Poštovani gospodine/gospođo,
Ne mogu da prihvatim zaključak vaše istrage, koji se zasniva na velikoj činjeničnoj kontradikciji koju vaš tim nije uspeo da reši.
1. Centralna nedoslednost:
Shuffle se poziva na klauzulu 3.4 (višestruki računi) da bi blokirao moje povlačenje 261,72 SOL. Pa ipak, samo nekoliko dana nakon ove blokade, Shuffle je odobrio povlačenje u Shuffle Coin-u sa istog računa.
Logično pitanje: Ako sam zaista kršio uslove korišćenja kroz povezivanje sa drugim nalozima, zašto bi Shuffle odobrio drugo povlačenje sredstava? Prekršaj ne nestaje selektivno na osnovu vrste valute.
Ovo dokazuje da Šafl nije imao čvrstu osnovu za početnu blokadu.
2. U vezi sa tvrdnjom o „registrovanom višestrukom nalogu":
Zaključili ste da postoji „povezanost sa drugim nalozima" na mojoj IP adresi. Ovo je činjenično netačno:
• Moj prijatelj ima svoje posebne akreditive i nalog
• Sam se prijavio na moj računar — ja ne kontrolišem njegov nalog
• Nikada nisam igrao sa SOL sredstvima koja sam uplatio (ovo je prva stvar koju želim da razjasnim sa Shuffle-om)
• Više korisnika na istom računaru/vezi je normalan scenario — to je prekršaj samo ako ja lično kontrolišem te višestruke naloge
Shuffle nije pružio NIKAKVE tehničke dokaze (logove igara, identične obrasce, isplate na iste novčanike itd.) koji pokazuju da sam lično igrao na ovim drugim nalozima.
3. Zahtev za pojašnjenje:
Vaši zaključci se zasnivaju na pretpostavci, a ne na proverljivim činjenicama. Pre nego što definitivno zatvorim ovaj slučaj, zahtevam:
• Zašto je Shuffle odobrio povlačenje nakon pozivanja na kršenje pravila?
• Koji tehnički dokazi (dnevnici sesija, obrasci igre, adrese za isplatu) dokazuju da sam lično igrao na drugim nalozima?
• Kako objašnjavate da je blokirano samo povlačenje SOL-a, dok ostala nisu?
Zaključak:
Vaša istraga nije uspela da reši veliku nedoslednost. Smatram da je ovo zatvaranje preuranjeno i neopravdano.
Ovu žalbu ću direktno proslediti Upravi za igre na sreću Kurasaoa (CGA) zajedno sa celom ovom prepiskom.
Najoštrije vas molim da ponovo otvorite ovaj slučaj ili formalno razjasnite dokaze na kojima Shuffle zasniva svoj stav.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I cannot accept the conclusion of your investigation, which is based on a major factual contradiction that your team has failed to resolve.
1. The central inconsistency:
Shuffle invokes clause 3.4 (multiple accounts) to block my withdrawal of 261.72 SOL. Yet, just days after this blockage, Shuffle approved a withdrawal in Shuffle Coin from the same account.
The logical question: If I were truly violating the terms and conditions through association with other accounts, why would Shuffle approve a second withdrawal? A violation does not disappear selectively based on currency type.
This proves that Shuffle had no solid basis for the initial blockage.
2. Regarding the "multiple accounts registered" claim:
You concluded that there is an "association with other accounts" on my IP address. This is factually incorrect:
• My friend has his own separate credentials and account
• He logged in himself on my computer — I do not control his account
• I have never played with the SOL funds I deposited (this is my first point to clarify with Shuffle)
• Multiple users on the same PC/connection is a normal scenario — it is only a violation if I personally control those multiple accounts
Shuffle has provided NO technical evidence (game logs, identical patterns, withdrawals to the same wallets, etc.) demonstrating that I personally played on these other accounts.
3. Request for clarification:
Your conclusions are based on an inference, not verifiable facts. Before closing this case definitively, I require:
• Why did Shuffle approve a withdrawal after invoking a violation?
• What technical evidence (session logs, game patterns, withdrawal addresses) proves that I personally played on other accounts?
• How do you explain that only the SOL withdrawal is blocked, while others are not?
Conclusion:
Your investigation failed to address the major inconsistency. I consider this closure premature and unjustified.
I will escalate this complaint directly to the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) with the entirety of this correspondence.
I strongly request that you reopen this case or formally clarify the evidence upon which Shuffle bases its position.
Automatski prevedeno: