[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Suggestions:

1) Send clear information about what the player has done. Don't tell them with the first email that you send that the matter is closed without recourse. This makes you look really [censored] stupid when the site later backs down after making a mistake.

2) Give the player opportunity to appeal the initial decision, regardless of how clear cut it might be. The appeal should be reviewed by someone who was not involved in the original review in any way to ensure an unbiased re-evaluation. I am sure that you don't make these decisions without a 2nd opinion initially, but yet still mistakes happen. Another review also protects FTP against internal fraud from employees that might just want to steal a players money... or something like that anyway.

3) Even after a player has had their appeal turned down, tell them that they have exhausted the channels with FTP but give them a way to take their complaint further. i.e. The gaming commission.

John

[/ QUOTE ]

I second these and would add that the player should have the ability to challenge evidence and conclusions involved in the decision. In addition, the bar should be set pretty high to ensure that an innocent person is not wrongfully convicted. In alot of cases, it seems that the decision is based on circumstantial evidence, which might be sufficient if persuasive enough, but the evidence needs to be very persuasive for this to be the case. After all, you are talking about seizures involving substantial sums of money in many cases.

The sites have a motivation to err on the side of seizure in order to protect their funds. This is only balanced by the PR risk if a site over reaches. However, given that sites are either unwilling or unable to provide detailed evidence in a public forum, this PR risk seems to be pretty low. Since we can not rely on a gaming commission to regulate the sites behavior, I think it is imperative for sites to go above and beyond in providing assurances that money will only be seized if a case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.