This week in Forum Post of the Week we came across these two posts in a topic called “CALI SLOTS”. It was a topic created by Igloo discussing the possibility to change the rules revolving around a banned casino owner. The procedure for a casino who’s owner got banned is that it closes its doors for no one to enter and gamble their money away. The casino will remain locked until the banned player’s appeal has been granted or declined which can take up to several weeks. It is because of this Igloo decided to make a topic about it, asking people’s opinion about the matter and how current procedure could be improved. His idea being that after a 3 day period, the casino should be dropped from its owner to open up the possibility for another player to come and pick it up. The topic itself wasn’t very crowded and only managed to receive 14 votes, being 9 up votes and 5 down votes.
Then we came across a post created by Igloo and with Kiev quoting and commenting on it. His idea being that The State should hold on to the casino until the owner gets it back. This of course making it possible to keep a casino running at all times. At first glance this idea might look alright but making a casino state owned has its consequences. One important one being that the casino will generate money out of nowhere which could influence the in game inflation in a way not meant to be. Where his idea might have some flaws in it, the thought behind it is something which can easily be discussed. How long should a banned player be able to keep his casino?
In the topic mentioned above it is Igloo who noticed that the owner of California slots had been banned already for 2 weeks, which he thought to be very annoying. He makes us wonder if the procedure revolving a banned casino owner shouldn’t be changed and tied up to a time limit. In this case we’re talking about a 3 days max, but could as easily be a 7 day max. This would result in a smoother game play and would be a positive change in the game. Or wouldn’t it? First we need to look closer at the reason why it would take several weeks to appeal a ban. Is it the player who only logs in every few days to make an effort towards his appeal, or is it the staff member who has better things to do at the moment then to discuss a banned account. These two make a big difference towards the solution of our problem. Is it the staff member who needs to receive a time limit in which to respond, or is it the player who must receive a strict time limit for appealing his ban? If you would tie it to a time limit, and for any reason whatsoever, the time limit is reached and the owner loses its casino, what would happen when the ban appeal has been granted and the owner sees that the property he saved up to is gone and under someone else’s management? It wouldn’t be fair if it wouldn’t be his fault the appeal took as long as it did.
I think the overall conclusion is that it’s good the way it is. Long time appeals isn’t something which happens every day. Most of the staff and players try to deal with the appeal as fast as possible and can’t help sometimes having one taking a bit longer. To avoid situations like mentioned above, it would be best to close down the casino while the owner waits for its appeal and not for both parties having the worry about a casino getting dropped when the time limit is reached.
