Cenim vaš odgovor, ali moram da istaknem nekoliko nedoslednosti u vašem obrazloženju i primeni uslova:
- Kontradiktorna primena pravila za više naloga
Tvrdite da sam prekršio vaše Uslove i odredbe otvaranjem više naloga, a ipak:
Ovo ste primenili tek nakon što sam pokušao da podignem svoja sredstva, a ne kada sam deponovao.
Ako je moja aktivnost bila „ozbiljna povreda", zašto je bilo dozvoljeno da se nastavi dok ne prestanem da se kockam?
Ako je 414 IP adresa zaista korišćeno, ovo dodatno dokazuje nemar sa vaše strane – zašto su depoziti bili dozvoljeni pod takvim uslovima, a povlačenje blokirano?
- Nemar prema zavisnosti od kockanja
Dozvolili ste depozite uprkos:
Ponovljene transakcije pod istim identitetom, uređajem i načinom plaćanja.
Moj izričit zahtev za zatvaranje naloga zbog zavisnosti od kockanja, koji je ignorisan.
Neuspeh da spreči dalje depozite uprkos saznanju o problemu.
Ako su moji postupci bili protiv vaših uslova, zašto niste sprečili dalje depozite? Ovo selektivno sprovođenje je etički upitno i eksploatativno.
- Procedura zatvaranja naloga je zanemarena
Pratio sam ispravnu proceduru tako što sam devet dana pre e-pošte zatražio zatvaranje naloga, što je ignorisano.
Umesto toga, moj nalog je zatvoren putem ćaskanja uživo, što sada priznajete da nije važeći metod zatvaranja.
Ako su zatvaranja ćaskanja bila nevažeća, zašto je moj nalog uopšte zatvoren?
- Neuspeh u procesu povlačenja pre zatvaranja
Tvrdite da „nema znakova zahteva za povlačenje", ali sam ga napravio pre zatvaranja.
Da li je zahtev obrađen ili ne, nije bitno — vaši uslovi kažu da moram da zahtevam povlačenje pre zatvaranja, što sam i učinio.
I appreciate your response but must highlight several inconsistencies in your reasoning and enforcement of terms:
- Contradictory Enforcement of Multi-Account Rules
You claim I violated your Terms and Conditions by opening multiple accounts, yet:
You only enforced this after I attempted to withdraw my funds, not when I was depositing.
If my activity was a "severe breach," why was it allowed to continue until I stopped gambling?
If 414 IPs were truly used, this further proves negligence on your part—why were deposits allowed under such conditions, but withdrawals blocked?
- Negligence Toward Gambling Addiction
You allowed deposits despite:
Repeated transactions under the same identity, device, and payment method.
My explicit request for account closure due to gambling addiction, which was ignored.
Failing to prevent further deposits despite knowledge of the issue.
If my actions were against your terms, why did you not prevent further deposits? This selective enforcement is ethically questionable and exploitative.
- Account Closure Procedure Ignored
I followed the correct procedure by requesting account closure via email nine days prior, which was ignored.
Instead, my account was closed via live chat, which you now admit is not a valid closure method.
If chat closures were invalid, why was my account closed at all?
- Failure to Process Withdrawal Before Closure
You claim there is "no sign of a withdrawal request," yet I made one before closure.
Whether the request was processed or not is irrelevant—your terms state I must request withdrawal before closure, which I did.
Automatski prevedeno:
