Hvala vam na detaljnom obja?njenju, RainBet tim , veoma cenim. Na?alost, ?ini se da smo za?li u ?orsokak sa ovim slu?ajem.
Iako proces slanja e-po?te ponekad mo?e biti spor, postavili smo sistem automatskog samoisklju?ivanja kako bismo pomogli korisnicima da naprave pauzu kad god im zatreba. Ne postoji 24-?asovno ?ekanje da se ?potvrdi" samoisklju?ivanje. Prvi korak je samo 24-?asovno isklju?enje. Ovo je namerno i osigurava da korisnici donesu promi?ljenu odluku, a ne odluku koju vodi trenutak privremene frustracije.
Razumem da kazino treba da bude bezbedan od igra?a koji ?ele da zatvore svoj nalog nakon velikog gubitka ili u trenutku kada ga otvore, a zatim ga ponovo otvore nekoliko dana kasnije, ?to izaziva mnogo problema i nepotrebnog administrativnog rada za kazino. Ali u slu?aju zavisnosti od kockanja, ovo je veoma neprijateljski sistem. Uglavnom zato ?to u navedenom vremenu igra? mo?e lako da se vrati i umesto daljeg isklju?enja, deponuje i igra umesto toga. Iako ovaj sistem ?titi kazino od raspolo?enih igra?a, zavisnicima od kockanja je izuzetno te?ko da se zaustave od daljih gubitaka.
Nakon ?to sam sam isprobao sistem - i bio primoran da se ponovo prijavim na svoj jo? uvek aktivan nalog nakon perioda hla?enja od 24 sata - tako?e mogu da ka?em da je ovo veoma opasno za zavisnika od kockanja, jer ni?ta na nalogu nije deaktivirano i mogao sam da uplatim i igram tako lako kao ?to sam oti?ao direktno na opciju samoisklju?enja.
2025-03-11 13:39 → 2025-03-12 13:02
2025-03-14 22:13 → 2025-03-15 22:46
2025-03-17 12:33:47 → 2025-03-18 12:34:20
2025-03-19 13:01:11 → 2025-03-20 13:01:43
2025-03-20 13:02:01 → 2025-06-18 23:24:08
Za nas je ovo jasan znak da se igra? bori sa sistemom samoisklju?enja. Da je bilo samo jedan ili dva poku?aja, bio bih sklon da se slo?im da igra? nije ulo?io razuman napor u proces samoisklju?enja. Ali 5 neuspe?nih poku?aja je previ?e za ignorisanje. Na?alost, tamo gde vidite da se neko samoisklju?uje na 24 sata tek onda kada se vra?a da igra kao obi?an gost, vidimo zavisnika od kockanja koji poku?ava da se samoisklju?uje, ali nije u mogu?nosti da to uradi zbog neintuitivnog sistema.
?to se ti?e refundiranja, na?a politika je jasna. Kada su opklade postavljene, one su kona?ne, bilo da je u pitanju pobeda ili poraz. Ta politika stoji. Ne bismo ga spre?ili da unov?i pobedu samo zato ?to se nije samoisklju?io na du?e. Isto va?i i u drugom pravcu.
Ovo je jo? jedna konfliktna ta?ka, jer zavisnici od kockanja nisu u stanju da se odupru i jednostavno prestanu da pola?u/igraju. Stoga, ako ra?un nije zatvoren nakon razumnog vremenskog perioda koji je postavljen u Uslovima i uslovima kazina, depoziti treba da budu vra?eni u celosti - me?utim - minus povla?enja i dobici koji su se desili izme?u. Igra? je do tog trenutka trebalo da bude blokiran, nesposoban da igra, dakle, ne mo?e ni da deponuje novac, kao ni da unov?i bilo koji dobitak.
6.11 Ukoliko ?elite da zatvorite svoj nalog kod nas, po?aljite e-po?tu sa va?e registrovane adrese e-po?te na?em Odeljenju za korisni?ku podr?ku putem veza na veb lokaciji.
Igra? je ?ak sledio ovaj kazino termin i poslao zahtev za zatvaranje naloga 11. marta. Umesto zatvaranja naloga, igra?u je podr?ka rekla da koristi sistem na nalogu. ?ak i po ovom standardu, ra?un je trebalo da bude zatvoren u narednih nekoliko dana. To se nije dogodilo i do stvarnog zatvaranja do?lo je tek mesec dana kasnije, ?to je razlog za?to tra?imo povra?aj depozita upla?enih od 14. marta do zatvaranja ra?una 14. aprila. Iako ste jasno rekli da povrat novca nije mogu?, tako da ?u po?tovati va?u odluku, ako se ni?ta ne mo?e u?initi da se va?e mi?ljenje promeni.
Odgovorno kockanje shvatamo ozbiljno, ali to je dvosmerna ulica. Korisnik tako?e mora da preuzme odre?enu odgovornost. uklju?uju?i izbor du?eg perioda isklju?enja ako je to ono ?to je potrebno. Ne?e se vr?iti povra?aj sredstava.
Sla?em se da se odre?ena odgovornost mora staviti i na igra?e, a kazino treba za?tititi od raspolo?enih igra?a i slobodnih igra?a koji poku?avaju da zloupotrebe politiku odgovornog kockanja za igru bez rizika. Ali u ovom slu?aju, verujemo da je igra? u?inio sve ?to je mogao da se samoisklju?i iz Rainbet kazina, ali zbog sistemskih prepreka i kazina koji se nije pridr?avao sopstvenih Odredbi i uslova (6.11) nije bio u mogu?nosti da to u?ini.
Da zatvorimo ovo: Ako Rainbet kazino veruje da je procedura sa njihove strane ispravna, nije se desila nijedna gre?ka i nema prostora za dalju diskusiju - ili ?ak pregovaranje o bar delimi?nom povra?aju novca - verujem da nema smisla da se ?alba dalje otvara. Kao takav, zatvori?emo ovaj slu?aj kao ?nere?en" sa na?e strane, ?to ?e uticati na ocenu bezbednosti kazina, a ja bih mogao samo da preporu?im Voolisheep-u da pokrene pitanje kod An?uanske uprave za igre na sre?u. Sa?eka?u odgovor RainBet tima da im dam priliku da se pozabave ovom objavom. Ali u ovom trenutku ne verujem da ?emo na?i zajedni?ki jezik, po?to su na?e ta?ke gledi?ta previ?e udaljene na suprotnim stranama spektra.
Thank you for the detailed explanation, RainBet Team, much appreciated. Unfortunately, it seems like we have reached an impasse with this case.
While the email process can be slow at times, we’ve put an automatic self-exclusion system in place to help users take a break whenever they need. There is no 24-hour wait to "confirm" a self-exclusion. The first step is a 24-hour exclusion itself. This is intentional and ensures users are making a considered decision, not one driven by a moment of temporary frustration.
I understand that the casino needs to be safe against players who wants to close their account after a hefty loss, or in a heat of the moment, then re-open it few days later, causing a lot of issues and unnecessary administrative work for the casino. But in case of gambling addiction, this is very unfriendly system. Mainly because within said time the player can easily relapse and instead of further exclusion, deposit and play instead. While this system protects the casino against moody players, it is making it extremely hard for gambling addicts to stop themselves from further losses.
After trying the system myself - and being forced to re-log into my still active account after the 24 hours cool off period - I can also say that this is very dangerous for a gambling addict, as nothing in the account has been deactivated and I could deposit and play as easily as going straight for the self-exclusion option.
2025-03-11 13:39 → 2025-03-12 13:02
2025-03-14 22:13 → 2025-03-15 22:46
2025-03-17 12:33:47 → 2025-03-18 12:34:20
2025-03-19 13:01:11 → 2025-03-20 13:01:43
2025-03-20 13:02:01 → 2025-06-18 23:24:08
To us, this is a clear sign of a player struggling with the self-exclusion system. If there was only one or two tries, I would be inclined to agree that the player has not put reasonable effort into the self-exclusion process. But 5 failed attempts are way too many to ignore. Unfortunately, where you see someone self-excluding themselves for 24 hours only then coming back to play as a regular guest, we see a gambling addict trying to self-exclude, but being unable to do so due to the unintuitive system.
As for refunds, our policy is clear. Once bets are placed, they are final, whether it’s a win or a loss. That policy stands. We wouldn’t have stopped him from cashing out a win just because he didn’t self-exclude for longer. The same applies in the other direction.
This is another conflicting point, as gambling addicts are not able to resist and simply stop depositing/playing. Therefore if the account has not been closed after a reasonable period of time that is set in the casino's T&C, the deposits should be refunded in full - however - minus any withdrawals and winnings that happened in between. The player should have been blocked by that time, unable to play, therefore also unable to deposit money as well as to cash in any winnings.
6.11 Should you wish to close your account with us, please send an email from your Registered Email Address to our Customer Support Department via the links on the Website.
The player has even followed this casino term, and sent an account closure request on 11th March. Instead of closing the account, the player was told by the support to use the in-account system. Even by this standard, the account should have been closed within next few days. This did not happen and the actual closure happened only a month later, which is the reason why we are asking for the refund of deposits made between 14th March until the account closure on 14th April. Although you have clearly stated that no refunds are possible, so I will respect your decision, if there is nothing that can be done to change your opinion.
We take responsible gambling seriously, but it’s a two-way street. The user has to take some responsibility too. including choosing a longer exclusion period if that’s what’s needed. No refunds will be issued.
I agree that some responsibility needs to be placed on the players as well, and the casino needs to be protected against moody players and free betters trying to abuse the responsible gambling policies for risk-free play. But in this case, we believe the player did everything he could to self-exclude himself from the Rainbet Casino, but due to the system hurdles and casino not adhering to their own Terms & Conditions (6.11) he was unable to do so.
To close this off: If Rainbet Casino believes the procedure on their end is correct, no errors happened and there is no room for further discussion - or even negotiating at least a partial refund - I believe there is no point in keeping the complaint opened any further. As such, we will close this case as 'unresolved' on our end, which will impact the casino safety rating, and I could only recommend Woolysheep to raise the issue with the Anjouan Gaming Authority. I'll wait for the RainBet Team's reply to give them a chance to address this post. But at this point I do not believe we will find a common ground, as our view points are too far away on the opposite sides of the spectrum.
Automatski prevedeno:
