Kære Ladygaga,
Jeg forstår, at det var en udfordring for dig at nå frem til en konklusion i denne sag. Jeg vil dog gerne understrege, at vi støttede kasinoet i denne særlige situation.
Baseret på de fakta, vi indsamlede på det tidspunkt, ser det ud til, at selvom du var klar over, at den bonus, du modtog, var specifikt til slots, fortsatte du med at spille Blackjack. Selvom du af og til satsede på slots, når din saldo var lav, vendte du konsekvent tilbage til Blackjack. På grund af dette mente vi, at kasinoet havde ret.
Venligst misforstå mig ikke, jeg er glad for, at du til sidst blev betalt. Men baseret på de beviser, vi havde til rådighed for os på det tidspunkt, tog vi beslutningen om at stille os på casinoets side.
Dette svarer til den juridiske proces i de fleste demokratiske lande. I en tvist forsøger du i første omgang at løse den uden at involvere domstolene. Hvis det mislykkes, kan du indbringe sagen for en lokal domstol (casino.guru i dette eksempel). Hvis den lokale domstol dømmer dig imod, så har du mulighed for at eskalere sagen til en national domstol. Men selvom du vinder sagen, betyder det ikke nødvendigvis, at modparten bliver straffet, hvis de retter op på situationen (som casinoet gjorde ved at betale dig). Den klassifikation, du nævnte, "omtale hjalp," gælder for tilfælde, hvor vi er på spillerens side. I dit tilfælde, da vi gik på side med kasinoet, mente de, at deres handlinger var berettigede.
Jeg husker tydeligt din sag, og jeg er oprigtigt nysgerrig (hvis den ikke er fortrolig) efter, hvordan du overbeviste casinoet om at betale dig. (hvilket bevis du brugte, eller hvad overbeviser dem) Vi kan forbedre vores processer. Hvis vi lavede en fejl, kan vi lære af erfaringerne.
Med hensyn til SBGOC nævnte du i din klage, at de hjalp dig, og jeg har ingen anden mulighed for at lukke klagen. Vi søger ikke kredit for deres hjælp, og jeg tror, at enhver, der læser klagen, ville forstå, at SBGOC spillede en rolle i at løse dit problem. Vi er i øjeblikket ved at evaluere denne organisation, og hvis alt går vel, vil vi anbefale spillere at kontakte dem i komplekse sager. Vi undersøger stadig muligheder for samarbejde.
Jeg vil gerne informere dig om, at ved at genåbne klagen og informere os om det anderledes resultat, kan vi få ny indsigt eller forbedre vores metoder, og andre spillere vil blive opmærksomme på SBGOC. Derfor ser jeg dette som en positiv udvikling.
Dear Ladygaga,
I understand that reaching a conclusion in this case was challenging for you. However, I would like to highlight that we were supporting the casino in this particular situation.
Based on the facts we gathered at that time, it appears that despite being aware that the bonus you received was specifically for slots, you continued to play Blackjack. Even though you occasionally wagered on slots when your balance was low, you consistently returned to Blackjack. Due to this, we believed that the casino was in the right.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am pleased that you were eventually paid. However, based on the evidence we had available to us at the time, we made the decision to side with the casino.
This is akin to the legal process in most democratic countries. In a dispute, you initially attempt to resolve it without involving the courts. If that fails, you can take the matter to a local court (casino.guru in this example). If the local court rules against you, then you have the option to escalate the case to a national court. However, even if you win the case, it does not necessarily mean that the opposing party will be punished if they rectify the situation (as the casino did by paying you). The classification you mentioned, "publicity helped," applies to cases where we are on the side of the player. In your case, since we sided with the casino, they believed that their actions were justified.
I vividly recall your case, and I am genuinely curious (if it is not confidential) about how you convinced the casino to pay you. (which evidence you used or what convince them) We can improve our processes. If we made a mistake, we can learn from the experience.
Regarding SBGOC, in your complaint, you mentioned that they assisted you, and I have no other option how to close the complaint. We do not seek credit for their help, and I believe that anyone reading the complaint would understand that SBGOC played a role in resolving your issue. We are currently evaluating this organization, and if everything goes well, we will recommend players to contact them in complex cases. We are still exploring possibilities for cooperation.
I want to inform you that by reopening the complaint and informing us of the different outcome, we may gain new insights or improve our methods, and other players will become aware of SBGOC. Therefore, I see this as a positive development.
Automatisk oversættelse: