Poštovani kazino 24Slots,
Hvala vam na odgovoru. Pošto ste priznali da je igrač 17. aprila uputio ispravan zahtev za samoisključivanje zbog zavisnosti od kockanja, verujem da ovde treba pomenuti nekoliko stvari.
Imperativ je da kada kazino prihvati zahtev za samoisključivanje, a kada se pominje i problem kockanja, treba odmah preduzeti korake kako bi zaštitili igrača. Kazina imaju i pravo i odgovornost da se uključe kada igrači pokažu znake da se bore sa problemima u vezi sa kockanjem. Ako neko izrazi zabrinutost zbog svog ponašanja u vezi sa kockanjem, kazina bi trebalo da preduzmu mere da ograniče svoj pristup - čak i ako njihova verifikacija još uvek nije u potpunosti završena. To je cela poenta samoisključenja: da zaštitimo ranjive igrače i sprečimo dalju štetu.
Da bi se ovo desilo, kazinom su potrebni jasni procesi koji daju prioritet brzim akcijama i efikasnoj podršci za igrače koji su u opasnosti. Ovde se ne radi samo o ispunjavanju regulatornih zahteva – radi se o istinskoj posvećenosti bezbednosti igrača i negovanju kulture odgovornog kockanja.
Stavljajući zaštitu igrača iznad papirologije, možemo se pobrinuti da politike samoisključenja rade ono za šta su i osmišljene: daju ljudima kojima je potrebna pomoć podršku koju zaslužuju i stvore bezbednije okruženje za sve.
U ovakvim situacijama, ispravan tok akcije bi bio ograničavanje funkcija računa igrača, odnosno mogućnost da uplaćuje depozite, kao i mogućnost igranja, sve dok igrač ne ispuni KIC proceduru. Čim igrač bude verifikovan, nalog bi mogao biti trajno zatvoren.
Uz sve gore navedeno, verujem da bi igraču trebalo da bude vraćen njegov depozit uplaćen od 22. aprila nadalje ako uzmemo u obzir razuman vremenski okvir za rešavanje zahteva za samoisključivanje, pošto je igrač poslao ispravno formatiran Zahtev za samoisključivanje u kome se pominje problem sa kockanjem, na odgovarajuću adresu e-pošte, koju ste potvrdili, 17. aprila.
Radujem se što ću čuti vaše mišljenje o ovom pitanju.
Dear 24Slots Casino,
Thank you for your reply. Since you have acknowledged that the player made a correct self-exclusion request due to gambling addiction on the 17th of April, I believe that a few things should be mentioned here.
It is imperative that when the casino acknowledges the self-exclusion request, and there is also a gambling problem mentioned, there should be immediate steps taken in order to protect the player. Casinos have both the right and the responsibility to step in when players show signs of struggling with gambling-related issues. If someone expresses concern about their gambling behavior, casinos should take action to limit their access - even if their verification isn’t fully completed yet. That’s the whole point of self-exclusion: to protect vulnerable players and prevent further harm.
To make this happen, casinos need clear processes in place that prioritize quick action and effective support for players at risk. This isn’t just about ticking off a regulatory requirement - it’s about truly committing to player safety and fostering a responsible gambling culture.
By putting player protection above paperwork, we can make sure self-exclusion policies do what they were designed to do: give people who need help the support they deserve and create a safer environment for everyone.
With situations like this, the right course of action would be limiting the player's account functions, namely the ability to make deposits and also the ability to play, until the player complies with the KYC procedure. As soon as the player is verified, the account could be permanently closed.
With all of the above being said, I believe the player should be refunded his deposits made from the 22nd of April forward if we take into account a reasonable timeframe for you to deal with the self-exclusion request, since the player sent a correctly formatted self-exclusion request mentioning a gambling problem, to the proper email address, which you've acknowledged, on the April 17th.
I am looking forward to hearing your opinion on this matter.
Automatski prevedeno:
