Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Edited on 03/07/2025, 08:50:27 UTC
But people have a habit to change their decisions. 35 years ago I wanted to be a firefighter. After many years, I have chosen different profession. People opinion change with time, after a decision. Not saying that casinos should immediately welcome their former clients who have chosen self exclusion, but will it be bad if a gambler returns after 10 years? From ToS - yes, as solution would be having another account. From moral point of view - I would give a chance if a person really wants to return.
First, your example of wanted to be a firefighter is not inline with this subject matter, both are of a change, but one is risky and psycholgical than the other.Aside from that, I fully agree with you. Is the self-exclusion feature even truly functioning strictly like that? I doubt it with most casinos. Even if it is boldly written in the ToS, they might look away if the gambler returns in a few months or even weeks. Let's assume that the gambler returned after 10 years, what harm can that possibly do anymore? And even if he slips back into his old bad ways, he must have taken enough fresh breath to take bigger blows before he self-exclude himself again, if need be.
I only wanted to
I simply dont like permanent exclusion = closing doors for a client forever. Today I can be a gambler who is afraid of addiction, in 10 years I might be a totally different person. More smart, more self controlling person, possibly more wealthy, have different views on life and priorities. But because of self-exclusion 10 years ago, I will not be allowed to return or make another account. I think that wrong. A casino should individually consider every customer that returns after total self-exclusion, instead of "our NO is final". Original archived Re: 🔥🔥🔥 BC.Game - Casino & Sportsbook | Leicester City FC 🦊🦊🦊
Scraped on 26/06/2025, 08:50:41 UTC
But people have a habit to change their decisions. 35 years ago I wanted to be a firefighter. After many years, I have chosen different profession. People opinion change with time, after a decision. Not saying that casinos should immediately welcome their former clients who have chosen self exclusion, but will it be bad if a gambler returns after 10 years? From ToS - yes, as solution would be having another account. From moral point of view - I would give a chance if a person really wants to return.
First, your example of wanted to be a firefighter is not inline with this subject matter, both are of a change, but one is risky and psycholgical than the other.Aside from that, I fully agree with you. Is the self-exclusion feature even truly functioning strictly like that? I doubt it with most casinos. Even if it is boldly written in the ToS, they might look away if the gambler returns in a few months or even weeks. Let's assume that the gambler returned after 10 years, what harm can that possibly do anymore? And even if he slips back into his old bad ways, he must have taken enough fresh breath to take bigger blows before he self-exclude himself again, if need be.
I only wanted to show that persons wish and goal can change with time
I simply dont like permanent exclusion = closing doors for a client forever. Today I can be a gambler who is afraid of addiction, in 10 years I might be a totally different person. More smart, more self controlling person, possibly more wealthy, have different views on life and priorities. But because of self-exclusion 10 years ago, I will not be allowed to return or make another account. I think that wrong. A casino should individually consider every customer that returns after total self-exclusion, instead of "our NO is final".