Non-GAMBAN Casinos in the UK: What It Means

Gamban blocks access on devices where it is installed, but does not determine a site’s licensing status or override a self-exclusion arrangement.

What “Not on Gamban” Does—and Does Not—Mean

Gamban is software that blocks access to gambling websites and apps on devices where it is installed. That function is practical but limited: it works as a barrier at device level. It does not decide whether a gambling business is licensed, whether its terms are suitable, or whether a person is permitted to gamble under an existing self-exclusion arrangement.

That distinction matters when a site is described as a casino without Gamban. The wording can mean only that the site is not being blocked by the Gamban installation in question. It does not mean the operator has passed a safety test, gained approval from a regulator, or become an acceptable destination for someone who has excluded themselves from gambling.

I have seen this confusion arise because “not blocked” sounds like a status. It is not. Gamban is not a licensing register and does not issue a certificate of suitability. A website may remain technically accessible for many reasons, including the limits of a blocking tool’s coverage or the way a domain is presented. Accessibility is therefore a technical observation, not a recommendation.

Gamban and GAMSTOP do different jobs

GAMSTOP is the national online self-exclusion scheme for Great Britain. It operates across participating licensed online gambling websites and apps, rather than only on one device or with one gambling company. Its purpose is to connect a person’s self-exclusion to the licensed online gambling market covered by the scheme.

Gamban, by contrast, is a blocking service. It is installed as a protective measure and is intended to restrict access on the devices or systems covered by the installation. The two tools may support the same safer-gambling objective, but they do not create the same kind of restriction.

The operational difference is straightforward:

• Gamban concerns whether gambling content can be reached through a protected device.
• GAMSTOP concerns whether a person can access gambling accounts with participating licensed operators.
• A site falling outside a Gamban block says nothing by itself about GAMSTOP status.
• A technical route around a blocker does not cancel a formal self-exclusion.

That last point is the one often hidden by the phrase “best casinos not on Gamban”. A ranking would suggest that the absence of a software block is a positive feature. It is not a measure of safer gambling, regulatory standing, or suitability for a self-excluded customer. I would not treat “Gamban-free” as a product category in the same way as a licence, a complaints process or a responsible-gambling tool.

Why the wording can mislead

Casino marketing relies heavily on labels that sound definite. “Non-Gamban” or “no Gamban” can appear to describe an operator, although Gamban is not the operator’s regulator and is not the authority that determines whether an account should be open. The label may simply describe what happens on a particular device at a particular time.

It also leaves out the question of self-exclusion. UK gambling businesses must provide self-exclusion facilities, and they are expected to act to stop a self-excluded customer from gambling with them. Since participation in GAMSTOP became compulsory for UKGC-licensed online operators in 2020, regulated UK casinos have been required to prevent access for customers identified as self-excluded through the scheme.

A site not blocked by Gamban cannot therefore be presented as a legitimate way to defeat that arrangement. The software boundary and the gambling business’s obligations are separate issues. One may concern access to a webpage; the other concerns whether the customer should be allowed to gamble at all.

This is why searches for UK casinos not on Gamban need careful interpretation. “UK casino” can refer loosely to a site aimed at British customers, but legal online gambling in the UK requires the relevant Gambling Commission licence. A site’s visibility from Britain, or its ability to load despite Gamban, does not establish that it belongs to the licensed market. Nor does it turn an offshore or otherwise unsuitable operator into a safe alternative.

A technical gap is not permission

The safest reading of “not on Gamban” is narrow: the blocking tool has not prevented access to that site. Nothing more follows automatically. It does not show that the casino is approved, that deposits are protected, that the account can properly be opened, or that gambling would comply with a self-exclusion already in place.

GAMSTOP and Gamban should be understood as different layers. A device blocker can reduce exposure to gambling services. A multi-operator self-exclusion scheme applies the exclusion through participating licensed gambling businesses. Neither label should be used to promote a route around the other.

From the industry side, the important distinction is between a technical opening and an authorised account. A page loading is the first; responsible operation requires the second. They are not interchangeable.

GAMSTOP: The Exclusion That Applies Across Licensed Sites

GAMSTOP is the national online self-exclusion scheme for Great Britain. Its purpose is broader than closing an account with one casino. A registration prevents access to existing gambling accounts and stops new accounts being created with participating UK-licensed online gambling operators.

That cross-operator reach is the point. A person does not have to identify every licensed website individually before the exclusion takes effect. GAMSTOP links the exclusion to the participating licensed online gambling market rather than leaving it attached to one brand.

The Gambling Commission made participation compulsory for online operators from 31 March 2020. As a result, UKGC-licensed online gambling platforms must apply the scheme to customers covered by an active GAMSTOP registration. In practical terms, an active exclusion is intended to prevent logins to current gambling accounts and the opening of replacement accounts with other participating operators.

How registration works

GAMSTOP registration is free. The process involves providing information that allows the scheme to verify identity and match the registration with gambling accounts held across licensed operators. The exclusion does not depend on selecting a particular casino from a list. It is designed to operate across the participating online market.

The timing matters. GAMSTOP starts its 24-hour cooling-off period after identity verification has been completed. The exclusion remains active throughout that period. This is not an interval during which gambling access is restored; it is part of the registration process while the self-exclusion is already in force.

The available exclusion choices are fixed periods: six months, one year or five years. Selecting a period creates a defined commitment rather than an informal account preference. During the chosen period, the registered person remains excluded from the covered UK-licensed online gambling platforms.

In my experience, this is where the wording matters. “Blocked” does not mean that one preferred brand has simply switched off its website. It means the scheme is intended to prevent access across the participating licensed operators, including attempts to create a new account elsewhere. The practical effect is market-wide within that licensed scope.

What happens to existing and new accounts

An active GAMSTOP registration is intended to stop access to current gambling accounts held with participating operators. It also prevents the creation of new accounts with those operators. That distinction closes the obvious gap between abandoning an old account and starting again under a different brand.

A casino may still display ordinary registration pages to the public, but that does not mean a person with an active GAMSTOP exclusion is entitled to open or use an account there. The operator’s checks and the scheme’s matching process are relevant to whether access is permitted.

GAMSTOP scope

GAMSTOP is designed to prevent access across the participating licensed online gambling market. It is not a product filter for specific games or a way to pause only selected products.

GAMSTOP does not function as a way to pause only selected products. Its scope concerns online gambling accounts with participating licensed operators. The question is therefore not whether a particular casino game, slot or website appears accessible at a given moment. The operative issue is whether the person has an active exclusion covering the licensed online gambling market.

That is also why a website described in advertising as a casino not on Gamban should not be confused with the operation of GAMSTOP. Gamban and GAMSTOP are separate services with different functions. A device-blocking result cannot alter an active GAMSTOP registration or the obligations of a UKGC-licensed operator.

Removal is not immediate

A GAMSTOP exclusion cannot be removed by asking an individual casino to reopen an account. Players must contact GAMSTOP directly if they want to request removal.

Every removal request is subject to the same 24-hour cooling-off period. There is no expedited option. The waiting period begins after the removal request has been made under the scheme’s process, and the exclusion stays active during it.

The process also allows a removal request to be cancelled during that cooling-off period. Contacting GAMSTOP and asking to maintain the self-exclusion keeps the exclusion in place. This gives the registered person a defined opportunity to reconsider before the request is completed.

Even after GAMSTOP processes the removal, operators may need an additional 24 to 48 hours to reflect the changed status. The scheme’s processing and the operator’s account systems are not necessarily updated at the same moment. An account therefore should not be treated as available merely because a removal request has been submitted or processed.

The fixed period and the removal procedure are separate points. Choosing six months, one year or five years determines the exclusion term. Requesting removal does not bypass the required cooling-off period, and asking an operator directly does not replace contact with GAMSTOP.

What the exclusion covers

GAMSTOP applies to online gambling operators licensed by the UK Gambling Commission and participating within the scheme’s scope. It is not a product filter for particular slots, nor is it a setting that applies only to one casino account. The intended protection comes from the combination of account blocking and prevention of new registrations across the covered operators.

UK-licensed casinos must also provide responsible-gambling tools, including self-exclusion. GAMSTOP supplies the multi-operator route for online gambling, while an individual operator can deal with exclusion from its own service. Those arrangements should not be treated as interchangeable: GAMSTOP is the route designed to cover participating licensed operators together.

The result is straightforward. An active GAMSTOP registration remains active during its selected term and throughout the removal cooling-off period. Access to current accounts and the creation of new accounts across the covered licensed operators are prevented by the scheme’s purpose. A non-Gamban label does not change that position.

Across the market, the exclusion follows the account holder—not the advertising label.

Why a Non-GAMSTOP Casino Is Not a Workaround

A non-GAMSTOP casino can look like an answer when access to a UK-licensed account has been stopped. That appearance is misleading. GAMSTOP is intended to prevent a person from gambling with UK-licensed online casinos, while self-exclusion is also a formal commitment made by the customer. Finding a website that appears accessible does not cancel that commitment.

The distinction matters because access and permission are not the same thing. A site may be outside the part of the system being checked, or an account may not yet have been identified as belonging to a self-excluded customer. Neither situation changes the status of the exclusion. It only shows that a control has not operated as expected in that particular case.

I have seen this confusion from the operator side: a blocked account is treated as a technical obstacle, and a different registration is treated as a fresh decision. That is not how self-exclusion is meant to work. The agreement concerns the decision to stop gambling, not merely one username, email address or device.

A second account is not a clean start

Opening another account elsewhere to continue gambling is not an appropriate response to self-exclusion. It can put the customer in conflict with the terms of the existing exclusion and may lead to further account closures. The fact that another business accepts an application does not make the activity consistent with the original decision to stop.

A self-excluded customer is expected to maintain the exclusion. The gambling business also has duties: it must take proportionate measures to stop that customer from gambling with it. Those duties do not turn a newly discovered account into a safe route around the arrangement. Nor does a successful deposit prove that the account should have been available.

This is why descriptions such as “best non-GAMSTOP casinos” or “GAMSTOP-free casinos” are especially unhelpful in this context. They frame the issue as a comparison between products, when the central issue is whether gambling should continue at all during an active exclusion. A ranking cannot resolve that conflict.

The practical risks are wider than account access

Seeking a casino outside GAMSTOP can create several separate problems:

• gambling may breach the terms of an existing self-exclusion;
• a new account can make it harder to keep track of where exclusion has been requested;
• an account that is later identified as linked to a self-excluded customer may be restricted or closed;
• attempts to continue can undermine the purpose of the original agreement.

These are not merely administrative inconveniences. Self-exclusion is designed to remove opportunities to gamble, and the customer remains responsible for observing the agreement after it has been made. The presence of a registration form does not transfer that responsibility to the website.

The wording used by a casino can also obscure the practical position. “Open to all players” sounds like an invitation without conditions. In reality, an account application remains subject to identity checks, account rules and responsible-gambling controls. “Alternative access” may simply mean that the website is not covered by the same blocking arrangement. It does not mean that self-exclusion has been lifted.

Licensed status does not change the purpose of exclusion

A person may search for non-GAMSTOP online casinos believing that a different operator will provide a lawful or harmless substitute. That inference is unsafe. UK-licensed online casinos are required to support self-exclusion, and a customer who has chosen that protection should not seek another account to defeat it.

The relevant question is not whether a website can be reached, but whether using it is consistent with the formal decision to stop gambling. In this setting, an accessible account can be a warning sign rather than an opportunity. It may indicate that the business has not yet connected the customer to the exclusion, that information is still being checked, or that the site is not part of the same arrangement. None of those possibilities supplies a responsible basis for play.

I would treat any apparent opening as a reason to stop, not as evidence that the restriction no longer applies. The safer course is to leave the account unused, avoid depositing funds and contact the relevant gambling business if an exclusion needs to be recorded there. Where several places could present a temptation, exclusion should cover all of them rather than just the first account that was closed.

The important boundary is simple: Gamban coverage, account availability and GAMSTOP status are different matters. None should be used to reinterpret an active self-exclusion as permission to gamble. A different login is still a different login—not a different decision.

Slots Outside a Gamban Block: The UK Rules Still Matter

A slot that Gamban does not block is not a special class of game. Gamban is software that restricts access on supported devices; it does not create a separate set of safer games. The absence of a block says nothing about the design, return profile, fairness, or suitability of a particular slot.

That matters because searches for “the best online slots not on Gamban” can make the software boundary look like the important test. It is not. For real-money online slots offered to people in Great Britain, the operator must be licensed by the UK Gambling Commission, and the game must be offered within the rules that apply to remote gambling. A title being reachable is not the same as it being appropriate to play, particularly where a formal self-exclusion is active.

The protections built into British online slots

The rules governing online slots include controls intended to reduce the speed and intensity of play. Each spin must last at least 2.5 seconds. That minimum applies to the game cycle, so a slot cannot be designed to resolve one spin and begin the next more quickly than the permitted interval.

Autoplay is also banned for online slots in Britain. A player must not be able to set a sequence of spins running without an active decision for each one. This is a material difference from some descriptions of slot play found outside the British regulated market, where automated rounds may be promoted as a convenience.

The stake limit is another part of the framework. For customers aged 25 and over, the maximum stake per online-slot game cycle is £5. For customers aged 18 to 24, it is £2. The £5 limit for all adults came into effect on 9 April 2025. These limits concern the stake permitted for a game cycle; they do not turn a slot into a low-risk product or make losses predictable.

Operators must also verify age before allowing a customer to deposit into a gambling account. Remote operators cannot accept credit-card payments for gambling, including credit-card funding routed through a money service business. Wallet payments are also barred where the wallet permits credit-card funds to be used for gambling.

Before a new customer makes a first deposit, the operator must prompt that customer to set a financial limit. Account-level limit controls must remain accessible. These are operator controls, not features supplied by Gamban, and they do not override a self-exclusion agreement.

What “outside the block” leaves unsaid

From my side of the industry, “available” was often treated as if it meant “suitable”. It does not. A slot can meet the applicable technical safeguards and still be a poor choice for someone trying to stop gambling. Compliance rules set boundaries for operators; they do not provide a recommendation or remove the possibility of harm.

The same distinction applies when a game is described as “not on Gamban”. That wording identifies a gap in device-level blocking, not a quality mark. It does not establish that the operator is licensed, that the account may properly be used, or that gambling is consistent with a person’s existing exclusion.

No ranking of games is appropriate here. Individual slots cannot be presented as preferred options merely because a blocker does not restrict access to them. The relevant safeguards remain the British rules on spin speed, autoplay, stakes, payments, age checks and financial limits—not the wording attached to a Gamban search.

Casino Sites and Slots: What Self-Exclusion Actually Covers

Self-exclusion is an agreement with a gambling business, not a setting attached to a particular game. The customer asks the company to stop providing gambling services for a stated period, and the company must act on that request. A Gamban block concerns access through software; it does not define the legal or practical scope of a self-exclusion agreement.

That distinction matters when an account, casino site or slot remains technically visible. A slot is not a separate gambling business. It is content offered through one. Excluding from a casino therefore concerns the account and the gambling service provided by that operator, rather than only the individual titles that happened to be available when the exclusion was made.

What the operator must do

Once the self-exclusion agreement has been made, the gambling business must:

• close the customer’s gambling account;
• return any funds remaining in that account; and
• remove the customer’s details from its marketing databases.

The first obligation prevents ordinary betting or casino play through the excluded account. The second deals with money already held by the business; self-exclusion is not a mechanism for forfeiting an account balance. The third is important because promotional contact can act as a route back into gambling. A closed account paired with continued marketing would leave the original trigger in place.

This is why the wording “not on Gamban” tells very little about the status of a casino. A site may not be blocked by a device-level tool, while a formal exclusion with that gambling business still requires the account to be closed and the customer’s marketing details removed. The two arrangements operate at different points.

A site and a slot are not the same thing

A request made to one gambling company applies to that company’s service. It does not become a request to block a named slot across every operator, nor does the presence of a particular game determine whether the exclusion is valid. The relevant relationship is between the customer and the gambling business holding the account.

Self-exclusion

An agreement where a customer asks a gambling business to stop providing services for a specific period. It is a formal commitment made by the customer to the operator.

That is also why lists of “slots not on Gamban” can give a misleading impression. The absence of a software block does not turn a slot into an exempt category. If the game is offered by a business from which the customer has self-excluded, attempting to access it through that business conflicts with the purpose of the agreement. The same applies to a casino site that appears available even though the customer has asked that operator to stop providing gambling services.

From the operator’s side, the process is not a matter of hiding selected games. It is account-level exclusion, supported by steps intended to prevent the excluded customer from gambling with that business. Marketing removal is part of the same arrangement, not an optional extra.

I have seen the confusion arise because software tools and gambling accounts are discussed as though they were interchangeable. They are not. A blocker controls access on covered devices or systems. Self-exclusion changes the company’s obligations towards the customer. One can affect what appears on a screen; the other governs whether the gambling business may continue serving the excluded account.

The practical boundary is clear: a casino account can be subject to self-exclusion whether or not Gamban blocks the relevant site, and a slot’s availability does not cancel that agreement. Formal exclusion comes first.

A Casino Without Gamban Does Not Remove the Exclusion

A casino without Gamban is simply a site that the device-blocking software does not prevent from loading. That technical distinction has no power to cancel a formal self-exclusion. Gamban controls access through supported devices; self-exclusion is an agreement made with a gambling business or scheme. They operate at different levels.

The important point is straightforward: gambling businesses must provide self-exclusion by law. A business offering this facility is not giving permission to continue gambling elsewhere, and the absence of a Gamban block does not create such permission. Where an exclusion has been accepted, the excluded customer should be refused service by the venue or website covered by that agreement.

Self-exclusion also carries a personal obligation. It is a formal decision not to gamble, and the person making it remains responsible for respecting the agreement. Looking for a site that happens to sit outside a software block changes the route to gambling, not the meaning of the exclusion.

Opening another account is therefore not a proper response. It can undermine the purpose of the exclusion and may conflict with the terms accepted when the exclusion was arranged. The account being technically available is not evidence that it is appropriate to use.

From inside the industry, this distinction matters because account access and permission are not the same thing. A login screen may appear; that does not erase a self-exclusion already in force. “Without Gamban” describes a software setting, not a safer category of casino and not an exemption from the decision to stop gambling.

The sound position is to maintain the exclusion and avoid creating another account elsewhere. Where gambling remains tempting, exclusion should cover every place where gambling might be attempted, rather than relying on one device-level block. That includes the gambling businesses with which an account exists and any other venues or websites that could become an alternative.

Different mechanism. Same exclusion.

Gamban-Free Sites and the Limits of a Blocker

Gamban is a software barrier installed on devices. Its job is to restrict access to gambling-related websites and applications covered by its blocking system. That makes it useful as one layer of protection, but it does not create a formal agreement with any gambling business.

This distinction matters when a site appears accessible on a device using Gamban. Accessibility says only that the particular website or app has not been stopped by that particular blocker in that situation. It does not show that the operator is suitable for someone who has self-excluded, nor that gambling there would be consistent with the exclusion.

Self-exclusion works at a different level. It is an arrangement with a gambling business, under which the business must take reasonable steps to prevent the excluded customer from gambling. The relevant obligation belongs to the operator; a device-level application cannot replace it, extend it or cancel it.

I have seen “Gamban-free” treated as if it meant “available without restriction”. That wording hides the important part. A missing block is not permission. It is simply a gap between the software’s coverage and the person’s existing self-exclusion arrangements.

Where one gambling website or app has not been excluded from directly, the operator’s Responsible Gambling or Safer Gambling page should provide the self-exclusion process. If the instructions cannot be found, customer services can be contacted to request it. The purpose is to establish the formal restriction with that business, rather than relying on whether a blocker happens to recognise the site.

The prudent position is therefore straightforward: a site that Gamban does not block should not be treated as an acceptable destination for someone who has self-excluded. The device may allow access; the exclusion still carries its own meaning.

Software is not consent.

No-Gamban Slots Are Not a Safer-Gambling Category

A slot that Gamban does not block is not a separate class of gambling product. The difference concerns the coverage of a software blocker, not the risk of the game, the status of the operator or the effect of self-exclusion. Calling such a game “Gamban-free” can sound like a product description; in practice, it says only that the blocking software has not prevented access.

Self-exclusion works on a different basis. It is connected to the gambling business and the agreement made with it, rather than to an individual slot or a particular device. A customer who has excluded themselves from a venue or website should be refused service there. Finding a game that remains technically visible does not change that position and does not make gambling compatible with the exclusion.

I have seen “safer” used rather loosely around access controls. That wording can hide the important distinction: a missing block is not a safety feature. It does not confirm that the game is appropriate, that the account may be used, or that the exclusion has ended.

British online slots also remain subject to applicable safeguards when offered by a licensed operator. Online slot autoplay is banned in Britain, and each spin must last at least 2.5 seconds. Stake limits apply as well: the maximum stake per game cycle is £5 for customers aged 25 and over, and £2 for customers aged 18 to 24. These are rules for the product and its operation, not permission to ignore a self-exclusion agreement.

There is no verified game list that can establish which slots are “safer” because Gamban does not block them. Treating the absence of a software block as a safer-gambling category confuses two separate systems. One controls access on a device; the other records a formal decision not to gamble. Different mechanisms. Same need for caution.

When a Site Sits Outside GAMSTOP

GAMSTOP is built around participating licensed online gambling operators. Once an account holder registers, the scheme applies across the UKGC-licensed gambling platforms covered by that multi-operator arrangement, rather than only to the website where the registration was made. The practical point is important: the exclusion is not a preference setting attached to one casino brand.

The available exclusion period is fixed. The stated options are six months, one year, or five years. During the selected period, GAMSTOP blocks access to current gambling accounts and prevents new accounts with the UKGC-licensed platforms within its scope. A site described as sitting outside GAMSTOP therefore needs to be understood by reference to that scope, not advertised as an exception to the exclusion.

This is where the label “outside GAMSTOP” can mislead. It may describe a gambling site that is not part of the UK-licensed network, but it does not turn that site into a permitted route around an active self-exclusion. Nor does the label establish that the operator is suitable for someone who has chosen to stop gambling. It only says that the multi-operator scheme may not cover that particular business.

From the operator side, the distinction is straightforward. GAMSTOP controls access across its participating licensed network; it is not a universal lock on every gambling website that can be reached from Britain. That limitation should not be confused with permission. An exclusion remains a formal decision to stop gambling, and seeking a site beyond the scheme works against that decision.

I have seen “not on GAMSTOP” presented as if it were a product feature, much like “more choice” or “fewer restrictions”. In practice, it is a statement about coverage, not safety, approval or an exemption. For anyone with an active GAMSTOP registration, a site outside that network should be treated as outside the protection of the scheme—not as a way to resume gambling. Scope is not consent.

If GAMSTOP Does Not Block a Site, Take the Exclusion Seriously

A gambling site appearing accessible during a GAMSTOP exclusion is not a signal to create an account there. It is a point at which the exclusion needs to be treated as the controlling decision, rather than the behaviour of a particular website or device blocker.

Self-exclusion is a formal agreement not to gamble. The responsibility for keeping to that agreement remains with the person who made it. Opening another account because one site appears unaffected by Gamban, or because a gambling business has not prevented access, works against the purpose of the exclusion. It can also create a separate account issue that later has to be explained to the operator.

The practical response is straightforward:

• do not register a new account or deposit;
• close the accessible page or app;
• use the gambling business’s Responsible Gambling or Safer Gambling section to request self-exclusion;
• contact customer services if the instructions are not available;
• exclude from other gambling businesses where the same temptation may arise.

A single-business exclusion can be requested directly from that gambling business. The relevant operator should therefore be contacted even where the site appears outside the reach of a particular blocking tool or has not been stopped by GAMSTOP. Gamban’s status does not replace the operator’s own self-exclusion process.

From the other side of the counter, an accessible registration screen can look like an invitation because the system has not produced an immediate refusal. That interpretation is unsafe. Access only shows that a technical control has not stopped the visit; it does not change the agreement to stop gambling.

If money has already been deposited or a new account has been opened, further play is not the answer. The account should be referred to the operator’s safer-gambling team, with a clear request for self-exclusion. Keeping records of the contact may help when explaining what happened.

No workaround.

How does self-exclusion work?

You register with GAMSTOP for online gambling, provide details to confirm your identity, and choose an exclusion period. While it is active, participating UK-licensed operators must block access to your existing accounts and prevent you from opening new ones.

How do I return from self-exclusion?

Contact GAMSTOP directly to request removal. A 24-hour cooling-off period applies to every request, and operators may take a further 24 to 48 hours to update your status after it is processed.

How long does it take for GAMSTOP to become active after sign-up?

GAMSTOP starts a 24-hour cooling-off period after your identity has been verified, and your exclusion remains active during that period.

How does GAMSTOP benefit me?

GAMSTOP helps you take a break from online gambling by blocking access to existing accounts and preventing new ones with participating UK-licensed operators. Registration is free and covers those operators through one request.

Responsible Gambling

Prepared by the Casinoexitgamstop.com editorial staff.