Hall?,
Jag ?r faktiskt Radka. Jag ?r s?ker p? att du ocks? har f?tt en f?rklaring, varje avvisad v?ntande redigering eller recension ?r fullst?ndigt f?rklarad. I det h?r fallet skulle jag anta att det f?rmodligen berodde p? att anv?ndarrecensionen inte ?r skapad f?r att chatta med casinot. Kasinot kan inte uppdatera svaret. Det ?r bara inte utformat p? det h?r s?ttet.
Jag gissar bara eftersom jag inte kan kontrollera f?rklaringen retroaktivt. Skulle du vara s? sn?ll att dela med dig av f?rklaringen?
Jag t?nker inte d?lja n?got, om jag gjorde ett misstag kan vi r?tta till det, jag beh?ver bara lite hj?lp f?r tillf?llet.
Vi manipulerar ingenting, ?ven om vi hanterar en ?verdriven m?ngd anv?ndarrecensioner, s? utrymmet f?r att g?ra ett oavsiktligt fel finns bara d?r.
Men n?r jag tittar p? ditt avvisade klagom?l antar jag att orsaken bara var s? h?r:
"Hej, tack f?r att du skickade din recension. Tyv?rr beslutade vi att avvisa din recension eftersom den ?r baserad p? ett klagom?l som ?r relaterat till din recension som har avvisats av CasinoGuru. Tack f?r din f?rst?else."
I klagom?let st?r det: "...termen s?ger tydligt att du ska skicka ett e-postmeddelande om du vill st?nga ditt konto permanent p? grund av spelberoende, vilket du inte gjorde. Om du gjorde det skulle du l?tt kunna f? bevis p? s?dant. handling och v?r inst?llning till det h?r fallet skulle vara helt annorlunda. Du m?ste f?rst? att om kasinot delar enkla och tydliga instruktioner om hur man beg?r sj?lvuteslutning och du inte f?ljde dem, och dessutom har du inte n?gra bevis p? att kasinot har informerats om ditt spelproblem ?r v?ra alternativ mycket begr?nsade. Jag f?rs?krar dig att n?r en spelare l?mnat giltiga bevis som bekr?ftar att de beg?rde sj?lvuteslutning p? grund av spelberoende, s? gjorde vi allt vi kunde g?ra f?r att hj?lpa."
D?rf?r skulle det inte vara r?ttvist att l?mna din recension synlig. Dela beviset p? det du beskrev i recensionen s? ska vi ompr?va det.
Vi str?var bara efter att vara r?ttvisa.
Hello,
I'm Radka actually. I'm sure you also received an explanation, every rejected pending edit or review is fully explained. In this case, I would assume it was probably because the user review is not created to chat with the casino. The casino is not able to update the reply. It's just not designed this way.
I'm just guessing though since I can't check the explanation retroactively. Would you be so kind to share the explanation given, please?
I do not intend to hide anything, if I made a mistake, we can correct it, I just need a little help at the moment.
We are not manipulating anything, though we deal with an excessive amount of user reviews, so the space for making an unintentional error is just there.
But, looking at your rejected complaint, I guess the reason was just like that:
"Hello, thank you for submitting your review. Unfortunately, we decided to reject your review since it's based on a complaint that is related to your review that has been rejected by CasinoGuru. Thank you for your understanding."
The complaint says: "...the term clearly says that you should send an email if you want to permanently close your account due to gambling addiction, which you didn't do. If you did so, you could easily have proof of such action and our approach to this case would be completely different. You must understand that if the casino shares simple and clear instructions on how to request self-exclusion and you didn't follow them, and on top of that you don't have any proof the casino has been informed about your gambling problem, our options are very limited. I assure you that whenever a player provided valid evidence confirming they requested self-exclusion due to gambling addiction, we did everything we could do to help."
Hence it would not be fair to leave your review visible. Share the proof of what you described in the review and we shall reconsider that.
We only aim to be fair and square.
Automatiskt ?versatt: