Είμαι ακόμα πιο μπερδεμένος και θα ήθελα μια συγκεκριμένη διευκρίνιση και όχι τις συνηθισμένες γενικές εξηγήσεις.
Γράψατε: "Ο παίκτης είχε ενεργό αυτο-αποκλεισμό όταν επέστρεψε στο καζίνο και ήξερε ότι είχε λογαριασμό στο παρελθόν. Με βάση την επικοινωνία με το καζίνο και εμάς, είδαμε ότι ο παίκτης γνώριζε τα πάντα και παρόλα αυτά παραβίαζε τους κανόνες ."
Το καζίνο δεν έγραψε ποτέ στην καταγγελία ότι ο παίκτης αποκλείστηκε από το καζίνο του, αλλά απλώς υποψιάστηκε ότι ήταν εθισμένος στον τζόγο. Σας ρωτάω λοιπόν πού διαβάσατε για αυτόν τον αυτο-αποκλεισμό... Τότε αναρωτιέμαι πώς ένα καζίνο θα μπορούσε να αυτοεξαιρέσει τον παίκτη αν δεν είχε καν εγγραφεί ποτέ πριν και δεν το είχε ζητήσει ποτέ.
Είμαι περίεργος να καταλάβω, καθώς η καταγγελία δεν αναφέρει ποτέ τον αυτο-αποκλεισμό και η κατηγορία του καζίνο είναι μόνο αυτή για διπλό λογαριασμό, μια κατηγορία που όμως καταργήθηκε τόσο από εσάς όσο και από τον ρυθμιστικό φορέα, καθώς προέκυψε ότι ο λογαριασμός που θεωρείται διπλότυπος ήταν από δύο χρόνια νωρίτερα, χωρίς προσωπικά δεδομένα, χωρίς καταθέσεις και έκλεισε την ίδια μέρα.
Προσθέτω επίσης ότι κοίταξα τους όρους και τις προϋποθέσεις του καζίνο και ο αυτο-αποκλεισμός διαρκεί έξι μήνες, επομένως θα είχε λήξει μετά από δύο χρόνια εάν είχε όντως εφαρμοστεί.
Με ποια βάση λοιπόν ισχυρίζεστε ότι ο παίκτης ήξερε τα πάντα;
Ποιους κανόνες θα είχε παραβιάσει;
Φαίνεται σαν το καζίνο να δικαιολογεί κουτσούς για να μην πληρώνει τους παίκτες όπως κάνουν σε μένα.
I am even more confused and would like a specific clarification and not the usual generic explanations.
You wrote: "The player had an active self-exclusion when he returned to the casino and knew he had an account there before. Based on communication with the casino and us, we saw that the player was aware of everything and still broke the rules."
The casino never wrote in the complaint that the player was self-excluded from their casino but simply that they suspected he was addicted to gambling. So I ask you where you read about this self-exclusion... Then I wonder how a casino could self-exclude the player if he had never even registered before and never requested it.
I am curious to understand since the complaint never mentions self-exclusion and the casino's accusation is only that of a duplicate account, an accusation that was however dismantled by both you and the regulatory body since it emerged that the account considered duplicate was from two years earlier, without personal data, without deposits and closed on the same day.
I also add that I looked at the casino's terms and conditions and the self-exclusion lasts for six months so it would have actually expired after two years if it had actually been applied.
So on what basis do you claim that the player knew everything?
What rules would he have broken?
It seems like the casino is making lame excuses not to pay players like they are doing to me.
Sono ancora più confuso e gradirei un chiarimento specifico e non le solite spiegazioni generiche.
Hai scritto: "Il giocatore aveva un'autoesclusione attiva quando è tornato al casinò e sapeva di aver avuto un account lì prima. Sulla base della comunicazione con il casinò e con noi, abbiamo visto che il giocatore era a conoscenza di tutto e ha comunque infranto le regole."
Il casinò non ha mai scritto nel reclamo che il giocatore era autoescluso dal loro casinò ma semplicemente che sospettasse di essere dipendente dal gioco d'azzardo. Quindi ti chiedo dove hai letto di questa autoesclusione...Poi mi chiedo come ha fatto un casinò ad autoescludere il giocatore se questo non si era neppure mai registrato prima e non lo ha mai richiesto.
Sono curioso di capire dato che nel reclamo non si parla mai di autoesclusione e l'accusa del casinò è solo quella di account duplicato, accusa che però è stata smontata sia da voi che dall'ente regolatore poichè è emerso che l'account considerato duplicato era di due anni prima, senza dati personali, senza depositi e chiuso lo stesso giorno.
Poi aggiungo anche che ho guardato i termini e condizioni del casinò e l'autoesclusione ha una durata di sei mesi perciò sarebbe adirittura scaduta dopo due anni se fosse stata realmente applicata.
Su che basi quindi dichiarate che il giocatore era a conoscenza di tutto?
Quali regole avrebbe infranto?
Sembra che il casinò trovi scuse pretestuose per non pagare i giocatori come stanno facendo con me.
Αυτόματη μετάφραση: