Pokušaću da pomenem aspekte koje je ceo tim razmatrao kada smo razgovarali o vašem slučaju, oni bi mogli biti interesantni, a to ću prepustiti vama.
Uglavnom, mi ovde nismo advokati, ne zastupamo i ne zamenjujemo zakone. Razumem da imate za cilj kompenzaciju, kao što ste rekli „učinjene nezakonitosti" – to je nešto u šta nemamo ovlašćenja da se mešamo. Ipak, razumem da je, iz vaše perspektive, to nešto što ste vezali za postizanje. Na ovaj ili onaj način, nadam se da ćete na kraju biti zadovoljni.
Sledeći deo je prilično složen, ali je ipak važno razumevanje pozadine:
Trenutno, skoro svi operateri posluju pod licencom koja definiše pravila i obim samoisključenja. Štaviše, praktično svi operateri nude neku vrstu samoisključenja svojim igračima, čiji obim u velikoj meri zavisi od regulatornih zahteva i odluka pojedinačnih operatera.
Trenutno postoje dva osnovna nivoa samoisključenja:
Nivo jednog operatera: Obično, kada se samoisključuje u onlajn kazinu, samoisključivanje se ne odnosi na druge operatere. Ovo stvara problem: samoisključeni igrači mogu slobodno da pristupe i igraju na drugim veb sajtovima kazina, što dovodi u pitanje ukupnu efikasnost takvih šema samoisključenja.
Nivo na nivou cele zemlje/licence: Neke zemlje i regulatori za kockanje na mreži, kao što su Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo, Švedska ili Holandija, primenjuju šire šeme samoisključenja, koje zahtevaju da njihovi licencirani (operateri) budu deo nacionalnog (licenciranog) samoupravljanja -šeme isključenja. Ovo omogućava igračima da se istovremeno samoisključe iz svih kazina licenciranih u određenoj zemlji ili od strane određenog regulatora, stvarajući bolji nivo zaštite.
Od ovog trenutka, igrač koji ima problema sa simptomima kockanja ne može se samoisključiti na globalnom nivou. To znači da iako se igrač samoisključuje na jednom od gore navedenih nivoa, još uvek postoji mnogo načina na koje igrači mogu da zaobiđu ove samonametnute mere.
Treba napomenuti, u detaljnijoj verziji prethodnog pregleda, da svaka platforma, operater kazina i brend imaju jedinstven pristup alatima za samoisključivanje. Ne postoji definitivan vodič ili pravilo koje navodi kako svi to treba da rade. Kao rezultat toga, nismo u mogućnosti da uspostavimo osnovnu liniju na osnovu koje bismo mogli da procenimo kalibar ponuđenih opcija. Dok neka kazina samo prate mejlove kao lične podatke, druga nude „kratki obrazac za registraciju".
Da smo kaznili ovaj kazino za ono što je urađeno, a više nije moguće, morali bismo da počnemo da kažnjavamo i mnoge druge, iako ne bismo imali pristojnu metodologiju za to. Mogu vam obećati da ste ponovo otvorili ovaj razgovor, ali to nije pravac kojim smo danas spremni da idemo.
Sada, da bismo popunili ovu prazninu, nudimo forum pored recenzija ili žalbi korisnika.
Cenim tvoje dobronamerne namere.
I'll try to mention aspects the whole team was considering when we were discussing your case, they might be of interest, and I'll leave that to you.
Mainly, we are not lawyers here, we do not represent or substitute laws. I understand you aim for compensation, as you said "the illegalities committed" - this is something we have no authority to get involved in. Yet I understand that, from your perspective, it's something you've attached to achieving. One way or another, I hope you will be satisfied in the end.
The next part is quite complex, but still, understanding the background is important:
Currently, almost all operators operate under a license that defines the rules and scope of self-exclusion. Moreover, virtually all operators offer some sort of self-exclusion to their players, whose scope is highly dependent on regulatory requirements and decisions of individual operators.
There are currently two basic levels of self-exclusion:
Single-operator level: Typically, when self-excluding in an online casino, the self-exclusion does not extend to other operators. This creates a problem: self-excluded players can freely access and play at other casino websites, bringing the overall effectiveness of such self-exclusion schemes into question.
Nationwide/license-wide level: Some countries and online gambling regulators, such as the UK, Sweden, or the Netherlands, operate wider self-exclusion schemes, which require their licensees (operators) to be part of nationwide (license-wide) self-exclusion schemes. These allow players to self-exclude from all casinos licensed in a specific country or by a specific regulator at once, creating a better level of protection.
As of this moment, a player struggling with problem gambling symptoms cannot self-exclude on a global scale. This means that although the player self-excludes on one of the above-mentioned levels, there are still many ways in which players can bypass these self-imposed measures.
It should be noted, in a more thorough version of the previous overview, that every platform, casino operator, and brand has a unique approach to the self exclusion tools. There is not a definitive guide or rule outlining how everyone should go about doing that. As a result, we are unable to establish a baseline by which we could assess the caliber of the options that are provided. While some casinos only keep track of emails as personal information, others offer a "short registration form."
If we had punished this casino for what has been done but is no longer possible, we would also have to start punishing many others, even though we would not have a decent methodology for doing so. I can promise you that you have reopened this conversation, but this is not the direction we are ready to take today.
Now, in order to fill this void, we offer the forum in addition to user reviews or complaints.
I appreciate your well-meaning intentions.
Automatski prevedeno:
