Removal of gambling restrictions discussion

Locked

The clear intention of the gambling ban of under-18's is to abide by the Gambling Act 2005, an Act of Parliament which forbids underage gambling, and defines the requirements for the need of a gambling license to operate. As Mike resides in England, the laws of England/Wales applies to the operation of MCNR.

After taking a look at the Act, the 'gambling' games on MCNR fall within:
* s.6 (games of chance, excluding sports-based games which is likely to include horse betting under the act due to  s.6(2)(iii)(b));
* s.7 (casino games), and
* s.14 (lotteries).

The enforcement of the Act is generally undertaken by the Gambling Commission, who have released a position and discussion paper on this matter: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/licensees-and-businesses/guide/page/digital-and-virtual-currencies

It seems from the position paper, that the Gambling Commission's position on virtual currencies/in-game items would not lead to enforcement action if in-game items do not acquire a monetary value where they can be traded or exchanged for money or money's worth outside a video game:

3.8 In our view, the ability to convert in-game items into cash, or to trade them (for other items of value), means they attain a real world value and become articles of money or money’s worth. Where facilities for gambling are offered using such items, a licence is required in exactly the same manner as would be expected in circumstances where somebody uses or receives casino chips as a method of payment for gambling, which can later be exchanged for cash.


In addition, there is existing case-law which may provide some guidance on this matter (the FutGalaxy case): https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/two-men-convicted-after-offering-illegal-gambling-parasitic-upon-popular

Based on the previously mentioned Gambling Commission papers and FutGalaxy case, I believe the 'gambling' games on MCNR would be allowed if there was absolutely no way of trading in-game money for real-life cash. The above FutGalaxy case involves third-party websites that specialise in trading FIFA coins for real money, which simply does not exist with MCNR's community. In addition, MCNR itself does not sell in-game cash in return for real-life money.

However, difficulties arise as there is 'under the table' trades where users do sell in-game cash in return for monetary value, using sites such as PayPal. In addition, MCNR does not prevent users from trading in-game currency for real-life currency as there is no rules against this.

So, what can we do?
* A loot box system may be a good work-around for players that are under-18: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8498/
* A rule against trading in-game cash in return for monetary value, including administration action where detected is likely to put MCNR in a better position regarding gambling

i need help
See Clink making a fool of himself here lmao


Cyberbullying, racism, and homophobia is unacceptable in 2026. Please report users for saying n*gger and f*ggot to the internet police here.
GTA SA is 18+ game so there should be no restriction to begin with.
dead_bxnny
PD Deputy Chief
SAALCA Division
Ralsei wrote:
GTA SA is 18+ game so there should be no restriction to begin with.

This, though I hope a special someone doesn't just get bored reading.
Ralsei wrote:
GTA SA is 18+ game so there should be no restriction to begin with.


Whilst I wholly agree, from a legal standpoint this is difficult as Mike has acknowledged that under-18's do play GTA San Andreas, SAMP, and specifically MCNR. The defendants in the FutGalaxy case knew that under-18's used their website, but turned a blind eye. Gambling on MCNR may be distinguishable on the basis that the server is not ran for profit, but the main issue is whether or not in-game currency may amount to having (real-life) monetary value.

As the defendants in the FutGalaxy case were fined a substantial amount of money, it makes sense for Mike to take a safe position on this, despite, in reality, the likeliness of enforcement action being extremely unlikely.

nxy wrote:
This, though I hope a special someone doesn't just get bored reading.


As much as I know most people would find this post abhorrently boring, I do think Mike would be interested in this as I've seen some posts from him which (at least to me) seems to indicate he's legally inclined. My girlfriend did say I need help for posting this though... 🤣
See Clink making a fool of himself here lmao


Cyberbullying, racism, and homophobia is unacceptable in 2026. Please report users for saying n*gger and f*ggot to the internet police here.
Honestly with what some people have threatened to do upon being banned for a length of time or permanently it would not surprise me if they reported MCNR to the authorities and they ended up launching an investigation into our operation here.