Hmm, I see now where you're going with this. In other words the 'Casinos' stat basically
would be for stuff like "they're being dicks today", yes?
If I'm reading you right I'd have to say that I'm not too comfortable with that. Mainly it's a 'public fairness' issue, by which I mean that I generally feel that something has to be pretty blatant and out-of-line in order to go so far as to flag it publicly. And this would apply equally to players and casinos.
For instance, for someone to get tossed into the fraudster category we pretty much need conclusive proof that they were systematically cheating the casino. Many registrations, clear and repeated T&C violations, repeated and/or prolonged bot use, etc. If it's just a mistake or suchlike then the case just gets closed with no punitive action against the player.
So more or less I'm thinking the same should apply to the casino. If they stomp on a player mistakenly or throw a hissy fit one day but are able to see the light the next I don't see that nailing anything to their front door is kosher either.
I guess another way to look at it is that I see the 'Fraudster' and 'Rogue' categories as a 'quantum' thing, meaning that the party involved has to clearly and deliberately be working at being a crook in order to cross the threshold. Then and only then is it fair to drag them out into public and brand them for it. There are fairly serious consequences once we take that step so it should never be done lightly.
All the one-off, whoopsy and 'my bad' cases should be shrugged off, IMHO, unless they are too severe to ignore. That leaves the 'good guy' door open in the hopes that the party involved will walk through it, or at least loiter with intent.
There are more than enough folks out there who really are crooks, no need to press-gang people into that category.