Jeg har allerede forklaret dig, hvorfor vi ikke kan afslutte sagen med statusoffentligheden hjulpet. Jeg vil dog forklare det endnu en gang: Da vi undersøgte din sag, fandt vi ud af, at du spillede med en bonus beregnet til slots på BJ. Som et resultat opnåede du en fordel, og af den grund besluttede vi at støtte casinoet.
Overvej også dette:
kommentar fra Bryan (alias Casinomeister) privat:
'Jeg har lige tjekket, og du har måske misforstået os. Det er ikke casinoet, der har taget denne beslutning, men softwareudbyderen. Så hvis noget - du ville have et krav mod dem, ikke kasinoet. Kasinoledelsen har netop stadfæstet beslutningen truffet af softwareudbyderen. Så hvis noget, bør du tage dit problem op med dem.'
Overvej situationen fra et kasinos perspektiv:
Hvis spilleren har indgivet et krav, men din sikkerhedsafdeling, spiludbyder og mediator bekræfter, at du har ret, og spilleren har overtrådt reglerne, ville du så stadig betale?
Når et kasino troede, at det handler korrekt, og selv vi troede det, kan du ikke bebrejde dem for det. Klassificeringen af reklame er nyttig i tilfælde, hvor kasinoet har handlet forkert. De vidste højst sandsynligt om det, og først efter at sagen var offentligt fremlagt, besluttede kasinoet sig til sidst at betale. I disse tilfælde er vi på spillerens side siden begyndelsen, fordi det er indlysende, at kasinoet gjorde noget forkert.
Forstå mig ikke forkert. Jeg er meget glad for, at du vandt sagen. Mange sager er ikke sorte og hvide, og jeg er stadig meget interesseret i, hvad der overbeviste retten og kasinoet om at betale dig til sidst. Da vi lavede regnestykket (ikke kun jeg arbejdede på denne sag), var sagen klar for os. Derfor vil jeg gerne vide, hvad vi gik glip af, eller hvad der var galt.
I've already explained to you why we can't close the case with the status publicity helped. However, I will explain it once more: When we were investigating your case, we found that you played with a bonus intended for slots on BJ. As a result, you gained an advantage, and for that reason, we decided to support the casino.
Also, please consider this:
comment from Bryan (aka Casinomeister) in private:
'I just checked and you may have misunderstood us. It's not the casino that made this decision, but the software provider. So if anything - you would have a claim against them, not the casino. The casino management just upheld the decision made by the software provider. So if anything, you should take your issue up with them.'
Consider the situation from a casino's perspective:
If the player has filed a claim but your security department, game provider and mediator confirm that you are in the right and the player has violated the rules, would you still pay?
When a casino believed it is acting correctly, and even we believed so, you can't blame them for that. The classification of publicity is helpful in cases where the casino acted wrongly. They most likely knew about it, and only after the case was publicly presented did the casino decide to eventually pay. In these cases we are on the player's side since the begginig becuase it is obvious that the casino did something wrong.
Please don't get me wrong. I am very happy that you won the case. Many cases are not black and white, and I am still very interested in what convinced the court and casino to pay you eventually. When we did the math (not only I was working on this case), the case was clear to us. Therefore, I would like to know what we missed or what was wrong.
Automatisk oversættelse: