I will correct myself a little bit -- another search for "reflect" shows there is some other language (without the word "ethical") on the same page that does provide some vague guidelines that casinos shouldn't do anything that could reflect adversely on the industry or the state.
I suppose that could be applied to a misleading players' club program -- but I would still maintain that they probably can change the conditions of such a program, including withdrawing it altogether (and probably without regard to whether it's done for all patrons equally). Especially if they have a "we can change or cancel this" clause in the written description of the program.
Sorry.
--BG
=================
--- On Fri, 3/15/13, Barry Glazer <b.glazer@att.net> wrote:
> From: Barry Glazer <b.glazer@att.net>
> Subject: Re: Casino oversight and the player's club?
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, March 15, 2013, 9:41 AM
> 1a. Re: Casino oversight and the
> player's club?
>
> I like your thinking but don't think you have a case. What
> you describe is probably just a form of targeted marketing.
>
> But anyway, Nevada Gaming has oversight over just about
> everything a Nevada casino does. Isn't there language in
> the regs saying that Nevada casinos must act ethically in
> every way and not reflect poorly on the Nevada gambling
> industry.
>
> -----------------
>
> NO, not exactly -- thinking that such language in
> regulations seemed a little vague, I googled the NV gaming
> regs, downloaded the document, and searched it for "ethic" -
> and the phrases that are suggested above are only found in a
> paragraph (on p. 56) restricting the association of casinos
> with "undesirables" (my choice of word -- the actual
> language describes subversives, those with extensive
> criminal records, those failing to cooperate with
> congressional committees, etc.) -- and does not require
> casinos to act ethically in every way. And the phrase
> refers to those individuals with whom the casino may not
> associate, not to the casinos themselves.
>
> In fact, the word "ethic" (I think always as part of the
> word "ethical") appeared only four times in the 419 page
> document called "all regs" (a combination of several
> individual documents) -- surprise :)
>
> I suppose some of you might find the document interesting;
> it was easy enough to find. I didn't even consider
> trying to read it, with it being so very long.
>
> --BG
> ===========================
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (7) |
