The exclusion feature have a loophole (my opinion).

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

We have already discussed some topics related to self exclusion service of casinos, however there's a new discovery I just noticed about some casinos. Amongs the casinos that have self exclusion features, some of them permits players to be able to set self exclusion and also be able to cancel it, while based on the rules of some casinos, a player can actually apply to revoke their exclusion.

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Amongs the casinos that have self exclusion features, some of them permits players to be able to set self exclusion and also be able to cancel it, while based on the rules of some casinos, a player can actually apply to revoke their exclusion.

Where have you seen it? I don't recall having seen it anywhere.

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due.  

That's what usually happens. Perhaps it’s because it’s been a long time since I last looked into self-exclusion options, but normally, if you want to use it, it asks you to confirm (a single click isn’t enough) and, once confirmed, it’s irreversible. That’s how it works for regulated fiat casinos; I’m not sure if cryptocurrency casinos that offer that option you mention allow you to cancel it.

[Oshosondy]

I have seen this before on a fiat gambling site, but I do not think it was self-exclusion. I think it has a name that it is called and not self-exclusion.

This has been a long time ago in 2019, so I could not remember what it was called. But it was in a way that I can choose a period I do not want to gamble, but after 24 hours, I can cancel it even if I choose a month cool off period.

[Sim_card]

I don't think that it's possible for you to revoke self exclusion and cancel it when your choose time haven't elapsed. There's no features like that and I haven't seen any. The only thing I know is that, after the expiration date of your self exclusion that's when you can start gambling again. You cannot revoke it earlier than the initial time. Maybe, you can tell me the casino that one can revoke self exclusion when it hasn't expired.

[Findingnemo]

We have already discussed some topics related to self exclusion service of casinos, however there's a new discovery I just noticed about some casinos. Amongs the casinos that have self exclusion features, some of them permits players to be able to set self exclusion and also be able to cancel it, while based on the rules of some casinos, a player can actually apply to revoke their exclusion.

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

Self exclusion itself something we don't see it on default pages of casino UI, we have to contact the support team to self exclude ourselves in most casinos but as far as I know, once we set in that is the lock in period, there is no revoking allowed no matter for any reason.

If you can cancel the self exclusion then it need to be investigated because the casino is intentionally doing it to make the player to play again.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Amongs the casinos that have self exclusion features, some of them permits players to be able to set self exclusion and also be able to cancel it, while based on the rules of some casinos, a player can actually apply to revoke their exclusion.

Where have you seen it? I don't recall having seen it anywhere.

A player can request at any time that their self-exclusion timeframe is shortened or removed entirely. To do this, the player must make their request to the Operator in writing, detailing why the self-exclusion was imposed and how circumstances have now changed making the self-exclusion unnecessary.https://www.mga.org.mt/faqs/

This was where I read it.

I have seen this before on a fiat gambling site, but I do not think it was self-exclusion. I think it has a name that it is called and not self-exclusion.

This has been a long time ago in 2019, so I could not remember what it was called. But it was in a way that I can choose a period I do not want to gamble, but after 24 hours, I can cancel it even if I choose a month cool off period.

Yea, I don't think and I don't know if there's another name for the particular feature you are talking about but I also know that feature as "temporary cooling-off" Which is not the same as the main self exclusion.

[uneng]

A player can request at any time that their self-exclusion timeframe is shortened or removed entirely. To do this, the player must make their request to the Operator in writing, detailing why the self-exclusion was imposed and how circumstances have now changed making the self-exclusion unnecessary.https://www.mga.org.mt/faqs/

This was where I read it.

There are cases and cases. If the gambler has a good reason for his self-exclusion to be revoked, it should be taken into consideration by the casino, but in very specific situations exclusively. The general rule is that self-exclusion timeframe has to be respected and followed strictly until the end, otherwise, as you said, it makes no sense to provide such feature to users if they can set it on and off at anytime.

This way, the tool is banalized and loses its importance and usage.

[Pandu Geddon]

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

That feature becomes useless if it's like that. But previously, there were also discussions regarding casinos that ignore gamblers who have used the self-exclusion feature, so the gamblers can still access and gamble at the casino. That also shows a lack of seriousness from the casino in implementing the feature.
The self-exclusion feature indeed needs to be monitored by a third party to ensure that the casino operates the feature properly, and gamblers also should not be able to easily cancel a self-exclusion feature that they have activated themselves.

[Merit.s]

What's the reason of going on self exclusion if you will revoke it. It doesn't make any sense to me because you're only stressing the casino over spilled milk and it might not be revoked no matter any reason that you give them for going on self exclusion. It's only casinos that don't care about it, that might revoke it.

This is the first time that, I'm hearing of this as a gambler. Maybe, it has changed but I doubt it.

[9ja Amaka]

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?  

Self exclusions helps the gambler, not the casino. The casino is happy that a gambler is addicted. Don't mind the feature of self-exclusion, if it's in the casino's control, they want people to not use the self exclusion feature again. I later realized that self exclusion in a casino is to gain attention and for marketing purposes. The earlier you realize that casinos don't care about the gamblers, the earlier you will be safe from their trap.

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

Too harsh  

Yes, it will have an effect on the casino in respect to losing customers. The casino will not reject revoking self exclusion, if they do so, players will move to another casino.

[Donk1]

Well if I may say a gambler being able to cancel a self exclusion feature anytime is kinda absurd. Basically it kinda defeats the whole purpose. it's more like locking a door only to keep the keys in the lock. I believe most casinos do this because they believe players could possibly decide to come back, so yeah it's their way of running their business because they don't want to lose their players to other platforms that have less demanding rules. But still I'm sure it does occur to them that by doing so, they are risking the safety of the platforms. Well they have their reasons though, but the best case scenario is to probably just leave the self exclusion until the time is fully up....That's all.......

[Hispo]

We have already discussed some topics related to self exclusion service of casinos, however there's a new discovery I just noticed about some casinos. Amongs the casinos that have self exclusion features, some of them permits players to be able to set self exclusion and also be able to cancel it, while based on the rules of some casinos, a player can actually apply to revoke their exclusion.

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

In my opinion, if a gambler is able to cancel their own self-exclusion, then we are not even talking about an actual self-exclusion to begin with.
What about those who are seriously developing gambling addiction and decide to self -exckude for a whole year? They are not supposed to be given the option to cancel their own choice, which is done in order to protect themselves.

I am sure regulators have have strict norms and standards when comes to self-exclusion and something like cancelations would not be tolerated, specially if the casino is holding a license from a very strict country, like the United Kingdom or the United States.

That is not real self-exclusion, but rather an illusion of control.

[Hatchy]

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

First of all, I think the self-exclusion feature is useless. If you are having problems with gambling, the best thing to do is quit completely, and that requires self-discipline. I don't see why anyone should blame the casino. They provide these features to help people who struggle with gambling, but some people still find ways to misuse them..If you no longer want to gamble, then stay away from gambling completely. I don't understand why there is an option to revoke self-exclusion alongside the exclusion feature itself. The problem is that some gamblers simply struggle to control themselves. If they choose to use these features, it shouldn't affect the casino in any way.

[robelneo]

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

The gamblers will complain if they can cancel, and they may even blame the casino for a useless implementation of their self-exclusion. All the complaints I've read about self-exclusion in casinos are that they are late in implementing the exclusion, in self exclusion you have no control to cancel it, and only the casinos have the option to do that, that's what I know about self-exclusion, since I have not used this feature as I'm in full control of how I gamble.

[johnpark3852]

lol it's personal freedom, isn't it? Whatever!

[Cryptomultiplier]

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

First of all, I think the self-exclusion feature is useless. If you are having problems with gambling, the best thing to do is quit completely, and that requires self-discipline. I don't see why anyone should blame the casino. They provide these features to help people who struggle with gambling, but some people still find ways to misuse them..If you no longer want to gamble, then stay away from gambling completely. I don't understand why there is an option to revoke self-exclusion alongside the exclusion feature itself. The problem is that some gamblers simply struggle to control themselves. If they choose to use these features, it shouldn't affect the casino in any way.

I agree with you, but I think some casinos may included this feature because it looks like a notable feature that customers look out for before accepting to join their casinos or maybe as a requirement by regulators or maybe because it is a trend and not because they really want to include it as a feature.

Customers or gamblers owe it to themselves to gamble responsibly and stay away from the casino if they notice they are becoming much more addicted instead of looking for a way out of their misery, because to think of it, why should a self exclusion service that has a time frame allocated to it, also have a button to cancel the self exclusion service some hours later if the gambler intends to gamble again?
Then it actually serves no reasonable purpose except for fancy.

[mindrust]

Everyone knows it is a scam. Casinos put it there just to make the authorities happy.

"Look, we are trying right? We don't want people to get addicted! We are totally against gambling addiction! Here is what we do about it"

If you go visit any of the tobacco manufacturer's website, you would think you came to the wrong place because their website looks like their business is about growing tomatoes, manufacturing drugs to cure lung cancer.

Same vibes.

[acroman08]

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

It should have always been like this. I mean, being able to cancel self-exclusion even before the time limit the gamblers placed expires would basically render the self-exclusion useless, and no, the casino would not be too harsh if they do that, they are following(at least in my opinion) their "gambling responsibly" policy.

A player can request at any time that their self-exclusion timeframe is shortened or removed entirely. To do this, the player must make their request to the Operator in writing, detailing why the self-exclusion was imposed and how circumstances have now changed making the self-exclusion unnecessary.https://www.mga.org.mt/faqs/

I'm curious if the self-exclusion will be automatically lifted once the gambler submits the reasoning as to why the self-exclusion was imposed and why it is no longer needed, or if the casino still needs to approve whether the reason for lifting the self-exclusion is valid enough.

[Smartprofit]

In my country, there's a wry expression: "Bees actively support the ban on honey!" I immediately think of this phrase whenever I read about the exclusion function. 🙋

Any online casino is, first and foremost, a commercial organization. They are interested in having as many players as possible playing in their casino. Therefore, in my opinion, the exclusion function is always an illusion. Online casino managers reluctantly implement this function (only to appear more respectable and not to damage their relationships with regulators).

I seriously doubt that the exclusion function can help someone with a gambling addiction. After all, even if a person loses the ability to play at one specific casino, who's to stop them from registering and playing at another? Activating the exclusion function doesn't cure gambling addiction.

Of course, it's possible to create a centralized system that would block players with gambling addiction from accessing all casinos.  However, this is already reminiscent of a digital concentration camp, and, in my opinion, this is just an example of how the cure can be much worse than the disease itself.🧖

[Somto9Light]

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

I was actually thinking that if a gambler uses the self exclusion feature that he won't be allowed to gamble till the duration of time has elapsed, I never knew that he can apply to cancel the self exclusion and continue gambling again. It doesn't really make sense that way because an addicted gambler can take the decision to self exclude himself today and tomorrow he is already asking and applying for it to be revoked. I think it's really time for the government to take over this self exclusion feature from casinos because they will enact strict laws that will protect the choice of gamblers instead of allowing casinos to manipulate the process by being lenient when a gambler wants to opt out.