Pozdrav svima,
Veći deo onoga što je napisano u nastavku je vežba razmišljanja, ako želite da preskočite ovo i pređete na odluku kazina, ona se nalazi na dnu ovog (prilično dugačkog) izlaganja. 🙂
Casino.guru i njihov kodeks fer kockanja su neverovatan resurs, istorijski gledano, veoma je retko da se mi kao organizacija ne slažemo sa njima oko postupanja sa igračima.
U ovom slučaju se razlikujemo u jednom ključnom aspektu:
Casino.guru smatra da nam ne bi trebalo „dozvoliti" da nudimo bonuse sa pravilima koja prevazilaze spektar onoga što možemo mehanički da kontrolišemo. Da, dok je bonus aktivan, pravila bonusa moraju biti fizički i rigidno sprovođena od strane mehanike kazina.
Sa naše strane, ovo bi onemogućilo da ponudimo bonus vrednost koju naši igrači vole (i koju očekuju).
Takođe otvara vrata (igraču, casino.guru-u i drugima) da uzmu bilo koji deo uslova i odredbi (bilo kog kazina) i ignorišu (ili prepišu) ih kako god smatraju da je prikladno.
Nismo deca ovde i smatramo da je ovo mentalitet „mrežne dadilje". Ako igrač nije odgovoran ili obavezan da poštuje uslove pod kojima igra (i mora biti mehanički sprečen da ih krši), da li je dovoljno odgovoran da uopšte igra?
Nažalost, zelenašenje, obmanjivanje i zloupotreba igrača postoje. Loši akteri postoje u svakoj industriji, ali nijedan od tih termina se ovde ne može primeniti i kazino je učinio sve što je u njegovoj moći da osigura da su sve uključene strane pravilno informisane i da se prema njima postupa pravedno.
Nakon sastanka sa rukovodstvom Punta, složili smo se da je nemoguće biti fleksibilan u ovoj situaciji.
(Kao što je casino.guru napomenuo) Postoje i značajni pokazatelji da je igrač zapravo znao uslove pod kojima igra i pokušao da ih „zaobiđe" raznim akcijama sa svoje strane, ali na ovu temu skrećemo sa teme…
Suština je u sledećim trima tačkama:
- Kazino posluje pod objavljenim uslovima i odredbama i ima pravo da diktira te uslove, baš kao što igrač ima pravo odbijanja (odlukom da ne učestvuje).
- Ni u jednom trenutku igrač nije pogrešno usmeren niti su mu uskraćene važne informacije.
- Nakon odbijanja zahteva za isplatu, igrač je prihvatio odluku kazina. Prihvatanje sredstava sa depozita (a zatim njihovo igranje kao gotovine) predstavlja drugi i obavezujući ugovor između igrača i kazina i eliminiše svaku odgovornost kazina za početnu sesiju depozita/igranja (što je uključivalo kupon za depozit i predmetnu „nedozvoljenu" igru).
Za nas, broj 3 zaustavlja ovaj dijalog i ostavlja temu odgovornosti igrača naspram kazina (u vezi sa pravilima bonusa) za neki drugi dan.
Uplaćena sredstva koja su rezultirala dobitkom, bez obzira na validnost te dobitke, više ne postoje.
Prihvatanjem odluke kazina i vraćanjem sredstava (i njihovim igranjem sa šansom za dobitak), incident koji je izvor ove žalbe više ne postoji. Tehnički gledano, sklopljen je sekundarni „ugovor" između kazina i igrača kojim se poništava početni sporazum.
Etički gledano, ako bismo bili odgovorni za isplatu bilo kakvog dobitka na osnovu ponovo uplaćenih novčanih sredstava koja je igrač prihvatio (a zatim slobodno igrao i izgubio), to postaje slučaj „dvostruke odgovornosti" za kazino. Ako su oba važeća, dobitak ili gubitak za igrača, gubimo u oba slučaja.
Vreme za gore navedenu „vežbu razmišljanja" bilo je pre nego što je novac prihvaćen i/ili vraćen u sistem. Igrač je svesno prihvatio sredstva, igrao ih i nije bilo nikakve pobede.
Nakon toga, igrač je odlučio da podnese žalbu.
U ovoj situaciji nam je jasno da je kazino ispunio svoju obavezu (i etičku i prema uslovima kazina) prema igraču i smatramo da je osnova za ovu žalbu ništavna.
Razumemo da se podnosilac žalbe i casino.guru možda ne slažu sa ovom odlukom, ali uprkos bilo kakvim insinuacijama, mi držimo našu obavezu prema igraču svetom. Svako okretanje može promeniti sudbinu. Da je igrač osvojio 1000 puta veći iznos od spornog odbijenog povlačenja dok je igrao sa čistim novcem i bez ikakvih pravila, igrač bi bio isplaćen.
Uz najveće poštovanje prema svim uključenim stranama, igrač je dobrovoljno odlučio da rizikuje i to se nije isplatilo. Da se isplatilo, ova žalba ne bi postojala.
Na osnovu toga, odričemo svaku dalju obavezu.
Nadam se da ovo svima razjašnjava stvari.
Najlepše želje,
Nik i Pant ZA
Greetings all,
Much of what is written below is a thought exercise, if you would like to skip this and get to the decision on the part of the casino it is at the bottom of this (rather lengthy) screed. 🙂
Casino.guru and their fair gambling codex are an amazing resource, historically it is very rare for us as an organization to disagree with them on the handling of players.
In this case we differ in one key aspect:
Casino.guru feels we should not be "allowed" to offer bonuses with rules beyond the spectrum of what we can mechanically control. That while a bonus is active the bonus rules must be physically and rigidly enforced by the mechanics of the casino.
On our end this would make it impossible to offer the bonus value our players love (and have come to expect).
It also opens the door (for the player, casino.guru, et al) to take any portion of the terms and conditions (of any casino) and ignore (or re-write) them however they feel is suitable.
We are not children here, and we feel this is a "net nanny" mentality. If a player is not responsible for or beholden to the terms they are playing under (and must be mechanically prevented from breaking them) are they responsible enough to play in the first place?
Unfortunately, usury, misdirection, and abuse of players do exist. There are bad actors in any industry, but none of those terms are applicable here and the casino has done everything within its power to assure that all parties involved have been properly informed and treated fairly.
After meeting with Punt management we agree that it is impossible to be flexible in this situation.
(As casino.guru has mentioned) There are also significant indicators that the player actually knew the terms they were playing under and tried to "work around" them through various actions on their part but on this point we digress…
The bottom line here are the three points below:
- The casino operates under published terms and conditions and has the right to dictate those terms, just as the player has the right of refusal (by choosing not to participate).
- At no point was the player misdirected or important information withheld.
- After denial of the requested withdrawal the player accepted the ruling of the casino. Accepting the cash deposit funds (then playing them as cash) constitutes a 2nd and binding contract between the player and the casino and eliminates any liability on the part of the casino for the initial deposit/play session (which included the deposit coupon and "non-allowed" game play in question).
For us, it is number 3 that stops this dialogue and leaves the subject of player versus casino responsibility (regarding bonus rules) for another day.
The deposited funds that resulted in a win, regardless of the validity of that win no longer exist.
In accepting the ruling of the casino and receiving the funds back (and playing them with the chance to win) the incident which is the source of this complaint no longer exists. Technically speaking, a secondary "contract" between the casino and the player was entered which cancels the initial agreement.
Ethically speaking, if we were responsible for paying any resulting win on the re-deposited cash funds accepted by the player (then freely played and lost), this becomes a case of "double jeopardy" for the casino. If both are valid, win or loss for the player, we lose either way.
The time for the "thought exercise" above was before that money was accepted and/or played back into the system. The player knowingly accepted the funds, played them, and there was no resulting win.
After this, the player chose to file a complaint.
In this situation it is clear to us that the casino has fulfilled its obligation (both ethically and per the terms of the casino) to the player and we consider the basis for this complaint to be null and void.
We understand that the complainant and casino.guru may not agree with this decision, but despite any insinuation otherwise we hold our obligation to the player sacred. Every spin can change fortunes. Had the player won 1000x the denied withdrawal in question while playing with pure cash and zero rules, the player would have gotten paid.
With utmost respect to all parties involved, the player willingly chose to take a chance and it didn't pay off. If it had paid off this complaint would not exist.
On those grounds, we deny any further obligation.
Hopefully this clarifies things for everyone.
Best wishes,
Nick and Punt ZA
Automatski prevedeno: