculation (as a noun): "the contemplation or consideration of some subject", with synonyms: supposition, view, theory and hypothesis.
- The definition of speculating (as a verb): "to indulge in conjectural thought", with synonyms - think, reflect, cogitate, conjecture, guess, surmise, suppose, theorize.
- The definition of extrapolate (as a verb): "to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture", with synonyms - deduce, foresee, hypothesize, "make an educated guess", project, theorize
I am not that bothered about this sort of disclosure re complaints. Stats on that sort of thing are easy to abuse and difficult to present fairly. In addition individual complaints might involve confidential information.
The UKGC requires that a licenced site appoint a third party, independent, arbitrator with some expertise. This body has to be approved by the UKGC. This approach seems to make more sense re complaints and disputes than summarising numerous complaints and their resolution. A zero cost (to player) independent arbitrator seems far better to me than complaint publication requirements.
The goal is fairness to the customer and a fair process with binding outcomes on the site. Publishing the data on fair resolutions whilst maybe interesting is not the main event. Today failure to deal properly with this sort of thing is a good flag on sites to avoid but far better to rise the standards of all sites to make that measure moot.
My suggestion on published reports by the Regulatory agencies was said in the context of trying to get "hard data", objective data, on their performance. That is, thePOGG opined that "The GRA have maintained a good reputation as online gambling regulators go for showing greater commitment to handling player complaints than their peers ..." So I asked "Where's the data?" (thePOGG - I do not repeat this to "throw it back into your face", but only as an example to make my point.)
And I don't think that it is the number of complaints that they (the Regulatory agency) receive that is the best indicator of that performance. As I believe I said in an earlier post, mistakes happen and problems arise. I proposed that (in certain circumstances anyway) it was
the response to the problem that was a "better indicator" than the occurrence of the problem.
So, if the response to problems is a highly indicative value for use in determining the "competence" of a Regulatory agency, then how, and to whom, does that response data become available? At the moment apparently the answer to this question is - nobody.
Casinomeister uses the Jurisdiction as part of the Accredited Casinos Ratings System. I confess I just took a look at it. I'm sorry, but I had to laugh when I saw that Costa Rica was 1.) even on the list, and 2.) was the only jurisdiction that was rated low.
Bryan has written that the minimum requirement for a Jurisdiction is that it "is responsible for its licensees". Costa Rica could (IMO justifiably) be given the heave-ho on this one, since it apparently is responsible for nothing, and technically does not have any "gaming licensees". (Casinomeister's
Spot the Rogue says - "
Where are they licensed? If they claim to be licensed in Costa Rica or any other place in Central America, you can be sure that they are unlicensed - in other words, they do not have a gaming license but only a business license.")
That opens the list up to the (perhaps more standardized) High, Medium and Low. (Otherwise, all we have is Highest, High and Medium, which sounds a bit like the roadside stand that sells soda in sizes Large, Larger and Largest.
)
For High we have the UK, the Isle of Man and Alderney. For Medium we have Gibraltar and Kahnawake. For Low we have Malta, Curacao and Cyprus.
(The above paragraphs
are in absolutely no way a suggestion that Casinomeister's Accredited Casinos Ratings System be changed. I simply rearranged it a bit to see it in a somewhat different light.)
I asked "Where's the (objective) data?" concerning the performance and competence of Regulatory agencies. I'm aware that some rating systems, or at least parts of some rating systems (restaurant reviews, for instance, or movie reviews) are intrinsically subjective. I'm not sure that the rating system for Government Regulatory agencies should be, or needs to be, as subjective as that applied to a stuffed pork chop dinner.
So, I'm happy to discard the suggestion of reports published by the Regulatory agencies. But the question(s) remain: "what, and where, is the data?"
Chris