MGM, Other Casinos Abuse Patrons' Rights

Here is an article I wrote for the Las Vegas Tribune a while back. zg

--------------

MGM, Other Casinos Abuse Patrons' Rights
Marcus K. Dalton
Tribune Media Group | August 12, 2005

In a recent open letter to the Review Journal, Las Vegas attorney Robert Nersesian wrote: "Nevada's casino industry continues to act as if it is above the law. Time and again, patrons legally playing ... suffer imprisonment and even beatings at the hands of casino security personnel. It's well past time that something be done to stop these incidents."

Abuse of casino patrons' rights in Southern Nevada is actually more widespread than is commonly acknowledged.

... continued here - http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20050812/headline1.html (Archive copy)

The link above died, so here's an archive link -
http://web.archive.org/web/20051201085322/http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20050812/headline1.html

How common is this

now in LV? The amounts cited in the article don't seem particularly large in several instances---a few hundred on VP or even $4,000 on blackjack and would suggest that even modest winnings aren't tolerated. Does this continue to occur with any frequency?

Diver said:

now in LV? The amounts cited in the article don't seem particularly large in several instances---a few hundred on VP or even $4,000 on blackjack and would suggest that even modest winnings aren't tolerated. Does this continue to occur with any frequency?

Click to expand...

Frequency is relative. Any occurrences cannot be tolerated... Except, of course, when security and management bring ***name removed*** to cry out in the casino, "Help! Help! Please someone, help me!" zg


.

zengrifter said:

Frequency is relative. Any occurrences cannot be tolerated... Except, of course, when security and management bring ***name removed**** to cry out in the casino, "Help! Help! Please someone, help me!" zg


.

Click to expand...

That was that guy who was detained at the El Cortez? What a fool.

In a situation like that where I thought casino security was going to rough me or attempt to backroom me, my response would not be to cry out to the patrons, but I would tell the security people. "I'll stop playing blackjack. If you think I've done something illegal, call the police. Meanwhile I'm going to sit here and play this slot machine" and I'd sit down at the nearest machine and play it.

What does this do? OK, they have no reason for detaining me to keep from leaving the premises. I'm not leaving the premises, I'm playing a slot machine. I'm not physically attacking them- how can anyone attack when playing a slot? And I'm not trespassing- I'm using the property for its intended purpose which is gambling. Plus if they grab me, it will result in some video they sure would not want the public to see, which is a slot patron being roughed up at a machine. Bad for business.

An interesting twist on this would involve video poker. Once I put a coin in and am dealt a hand, the game has begun and must be finished. The house can't abort the hand and they can't make the draw decision for me. So if they interfered in any way with me finishing that hand, there would be additional fines and more ugly video involved. "Casino handcuffs patron to prevent him drawing to Royal Flush" So I could probably sit there all day, until police and lawyers show up.

Posting names of active players is not allowed. This is strike two for you zg. You know better.

I only know the name from a news article. This event is well into the public domain at this point.

KenSmith said:

Posting names of active players is not allowed. This is strike two for you zg. You know better.

Click to expand...

Ken, I honestly did not knowingly violate a rule here (this time). I was repeating the LVRJ (Archive copy) story that is common knowledge.

Now please indulge us about the relevant rule here - I thought that the rule pertains to matching up an Internet handle with an actual name. For example, my MGM story names Richard C***, who like ***name removed*** was also written about in the LVRJ (Archive copy) and the Mercury (but didn't squeal like a girl when he was back-roomed).

Or in the case of your most recent blog wherein you refer to AP Richard Brodie by name - is there a difference here, albeit subtle, perhaps?

What makes ***name removed*** even less qualified as a good "example-case" is that ***name removed*** outed himself in this forum. Typically when a player outs himself that rule becomes a [SIZE=-1]non sequitur.[/SIZE]

So, sincerely, and in the spirit of clarity and fairness, please clarify the alleged violation and how it differs from other similar naming of APs where they are not match/identified with a handle.

Thank you, respectfully. zg

Ps - I understand that BJINFO is a benevolent dictatorship and not a democracy.

Pss - The new spell-check feature is great!

I'm trying to use this basic concept for deciding these cases...

If a player publishes their own name on a blog, or on this site, I assume they're OK with additional mentions. This applies to Brodie for example.

If a player posts here or elsewhere using a username instead, I assume they would prefer not to be identified.

If someone posts about a person by name and I have no knowledge of the person, I'll assume the post should be edited if the information might be a liability for that person's casino play.

Now, all of these three are open to interpretation. While a more clearcut rule is probably appropriate, I obviously will use common sense in most cases that aren't explicitly covered.

In addition, if someone explicitly requests to me that their name not be mentioned, I'll honor that request.

--------------------------
The fact that you've chosen on several occasions to mention this same person indicates to me that you have a personal agenda to out this person. My advice is just get over it.

P.S. You're right. The rules need revising.

KenSmith said:

The fact that you've chosen on several occasions to mention this same person indicates to me that you have a personal agenda to out this person. My advice is just get over it.
P.S. You're right. The rules need revising.

Click to expand...

I'm over it, Buddha-Ken. YOU are right, I was taking a shot. I stand corrected. g