K?ra Ladygaga,
Jag f?rst?r att det var en utmaning f?r dig att n? en slutsats i det h?r fallet. Jag skulle dock vilja betona att vi st?ttade kasinot i just den h?r situationen.
Baserat p? de fakta vi samlade p? den tiden verkar det som att trots att du var medveten om att bonusen du fick var specifikt f?r slots s? fortsatte du att spela Blackjack. ?ven om du ibland satsade p? slots n?r ditt saldo var l?gt, ?terv?nde du konsekvent till Blackjack. P? grund av detta trodde vi att kasinot hade r?tt.
Missf?rst? mig inte, jag ?r glad att du till slut fick betalt. Men baserat p? de bevis vi hade tillg?ngligt f?r oss vid den tidpunkten, tog vi beslutet att st?lla oss p? casinots sida.
Detta liknar den r?ttsliga processen i de flesta demokratiska l?nder. I en tvist f?rs?ker du f?rst l?sa den utan att involvera domstolarna. Om det misslyckas kan du ta ?rendet till en lokal domstol (www.kpvfaw.com i det h?r exemplet). Om den lokala domstolen d?mer mot dig har du m?jlighet att eskalera ?rendet till en nationell domstol. Men ?ven om du vinner m?let beh?ver det inte betyda att motparten kommer att straffas om de r?ttar till situationen (som casinot gjorde genom att betala dig). Klassificeringen du n?mnde, "publicitet hj?lpte", g?ller fall d?r vi ?r p? spelarens sida. I ditt fall, eftersom vi st?llde oss p? kasinots sida, trodde de att deras handlingar var ber?ttigade.
Jag minns tydligt ditt fall, och jag ?r uppriktigt nyfiken (om det inte ?r konfidentiellt) om hur du ?vertygade kasinot att betala dig. (vilka bevis du anv?nde eller vad som ?vertygar dem) Vi kan f?rb?ttra v?ra processer. Om vi gjorde ett misstag kan vi l?ra av erfarenheten.
N?r det g?ller SBGOC, i ditt klagom?l n?mnde du att de hj?lpte dig, och jag har inget annat alternativ f?r att avsluta klagom?let. Vi vill inte ha ber?m f?r deras hj?lp, och jag tror att alla som l?ser klagom?let skulle f?rst? att SBGOC spelade en roll f?r att l?sa ditt problem. Vi h?ller just nu p? att utv?rdera den h?r organisationen och om allt g?r bra kommer vi att rekommendera spelare att kontakta dem i komplexa fall. Vi unders?ker fortfarande m?jligheter till samarbete.
Jag vill informera dig om att genom att ?teruppta klagom?let och informera oss om det olika resultatet kan vi f? nya insikter eller f?rb?ttra v?ra metoder, och andra spelare kommer att bli medvetna om SBGOC. D?rf?r ser jag detta som en positiv utveckling.
Dear Ladygaga,
I understand that reaching a conclusion in this case was challenging for you. However, I would like to highlight that we were supporting the casino in this particular situation.
Based on the facts we gathered at that time, it appears that despite being aware that the bonus you received was specifically for slots, you continued to play Blackjack. Even though you occasionally wagered on slots when your balance was low, you consistently returned to Blackjack. Due to this, we believed that the casino was in the right.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am pleased that you were eventually paid. However, based on the evidence we had available to us at the time, we made the decision to side with the casino.
This is akin to the legal process in most democratic countries. In a dispute, you initially attempt to resolve it without involving the courts. If that fails, you can take the matter to a local court (www.kpvfaw.com in this example). If the local court rules against you, then you have the option to escalate the case to a national court. However, even if you win the case, it does not necessarily mean that the opposing party will be punished if they rectify the situation (as the casino did by paying you). The classification you mentioned, "publicity helped," applies to cases where we are on the side of the player. In your case, since we sided with the casino, they believed that their actions were justified.
I vividly recall your case, and I am genuinely curious (if it is not confidential) about how you convinced the casino to pay you. (which evidence you used or what convince them) We can improve our processes. If we made a mistake, we can learn from the experience.
Regarding SBGOC, in your complaint, you mentioned that they assisted you, and I have no other option how to close the complaint. We do not seek credit for their help, and I believe that anyone reading the complaint would understand that SBGOC played a role in resolving your issue. We are currently evaluating this organization, and if everything goes well, we will recommend players to contact them in complex cases. We are still exploring possibilities for cooperation.
I want to inform you that by reopening the complaint and informing us of the different outcome, we may gain new insights or improve our methods, and other players will become aware of SBGOC. Therefore, I see this as a positive development.
Automatiskt ?versatt: