Hej med dig,
Jeg tror, jeg allerede har forklaret de vigtigste aspekter - det er virkelig komplekst, og at fokusere på hver detalje separat giver ikke de logiske svar; det handler om det globale billede. Lad mig prøve at give dig ideen:
Sikkerhedsindekset kan ændre sig af forskellige årsager inden for en kort tidsperiode.
Nogle detaljer i anmeldelsen ændres ikke, medmindre klager lukkes som uløste på nogen måde: her kommer de "tilbageholdte gevinster."
Se venligst den aktuelle status for klager her:

https://casino.guru/complaints/all 👈
Som du kan se, er ikke en eneste uafklaret, hvilket betyder, at der ikke er tilbageholdt et højt beløb - det ville betyde, at spillerne havde ret, men kasinoet afviste udbetalingerne - det er aldrig sket.
Bortset fra det, har spillere en tendens til at glemme, at dette forum for det meste handler om at klage, og 88 sager i alt er stort set ingenting sammenlignet med kasinostørrelsen. Jeg forstår, at nogle af jer nu står over for en kompliceret situation, men det er ikke noget så usædvanligt for et større internationalt kasino.
Kom tilbage til starten: hver gang klagerne lukkes som uløste, vil alle sorte point blive talt med; hvis beløbet er højt nok, ændres sikkerhedsindekset.
I mellemtiden er vi altid i kontakt med kasinoer, og sikkerhedsindekset kan blive højere, bare fordi kasinoet har anvendt flere point fra Casino Guru Fair Gambling Codex i deres vilkår. Hvilket altid har været målet - at hjælpe kasinoer med at være mere gennemsigtige og retfærdige.
Alligevel betyder det ikke, at indekset ikke falder, hvis størstedelen af aktuelt åbnede klager vil blive lukket som uafklarede. Teori er én ting, men mine kolleger skal se, at kasinoet er i stand til at bruge retfærdigheden i konkrete situationer.
Jeg er enig i, at det er mærkeligt, men i dette tilfælde var det bare en kombination af to aspekter; for at bedømme kasinoet, ville jeg vente på, at klagerne blev lukket.
Jeg kan også se, at processen er længere end normalt, og måske er det på grund af det, jeg nævnte tidligere - at sætte Fair Gambling Codex fra teoretiske termer ind i konkrete situationer.
Jeg forstår dine bekymringer, men jeg beder dig om at bevare objektiviteten. For eksempel er det slet ikke let at have mere end 11.000 åbne sager, og hvis casinoet har svært ved at forstå vores pointer, er mæglerne nødt til at forklare igen for at øge chancen for, at klagen bliver løst. Vi har ikke til formål at lukke klager hurtigt bare for at straffe kasinoer; vi har altid forsøgt at løse så mange sager som muligt. Jeg forestiller mig, at vi begge ved, at det primært handler om patientkommunikation.
Håber det hjælper og jeg håber bestemt at det snart er overstået.
Hi there,
I believe I already explained the most important aspects - it's truly complex and focusing on each detail separately won't provide the logical answers; it's about the global picture. Let me try to give you the idea:
The Safety Index may change for different reasons within a short time period.
Some details in the review won't change unless complaints are closed as unresolved by any means: here come the "withheld winnings."
Please inspect the current state of complaints here:

https://casino.guru/complaints/all 👈
As you can see, not a single one is unresolved, which means there is no high amount withheld—that would mean the players were correct, but the casino rejected the payouts—that has never happened.
Aside from that, players tend to forget that this forum is mostly about complaining and 88 cases in total is pretty much nothing compared to the casino size. I understand some of you are now dealing with a complicated situation but it is nothing so unusual for a bigger international casino.
Getting back to the start: anytime the complaints are closed as unresolved, all black points will be counted; if the amount is high enough, the Safety Index will change.
Meanwhile, we are always in touch with casinos and the Safety Index may get higher just because the casino has applied more points from the Casino Guru Fair Gambling Codex into their terms. Which has always been the goal—to help casinos be more transparent and fair.
Yet it does not mean that the index won't drop if the majority of currently opened complaints will be closed as unresolved. Theory is one thing but my colleagues need to see the casino is able to use the fairness in concrete situations.
I agree it is weird, but in this case it was just a combination of two aspects; to judge the casino, I would wait for the complaints to be closed.
I also see the process is longer than usual and perhaps it's because of what I mentioned earlier - putting the Fair Gambling Codex from theoretical terms into concrete situations.
I understand your concerns, but I ask you to maintain objectivity. For example, having more than 11k open cases is not easy at all and if the casino struggles to understand our points, the mediators have to explain over again to increase the chance the complaint will be resolved. We do not aim to close complaints quickly just to punish casinos; we have always tried to resolve as many cases as possible. I imagine we both know it is primarily about patient communication.
Hope it helps and I certainly hope it will be over soon.
Automatisk oversættelse: