Dragi goku23,
Želeo bih da reagujem na neke tačke u vašem poslednjem odgovoru.
„ Pre svega, nije industrijski standard da morate da dostavite tako osetljive dokumente da biste zatvorili nalog. Imao sam brojne dobavljače klađenja i kazina koji nisu želeli ove dokumente. "
Da li to znači da vaše dosadašnje iskustvo sa kazinom diktira šta je industrijski standard, a šta nije? Nije ništa neobično ili netačno da kazina traže ova dokumenta. Jedina svrha kojoj služi je da poboljša zaštitne mere za samoisključene igrače u slučajevima kada bi ponovo pokušali da se registruju u ovim kockarnicama. To mogu da potvrdim jer se svakodnevno bavim temama samoisključenja.
" Plus, pitam se kako kazino može zatvoriti račun bez ovih dokumenata sada kada sam se žalio. Samo mi pokazuje da se to vjerovatno može učiniti bez ovih dokumenata. "
Naravno, u pravu ste, zatvaranje naloga bi se moglo obaviti bez KIC-a. Ali, ako ikada ponovo registrujete nalog, a pošto kazino nema vaše KIC dokumente u svojoj bazi podataka, bilo bi im teže i dugotrajnije da upare vaš novi nalog sa prethodnim. Siguran sam da je to slučaj, rekli biste da vas kazino nije dovoljno zaštitio jer se podaci na oba naloga nisu odmah poklapali.
" Kakav je ovo kazino kome je potrebno samo 6 nedelja ili 2 nedelje (od registrovane adrese e-pošte) da blokira igrača? Da li su ovo bezbednosni standardi za odgovorno igranje ovih dana ?"
Ovde imate pravo. Nedostavljanje KIC dokumenata kazinu ne bi trebalo da bude razlog za nezavršavanje procesa samoisključenja/neprimenu restriktivnih mera na račun igrača. Vremenski okvir zatvaranja računa je u ovom slučaju bio predug, a to je u kazinu. Samo pokušavam da vam objasnim da nedostavljanje traženih dokumenata kazinu može i često utiče na proces samoisključenja na negativan način. Nadam se da razumete. Još uvek čekam odgovor iz kazina, a javiću vam čim nešto budem imao.
Dear goku23,
I would like to react to some of the points in your last reply.
"First of all, it is not industry standard that you have to provide such sensitive documents to close an account. I have had numerous betting providers and casinos that did not want these documents."
Does this mean that your experience with casinos so far dictates what is industry standard and what isn't? It is not anything unusual or incorrect for casinos to ask for these documents. The only purpose it serves is to enhance the protective measures for self-excluded players in cases they would try to register at these casinos again. I can attest to this since I deal with self-exclusion topics on a daily basis.
"Plus, I wonder how the casino can close the account without these documents now that I've complained. Just shows me that it can probably be done without these documents."
Of course, you are right, the account closure could be done without the KYC. But, if you ever register an account again, and since the casino does not have your KYC documents in their database, it would be harder and more time-consuming for them to match your new account to the previous one. I am sure if this was the case, you would say that the casino has not protected you sufficiently because the info on both accounts was not instantly matched.
"What kind of casino is this that only needs 6 weeks or 2 weeks (from the registered email address) to block a player? Are these the security standards for responsible gaming these days?"
You have a point here. Not providing the casino with KYC documents should not be the reason for not completing the self-exclusion process/not applying restrictive measures on the player's account. The timeframe of account closure was too long in this case, and that's on the casino. I am just trying to explain to you that not providing the casino with the requested documents can and often does influence the self-exclusion process in a negative way. I hope you understand. I am still waiting for an answer from the casino, and I will let you know as soon as I have something.
Automatski prevedeno: