Reopen blocked account (sida 2)

I get what you're saying, but as I and my colleagues said, accusing caisno or anyone else of doing something unfair requires proving your point. The way I understand it, the reopen request didn't provide sufficient evidence. That's literally all.

To be utterly concrete, we do not need details about the conversation—we need to see the conversation firsthand from the player. I'm truly sorry, but it has always been like this.

Without such proof, each casino's management may easily say that no such conversation exists; the only possible response without proof would be, "Are you certain?" As you can see, such situations are designed to fail. I'm not opposing you, but I'm quite familiar with the process, and I can assure you that my colleagues are particularly interested in such cases because, as the player said, we have spotted far too many spontaneously reopened accounts this year, and they really care to investigate anything associated with responsible gambling.

Är det också okej att casinosupporten har en e-postadress som bara Gmail-mejl går till? Så i verkligheten kan till exempel en person som använder Outlook-mejl inte ens stänga sitt konto där.

Jag skulle förstå synpunkten om jag inte hade bevisat att jag också gick till livechatten för att säga om mitt spelberoende. Dessutom fick jag mitt konto stängt bara på måndagen eftersom jag var tvungen att gå till livechatten igen för att klaga på deras trasiga e-post. Personer som fortfarande har Outlook-e-post kommer inte att få sitt konto stängt via e-post där.

Ok but still, my case was handled very poorly by the casino guru. I was not given any opportunity to clarify the case more, but my complaint was practically rejected immediately. At least you could have asked what the casino's opinion was on the this case, what their explanation was, but even that was not done.

Quite often, it feels like the casino guru protects the casinos more than the players.

Jag tycker inte att det är rätt att en spelberoende ska behöva vänta i 72 timmar på att få sitt konto blockerat. Casinot borde åtminstone erbjuda en tillfällig stängning via chatt om allt annat misslyckas.

Hello,

I agree; permanent self-exclusion due to gambling addiction should never end up with easy reopening. I'm talking about a situation when the small employer keeps coming to beg or litigate about the cost of reopening an already closed account.

If the player obeyed the rules, explained the problem, and requested full or permanent self-exclusion in the same casino, such an account should stay closed. This applies regardless of the license under which the casino operates.

Exactly, should be like that but it isnt. And actually there isnt any rule under any lisence that they can't reopen an account. This Even with permanent self-exclusion due addiction.

I think UKGC lisence is The only one that has strict rules regarding this matter.

Other lisences has gave casinos The option to decide themselves what to do. Unfortunately.

In my opinion, the email domain does not directly affect the service efficiency. However, I would be cautious and anticipate the inclusion of an official casino email domain in the rules. At least it is always beneficial to confirm that with official casino support.

If you are, however, asking if it is okay for a casino to say, "Hey, sorry, we didn't get your email because it was not sent from Gmail," I'd say that's quite stupid, and I recall a few cases when we explained to the casino management that once they allowed a player to register with such an email, they held the responsibility to secure communication from that email domain. On the other hand, the player also needs to take responsibility for their actions. Players sometimes kept playing for a month and then asked for chargebacks because no one replied to their one email. During that time, however, he even discussed additional bonuses with support, never mentioning awaiting a self-exclusion request response.

This is sometimes a very delicate matter for both sites.

It is not good for addicted players, but not every casino—especially the smaller ones—is able to address such requests during the weekends or banking holidays. From the player's perspective, the point is not to play, I believe. 🙁

I disagree due to the very concrete explanation provided. The complaints are a process based on proof. To help players, they must have at least something to show. Asking the casino about its opinion is pretty much pointless if we have nothing else to present because it is only a theoretical debate. Such debates are sadly more cut for the forum.

However, since I believe you made up your mind and I am not here to argue with it, I respect your opinion.

Obviously 'not to play' is impossible to do for a problem gambler. Most Curacao operators rely on loose or nonexistent regulations to prey on ones such as me and Mag7 here.

I sent an email to The correct support email that was on The terms, so that is not The point.

I sent three emails. One from Hotmail, one from Outlook, one from Gmail.

The Gmail one was The only one going through, and The casino said so also. Actually IT IS still like that. So basically If you have an account with any other email than gmail, there is high possibility that you cant Even close your account with them.

My casino account email was Outlook, and as so The email dont go through.

Also If customer is expected to follow every single term like IT IS written on the casino's site literally, then how come casinos can just choose to do whatever?

Like we have a term that we close your account after 24 hours from the email. IT does not say that it can take longer time on the weekend. So the question is, why casinos dont have to comply with their own terms but customers have to?

They wouldnt have to write that kind of term If it is not true.

I am surprised that you keep repeating that I have not provided evidence of the closure. I sent all the relevant emails as they were to the case handler and I was ready to explain the case more because there was a language problem. The closure and the discussion about it were in Finnish and the reason for closing the complaint was that I had not used the term "self-closure" by English?? There is no equivalent for that term in Finnish. And that is why I would have liked to reopen the case but the opportunity to talk to the case handler is zero on the casino guru page.

Till exempel anger MGA:s villkor att när en person stänger ett konto ska casinot kontrollera om de avser självavstängning.

Och det är sant att ordet inte ens används på finska. Jag har också tänkt att till exempel att stänga och blockera är exakt samma sak.

Men varför säger reglerna att det ska vara inom 24 timmar, men det sägs ingenting om att tiden kan förlängas vissa dagar?

Reglerna finns ju trots allt till för att båda parter ska följa dem. Eller har kunderna också samma rätt att följa reglerna hur de vill, och tillämpa dem till sin egen fördel efter behov?

In my opinion it is pretty much a stupid casino excuse; I explained why. Yet players may still at least contact the live chat operator, like you did, and we work with a 72-hour time frame, which is not ideal; it is one of the standards, however.

Believe me, I wish responsible concepts operated differently, but as you and other struggling players can attest, reality differs from logical expectations.

Så ge kunderna samma möjlighet att bryta mot reglerna som ni ger kasinon. Varför är detta fortfarande bara tillåtet för kasinon?

Perhaps because almost each Terms and Conditions includes the part saying, "we reserve the right to..." those rules are subject to change..." or any other form of the same meaning.

The way I see it it serves to protect a party's ability to enforce processes at a later time, without implying consent or acceptance of any contractual breaches.

The same, in my opinion, works for "estimated" withdrawal times listed in the rules.

As I previously mentioned, rules may not specifically enforce every situation. Each company always reserves some sort of rights and is subject to change...

This is an excellent illustration of how the world operates in general. We all want to be 100% protected, which pushes companies to such solutions. Just my view, of course.