Quote from: Thekool1s on February 25, 2020, 08:27:13 PM

@2double0 Apparently it's Standard industry practice. I have been reading about William hill and how they handle cases of a user having multiple accounts. In most cases, they do a standard KYC and detect multi-account users from that. Having the same home address and so on, they don't solely rely on IPs but in this case, it seems like KYC doesn't do the trick... Even if you will provide 2 separate KYCs, FJ still counts that as multi-accounting according to their TOS. @am

1) KYC is useless and does not work. You can buy full KYC for $50 - $150. Note: Do not tell me about the need of photos or videos with a piece of paper with today's date or anything similar. The $150 price range includes a person wearing a pink suit, standing on their left leg and writing whatever you want for this procedure. KYC does not work as a replacement for IP-analysis or fingerprinting.
2) The TOS does not "kind of protect them", the TOS gives them full protection.

People need to be educated to read the TOS before using service, rather than blaming services for whatever TOS they use (in this particular case, you may want to start going after almost every single company in existence).

Quote from: hopenotlate on February 26, 2020, 07:41:50 AM

Also add to these scenarios an important aspect : all of these eventual bans you described would only take place if either Bob or Alice are winning something because all the controls seem to take place onle when players are winning and everything is allowed until you register, deposit and lose to the casino....and unfortunately it seems to be industry tandard in crypot gambling.

Why would you waste time and resources on people who may not even play? Or people that lose and therefore are unable to cause an action that breaks the TOS (the relevant part here) to begin with? You need to learn a thing or two about running a business.

Quote from: marlboroza on February 25, 2020, 09:36:31 PM

For company to "reserve right to qualify accounts as multiaccounts", company has to perform KYC check prior to customer depositing funds. Other practices are very...questionable.

Even a more regulated part of our ecosystem, i.e. that of exchanges, does not do this (albeit they "do not confiscate all funds", they just freeze them or delay ad naseum). It is not uncommon that people have funds locked up for months until public pressure makes them return the initially deposited funds. Also deposited funds =/= winnings.

Quote from: Thekool1s on February 25, 2020, 08:27:13 PM

^{Note: I feel like I have to leave this here, I have nothing against the signature campaign members of FJ or FJ altogether. I believe a better environment can be made for the punters. From learning from these cases and embracing the technology which is publicly available. Also, I'm not getting paid by or am I linked with @amelik2. All of what I have said are my genuine concerns. I never take part in dramas, I let the big boys do that but if this is the industry standard then people are literally burning their money away as if they weren't going to anyway. With that being said I'm gonna hit the sidelines and see how this situation develops.}

If you want to improve the industry without just cherry picking and damaging certain service providers, you can do the following:
1) Make a thread about the importance of reading TOS before using something and keep promoting it to educate the masses.
2) Make a thread that will encourage and demand "all" gambling providers around here to have a clearer and fixed set of rules for this. e.g. KYC before deposits, which I would strongly argue against. e.g. Additional clauses for these multi-account scenarios, where some of the money is still given to the user and then banned for good - This I would argue for (albeit I am leaving the details of this example to others - it is just a very abstract idea).