Regulations are out

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

I thought I read the rule didn't want the development of a specific list????



D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you, are you going to force me to read the freakin thing rather than continue to offer uneducated opinions?

[canvasbck]

[ QUOTE ]

D$D<--"If nominatiated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" as some sort of poker semi-god.

TY but no thanks!

Extra credit for anyone who can ID who said that quote..
Sorry to those of you who remember hearing it live!

[/ QUOTE ]

William Sherman

[oldbookguy]

William Sherman, D$D, among others.
I believe he was first.

obg

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]



D$D<--"If nominatiated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" as some sort of poker semi-god.

Extra credit for anyone who can ID who said that quote..
Sorry to those of you who remember hearing it live!

[/ QUOTE ]

William Tecumsee Sherman..??

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
William Sherman, D$D, among others.
I believe he was first.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn I thought it was LBJ???


D$D<--watched him on TV???

[Skallagrim]

OK - the regs themselves are not cause for panic...

They are cause for concern, however, and that concern, as our fearless leader TE has already identified, is OVERBLOCKING.

The regs give the banks no clue as to what is or isnt "unlawful internet gambling (UIG, for short)." They do require banks to have polices to block transfers for UIG (except, with a few exceptions I am still trying to puzzle out, checks and ACH transfers). THE WORST PART OF THE WHOLE THING IS THAT BANKS GET FINED FOR NOT PROPERLY BLOCKING A UIG TRANSFER, BUT ARE EXEMPT FROM ANY PENALTY IF THEY BLOCK A TRANSFER THEY REASONABLY THINK IS FOR UIG.

Clearly if you are a bank manager the lesson is clear, when in doubt, block. It is very unlikely any bank will spend the time and effort to determine whether my $5.00 deposit to worldwinner so I can play online bridge for money is covered or not. So they will block it. This, I believe, should be our main area of comment, too many perfectly lawful exchanges will be blocked under these regulations because there is no clear definition of what is and isnt UIG.

Since the regulations wont give a clear definition, we should urge the regs to only require banks to monitor for transactions that have clearly been identified as UIG, under an easy to obtain Federal or State statute.

I am tired today, but will work on a specific comment and proposal letter over the next couple of days, as usual TE and JP have already started that discussion, and I will work off what they have done.

The good news is the exemption for checks and ACH; online poker will not die because of these regulations.

Skallagrim

[omgwtf]

The problem with compiling a list is that businesses are declared "illegal", and their transactions blocked, without due process. Unless, of course, any additions to the list require a court hearing and the judge's approval.

Come to think of it, such a system (court-controlled list) is almost the same as no list at all. Innocent until proven guilty. All transactions are allowed, unless a court finds they are prohibited via UIGEA.

[oldbookguy]

LBJ said it as well, so did Condi Rice, all were quoting Sherman though.

obg

[Uglyowl]

We probably should try getting our fully legal gaming brothers and sisters on board, commenting on this (i.e. Worldwinner, Horse Racing, Fantasy Sports, etc.) that the regulations may cause unintended (heck maybe they are intended) consequences to them.

[Nortonesque]

[ QUOTE ]
Partygaming stock has not jumped radically up or down on the release of the regs.
Does this tend to suggest the present status quo will remain?

[/ QUOTE ]
Party isn't affected by the regs. Party pulled out because the UIGEA made it criminal to accept a deposit*, and the regs don't have any bearing on that. The regs are for financial institutions' compliance with the UIGEA.

*a deposit for "unlawful internet gaming," whatever that may be.