1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
Tthree
Hopefully you realize they made it so you would no longer play unless you were an idiot.
Narsesian (sorry if I botched the spelling) said that a ban can't expend over state lines or to properties that had a slightly different ownership in the same state.
I'm aware of what Nersesian said, and I've stated it already that people are taking the commentary out of context. It isn't about "slightly different ownership", its about wholly different ownership. If Harrahs NKC and Harrahs Metropolis have wholly different ownership but share the same name, my ban from NKC won't go into affect at Metropolis. However, there's nothing stopping NKC from sending Metropolis that info, and metropolis banning me themselves.
The basic context of nersesians' verdict is that, if Casino A and Casino B share the same name, but are owned by two different companies, a "property-wide" ban at one isn't "legal" at the other, because the two have different ownership completely.
It wasn't that they couldn't extend past state lines or in the same state if they DID have same ownership, they very much can do that. On top of this, If the casino doesn't actually own the rights to the property, and instead leases it, the landowner's rights supersede the "managements" rights in private party law, within reason.
Bookmarks