LightsOut 486 Report post Posted October 1, 2020 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12369532 it seem's a very heavy handed approach by the DIA to contact Facebook and request for the removal of BGP's Group site which was complied with by Facebook. Facebook's past practice of dealing with promotion of sweepstakes or contests when alerted to any violations of their guidelines is a strongly worded message from them or punishment of the page concerned such as: 1.suspend members/fans from liking your page for a certain time. 2.remove the likes that were accumulated over a certain period. 3.take your page access away. 4.or completely delete the page (not delete the Facebook Group). BGP I read has been going for a number of years and the % of pages during that time relating to the promotion of challenge contests wouldn't even be 1% so clearly that would show that the main purpose of the Group is not to run the above types of event. That is why I believe the DIA request for Group removal was over the top. The event had not being run and the DIA if doing their 'job correctly' should have had no problem in ascertaining who to contact at BGP to inform them that they considered this type of promotion on the Group's page to be breaching NZ's Gambling Laws and request that they immediately remove the relevant information and not to proceed with the running of the event. Failure to do so would result in possible charges laid under NZ's Gambling Law. The event as advertised on Facebook doesn't then proceed so why once again go to the request for the removal of the Group and not just the page in question? THE DIA reports in the story "They have only received one other complaint about the group, in 2018, relating to advertising overseas gambling."We contacted the organisers and they removed everything to comply." Perfect result and fully shows the Group's acceptance to adhere to the DIA's request so why would they not think to go down that path again?. The DIA and the whistle-blower both refer to the event as a sweepstake. The DIA should be fully aware of what constitutes as a sweepstake and the complataint states he is aware of the laws relating to the running of sweepstakes. He like myself is a member of BGP so no doubt was sent the e-mail inviting members to partake. At no stage does the invite mention the word 'sweepstake' it refers to the event as a competition & challenge. A sweepstake is where prizes are given away to winners who are randomly chosen. A contest is where the winner is based on merit eg best performance. The contest challenge in contention was based on a points system where the top prizes were paid to the individuals who had the highest scores. Prize competition rules in NZ are: a competition involving skill may not be subject to the Gambling Act 2003 requirements if no gambling is involved. Is using your skill to select the top 3 in a finish skill based? It's certainly not gambling I am sure. Either way the DIA need to educate themselves that the supposed Gambling breach relates to a contest based competition not a sweepstake. If your going to regulate first you need to know the correct terminology to use when addressing the media. I read the story twice and on both occasions I came up with the same conclusions this so called Steven doesn't exist and the complaint was lodged from elsewhere. If your a member of a Group most normal people would inform the Group Admin that they could possibly be breaching a regulation relating to the NZ Gambling Law it's called a 'heads up'. A BGP rep said ""We are yet to hear from any official authorities so cannot comment further on this specific scenario." DIA advised of the event (I am not referring it as a sweepstake as its not) and the BGP Admins not notified 10 days later? If your going to regulate you have to firstly communicate. Why would the supposed whistleblower need to phone The Herald and say he had complained to the DIA about the sweepstake (contest)? There was nothing to gain for him by doing that. Then he says " there was no scrutiny or accountability to ensure that the sweepstake was run cleanly." The contest stipulated the number of entry's and how the prize money was to be split. The e-mail to members advised the contest would be updated with leaders and points after all races. You would have to be pretty thick not to be able to convert contest entry numbers to the prize payouts eg thats the scrutiny and accountability kicking in. Poor form by the NZ Herald reporter who starts of the story saying the complaint was made by a member of the public then further down referring to him as Steven who is a member of BGP. 15,000 members of BGP no doubt there are a few Steven's part of the Group so by naming him every Steven who is a member becomes a suspect as to being the possible whistleblower. Whistleblowers don't get named full stop in the media and their is a law now to enforce that. Earlier quote in the story - The Department of Internal Affairs said the sweepstake was "illegal", and had contacted Facebook to have the group removed. Later quote in the story - "The department notified Facebook and requested that the post be removed as it breached the Gambling Act 2003.The post has been removed. Hang on if firstly you contacted to have the Group removed why would you then say contacted to have the post removed? The first request supersedes having to request the second request. Just crap reporting again and the DIA coming across as looking confused again. The DIA sole purpose of existence is to regulate NZ's gambling laws as long as your carrying out your duties and policies as required under the Act relating to your Department if your not you shouldn't be working in glass buildings and throwing stones. A little bird told me there might be some more media stories coming up soon regarding Gambling Act breaches stay tuned. Baz (NZ) 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelseacol 2,488 Report post Posted October 1, 2020 Based on the info publicly available so far the purported comments and actions of the DIA seem totally disproportionate. To take the steps re FB and commenting on the media WITHOUT talking to the Group itself - seems to lack any semblance of due process (or common sense). I'm interested in the rules relating to what is acceptable in this regard. We have had plenty of competitions over the years here with prizes (but no entry fees which may be a relevant consideration ?). How many sports bars in the country run a rugby picking competition ? Slippery slope stuff. But perhaps licenses to run this sort of thing are easy to get ? If they are happy to legalise pokie machines presumably morally anything goes ?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_gee 416 Report post Posted October 4, 2020 On 10/2/2020 at 2:57 AM, LightsOut said: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12369532 it seem's a very heavy handed approach by the DIA to contact Facebook and request for the removal of BGP's Group site which was complied with by Facebook. Facebook's past practice of dealing with promotion of sweepstakes or contests when alerted to any violations of their guidelines is a strongly worded message from them or punishment of the page concerned such as: 1.suspend members/fans from liking your page for a certain time. 2.remove the likes that were accumulated over a certain period. 3.take your page access away. 4.or completely delete the page (not delete the Facebook Group). BGP I read has been going for a number of years and the % of pages during that time relating to the promotion of challenge contests wouldn't even be 1% so clearly that would show that the main purpose of the Group is not to run the above types of event. That is why I believe the DIA request for Group removal was over the top. The event had not being run and the DIA if doing their 'job correctly' should have had no problem in ascertaining who to contact at BGP to inform them that they considered this type of promotion on the Group's page to be breaching NZ's Gambling Laws and request that they immediately remove the relevant information and not to proceed with the running of the event. Failure to do so would result in possible charges laid under NZ's Gambling Law. The event as advertised on Facebook doesn't then proceed so why once again go to the request for the removal of the Group and not just the page in question? THE DIA reports in the story "They have only received one other complaint about the group, in 2018, relating to advertising overseas gambling."We contacted the organisers and they removed everything to comply." Perfect result and fully shows the Group's acceptance to adhere to the DIA's request so why would they not think to go down that path again?. The DIA and the whistle-blower both refer to the event as a sweepstake. The DIA should be fully aware of what constitutes as a sweepstake and the complataint states he is aware of the laws relating to the running of sweepstakes. He like myself is a member of BGP so no doubt was sent the e-mail inviting members to partake. At no stage does the invite mention the word 'sweepstake' it refers to the event as a competition & challenge. A sweepstake is where prizes are given away to winners who are randomly chosen. A contest is where the winner is based on merit eg best performance. The contest challenge in contention was based on a points system where the top prizes were paid to the individuals who had the highest scores. Prize competition rules in NZ are: a competition involving skill may not be subject to the Gambling Act 2003 requirements if no gambling is involved. Is using your skill to select the top 3 in a finish skill based? It's certainly not gambling I am sure. Either way the DIA need to educate themselves that the supposed Gambling breach relates to a contest based competition not a sweepstake. If your going to regulate first you need to know the correct terminology to use when addressing the media. I read the story twice and on both occasions I came up with the same conclusions this so called Steven doesn't exist and the complaint was lodged from elsewhere. If your a member of a Group most normal people would inform the Group Admin that they could possibly be breaching a regulation relating to the NZ Gambling Law it's called a 'heads up'. A BGP rep said ""We are yet to hear from any official authorities so cannot comment further on this specific scenario." DIA advised of the event (I am not referring it as a sweepstake as its not) and the BGP Admins not notified 10 days later? If your going to regulate you have to firstly communicate. Why would the supposed whistleblower need to phone The Herald and say he had complained to the DIA about the sweepstake (contest)? There was nothing to gain for him by doing that. Then he says " there was no scrutiny or accountability to ensure that the sweepstake was run cleanly." The contest stipulated the number of entry's and how the prize money was to be split. The e-mail to members advised the contest would be updated with leaders and points after all races. You would have to be pretty thick not to be able to convert contest entry numbers to the prize payouts eg thats the scrutiny and accountability kicking in. Poor form by the NZ Herald reporter who starts of the story saying the complaint was made by a member of the public then further down referring to him as Steven who is a member of BGP. 15,000 members of BGP no doubt there are a few Steven's part of the Group so by naming him every Steven who is a member becomes a suspect as to being the possible whistleblower. Whistleblowers don't get named full stop in the media and their is a law now to enforce that. Earlier quote in the story - The Department of Internal Affairs said the sweepstake was "illegal", and had contacted Facebook to have the group removed. Later quote in the story - "The department notified Facebook and requested that the post be removed as it breached the Gambling Act 2003.The post has been removed. Hang on if firstly you contacted to have the Group removed why would you then say contacted to have the post removed? The first request supersedes having to request the second request. Just crap reporting again and the DIA coming across as looking confused again. The DIA sole purpose of existence is to regulate NZ's gambling laws as long as your carrying out your duties and policies as required under the Act relating to your Department if your not you shouldn't be working in glass buildings and throwing stones. A little bird told me there might be some more media stories coming up soon regarding Gambling Act breaches stay tuned. ummm pool is 35 k that be why even lil grannys bingo needs a licensee to give out couple bucks they new and thought they wrre above it have heard one there big wigs say they wouldnt need one so never looked into it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike28 182 Report post Posted October 6, 2020 they took years to get the amount of members and people to there facebook page about the last 10 years or something a kick in the teeth considering what they have done for racing. take all you business offshore like ive done and save yourself all the bs and pc crap. Baz (NZ) 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
