NGR 5.011 Grounds for disciplinary action.
The board and the commission deem any activity on the part of any licensee, his agents or employees, that is inimical to the public health, safety, morals, good order and general welfare of the people of the State of Nevada, or that would reflect or tend to reflect discredit upon the State of Nevada or the gaming industry, to be an unsuitable method of operation and shall be grounds for disciplinary action by the board and the commission in accordance with the Nevada Gaming Control Act and the regulations of the board and the commission. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following acts or omissions may be determined to be unsuitable methods of operation:
...
4. Failure to conduct advertising and public relations activities in accordance with decency, dignity, good taste, honesty and inoffensiveness, including, but not limited to, advertising that is
false or materially misleading.
...
10. Failure to conduct gaming operations in accordance with proper standards of custom, decorum and decency, or permit any type of conduct in the gaming establishment which reflects or tends to reflect on the repute of the State of Nevada and act as a detriment to the gaming industry.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "armchairpresident" <smellypuppy@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't search, but skimmed some parts of this document and fair comes up as in fair treatment. I think you are correct about the vague language and this is probably on purpose to give the regulator the decision to ignore or act.
>
> I also agree about the ability of the casinos to change or cancel the players club program, at least to a point. I think that people could be banned, but to do so at the level of an individual would need justification to a level that the individual warrants being thrown out, breaking the law, cheating, disorderly conduct (not sure what this would be for a casino), etc. Otherwise, it seems that to essentially change the players club for an individual because of reasons like, the player hit a jackpot, or they play on days we give bonus points, or they play a game we offer to the public but don't want him/her to play I think would strain the limit of any definition with fair in it.
>
> If comps have cash value, as would be defined by the state able to assess sales tax on them, then it seems that this may be more under the regulatory oversight simply because it is a cash transaction involving gaming and again what is being done is not fair.
>
> Finally, I also skimmed that this regulatory agency is to protect this industry because Nevada is screwed without the revenues they provide (my paraphrase of the gaming reg document). If their behavior could warrant 'ambulance chasing' attorneys to seek individual or class action cases based on this behavior that seems like another reason for the regulators to carefully examine this issue.
>
> It seems like a trend that casinos are doing this more and more often, but that is just an impression of mine from this forum and word of mouth, any data?
>
> The airline mileage clubs change their programs all the time, but it is the entire program that is changed not just doubling the miles required only for joe smith to get a free domestic ticket. Has this or can this be done for the airline mileage clubs? Or the grocery store saving clubs?
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Barry Glazer <b.glazer@> wrote:
> >
> > 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@> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Barry Glazer <b.glazer@>
> > > 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
> > > ===========================
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
