23.09.22. i nakon toga sam napisao mnogo pisama mnogim organizacijama o tome, jer za više od 20 godina kockanja na internetu nikada nisam imao ovakav moždani udar (jer sam oprezan).
Ovo se ponovo pojavilo sada kada su neki moji prijatelji, koji su veoma aktivni na društvenim mrežama u sferi kockanja, istakli slučaj zaplene 250 hiljada dolara od igrača u kazinu, navodeći dosluh sa živim dilerom, dok je zapravo igra koja se igrala bio elektronski blekdžek. Video sam to, znao sam da su to oni, komunicirao sam sa njima o tome i ispričao im svoju priču o tome šta se dogodilo sa Bitstarzom – to me je uvek mučilo i predložili su mi da ne dozvolim da to bude tako, da će pokušati da me kontaktiraju (što su, izgleda, učinili bezuspešno) – i da treba da podnesem žalbu na jednoj od veb stranica za recenzije.
Izabrao sam Casino Guru jer sam, gledajući neke od uslova za podnošenje žalbe na određenim mestima, izgledalo da postoji taj „veo tajne" i više sam voleo otvoreniji pristup ovih sajtova koji objavljuju žalbu na javnom mestu.
Svestan sam korporativne istorije BitStarz-a, uključujući promenu iz Dama NV u Gareton BV, i kako je brend trenutno predstavljen na Casino Guru-u i drugde (osnovan 2014. godine, kontinuirana reputacija itd.).
Primećujem da je predstavnik kompanije BitStarz slao privatne imejlove Casino Guru-u i da je dodatno pitanje jednostavno datum kada je nalog zatvoren. Pošto ne postoji vremenska zastarelost za žalbe u Casino Guru-u, jedini razuman zaključak je da se datum traži kako bi se izneo argument „novi pravni subjekt / Gareton BV nije odgovoran za ranije potraživanja".
Da bi se izbegla svaka sumnja, a stav je unapred jasan: ako se taj argument iznese, mora se dosledno primenjivati. U tom slučaju, kontinuirana istorija „uspostavljena 2014." i tvrdnje o dugogodišnjoj reputaciji više ne bi tačno odražavale trenutnog operatera. Te tvrdnje bi trebalo ažurirati ne samo na Casino Guru-u, već i na svim glavnim sajtovima za recenzije koji trenutno navode brend kao osnovan 2014. godine sa kontinuiranom reputacijom (uključujući Casinomeister, AskGamblers i druge). Brend ne može zadržati komercijalnu korist od 12-godišnje kontinuirane reputacije, a istovremeno se distancirati od događaja koji su se desili tokom istog perioda. Jedno je ili drugo.
Ono što me i dalje brine jeste da je suština problema uvek bila jasna. Ostrvo Men nije bilo navedeno kao ograničena teritorija u uslovima u vreme kada sam se registrovao i igrao. To je bio izradak BitStarza. Kada je ta greška istaknuta — posebno u postupku javne žalbe — kompetentan pregled uslova kakvi su bili na snazi u to vreme, i naknadne prepiske, trebalo je da relativno brzo razjasni stav. Očekivao bih da će odgovor u tom trenutku biti ispravljanje stvari, a ne njeno produžavanje.
Konačno, kako bi se izbegla kasnija sugestija da zapisi više ne postoje ili da su obrisani: čuvam kompletne snimke ekrana relevantnih razgovora, iznose koji su bili u igri, uslove koji su važili u to vreme i imejlove same kompanije BitStarz. Neki od tih imejlova su već objavljeni u ovoj žalbi. Pored toga, kada sam razgovarao sa podrškom uživo kompanije BitStarz pre samo nekoliko nedelja, oni su i dalje mogli da pristupe zapisu o zatvaranju naloga i navedenim razlozima za to. Oni tačno znaju šta je uzeto i pod kojim uslovima je uzeto. Ti uslovi su bili pogrešni. Sredstva su i dalje neizmirena.
23/09/22 and I wrote many letters to many entities thereafter about it as in 20+ years of Internet gambling I’ve never had a stroke like this pulled on me (Because I’m careful).
This has re-emerged now as some friends of mine who are very active on Social Media in the Gambling Sphere had been highlighting a case of $250k being seized on a player with the casino citing collusion with a live dealer when in fact the game being played was electronic blackjack. I saw it, knew it was them, communicated with them about it and told them my story about what had happened with Bitstarz – It’s always bothered me and they suggested I shouldn’t let it rest that they would try and make contact (which they did seemingly to no avail) – and that I should raise a complaint on one of the review sites.
I chose Casino Guru as looking at some of the terms of raising a complaint in certain places there seemed to be this "veil of secrecy" and I preferred the more open approach of this sites posting the complaint in open public view.
I am aware of the corporate history of BitStarz, including the change from Dama N.V. to Gareton B.V., and how the brand is currently presented on Casino Guru and elsewhere (Established 2014, continuous reputation, etc.).
I note that the BitStarz representative has been emailing Casino Guru privately and that the follow-up question is simply the date the account was closed. As there is no time bar on complaints at Casino Guru, the only reasonable inference is that the date is being sought in order to raise a "new legal entity / Gareton B.V. is not responsible for earlier claims" argument.
For the avoidance of any doubt, and so the position is clear in advance: if that argument is made, it must be applied consistently. In that case the continuous "established 2014" history and long-standing reputation claims would no longer accurately reflect the current operator. Those claims would need to be updated not only on Casino Guru but across all major review sites that currently list the brand as established in 2014 with a continuous track record (including Casinomeister, AskGamblers and others). A brand cannot retain the commercial benefit of a 12-year continuous track record while simultaneously distancing itself from events that occurred during that same period. It is one or the other.
What continues to concern me is that the core issue has always been straightforward. The Isle of Man was not listed as a restricted territory in the terms at the time I signed up and played. That was BitStarz’s drafting. Once that error was highlighted — particularly in a public complaint process — a competent review of the terms as they stood at the time, and of the subsequent correspondence, should have made the position clear relatively quickly. I would have expected the response at that point to be to put the matter right rather than prolong it
Finally, for the avoidance of any later suggestion that records no longer exist or have been purged: I retain full screenshots of the relevant conversations, the amounts that were in play, the terms that applied at the time, and BitStarz’s own emails. Some of those emails have already been posted in this complaint. In addition, when I spoke to BitStarz live support only a few weeks ago they were still able to access the account closure record and the stated reasons for it. They know exactly what was taken and under which terms it was taken. Those terms were erroneous. The funds remain outstanding.
Izmenjeno
Automatski prevedeno: