Već sam vam objasnio zašto ne možemo da zatvorimo slučaj sa statusnim publicitetom. Međutim, objasniću to još jednom: kada smo istraživali vaš slučaj, otkrili smo da ste igrali sa bonusom namenjenim za slotove na BJ. Kao rezultat, stekli ste prednost i iz tog razloga smo odlučili da podržimo kazino.
Takođe, uzmite u obzir i ovo:
komentar od Brajana (aka Casinomeister) privatno:
„Upravo sam proverio i možda ste nas pogrešno razumeli. Ovu odluku nije doneo kazino, već dobavljač softvera. Dakle, ako ništa drugo - vi biste imali potraživanje protiv njih, a ne od kazina. Menadžment kazina je samo potvrdio odluku koju je doneo dobavljač softvera. Dakle, ako ništa drugo, trebalo bi da rešite svoj problem sa njima.'
Razmotrite situaciju iz perspektive kazina:
Ako je igrač podneo zahtev, ali vaše bezbednosno odeljenje, provajder igre i posrednik potvrde da ste u pravu i da je igrač prekršio pravila, da li biste i dalje platili?
Kada kazino veruje da se ponaša ispravno, a čak smo i mi verovali u to, ne možete ih kriviti za to. Klasifikacija publiciteta je korisna u slučajevima kada je kazino postupio pogrešno. Oni su najverovatnije znali za to, a tek nakon što je slučaj javno predstavljen, kazino je odlučio da na kraju plati. U ovim slučajevima smo na strani igrača od samog početka jer je očigledno da je kazino uradio nešto pogrešno.
Molim vas nemojte me pogrešno shvatiti. Veoma sam srećan što ste dobili slučaj. Mnogi slučajevi nisu crno-beli, i još uvek me veoma zanima šta je ubedilo sud i kazino da vam na kraju plate. Kada smo izračunali (nisam samo ja radio na ovom slučaju), slučaj nam je bio jasan. Zato bih želeo da znam šta smo propustili ili šta nije u redu.
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.
Automatski prevedeno:
