Topic: Create a player list of rights (Read 443 times)

But the thing is that these list of rights could be a way for entitled players to sort of abuse the casinos and in a way make it difficult for gambling businesses to thrive in the crypto gambling space because when there's a lot of demands that is disadvantageous for them, why would they pit themselves on it and risk having to comply. I know that it would sound hypocritical of me to say this right after I've said what I've said but this is definitely a good idea, I'm just saying that there's people out there that's going to abuse this if we let them be, others have pointed this out so even if we want to make this list, no one's going to take it seriously.

Thank you for inviting me and bringing this to my attention. I tried to address to this thread and the invitation the second it came to my awareness, but I am currently swamped and it took me up to today to finally give this thread a thorough read... well, "thorough", given it seems the thread used to have way more [spamming] posts and it got deleted. I am not reading the archived version, as it apparently will be at least another page long. Perhaps later, when I have more time at hand.

With a warning that it'll be a long post, and that I am refraining from linking anything being referred in my post on behalf of keeping eye health of whoever read my post thoroughly [so they don't have to read another long threads], we are moving to the subject...


Not properly worded, this list of rights will easily backfire and get weaponized by the players.

Coming from someone who haunt the scam accusations board on daily basis, situation with casinos are not always occured because the casino is the bad actor. Though on many cases casinos are at fault and being difficult, a big portion of the scam accusations board actually filled by complaints from a cheating players who try to be sneaky and cried and asked for help because their abusive behavior were being detected. Some others are made by users with room temperature as their IQ. In Celsius.

For example, the very thread that prompt you to create this thread, it's about a player [the one who accuses the casino] who apparently is delusional enough [someone believe he fell a lot during his infancy] that he think the world revolves around him and whatever he wants, everyone must provide. Another case have a player who create a nuclear weapon using his disability, trying to wring casinos their money with his mental condition. Another one literally spammed the board and terrorize third-party arbitrator because a casino utilize two different format of provably fair and apparently have a founder whose father has a criminal record, amongst other mundane and baseless accusations.

That's three that easily coming off the top of my head, just to give a better understanding that at a casino industry, the casinos are not always the bad actor, there are a lot of people with malicious intent and agenda who try to milk a casino, and thus, if such a list of rights are about to be made, it should be crafted very carefully to prevent abuse and backfire, as well as to [surprisingly enough] protect the casino from the malicious players.

May I know what kind of list of rights you currently have in your mind? Just a rough draft, does not have to be the actual points that'll be realized on the final list, aside from the one below [that will have its own dissection] so I can give my opinion on how feasible it will be to compile and how likely it'll be to stay on a neutral ground.


In theory, this is doable, having a clause in the list-of-rights that said the casino clearly lists every condition that would enable them to freeze or seize assets as part of the registration and/or deposit process, thus implying that the player's future on that casino is somewhat guaranteed as long as they followed the rule. But... the condition itself is ever changing. Their ToS is updated from time to time, so unless you have a way to automatically detect an update on a casino ToS, it'll be a very heavy workload to check them from time to time.

Of course you can ask the casino to notify you when they made a change on their ToS, but will we be able to notify the players that casino A has updated their condition [that'll enable them to freeze assets], where the updated condition will specifically affect players who are this, this, and this?

To give a better image of what I'm talking about, one of the point that easily changed from time to time is restricted countries. For instance, Poland was not part of casino A's restricted country as per March 2024, and thus a player residing in Poland are allowed to play and are not breaching the agreed ToS, and the clause of list-of-rights saying as above is true. On April 2024, Poland become a restricted country on Casino A, which make the said player now in a breach of ToS, and according the the list-of-rights, Casino A are still true to the clause; they freeze the player's assets because the player played from restricted country.

In practice, they'll give a pop-up message on their page, or an email blast, informing every registered player that they've updated their ToS, and players who get affected by the updates are allowed to continue playing and withdraw all of their assets up to 31 March 2024. But there are instances where the pop-up didn't appear or the player didn't get the message. Who is at fault here and who will be held liable if the casino refuses to return player's fund?

Another factor worth weighting in, from time to time, player's assets got frozen, or part of it got seized, bets got cancelled, or other situations that caused a player to suffer a financial damage, some of it are due to a cause that is out of casino's will. Like a pending KYC verification [that took months] or the sportsbook provider's decision to cancel the bets. Can the casino be considered breaching the clause they agreed on the list-of-rights? Because, theoretically, they violated the clause by having their player's assets frozen, or an account became inaccessible for months, or some bets being voided, all of them are [arguably] a breach from the list-of-rights, since they put a player in a situation outside of the list of their conditions that allows them to freeze assets, yet they can't do much as [for instance] the bets are voided by the sportsbook's decision, not theirs. Will it be fair for the casino to bear the burden of blame and pay the voided bets out of their own pocket just to stay true to the list-of-rights?

Another interesting case that might worth considering, that there are factors outside of casino's control that made them unable to fulfill the clause [though it's clearly not the case of freezing assets, but still related to a condition where the player suffers financial loss] there was a player who deposited through FTX's wallet, was asked to fulfill KYC as part of AML/ATF act at one point and he decided to wait for a while, with a reason that he want to use that frozen assets as his emergency fund [if he performs the SoW level KYC and got the fund liquidated, he afraid he'll use it right away, so he used the opportunity to have an accidental emergency fund].

One year later, he performed the SoW level KYC, got his fund unfrozen and being sent to the originating address [sometimes casino send questionable funds back to the originating address instead of the address their player's asked as a second layer of security measure against AML], where FTX already collapsed and the wallet is no longer accessible. Effectively, the fund are sent to limbo.

In one perspective, the player is at fault because he did not perform KYC right away, which raised casino's suspicion and prompted them to perform the second layer of security [sending to the originating address], yet at the same time [as many argued on that case] the casino should ask whether the wallet is still accessible or not prior to sending, yet again, if the casino did so and the player said he no longer has access to the wallet, they violated their AML policy by facilitating a way for someone to launder money.

Under this situation, where do the list-of-rights stand?

And with those instances in hand, how far will the issuer of list-of-rights be held accountable and/or an accomplice to a case? They're the one issuing a certification. Disregarding the true nature of their case [remember, some players are coming with bad intent and malicious agenda], players may argue that they suffer a financial loss and become a victim to a casino because they trusted the certification given by the list-of-rights. As such, will the issuer of certification be held accountable to a certain degree of the damage? How big is their influence and wiggle room to determine who violated what?

That is the same thing that whales do when they trade, because whales also lose, but with a move they make well they recover the loss and come out with profits, that is, they leave with a positive balance, but it is as you say, a person with a lot of money can see quick results and with a lot of liquidity, I consider professional players to be those who are betting or have around $1M available, because managing a figure like that is not anything, you have to know how to manage that amount of money, in the game a person who risks $400k or who has that money to play and risk it is really on another level, and there are people who when they lose it it does not affect them at all , even if they do not recover later, their life will remain the same and it will not collapse like the most happens to them.

In the case of the majority of players, they have their money counted, and when they lose they feel that they are decapitalized, because they do not have the stomach to withstand that blow, that is why for all those who have a privileged position with respect to their money, life is literally much easier.

Really love the idea.

The only problem we are gonna face in these cases are is the casino wants to change its terms & policies based on our voice. Term & condition exist to protect mostly from the service provider side, not on the customer to prevent the customer taken advantage against the casino or service provider.

In casinos usually most scary thing is, we're getting f*cked by (Level 3-4) casino rules document. They ask for specific documents, and mostly sometimes we already provided the document they can reject the document is because the word is not being written with (English).

---

IMO, even we have a good list suggestion the casino can simple really answer with these scheme : "It's up to you, we are not force you to accept our term & condition. If you feel the term & condition is not good for you, then feel free to not accept it and not register in our website".

I would like to post a legit question based on how I see it, will these casinos honor these players' list of rights because in the end, it's the TOS of the gambling site that will have the last say, some terms end with the word if you do not agree with these terms please don't join, or You agree to abide by these rules.
Casinos ban players because of violations, will it become the players' right against the casinos' terms

This is really good suggestion and will make a very significant changes once approved. But I really doubt casino will break their own ToS just to give special power to users while the current ToS is already working for them even if it’s one sided for the casino.

There’s a lot of issue in the past that casino not honoring their agreement to one of the forum users. Besides they will imposed the AML policy which is always their reason on why they can seize funds and ask documents because that’s what their license requires to them. If this rights is possible, I believe removing the KYC part is long done since this is the most hated part of gamblers when playing in online casino.

This is really a nice suggestion if implemented successfully.

Online casinos and their Terms of Service (ToS) are like that friend who talks a big game but can't back it up. Players get worried they're giving away all their rights with every click of "I agree," and casinos try to build these sky-high walls of legalese to cover every single thing a player might do.

The problem is, these ToS walls end up looking like fortresses from a bad fantasy novel – totally impractical. Players get lost trying to figure out what they can and can't do, and casinos are constantly plugging holes as new sneaky tricks pop up.

Ditch the legalese labyrinth. Casinos should write their ToS in plain English, like explaining the rules to a friend over coffee. Be clear about what's cool and what's not, and why. If a player breaks a rule, tell them exactly why their account got frozen, instead of leaving them guessing in the dark.

Even if there are player's list of rights it's the casino terms and rules that should be followed you cannot hold onto your rights that were created by a third party if you are violating the terms of the casino.
If you're using a platform you are bound by its terms, policy, and rules, you cannot impose you're rights in a casino the terms are set up to protect their platforms.

Our guarantee to prevent abuse by these casinos is to report their actions online like the scam section here in Bitcointalk and on review sites like AskGambler or CasinoGuru, these are credible platforms that will make their reputation bad, and if there are good reports, the gambling community will avoid these casinos.

The forum must be bigger than a casino because we hold a lot of threads here and it won't be possible if without a good number of registered users. As what the OP have pointed out, it doesn't look like a threat to the casino but we are only trying to be more fair here and it may actually help the casino to gather more players.

If one of these advocacies is to stop KYC, I don't think that would be possible since it has to do with the regulations and it does have a benefit but only at the expense of giving our personal information to them. Maybe we can only say that a casino should also KYC their selves for us. Stuck funds on the other hand has different causes but a casino might require a KYC along with it, if the player haven't submitted it before.

I hope @holydarkness could drop here and give his own opinion he is involved in a lot of scam accusations and his opinion and findings are respected, it's interesting to read what will be his opinion about this matter.

This discussion could have been better if we had a poll so that even those who don't want to be part of this discussion could give their approval or disapproval.

No no no no no.     My point was this is a player initiative.   No for-profit company will give you anything - you have to fight for it. 

The idea is great but I don't think we will go somewhere with this initiative. But hey, nothing wrong in trying especially, there are casinos' or bookies' rep in the forum. We can try to open this topic to them and see how they look at it. Of course, the final decision is always on the side of these gambling sites.


That's another aspect to consider here, who will be the Certifying Body? And what kind of enforcement are we looking at? This is why I am not looking at this initiative to be implemented in the near future. But having this kind of idea is sometimes thinking out of the box that can truly give benefit the gamblers. But how can we see it in reality? That's another question.

Wow - this section of the forum gets a lot of posts!   This was already on the third page.

Will bump just this once.   Up to you guys if you want to pursue this idea. 

That's how I see it. 

You guys think of the rights, I can host the database tracking the volunteer casinos.   To those who feel casinos will not adopt this, I reiterate the advantages such certification holds is enough for one to eventually try it as a marketing ploy.   There are only so many players to go around after all.    If the initial casinos see increased participation, others will join.   Then the oversight starts, and a nice directory to host complaints will be very helpful. 

Players need to know exactly what they're getting into. I do wonder how feasible it would be to get casinos to universally adopt such a system, but it could be a positive step for the industry.

There are potential challenges, such as casino buy-ins, and casinos might be hesitant to give up control over certain aspects and the enforcement process. Who would oversee the certification process, and what would happen if a casino violated the rights?

If this could be implemented effectively, it would be a big win for players. Perhaps there's a way to structure it as a self-regulatory system with some kind of community oversight.

Haha right. Getting the player rights list to a regulatory board is a smart move. It adds authority to the negotiation process and bringing in a gambling authority could help make sure the casino takes the players' list seriously

Shady casinos/platforms/companies would really be indeed doing shady acts on which this isnt something that surprising anymore and i do agree with that KYC thing that you had mentioned on which it is
really that included always into those terms and conditions on which we know that this is something that will always be putting them up at great advantage and this is why it isnt really that shocking that they would really be always having the upperhand when it comes to possible complaints and issues been raised up. They could really be always having that kind of possible reasoning on which someone might be ending up on having no choice but to move on and deal with it.

Speaking about those list of rights then i dont believe that it would really be that totally on players advantage on which it would really that shocking that
they would really be always considering that they will really be that advantage on which its just that normal.

The only way I see this even remotely happening is for brand new sites willing to part with their ability to developed a casino as they see fit in return for hopefully some traffic.  There are hundreds or thousands of casinos out there.  If you don't like a particular one because of theor views then just don't use them, just like in the brick and mortar locations.  I like the idea in theory but in execution I don't think this would get very far.

We could also boycott casinos that employ shady tactics, but in reality people ignore obvious red flags, like scam accusations and still continue to use these sites. I could give you a number of examples, for instance how a certain casino was popular here despite scamming people, just because it run a signature campaign.
What I'd like casinos to be clear about? Probably the demands for KYC. Often casinos state in ToS that they have the right to demand it at any moment, but claim via representatives that they don't require it of people who don't deposit much and don't abuse the site, but try to withdraw some money and you'll get KYC request. I'm not even surprised they do it, since the ToS allows them for it, so why not exercise a right if that can  end up being profitable for your business. What they try to do to keep the money is a different story.I've seen one casino demand a utility bill translated to English, (probably by a sworn translator) which clearly states that they want to make the withdrawal as difficult as they can.

I think if someone wanted to create list of players right and negotiate with the casino, it should be done through the mediation of a regulatory board.  It should not be discussed directly with the casino because I think it is unlikely to be successful.  Between the casino and the player, the casino has the power to decide since it has something to do with the casino terms of agreement. 

So, the player should ask for the higher authority's help and file a request to implement changes on the casino terms and agreement..  The author of the player list of rights should file a request to thegambling authority to be reviewed and if possible implement the players' list of rights. So I think escalating the idea and informing to filing a request to the gambling authority will give a higher chance for the created list of player's rights to be absorbed by the casino.