The blonde Online Casino

[tikay]

The question is hypothetical, because we have never spammed or promoted the casino, & I doubt we ever will.

No need when you can start a forum thread telling everyone about it... 

It's nice up here on that Fence the blondes gave me at bB3.

Confucius says 'He who sits on fence gets splinters in arse.'

Welll asking, actually.......But yes, it has had the same effect, I'll grant you. Been a great debate, imo.

[tikay]

how much would someone need to lose in the casino to get their own child board

At least a quid, for a fiver they can have a proper Board.

[Claw75]

depends on how much the player had in their account.  For some $2000 won't make much of a dent, so I'd not be too bothered about them essentially funding the live update.  If it was someone's entire bankroll blown in a moment of madness, I'd much rather scenario b.

How much money does someone need to have for you to feel comfortable with them deciding for themselves how to spend it?

OK - i'll rephrase it.  It would depend whether $2000 was an amount which the person concerned was comfortable losing (in the same way I'd be comfortable gambling away a few quid on a night out at a casino).

Some people are comfortable gambling away every penny they have.

I don't expect they would be the people described in your scenario as 'a member of blonde giving it a go following a mailing/promo message' though.  If someone's worked up a bankroll and are genuinely comfortable having blown it on roulette - no problem.

[RichEO]

Which would you rather happen.

1) A member of the Blonde forum loses $2000 playing roulette through giving it a go following a Blonde mailing/promo message, and then the $1500 or so of Blonde's cut from that is used to help pay for an extra day of live tournament updates.

2) The promo activity doesn't happen, the player's $2000 stays in their account, and the day's live update doesn't happen.

I suspect it's a tough decision for many people (but not me, as I'm quite clinical about such matters).

If the member in 1 is not me, then 2 would be my choice.

What is your clinical decision then Andrew?

[AndrewT]

I don't expect they would be the people described in your scenario as 'a member of blonde giving it a go following a mailing/promo message' though.  If someone's worked up a bankroll and are genuinely comfortable having blown it on roulette - no problem.

Totalise - Claw's given you the green light!!!

*awaits introduction of 'Totalise Board'*

[RichEO]

It's just as possible for people to lose their whole bankroll or more than they can afford at poker. Does anyone have a dilemma with someone losing money at poker? Peeople need to use their own restraint, whether it be the poker room on the casino. It's upto them what they do, it's their choice.

Personally I wouldn't like to see casino banners everywhere simply because it would be in the way and is pointless to me (as it won't attract me) but not becuase of any moral dilemma.

[AndrewT]

What is your clinical decision then Andrew?

I think we're all intelligent people. We're all aware that casino games are -EV. With that in mind, and knowing that the money Blonde makes is not going to fatten up the already fat account of some scumbag on a tropical island somewhere, then I don't think Blonde should restrict a revenue stream just because it 'feels wrong'.

Obviously, they'd never go to the extremes of other casinos with unwanted spam, or continued pestering of players, but going out of your way to hide the games because you feel they're unseemly, or because you don't trust other people to be as grown-up and responsible as you are is not the way I'd go about things.

[totalise]

I don't expect they would be the people described in your scenario as 'a member of blonde giving it a go following a mailing/promo message' though.  If someone's worked up a bankroll and are genuinely comfortable having blown it on roulette - no problem.

Totalise - Claw's given you the green light!!!

*awaits introduction of 'Totalise Board'*

sounds good, I was thinking of sponsoring a "bad beats and blogs" child board, with moderator powers. It would be the only forum on the internet where all threads were deleted on sight and all posters insta-banned. I think it has potential

[kinboshi]

What is your clinical decision then Andrew?

I think we're all intelligent people. We're all aware that casino games are -EV. With that in mind, and knowing that the money Blonde makes is not going to fatten up the already fat account of some scumbag on a tropical island somewhere, then I don't think Blonde should restrict a revenue stream just because it 'feels wrong'.

Obviously, they'd never go to the extremes of other casinos with unwanted spam, or continued pestering of players, but going out of your way to hide the games because you feel they're unseemly, or because you don't trust other people to be as grown-up and responsible as you are is not the way I'd go about things.

Your argument fell down there unfortunately.

[Royal Flush]

We had no choice like many other sites when Playtech took over from Tribeca. As part of the new software the casino was one part. Blonde like all the other Ipoker skins have no choice in this matter. Their is no opt out of the software for casino.

As most of you know I also manage one of the iPoker card rooms and had a very similar dileema myself when we moved to the new network - should we take the side games or not?

There is the facility to have anywhere from 0-9 different games available in the client

Because Blue Square is a partner on the network, blonde is an affiliate of Bowmans who are the partner. Bowmans would have been given the option.

[fearisthekey]

I don't like Roullette/Blackjack like gambling at all, online or offline. I can *kind* of see the argument for letting people do it if they want. I just think that people that do it are making the wrong choices. That's up to them. Overall, a society without this type of gambling is a better society, in my opinion. For every well off individual in a casino 'exercising his freedom' I see two people with lives wrecked by an addiction that they are chained to. Some 'freedom' that.

Not sure I swallow the 'Absolute obligation to shareholders' argument either. How do certain moral obligations become void when one is part of an organization with shareholders? When was that rule ever written down? Do the big Fag companies have an absolute moral obligation to peddle cancer sticks to Third World Kids?

I'm just interested in this 'absolute obligation' thing..

[Wardonkey]

Not sure I swallow the 'Absolute obligation to shareholders' argument either. How do certain moral obligations become void when one is part of an organization with shareholders? When was that rule ever written down? Do the big Fag companies have an absolute moral obligation to peddle cancer sticks to Third World Kids?

I'm just interested in this 'absolute obligation' thing..

Tikay's believes in a Thatcherite style free market whereby the only responsibility a company has is to maximise profit.

This creates problems for him because his belief in the ruthless power of the market clashes with his character and his idea of social responsibility.


(He's a pinko in disguise)

[Claw75]

Not sure I swallow the 'Absolute obligation to shareholders' argument either. How do certain moral obligations become void when one is part of an organization with shareholders? When was that rule ever written down? Do the big Fag companies have an absolute moral obligation to peddle cancer sticks to Third World Kids?

I'm just interested in this 'absolute obligation' thing..

Tikay's believes in a Thatcherite style free market whereby the only responsibility a company has is to maximise profit.

This creates problems for him because his belief in the ruthless power of the market clashes with his character and his idea of social responsibility.


(He's a pinko in disguise)

he'd never win the apprentice

[tikay]

I don't like Roullette/Blackjack like gambling at all, online or offline. I can *kind* of see the argument for letting people do it if they want. I just think that people that do it are making the wrong choices. That's up to them. Overall, a society without this type of gambling is a better society, in my opinion. For every well off individual in a casino 'exercising his freedom' I see two people with lives wrecked by an addiction that they are chained to. Some 'freedom' that.

Not sure I swallow the 'Absolute obligation to shareholders' argument either. How do certain moral obligations become void when one is part of an organization with shareholders? When was that rule ever written down? Do the big Fag companies have an absolute moral obligation to peddle cancer sticks to Third World Kids?

I'm just interested in this 'absolute obligation' thing..

You are quoting me incomplete, & out of context, let's keep the debate straight.

What I said was.....

As a major shareholder in blonde, I have an ABSOLUTE DUTY (as do all other Shareholders, in this or any other Company) to optimise or maximise blonde's revenues. The problem - theoretically, shall we say for now - comes when a financial obligation clashes with an (un)ethical or (im)moral personal belief.

And that is precisely what I mean't.

PLC's Shareholders have an absolute duty to maximise earnings, & moral obligations don't enter into it. That is a clear, unarguable, FACT, & it's clearly written down. Apparently, that may not be the case with unlisted Ltd Companies. (For example, blondepoker web Ltd).

My position is quite clear. If I considered it to be immoral or unethical to trade in a particular manner, I'd refuse to trade thusly. And if that clashed with my fiduciary responsibilities, I'd resign from the Company. It's that simple.

[kinboshi]

PLCs also have moral obligations, and they make decisions that can reduce the profit they could have otherwise earned.

For example the building of a dam might affect people living in the area, so a company has to either locate their operations elsewhere (at a higher cost), or maybe even relocate the indigenous people to another place where they can live safely.