Suggestions for the "no student" clause

[jelsmith]

I think they also need to add terms disallowing single moms, people on a pension, on disability, or anyone making under $10 an hour at their jobs. Oh yeah, and anyone with more than two kids, because we all know how expensive kids can be right. Matter of fact, why don`t they make it say-

Only people who earn 100K a year or more are welcome here?

I mean, it`s all about player protection right? What a total load of bullshit this is. And ROGUE.

Sorry, not interested in even playing this game. CW belong with the likes of Virtual....crooks and LIARS of the highest order.

LOL next we will see "We do not accept players who are religious" I mean they are lookin out for your mortal soul and all... and the majority of religions say gambling is wrong.....

 

[Pinababy69]

LOL next we will see "We do not accept players who are religious" I mean they are lookin out for your mortal soul and all... and the majority of religions say gambling is wrong.....

I forgot that one Jenn!! People not only need protecting financially, but spiritually as well.

 

[darkpixie]

How about a question, do you smoke? They should ban all smokers as they clearly have an addictive type personality and could become addicted to Gambling at Club World. After all CWC in its perfection strives to protect one from oneself.

 

[just play]

I forgot that one Jenn!! People not only need protecting financially, but spiritually as well.

I thought you were leaving.... Just bustin ya!

How about a question, do you smoke

How about..Do you own a dog? Over 50lbs. is ok, under 50lbs. is not.

"We do not accept players who are religious"

If you go to church on Sunday you will be paid, if not we keep your money.

 

[darkpixie]

When evaluating things its always good practice to look at its origins, so I took a little gander at the way back machine and here are my findings....



2005 till February 23, 2007 (no older site history)

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

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater.



March 9, 2007 - Oct 11 2007 (CWC has blocked the WBM from its pages in October 2007 and changed its terms to ban students under 21)

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

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students aged 21 years old and under that are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.


Present day - CWC has since cast a wider net and removed the 21 years of age and under portion of the clause.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino



So I AM curious. How OLD is DanL?

 

[Casinomeister]

In the spirit of this thread, I would say the term needs to be clarified, if it will not be removed.

Full time ACTIVE students, age 25 or younger, who are enrolled in College or University, are not allowed to participate in real wagering in the casino. This includes breaks between semesters and holidays. If a student is found to be making real wagers, then all possible winnings can be voided and deposit will be returned, account will be locked until education is proven to be completed, or student has reached the age of 25.


Although I agree with the concensus of many here about it not being their business, if they are determined to have such a rulling, then it should be fine tuned, so as not to cause grief to a potential long time loyal player in the future. Players over the age of 25 that may be schooling should not need to be concerned about this clause in the T&C's...

Thank you Mavin for staying focused and actually giving some constructive advice.

For those of you that want to turn this thread into a circus, please feel free to do this elsewhere.

Seriously, if you can't agree to disagree and get all twisted into a knot, what the hell? What good is it having a discussion? Some of you are bullying anyone who disagrees with you. You need to step back and take a few chill pills. Thanks!

 

[silcnlayc]

Focusing....

The question is, what did CWC want to accomplish with this rule and
What was the purpose of this rule?

That is a need to know question before any true discussion can be done.

A little more info would help in making suggestions on the wording if it will not be removed.


.

 

[Luckylizzy]

I agree with Mavin who worded it perfectly. If Club World insists on having the term, than that would be a suitable way to re-word it to clarify exactly who is and is not permitted to play.

Also, when signing up for the casino there should be a button to check specifically for this rule since it is so unique. It should say the player is not a student as specified in the T&Cs and that if found to be a student, any winnings would be confiscated by the casino and the account suspended until the schooling is finished. Then the player would have to agree to it knowingly.

I understand them wanting to protect education because it is very important and these games can be pretty addicting. All laws are put in place to protect and that is all Club World is trying to do in my opinion.

Also, I see the other side of it where us adults should be responsible enough to make our own decisions on these issues. After all, none of us like to be told what we can and cannot do.

 

[darkpixie]

If we could all agree to disagree then this would not be much of a discussion.
If removal of the term is COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION and we are not allowed to comment on reasons for removing it, then perhaps something to that effect can be mentioned in the original post.

Given that that seems to the road you are heading down on this here is my constructive comment on how to rewrite this term:

1. The Player acknowledges by depositing and playing no way guarantees that winnings can be withdrawn and that the Casino reserves the right to discriminate against the player for any reason is deems appropriate at the time and shall reserve ultimate right to confiscate any winnings and deposits as it sees fit. Caveat Emptor

Might as well just jump all the way down the road.

 

[ksech]

Ya know, I took a chance and asked Bryan in the very long Club World thread what we could do to try to get the term changed. I THOUGHT this was a mature group of people who were so against this heinous term, that AS a group, maybe, just MAYBE we could make a difference as a united front. Some of you have proven me wrong and I am sorry to have asked.

We've been given a chance to maybe persuade CW to eliminate, or clarify with no chance of debate, a clause which is biased, unfair, ambiguous, or however you freakin' want to classify it. BUT, it just goes to show that negative will win over positive if you allow it.

I'm ashamed for asking for the chance, but I'm extremely disappointed in the ones who wish to do nothing more than contrive ways to throw everything BUT what needs to be done to the wind. You want to rant and rave over injustice? Well newsflash! BRYAN isn't the one who wrote the term. Bryan has stated numerous times he doesn't condone the term. He's allowing us a chance to try to right a wrong so someone else doesn't fall into the same trap.

I am so very, very disappointed...
And words fail me now.

 

[Casinomeister]

...
1. The Player acknowledges by depositing and playing no way guarantees that winnings can be withdrawn and that the Casino reserves the right to discriminate against the player for any reason is deems appropriate at the time and shall reserve ultimate right to confiscate any winnings and deposits as it sees fit. Caveat Emptor

Might as well just jump all the way down the road.

If you're attempting to turn the thread into a bash fest, take it elsewhere. This is a serious issue and juvenile comments will take this thread into a downward spiral.

You want to make a change? Then act like an adult and maybe some one will listen to you.

 

[takethemoney]

You have to be a legal aged adult to register, correct?

In that case, I believe if someone is old enough to register, then they are old enough to make an adult decision without regard to whether they are a student. I feel this clause needs to be removed, as it's a slippery slope that can also lead to other bogus restrictions, such as disabled, only working part time, etc. I take the same stance with military people and alcohol. If they are old enough to die while fighting for their country, they are old enough to drink.

The key word here is "adult". You are either an adult or not and being an adult you should be able to make unrestricted adult decisions. Would a land based casino bar someone on the merits that they are a student? No. This just does not stand up to the test.

 

[darkpixie]

<sorry derail>

No I am not attempting to put this thread into a bash fest.
I have not bashed a single member of this forum in this thread.
Nor do I see anyone bullying anyone on either side of the fence in this thread.
I do however often use a little humor and sarcasm to get my point across. (I will totally cop to that)

I see persons in discussion on a pretty important issue. Discussion is healthy because it lets people consider all of the information so that they can make informed decisions. Maybe I haven't thought of something against my opinion, and so I hope that members with good information come on here and provide it.



I asked for clarification if we are allowed to discuss removal of the term in this thread. If we are not allowed to discuss removing the Term, again please edit the original post.

 

[silcnlayc]

Casinomeister: You want to make a change? Then act like an adult and maybe some one will listen to you.

I am realy wondering what the point to this is thread is. We were asked to give our "input" but when we do, we get slammed for giving it saying "that is not an option" on the input given....so, I too am done with this since the minds have already been made up and this has become a one sided conversation...there really was no plan on giving any "input" any consideration I believe , the offer was just a token...to move on..

The in put we were asked to give was not offered in the way it was meant IMO..it was offered to appease...

NO CHANGE will be made except for what the casino wants anyway. again IMO.....so again, what is the point of this thread??

IMO, there is no point to this thread..the decision has already been decided...

Done...


.

 

[vinylweatherman]

When evaluating things its always good practice to look at its origins, so I took a little gander at the way back machine and here are my findings....



2005 till February 23, 2007 (no older site history)

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

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater.



March 9, 2007 - Oct 11 2007 (CWC has blocked the WBM from its pages in October 2007 and changed its terms to ban students under 21)

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

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students aged 21 years old and under that are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.


Present day - CWC has since cast a wider net and removed the 21 years of age and under portion of the clause.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino



So I AM curious. How OLD is DanL?

From this, it seems the intent was to ban UNDERGRADUATE students on their FIRST degree level or equivalent course. They dropped the "21 or under" because most students turn 21 BEFORE taking their final exams. I took a 3 year degree course, very much the norm, but reached 21 in March, yet only graduated in June. Clearly CWC did NOT intend to allow students to play in the same period that they were supposed to be concentrating on their final exams. Some courses are longer though, and this is another loophole with the "under 21" restriction, with those on 4 year courses being able to study during their last year.

Removing this "under 21" seems to be the natural evolution of the term to remove these loopholes, and have ALL undergraduates banned.

It seems that this term was NEVER intended to hit "adult students", but only students progressing through to the end of their first degree course, where they would be dependent on others to fund their living and study expenses.

The DanL case seems to have broken with this idea, and indicates that the term really does mean ALL students, whatever their age. DanL had graduated from the usual degree course, so must be at least 21, an adult in EVERY jurisdiction. You can legally be a parent with school age children at 21, having conceived (or fertilised) a 16 year old mother of that child. They are deemed fit to be in charge of a small child unless evidence to the contrary arises.

The other problem is the very narrow definition of the students they are banning, which is not ALL students, but ONLY those who are "Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University"

Although DanL was a student in the wider sense, he was NOT "enrolled in a College or University" between graduation, and the end of the following September, so as written, the term DID allow him to play, albeit only for about 3 months. He was also not "full time" during those three months, probably spending around zero hours attending classes until the end of September.

Focusing....

The question is, what did CWC want to accomplish with this rule and
What was the purpose of this rule?

That is a need to know question before any true discussion can be done.

A little more info would help in making suggestions on the wording if it will not be removed.


.

This is the problem, they haven't said what their aim is in adding this term other than to say it is to keep students who still depend on their parents from playing as a means to protect them from the perils of gambling away their study funds.

However, their implementation has strayed outside of these aims, and now it is not at all clear what classes of student they are trying to keep out.

It is also going to be next to impossible to enforce this rule fairly. A student is something you do in your "B & M life", which to many is separate from their online life.

The ONLY way they are going to catch a student is to get them to ADMIT they are one. The problem is that students are ADULTS, they have ALL the relevant records, rights, and responsibilities as any other adult in any other occupation.

The ONLY way to enforce this rule is to ROUTINELY require a declaration of occupation (with documentary proof) from players, in order to prove that they simply don't have the TIME to be "enrolled full time in a College or University".

DanL had everything he needed to avoid getting caught. He had a drivers license, was more than old enough to gamble, and as an adult over 18 would have been on the electoral roll, something that can be checked independently, and IS usually checked when validating ID documents provided by players.

CWC probably have MANY players who would qualify as "full time students" according to the CWC definition, and if they were determined to play, they would simply use their "regular" credentials during verification. They would NOT send in a student ID, nor would they play on campus, or give their campus address to the casino. ALL students have a "home", even if this is with their parents.

The ONLY thing they will be able to come up with by "digging" is that the player lives with their parents, and does not work (or cannot prove it). Such players are NOT banned though, so being unemployed and living with your parents is NOT against the terms. The only option for CWC then would be to say "prove you are not a student". Well, you can't really do this, but you can prove you ARE a student, and it would be up to CW to do this to refute any evidence produced by the player that they were merely unemployed and looking for work.

Even when they get this term as close as possible to the intent behind it, it is going to be hard work enforcing it against students who KNOW they are banned, but are determined to play anyway, without indisriminately confiscating winnings and banning players that "might be students" because of some "gut feeling" belief. This kind of enforcement would have a negative effect on reputation, and would make players fear that confiscation of winnings was done "on a whim", which would then scare them away.

CWC need to ensure they can ENFORCE such a term against ALL the students they want to exclude, and this would mean having some INDEPENDENT means of checking whether someone was a student that was ACCURATE to the same degree as the other verification checks.

The ONLY way this could be done would be to check players' details against the records of all the institutions concerned. If this is how they are doing it, we should be asking whether this is being done LEGALLY, since such details are covered by the data protection act, and are NOT made available for "commercial purposes", but only to authorised bodies.
Students should perhaps ask their college whether it is indeed possible for "just anybody" to check with these records to determine whether or not they are students. If it is, THIS would be one way CWC would seem to "just know" despite this not being revealed by the player, with the player then being challenged to show that these official records are wrong, rather than that their "gut instinct" got it wrong.

IF CWC can enforce the term as above, they must also have a term informing players that they are accessing and using their information in this manner, since this use is NOT anything to do with "verification of identity", so CANNOT be covered by the term that allows use of third party information for ID verification.

The nearest I can think of is

Students who have ever started a full time course at <full description of covered institutions> may not play until such time as they have completed all their planned courses, and have become available for full time employment, and may be asked to provide proof of this. Students who have completed one course, but are due to start another at a later date, are still deemed ineligible to play regardless of their current employment status

 

[just play]

If you're attempting to turn the thread into a bash fest, take it elsewhere. This is a serious issue and juvenile comments will take this thread into a downward spiral.

You want to make a change? Then act like an adult and maybe some one will listen to you.

I think the replies you are receiving, are because most of us think this term is ridiculous, so in turn some people (including me) are giving ridiculous terms. It's not juvenile when you think about it, the term IS ridiculous. Sorry.


If CW is really going to change it, there are some good suggestions in this thread.

 

[Mavin1]

This is what I consider to be the point of this thread. There is a term, that was loosely written that has caused a backlash from many people and justly so.

The term needs to be clarified to not only protect the casino, but all players as well.

The term should not encompass people over a certain age.

I think why CWC has such a clause is because this is the one area that can seriously damage the entire online gaming for ALL players, especially those of us in the US that are hanging on to the last shreds of freedom to be able to play.

If it is brought to the attention of say the feds, whom we know are already looking for reasons to close online gambling down, that players, either under age, or students, are losing their grants, tuition and money saved up for schooling to online gambling, then we could be looking at all of us paying the price of the feds taking control and shutting everyone out, afterall, this is how they operate. Because students going broke to online casinos makes the news, whereas mother of 3 lost her familys grocery money doesn't.

So, to some point a responsible casino does need to police itself in every aspect and it's terms should not be open for any mis-interpretation. Since this is an issue, then the incorrectness of the casino should be rectified to those who are affected prior to streamlining such terms, since the casino is at fault for leaving grey areas in the first place.

Any other monitoring of players is not the issue as we are adults and if we choose to deposit our last cent, the casino's know that is our decision. I for one am not playing online at this time, but I would hope that one day when I do wish to again, that it is still available.

 

[darkpixie]

OK here is a suggestion. Everybody wins in this scenario.

First remove the students are banned from T&C
Second Create a special Student Account whereby they are only permitted to deposit say $20 per month, unlimited withdrawals.
Provide incentives for them to disclose they are students. IE. Once the student has completed their studies and provided copies of proof, comp them 10% of their total deposits and convert them to a traditional player.

The student wins because they get to play, and can withdraw no muss no fuss.
The Casino wins because it is creating good will in the industry while being responsible to the needs of students and cultivating the next generation of players.

This is a way for the ends to justify the means. If CWC wishes to protect students, this sort of scenario will accomplish that task.

So really, get that marketing department to sharpen their pencils.

 

[oldtrvlagt]

I would really like them to answer some of the questions posed here. If, at my age, I decide to go back to school full time, am I going to be banned? Or, since I signed up several years ago, am I "grandfathered" in? What set of rules do I follow? I think they need to clarify this. This is my opinion only.

 

[skiny]

No term has ever or will ever be written to protect me or you. They are written to protect the casino and whatever the reason is that they're banning students is probably the same reason they're banning the city of Markham and allowing the rest of the province to play. Somehow they feel that college students are going to get away with something that you or I probably can't.

If CW really wants to discriminate against these people for whatever reason they should probably have their team of lawyers writing up this new term anyway.

What truly bothers me about all of this is that we're sitting here in a thread that Bryan himself has started, trying to dream up new ways of clarifying a term that was just used to deny seven thousand dollars in winnings.

Even if we do find a precise way to explain this term and a sure way to enforce it, we'll be in a new thread next month or year because someone in Pickering tried to make a withdrawal but they're too close to Markham and so deemed to be "in the area of."

Integrity used to count for something.

 

[oldtrvlagt]

Yeah, I know...I'm tired of jumping through hoops to play, reading T & C's that have major loopholes and never getting a direct answer, worrying if I will get paid (or how long it might take. Which is pretty much why I don't gamble online anymore. )

 

[felicie]

Out with the student clause - once you let an 18 year old loose with credit cards and such, they're either going to screw up their life or be responsible young adults. Protecting them from themselves or the world or their parents (should they be funding it) is not a good thing for anyone entering the adult world.

On the other hand I think 21 is a better age to allow but that's just my opinion.

 

[all4greed]

My advice is to remove it completely.

As others have said, why not "protect" those that can't afford to be gambling in the first place? Why are those getting additional education excluded but those that can't afford basic necessities allowed to play?

There are probably full time students that have a hell of a lot more money to burn than people here. Those funds can exist in a variety of ways. Not every student is cash poor.

If you are of legal age and meet the general requirements (namely location), then you should be good to go.

 

[johnsteed]

***


If you are of the age to legally gamble (depending on where you reside), that should be it. What's the point in making things more complicated then they need to be?



If this industry (as a whole) really wants to take itself seriously, they (being most operations) have to stop drawing up so many T&Cs.



If this industry wants to show that it's all for responsible gaming - promoting playing for the sake of 'entertainment' - then it needs to make the entire process more player/user-friendly. I fail to see the 'entertainment' in reading up a bunch of terms & conditions periodically, to know that I'm doing everything correctly. Even if you're proud that you've done your homework, they're still making you do your homework (and where's the 'fun' in that).



The main problem - AFAIC - is that the casinos (even the 'good ones') have carte-blanche to write up how ever many questionable terms & conditions that they can think of. No one is there to stop them.



The lesser-established casino operations that are looking to move up the ladder will look at what places like 32red/iNetBet/ClubWorld have done, in terms of their model of how to run things. When they see that ClubWorld didn't have to pay (right or wrong), or that there's another problem concerning iNetBet and any one of their bonuses (even if people love iNetBet and defend them, you have to admit that there are a TON of complaints concerning bonuses and at some point in time you have to think that they ARE in fact at least partially responsible for the problem), all because the player misinterpreted or couldn't quite understand the terms & conditions. Then, what's stopping them from writing up a bunch of pointless T&Cs that can give them more outs? We could be heading to a point where the bigger gamble is following those terms to a tee, rather than overcoming the house edge.



The casino or the software provider (depending on what you believe and what is the truth) control the payouts, and in any case, there's a house edge that puts them in the winner's circle. So, basically, most of us are playing to lose (not that we're motivated by that line of thinking). Next, you may not get paid even if you do win, because they make the final decision on who gets paid. Provided that you didn't 'jump-too-high', you should be okay. Next, you should get paid after a certain amount of time, but if you'd like, you could reverse the funds and continue playing if you'd like (taken from supposed polls where players prefer to have their funds reversed as opposed to having them flushed).



When you have all of these restrictions and hang-ups over this 'n that, it's hard to think that the industry has the player's best interest at heart. I've read numerous times that any particular casino has done it's bit to protect the player, but it's hard to take those stories/angles seriously.



A player always has to have proof, show it and prove it time and time again, even though the player used and gambled with their own money. The casino holds all of the cards and are ridiculously obnoxious in flaunting their power. Especially considering all of the problems these days with banking/regulation/etc. Just because a casino has a great reputation, doesn't mean that whenever a problem starts, we should automatically assume that the player is partially rogue, and start from there. Nor should we automatically assume that when a rogue (or not very good) casino denies someone their winnings, that the player was unquestionably robbed. Good entities (casino or player) do in fact screw-up periodically.



Debating/arguing over small points in the way that a casino's T&Cs are drawn-up is all... semantics. We might as well be deciphering the meaning of an abstract painting (w/o the artist's true definition of his/her work). We should be demanding things like greater transparency, instant withdrawals, straight-forward bonuses, and 'ffs' downsizing T&C's where we only have to see that everything is good to go because we're of the legal age to gamble. Ideally, it would be awesome if every player boycotted the industry for a month (if not longer), and demanded that they make changes in how they do business; geared to it being more 'player-friendly'. Unfortunately, that will never happen.



The online casino industry is 15-years old now, and it really needs to grow up. I haven't seen enough signs that that's going to happen any time soon.



***

 

[funeral979]

Good seeing you posting again my friend!