Olen jo selitt?nyt sinulle, miksi emme voi lopettaa tapausta statusjulkistuksen auttaessa. Selit?n sen kuitenkin viel? kerran: Kun tutkimme tapaustasi, havaitsimme, ett? pelasit bonuksella, joka oli tarkoitettu BJ:n kolikkopeleihin. Tuloksena sait edun, ja t?st? syyst? p??timme tukea kasinoa.
Ota my?s huomioon t?m?:
kommentti Bryanilta (alias Casinomeister) yksityisesti:
"Tarkastin juuri ja olet ehk? ymm?rt?nyt meid?t v??rin." Kasino ei ole tehnyt t?t? p??t?st?, vaan ohjelmistotoimittaja. Joten jos mit??n - sinulla olisi vaatimus heit? vastaan, ei kasinoa vastaan. Kasinon johto vahvisti juuri ohjelmistotoimittajan p??t?ksen. Joten jos jotain, sinun pit?isi ottaa asiasi heid?n kanssaan.
Mieti tilannetta kasinon n?k?kulmasta:
Jos pelaaja on j?tt?nyt vaatimuksen, mutta turvallisuusosastosi, pelintarjoajasi ja sovittelijasi vahvistavat, ett? olet oikeassa ja pelaaja on rikkonut s??nt?j?, maksaisitko silti?
Kun kasino uskoi toimivansa oikein, ja jopa me uskoimme niin, et voi syytt?? heit? siit?. Julkisuuden luokittelusta on apua tapauksissa, joissa kasino on toiminut v??rin. He todenn?k?isesti tiesiv?t siit?, ja vasta tapauksen julkistamisen j?lkeen kasino p??tti lopulta maksaa. N?iss? tapauksissa olemme pelaajan puolella alusta alkaen, koska on ilmeist?, ett? kasino teki jotain v??rin.
?l? ymm?rr? minua v??rin. Olen eritt?in iloinen, ett? voitit jutun. Monet tapaukset eiv?t ole mustavalkoisia, ja olen edelleen eritt?in kiinnostunut siit?, mik? sai tuomioistuimen ja kasinon maksamaan sinulle lopulta. Kun teimme laskelman (en vain min? ty?skentelin t?m?n tapauksen parissa), tapaus oli meille selv?. Siksi haluaisin tiet??, mit? j?imme paitsi tai mik? meni pieleen.
I've already explained to you why we can't close the case with the status publicity helped. However, I will explain it once more: When we were investigating your case, we found that you played with a bonus intended for slots on BJ. As a result, you gained an advantage, and for that reason, we decided to support the casino.
Also, please consider this:
comment from Bryan (aka Casinomeister) in private:
'I just checked and you may have misunderstood us. It's not the casino that made this decision, but the software provider. So if anything - you would have a claim against them, not the casino. The casino management just upheld the decision made by the software provider. So if anything, you should take your issue up with them.'
Consider the situation from a casino's perspective:
If the player has filed a claim but your security department, game provider and mediator confirm that you are in the right and the player has violated the rules, would you still pay?
When a casino believed it is acting correctly, and even we believed so, you can't blame them for that. The classification of publicity is helpful in cases where the casino acted wrongly. They most likely knew about it, and only after the case was publicly presented did the casino decide to eventually pay. In these cases we are on the player's side since the begginig becuase it is obvious that the casino did something wrong.
Please don't get me wrong. I am very happy that you won the case. Many cases are not black and white, and I am still very interested in what convinced the court and casino to pay you eventually. When we did the math (not only I was working on this case), the case was clear to us. Therefore, I would like to know what we missed or what was wrong.
Automaattinen k??nn?s: