Create a player list of rights

[Vod]

Based on this post and the two responses, I realized another opportunity to actually contribute to the community, and not just my buddies.     A group of players should get together to create a list of "rights" they demand, and issue a certification for those casinos that agree to follow them.   Eventually, hopefully, increased success of those sites displaying the certification would lead to others sites following.

Obviously, a right cannot be something that harms the site, such as "A player wins if ..." but instead something like "The site lists every condition that would enable them to freeze or seize assets as part of the registration and/or deposit process." 

Such a list of rights would not harm the legit sites in any way.   Who wants to champion this?

[1714662955]

1714662955

[1714662955]

1714662955

[1714662955]

1714662955

[1714662955]

1714662955

[Sandra_hakeem]

Based on this post and the two responses, I realized another opportunity to actually contribute to the community, and not just my buddies.     A group of players should get together to create a list of "rights" they demand, and issue a certification for those casinos that agree to follow them.   Eventually, hopefully, increased success of those sites displaying the certification would lead to others sites following.

...And the keyword is "agree"
First of all, Royce was right with his replies.. it kinda like creates a sense of predominance on your side, and on the casino -- it makes some of their TOS a little bit unnecessary and your request more obligatory.. That's not what an already famed casino would AGREE to. You can make a complaint about not being comfortable with anything way less than presenting some "rights"...as you may have it.

Obviously, a right cannot be something that harms the site, such as "A player wins if ..." but instead something like "The site lists every condition that would enable them to freeze or seize assets as part of the registration and/or deposit process."  

Such a list of rights would not harm the legit sites in any way.   Who wants to champion this?

I like how you realized that some rights are conditionally unreserved; But the truth is -- Unless anyone tries to pull a stunt with these casinos (atleast the renowned ones), there's no way you're gonna get your funds freezed for no just reason. Sometimes, you could bypass their Ts/Cs without your knowledge and it appears that you're logged out immediately.
The bottom-line is -- making thorough research on any casino that catches your fancy -- we've got a whole list of casinos in here that won't rob you off your coins. REMEMBER, this are only my suggestions.. bring it on if you still wanna try!!
You don't gamble anyways, why are you so concerned? Lol

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

[Vod]

we've got a whole list of casinos in here that won't rob you off your coins.

In the post I referenced, it's normal for casinos to hide "catch all" termination clauses that they will enforce when they feel like it.   You've got a list of casinos that has not yet had complaints; don't mean they won't steal your coins if it's a significant amount.

You don't gamble anyways, why are you so concerned?

Why is it so odd to want to improve crypto reputation?  I asked for someone else to lead it.  I'll make a lot of other suggestions if I feel they can improve things - it does not mean I'll take them all on personally. 

[Maus0728]

Could work but wouldn't this get abused in some way? You know when people get creative and they're given the right to have suggestions, they'll wear their thinking cap on so they can do the things that would either benefit them or exploit the system or just to plain old troll the sites right? Not to mention that even if we carefully check the listed rights, would we be able to persuade sites to follow them? Because it's an informal documentation right? Like those petition websites.

[Poker Player]

First, it is not clear to me that this belongs to Meta. To me it would be better placed in Gambling Discussion because it is about casinos that are external entities to the forum, not something about how the forum works.

Besides, I don't think that something like this would work at all, because if the casinos have so much clientele and make so much money working as they do now, why would they change? In any case I hardly play in crypto casinos. I have done it from time to time to see how they work but I am not the right person to "champion" this.

[nutildah]

It's not the worst idea to generate some kind of unified standards that Bitcointalk gamblers should come to expect from any fair & honest casino. Its another thing getting any single casino to implement them to a T, and it will of course require professional discourse from knowledgeable & experienced individuals.

A large portion of the forum now wears sigs for casinos (including yours truly), so for this kind of thing to be a sticky in the Gambling board I think would be a great idea, so long as the list is reasonable, well thought out & well-concensized.

[joker_josue]

I'm not familiar with these type of sites. But honestly, unless there is a kind of boycott, with the majority of users of these platforms stopping using them, it would be difficult for these sites to accept conditions proposed by players.

What could happen was an association would be created that would certify sites that followed some pre-defined standards, and then it would be up to the user whether or not to use non-certified sites.

But, I ask: doesn't this already exist? I think I've already seen something about it. In the end, it will always be the user who will have to make a decision whether or not to use a certain platform, whether it is certified or not.

[LoyceV]

but instead something like "The site lists every condition that would enable them to freeze or seize assets as part of the registration and/or deposit process."

I don't think sites will agree to that. There will always be border cases, or cases where there is doubt.

The last time I thoroughly read through a casino's terms, I noticed a lot of things I didn't like:

8.8 You acknowledge that the Casino shall be the final decision-maker of whether you have violated the Casino’s Terms and Conditions in a manner that results in your suspension or permanent barring from participation in the Website.

If this happens, what happens to the player's balance? I'm asking this because I've seen many topics in the past where casino Terms were very user-unfriendly.

10. If the Player is suspected of ~ the Company reserves the right to terminate such a Player Account and suspend and/or cancel all payouts to the player. ~ the Player will not be notified or informed about the reasons for such actions.

This seems like one of those rules that will destroy your reputation when applied. When someone is found guilty, sure. But it doesn't seem right to cancel payouts based on a suspicion without even telling the player why.

10.5 To prevent any fraudulent activities concerning cryptocurrency transactions, we lay down the following rule: in case the transaction is marked as replaceable - Opt-in Replace-by-Fee (RBF), the Casino reserves the right to close such accounts immediately and withhold any wins.

WHY?! RBF is a normal part of a Bitcoin transaction, and the default behaviour of many wallets. It's much, much better if you don't accept unconfirmed transactions, so the user can bump the fee when his deposit takes too long to confirm.
Ultimately, all Bitcoin transactions are replaceable as long as they're unconfirmed.

11.1 The Website offers Coinspaid as payment method only.
~
11.4 Kindly note that due to the nature of cryptocurrencies, deposit limits cannot be applied to the deposits made through CoinsPaid payment system. If you want to limit your gambling in the casino, please, use any other available option.

In 11.4 you're referring to other options that, according to 11.1, don't exist.

12.9.1 is the same as 12.1, and 12.9.2 is almost the same as 14.4.

I think there are 2 basic problems: companies all over the world create far too many conditions to agree with, which leads to the next problem: most users just click "Accept" without reading it. Cookie warnings alone would fill my day if I wanted to read them all. If users would read the existing Terms, they should not even signup if they don't like them.

[Helena Yu]

It's not gonna work, or it's work but new drama will comes.

I said it's not gonna work because we've seen so many users told the project owners to hire a top campaign manager, pay using top 10 altcoins and escrow the rewards. But until now, 95% of bounties right now are managed either by newbie or the project's team, the reward is their shitcoins and no escrow. It doesn't stop anything.

Let's imagine if it will work, the project owner can run a campaign without need to follow the standard. I expect few DTs will tag the manager and every participants with neutral or negative feedback, then you will see people are complaining just because participating a campaign.

[Vod]

Let's imagine if it will work, the project owner can run a campaign without need to follow the standard. I expect few DTs will tag the manager and every participants with neutral or negative feedback, then you will see people are complaining just because participating a campaign.

DTs wouldn't need to get involved, unless a PO lied about following the list of rights.    Casinos are all competing with each other - it will only take one to see such a certification as an advantage.

Moving to Gambling as suggested.   

[robelneo]

Interesting, idea for someone who is not into gambling discussion, It is worth exploring, and why not.

I like to post my answer here on the thread about why you created this topic

As a non-gambler I took a quick look at their TOS.  It basically says they can demand any information from you at any time, or withhold your coin, or cancel your account.

They do that because on their terms they are compliant with AMLAC and they don't want their platform to be used as a gateway for money laundering they also have an anti-cheat system to back up their action, their action will defer cheaters and money launderers, its for cheaters and scammers.
If your account is clean you have nothing to worry about unless you're playing in a casino with a bad reputation.

Is this normal in crypto gambling websites?  It gives all the power to the website with a threat of extortion if you complain. :/

A reputable casino will not do that if they cannot back up their action it will have a chilling effect on other players and they may lose their reputation, a complainant can always challenge that through a third-party arbitration if the casino is reputable they will agree to do that.
We have seen that happen, and there are so many reports like that in the scam section

[o48o]

Based on this post and the two responses, I realized another opportunity to actually contribute to the community, and not just my buddies.     A group of players should get together to create a list of "rights" they demand, and issue a certification for those casinos that agree to follow them.   Eventually, hopefully, increased success of those sites displaying the certification would lead to others sites following.

Obviously, a right cannot be something that harms the site, such as "A player wins if ..." but instead something like "The site lists every condition that would enable them to freeze or seize assets as part of the registration and/or deposit process." 

Such a list of rights would not harm the legit sites in any way.   Who wants to champion this?

I totally agree it's worrying that people are giving away of their consumer rights, by accepting many of these ToS:es. But i can't find any reason why any casino would agreeing on doing anything like this.

Because building that kind of list of reasons would need to be bullet proof, and wording would have to be very careful, so that it leaves to space for interpretation. And if someone found a loophole from that list of reasons (that would be probably long as bible), are we saying that casino couldn't freeze the account and that user could just lawfully keep abusing the casino until they accept the new rules?

Even laws gets fixed all the time because people keep finding new loopholes, so it would definitely happen with a list that promises to cover every specific reason for freezing an account.
So as that list would keep constantly changing to fix and prevent exploits, we would need to keep researching it every day what's been updated and accept that.

I am not trying to be difficult here, i am just thnking this from the point of a casino lawyer. Maybe i am overthinking this but i am sure there must be some other way to deal with this.

[electronicash]

this is like a union in the gambling forum 

hard to say it will work. the casino is bigger than this forum and they could just leave here if they are threatened. but Vod is right though. basically this is just a one-sided battle for gamblers who want to protect themselves. it's already normal for casinos to ask KYC and as you have submitted your documents, you are already known to them and that's besides the fact that the funds are stuck in the betting platform.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Why is it so odd to want to improve crypto reputation?  I asked for someone else to lead it.  I'll make a lot of other suggestions if I feel they can improve things - it does not mean I'll take them all on personally. 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to improve crypto reputation. If in any case you wanna take this up, then you gotta hire a lawyer/jurist and place an ultimatum/sanction on the ACGOs, on behalf of the gamblers in that particular territory.. "You gotta take the bull by the horn"...question there is -- is this exactly the sector to begin the cleansing?? if after giving this some thoughts and it took you too much time to think already, then you're on the wrong path.

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

[serjent05]

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.

[darkangel11]

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.

[wheelz1200]

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.

[carlfebz2]

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.

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.

[Natsuu]

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.

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

[Text]

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.