In his latest article, Richard Schuetz dives into the perplexing question of why gaming license applicants are required to disclose details about their scars, tattoos, and other distinguishing marks. The topic has been a recurring theme in Schuetz’s writing, and he urges readers to reconsider the validity and relevance of this requirement in the licensing process.
Key Points
- The Multi-Jurisdiction Personal History Form requires applicants to disclose scars and tattoos, raising questions about its relevance.
- Schuetz argues that this requirement stems from outdated law enforcement practices and is not meaningful in the context of gaming license applications.
- No known cases exist where a scar or tattoo has materially influenced a licensing decision.
- The intrusive nature of this requirement can lead to dishonesty and may diminish respect for the regulatory process.
- A suggestion is made to eliminate this requirement altogether, allowing applicants to focus on pertinent information.
Content Summary
Richard Schuetz reflects on his repeated efforts to highlight the absurdity of asking gaming license applicants to describe their scars and tattoos. The Multi-Jurisdiction Personal History Form, developed by the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR), has become a staple in licensing processes; however, Schuetz points out its shortcomings.
He traces the origins of these questions back to concerns in law enforcement, where distinguishing marks could aid in criminal investigations. Yet, Schuetz notes that in the gaming context, this information has never been shown to impact licensing decisions. He suggests that the requirement is an unnecessary burden on applicants, causing apprehension over a lack of anonymity regarding personal medical histories.
Ultimately, he calls for regulatory bodies to revise their forms to focus only on relevant and impactful information, promoting a more respectful licensing process.
Why should I read this?
If you’ve ever rolled your eyes at a gaming licence application question that seems totally irrelevant, Schuetz’s piece will resonate. He cleverly argues the case for streamlining the process and removing unnecessary invasions of privacy. Trust me, reading his take on this outdated practice could save you time and confusion if you ever find yourself navigating the gaming licensing maze!
