Uigenkaldelig blokering åbnet

Hej, har nogen erfaring med, at et casino permanent lukker en konto, derefter blokerer den og efterfølgende genåbner den efter anmodning? Har et casino overhovedet lov til at gøre det?

Hi, yes, I've seen something like that before, but it doesn't happen often when a casino closes your account, blocks it, and then reopens it. I’ve mostly seen this happen when the casino was conducting an investigation and the player’s account was closed for the time being, and once the investigation was over, it was reopened.

There are also situations where a player asks the casino to close their account but wants to reopen it after some time. It is possible. Every casino handles this individually, but it’s not unusual. If the player self-excluded, then the account shouldn’t be reopened.

Can you describe what happened to you and at which casino so we can look into it together?

Tak for dit svar.

I mit tilfælde skrev jeg dog udtrykkeligt til casinoet og anmodede om, at min konto blev lukket "permanent og uigenkaldeligt" med øjeblikkelig virkning. Jeg anmodede også om skriftlig bekræftelse af den permanente lukning.

Derfor antog jeg, at det ikke bare var en rutinemæssig kontolukning. Senere blev kontoen dog genåbnet.

Dette er Lucky Circus Casino.

Jeg er derfor særligt interesseret i, om det overhovedet var tilladt at genåbne kontoen under disse omstændigheder. Kontoen blev faktisk genåbnet med det samme!

I'd say it's pretty much standard practice.

If a player requests to close their account, it can be reopened. Some casinos have a waiting period after which the player can request it, while others will reopen it almost immediately. 

If you self-exclude, or if you say you have a gambling addiction and the casino reopens your account, that shouldn’t happen even if the player requests it. Players need to be protected, and if that doesn’t work, then it’s pointless.

But as I said, when closing an account, it’s common for the casino to reopen it if the player requests it. So if I wanted to keep my account permanently closed in the future, I would request self-exclusion. 

Of course, I’m not saying there aren’t casinos that would open such an account for you, but then we’d have to deal with that situation, and it certainly shouldn’t be that way.

Jeg har uigenkaldeligt og permanent blokeret kontoen; dette er en selvudelukkelse!

Then why did you try to go back to the casino? If you didn't have a good experience there, or something disappointed you, and you wanted to go back after some time, I don't know if this is a situation where the casino shouldn't reopen your account. It doesn’t really seem like a self-exclusion request to me. It seems more like you were unhappy with something and went back because you’d been playing there for a long time and had enough deposits.

Jeg har fået min konto blokeret flere gange før, men aldrig på en så utvetydig måde. Når jeg eksplicit skriver "uigenkaldelig" og "permanent", betyder det klart og tydeligt: ​​for altid, uden mulighed for genåbning.

Hvis et casino omgår et sådant forbud, må jeg sætte spørgsmålstegn ved, hvor grænsen går. Det er især selvmodsigende, at VIP-support bekræftede den permanente forbud, men kontoen efterfølgende blev genaktiveret. Dette modsiger selve betydningen af ​​en permanent og uigenkaldelig kontoforbud.

Desuden informerede jeg dig udtrykkeligt den 3. marts om, at kontoen skulle lukkes "på ubestemt tid". Denne formulering gør det også utvetydigt klart, at en permanent lukning af kontoen ikke var hensigten, ikke en midlertidig suspendering.

På denne baggrund finder jeg det uforståeligt, hvorfor kontoen senere blev genaktiveret. Det er især modstridende, at den permanente eller uigenkaldelige suspendering blev bekræftet af jeres VIP-support, men at kontoen stadig kunne genaktiveres bagefter.

Hvis selv formuleringer som "permanent", "uigenkaldelig" og "luk på ubestemt tid" ikke betragtes som et klart signal, må jeg sætte spørgsmålstegn ved, om jeres casino overhovedet har klare grænser og effektive sikkerhedsforanstaltninger.

Of course, I’d like to point out that I’m not a casino representative, so what you’re describing or saying makes it sound like you might think that’s the case, but it’s not. 

Furthermore, obviously, if a casino closes an account and the player clearly states that it should be closed permanently, then the casino shouldn’t reopen it. On the other hand, there are many players who say the same thing you do, and then come back a month later saying they want to play there again. There’s a fine line there. But if you close your account, come back, reopen it, spend money there, and then want it back, I don’t know if you’ll get anywhere.

Det er netop det afgørende punkt: Jeg anmodede ikke om en normal midlertidig lukning, men eksplicit om en permanent og uigenkaldelig udelukkelse. Fra det øjeblik lå ansvaret hos casinoet for at sikre, at kontoen ikke kunne genåbnes.

Hvis en spiller genvinder adgang trods en klar og permanent udelukkelse, kan det ikke hævdes, at spilleren havde fuld kontrol over situationen. Det er netop derfor, der findes permanente udelukkelser og foranstaltninger til ansvarligt spil.

Hello, I understand those nuances may be very frustrating. If I may jump in for a sec, I would just like to mention that there is sadly a huge difference between a permanent self-exclusion request and a permanent self-exclusion request due to gambling addiction.

The second one is the only real permanent one, as far as I can say based on casinos' practices and insights gained from players' complaints focused on self-exclusion situations.

I thought this info could be helpful given the nature of the problem or situation.

Of course we can talk more about that anytime, or I'll leave you alone with Jaro here.

Jeg forstår den forskel, du mener. Men fra mit perspektiv er min sag stadig betydeligt mere problematisk.

Jeg anmodede ikke blot om en normal lukning af min konto, men angav udtrykkeligt min anmodning skriftligt:

"permanent"

"uigenkaldelig"

"med øjeblikkelig virkning"

Derudover bekræftede casinoet senere selve forbuddet og sagde:

"Vi har permanent blokeret din konto, som du anmodede om."

Dette dokumenterede tydeligt, at kontoen skulle lukkes permanent.

Netop derfor anser jeg det for problematisk, at det samme forbud senere blev ophævet via VIP-kommunikation, og at jeg endda blev tilbudt bonusser og tilbud igen.

Selvfølgelig spurgte jeg senere selv om en genåbning – det benægter jeg ikke. Men efter min mening er det netop der, et casinos ansvar ligger: Et bekræftet, uigenkaldeligt forbud bør ikke let omgås gennem VIP-kontakt eller velviljegestusser.

Det virker særligt selvmodsigende, når der først nævnes et "uigenkaldeligt" forbud, og der senere gøres en undtagelse.

Sure, I get what you're saying too. We can quibble over the details here. Of course, what you wrote about it being permanent and so on is also important. But as Radka said, that’s often not enough for a casino to close your account permanently. Self-exclusion is usually mentioned. And as was said, there’s a difference between gambling addiction and normal self-exclusion. The casino will simply reopen the account if the player requests it because it’s a business for them. I don’t know how many casinos really care that much about protecting players. There are probably fewer of them than those who truly do care. That’s why you need to distinguish between the two in the future, and then I hope a situation like this won’t arise.

Jeg forstår den forskel, du mener, og jeg er klar over, at mange casinoer skelner mellem selvudelukkelse for ansvarligt spil og normal lukning af konti.

Men i mit tilfælde ser jeg stadig et afgørende punkt:

Jeg satte ikke bare min konto på pause eller lukkede den midlertidigt, men brugte eksplicit udtrykkene "permanent" og "uigenkaldelig".

Endnu vigtigere er det, at casinoet selv efter min mening har vedtaget og bekræftet denne formulering:

"Vi har permanent blokeret din konto, som du anmodede om."

Fra mit perspektiv fik dette mig til at tro, at en senere genåbning ikke længere ville være mulig.

Det er netop derfor, jeg anser det for problematisk, at blokeringen senere blev ophævet direkte via VIP-chatten.

Uanset hvordan casinoet har mærket den interne udelukkelseskategori, står spørgsmålet stadig for mig:

Hvad er pointen med et eksplicit bekræftet "uigenkaldeligt" forbud, hvis det senere kan genaktiveres?

I also understand what you're saying. Based on my experiences and the way our mediators handle players' complaints in those specific cases, the potential for harm is the most important issue. A permanent account closure due to gambling addiction is, in my book, the only working way to permanently close the account, because casinos may eventually open regularly closed accounts, sometimes even unintentionally.

To me, it almost looks like some casinos do not actually distinguish between account closure requests and temporary or permanent account closure requests. On the other hand, I understand it feels very wrong when a casino confirms permanent account closure and, at the same time, it's not actually permanent.

Those situations are usually not ideal, and I understand why you disagree with the casino action. I guess more accurate details and points will be specified in the associated complaint. I'm counting on that.

Tak for det objektive svar. Efter min mening beskriver dette punkt det faktiske problem rigtig godt.

Jeg forstår, at mange casinoer internt skelner mellem forskellige typer af blokeringer. I mit tilfælde modtog jeg dog eksplicit bekræftelse på, at min konto var "uigenkaldeligt blokeret".

Derfor var jeg fra mit synspunkt rimeligt berettiget til at antage, at en senere genåbning ikke længere ville være mulig.

Netop derfor anser jeg det for problematisk, hvis en udelukkelse, der er bekræftet som "uigenkaldelig", senere kan ophæves, især direkte via en VIP-chat.

Hvis casinoet internt skelner mellem forskellige typer udelukkelse, burde dette efter min mening have været tydeligt kommunikeret.

I agree with you and, at some point, feel like playing with the words, at least for me. If I understood it correctly, the ban was later lifted based on your request to the VIP manager.

If I may add another perspective, I would like to say that casinos are businesses, so if you change your mind and later ask for the account to be reopened, they'll gladly do it. The main difference is in the retrospective level of risk:

If you were to ask for the account closure due to gambling issues, the account cannot be reopened no matter how hard you would try afterwards.

However, if the account is only closed without this notice, the casino can occasionally ask you whether you are still happy with your decision, which may lead to the reopening request.

I know the situation is not pleasant, but if you need your casino account to be closed permanently because you feel like you can revoke this decision in the future, go for account closure due to gambling issues right from the start.

That's sadly the best working way. And if any casino does not distinguish between those two scenarios, then it's their failure in the first place.

Tak for den faktuelle forklaring. Jeg forstår forskellen du gør på et forbud mod ludomani og en normal lukning af en konto.

Ikke desto mindre ser jeg stadig et problem i min sag, fordi min suspension eksplicit blev bekræftet som "uigenkaldelig". Netop af denne grund var jeg berettiget til at antage, at en senere genåbning ikke længere ville være mulig.

Hvis casinoet internt skelner mellem forskellige typer af blokeringer, burde dette efter min mening have været tydeligt kommunikeret, især inden kontoen senere blev genåbnet direkte via VIP-chatten.

Netop fordi sådanne udtryk er meget vigtige for spillerne, mener jeg, at det er essentielt at kommunikere klart og transparent.

Thank you for explaining your point of view again. I understand why the wording used by the casino may have created the expectation that reopening would not be possible later. I think this part of your concern has been understood.

At the same time, the key difference discussed here is between a gambling-related self-exclusion and a standard account closure request, even if strong wording such as "permanent" or "irrevocable" was used. Since you later requested the reopening yourself, this complicates the situation.

I believe the important details will need to be assessed in the complaint itself, including how the closure was classified internally and what communication took place at the time. At this point, I’m not sure we can add much more here until that process is completed.