Već neko vreme razmišljam isto. Ja, na primer, imam prilično dobro, logično, ali ne baš jednostavno objašnjenje. Ono što vidite u terminima nije reklama i primenjivo je samo pod najboljim okolnostima; ukupno kašnjenje, nedostatak osoblja ili bilo šta drugo je pokriveno izuzetkom, koji se obično pominje negde u pravilima...
Ne mrzite me zbog toga. Stvar je u tome da vremenski okviri u pravilima nisu samo pokušaj celih brojeva. Kazina legalno pokrivaju svaku vrstu „nepredvidivih događaja" - uključujući i kašnjenja.
Štaviše, ako imate kašnjenje i ne znate kada ćete se vratiti u normalu, kako biste prilagodili određeni vremenski okvir pomenut u pravilima? Uobičajeni standard: to je već obuhvaćeno pravilima u obliku opšte izjave.
Ovako to obično funkcioniše, i ne kažem da je to povoljno korisničko iskustvo. Nije.
Još jedan razlog zašto se mnogi ljudi osećaju obaveznim da recenziraju kazina jeste da istaknu stvarna iskustva, a ne teoretska pravila, pretpostavljam.
For quite some time I've been thinking the same. I, for example, have a quite good, logical, yet not super user-friendly, explanation. What you see in terms is not advertising and is only applicable under the best circumstances; the overall delay, staff shortage, or anything else is covered by the exception, also usually mentioned somewhere in the rules...
Don't hate me for that. It's that time frames in the rules are not just a stab at whole numbers. Casinos legally cover any sort of "unpredictable events"—delays included.
Furthermore, if you are experiencing a delay and have no idea when you will return to normal, how would you adjust the specific time frame mentioned in the rules? Common standard: it is already covered in the rules in the form of a general statement.
This is how it usually works, and I'm not saying that it is a favorable user experience. It is not.
Another reason many people feel compelled to review casinos is to highlight actual experiences rather than theoretical rules, I guess.
Automatski prevedeno: