Podnosim žalbu u vezi sa odgovornim kockanjem i upravljanjem nalogom u vezi sa kazinom Dragonslots.
Ova žalba se ne odnosi samo na uobičajene gubitke od kockanja. Ona se tiče načina na koji je operater postupao sa zaštitnim merama, isplatama i kontrolom naloga tokom perioda kada sam aktivno pokušavao da smanjim pristup kockanju i isplatim sredstva.
Zahtev za pozadinu i hlađenje
Dana 31. januara sam zatražio i aktivirao period odlaganja od 30 dana nakon značajnog dobitka jer sam želeo da bezbedno podignem sredstva i izbegnem dalje kockanje.
Tokom ovog perioda sam posebno pitao podršku da li moj nalog može ostati pauziran dok se isplate obrađuju, jer nisam želeo pristup igrama dok čekam isplate.
Njihovi uslovi ukazuju na to da se mogu organizovati ručna povlačenja ili ograničenja računa, ali ovaj zahtev nije uslišen.
Rano uklanjanje hlađenja
Period hlađenja je prevremeno ukinut 12. februara nakon komunikacije sa VIP menadžerom.
Ovo se dogodilo:
preko noći,
bez smislenog ispitivanja dobrobiti,
i uprkos prethodnim porukama koje su pokazivale da želim smanjen pristup prilikom povlačenja sredstava.
Odmah nakon uklanjanja, došlo je do produžene sesije kockanja i uplaćeni su značajni depoziti. Nakon reaktivacije nisu uvedene dodatne provere odgovornog kockanja, praćenje sesija ili problemi.
Povlačenje sredstava i pristup igri
Pre ovog događaja imao sam više isplata na čekanju, uključujući približno 25.000 AUD, sa stanjem od oko 38.000 AUD u vreme kada je ukinuto hlađenje.
Isplate su bile u stanju koje se može otkazati nekoliko dana, dok je račun ostao u potpunosti igrabilan.
Istorijski gledano, kašnjenja u verifikaciji i povlačenjima su već dovodila do otkazivanja povlačenja, zbog čega sam uopšte i zatražio odlaganje.
Dozvoljavanje neograničenog igranja dok su povlačenja bila u toku — posebno nakon zahteva za hlađenje — stvorilo je situaciju u kojoj zaštitne mere nisu funkcionisale kako je predviđeno.
Obrazac teškoća pri zatvaranju računa
Tokom moje istorije sa ovim operaterom, više puta sam zahtevao zatvaranje ili ograničavanje naloga i izrazio da mi se proces činio teškim ili da je zahtevao kontinuiranu interakciju sa VIP menadžerom, a ne trenutno zatvaranje.
Čak i nakon što sam nedavno podneo/la zvaničnu žalbu, moj nalog je ostao dostupan više od 72 sata pre nego što je zatvoren.
Odgovor operatera
U odgovoru operatera se navodi da je ograničenje hlađenja ukinuto na moj zahtev i da je sva odgovornost na meni.
Iako priznajem svoje odluke, moja zabrinutost je da operater nije srazmerno primenio principe odgovornog kockanja:
Rano ukidanje mere za smanjenje štete tokom očiglednog perioda ranjivosti.
Kontinuirani pristup kockanju dok su isplate bile u toku.
Nedostatak provera dobrobiti tokom dužeg perioda.
Nepoštovanje mog zahteva za ograničavanje pristupa prilikom povlačenja sredstava.
Zahtevana rezolucija
Zahtevam pravednu reviziju gubitaka nastalih neposredno nakon ukidanja uslova za hlađenje, u ukupnom iznosu od približno 58.000 australijskih dolara, jer smatram da okvir odgovornog kockanja nije efikasno primenjen u praksi.
Imam dokaze, uključujući:
imejlovi sa zahtevom za hlađenje i pauziranje naloga,
VIP komunikacija,
rokovi povlačenja,
i zahteve za zatvaranje računa.
Podnosim ovu žalbu u dobroj veri tražeći objektivnu procenu da li je operater ispunio razumne standarde odgovornog kockanja.
Tokom moje istorije sa ovim operaterom, kad god bih ostvario značajne dobitke, dolazilo je do stalnih kašnjenja povezanih sa KYC proverama, verifikacijom plaćanja ili zahtevima za dodatnu dokumentaciju. Razumem da je verifikacija legitiman proces; međutim, ovi zahtevi su se često dešavali nakon što su isplate bile poslate i rezultirali su produženim periodima u kojima su sredstva ostajala na čekanju dok je moj račun ostao potpuno dostupan za igru. Ovo je stvorilo situaciju u kojoj su isplate bile efikasno usporene, dok je pristup kockanju nastavljen bez prekida.
Tokom ovih ponovljenih interakcija — uključujući produžene periode povlačenja, višestruka podnošenja dokumenata i komunikaciju sa VIP podrškom — nikada nije bilo nikakve smislene provere dobrobiti ili razgovora o tome koliko mi je udobno da nastavim sa kockanjem uprkos vidljivim obrascima velikih depozita, dugih sesija ili zahteva za smanjenje pristupa. S obzirom na sopstvene izjave operatera o odgovornom kockanju i zaštiti kupaca, verujem da je trebalo primeniti razuman nivo praćenja ili zaštite tokom ovih perioda, posebno kada sam već izrazio poteškoće u upravljanju pristupom i zatražio mere za hlađenje.
I am submitting a responsible-gambling and account-handling complaint regarding Dragonslots Casino.
This complaint is not about normal gambling losses alone. It concerns the operator’s handling of safeguards, withdrawals, and account control during a period where I was actively attempting to reduce access to gambling and withdraw funds.
Background and Cooling-Off Request
On 31 January I requested and activated a 30-day cooling-off period after a significant win because I wanted to withdraw funds safely and avoid further gambling.
During this time I specifically asked support whether my account could remain paused while withdrawals were processed, as I did not want access to the games while waiting for payouts.
Their own terms indicate that manual withdrawals or account limitations can be arranged, yet this request was not actioned.
Early Removal of Cooling-Off
On 12 February the cooling-off period was removed early following communication with a VIP manager.
This occurred:
overnight,
without meaningful welfare questioning,
and despite previous messages showing I wanted reduced access while withdrawing.
Immediately after removal, a prolonged gambling session occurred and significant deposits were made. No additional responsible-gambling checks, session monitoring, or friction were introduced after reactivation.
Withdrawal Handling and Access to Play
Prior to this event I had multiple withdrawals pending, including approximately AUD 25,000, with a balance around AUD 38,000 at the time cooling-off was lifted.
Withdrawals were kept in a cancellable state for several days while the account remained fully playable.
Historically, delays in verification and withdrawals had already led to cancelled withdrawals, which is why I requested cooling-off in the first place.
Allowing unrestricted gameplay while withdrawals were pending — especially after a cooling-off request — created a situation where safeguards did not function as intended.
Pattern of Difficulty Closing the Account
Across my history with this operator I have requested account closure or restriction multiple times and expressed that the process felt difficult or required ongoing interaction with a VIP manager rather than immediate closure.
Even after submitting my formal complaint recently, my account remained accessible for over 72 hours before being closed.
Operator Response
The operator’s response states that the cooling-off restriction was lifted at my request and that all responsibility lies with me.
While I acknowledge my decisions, my concern is that the operator did not apply responsible-gambling principles proportionately:
Early removal of a harm-reduction measure during an evident vulnerable period.
Continued access to gambling while withdrawals were pending.
Lack of welfare checks during a prolonged session.
Failure to honour my request to limit access while withdrawing.
Requested Resolution
I am requesting a fair review of the losses incurred immediately after the cooling-off removal, totalling approximately AUD 58,000, as I believe the responsible-gambling framework was not applied effectively in practice.
I have evidence including:
emails requesting cooling-off and account pause,
VIP communication,
withdrawal timelines,
and account-closure requests.
I am submitting this complaint in good faith seeking an objective assessment of whether the operator met reasonable responsible-gambling standards.
Throughout my history with this operator, whenever I achieved significant wins there were repeated delays connected to KYC checks, payment verification, or additional documentation requests. I understand that verification is a legitimate process; however, these requests often occurred after withdrawals were submitted and resulted in extended periods where funds remained pending while my account stayed fully accessible for play. This created a situation where withdrawals were effectively slowed while gambling access continued uninterrupted.
During these repeated interactions — including prolonged withdrawal periods, multiple document submissions, and communication with VIP support — there was never any meaningful welfare check or discussion around my comfort with continued gambling despite visible patterns of large deposits, long sessions, or requests to reduce access. Given the operator’s own statements about responsible gambling and customer protection, I believe a reasonable level of monitoring or safeguarding should have been applied during these periods, particularly when I had already expressed difficulty managing access and requested cooling-off measures.
Automatski prevedeno: