B?sta LuckyMax Casino,
Tack f?r den angivna f?rklaringen. Jag skulle vilja n?mna att sj?lvuteslutning p? grund av ett spelproblem ?r en mycket allvarlig fr?ga eftersom spelarna ofta tappar kontrollen ?ver sina handlingar och inte t?nker rationellt. Att informera casinot om ett potentiellt spelproblem ?r en viktig del av sj?lvuteslutningsprocessen och vi p? www.kpvfaw.com anser att om en spelare har ett spelproblem och informerar casinot om det, b?r deras konto st?ngas permanent utan m?jlighet att ?ppning (f?rutom f?r vissa situationer som n?r en tillr?ckligt l?ng sj?lvuteslutningsperiod redan har passerat - vi talar om ?r) och ?ven en relevant ?ter?ppningsprocess, som inkluderar en tillr?cklig avkylningsperiod (inte en dag utan minst en vecka, helst tv?) och ?ven kommunikation med spelaren under denna avkylningsperiod f?r att verifiera om beg?ran gjordes med gott sinne och inte bara var ett tillf?lligt misslyckande.
I det h?r fallet var tidsramen f?r sj?lvuteslutningsprocessen f?r l?ng (13,4 - 2,6). Vi rekommenderar att du f?rb?ttrar hela processen. Sj?lvuteslutningen p? grund av spelberoende b?r genomf?ras inom ett par dagar. I det h?r fallet var det ?ver en m?nad. D?rf?r b?r spelaren ha r?tt att f? tillbaka sina ins?ttningar fr?n 18.4. fram till dagen f?r kontots st?ngning.
Jag skulle vilja fr?ga dig om vi f?rstod situationen r?tt eller om det finns n?gon annan information om varf?r spelaren med ett spelproblem fick ?ppna sitt konto igen och spela s? enkelt.
Dear LuckyMax Casino,
Thank you for the provided explanation. I would like to mention that self-exclusion due to a gambling problem is a very serious issue because the players often lose control over their actions and are not thinking rationally. Informing the casino about a potential gambling problem is an important part of the self-exclusion process and we at www.kpvfaw.com believe that if a player has a gambling problem and informs the casino about it, their account should be permanently closed without the possibility of opening (except for certain situations like when a long enough self-exclusion period has already passed - we are talking about years) and also a relevant reopening process, which includes a sufficient cool off period (not a day but at least a week, ideally two) and also communication with the player during this cool-off period for verifying if the request was made in sound mind and wasn't just a temporary failure.
In this case, the self-exclusion process timeframe was too long (13.4 - 2.6). We recommend improving the whole process. The self-exclusion due to gambling addiction should be carried out within a couple of days. In this case, it was over a month. Therefore, the player should be entitled to get a refund of their deposits from 18.4. until the day of the account closure.
I would like to ask you if we understood the situation correctly or if there is any other information as to why was the player with a gambling problem allowed to reopen his account and play so easily.
Automatiskt ?versatt: