Other Casino games: That's it for casinos and streamers (Page 7)

Daniel wrote on 08/10/2018 at 01:18 PM
1. Don't be pesimistic all the time. You don't know what will happen. The UK Gambling Commission is pretty damn strict about Player protection violations and unethical marketing.

2. Every spin is recorded, so everything is traceable. You can all see this for yourselves in most casinos. Videoslots even has a feature called myRTP.

I always found streamers - fake or not - problematic. I have always classified my own Youtube channel as critical, but I have always made sure with the keywords, as well as with the titles, that I reach as much as possible only people who already play anyway.

But now a whole new generation of streamers is coming, streamers who have made a name for themselves in the normal gaming industry and have built up a lot of reach. The viewers are estimated to be mostly kids and teens under 18 and are off-topic - please enlighten me if it's not. This will generate so many new gambling addicted gamblers that it's just sad and disgusting.

This post has been translated automatically

Random wrote on 08/10/2018 at 01:32 PM
In principle you are right. But I see bans mostly critical. I am still of the opinion that everyone must be responsible and learn to distinguish what is good for you and what is not.
But the Streamer but a completely unreal image of gaming reproduce I think then also very questionable.

Maybe it would be the right approach not to try to sue the casinos, but to start there that have the casinos theoretically under control, such as the MGA.

Maybe we should send letters of complaint to the responsible EU Commission and to the responsible authorities in Malta and point out that most casinos operate unethical and deliberately misleading business practices (bonus rules, payout delays, etc.) and that this is not compatible with the consumer protection of the EU and the state of Malta. And this all happens only because the MGA allows this, even promotes it.
That here thus a supervisory authority is involved even more or less in illegal machinations and thus commercial fraud takes place and the MGA can actually already be regarded as a criminal organization.
That sounds perhaps hard however it is nevertheless exactly in such a way. Any company with such practices would have been closed down in Germany long ago.

I think it's good if we all write to the UK Gambling Commission together and I will support that, but I see streamers only as a symptom and the real culprits sit somewhere else. Streamers are only part of the big picture.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Unbeliver wrote on 08/10/2018 at 02:14 PM
I am usually also against bans...but, yes there is a but for me. There are among us people, the strong characters, which put on playing it do not have to do it but maybe once in a while for fun times. There are the less strong ones who can still control it, up to a point, and at least don't have a problem with it yet. But there are also the weak and they are unfortunately victims of the nets of temptation and even psychologically controlled systematics when playing, there is not much with personal responsibility. The bans are there to protect the weak, who do not have it in their own hands, because Mother Nature has not given them the strength to exist. Therefore, certain manipulations of the mind and most streamers and their videos belong to it, at least very strictly regulated
But that they are only vicarious agents and the responsible parties sit elsewhere I see but also so and there the lever is of course also set, the whole package must be right I think

This post has been translated automatically

Random wrote on 08/10/2018 at 02:57 PM
But this 'protection' then goes to the detriment and paternalism of everyone else.

It's quite difficult, on many topics, to what extent bans or censorship will do any good or be justified.

But in general, one should not deny people their maturity.
Because, even with bans, the 'weaker' will suffer just as much. See Prohibition in the USA. There were just as many alcoholics.
What I want to say. Yes, there is the fact that some people are more vulnerable than others. But you don't protect these people by prohibition. You can help them by offering them as good a network as possible, informing them of therapy, self-help, etc.

We only need to look at whether people are protected by bans. One thinks here times only of the drug problem.
Does that protect the more vulnerable?

I even think that there would be less drug problems if it was not forbidden, companies could not produce contaminated drugs and there would be a good education and help program.


Why do we have so many problems with Online Casinos? Yes, because they are more or less forbidden in our country.

This post has been translated automatically

Ankor wrote on 08.10.2018 at 03:18
So that's partly true about the bans, if there was an absolute ban that could not be circumvented - then these "weak" people would definitely be helped. Any form of gambling would have to be banned, public and private. But that is impossible and therefore does not make sense, restricting human freedom has never made sense. Even murder is allowed under certain conditions, then if it is about one's own well-being and one would otherwise die oneself. But nowadays a society is developing that wants to ban everything, no matter how sensible or senseless the ban is. People should not defend themselves during a robbery, because other people should not be hurt under any circumstances. You should not take any other drugs except alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, ... - because the other drugs are so dangerous, now they see the medical effect of cannabis and make such complicated rules at the expense of sick people. Because in Germany is hardly grown, because it is "forbidden" and then the stuff must be imported expensive and that must pay just then the consumer who needs it vllt. for health reasons mostly itself. Great protection by bans I must already applaud that can be pulled through many bans in recent years. Hate speech, insults, ... everything that is not deleted or checked online within 24 hours after reporting should be very expensive for the operator thanks to a very great new law. The larger platforms read the almost no more, satire or critical texts are deleted quickly for fear of punishment without much examination.

And now we escaped with a millimeter distance the EU upload filters, they wanted to put everything we hochalden whether videos or images in a filter there is checked whether the file contains offensive, racist, ... content and then if the test is passed it is only published. What an effort that would be for the companies, large providers like Youtube could perhaps still manage that with extremely high costs - but the competition would be gone with it, because small platforms could not keep up in life. We have been so lucky, I thought the EU had completely lost its mind. The big problem in politics is that although they're all called transport ministers, digitalization ministers, ... or whatever weird names they come up with every year..., hardly anyone has ever had anything to do with transport or network expansion before. If you look at what kind of people are promoted, it becomes even sadder Günther Oettinger is the living example that in politics performance is a synonym for "I've been around for a long time". He demanded that the working language is English, everyone should be able to speak fluent English, even the temporary workers he said and then it turns out the guy can't read English off a piece of paper. Yes I now demand that my fellow human beings speak all 16 languages fluently, everyone must also be able to do magic tricks and yodel for at least 1 hour at a time. Whether I can do that? Of course not, but demands cost nothing - even business people know that...

So to all, please write to the supervisors, together we can achieve that the case is investigated. We can't get a guarantee that something will come out of it, but saying "it won't" or "what's the point if only 1-2 people do it..." is really a stupid excuse to avoid some effort. My English is only medium level, but you can send me your German texts and I will translate them for you with my B2 English!

This post has been translated automatically

Random wrote on 08/10/2018 at 02:57 PM
But this 'protection' then goes to the detriment and paternalism of everyone else.

It's quite difficult, on many topics, to what extent bans or censorship are of any use or justified.

But in general, one should not deny people their maturity.
Because, even with bans, the 'weaker' will suffer just as much. See Prohibition in the USA. There were just as many alcoholics.
What I want to say. Yes, there is the fact that some people are more vulnerable than others. But you don't protect these people by prohibition. You can help them by offering them as good a network as possible, informing them of therapy, self-help etc.

We only need to look at whether people are protected by bans. One thinks here times only of the drug problem.
Does that protect the more vulnerable?

I even think that there would be less drug problems if it was not forbidden, companies could not produce contaminated drugs and there would be a good education and help program.


Why do we have so many problems with Online Casinos? Yes, because they are more or less forbidden in our country.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically