Jag har redan f?rklarat f?r dig varf?r vi inte kan avsluta ?rendet med hj?lp av statuspubliceringen. Jag kommer dock att f?rklara det en g?ng till: N?r vi unders?kte ditt fall fann vi att du spelade med en bonus avsedd f?r slots p? BJ. Som ett resultat fick du en f?rdel, och av den anledningen best?mde vi oss f?r att st?dja casinot.
T?nk ocks? p? detta:
kommentar fr?n Bryan (alias Casinomeister) privat:
"Jag kollade precis och du kanske har missf?rst?tt oss. Det ?r inte kasinot som fattat detta beslut, utan mjukvaruleverant?ren. S? om n?got - du skulle ha ett krav mot dem, inte kasinot. Kasinots ledning vidh?ll precis det beslut som tagits av mjukvaruleverant?ren. S? om n?got b?r du ta upp din fr?ga med dem.'
Betrakta situationen ur ett kasinos perspektiv:
Om spelaren har l?mnat in ett krav men din s?kerhetsavdelning, spelleverant?r och medlare bekr?ftar att du har r?tt och spelaren har brutit mot reglerna, skulle du ?nd? betala?
N?r ett kasino trodde att det agerar korrekt, och ?ven vi trodde det, kan du inte klandra dem f?r det. Klassificeringen av publicitet ?r till hj?lp i fall d?r kasinot agerade fel. De visste med st?rsta sannolikhet om det, och f?rst efter att fallet presenterats offentligt beslutade kasinot att s? sm?ningom betala. I dessa fall ?r vi p? spelarens sida sedan b?rjan eftersom det ?r uppenbart att kasinot gjorde n?got fel.
Sn?lla missf?rst? mig inte. Jag ?r mycket glad att du vann fallet. M?nga fall ?r inte svarta och vita, och jag ?r fortfarande v?ldigt intresserad av vad som ?vertygade domstolen och kasinot att betala dig s? sm?ningom. N?r vi r?knade (inte bara jag arbetade med det h?r fallet) var fallet tydligt f?r oss. D?rf?r skulle jag vilja veta vad vi missat eller vad som var fel.
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.
Automatiskt ?versatt: