Poštovani time kazina Roostino,
Hvala vam na ažuriranju.
Cenim što nastavljate da istražujete ovu stvar i spreman sam da odobrim razumno produženje do ponedeljka.
Uz to rečeno, želeo bih da ponovim da, pored vaše interne revizije, i dalje zahtevam jasan odgovor na zabrinutosti koje sam prethodno izneo.
S obzirom na to da je odluka o ograničavanju povlačenja igrača doneta brzo, teško je razumeti zašto je za izradu dokaza i objašnjenja potrebnih za opravdanje te odluke potrebno tako neobično dugo vreme. Ovo kašnjenje pokreće opravdanu zabrinutost u vezi sa proceduralnom pravičnošću, transparentnošću i tim da li su uopšte postojali dovoljni i opravdani razlozi za mere preduzete protiv igrača.
Većina vodećih operatera bi verovatno efikasnije rešila ovo pitanje i najverovatnije bi već bilo rešeno/razjašnjeno.
Vaš trenutni pristup počinje da ostavlja utisak da, umesto da se prizna ono što trenutno dostupne informacije i dokazi izgleda ukazuju – naime, da ograničenja bonusa možda nisu dovoljno saopštena igraču – fokus bi mogao da se pomeri ka identifikovanju alternativnih razloga za opravdanje ograničavanja igračevih dobitaka.
Ovo nije pristup sa kojim se možemo složiti, jer svaka mera preduzeta protiv igrača treba da bude zasnovana na uslovima koji su jasno saopšteni i dosledno primenjivani.
Radujem se vašem sveobuhvatnom odgovoru u ponedeljak kako bi se ovo pitanje moglo pravedno i nezavisno proceniti.
Dear Roostino Casino Team,
Thank you for your update.
I appreciate that you are continuing to investigate this matter, and I am willing to grant a reasonable extension until Monday.
That said, I would like to reiterate that, in addition to your internal review, I still require a clear response to the concerns I have previously raised.
Given that the decision to limit the player's withdrawal was made swiftly, it is difficult to understand why the supporting evidence and explanation required to justify that decision are taking such an unusually long time to produce. This delay raises legitimate concerns regarding procedural fairness, transparency, and whether sufficient and justifiable grounds existed for the action taken against the player in the first place.
Most top operators would likely have handled this matter more efficiently, and it would most likely have been resolved/clarified already.
Your current approach is beginning to give the impression that, rather than acknowledging what the information and evidence currently available appear to indicate—namely, that the applicable bonus restrictions may not have been communicated to the player sufficiently—the focus might be shifting towards identifying alternative grounds to justify the capping of the player's winnings.
This is not an approach that we can agree with, as any action taken against a player should be based on terms that were clearly communicated and consistently applied.
I look forward to your comprehensive response on Monday so that this matter can be assessed fairly and independently.
Automatski prevedeno: