K?ra Radka,
?ven om jag h?ller med din kommentar, ang?ende min recension att jag inte gav n?gon information, f?rutom att jag hade en d?lig upplevelse, har jag g?tt vidare och ?ndrat den f?r att ge alla saker som h?nde. Tyv?rr h?ller jag inte med om din uppf?ljning i din tidigare kommentar. Enligt din standard och ditt s?tt att godk?nna recensioner, om 10 spelare har samma d?liga erfarenhet av ett kasino, kommer du bara att publicera 1 av de 10 spelarnas recension. Sedan, om tv? spelare har tv? olika men positiva recensioner, publicerar du b?da. Personen som l?ser recensionerna kommer att tycka att upplevelsen i kasinot ?r ?verlag positiv, eftersom du publicerade 2 positiva recensioner och 1 negativ. Vad personen som l?ser inte vet ?r att du avvisade 9 negativa recensioner eftersom 9 olika spelare hade samma d?liga upplevelse.
Ang?ende klagom?let, om du tittar p? klagom?lssektionen kommer du att uppt?cka att 95 % av klagom?len har f?ljande p?st?ende gemensamt " Kasinon har regler som m?ste f?ljas ". Jag h?ller till 100% med om detta, och det var d?rf?r jag strikt f?ljde kasinots regler n?r jag gick in p? sj?lvuteslutning, men i mitt klagom?l var det irrelevant att jag f?ljde kasinots regler, skrivna och godk?nda n?r kontot skapades, eftersom det slutliga beslutet hade redan fattats mycket tidigare i mitt klagom?l, och jag ska ber?tta varf?r.
Det som ?r mest oroande f?r mig, och tar bort min trov?rdighet fr?n CasinoGuru, och bevisar att vissa kasinon f?r en annan behandling och ett inte s? transparent och opartiskt beslut... Medan mitt klagom?l utvecklades l?g fokus inte p? mitt klagom?l, utan snarare p? att ?ka Casino Safety Index fr?n ?ver genomsnittet till High. Medan jag f?rs?kte samla in och tillhandah?lla s? mycket bevis, var CasinoGuru mer orolig f?r att hitta s?tt att ?ka kasinos?kerhetsindexet, detta inkluderade att godk?nna positiva recensioner och manipulera gamla klagom?l och minska antalet svarta po?ng som ges. Detta ?r extremt tr?kigt och oroande och bevisar bara det partiska och or?ttvista beteendet fr?n din sida, f?r ist?llet f?r att ge en opartisk hj?lp/recension till mitt problem l?g fokus p? att f? kasinot att se b?ttre ut ?n det faktiskt ?r, genom att minska svarta punkter fr?n gamla tider. Negativa klagom?l, fr?n 5 till 3 blackpoints ( Eftersom kasinot felaktigt drog av 5% av pengarna fr?n spelaren, d?rf?r de 5 blackpoints tilldelade av CasinoGuru , som senare ?ndrades till 3), denna minskning tillsammans med godk?nda positiva anv?ndarrecensioner och vem vet vad mer, ?kade kasinoindexet medan mitt klagom?l var ?ppet... anser du detta r?ttvist, ?ppet och opartiskt?
Detta ?r inte bara extremt oroande, eftersom det bevisar den speciella behandlingen som vissa kasinon f?r, utan det ?r ocks? frustrerande och besvikelse f?r mig, eftersom jag bara ville ha en ?rlig och opartisk hj?lp till mitt klagom?l, jag var 100 % transparent, gjorde all research, skickade beviset och kasinovillkoren f?r att motivera mina handlingar och varf?r jag hade r?tt, men CasinoGuru fokuserade p? att ?ka kasinos?kerhetsindexet, manipulera gamla klagom?l ist?llet f?r att faktiskt hj?lpa mig med mitt klagom?l och se att jag bara f?ljde vad som casino sa ?t mig att g?ra, men att f?lja vad casinot sa ?t mig att g?ra var fel enligt er " Huvudfr?gan h?r ?r att det mesta av kommunikationen du initierade var on?dig och bara f?rl?ngde hela processen. " Jag antar att jag f?ljde kasinoprocessen, och det de sa ?t mig att g?ra var on?digt...
F?rest?ll dig hur jag k?nner, om n?gon p?st?r sig hj?lpa mig, men jag ser perfekt att de gynnar den andra parten? Hur kan jag tro att du ?r transparent och opartisk och arbetar p? att skapa en s?krare och mer transparent onlinespelmilj?, n?r jag tydligt s?g motsatsen?
Dear Radka,
While i agree with your comment, regarding my review that i didnt provide any info, besides stating i had a bad experience, I have gone ahead and change it to provide all of the things that happened. Unfortunately, I don't agree with your follow up, in your previous comment. By your standards and way of approving reviews, if 10 players have the same bad experience about a casino, you will only publish 1 of the 10 player's review. Then, if 2 player's have 2 different but positive reviews, you will publish both. The person reading the reviews will think the experience in the casino is overall positive, because you published 2 positive reviews and 1 negative. What the person reading doesn't know, is that you rejected 9 negative reviews because 9 different player's had the same bad experience.
Regarding the complaint, If you take a look at the complaints section, you will find that 95% of the complaints have the following statement in common "The casinos have rules, which need to be followed". I 100% agree with this, and that's why I strictly followed the casinos Rules while entering self exclusion, but in my complaint, me having followed the casinos Rules, written and agreed at the time of the creation of the account, was irrelevant, because the final decision had already been made much earlier in my complaint, and I will tell you why.
What's most concerning to me, and takes away my credibility from CasinoGuru, and proves that some casinos receive a different treatment and a Not so transparent and Unbiased decision... While my complaint was unfolding, the focus was not on my complaint, but rather on increasing the Casino Safety Index from above average to High. While I was trying to collect and provide as much evidence, CasinoGuru was more worried in finding ways to increase the casino safety Index, this included approving Positive reviews and tampering with Old complaints and decreasing the amount of blackpoints given. This is extremely sad and concerning and just proves the biased and unfair behaviour on your end, because instead of providing an unbiased help/review to my problem, the focus was on making the casino look better than it actually is, by decreasing blackpoints from old Negative Complaints, from 5 to 3 blackpoints (Because the casino wrongly deducted 5% of funds from the player, therefore the 5 blackpoints awarded by CasinoGuru, which later was changed to 3), this reduction together with approved positive user reviews and who knows what more, increased the casino Index while my complaint was open... do you consider this Fair, transparent and Unbiased?
Not only is this extremely concerning, as it proves the special treatment some casinos receive, but its also frustrating and disappointing to me, because i only wanted an honest and unbiased help to my complaint, I was 100% transparent, did all the research, sent the proof and casino Terms to justify my actions and why I was in the right, but CasinoGuru focused on increasing the Casino Safety Index, tampering with Old complaints, instead of actually helping me with my complaint, and seeing that I only followed what the casino told me to do, but following what the casino told me to do was wrong according to you guys "The main issue here is that most of the communication you initiated was unnecessary, and only prolonged the whole process." I guess me following the casino process, and what they told me to do was unnecessary...
Imagine how I feel, if someone is claiming to be helping me, but i perfectly see that they are favoring the other party? How can I believe you to be transparent and Unbiased, and to be working on creating a safer and more transparent online gaming environment, when I clearly saw the opposite?
Automatiskt ?versatt: