Tack f?r den detaljerade f?rklaringen, RainBet Team , mycket uppskattat. Tyv?rr verkar det som att vi har hamnat i ett d?dl?ge med det h?r fallet.
?ven om e-postprocessen ibland kan vara l?ngsam, har vi inf?rt ett automatiskt sj?lvuteslutningssystem f?r att hj?lpa anv?ndare att ta en paus n?rhelst de beh?ver. Det finns ingen 24-timmars v?ntan f?r att "bekr?fta" en sj?lvuteslutning. Det f?rsta steget ?r en 24-timmars uteslutning i sig. Detta ?r avsiktligt och s?kerst?ller att anv?ndarna fattar ett ?verv?gt beslut, inte ett som drivs av ett ?gonblick av tillf?llig frustration.
Jag f?rst?r att kasinot m?ste vara s?kert mot spelare som vill st?nga sitt konto efter en rej?l f?rlust, eller i stundens hetta, och sedan ?ppna det igen n?gra dagar senare, vilket orsakar m?nga problem och on?digt administrativt arbete f?r kasinot. Men vid spelberoende ?r detta ett v?ldigt ov?nligt system. Fr?mst f?r att inom n?mnda tid spelaren l?tt kan ?terfalla och ist?llet f?r ytterligare uteslutning, s?tta in och spela ist?llet. ?ven om detta system skyddar kasinot mot lynniga spelare, g?r det det extremt sv?rt f?r spelberoende att stoppa sig sj?lva fr?n ytterligare f?rluster.
Efter att ha provat systemet sj?lv – och tvingats logga in p? mitt fortfarande aktiva konto efter 24 timmars nedkylningsperiod – kan jag ocks? s?ga att detta ?r mycket farligt f?r en spelberoende, eftersom inget p? kontot har avaktiverats och jag kunde s?tta in och spela lika enkelt som att g? direkt till alternativet f?r sj?lvuteslutning.
2025-03-11 13:39 → 2025-03-12 13:02
2025-03-14 22:13 → 2025-03-15 22:46
2025-03-17 12:33:47 → 2025-03-18 12:34:20
2025-03-19 13:01:11 → 2025-03-20 13:01:43
2025-03-20 13:02:01 → 2025-06-18 23:24:08
F?r oss ?r detta ett tydligt tecken p? en spelare som k?mpar med sj?lvuteslutningssystemet. Om det bara fanns ett eller tv? f?rs?k, skulle jag vara ben?gen att h?lla med om att spelaren inte har lagt rimliga anstr?ngningar p? sj?lvuteslutningsprocessen. Men 5 misslyckade f?rs?k ?r alldeles f?r m?nga f?r att ignorera. Tyv?rr, d?r du ser n?gon sj?lvutesluta sig sj?lv i 24 timmar f?rst och sedan komma tillbaka f?r att spela som en vanlig g?st, ser vi en spelberoende som f?rs?ker sj?lvutesluta sig, men inte kan g?ra det p? grund av det ointuitiva systemet.
N?r det g?ller ?terbetalningar ?r v?r policy tydlig. N?r satsningarna v?l ?r placerade ?r de slutgiltiga, oavsett om det ?r en vinst eller en f?rlust. Den politiken st?r sig. Vi skulle inte ha hindrat honom fr?n att ta ut en vinst bara f?r att han inte sj?lv exkluderade l?ngre. Detsamma g?ller ?t andra h?llet.
Detta ?r en annan motstridig punkt, eftersom spelberoende inte kan st? emot och helt enkelt sluta s?tta in/spela. Om kontot d?rf?r inte har st?ngts efter en rimlig tidsperiod som anges i casinots T&C, b?r ins?ttningarna ?terbetalas i sin helhet - dock - minus eventuella uttag och vinster som h?nt d?remellan. Spelaren borde ha varit blockerad vid den tidpunkten, of?rm?gen att spela, d?rf?r inte heller kunna s?tta in pengar eller l?sa in eventuella vinster.
6.11 Om du vill avsluta ditt konto hos oss, skicka ett e-postmeddelande fr?n din registrerade e-postadress till v?r kundsupportavdelning via l?nkarna p? webbplatsen.
Spelaren har till och med f?ljt denna casinoperiod och skickade en beg?ran om st?ngning av konto den 11 mars. Ist?llet f?r att st?nga kontot blev spelaren tillsagd av supporten att anv?nda in-account-systemet. ?ven med denna standard borde kontot ha st?ngts inom de n?rmaste dagarna. Detta skedde inte och sj?lva st?ngningen skedde bara en m?nad senare, vilket ?r anledningen till att vi ber om ?terbetalning av ins?ttningar gjorda mellan den 14 mars fram till kontots st?ngning den 14 april. ?ven om du tydligt har sagt att inga ?terbetalningar ?r m?jliga, s? kommer jag att respektera ditt beslut, om det inte finns n?got som kan g?ras f?r att ?ndra din ?sikt.
Vi tar ansvarsfullt spelande p? allvar, men det ?r en dubbelriktad gata. Anv?ndaren m?ste ocks? ta ett visst ansvar. inklusive att v?lja en l?ngre uteslutningstid om det ?r vad som beh?vs. Inga ?terbetalningar kommer att utf?rdas.
Jag h?ller med om att ett visst ansvar m?ste l?ggas p? spelarna ocks?, och kasinot m?ste skyddas mot lynniga spelare och gratisspelare som f?rs?ker missbruka policyerna f?r ansvarsfullt spelande f?r riskfritt spel. Men i det h?r fallet tror vi att spelaren gjorde allt han kunde f?r att sj?lvutesluta sig sj?lv fr?n Rainbet Casino, men p? grund av systemets hinder och att kasinot inte f?ljde sina egna regler och villkor (6.11) kunde han inte g?ra det.
F?r att st?nga av detta: Om Rainbet Casino anser att proceduren p? deras sida ?r korrekt, inga fel har intr?ffat och det finns inget utrymme f?r ytterligare diskussion - eller ens f?rhandla om ?tminstone en partiell ?terbetalning - jag tror att det inte ?r n?gon mening med att h?lla klagom?let ?ppet l?ngre. Som s?dan kommer vi att avsluta det h?r ?rendet som "ol?st" fr?n v?r sida, vilket kommer att p?verka kasinos?kerhetsv?rderingen, och jag kan bara rekommendera Woolysheep att ta upp fr?gan med Anjouan Gaming Authority. Jag v?ntar p? RainBet Teams svar f?r att ge dem en chans att ta upp det h?r inl?gget. Men vid det h?r laget tror jag inte att vi kommer att hitta en gemensam grund, eftersom v?ra synpunkter ?r f?r l?ngt borta p? motsatta sidor av spektrumet.
Thank you for the detailed explanation, RainBet Team, much appreciated. Unfortunately, it seems like we have reached an impasse with this case.
While the email process can be slow at times, we’ve put an automatic self-exclusion system in place to help users take a break whenever they need. There is no 24-hour wait to "confirm" a self-exclusion. The first step is a 24-hour exclusion itself. This is intentional and ensures users are making a considered decision, not one driven by a moment of temporary frustration.
I understand that the casino needs to be safe against players who wants to close their account after a hefty loss, or in a heat of the moment, then re-open it few days later, causing a lot of issues and unnecessary administrative work for the casino. But in case of gambling addiction, this is very unfriendly system. Mainly because within said time the player can easily relapse and instead of further exclusion, deposit and play instead. While this system protects the casino against moody players, it is making it extremely hard for gambling addicts to stop themselves from further losses.
After trying the system myself - and being forced to re-log into my still active account after the 24 hours cool off period - I can also say that this is very dangerous for a gambling addict, as nothing in the account has been deactivated and I could deposit and play as easily as going straight for the self-exclusion option.
2025-03-11 13:39 → 2025-03-12 13:02
2025-03-14 22:13 → 2025-03-15 22:46
2025-03-17 12:33:47 → 2025-03-18 12:34:20
2025-03-19 13:01:11 → 2025-03-20 13:01:43
2025-03-20 13:02:01 → 2025-06-18 23:24:08
To us, this is a clear sign of a player struggling with the self-exclusion system. If there was only one or two tries, I would be inclined to agree that the player has not put reasonable effort into the self-exclusion process. But 5 failed attempts are way too many to ignore. Unfortunately, where you see someone self-excluding themselves for 24 hours only then coming back to play as a regular guest, we see a gambling addict trying to self-exclude, but being unable to do so due to the unintuitive system.
As for refunds, our policy is clear. Once bets are placed, they are final, whether it’s a win or a loss. That policy stands. We wouldn’t have stopped him from cashing out a win just because he didn’t self-exclude for longer. The same applies in the other direction.
This is another conflicting point, as gambling addicts are not able to resist and simply stop depositing/playing. Therefore if the account has not been closed after a reasonable period of time that is set in the casino's T&C, the deposits should be refunded in full - however - minus any withdrawals and winnings that happened in between. The player should have been blocked by that time, unable to play, therefore also unable to deposit money as well as to cash in any winnings.
6.11 Should you wish to close your account with us, please send an email from your Registered Email Address to our Customer Support Department via the links on the Website.
The player has even followed this casino term, and sent an account closure request on 11th March. Instead of closing the account, the player was told by the support to use the in-account system. Even by this standard, the account should have been closed within next few days. This did not happen and the actual closure happened only a month later, which is the reason why we are asking for the refund of deposits made between 14th March until the account closure on 14th April. Although you have clearly stated that no refunds are possible, so I will respect your decision, if there is nothing that can be done to change your opinion.
We take responsible gambling seriously, but it’s a two-way street. The user has to take some responsibility too. including choosing a longer exclusion period if that’s what’s needed. No refunds will be issued.
I agree that some responsibility needs to be placed on the players as well, and the casino needs to be protected against moody players and free betters trying to abuse the responsible gambling policies for risk-free play. But in this case, we believe the player did everything he could to self-exclude himself from the Rainbet Casino, but due to the system hurdles and casino not adhering to their own Terms & Conditions (6.11) he was unable to do so.
To close this off: If Rainbet Casino believes the procedure on their end is correct, no errors happened and there is no room for further discussion - or even negotiating at least a partial refund - I believe there is no point in keeping the complaint opened any further. As such, we will close this case as 'unresolved' on our end, which will impact the casino safety rating, and I could only recommend Woolysheep to raise the issue with the Anjouan Gaming Authority. I'll wait for the RainBet Team's reply to give them a chance to address this post. But at this point I do not believe we will find a common ground, as our view points are too far away on the opposite sides of the spectrum.
Automatiskt ?versatt: