This article dives into the absurdities surrounding the Multi-Jurisdiction Personal History Form used in gaming licensing. Author Richard Schuetz questions the necessity of describing scars and tattoos as part of the application process, arguing that it’s outdated and irrelevant. He shares insights from his extensive experience in the gaming industry and suggests that this requirement should be reconsidered.
Key Points
- The Multi-Jurisdiction Personal History Form is central to gaming licensing worldwide.
- It includes a question about scars, tattoos, and distinguishing marks, which Schuetz finds unnecessary.
- Historically, the focus on such physical attributes stems from law enforcement practices but has little relevance to gaming licensing.
- Schuetz has queried regulators and found no instances where scars or tattoos influenced licensing decisions.
- The requirement could lead to non-disclosure of personal medical information that is irrelevant to the licensing process.
- A suggestion is made to create a supplement that allows applicants to skip questions about scars and tattoos.
Why should I read this?
If you’re involved in the gaming industry or simply interested in regulatory processes, this article shines a light on unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. Schuetz’s witty take on the subject not only makes for an enjoyable read but also challenges the status quo in gaming regulations. It’s a reminder that some rules might just be holding us back from more streamlined and relevant processes.
